WARNING - This is a negative post

[Matt Morriss 69]

Hughton''s created a problem that didn''t exist.

Think back to the Villa home game last season. I know Villa were terrible that day but we looked magnificent and a fully fledged premier league team, as opposed to the Championship one at the start.

We were winning games last season, we weren''t Wolves or Blackburn shipping goals and losing every game. Yet Hughton comes in and decides that''s exactly what the problem was. That we must stop shipping goals and losing week in week out.

If we were a Wolves or Blackburn then Hughtons ethos and clean sweep of start at the defence and lets stop leaking goals and losing makes sense. But we weren''t, we were winning games and drawing away. Apart from Man City our defence was rarely ripped apart, we just couldnt keep a clean sheet, directly as a result of the tactics of attacking, winning football.

Hughton has created a problem to solve that wasn''t there to begin with. Yes we didn''t keep clean sheets but we weren''t shipping goals and getting tonked every week.

And for someone who''s main efforts were at shoring up a defence, and we lose 5-0 and 5-2 in the first 6 games? Catastrophic failure and unacceptable.

Against Monchengladbach Hughtons tactics were in full swing and I said this is gonna result in 0-0 draws and losses and its gone exactly the way I feared.

Hughton out.

[Matt Morriss 69]

Man Utd don''t keep clean sheets every week. Look at Spurs yesterday, the Everton 4-4 last season, even the Arsenal 8-2 they let in 2!

Its a result of attacking, winning football. I''m sure if you ask Fergie what would he rather have, a clean sheet or 3 points, you can guess what he''d say.

[Morisons Prozac 0]

Op makes a hell of a good point, more of the same of last season with a bit of added quality would''ve saw us through for the big money

[Yellow Shirt 17]

NAIL ON THE HEAD.He has created a sense of fear in the players.What they had going for them was a lack of fear.I find it very hard to believe that Hughton did what he said he was going to when he arrived and watched the matches from last year.

[ROBFLECK 132]

100% correct OP, I do not understand what CH is thinking of!

[paul moy 235]

Well, I''ve said it from day one. As long as we score more than we concede we have no problem and we will be entertaining and ooze confidence. I don''t want my club to play like Stoke or their ilk. Hughton was the wrong man and Holloway was more suited to our methods of play.

[Aggy 752]

I disagree with this completely.

Only the three relegated sides conceded more than us last season, had we not been able to outscore sides, we would have been down.

Now, Hughton has come in and, yes, we have sacrificed a bit of the openness that came under Lambert, in order to try and keep things a little bit tighter.

However, we are hardly playing 9-0-1 and only having one shot per game. Here''s our fixtures so far (Fulham out of account as that was a complete write off), with shots for statistics;

QPR game, 1-1 draw, Norwich 14 shots, 3 on target. QPR 6 shots, 3 on target.

Spurs game, 1-1 draw, Norwich 11 shots, 4 on target. Spurs 12 shots, 5 on target.

West Ham game, 0-0 draw, Norwich 18 shots, 10 on target. West Ham 9 shots, 3 on target.

Newcastle game, 0-1 loss. Norwich 7 shots, 3 on target. Newcastle 16 shots, 6 on target.

Liverpool game, 2-5 loss. Norwich 17 shots, 7 on target. Liverpool 16 shots, 6 on target.

So other than the Newcastle game we''ve created a similar amount of chances - or more - than the opposition. Yet we haven''t won the games. Newcastle seems fair we''ve lost, Spurs seems a fair point, and the shots stats perhaps don''t tell the whole story against Liverpool, as we were very poor.

But we should really have beaten QPR and West Ham, we''d be on 7 points, 14th place, and things would seem a whole lot better.

So what i''m trying to say is, are we actually setting up in a completely negative fashion? Has Hughton limited our attacking style so much? Or is it just the fact that we aren''t converting our chances? Before this weekend, our goals-to-shot ratio was 3.6%, the lowest in the division. Perhaps it''s not Hughton''s tactics we need to be looking at, but the lack of a decent forward!

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Aggy"]I disagree with this completely.

Only the three relegated sides conceded more than us last season, had we not been able to outscore sides, we would have been down.

Now, Hughton has come in and, yes, we have sacrificed a bit of the openness that came under Lambert, in order to try and keep things a little bit tighter.

However, we are hardly playing 9-0-1 and only having one shot per game. Here''s our fixtures so far (Fulham out of account as that was a complete write off), with shots for statistics;

QPR game, 1-1 draw, Norwich 14 shots, 3 on target. QPR 6 shots, 3 on target.

Spurs game, 1-1 draw, Norwich 11 shots, 4 on target. Spurs 12 shots, 5 on target.

West Ham game, 0-0 draw, Norwich 18 shots, 10 on target. West Ham 9 shots, 3 on target.

Newcastle game, 0-1 loss. Norwich 7 shots, 3 on target. Newcastle 16 shots, 6 on target.

Liverpool game, 2-5 loss. Norwich 17 shots, 7 on target. Liverpool 16 shots, 6 on target.

