Hughton Takes Over At Forest.

[City fan 78]

6 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

And in the second season, he effectively took us down. 

The board took city down, sacking CH  with 5 games left. He was the type of manager who would have ground out the results needed from those 5 games. 

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

18 minutes ago, City fan said:

The board took city down, sacking CH  with 5 games left. He was the type of manager who would have ground out the results needed from those 5 games. 

Mad McNally wasn't it?

One of the most bizarre events in the entire history of our club.

Neil Adams had no managerial experience and was expected to save the side from relegation from the Premier League with 5 games left.

As you say, Hughton could have ground out the necessary results. A long shot perhaps, but Adams had no chance at all. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,780]

3 hours ago, City fan said:

The board took city down, sacking CH  with 5 games left. He was the type of manager who would have ground out the results needed from those 5 games. 

Whilst I agree that sacking Hughton with five games to go was bonkers (it should've been done in January/February or not at all), I'm not convinced that Hughton would've kept us up. We would've needed four extra points to stay up, and I'm not that confident Hughton would've got them.

Even in the unlikely event Hughton did get those four points and keep us up, it would've still meant that he had been gradually taking us backwards over the previous 18 months. Results had been poor for a long time.

[king canary 7,580]

3 hours ago, City fan said:

The board took city down, sacking CH  with 5 games left. He was the type of manager who would have ground out the results needed from those 5 games. 

The relegation was totally worth it to get shot of him to be honest.

We averaged under a goal a game across his two seasons in charge. If we'd have stayed up and kept him I was going to give up my season ticket. It was just an utterly soul destroying 18 months after his impressive unbeaten run.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

12 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The first half of Hughton's first season was brilliant- we were eighth in mid-December. The second half was disastrous, and we very nearly went down. A final total of 44 points was a decent return.

But the second season was dreadful, and although he officially didn't take us down, he would've done if he hadn't been sacked five games before the end.

And as I said before, Lambert got 47 points in his season in the Premier League, which is more than Hughton managed. He took us backwards, which is why his job here was a failure- admittedly the only one on his CV.

I think just singling out the points tally to say that in the first season he took the club backwards is a tad harsh.

We rode the crest of a wave for three seasons under Lambert, in a squad of low level players which clearly punched way above its weight - culminating in that final season. 

Considering he was filling the boots of what many regard as our best manager ever - or certainly in recent memory, to go from that 12th place finish of 47 points and fall just 3 points short was still a good achievement IMO. He took over a squad which wasn’t his and totally revamped the style of play - which saw great success for the first half of the season, weren’t we the form team in Europe at one point? The Pilkington goal vs Sunderland which came after a 29 pass move. Beating Man U and Arsenal at home.

Okay the second half of the season was really poor and thereafter, but I think overall just reconciling our position in his first season in charge, and only falling 3 points short of Lambert’s tally was plenty good enough to be deemed successful. I’m sure all the fan base would’ve taken it pre season after losing the messiah!

If we got a Pukki replacement for the champs season but he only managed 28 goals would that be deemed taking the club backwards too? I don’t think you can isolate it quite so harshly.  

[paul moy 235]

They will be difficult to beat and also difficult to watch.....

Edited October 7, 2020 by paul moy

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,780]

2 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I think just singling out the points tally to say that in the first season he took the club backwards is a tad harsh.

We rode the crest of a wave for three seasons under Lambert, in a squad of low level players which clearly punched way above its weight - culminating in that final season. 

Considering he was filling the boots of what many regard as our best manager ever - or certainly in recent memory, to go from that 12th place finish of 47 points and fall just 3 points short was still a good achievement IMO. He took over a squad which wasn’t his and totally revamped the style of play - which saw great success for the first half of the season, weren’t we the form team in Europe at one point? The Pilkington goal vs Sunderland which came after a 29 pass move. Beating Man U and Arsenal at home.

Okay the second half of the season was really poor and thereafter, but I think overall just reconciling our position in his first season in charge, and only falling 3 points short of Lambert’s tally was plenty good enough to be deemed successful. I’m sure all the fan base would’ve taken it pre season after losing the messiah!

