HUGHTON SACKED.

[IamonlyoneGuy 0]

The problem with sacking Hughton now is that who would we replace him with?

- O''Neill? In my opinion he is very similar to Hughton in style i.e. they both find defence the best form of attack.

- Di Matteo? I''m still unconvinced by him. WBA obviously sacked him for some reason when they were doing ok (Deja Vu of Hughton maybe?) and he won the CL by parking the bus against Barcaelona and Bayern.

Who else: Holloway? Tactically inept. Ince? Once again, similar to Hughton.

Personally I would like to Zola to replace Hughton but I cannot see it happening as I doubt he would leave Watford. I also saw a stat when Hughton joined us that said that his Birmingham side had one of the highest shot counts in the Championship so the maybe the board identified him on this account.

At this moment in time I would like to see Hughton stay, but he MUST shake the team up e.g. Wes for Elmander, Pilks for Snoddy etc.

[Bill 1,788]

" I also saw a stat when Hughton joined us that said that his Birmingham

side had one of the highest shot counts in the Championship so the

maybe the board identified him on this account."

there is rather a thought that that comment is not a wind up

when he goes and it''s looking sooner rather than later the manager who is appointed will be someone who is one for the long term and certainly notcone of the usual suspects - might even be someone out of the jock leaguebut it certainly won''t be based on some absurd meaningless statistical nonsense

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

[quote user="IamonlyoneGuy"]The problem with sacking Hughton now is that who would we replace him with?

- O''Neill? In my opinion he is very similar to Hughton in style i.e. they both find defence the best form of attack.

- Di Matteo? I''m still unconvinced by him. WBA obviously sacked him for some reason when they were doing ok (Deja Vu of Hughton maybe?) and he won the CL by parking the bus against Barcaelona and Bayern.

Who else: Holloway? Tactically inept. Ince? Once again, similar to Hughton.

Personally I would like to Zola to replace Hughton but I cannot see it happening as I doubt he would leave Watford. I also saw a stat when Hughton joined us that said that his Birmingham side had one of the highest shot counts in the Championship so the maybe the board identified him on this account.

At this moment in time I would like to see Hughton stay, but he MUST shake the team up e.g. Wes for Elmander, Pilks for Snoddy etc.[/quote]

In fairness to Di Matteo, if I were in charge, I would park the bus against Barca or Bayern. In that scenario I would agree with an ultra-defensive approach. Just not against Hull... or Luton...

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I''m not saying he was pushed. But it''s certainly been suggested. And having twice been in the same room as Bowkett when he was asked about Lambert I can say without fear of being wrong that the gulf between the two is massive. It''s also been said that Lambert was the most difficult of men to work with. However these are personalities and despite what''s suggested managerial sackings and appointments are not everyday running of the club and would have to be decided by the whole board.

 

My point remains that the water under the bridge since this board took control makes is a different kettle of fish to the Gunn situation. A manager given a 1 year contract while the owners went about the more important business of finding new people to run the clubn for them.

 

 

[/quote]

 

“Paul did an amazing job for us…but with Paul you get a package. You get an outstanding football manager, but he is ruthlessly ambitious and possibly the most impatient man I have ever met!”

 

Bowkett may have meant that it in effect came to the same thing.

[/quote]

 

I stand corrected Purple. Those were the words he used. However the significance wasn''t really the words but the body language and intonation. The second time Bowket''s body language asnd intonation was the same but I believe the words were something like "after last time the lawyers have told me not to say anything"

 

 

[/quote]

 

It wasn''t really a correction, nutty! More an amplification. And I was interested to see Paul Moy''s post, because he was one of many who used phrases such as "total confidence" and "absolute faith" to describe how sure they were that McNally (entirely by himself, apparently) would make the right choice of successor to Lambert.

[ref89 0]

Bearing in mind the OP''s record if you don''t just get a bet on right now then you are going to miss out.

[JF 694]

Bringbackchippy are you out there!?

What other calls has the OP got right before?

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

So interesting to see certain board bully boys subtly adjusting their position on Chris Hughton as they sense the wind is changing. You know who you are.

I wasn''t afraid to express my views on Hughton''s ability as Norwich manager last year along with some others. But I''m not gloating at Hughton and I don''t see many of his initial detractors gloating at him either.

Stand by your man and when the tide turns try to make a few bob out of his downfall. I don''t like his football or his management style but wouldn''t pick over his carcass.

