Chris Hughton out, yes or no?

[T 190]

Agreed it is not just down to finances as the figures show it is only 70 to 80 pc down to finances and the rest is down to the manger, players, form injury, referee decisions and chance. Of course there are always some natural variances but the figures hold true and one club outside the normal curve for a  couple of seasons does not change that. West Brom are also outperforming at the moment but yoyoed for a while. Most of the clubs of a similar site to Norwich without benefactors are in the Championship. People do generally have a poor understanding of probability. Mentioning one or two clubs to dispute this argument is an example of a poor understanding of probability. To be fair there is a good article on the bbc at the moment which shows the legal system also has a poor understanding of probability. Most of our squad has a championship/league one background given that we have at least a 20m handicap to other clubs. Judging Hughton without taking that reality into context does show a poor understanding of reality. Lets face it football fans are not the brightest and are poorly qualified to judge. The hard facts show that Hughton is an outperforming manager and therefore should stay.

[Baracouda 47]

That is true, but for 99% of managers, changing a their whole system is quite difficult. Your not talking about a slight change either.

But now we are in the position, it would be wise to see what changes he can make after one year, to find the attacking threat to go with the controlled football.

[basil brush 0]

I think Hughton is on borrowed time whatever happens. The most likely scenario is this:

1. We stay up - just

2. Fans expect a more attacking and positive style with some new signings.

3. Hughton largely still plays it cautious as 2012/13, with few results.

4. Sacked by Christmas.

Any Norwich fan who thinks there is going be a major change in style next season will be disappointed. It won''t happen. There may be a slight improvement, but generally speaking Hughton is a conservative, defensive manager. In many ways the antithesis of Lambert. So we know what type of football he desires- How long as fans can we put up with it?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="T"]Agreed it is not just down to finances as the figures show it is only 70 to 80 pc down to finances and the rest is down to the manger, players, form injury, referee decisions and chance. Of course there are always some natural variances but the figures hold true and one club outside the normal curve for a  couple of seasons does not change that. West Brom are also outperforming at the moment but yoyoed for a while. Most of the clubs of a similar site to Norwich without benefactors are in the Championship. People do generally have a poor understanding of probability. Mentioning one or two clubs to dispute this argument is an example of a poor understanding of probability. To be fair there is a good article on the bbc at the moment which shows the legal system also has a poor understanding of probability. Most of our squad has a championship/league one background given that we have at least a 20m handicap to other clubs. Judging Hughton without taking that reality into context does show a poor understanding of reality. Lets face it football fans are not the brightest and are poorly qualified to judge. The hard facts show that Hughton is an outperforming manager and therefore should stay.[/quote]

 

I am not an expert on probability (although I know it is different to certainty) but I know a bit about logic. I (and probably others) didn''t mention other clubs to dispute the probability of high-wages clubs doing generally better than low-wage clubs. I did it to point up what you now admit - that the correlation may account for as little as  70 per cent of the factors that need to be taken into account. That leaves a significant percentage of non-finance factors.

[Devils Advocate. 0]

[quote user="basil brush"]I think Hughton is on borrowed time whatever happens. The most likely scenario is this:

1. We stay up - just

2. Fans expect a more attacking and positive style with some new signings.

3. Hughton largely still plays it cautious as 2012/13, with few results.

4. Sacked by Christmas.

Any Norwich fan who thinks there is going be a major change in style next season will be disappointed. It won''t happen. There may be a slight improvement, but generally speaking Hughton is a conservative, defensive manager. In many ways the antithesis of Lambert. So we know what type of football he desires- How long as fans can we put up with it?[/quote]

If Hughton stays, he will want to spend the money on his style of players. Would another manager necessarily want any of his players ?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

QPR and Reading sacked the manager. Wolves sacked 2 or 3. We sacked Worthy and it worked a treat. Who are we getting in for the rest of the season? How long a contract should we give them?

 

Are you people serious?

 

 

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Devils Advocate."][quote user="basil brush"]I think Hughton is on borrowed time whatever happens. The most likely scenario is this:

1. We stay up - just

2. Fans expect a more attacking and positive style with some new signings.

3. Hughton largely still plays it cautious as 2012/13, with few results.

4. Sacked by Christmas.

Any Norwich fan who thinks there is going be a major change in style next season will be disappointed. It won''t happen. There may be a slight improvement, but generally speaking Hughton is a conservative, defensive manager. In many ways the antithesis of Lambert. So we know what type of football he desires- How long as fans can we put up with it?[/quote]

If Hughton stays, he will want to spend the money on his style of players. Would another manager necessarily want any of his players ?[/quote]Well, let''s look at that last statement.  Do you think Hughton''s signings have strengthened or weakened our squad?