If we got a Pukki replacement for the champs season but he only managed 28 goals would that be deemed taking the club backwards too? I don’t think you can isolate it quite so harshly.  

When I said that Hughton took the club backwards, it was a reference to his tenure at the club as a whole. I'd say that if you look solely at his first season, with the brilliant first half, woeful second half and a mid-table finish on 44 points, he basically maintained the level of the club. 

It was his second season that took us backwards. He spent more in the summer of 2013 than any other manager in our history has ever spent in a window, and whilst his business looked very good on paper, he couldn't get it to work and we were on the cusp of relegation when he was ultimately dismissed.

He took us backwards over the course of his two year spell, with the final 16 months or so being disastrous, averaging less than a point and less than a goal per game. To maintain such an average over a season-and-a-half after spending so much money (by our standards) is clearly not good enough.

He's a nice bloke, and his track record everywhere else is excellent, but he was poor here.

[ec-p 90]

Good post Hank shoots skyler,  I totally agree. But, although he may well have kept us up, he definitely had lost the support of the majority of supporters by then. I’m sure if our current results had been the same at the end of last season, beginning of this, and there were fans in the ground, then Farke would be on a knife edge too, if not already out the door.

Edited October 7, 2020 by ec-p

[king canary 7,580]

17 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I think just singling out the points tally to say that in the first season he took the club backwards is a tad harsh.

We rode the crest of a wave for three seasons under Lambert, in a squad of low level players which clearly punched way above its weight - culminating in that final season. 

Considering he was filling the boots of what many regard as our best manager ever - or certainly in recent memory, to go from that 12th place finish of 47 points and fall just 3 points short was still a good achievement IMO. He took over a squad which wasn’t his and totally revamped the style of play - which saw great success for the first half of the season, weren’t we the form team in Europe at one point? The Pilkington goal vs Sunderland which came after a 29 pass move. Beating Man U and Arsenal at home.

Okay the second half of the season was really poor and thereafter, but I think overall just reconciling our position in his first season in charge, and only falling 3 points short of Lambert’s tally was plenty good enough to be deemed successful. I’m sure all the fan base would’ve taken it pre season after losing the messiah!

If we got a Pukki replacement for the champs season but he only managed 28 goals would that be deemed taking the club backwards too? I don’t think you can isolate it quite so harshly.  

All about context isn't it.

Saying 'he led us to our highest finish' is both true but also not painting the full picture.

We were largely dire under Hughton- an incredible 10 game run and then basically relegation form from then onwards.

In his first season we went on a run of 2 wins in 19 games, which included an exceedingly undeserved victory over Everton and the season was given a bit of gloss. You can easily argue that the more the 'Hughton way' of playing football got bedded in, the worse results got.  

[GenerationA47 749]

9 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

When I said that Hughton took the club backwards, it was a reference to his tenure at the club as a whole. I'd say that if you look solely at his first season, with the brilliant first half, woeful second half and a mid-table finish on 44 points, he basically maintained the level of the club. 

It was his second season that took us backwards. He spent more in the summer of 2013 than any other manager in our history has ever spent in a window, and whilst his business looked very good on paper, he couldn't get it to work and we were on the cusp of relegation when he was ultimately dismissed.

He took us backwards over the course of his two year spell, with the final 16 months or so being disastrous, averaging less than a point and less than a goal per game. To maintain such an average over a season-and-a-half after spending so much money (by our standards) is clearly not good enough.

He's a nice bloke, and his track record everywhere else is excellent, but he was poor here.

This. I remember being amongst his last few defenders (see what I did there) on here around mid season, on the basis that the awful football had to be tolerable as long as it was effective. When that was no longer grinding out just enough results, the whole raison d’être collapsed. Board held out a while longer but he had to go, with regret 

[lharman7 39]

Maybe he'll sign a poacher type striker while completely ignoring the fact he's a poacher, expect said striker to play a different striking role, play a completely boring defensive brand of football which does not suit our new poacher type striker and then allow all of our attacking intent to go through a whingy whiny over rated inverted winger!

