Hughton - Pro's v Con's list

[Vazzza 62]

I can’t believe what I''ve been reading on this forum of late. I''m a lurker that rarely posts unless I feel there is something really constructive I can add. Now there have been a 101 threads about Hughton, and I''m going to add another as I really am amazed by a lot of what I have read and wanted to get a pro vs con list going to see if Hughton really is the right man for the job (in the forums opinion anyway)

Hughton has been, unnecessarily, defensive in his tactics. Especially since Xmas when it was looking like we''d be cruising to a mid-table finish. I''m not talking formation, but the tactics used within that formation. 1 up top can be attacking if you have the correct movement in midfield and full-backs overlapping etc. But anyway, that''s not what this thread is about. Reason I bring it up is, that’s the only thing I can see Hughton has done wrong (and potentially his PR tactics, but that’s open to debate as I’m sure he doesn’t convey the same message in the dressing room)

What I''m surprised by is the amount of fans who are calling for Hughtons head, or at least wouldn''t be happy with him staying here next year when (if) we stay up. It’s been said a lot of times that Hughton is developing his squad and doesn''t have the players to play the style he wants, I''m a firm believer of this and think this is the main point everyone needs to grasp. I highly doubt CH wants to be sitting back, playing squeaky bum time every game. Give him a choice I think he’d rather be 3-0 up by the time the half time oranges come out. But he obviously feels the squad isn’t at that point yet. Why, I don’t know, perhaps it really is a confidence thing.

He did a great job on overhauling the defence last summer. There has been debates as to whether or not it is actually better as the goals conceded column doesn’t make much better reading than last year, but clean sheets are what matter, and a fit JR all season would have meant even less shipped. So IMO, job done there. I’d be happy going into next season with what we’ve got (other than sorting Garrido out with a perm, or finding someone of equal/better quality).

So now is the time to sort out the attacking side of things. RvW already in. Potentially the best signing we’ll have seen in recent history, if he adjusts to the league as we all hope. If we can get a decent box to box midfielder/playmaker and a new left winger I really think that is us set and we’ll be able to start seeing CH play how he wants his team to play. And don’t get me wrong, that will not be all out attacking football, but it will be measured attacking football as we’ve seen him do successfully in our unbeaten run this year. Add an RvW to that run and a lot of those draws would have been wins and we’d have been chasing European places by now.

So in a nutshell: -

Hughton Negatives/Cons
- Current tactics (including late subs and defensive approach) – Debatable he will not do this when he has his own team put together
- That’s all I’ve got, other than this way he speaks to the press which, I think, we over hype.

Hughton Positives/Pros
- Actively improving the first team and squad (Tetty, RvW, Bassong etc etc)
- Has a master plan on how to move the club forward (Built decent foundations, just need to take it to the next stage)
- Buys into the NCFC ethos of living within your means
- Genuine nice guy that fits the NCFC mould
- Puts up with us lot!

To me, the positives outweigh the negatives, but please add some more of your own! I think by the end of it we’ll all see Hughton is the right man for the job and is just using the wrong method to ensure survival this year, which will hopefully work out anyway and be ditched next year when new players arrive.

 

[Kirkstall Yellow 0]

Good post, i agree with you.

Hughton''s birmingham were the highest away scorers in the championship and often set out with a very attacking approach last season. Hughton knows how to play like that, but is currently unable to because he has to make us as solid as he can because of the quality we face in this league. Next year (assuming we stay up, because we still have a very good chance of doing so) i''m sure we will see a much more fluent attack, and many more goals as hughton build on our strong defence.

I like hughton, i think he is a good manager, and a good fit for city. He''s doing well to make the best of lamberts team. this summer will give hughton the chance to develop the attacking side of our squad sufficiently to make us more competitve/consistant next season. and im looking forward to that.

[William Darby 0]

If you want to include ''nice bloke'' as a for. You really need to balance it up with, continues to ''big'' the opposition up as an against.

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

His squad/team is still a work in progress and so he deserves another year in charge at least. I''m sure Chris Hughton is sensible enough to ignore all the negative stuff that has been said about him and will look forward nervelessly to another season in charge at Carrow Road.

