Brighton

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,761]

....but having had one season in the Premier League and surviving in it ,he then started the second season with a year head start in that league over that which he will enter it next season with Brighton.....and was rewarded for doing so by being given £26m to spend in the summer to further improve upon and really make it his "own" team, whilst having an immediate advantage over the 3 teams promoted.......what he somehow managed to do was turn us into an even worse and less potent team....

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]The logic is simple. Hughton managed the majority of a season in which we were relegated. Our away form that season was awful, we hardly scored and most of the matches were dull and turgid. After an awful loss against West Brom, the fans turned, it was toxic and Chris Hughton was rightly sacked. If you can''t understand that, I really can''t be bothered to explain it to you.

(Was that condescending, pompous and patronising enough?)[/quote]

Not really.  If I get patronising it is because people start ridiculing rather than trying to discuss.  My points are clear enough and easy to understand if you have a mind to - and in this case my argument is fairly logical and not hard to understand. 

 

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

I don''t understand your logic of continuing years long agendas tbh. RvW, Snodgrass, Hughton, etc - these are in the past but you continue to dredge these topics up and defend your original viewpoint.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]I don''t understand your logic of continuing years long agendas tbh. RvW, Snodgrass, Hughton, etc - these are in the past but you continue to dredge these topics up and defend your original viewpoint.[/quote]Not really.  Someone else started this thread about Hughton/Brighton, not me - and if I am being consistent in my views and on topic, I can''t see anything wrong with that.

[Baldyboy 0]

Lakey, the logic isn''t simple at all, unlike you! You cannot compare managing in the Championship with managing in the Premier League, when are you going to realise that? You leave yourself more wide open to ridicule than our non existent back four do to conceding soft goals!

Come back at the end of next season after Hughton has managed Brighton in the top league and tell us we are all wrong, til then just stop with this ridiculous game you continually play please!

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]Lakey, the logic isn''t simple at all, unlike you! You cannot compare managing in the Championship with managing in the Premier League, when are you going to realise that? You leave yourself more wide open to ridicule than our non existent back four do to conceding soft goals!

Come back at the end of next season after Hughton has managed Brighton in the top league and tell us we are all wrong, til then just stop with this ridiculous game you continually play please![/quote]

Read my posts again. I''ve not been comparing managing in the championship with managing in the Premier league. I''ve been comparing the difference in the way Hughton came to our club - a club already in the premier league and his task to build something here - with him able to build a team over two or three years in the championship.   Of course he is likely to do better with Brighton than he did with us - he has built it up form a low level and built solid foundations which he can now take into the PL. He has the advantage of three years development at Brighton. And leave out the ''game'' jibe.  It''s a discussion board.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Hughton didn''t have that at Norwich. He had Martin, Bassong, Bennett and Whittaker, who have been found wanting again, this season.  Tettey and Howson don''t get off scott free either with their lack of defensive work/link up play - and they are all still here, including Ruddy. We had Johnson and Fer too of course......[/quote]

He signed Bassong, Tettey and Whittaker, so quite how you use them as a justification to absolve him of blame for our defensive issues is baffling.

"Well, he signed shyte defensive players, and then the defence was shyte, hardly his fault is it?"

Come on LDC - admit you''re a parody account and be done with it.

[hogesar 9,676]

Internet - based high five, KIO

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="lake district canary"]Hughton didn''t have that at Norwich. He had Martin, Bassong, Bennett and Whittaker, who have been found wanting again, this season.  Tettey and Howson don''t get off scott free either with their lack of defensive work/link up play - and they are all still here, including Ruddy. We had Johnson and Fer too of course......[/quote]

He signed Bassong, Tettey and Whittaker, so quite how you use them as a justification to absolve him of blame for our defensive issues is baffling.

"Well, he signed shyte defensive players, and then the defence was shyte, hardly his fault is it?"

Come on LDC - admit you''re a parody account and be done with it.

[/quote]

Oh, please.  Where have I absolved him from blame?  All I have said is that the defence now is almost the same as it was during Hughton''s time, so if anything, all I am saying is that our present state is no surprise given that our defence has been struggling since Hughton''s reign.  There is no absolvement of blame for Hughton, he failed and he was sacked - the main point I have been trying to get across is that if he had been kept on and we were relegated, he would quite probably have done what he has done at Brighton - ie create a powerful team that would succeed in the championship.  Who could really argue with that?  He has the pedigree and now more proof, as if we needed it.The secondary point is that because he has had three years to create something at Brighton, his team has a good chance next season because of it - much like Swansea, Bournemouth and us under Lambert - teams with momentum.  Can''t really see anything controversial in that, unless people are still bitter about the Hughton era, in which case I would say.....get over it, it''s gone, accept it!

