The trouble with Hughton

[dylanisabaddog 4,947]

I thought that yesterday''s substitutions summed up the problem we face with Hughton and Calderwood.  He seems to be totally incapable of changing a game with substitutions and so far he just replaces like with like.  Lambert and Culverhouse would regularly alter the formation week by week and win a game with substitutions but Hughton seems unwilling or unable to follow suit.  His other problem is his defensive attitude which yesterday saw our full backs hardly cross the halfway line despite the fact that we were playing the worst team in the Premier League at home. I''ve read countless posts criticizing Holt but the fact is that he thrived on our style of play last year but is made to look very ordinary by the unadventurous style of play we are now forced to endure.I''ve also read lots of criticism of posters who have dared to suggest that, based on results so far, we''re going to get relegated.  Well, I''m sorry, but I think it''s more a question of when we go down rather than if.    We''ve now played QPR and West Ham at home and managed 1 goal and 2 points.  And those 2 teams have produced probably the weakest performances from visiting sides we''ve seen since we returned to the top flight.

[Steady On... 0]

Lamberts better than Hughton because we didn''t win yesterday YAWN, go and listen to some emo music with the rest of the depressives.

[Norma Stick 0]

Couldn''t agree more.  No adventure, midfield stifled and forward momentum sporadic.  Holt was awful though yesterday.  Barely got off the ground when competing for a header, can trap a ball further than I can kick one and when he did get to lay a ball off it was straight to a West Ham player.

 

Hughton has certainly made us a harder unit to break down but better teams than West Ham will work it out and when they do, we''re in trouble as 2 goals in 4 games, and having played 2 of the poorer sides in the division spells trouble.

 

With the run of fixtures we have coming up, we could be fighting a losing battle by the end of October.

[Norma Stick 0]

[quote user="Steady On..."]Lamberts better than Hughton because we didn''t win yesterday YAWN, go and listen to some emo music with the rest of the depressives.[/quote]

What an absolutely ridiculous post.  Hasn''t taken anything on board.  Idiot

[city4eva 213]

Spot on OP, Hughton appears not to know how to win a game

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

[quote user="dylanisabaddog"]I thought that yesterday''s substitutions summed up the problem we face with Hughton and Calderwood.  He seems to be totally incapable of changing a game with substitutions and so far he just replaces like with like.  Lambert and Culverhouse would regularly alter the formation week by week and win a game with substitutions but Hughton seems unwilling or unable to follow suit.  His other problem is his defensive attitude which yesterday saw our full backs hardly cross the halfway line despite the fact that we were playing the worst team in the Premier League at home. I''ve read countless posts criticizing Holt but the fact is that he thrived on our style of play last year but is made to look very ordinary by the unadventurous style of play we are now forced to endure.I''ve also read lots of criticism of posters who have dared to suggest that, based on results so far, we''re going to get relegated.  Well, I''m sorry, but I think it''s more a question of when we go down rather than if.    We''ve now played QPR and West Ham at home and managed 1 goal and 2 points.  And those 2 teams have produced probably the weakest performances from visiting sides we''ve seen since we returned to the top flight.[/quote]Your really confused, we played West Ham, Southampton are the worst team in the Premier League.

[Nuff Said 5,147]