[lake district canary 4,531]

15 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

It was his second season that took us backwards. He spent more in the summer of 2013 than any other manager in our history has ever spent in a window, and whilst his business looked very good on paper, he couldn't get it to work and we were on the cusp of relegation when he was ultimately dismissed.

He took us backwards over the course of his two year spell, with the final 16 months or so being disastrous, averaging less than a point and less than a goal per game. To maintain such an average over a season-and-a-half after spending so much money (by our standards) is clearly not good enough.

My overiding memories of that season were of a player affecting the whole team, taking it all on himself to run things on the pitch, sometimes delivering, but more often than not running into dead ends and then complaining bitterly about it.  From the moment Eliott Bennett was injured in that first match, it laid the foundation for him to dominate the team, from demanding to take penalties and then missing them, to holding on to the ball too long time after time with opportunity after opportunity, promising position after promising position ending with him falling over or losing the ball cheaply. 

A certain amount of blame for that goes to Hughton who was not strong enough to deal with big egos - maybe too nice, as has been said - but that season was a concoction that just didn't work.  A player coming to a new country under huge pressure to deliver, a player in the wake of Grant Holt leaving trying to be the main man, an injury to a player that looked as if he was just coming to maturity, a fanbase that had already decided everything was awful even before it happened and the pressure of hugely tight bottom half of the table.  A mixture that left little room for optimism and togetherness which as we have seen under Lambert and Farke is very important.

Alex Neil commented on it on his arrival - about how quick things could get negative with the fans......we still see that today, but at least the club is still in good shape and not on its way to financial ruin like it was with the squad Neil had.

[sgncfc 1,221]

11 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

What's more is that he had the hard job of following Paul Lambert who was considered the "Messiah" by most City fans at the time, despite his unsavoury exit.

Hughton's teams put up a better show, results wise, than either Neil's or Farke's.

Wolfswinkle was Hughton's undoing. Such a flop when so many of our eggs were put into that one basket, with apparent good grounds for optimism.  

I thought that we had got a true star in that player. A goalscorer that would secure our PL spot.

We did buy a true star - Hughton turned him into a donkey. Even now I can't understand why you would buy such a player and not play to his strength. Imagine him playing with confidence in a Farke team.

[king canary 7,580]

56 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

My overiding memories of that season were of a player affecting the whole team, taking it all on himself to run things on the pitch, sometimes delivering, but more often than not running into dead ends and then complaining bitterly about it.  From the moment Eliott Bennett was injured in that first match, it laid the foundation for him to dominate the team, from demanding to take penalties and then missing them, to holding on to the ball too long time after time with opportunity after opportunity, promising position after promising position ending with him falling over or losing the ball cheaply. 

A certain amount of blame for that goes to Hughton who was not strong enough to deal with big egos - maybe too nice, as has been said - but that season was a concoction that just didn't work.  A player coming to a new country under huge pressure to deliver, a player in the wake of Grant Holt leaving trying to be the main man, an injury to a player that looked as if he was just coming to maturity, a fanbase that had already decided everything was awful even before it happened and the pressure of hugely tight bottom half of the table.  A mixture that left little room for optimism and togetherness which as we have seen under Lambert and Farke is very important.

Alex Neil commented on it on his arrival - about how quick things could get negative with the fans......we still see that today, but at least the club is still in good shape and not on its way to financial ruin like it was with the squad Neil had.

Your Snodgrass obsession is genuinely a bit mad.

[king canary 7,580]

52 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

We did buy a true star - Hughton turned him into a donkey. Even now I can't understand why you would buy such a player and not play to his strength. Imagine him playing with confidence in a Farke team.

He'd still be naff- he wasn't helped by Hughton but nothing in his play suggests to me he would have succeeded. Teams at the bottom end of the Premier League can't carry pure poachers- it is why Jordan Rhodes has never been a Premier League player too.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

55 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

We did buy a true star - Hughton turned him into a donkey. Even now I can't understand why you would buy such a player and not play to his strength. Imagine him playing with confidence in a Farke team.

No.

[lake district canary 4,531]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Your Snodgrass obsession is genuinely a bit mad.