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]QPR and Reading sacked the manager, Wolves sacked 2 or 3.[/quote]All at the wrong time NN.The new managers coming in had virtually no choice but to work with the existing sides, all of which simply weren''t good enough.[quote]We sacked Worthy and it worked a treat.[/quote]Worthy stayed in the role longer than he should have, and his dismissal and subsequent choices lead to us being in our current position. Bear in mind that Roeder actually did a pretty decent job in his first season with us, it simply went downhill from there. Neither Gunn nor Grant had the experienced needed, but then we got PL and the rest is history.

[quote]Are you people serious?[/quote]

VERY.

We''re not talking about getting rid of a manager at a point where any incoming replacement has no real chance to make any serious changes, we''re talking about getting a manager in so they can take advantage of the summer transfer window, and spend pre-season getting new players into the side and repairing the damage done to our creativity and attacking flair under Hughton.

Don''t get me wrong, if CH has kept us up, he''s done the job required and fair play to him, but going forwards that style of football isn''t going to cut the mustard, and as we''ve already seen it can be ''better'' under PL, therefore it does come down to the manager rather than the players not being good enough.

For me (assuming we stay up), we should say a big thank you to Hughton for keeping us up this year, but then a short farewell so we can bring in a replacement who knows how to get his players working to their strengths, and actually playing to win games instead of simply not losing them...

[T 190]

Indeed purple the manager is one of the many factors that I mentioned that account for the remaining 20pc of a premier cleague clubs points this season. And Hughton has signifigantly outperformed in that 20pc area this season. His problem is the perceptions caused by the even greater outperformance by Lambert last season. A manager who has signifigantly underperformed this season and who could get relegated despite having the finances to purchase the player who has accounted for more of a teams points than any other player. Next season we will no longer have the 20m of debt repayments and financially will be about 16th in the Premier so think it is not fair to judge him until next season. Hughton has a good record with transfers and a good record at other clubs. The only manger to consistently outperform the clubs financial position in the Premier over a long period of time is Moyes so if fans think there is someone who can come in and consistently do a better job than Hughton then they are seriously delusional. Possible but very unlikely.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="nutty nigel"]QPR and Reading sacked the manager, Wolves sacked 2 or 3.[/quote]
All at the wrong time NN.

The new managers coming in had virtually no choice but to work with the existing sides, all of which simply weren''t good enough.

[quote]We sacked Worthy and it worked a treat.[/quote]
Worthy stayed in the role longer than he should have, and his dismissal and subsequent choices lead to us being in our current position.

Bear in mind that Roeder actually did a pretty decent job in his first season with us, it simply went downhill from there. Neither Gunn nor Grant had the experienced needed, but then we got PL and the rest is history.

[quote]Are you people serious?[/quote]

VERY.

We''re not talking about getting rid of a manager at a point where any incoming replacement has no real chance to make any serious changes, we''re talking about getting a manager in so they can take advantage of the summer transfer window, and spend pre-season getting new players into the side and repairing the damage done to our creativity and attacking flair under Hughton.

Don''t get me wrong, if CH has kept us up, he''s done the job required and fair play to him, but going forwards that style of football isn''t going to cut the mustard, and as we''ve already seen it can be ''better'' under PL, therefore it does come down to the manager rather than the players not being good enough.

For me (assuming we stay up), we should say a big thank you to Hughton for keeping us up this year, but then a short farewell so we can bring in a replacement who knows how to get his players working to their strengths, and actually playing to win games instead of simply not losing them...

[/quote]

 

Well the thread was about getting rid last night. The summer is a good month away yet. Plenty of time for minds to be changed. Hughton''s only as good as his last result. That''s why nobody wanted him sacked last Sunday. Imagine if he got a result at Man City.....

 

Now Indy, I''d be interested to know when the right time was for Wolves to sack their manager?

 

 

[Crafty Canary 495]

Lappinitup wrote:Perhaps it''s time for the PinkUn''s official contract inspector to arrange another meeting with Mr Bowkett and to re-examine McNally''s contract to see if it includes a relegation bonus.

Why don''t you do that for us? Oh, that''s right, you don''t know how to go about it. Much better to have a go at those that do.

BTW, the meeting with Mr Bowkett was nothing to do with inspecting Mr McNally''s contract but why let the facts get in the way.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Any word on the stickers yet?

 

 

[Row D Seat 7 0]

Out, on Monday 20th May 2013, AM.

[Baracouda 47]

To be the people who are for CH going out...