[quote user="dylanisabaddog"]I thought that yesterday''s substitutions summed up the problem we face with Hughton and Calderwood.  He seems to be totally incapable of changing a game with substitutions and so far he just replaces like with like.  Lambert and Culverhouse would regularly alter the formation week by week and win a game with substitutions but Hughton seems unwilling or unable to follow suit.  His other problem is his defensive attitude which yesterday saw our full backs hardly cross the halfway line despite the fact that we were playing the worst team in the Premier League at home. I''ve read countless posts criticizing Holt but the fact is that he thrived on our style of play last year but is made to look very ordinary by the unadventurous style of play we are now forced to endure.I''ve also read lots of criticism of posters who have dared to suggest that, based on results so far, we''re going to get relegated.  Well, I''m sorry, but I think it''s more a question of when we go down rather than if.    We''ve now played QPR and West Ham at home and managed 1 goal and 2 points.  And those 2 teams have produced probably the weakest performances from visiting sides we''ve seen since we returned to the top flight.[/quote]1. Why not add your comments to one of these threads then?2. Why are West Ham the worst team in the PL? Logic would kind of suggest it''s Southampton.3. Look at last season''s results. Lambert''s tactics got us 2 points from our first four games, and he had the benefit of over two years working with most of the players in the squad. I too would have liked to see a more creative player coming on yesterday - Wes - but if we''d gambled and lost the reaction on here would be much worse. We''re fifteenth now, and I''d be happy - not ecstatic but happy - with fifteenth at the end of the season.Hughton had laid what appears to be some solid defensive foundations in the team so far this season, which were lacking. We can build on this with the wealth of talent we have in the midfield and a mixture of proven Premier scoring ability up front in Holt, Jackson  and Morison; and potential in Kane (and just possibly Martin). It was much harder to see how we could shore up the defence with the way we played under Lambert last year (once we did start to come good up front).

[Steady On... 0]

[quote user="CamelFish"]

[quote user="Steady On..."]Lamberts better than Hughton because we didn''t win yesterday YAWN, go and listen to some emo music with the rest of the depressives.[/quote]

What an absolutely ridiculous post.  Hasn''t taken anything on board.  Idiot

[/quote]

Gutted for you sheep

[Zak Van Burger 0]

I really cannot understand the criticism of our full backs not advancing enough yesterday. We were playing a Sam Allardyce team, a team that quite predictably constantly hoofed the ball 40-60 yards up to the edge of our box. Had our full backs played further up the pitch then the game would have deteriorated into a series of sprints back towards our goal against the West Ham forwards and sooner or later Cole or whoever would have beaten the defender to the ball with inevitable consequences. Whatever was wrong with our performance yesterday it was not the full backs who were set up to defend the edge of the penalty area from the perpetual aerial bombardment every man and his dog would expect from a Sam Allardyce managed team. Wet Sham and Carroll in particular thrived in their previous match as the opposition failed repeatedly to deal with these long balls into the Allardyce zone, I would have been far more critical of Hughton/ our defence had they failed to anticipate these tactics and done anything other than defend the 20 yard line.Playing a team which passes it''s way to the penalty area at least gives a high line of defenders time to re-organise, the Allardyce hoofball method although very one dimensional and highly predictable does sadly require the presence of defenders at all times around the edge of the box to deal with the steady flow of 60 yard punts.Thought the defence dealt quite admirably with the long balls yesterday, a vast improvement on last year.

[lake district canary 0]

Nuff said wrote:  "Hughton had laid what appears to be some solid defensive foundations in

the team so far this season, which were lacking. We can build on this

with the wealth of talent we have in the midfield and a mixture of

proven Premier scoring ability up front in Holt, Jackson  and Morison;

and potential in Kane (and just possibly Martin).

[Y]  [Y] - Way too sensible a comment for most people to take in on here though........

 

[kdncfc 27]

We were no more negative yesterday than we were under Lambert last season and we were solid at the back which was something we very rarely if ever looked under Lambert. Reason we didn''t win was because our strikers or midfielders couldn''t shoot properly when they were presented with the opportunity to do so.I don''t think we''ll see such a pathetic surrender against Liverpool in two weeks time as we saw last season under Lambert in fact I fancy us to get something from that game and wouldn''t be surprised if we get a point or more at Newcastle next week.Hughton is a decent manager and I can see him doing very well here if given time.

[Bury Yellow 2]

I can see where the op is coming from but i am with Nuff and Zak on this one.

Typical Big Sam team that went even more defensive in the second half. Like the old Wimbledon it can make for a frustrating afternoon.

Holt did have a poor game but he thrives on the early ball into the box and he always acknowledged that last year. We have a better shape as a team now I think and certainly our back four is impressive.

We have the basis of a team capable of finishing above the bottom three. It''s far too early to condemn us to relegation.

OT I forced myself to watch MOD this morning. I really wished I had not. Shearers summing up of our prospects was said with a combination of glee, smugness and hate.