So other than the Newcastle game we''ve created a similar amount of chances - or more - than the opposition. Yet we haven''t won the games. Newcastle seems fair we''ve lost, Spurs seems a fair point, and the shots stats perhaps don''t tell the whole story against Liverpool, as we were very poor.

But we should really have beaten QPR and West Ham, we''d be on 7 points, 14th place, and things would seem a whole lot better.

So what i''m trying to say is, are we actually setting up in a completely negative fashion? Has Hughton limited our attacking style so much? Or is it just the fact that we aren''t converting our chances? Before this weekend, our goals-to-shot ratio was 3.6%, the lowest in the division. Perhaps it''s not Hughton''s tactics we need to be looking at, but the lack of a decent forward![/quote]So I like this post a lot, apart from the conclusion.  Those forwards were "decent" enough last season, after all.The problem looks to me like players who aren''t sure, or comfortable, with the roles they are being asked to play and/or playing in positions that don''t suit them.  The best example would be Howson, who looked a quality attacking midfielder under Lambert but is now shackled as part of a central two and has lost the attacking edge to his game.Also, does Hughton really think Turner is our 3rd best centre back?

[Aggy 752]

The Turner issue is certainly a worrying one. He looks woeful with the ball at his feet - which you can just about forgive if he''s a quality defender. Unfortunately, he''s not. Out of position a lot and seems to be a yard off the attacker a lot of the time. I''m also still not sure about Barnett. Only ever seems about 5 seconds away from disaster - should have been a penalty against him this weekend when really there was no need to even make the challenge.

The comfortability and assuredness of role is also a fair point. As I say, I think Hughton has tried to get a compromise whereby we aren''t quite as open, and therefore in theory should be a little bit more solid at the back, whilst still creating chances. However, the understanding of how to enforce those changes doesn''t seem to have worked its way up to the top yet. We did score 2 against Liverpool though, so maybe it is a matter of time.

I do think though, that the ''Lambert factor'' was always a part, certainly behind Holt''s success, and probably behind the rest as well. Whilst I thought Kane may possibly have a decent future and be a decent player to nurture as an impact sub, he was never going to be the 10/15 goal a season man that we needed so badly.

So do we change our system to try and facilitate Holt and co better, as in playing to their strengths and how they want to play? Or do we continue until they get to grips with the new tactics and start to find some of last season''s form? Will it be too late by then? Have we got the money to splash in January on someone who will score the goals to keep us up? I don''t know the answers, but they''re ones that Hughton needs to figure out pretty sharpish.

[paul moy 235]

... and how many of those ''shots on target'' were not scuffed and difficult saves to make. Not many in my book, so stats like that are pretty meaningless.

[Aggy 752]

Why are they meaningless? My point is that the finishing hasn''t been good enough, but that we''re creating the chances. I''m fairly sure those stats are quite meaningless in that respect.

[Aggy 752]

*Quite meaningFUL in that respect!

[Google Bot 3,259]

Completely agree with the OP, is exactly whats happened.

However, I''m not calling for CH''s head just yet, as i don''t know who could replace him right now. Or who coud carry on the work Lambo had done.

Tough times.

Although, football being the game it is, don''t be surprised if we get a result against Chelsea/Arsenal.

[paul moy 235]

If you''ve seen most of those ''shots'' you''d realise they''re meaningless. Hughton has thrown the ''baby'' out with the ''bathwater''.

[Aggy 752]

How are they meaningless? The opening poster believes that Hughton has set us up to defend. In fairness, other than Liverpool and Fulham, we''ve defended pretty well and still had more than enough opportunities to win the game. Even against Newcastle, whilst we didn''t have as many chances, we were still creating.

At no point this season have we looked like we''ve gone into a game to park the bus, as is seemingly being suggested.

Now I''m not saying that the results have been good enough. But I don''t think that is because we''ve been too negative. I think it is purely because our shots haven''t been good enough.

There''s a difference between being defensive and not having any opportunities, and being well balanced but just not being good enough to put the ball in the net. We''re the latter, if you ask me.

[Legend Iwan 30]

I remember watching our defence get ripped apart a number of times last season; Sunderland away, Liverpool at home, Liverpool away (only reason we didn''t concede more was because Suarez was woeful), Tottenham at home, and of course the cup match against MK Dons (still a Lambert side). As well as the two Man City games as you mentioned.

Hughton''s tried to improve the defence and on the most part succeeded. The issue for me is we have no natural leader in the middle when Bassong is out - which is proving critical for us. Barnett struggled positionally yesterday next to Turner because there''s clearly very little understanding between the two.

[Noseybonk 0]

In the interview after the game, when asked why Wes didn''t start, Hughton stated that he wanted to play with two upfront.

This is alarming, as it suggests that Hughton has no intention of playing the formation that suits the players best, the diamond midfield, which allows Wes to fit in to a system with two strikers ahead of him.

Did Hughton really watch videos of us over the last three seasons? That statement suggests not.