Who are you suggesting take over?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Oh, that''s right, you don''t know how to go about it. Much better to have a go at those that do.[/quote]As you know, those that know, know, those that don''t, don''t know.I know what I know. [<:o)]

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="T"]Indeed purple the manager is one of the many factors that I mentioned that account for the remaining 20pc of a premier cleague clubs points this season. And Hughton has signifigantly outperformed in that 20pc area this season. His problem is the perceptions caused by the even greater outperformance by Lambert last season. A manager who has signifigantly underperformed this season and who could get relegated despite having the finances to purchase the player who has accounted for more of a teams points than any other player. Next season we will no longer have the 20m of debt repayments and financially will be about 16th in the Premier so think it is not fair to judge him until next season. Hughton has a good record with transfers and a good record at other clubs. The only manger to consistently outperform the clubs financial position in the Premier over a long period of time is Moyes so if fans think there is someone who can come in and consistently do a better job than Hughton then they are seriously delusional. Possible but very unlikely.[/quote]

 

T, I don''t want to prolong this, because we agree on the essentials, but there is only one time to judge whether Hughton has "significantly outperformed" in that 25 per cent area (you originally said between 70 and 80 per cent so I split the difference).That is when we know how the final league table pans out and (which won''t be for many months) what the financials (and particularly wages) were for this season. Because we were 19th in the wage league table last season doesn''t mean we have been 19th this time around.

[Row D Seat 7 0]

For me: Martin O''Neil.

[Baracouda 47]

Wouldnt say O''Neill''s record is any better than Hughton.

Particularly scoring goals at Sunderland, and he spent shed loads more than Hughton (17m on a striker). Along with most of their squad would walk into the Norwich team on paper.

[T 190]

Purple I think that this whole debate should be had at the end of the season not now! 70pc correlation last season, 80pc correlation do far this season. There is a 98pc correlation between 10/11 and 11/12 financial rankings though and we know we are 19th this season on agency fees with only reading below so with our 10m debt repayments and lack of benefactor very much doubt if anyone apart from  possibly reading had a lower football budget than us this season.

[Absent Friend 0]

Strangely enough I''m almost more in favour of keeping Hughton if we go down than if we stay up. 

He has proved he can be successful in the Championship and most of his current squad are good Championship players, not much more than that.  So why waste money paying off exactly the sort of manager you need?  If we went down Ruddy would move on providing us with some funds and leaving Bunn, Rudd and Steer to stake their claims.  Snodgrass and one or two others might try to stay in the Prem but I''m not convinced there would be many takers. And our youth players would be more able to fight for the places rather than have to go out on loan.  So unless, possibly, Martin O''Neill wanted to come back and finish what he started so many years ago I''d stick with him.

But if we stay up I can''t see things being much different next year or the year after.  But then would it be whoever is in charge?  Wigan have never progressed beyond the bottom 6.  Bolton, Middlesborough, Fulham, Newcastle and Stoke all found their way into Europe for a year but two of those are back in the Championship and the other 3 have never broken through to sit comfortably with the established top 6 or 7 fixtures.  So in truth we are very likely to be looking over our shoulder every year until one day we drop down again.  That''s the way it is nowadays.

In reality the Board aren''t going to get rid of him if he keeps us up.  So personally I just hope their mesage to him would be that the entertainment value has to improve.  If we are set for several years of anxiously scratching around the middle or bottom third of the division then we should at least be able to enjoy the football, something that bar one or two games we haven''t been able to do this season.  I''m not convinced Hughton can bring us that, but we''ll see.  If RVW lives up to expectations, if he can bring us (say) Nathan Redmond - and that must be a possibility - if James Vaughan returns fit and a different option from the Holt/Becchio mould and if he can find a creative midfieldr who really is Premiership quality then maybe he could do it.  We''ll see.  

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="T"]Purple I think that this whole debate should be had at the end of the season not now! 70pc correlation last season, 80pc correlation do far this season. There is a 98pc correlation between 10/11 and 11/12 financial rankings though and we know we are 19th this season on agency fees with only reading below so with our 10m debt repayments and lack of benefactor very much doubt if anyone apart from  possibly reading had a lower football budget than us this season.[/quote]

 

Me too! I didn''t start it. I just decided to add a touch of spice to the discussion by saying McNally should be sacked if Hughton was...