[First Wizard 0]

Err?  if we now play with such a defensive mindset under Houghton...............how come we keep creating so many chances?

[BroadstairsR 2,184]

As the game progressed, I did get frustrated at the way it was becoming a stale-mate situation and thus playing into Alladyce''s plans. The latter probably banking on a steal in the final ten. That seemed to be Hoot''s only idea in the end as well.

 

A bit of tinkering in midfield wouln''t have gone amiss and I would have welcomed the use of Hoolihan as another option. Either Howson or Surman were candidates for replacement IMO. Fox might well have been given a look in towards the end too. You have to go more out for a win when on home soil and against any team in this League who are not from the big six surely? We had worn down West Ham''s early guile and threat, but could not find the killer punch.

 

Whether this indicates a more negative approach than PL''s more cavalier style is open to debate. The next four games, which are tougher, might well tell us more than the last four about the nature of the beast in charge.

 

Bringing Kane on was positive, I suppose and I had only expected him to be introduced if the game had been in the bag. This move back fired somewhat however, as the youngster missed the game''s best chance rather abjectly, despite being lively otherwise.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Exactly Wiz. Hughton cannot put the ball in the net for them but he made a mistake with his squad striker selections and not bringing in experience there IMO.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Exactly Wiz. Hughton cannot put the ball in the net for them but he made a mistake with his squad striker selections and not bringing in experience there IMO.[/quote]

 

He clearly wanted CMS Ru, maybe McNally''s at fault on that one.

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Exactly Wiz. Hughton cannot put the ball in the net for them but he made a mistake with his squad striker selections and not bringing in experience there IMO.

[/quote]

 

He wanted to, and tried to. We made a bid on or just before transfer deadline day for Mackail-Smith (source: official Brighton statement) which was rejected.

[Katie Borkins 1]

Well, against QPR and again yesterday old Bor saw a team who had run out of ideas by 70 minutes, and when that happens it is for the manager to introduce some fresh legs and maybe a different tactic.  I''m not Hoolahan''s biggest fan but by goodness he couldn''t have been any worse than Howson and might have made a few things happen through the middle.  As it is we huffed and puffed but created only three good chances and didn''t convert any of those.  Disappointing all round.

 

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]

Well, against QPR and again yesterday old Bor saw a team who had run out of ideas by 70 minutes, and when that happens it is for the manager to introduce some fresh legs and maybe a different tactic.  I''m not Hoolahan''s biggest fan but by goodness he couldn''t have been any worse than Howson and might have made a few things happen through the middle.  As it is we huffed and puffed but created only three good chances and didn''t convert any of those.  Disappointing all round.

 

[/quote]

 

Odd that we had three good chances in the the last 12 minutes or so.................and they call me senile.

[newcastle uni canary 0]

And i think under hughton we may not win as many but i don''t think we''ll lose as many either. yes we should have won the last 2 home games but we didn''t lose them. we weren''t hanging on for the point infact in the last three games we''ve come away thinking we should have won. We just need goals from somewhere. jackson has really impressed me so far. I strongly believe that Holt we start scoring soon and i think Kane showed promise. Yes he should have scored but i remember thinking that about earnie when he played his first game against ipswich. you have to give the lad more than 20 mins before writing him off surely?

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Wiz"][quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]

Well, against QPR and again yesterday old Bor saw a team who had run out of ideas by 70 minutes, and when that happens it is for the manager to introduce some fresh legs and maybe a different tactic.  I''m not Hoolahan''s biggest fan but by goodness he couldn''t have been any worse than Howson and might have made a few things happen through the middle.  As it is we huffed and puffed but created only three good chances and didn''t convert any of those.  Disappointing all round.

 

[/quote]

 

Odd that we had three good chances in the the last 12 minutes or so.................and they call me senile.

[/quote]

Well now, "Wiz", it was only three weeks ago that I believe you started a thread called "Hughton is a coward" so it''s interesting how quickly a man can change his mind.  But here''s a couple of questions so old Bor here can figure out where you''re coming from this week:

 

Do you think that 0-0 against West Ham was a good result?