Where are the cries of ''pantwetters'' or don''t you people feel you have the security of numbers anymore?

I don''t hear the players coming out and defending CH either. I don''t hear the admissions of letting him down with poor play (as happened) and that is telling too?

[Shyster 0]

Chippy''s record is pretty good, but I can tell you that Hughton is going nowhere just yet.

Hold on to your money.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user=T]lets face it football fans are not the most intelligent demographic. A bbc report at the start of the season found that changing the manager did not make any difference to the outcome as clubs return to the mean average position governed by their financial position regardless of the manager which is 17th in the case of NCFC. Unfortunately, there are some NCFC fans due to the poor education standards in the county and the relatively low levels of genetic diversity that are unable to grasp this reality. It is laughable if it were not so sad that the critics say CH is clueless based on pure speculation and completely different team selections. There are 4 stages of learning: unconcious incompetence, concious incompetence, concious competence and unconcious incompetence. The posters on here have no professional playing experience or professional coaching qualifications and are therefore unconciously incompetent in their views.[/quote]

 

T, as you really big on education, I know you won''t mind me pointing out to you that, as you had five incorrect cracks at it, the correct spelling is "conscious."

Further, just to ensure you are in no doubt in your quest to achieve your diploma, that also applies to "unconscious." [:D]

[ref89 0]

Did I say I agreed with it?No I dont think he should be sacked.  On another day we would have beaten Villa.But yes I''m going to try and make some money out of it.You are still pantwetters and you will all start bleating like children when the new names are in the frame.

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]So interesting to see certain board bully boys subtly adjusting their position on Chris Hughton as they sense the wind is changing. You know who you are.

I wasn''t afraid to express my views on Hughton''s ability as Norwich manager last year along with some others. But I''m not gloating at Hughton and I don''t see many of his initial detractors gloating at him either.

Stand by your man and when the tide turns try to make a few bob out of his downfall. I don''t like his football or his management style but wouldn''t pick over his carcass.

Where are the cries of ''pantwetters'' or don''t you people feel you have the security of numbers anymore?

I don''t hear the players coming out and defending CH either. I don''t hear the admissions of letting him down with poor play (as happened) and that is telling too?[/quote]

[Stig 0]

I was excited for the season, given how we closed off the last one. I put the dross out of mind and forgot the whole affair. The season kicked off and a fair 2-2 draw and I looked forward to the next game, confident our signings would change our away mentality. I was wrong, and since Hull - maybe even Luton - I''ve had no interest in football. I''ve only checked the sky sports app once when we played Spurs and saw we were 1-0 and gave up. My sudden lack of care for football stems from the horrible football we play and the blatantly stupid touchline instructions. I saw the team sheet for yesterdays game and laughed. I laughed even harder when I heard who took our penalty. Until Hughton is as far from the club as possible I dare say I will be uninterested in following football because it''s one of the most boring aspects of my life. Chris Hughton is to blame for that, and I hope the OP is correct.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="JF"]Bringbackchippy are you out there!?

What other calls has the OP got right before?[/quote]

here''s a good call

[Juggy 0]

What a load of crap and here''s why.... 

[quote user="T"]lets face it football fans are not the most intelligent demographic. [/quote]

That would "Let''s" - note the use of an apostrophe and a capital letter. You should also consider a comma after ''it'', ''football fans'' are not a ''demographic''. I won''t bother correcting the other dozen or so grammatical errors, there are more pressing issues to contend with. 

[quote] A bbc report at the start of the season found that changing the manager did not make any difference to the outcome [/quote]

Did it escape you to notice that the only way to conclude whether mid-season managerial changes make any difference to ''outcome'' is to use a time machine, a contraption which doesn''t exist? 

[quote] as clubs return to the mean average position governed by their financial position regardless of the manager [/quote]

Really? So financial position determines success, rather than success determining financial position? Well I''ll take your word on that, but it would be worth pointing out that we had to repay a £13m bank loan last season. This season we don''t. So how many more points this season should that £13m be worth to the club?

[quote] which is 17th in the case of NCFC.  [/quote]

So one of the few clubs in the league to be free of external debt, and one of the biggest spending clubs outside of last seasons top 6, probably only matched by Southampton and Liverpool in terms of transfer spend, are the 17th worst off club in the league? Whilst we sit with £4m of internal debt and West Ham sit with £70m of external debt which they have to try and refinance by Christmas or face a possible CCJ and subsequent administration? Why are West Ham not bottom of them league? 

