Stephen Hughes

[Razzmatazz 0]

Anyone out there like me feel there''s a case to start Hughes on Saturday.? With out Wes we lack creativity and just feel he could be the man to do it.

[morty 0]

Based on what I have seen from him so far - no.

[Marty 0]

maybe, but who would be dropped? I though Smith was OK last night.

[nutty nigel 7,618]

Could be a case for it but I''m beginning to wonder if Hughes is yet another player who is better off the bench than starting. I really rated   Hughes at the start of the season because he came on and changed games. He has never been so effective from the start though and I reckon is a 60 minute player at best. As Tilly pointed out on another thread we have plenty of players who are good off the bench but can''t give 90 minute performnces in the way Holt, Martin, Hoolahan, Smith, Russell and Lappin can.

 

[Pompey_88 0]

the guy deserves a go, great touch and vision but has looked a little light weight in some games but that its probably because he hasnt started games and therefore a little raw.

Next season (in the championship) he will be a big part of our season with a full pre season reigime, him and Zak will be pivotal imo

[York Yellow 0]

Have we actually seen Hughes play much from the start? I think give him a chance, mabye drop Korey (even though he did score our only goal) as I feel Hughes can pass it around better

[king canary 7,669]

If we are starting 4-4-2 then yes, maybe for Russel. When Smith and Russel play in the center together there is no creativity at all.

[York Yellow 0]

[quote user="king canary"]If we are starting 4-4-2 then yes, maybe for Russel. When Smith and Russel play in the center together there is no creativity at all.
[/quote]

yes i agree with that too, does anyone know when hoolahan will be back?

 

[Pompey_88 0]

i would say Hughes for lappin is anything, if Korey isn''t tired he does not deserve to be dropped

[York Yellow 0]

what about starting macca on the left?

[ZLF 274]

so the poorer midfielders yest were rusty and smith (saved by his goal) yet we drop lappin to fit in mcnamee who changed nothing last night and was be a country mile the worst player on saturday?  

442 has not worked for us.    Hughes has not impressed except when coming on as a sub.  Based on recent performances if he was to start it should be only for Rusty who is in a poor performing rut that deserves a rest.

Personally - same starting 11 for sat but with McVeigh in for Oli...

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote] He has never been so effective from the start though and I reckon is a

60 minute player at best.[/quote]How do 60 minute players become 90 minute players ?  By getting match-fit.  How do they get match-fit ?  By playing 90 minutes.  How often were we told that all Etuhu needed was a run of games ?

[Chunky Norwich 0]

I agree with the OP. I''ve always rated Lappin and am glad he''s played his way back into the fold but recently he''s been rather pants. Hughes for Lappin I''d say.

Hughes has done more in his brief cameos recently (crossing for Martin vs Leeds, hitting the post last night etc) than Lapps has in all the games he''s started.

I also fail to see how Hughes is considered an ''impact player''. Surely that''s a label for pacey wingers/strikers who run at defenders rather than passing central midfielders?

[Penfold 0]

Simples, play four-four-two. Lappin & Korey on the wings, Russell & Hughes in the middle.

Unfortunately last night proved me right, I said that front three would be too light weight against a battling team.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]I also fail to see how Hughes is considered an ''impact player''. Surely

that''s a label for pacey wingers/strikers who run at defenders rather

than passing central midfielders?[/quote]I guess that could be a reference to the harder side of the game that midfielders have to do - putting yourself about, winning the ball, offering an option when your team mates have it.

[nutty nigel 7,618]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote] He has never been so effective from the start though and I reckon is a 60 minute player at best.[/quote]

How do 60 minute players become 90 minute players ?  By getting match-fit.  How do they get match-fit ?  By playing 90 minutes.  How often were we told that all Etuhu needed was a run of games ?
[/quote]

I don''t know if they ever do Blah. It''s not just fitness alone that makes a 90 minute player. Managers often give a player 60/70 mins and then sub him and this works like Worthy did with Rivers and Lambert has done with McNamee. But the problem with starting 2 or 3 of those players is injuries. If a couple of players get injured then tactical substitutions become irrelevent and you end up with 60 minute players on for the full 90.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

Interesting point nutty - who would you say are our 60 minute players ?

[nutty nigel 7,618]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Interesting point nutty - who would you say are our 60 minute players ?
[/quote]

I reckon Holt, Martin, Hoolahan, Smith, Russell and Lappin can keep a good level of performance over 90 mins.

I went to Leeds back in October. Korey Smith missed the game through injury. Hughes had an excellent game but became less effective in the last 15/20 mins. Finally he was subbed for Gill in the last minute but we were really hanging on by then and we all remember how the game ended.

 

[can u sit down please 0]

Yes. Got to play him. I have been saying it since Wes'' injury.