 

Do you think the only reason we failed to win was poor finishing?

 

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="Wiz"]Err?  if we now play with such a defensive mindset under Houghton...............how come we keep creating so many chances?[/quote]IT''S HUGHTON!!Good post though, I completely agree.

[Clint 221]

I think Hughton got his tactics right but his substitutions wrong.  It was a baking hot day and some players were flagging more than others, which basically turned the 2nd half into a non-event.  Why did he not use all 3 subs when so many players looked shattered?Why did it appear that Wes was coming on with 10 mins or so to go (looked like he was getting ready on the bench) only to never appear?  Did Hughton bottle it?Why did Surman last the whole match when his impact in the 2nd half was negligible (due to lack of games I suspect, as I thought he looked good early on).  Wes for Surman would have been my change with long enough left for Wes to impact on the game.Why did Jackson go off for Moro?  Jackson looked our most lively attacking player whereas Holt looked pretty dreadful.Why play 2 big slower players up front for a period (Moro and Holt) when West Ham were winning everything in the air?  They struggled more against pace and with balls played in behind, hence I would have left Jackson on.Why were we left relying on a young unproven Spurs reserve to score our goals with 15 mins to go?  He may be a great prospect and his time will come but to throw him into that environment in a game we really needed to win seemed slightly premature, was Hughton trying to back up the lack of an established striker coming in?Just my opinions but I am a bit concerned about these decisions.  It definately seemed that Hughton would rather take the point that make a game changing decision that could back fire. 

 

[Phillip J Fry 0]

Hughton WAS going to change the game, he was preparing to bring Wes on for the final 10 minutes or so, but second guessed himself and decided not to, thinking that Wes would''ve struggled with West Ham''s physicality. We can all come on here and state that he should''ve changed the game with substitutions yet no one seems to be thinking about the knock on effect that could have on the team. If we had brought on Wes and lost some defensive ability and West Ham went on to score and we lost 1-0, how many on here would be complaining that Hughton took an unnecessary risk?   

I agree a substitution should''ve been made, Fox IMO, as we were struggling to keep possession and create the chances we had all game but negative sides (as Hughton is accused of putting out) don''t have 20 shots at goal, they don''t have 10 of them on target and they don''t create 2 chances in the final couple of minutes which are not goals only thanks to poor finishing (Kane) and good goalkeeping (Snodgrass).

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"][quote user="Wiz"][quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]

Well, against QPR and again yesterday old Bor saw a team who had run out of ideas by 70 minutes, and when that happens it is for the manager to introduce some fresh legs and maybe a different tactic.  I''m not Hoolahan''s biggest fan but by goodness he couldn''t have been any worse than Howson and might have made a few things happen through the middle.  As it is we huffed and puffed but created only three good chances and didn''t convert any of those.  Disappointing all round.

 

[/quote]

 

Odd that we had three good chances in the the last 12 minutes or so.................and they call me senile.

[/quote]

Well now, "Wiz", it was only three weeks ago that I believe you started a thread called "Hughton is a coward" so it''s interesting how quickly a man can change his mind.  But here''s a couple of questions so old Bor here can figure out where you''re coming from this week:

 

Do you think that 0-0 against West Ham was a good result?

 

Do you think the only reason we failed to win was poor finishing?

 

[/quote]

 

I stand by the coward remark Bor, in context of the Fulham tactics debacle, it was justified imo, but its a measure of the man that he''s quick to adapt.

 

The previous manager always said ''if you can''t win then don''t lose'' we didn''t!

 

And if you want  to b go on about poor finishing then include Kane, Jacko,  Surman and Snoddy into the arguement, all missed good chances.

 

If you don''t it seems like the witchunt it already is.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Grant Holts 3 year contract"][quote user="Wiz"]Err?  if we now play with such a defensive mindset under Houghton...............how come we keep creating so many chances?[/quote]

IT''S HUGHTON!!