[quote] Unfortunately, there are some NCFC fans due to the poor education standards in the county [/quote]

The same county which has one of the highest proportions of graduates in the country? The one that is home to the UEA, where 55% of incoming students decide to settle in the city, more than any other university in the country? 

[quote] and the relatively low levels of genetic diversity that are unable to grasp this reality. [/quote]

Are you suggesting a correlation between low levels of genetic diversity and low levels of intelligence, and if you are then I''d be most interested in seeing the study. There are professors at the UEA who are specialise in genetics and there are reasons to believe that certain physical health problems in the county are the result of localised genetics, but I''ve never seen/found one which has found a correlation with IQ or ability and I doubt that you have either. 

[quote] It is laughable if it were not so sad that the critics say CH is clueless based on pure speculation and completely different team selections. [/quote]

You don''t have to be a prospective astronaut to see that Snodgrass tries to get the ball onto his strongest foot, and that Redmond tries to get the ball onto his strongest foot, and that our team hasn''t managed to land any crosses onto the head of our European class centre forward. Neither do you need to be a member of Mensa to see that Hughton has spent a lot of money on a left back who he now decides not to use, or to see that Elmander offers very little and that Hoolahan is going to be rotting in the reserves. Neither do you need to be an Ivy League graduate to recognise that the players are losing faith in themselves and the manager/tactics. 

[quote] There are 4 stages of learning: unconcious incompetence, concious incompetence, concious competence and unconcious incompetence. [/quote]

And Hughton is stuck at stage one.... unconcious incompetence. 

[quote] The posters on here have no professional playing experience or professional coaching qualifications and are therefore unconciously incompetent in their views.[/quote]

There are several posters on this forum with professional coaching qualifications. If making up rubbish was a measure of intelligence then you would rank very high. Unfortunately anybody can spew out a load of unfounded rubbish without citation. 

[nutty nigel 7,535]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]So interesting to see certain board bully boys subtly adjusting their position on Chris Hughton as they sense the wind is changing. You know who you are.

I wasn''t afraid to express my views on Hughton''s ability as Norwich manager last year along with some others. But I''m not gloating at Hughton and I don''t see many of his initial detractors gloating at him either.

Stand by your man and when the tide turns try to make a few bob out of his downfall. I don''t like his football or his management style but wouldn''t pick over his carcass.

Where are the cries of ''pantwetters'' or don''t you people feel you have the security of numbers anymore?

I don''t hear the players coming out and defending CH either. I don''t hear the admissions of letting him down with poor play (as happened) and that is telling too?[/quote]

 

I think you should be brave enough to name these bully boys Rudolph.

 

I would suggest that you''ve missed an opportunity on the previous page for you to regale us about the small minded Norfolk gene that passed you by.

 

Although both whether it''s a Norfolk gene and whether it passed you by are up for debate in my book...

 

 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]So interesting to see certain board bully boys subtly adjusting their position on Chris Hughton as they sense the wind is changing. [/quote]

Morty seems to have gone missing. 

[Bill 1,788]

as has Spangles and the Pinkun Role Modelthough I suspect Schlong Connery will be along soonso all is not lost

[ron obvious 1,502]

It''s highly problematical whether sacking Hughton would improve things. We may get an instantaneous upsurge - not uncommon - which may prove unsustainable - also not uncommon.

I think our performances are actually - erratically - improving; for me the Hull performance was the worst (although they''re not quite the pushovers some thought) & the Spurs game tactically wrong, & I think Hughton is still finding out his best team -which will vary with players'' form & the nature of the opposition.

There is also too much assumption that the top teams will roll over us every time; Spurs were exceptional & we didn''t know what hit us. We''ll be better prepared next time. So I wouldn''t be surprised at our getting a few points over the next half dozen games.

I hope we do. This place would look completely different!

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I''m not saying he was pushed. But it''s certainly been suggested. And having twice been in the same room as Bowkett when he was asked about Lambert I can say without fear of being wrong that the gulf between the two is massive. It''s also been said that Lambert was the most difficult of men to work with. However these are personalities and despite what''s suggested managerial sackings and appointments are not everyday running of the club and would have to be decided by the whole board.