This, along with his one dimensional, like for like substitutions, is what worries me most about Hughton.

Continuity is the reason I wanted Culverhouse to be offered the job (whether he would have accepted it is another matter), and nothing I have seen this season has changed my mind.

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]So I like this post a lot, apart from the conclusion.  Those forwards were "decent" enough last season, after all.The problem looks to me like players who aren''t sure, or comfortable, with the roles they are being asked to play and/or playing in positions that don''t suit them.  The best example would be Howson, who looked a quality attacking midfielder under Lambert but is now shackled as part of a central two and has lost the attacking edge to his game.Also, does Hughton really think Turner is our 3rd best centre back?[/quote]Spot on Chops. These forwards combined for us to be the 7th highest scorers last season. The team look unconfortable with the way we are set up, not too mention certain players not starting.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Aggy"]Why are they meaningless? My point is that the finishing hasn''t been good enough, but that we''re creating the chances. I''m fairly sure those stats are quite meaningless in that respect.[/quote]

OK. Take this example.  20 scuffed shots by midfielders from 20-30 yards trickling into a keepers arms that were never going to be goals will show up as ''shots on target''. The midfielders never got into the penalty area, they were never going to be goals and did not demand a good save, but somebody like yourself looking at the stats thinks ''what a fantastic attacking performance''.

[Aggy 752]

Well, for most of the games, that hasn''t been the case, has it. Off the top of my head, I can think of Kane missing two sitters, Surman missing a sitter, Jackson missing a sitter. I can think of Snodgrass hitting the post, and someone else hitting the post too. I can think of a couple of fluffed or tame efforts from in or around the area as well.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

Football should always firstly be about what you actually see not stats, stats are so vague they can be used to evidence almost anything, last season we nearly always had hugely inferior possession percentages but that doesnt mean we were being dominated. So far this season I''d have taken a few less efforts on goal from midfielders for some better delivered crosses and corners.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Aggy"]Well, for most of the games, that hasn''t been the case, has it. Off the top of my head, I can think of Kane missing two sitters, Surman missing a sitter, Jackson missing a sitter. I can think of Snodgrass hitting the post, and someone else hitting the post too. I can think of a couple of fluffed or tame efforts from in or around the area as well.[/quote]

Hitting a post or blasting wide is not a ''shot on target'', so it appears that you don''t even know what the stats mean that you are using as ''evidence''.  [:D]

[pete 318]

Two B''s are the answer.  Bassong at the back talking to the defence has improved us, but got injured, will be better with Seb back, get well soon.  And Bennett the Elliott variety on his way back now will sling them in from the right EB has been the player we have missed.

Hughton please take note.

 

[Aggy 752]

[quote user="paul moy"]

Hitting a post or blasting wide is not a ''shot on target'', so it appears that you don''t even know what the stats mean that you are using as ''evidence''.  [:D]

[/quote]

They do though, as far as I''m aware, get added to the ''total shots'' tally which, I seem to remember, I was also using as ''evidence''.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Aggy"][quote user="paul moy"]

Hitting a post or blasting wide is not a ''shot on target'', so it appears that you don''t even know what the stats mean that you are using as ''evidence''.  [:D]

[/quote]

They do though, as far as I''m aware, get added to the ''total shots'' tally which, I seem to remember, I was also using as ''evidence''.

[/quote]

Indeed they do, but only as ''shots'' and not as ''shots on target''.

[Carra Rud 17]

Its the way the players are being utilized that is the problem not the players. Sure we could have beefed up the strike force but all said and done its last years squad with a few decent additions (Bassong, Garrido and Tettey - Turner was a waste purchase IMO). We should be performing as well as last season if not better but we''re not.

[Aggy 752]

I''m glad we''re agreed then. Given that I haven''t made that much of a deal about ''shots on target'', and have instead been using both those and ''total shots'' to suggest that we aren''t simply parking the bus as some seem to have been suggesting earlier on in the thread but are actually creating the chances and just not converting them, I''m glad that you can now see that those ''total shots'' do include some fairly good chances and not, as you previously claimed, all thirty yard punts from midfielders.....

[technika 0]

OP is bang on imo. and its exactly why hughton must go now

[City 2nd 191]

The Most sensible post on here for months, completely and utterly correct in every pint made.

Hughton just is not the right boss for the players inherited - they were all used to playing attacking football at a high tempo.

Sorry to say it but we are lambs to the slaughter.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="City 2nd"]The Most sensible post on here for months, completely and utterly correct in every pint made.

Hughton just is not the right boss for the players inherited - they were all used to playing attacking football at a high tempo.

Sorry to say it but we are lambs to the slaughter.[/quote]This is only true if you believe our players are so limited that they can only play attacking football at a high tempo.  At some point we have to accept that, having been playing football on a daily basis for years, and having played under different managers at different clubs, players are able to adapt how they play to suit the instructions they are given.  The question for me is whether the players want to play for Hughton in the way they wanted to play for Lambert, and - if they don''t - why?