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

Good posts T, especially the point about Lambert''s massive diversion from expected performance putting Hughton''s in a worse light than perhaps it should.I think we can safely say that anyone who wants Hughton out because of results, is not really being fair. However some people are more concerned with style and entertainment than results, and that is something that isn''t so easily dismissed.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Now Indy, I''d be interested to know when the right time was for Wolves to sack their manager?[/quote]To fully answer this I need information that I simply don''t have available, but based on what I think at the minute:For me, the summer transfer window was a disaster for them, they overspent on Roger Johnson, but brought no-one else of real quality in to bulk up a very average side. Both Doyle and Ebanks-Blake had struggled for goals the season before, and a quality striker was a virtual necessity that never arrived.The further lack of signings in January was another disaster, at which point the damage was done and it was a very tough ask to keep them up at that point.Personally, I''d have gotten rid of McCarthy after the defeat against Chelsea near the end of November, which would have given them time to get a proven manager in, and given him the January window to make signings (assuming the cash was there).The appointment of Connor when they did was both pointless and incredibly short sighted, he was never likely to be the right man going forwards, and was put in an impossible position and got a lot of unfair grief, despite having been left completely in the s**t with the situation.Wolves were simply a side with too many ''battlers'' and not enough quality (sound like our central midfield much?), and apart from Fletcher, they also didn''t have a consistent goalscorer (Jarvis aside) which hurt them badly too many times when players like Doyle spurned great chances. Throw a hack master like Karl Henry into the mix and it was never going to end well...That''s my take on it anyway.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

In short, they put stadium expansion before squad development and paid the price.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"]For me: Martin O''Neil.[/quote]For me, he can take a long walk off the shortest pier in existence and hopefully land in shark infested water...Walked out on us during the Chase regime after throwing a hissy fit over not signing Dean Windass, and since then has gone from club to club demanding a fortune be spent on players and if it''s not forthcoming - he walks.We''d be back in debt within a month if he had his way, and he would probably leave in Jan after the board refused to sanction spending millions on ex-Sunderland or Villa players...If we''re going to appoint someone from within the UK leagues, then Poyet has to be the first name on the list, but we should also consider looking abroad at potential options.I''d rather take a kick in the sack than have O''Neill come back here tbh...

[Baracouda 47]

But when you look at their stadium plans to ours, I think the cost is significantly different.

Believe 40 to 50m was talked about for Wolves.

[basil brush 0]

Martin O''Neill is a spent force. He hasn''t looked happy and indeed well for a long time. The fire has gone. I would not want Hughton replaced by O''Neill if and when the vacancy arises.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="nutty nigel"]QPR and Reading sacked the manager, Wolves sacked 2 or 3.[/quote]
All at the wrong time NN.

The new managers coming in had virtually no choice but to work with the existing sides, all of which simply weren''t good enoug
[/quote]

Just remind me Indy who bought Samba and Remy for a combined cost of £20 million at QPR, also who purchased Jermaine Jeanis and got on loan Andros Townsend at QPR.

[Herman 9,713]

"basil brush"Martin O''Neill is a spent force. He hasn''t looked happy and indeed well for a long time. The fire has gone. I would not want Hughton replaced by O''Neill if and when the vacancy arises.

Absolutely spot on.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Now Indy, I''d be interested to know when the right time was for Wolves to sack their manager?[/quote]
To fully answer this I need information that I simply don''t have available, but based on what I think at the minute:

For me, the summer transfer window was a disaster for them, they overspent on Roger Johnson, but brought no-one else of real quality in to bulk up a very average side. Both Doyle and Ebanks-Blake had struggled for goals the season before, and a quality striker was a virtual necessity that never arrived.

The further lack of signings in January was another disaster, at which point the damage was done and it was a very tough ask to keep them up at that point.

Personally, I''d have gotten rid of McCarthy after the defeat against Chelsea near the end of November, which would have given them time to get a proven manager in, and given him the January window to make signings (assuming the cash was there).

The appointment of Connor when they did was both pointless and incredibly short sighted, he was never likely to be the right man going forwards, and was put in an impossible position and got a lot of unfair grief, despite having been left completely in the s**t with the situation.

Wolves were simply a side with too many ''battlers'' and not enough quality (sound like our central midfield much?), and apart from Fletcher, they also didn''t have a consistent goalscorer (Jarvis aside) which hurt them badly too many times when players like Doyle spurned great chances. Throw a hack master like Karl Henry into the mix and it was never going to end well...

That''s my take on it anyway.
[/quote]

 

So November 12th 2012 was the right time for QPR to hasve appointed ''arry and not the wrong time as you stated earlier?

 

It''s all so easy on here in hindsight. November 2011 woulds have been perfect to replace McCarthy but November 2012 meant Redknapp "had virtually no choice but to work with the existing sides, all of which simply weren''t good enough" at QPR.