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

I think Lakey genuinely believes what he writes and is not a troll, or a game player.

It''s just a lot of his views are completely contrary to the majority of other Norwich City fans.

[king canary 7,609]

So it''s gone from ''would have'' to ''would likely'' to ''quite probably.''

I''m thinking ''might have'' to be the next downgrade.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

We''ve been pretty poor with recruitment ever since we had money to spend. People like to scapegoat it but you''d be hard pressed to find only one or even two or three people responsible. We''ve signed good footballers but not big hearts. We are not alone in this but we''ve been particularly poor. Hughton has to take his share of the blame and perhaps managers learn from mistakes they made at other clubs. He certainly learnt something because he wasn''t tempted to go for RVW or Hooper when Norwich clearly wanted rid for much less than he paid to bring them to our club.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Hughton was a good, organised manager who gambled on setting up a more expansive team and fell short as it''s clearly not his strong point. perhaps the Brighton attack already have more about them than ours did and it can be different with them. Same as Karanka at Boro who are having a similar season we had under Hughton when we went down, wouldn''t call Karanka a bad manager though, just limited, it''s a tough job that few have sustained success in.

We could do a lot worse than having Hughton sort out our current shambles of a defence to be fair though!

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Tetteys Jig"]We could do a lot worse than having Hughton sort out our current shambles of a defence to be fair though![/quote]

He signed several players who can''t even get into our shambles of a defence! Alex Neil''s team last season conceded 5 more goals than Hughton''s team that went down did. I''d rather somebody else sorted out our shambles of a defence.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Herman"]They did try an attempt at restructuring, and I get the feeling that is why they stuck with Adams. Unfortunately it wasn''t as strong or as focused as it should have been and the "Promotion At All Costs" was too powerful for it to last.

[/quote]Yes, McNally commented publicly on Hughton having been overloaded beyond the capacity for one man to deal with. The creation of the "Football Board" (or whatever it was called) was an acknowledgement of the problem, but little more than a token gesture at a solution. Part of the explanation might be that appointing a DoF would have diminished McNally''s role beyond what he was prepared to accept. In effect he said "Leave it to me" and paid the price when his chosen appointee failed.

[Guest]

I believe Hughton, who quite rightly believed you have to attack to get out of the Championship, also wrongly believed you have to defend to stay in the Prem. And I believe it is virtually impossible for clubs like us to attract top class defenders, of which there is a dearth even at the highest level.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]I believe Hughton, who quite rightly believed you have to attack to get out of the Championship, also wrongly believed you have to defend to stay in the Prem. And I believe it is virtually impossible for clubs like us to attract top class defenders, of which there is a dearth even at the highest level.[/quote]"Wrongly believed"? Statistics gathered over decades from every top league in Europe demonstrate that sustained success depends absolutely on good defence. Agreed that good defence doesn''t mean 90 minute parking-the-bus-type penalty box protection, but the apparent inability of our players to grasp the essentials of disciplined team defending left Hughton with little alternative. Faced with the same problem Neil, by instinct and instruction, took the opposite course and tried to do what you advocate, score more goals than you concede. But the outcome has been exactly the same in terms of success/failure on the pitch. It''s down to Webber now to rid us of that fundamental weakness.

[Van wink 2,994]

Surely it''s getting the balance right based on what you have available in the squad.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

Hang on, if you have to attack to get out of this league how come we aren''t promoted already?

Teams have to be balanced, if not you will never get a positive result from a season...

[Van wink 2,994]

👍

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]Hang on, if you have to attack to get out of this league how come we aren''t promoted already? Teams have to be balanced, if not you will never get a positive result from a season...[/quote]Exactly. We are fourth highest scorers in the Championship (73 goals, behind Brighton, Newcastle and now Fulham), but our GD is only +8. The two teams in the top six who have smaller goal differences (Huddersfield and Reading), have scored many fewer goals than us but conceded correspondingly fewer also.
On the point about balance, as others have said, much of our defensive frailty stems from midfield. This has been exacerbated by Neil''s commitment to what he euphemistically referred to as "expansive" football (he freely admitted to regarding conceding goals as an acceptable cost of this approach); but the same frailty was in evidence under Hughton, despite Hughton''s being far more defensively committed than Neil, and with a great deal of experience of defensive coaching. 