Probably.....I watched him in his first season with us and he was focussed and played well, with grant Holt as still our talisman. When GH left, it was as clear as anything what happened, even before that penalty incident - he actively made himself the main man, dominated the team and showed himself - imo - one of the most selfish players we have ever had.  It used to drive me mad to see him run into dead ends and then look as if he was going to burst into tears, or shout and yell at anyone who was around for a free kick when he clearly had just kept the ball too long.  I would love to see stats about how many times that happened during that season.

Some good goals......but I think of it in terms of how many times he tried to run into the box and get a shot away, maybe 20 times a match?  Maybe out of that he would get one or two shots on target.....but the other 18 times, it would be a wasted opportunity to bring others into the game. 

You could compare him to Onel in some ways...not that I think Argos is a serlfish player.....gets the ball and runs at the defence and is often single minded in wanting to get a shot in himself....but the difference is Onel is still great around the team play too, with better judgement as to when to run in on the penalty area. Snodgrass simply got the ball and tried most of the time to do it all on his own. He got some success out of that, scored some goals, but the rest of the time it was negative for the team, restricting other opportunities that might have been made had he been less selfish. As for his tracking back.....

Edited October 7, 2020 by lake district canary

[Michael Wynless Jones 161]

Poor old Forest, although their fans are lucky they can't get in at the moment..... 

[Doomcaster 10]

Hughton = good for 2 seasons - sack him after that

2 years is the time most People Managers have to motivate their personnel 100% - it always falls after that

Not being unkind - just realistic

 

[Doomcaster 10]

Sack Farke - he is well overdue his sell by date 

[hogesar 9,618]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

My overiding memories of that season were of a player affecting the whole team, taking it all on himself to run things on the pitch, sometimes delivering, but more often than not running into dead ends and then complaining bitterly about it.  From the moment Eliott Bennett was injured in that first match, it laid the foundation for him to dominate the team, from demanding to take penalties and then missing them, to holding on to the ball too long time after time with opportunity after opportunity, promising position after promising position ending with him falling over or losing the ball cheaply. 

A certain amount of blame for that goes to Hughton who was not strong enough to deal with big egos - maybe too nice, as has been said - but that season was a concoction that just didn't work.  A player coming to a new country under huge pressure to deliver, a player in the wake of Grant Holt leaving trying to be the main man, an injury to a player that looked as if he was just coming to maturity, a fanbase that had already decided everything was awful even before it happened and the pressure of hugely tight bottom half of the table.  A mixture that left little room for optimism and togetherness which as we have seen under Lambert and Farke is very important.

Alex Neil commented on it on his arrival - about how quick things could get negative with the fans......we still see that today, but at least the club is still in good shape and not on its way to financial ruin like it was with the squad Neil had.

This is just completely mental.

[lake district canary 4,531]

34 minutes ago, hogesar said:

This is just completely mental.

Thanks for that.

[king canary 7,580]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

I would love to see stats about how many times that happened during that season.

Ask and ye shall receive....

https://www.whoscored.com/Teams/168/Archive/England-Norwich?stageId=7794

These show that Snodgrass...

Created more chances for other players than anyone (and it isn't even close- he averaged 2.2 key passes a game, the next closest averaged 1.2).

Lost the ball more than any other player apart from Hoolahan.

Took more shots than anyone per game

Made the 8th most tackles a game 

Won more free kicks than anyone a game.

More crosses per game (again this isn't even close- he was averaging 2.1 a game, the next closest player was Redmond with 1.1)

Won the 4th most aerial duels per game (the three players who won more were all central defenders)

So while you're not wrong in saying he was the main man in this team, he certainly wasn't selfish. He created far more than anyone else on the pitch, put himself in there for aerial battles and generally tried to make things happen. He was basically the only player who actually tried to create anything and I'd argue it was far more the team relying on him to make things happen than him selfishly making it all about him.

Also, if Snodgrass was this ego ridden monster then all it does is paint Hughton in a worse light- he was clearly too weak to drop him and let him run things in your version of events.

[lake district canary 4,531]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Ask and ye shall receive....

https://www.whoscored.com/Teams/168/Archive/England-Norwich?stageId=7794

These show that Snodgrass...