You simply cannot play Smith with Russell as they are too similar and create little. I am a big Hughes fan and i like what i see. Currently we are playing too long. NObody is taking responsibility (like Wes normally does) and getting on the ball.

Hughes is a creator. A playmaker, someone who likes to get on the ball and play. An underated strength in football is always wanting the ball and not hiding. Hughes ALWAYS wants the ball, lets give him a run of games and see what happens we cant do no worse.

Those that are doubting him, please cast your minds back too:

MK Dons (a) - We were dominating the game until Hughes came off injured. The tempo dropped, ball retention suffered and we eventually lost.

Huddersfield (H) - Being battered at HT, Hughes came on and changed the game. We had more energy, kept the ball better and created more. Won 3-0

Southend (A) - Played at the base of the diamond and absolutely ran the game, so much so that the opposition supporters were singing his praises. All the play went through him.

Southampton (A) - Came on and helped us change the game and scored in the process.

Leeds (H) - Came on, helped the midfield squeeze more and set the winner up.

Orient (A) - Came on last night, didnt change the game but had the energy to get box to box and sting the keepers hands on a rare occasion.

In my opinion, He HAS to play!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Interesting point nutty - who would you say are our 60 minute players ?[/quote]

I reckon Holt, Martin, Hoolahan, Smith, Russell and Lappin can keep a good level of performance over 90 mins.

I went to Leeds back in October. Korey Smith missed the game through injury. Hughes had an excellent game but became less effective in the last 15/20 mins. Finally he was subbed for Gill in the last minute but we were really hanging on by then and we all remember how the game ended.

 [/quote]

I watched that on an internet stream - not the same as being there, but I was left with the impression that the Leeds substitutions made the difference - I forget who came on for them, the match report reckons it was Kandol.  The Beckford goal at the end was just a fluke though, we were good enough for a draw.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]

Yes. Got to play him. I have been saying it since Wes'' injury.

You simply cannot play Smith with Russell as they are too similar and create little. I am a big Hughes fan and i like what i see. Currently we are playing too long. NObody is taking responsibility (like Wes normally does) and getting on the ball.

Hughes is a creator. A playmaker, someone who likes to get on the ball and play. An underated strength in football is always wanting the ball and not hiding. Hughes ALWAYS wants the ball, lets give him a run of games and see what happens we cant do no worse.

Those that are doubting him, please cast your minds back too:

MK Dons (a) - We were dominating the game until Hughes came off injured. The tempo dropped, ball retention suffered and we eventually lost.

Huddersfield (H) - Being battered at HT, Hughes came on and changed the game. We had more energy, kept the ball better and created more. Won 3-0

Southend (A) - Played at the base of the diamond and absolutely ran the game, so much so that the opposition supporters were singing his praises. All the play went through him.

Southampton (A) - Came on and helped us change the game and scored in the process.

Leeds (H) - Came on, helped the midfield squeeze more and set the winner up.

Orient (A) - Came on last night, didnt change the game but had the energy to get box to box and sting the keepers hands on a rare occasion.

In my opinion, He HAS to play!

[/quote]

 

Couldn''t agree more. I am a big Hughes fan and feel that he has had little chance to play centrally. Personally I would play him there instead of Korey, whose naivety has been exposed by playing in the middle. Korey right, Macca left would give us a good combination of pace, workrate and creativity.

[Hannibal 0]

I''d give him a go. No one performed well last night. Nelson''s fault for both goals IMO especaiilly the second but both could of been avoided had we pressed higher up the pitch.

I like Hughes and remember him as a young lad at Rangers.

[Boyo 0]

4-4-2 hasn''t worked very well but there are going to be times when we have to play it because we basically have no one who can play where Hoolahan plays.  I think we now have to play 4-4-2 and I see no problem why we can''t play it like this;

Smith - Hughes - Russel - Lappin.

Hughes is a central midfielder and we are yet to see him in this position which is his favourite position so how can we judge him when we havn''t seen him play in the position he came to play in here.  I think it would work because despite Smith being a CM himself he has now got so used to the diamond that I think he needs to mature a little bit more to become a proper CM and he would be use to the right wing because at times in the diamond he plays as a right winger.  Also we all know that Lappin can play left wing because again thats what we originally brought him here for although he probably shouldn''t be described as winger and more of a left sided midfieler.  Then in the middle of the park we have Russel who will be disciplined and hold back a little bit whilst Hughes uses his creativness to carve open opurtunities a bit like a Carrick.

This is the formation I would use and then we have the option of bringing on McNamee to make Charlton''s tired legs pay.

[nutty nigel 7,618]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]

Yes. Got to play him. I have been saying it since Wes'' injury.