[Vazzza 62]

quote user = "The Pink''un Role Model" - If you want to include ''nice bloke'' as a for. You really need to balance it up with, continues to ''big'' the opposition up as an against. - End Quote

But is it really a negative. We may see it as one, but I highly doubt the squad do. I know none of us are in the dressing room or at the training ground every day, but I guess Hughton doesn''t give the same vibe to the team. I assume they''ve been briefed to ignore the CH love-in for everything non-Norwich, its all mind games. Why he does it after a game I don''t know, but pre-match I guess its to try and make the opposition complacent.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Why Hughton can''t get the credit he probably deserves is down to the recent history of our club.   Paul Lambert was a hard act to follow for anybody. 

However, the people that have been knocking him all season are just failing to accept things as they are.   Hughton is great at  saying how things are and over the course of time i believe his approach will work.   As has been said many times, he is not a defensive manager.   Even though we scored twice on Saturday people are still saying it.  If KK had scored his chance, we very probably would have won the match.    At Sunderland we looked good going forward, even after the sending off.    We''ve had a few games since Christmas where we have struggled to create chances, but what about Spurs at home?  Everton we beat 2-1.   Before Christmas we had been creating even more. Man City - 3 goals,  Wigan home 2, Swansea away 4, Sunderland home.   And we had that ten match run.  

So what does it boil down to?   A different approach by a manager who is on a mission to develop us into a more established premiership side.   Not wrong, just different.     But everything he does is irrationally seen as negative by some people - perhaps they are still hungover from the Paul Lambert era. No one likes the fact that we are a touch too near the bottom three for comfort, but its not just that, is it?   Some people haven''t accepted Hughton and taken him on face value.    He is too "nice" for them.    His interviews are too honest for them.   His teams are too negative for them, even though its more down to the players than it is him.  

I am absolutely positive that Hughton sets his teams out to play balanced football - good in defence and good in attack.   But at the end of the day its down to the players to play in the way he wants.   They are trying - and do you know, quite often they have achieved it this season.  But football is not as easy as some would like.    We have struggled sometimes to create, but we don''t give a lot away either- and that is positive too in its own way.

Patience is the key, a little more appreciation of the difficult job Hughton has to do - and perhaps accepting the possibility that actually, he wants an attacking team too - its just going to take a little time.   

And we are still on course to stay in this division and that at the end of the day is what matters.

[Salopian 1]

Vazzza, especially in discussing the con, is surely right. CH is operating with players from Div 1 days or Championship who were bought very cheaply - Martin, Johnson, Wes, Holt, Pilks, Fox, Surman and other players bought by Lambert cheaply for the Premiership. CH has added cheaply - Garrido, Turner, Tettey, Butterfield, Whittaker and perhaps Bassong.

None of these purchases before RVW were destined to be stand out players, except possibly Ruddy. They are all good professionals, but not really international class, - players who can change a game by their own efforts. If we ask why has CH not done as well as Lambert, if this is true, then we don''t have to lok far. In a second season other sides have worked out our strengths and weaknesses, and our good honest players are sometimes found out.(Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Holt has been less effective this year - opponents have worked out how to play him - he is no longer the "unknown".

 

Now things are changing. It seems that we shall spend some real money, and have started with RvW. He was promised further good signings. The real judgement on CH should be after he has signed them, and demonstrated that he is an astute manager.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Why Hughton can''t get the credit he probably deserves is down to the recent history of our club.   Paul Lambert was a hard act to follow for anybody. 

[/quote]That is absolutely, nail-on-the-head, 100% bang on LDC.

Had CH not directly succeeded The Messiah then we would all be lauding a great 2nd season in the  prem.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

I think this thread will be alot more constructive at the end of the season, when we know whether he has achieved what he set out to do and we can look back at the season as a whole. Some negatives may become positives and vice versa depending on the outcome.

[Jersey Canary 143]

I don''t think injuries have helped. Ruddy is a big miss as is Pilks. Whittaker started to show promise and then got injured again. All in all we would have been safe had these players been available more. Ref. my Ruddy post.

[Sussexyellow 55]

Well done Vazzza for bringing more balance to the debate on CH.

I agree 1 up top can be attacking. I think technically that is what Swansea went with on Saturday (Luke Moore) and that was hardly a defensive display. The difference is they pressed up as a unit whereas our 1 up top too frequently becomes isolated. However as is frequently stated we are still work in progress so with a bit of squad strengthening hopefully we can play some decent stuff next season. 

However "next season" currently comes with a big caveat! So I agree with Yellowbeagle that the debate has more potential to be constructive once we know where we are.