Good post though, I completely agree.
[/quote]

 

Bugger, thanks for the deserved correction, unforgivable. [:$]

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Wiz"]If you don''t it seems like the witchunt it already is.[/quote]You of all people should know that witchunts seldom work Wiz, after all, Delia is still here isn''t she? [;)]

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="dylanisabaddog"]I thought that yesterday''s substitutions summed up the problem we face with Hughton and Calderwood.  He seems to be totally incapable of changing a game with substitutions and so far he just replaces like with like.  Lambert and Culverhouse would regularly alter the formation week by week and win a game with substitutions but Hughton seems unwilling or unable to follow suit.  His other problem is his defensive attitude which yesterday saw our full backs hardly cross the halfway line despite the fact that we were playing the worst team in the Premier League at home. I''ve read countless posts criticizing Holt but the fact is that he thrived on our style of play last year but is made to look very ordinary by the unadventurous style of play we are now forced to endure.I''ve also read lots of criticism of posters who have dared to suggest that, based on results so far, we''re going to get relegated.  Well, I''m sorry, but I think it''s more a question of when we go down rather than if.    We''ve now played QPR and West Ham at home and managed 1 goal and 2 points.  And those 2 teams have produced probably the weakest performances from visiting sides we''ve seen since we returned to the top flight.[/quote]1. Why not add your comments to one of these threads then?2. Why are West Ham the worst team in the PL? Logic would kind of suggest it''s Southampton.3. Look at last season''s results. Lambert''s tactics got us 2 points from our first four games, and he had the benefit of over two years working with most of the players in the squad. I too would have liked to see a more creative player coming on yesterday - Wes - but if we''d gambled and lost the reaction on here would be much worse. We''re fifteenth now, and I''d be happy - not ecstatic but happy - with fifteenth at the end of the season.Hughton had laid what appears to be some solid defensive foundations in the team so far this season, which were lacking. We can build on this with the wealth of talent we have in the midfield and a mixture of proven Premier scoring ability up front in Holt, Jackson  and Morison; and potential in Kane (and just possibly Martin). It was much harder to see how we could shore up the defence with the way we played under Lambert last year (once we did start to come good up front).[/quote]

I''m sick of people coming out with the ''2 points after four games last season''. Last yr we played Wigan, Stoke, Chelsea and West Brom. Tough games. We did not play QPR and West Ham at HOME who were both APPALLING and who we should have beaten comfortably.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Zak Burger"]I really cannot understand the criticism of our full backs not advancing enough yesterday. We were playing a Sam Allardyce team, a team that quite predictably constantly hoofed the ball 40-60 yards up to the edge of our box. Had our full backs played further up the pitch then the game would have deteriorated into a series of sprints back towards our goal against the West Ham forwards and sooner or later Cole or whoever would have beaten the defender to the ball with inevitable consequences. Whatever was wrong with our performance yesterday it was not the full backs who were set up to defend the edge of the penalty area from the perpetual aerial bombardment every man and his dog would expect from a Sam Allardyce managed team. Wet Sham and Carroll in particular thrived in their previous match as the opposition failed repeatedly to deal with these long balls into the Allardyce zone, I would have been far more critical of Hughton/ our defence had they failed to anticipate these tactics and done anything other than defend the 20 yard line.Playing a team which passes it''s way to the penalty area at least gives a high line of defenders time to re-organise, the Allardyce hoofball method although very one dimensional and highly predictable does sadly require the presence of defenders at all times around the edge of the box to deal with the steady flow of 60 yard punts.Thought the defence dealt quite admirably with the long balls yesterday, a vast improvement on last year.

[/quote]

Point is tho there was no Andy Carroll, West Ham didn''t really play the long ball game and generally terrible up front. We could have gone 3 at the back and still contained them, especially after the boy Modibu Maiga or whatever his name was came on. They offered zero threat up front yet we still worried about them and stayed conservative.

[Gingerpele 0]

If West Ham had played Jarvis or Bennayoun instead of Vaz Te, they might have had a chance at scoring. He''s such a frustrating player, looks like he''s going to do something good, then just passes it back to the RB. or smashes a shot or cross high and wide.