You simply cannot play Smith with Russell as they are too similar and create little. I am a big Hughes fan and i like what i see. Currently we are playing too long. NObody is taking responsibility (like Wes normally does) and getting on the ball.

Hughes is a creator. A playmaker, someone who likes to get on the ball and play. An underated strength in football is always wanting the ball and not hiding. Hughes ALWAYS wants the ball, lets give him a run of games and see what happens we cant do no worse.

Those that are doubting him, please cast your minds back too:

MK Dons (a) - We were dominating the game until Hughes came off injured. The tempo dropped, ball retention suffered and we eventually lost.

Huddersfield (H) - Being battered at HT, Hughes came on and changed the game. We had more energy, kept the ball better and created more. Won 3-0

Southend (A) - Played at the base of the diamond and absolutely ran the game, so much so that the opposition supporters were singing his praises. All the play went through him.

Southampton (A) - Came on and helped us change the game and scored in the process.

Leeds (H) - Came on, helped the midfield squeeze more and set the winner up.

Orient (A) - Came on last night, didnt change the game but had the energy to get box to box and sting the keepers hands on a rare occasion.

In my opinion, He HAS to play!

[/quote]

Yeovil away in the cup, Gunns last game, stands out most for me. 0-0 and an even game until Hughes was introduced we then went on to win 4-0. Unbelievably he remained on the bench for the entire Exeter game and then got 25 minutes at the end of the Brentford game when we were already 2-0 down.

Yes I would probably start him, maybe in a 442 with Korey, Russell and Lappin. Because I''m not sure about starting Hughes and Mcnamee and certainly not those two and Oli.

Blah, I''m not blaming anyone for that Beckford goal at Leeds. Just saying that for the last 15 minutes Hughes was tired and we were under more and more pressure. For the first 20 mins of that second half we looked the only winners. Whenever Korey has been unavailable we have missed him terribly. I think it''s incredible that one so young has managed to give such a constant high level of performance.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

This is an interesting conversation, certainly makes a change from all the doom while we sit at the top of the table...  I agree that in the games I have seen Smith has been really good - always full of running.  If he makes an impact in the Championship, will we hold onto him ?Smith , Hughes, Russell and Lappin does look to be our best option - as others have said you''ve then got the option of bringing on McNamee for Hughes, with Smith taking up central midfield and McNamee on right wing ?  So who to play up front ?  It would have to be Elliot and Martin for me - maybe Hughes could find one or two of those clever runs from Elliot, before he runs out of puff ?

[Boyo 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]This is an interesting conversation, certainly makes a change from all the doom while we sit at the top of the table...  I agree that in the games I have seen Smith has been really good - always full of running.  If he makes an impact in the Championship, will we hold onto him ?

Smith , Hughes, Russell and Lappin does look to be our best option - as others have said you''ve then got the option of bringing on McNamee for Hughes, with Smith taking up central midfield and McNamee on right wing ?  So who to play up front ?  It would have to be Elliot and Martin for me - maybe Hughes could find one or two of those clever runs from Elliot, before he runs out of puff ?
[/quote]

For me Elliott has been a complete waste of time, with McDonald now fit and played last night I think he should start.  Oli to come on for McDonald later and Elliott no where to be seen hopefully!

[nutty nigel 7,618]

[quote user="Boyo"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]This is an interesting conversation, certainly makes a change from all the doom while we sit at the top of the table...  I agree that in the games I have seen Smith has been really good - always full of running.  If he makes an impact in the Championship, will we hold onto him ?

Smith , Hughes, Russell and Lappin does look to be our best option - as others have said you''ve then got the option of bringing on McNamee for Hughes, with Smith taking up central midfield and McNamee on right wing ?  So who to play up front ?  It would have to be Elliot and Martin for me - maybe Hughes could find one or two of those clever runs from Elliot, before he runs out of puff ?
[/quote]

For me Elliott has been a complete waste of time, with McDonald now fit and played last night I think he should start.  Oli to come on for McDonald later and Elliott no where to be seen hopefully!

[/quote]

I''m with you Boyo! Cody is the player I would start when Holt''s not there. He will chase everyuthing and he has also scored this season when he started where as the others I believe only score as later subs.

 

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Boyo"]For me Elliott has been a complete waste of time, with McDonald now fit and played last night I think he should start.  Oli to come on for McDonald later and Elliott no where to be seen hopefully!

[/quote]

I''m with you Boyo! Cody is the player I would start when Holt''s not there. He will chase everyuthing and he has also scored this season when he started where as the others I believe only score as later subs.

 [/quote]

That would make Martin the target man then.  Would that work ?

[Penfold 0]

For one game only we should play Doherty up-front with Martin.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Penfold"]For one game only we should play Doherty up-front with Martin.[/quote]So who is in central defence ?  For me a decent centre back is more important than a big man up front.