It seemed to me at the time that the necessary defensive discipline was simply alien to too many of our midfielders, as a result of which the required balance proved beyond them. Hughton (and Neil on occasion) could get them to be quite effective in parking the bus (away games v Man City for example), or they could produce free flowing attacking football while leaving the back door wide open. What seems to have been beyond them, whoever was playing, was disciplined defence when needed, and disciplined attack when appropriate. As I said earlier, this is what Webber has to sort out.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

Surely we are as good as we are and changing to an attacking or defensive style makes little difference to that. Hughton bought duds in Hooper and RVW. Holt and Morison proved better than their replacements. He reacted by trying to grind out results but we couldn''t defend well enough for long enough and if we conceded a goal we invariably lost often heavily. That trait has remained ever since. Playing more expansive football under Neil produced the same results but at least laid to rest the mantra "I wouldn''t mind losing if we played a different style".

[Van wink 2,994]

A loss is a loss, hurts just the same whichever way it manifests itself.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@nutty nigel

Analysing the past is useful if you seek to avoid reliving it. If you presented Webber with a choice between Hughton and Neil for next manager, does anyone think he would choose Neil? Whatever Hughton''s deficiencies in the Norwich job, at least he understood the fundamental importance of sound defence. I''ve no doubt Webber does too, hence I''m confident that the "identity" we emerge with as his rebuild progresses will incorporate a significant shift in priorities compared to our last three seasons under Adams and Neil. And thank goodness for that!

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@nutty nigel

Analysing the past is useful if you seek to avoid reliving it. If you presented Webber with a choice between Hughton and Neil for next manager, does anyone think he would choose Neil? Whatever Hughton''s deficiencies in the Norwich job, at least he understood the fundamental importance of sound defence. I''ve no doubt Webber does too, hence I''m confident that the "identity" we emerge with as his rebuild progresses will incorporate a significant shift in priorities compared to our last three seasons under Adams and Neil. And thank goodness for that!

[/quote]

As aforementioned. In the relegation seasons, Alex Neil''s side conceded 5 more goals than Hughton''s side did. That''s approximately 0.13 goals per game worse. Please explain how that demonstrates Hughton understands the "fundamental importance of defence" but Alex Neil didn''t?

I''m not defending Neil, his defence was shyte, but I''m not quite grasping why some are trying to paint Hughton as a defensive mastermind as even by playing super-negative football, he only conceded 5 less than AN''s more attacking approach. 

[nutty nigel 7,537]

I agree Westy. Norwich have a history of doing exactly what they are accused of not doing by listening to the fans. After Hughton you had fans demanding we play "the Norwich way". I remember a poster on here reporting that he''d had a private audience with McNally who had assured him of a change in style. Another poster had apparently had the same consultation with MWJ. These same fans have been just as vocal over the last 18 months after initially "getting their Norwich back". If this now means that us fans are going to be ignored with a football man making football style decisions then thank goodness for that.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

He wasn''t a defensive mastermind. Or the players didn''t have enough defensive discipline to carry out his plans. I suspect it is a bit of both. However I wouldn''t be surprised if Hughton ends up being the best of out of himself, Lambert and Neil. At the moment he is just that. Football''s a funny old game...

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]He wasn''t a defensive mastermind. Or the players didn''t have enough defensive discipline to carry out his plans. I suspect it is a bit of both. However I wouldn''t be surprised if Hughton ends up being the best of out of himself, Lambert and Neil. At the moment he is just that. Football''s a funny old game...[/quote]

Well he spent 8.5million (plus whittaker on a free but big wages) on defenders (Bennet/Bassong), so maybe he should have scouted whether they could actually defend if it was that important to him.... His defence deteriorated drastically from Year 1 to Year 2 with us so his input can''t have been all that valuable.

I suspect you''re right, he will be the best out of the three, but that''s a rather low bar, Lambert was just the right man, in the right place, at the right time. A Mike Walker-esque confluence of factors leading to big results, rather than some astute managerial nous. Neil will end up back at Hamilton sooner or later I would think. 

Hughton isn''t a terrible manager, but with us, he was abysmal, apart from the 10 game unbeaten run, and much of it his own making. I would think he has learned some lessons from his time with us, but I think fundamentally he is one of those guys who is good enough to have a tilt at Championship promotion but totally inept in the Prem if he gets there.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

Lambert brought Ryan Bennett KIO.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Lambert brought Ryan Bennett KIO.[/quote]

Quite right - I was thinking of Michael Turner. That top-quality Prem defender. Takes his outlay from season 1 down to 7Million.

Second season he brought Olsson which was a decent purchase, but then off-set that by loaning Javier Garrido and Joseph Yobo....

So he spent about 12-13 million to improve the defence by 4 goals over the season (62 conceded vs 66 conceded) in 2 years compared to Lambert''s final season (and played so defensively he castrated the attack to record our lowest ever goal-scoring season by quite some margin)