Created more chances for other players than anyone (and it isn't even close- he averaged 2.2 key passes a game, the next closest averaged 1.2).

Lost the ball more than any other player apart from Hoolahan.

Took more shots than anyone per game

Made the 8th most tackles a game 

Won more free kicks than anyone a game.

More crosses per game (again this isn't even close- he was averaging 2.1 a game, the next closest player was Redmond with 1.1)

Won the 4th most aerial duels per game (the three players who won more were all central defenders)

So while you're not wrong in saying he was the main man in this team, he certainly wasn't selfish. He created far more than anyone else on the pitch, put himself in there for aerial battles and generally tried to make things happen. He was basically the only player who actually tried to create anything and I'd argue it was far more the team relying on him to make things happen than him selfishly making it all about him.

Also, if Snodgrass was this ego ridden monster then all it does is paint Hughton in a worse light- he was clearly too weak to drop him and let him run things in your version of events.

Yes, I said that Hughton wasn't strong enough.

So he lost the ball a lot, crossed a lot - but then his crosses were invariably dolly drops put in after he had exhausted everything he could do himself, which meant they were often too late and too tame. 

The stat I would like to see is the one to say how many times he ran into dead ends at the expense of other opportunies to pass it to a team mate. 

This was typical Snodgrass play - he would get the ball, hesitate, then run with it towards the penalty area, trying to dribble through everyone, most often ending up with a tame cross, poor shot, a losing of the ball, a free kick (often dubious), both of the latter including little tantrums.  In the meantime defenders got organised, his teamates lost any forward momentum and the attacks fizzled out.  

He had some ability and of course scored some goals, but overall, it was like watching a poor one man show.  Ok to criticise Hughton too - and the rest of the players, but the big feature was that we failed as a team - and the dominant player of that team was Snodgrass, which you can look at two ways - that he was the best of a bad bunch, or that his dominance wasn't enough to justify the way he played...because it wasnb't good enough.

[hogesar 9,618]

50 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Thanks for that.

There's not really many other ways of discussing it. We've done it to death and despite being shown to be wrong via every available fact, statistic or opinion out there you still raise it every time.

The best thing I can suggest is listen to the likes of Holt and Martin, if you ever get a chance like some of us have been fortunate enough to, ask them in person about playing under Hughton and if they think Snodgrass was a problem or a massive asset for them.

[lharman7 39]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

This is just completely mental.

No it actually isn't. There are supporters who find this to be the case.

[lake district canary 4,531]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

There's not really many other ways of discussing it. We've done it to death and despite being shown to be wrong via every available fact, statistic or opinion out there you still raise it every time.

The best thing I can suggest is listen to the likes of Holt and Martin, if you ever get a chance like some of us have been fortunate enough to, ask them in person about playing under Hughton and if they think Snodgrass was a problem or a massive asset for them.

Hughton's style of management was to organise the defence, getting the team to be solid, and rely on his front three players to express themselves. May not have been popular, but if he has the right front men, Hughton teams do well (as shown at his other clubs).  We had Redmond, Snodgrass and Wolfie (sometimes Hooper) a combination that led nowhere.  Redmond still trying to find his feet, Wofie trying to get to grips with a new country and new league and Snodgrass - an experienced player who took it all on himself. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

We had Redmond, Snodgrass and Wolfie (sometimes Hooper) a combination that led nowhere.  Redmond still trying to find his feet, Wofie trying to get to grips with a new country and new league and Snodgrass - an experienced player who took it all on himself. 

Easy to see why when you put it like that!

[sgncfc 1,221]

5 hours ago, king canary said:

He'd still be naff- he wasn't helped by Hughton but nothing in his play suggests to me he would have succeeded. Teams at the bottom end of the Premier League can't carry pure poachers- it is why Jordan Rhodes has never been a Premier League player too.

Maybe true - but there'll always be a question mark. If what you say is true then it was our scouting that was at fault but when he first arrived, full of confidence, RVW's running off the ball, into channels and off the shoulders of defenders was streets ahead of anything we had here at the time - certainly up there with Pukki's. 

[ricardo 7,347]

Eventually someone is going to get Forest up.

Who knows, this could be the one.