A lot of the current negativity against CH I feel is because we all sense that its coming down to one season defining game - Reading. Win that and there will be more balance in the debate. Lose or draw, and the reaction well............

More posting and less lurking Vazzza.

OTBC

[Vazzza 62]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"]

A lot of the current negativity against CH I feel is because we all sense that its coming down to one season defining game - Reading. Win that and there will be more balance in the debate. Lose or draw, and the reaction well............

[/quote]

Fair enough Hughton''s 1 and only goal this year is to keep us in the Prem. However I feel if the worst does happen and we go down, Chris still is the right man for the job. Assuming its true and we still get RvW, and we managed to keep hold to the majority of our players (Which I honestly don''t think would be a problem, could see people coming in for Ruddy and maybe Snodders but otherwise our squad would stay intact as we wouldn''t NEED to sell, would only be those players that demand prem football) I think we''d bounce straight back up and all that would have happened is Chris'' master plan would be set back a year.

I can see a plan in motion, a few dull games and bad results isn''t going to change that plan. I think even being relegated wouldn''t put a stop to it.

[Row D Seat 7 0]

Pro''s -

- Good signings for the most part. However - Jury still out on Becchio and Butterfield. Harry Kane was the cheap option and a poor signing for a Premiership team needing goals. Obviously RVW is yet to play for us so time will tell with that one.

Con''s -

- Negative tactics. This is a huge reason why we have been dragged into the relegation battle. Despite consistently failing to pick up points, we stick to the same formation, even away at Wigan when many teams would have gone for it. Not us! As always, we are happy with the point and deservedly ended up coming away with nothing. He goes into games looking for a point and that could be our downfall.

- Failure to make impact subs (usually just goes like for like).

- Not willing to take risks. Ties in with the above Con. Not willing to change formation most of the time, when making subs.

- Sticks to the same personnel, even when they haven''t performed on a consistent basis.

- His interviews after games always praise the quality of the opposition almost justifying why we lost or dropped points.

[Sussexyellow 55]

RDS7 - Your first three cons are sub points of the point Vazzza has already made as a con on tactics.

I agree that we do not rotate personnel enough. Makes us too predictable. But then I can already hear the cries that we do not have the quality in depth to rotate.

I do not go along with the clamour that Hughton cuts a poor press image. I watch the press interview each week and to me it does not come across as negatively as has been suggested on this forum. Possibly its the way it is subsequently reported that gives that impression. Basically what I believe he is saying is that there are no easy games in the division, and that comes across as praising the opposition. Which is no different from what PL said last year. I do not think he is different to other managers in that respect. When we played Man U, SAF referred to our positives well organised, difficult to break down. Not weakness just a realistic assessment of what can be expected in the upcoming game.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

How do the interviews after the game affect anything on the pitch? The only reason managers do these interviews is because it''s part of the megabucks tv deals. The tv companies want Hollaway. It''s better just to talk a load of measured twaddle and get the hell out of it.

 

 

[Sussexyellow 55]

Vazzza I was not suggesting that we ditch CH if we go down. Just pointing out that we know we are coming up for a season defining game, and that if it goes badly the clamour for him to go will rise exponentially.

I think I would agree that he remains the man for the job even if we go down. Chopping and changing managers is not always or indeed usually a solution. Hasn''t worked out too well for Blackburn has it. Also the successful clubs tend to be those with longevity of managers. Chelsea have suffered from changing too frequently whereas Everton have probably over achieved relative to their resources under Moyes.

I think when appointing Hughton McNally would have been realistic enough to accept that relegation was a possibility and made the appointment with that in mind i.e. a manager that could do a job in getting us promoted back from the championship. As has been said Hughton has a good record in that division. That said I do not think we would get out of the Championship by just being hard to beat, well not out in an upwards direction. So I would hope we would be much more attacking and in turn entertaining to watch. If not I could be persuaded to change my position on this.

OTBC

[Katie Borkins 1]

Maybe we ought to be looking at a "professional media spokesman" who can say some right old wacky nonsense to entertain the journalists and make sure we get a look in on Sky Sports every couple of days or so, but make it clear that his views aren''t nothing to do with Houghton or Calderwood or McNally.  That''s like having your cake and eating it.  He could say stuff like "I''m sending Holty to North Korea to learn how to shoot" or "Now even Maggie Thatcher''s more dangerous in the box than old fat boy", they''d lap that stuff up like golden milk.