 

My point remains that the water under the bridge since this board took control makes is a different kettle of fish to the Gunn situation. A manager given a 1 year contract while the owners went about the more important business of finding new people to run the clubn for them.

 

 

[/quote]

 

“Paul did an amazing job for us…but with Paul you get a package. You get an outstanding football manager, but he is ruthlessly ambitious and possibly the most impatient man I have ever met!”

 

Bowkett may have meant that it in effect came to the same thing.

[/quote]

 

I stand corrected Purple. Those were the words he used. However the significance wasn''t really the words but the body language and intonation. The second time Bowket''s body language asnd intonation was the same but I believe the words were something like "after last time the lawyers have told me not to say anything"

 

 

[/quote]

 

It wasn''t really a correction, nutty! More an amplification. And I was interested to see Paul Moy''s post, because he was one of many who used phrases such as "total confidence" and "absolute faith" to describe how sure they were that McNally (entirely by himself, apparently) would make the right choice of successor to Lambert.

[/quote]Purple, please give a link to the post, because that is a lie.  I said as soon as Hughton was appointed that he was the wrong man, many many times. I wanted Holloway.  Stop trolling. 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I''m not saying he was pushed. But it''s certainly been suggested. And having twice been in the same room as Bowkett when he was asked about Lambert I can say without fear of being wrong that the gulf between the two is massive. It''s also been said that Lambert was the most difficult of men to work with. However these are personalities and despite what''s suggested managerial sackings and appointments are not everyday running of the club and would have to be decided by the whole board.

 

My point remains that the water under the bridge since this board took control makes is a different kettle of fish to the Gunn situation. A manager given a 1 year contract while the owners went about the more important business of finding new people to run the clubn for them.

 

 

[/quote]

 

“Paul did an amazing job for us…but with Paul you get a package. You get an outstanding football manager, but he is ruthlessly ambitious and possibly the most impatient man I have ever met!”

 

Bowkett may have meant that it in effect came to the same thing.

[/quote]

 

I stand corrected Purple. Those were the words he used. However the significance wasn''t really the words but the body language and intonation. The second time Bowket''s body language asnd intonation was the same but I believe the words were something like "after last time the lawyers have told me not to say anything"

 

 

[/quote]

 

It wasn''t really a correction, nutty! More an amplification. And I was interested to see Paul Moy''s post, because he was one of many who used phrases such as "total confidence" and "absolute faith" to describe how sure they were that McNally (entirely by himself, apparently) would make the right choice of successor to Lambert.

[/quote]

Purple, please give a link to the post, because that is a lie.  I said as soon as Hughton was appointed that he was the wrong man, many many times. I wanted Holloway.  Stop trolling. 
[/quote]

 

Paul, surely you can see that you are reacting to an entirely different point than the one Purple is making. He was commenting on your total confidence in McNally to make the right choice.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"] I think Hughton is still finding out his best team -which will vary with players'' form & the nature of the opposition.  [/quote]

Really? I think he''s more the type to find 14 or 15 players that he trusts, and leave the rest to rot in the reserves.

We were absolutely dominated by Spurs, after the game he suggested that changes would be made.

ONE CHANGE. He made ONE F''IN CHANGE.... And it was a RIGHT BACK. 

We had Pilkington, Hoolahan, Hooper, Tettey - plenty of players that he could have completely mixed it up with. What about Olsson? Poor bloody Olsson. Poor Becchio at that. 

And David Fox. I know people don''t rate him, say what you like about him at least he can cross a ball. Our two best crossers of the ball weren''t on the pitch, and Olsson can put a mean ball in too. 

Snodgrass and Redmond can cross the ball, with their strongest feet. 

Why do you sign a 6ft 2" tall Dutch wonderkid who is desperate for service and can score with his head, and then make absolutely no provisions for service? 

Hughton has lost the plot. I can''t think of any other team in this league to play two wingers on the opposite side to their strongest foot. One perhaps, but two?! 

Not once did he think to switch Snodgrass and Redmond, not once. And yet we are led to believe by some that Hughton has some sort of tactical masterplan. He couldn''t even think to try switching the wingers for 15 minutes, what other managers wouldn''t think to do that where an out of form Snodgrass was getting the best of their full back and the fastest player on the pitch wasn''t getting a sniff?

Sorry but he has to go. He hasn''t got a clue. 

[Mister Chops 7]

Is that the same Holloway who''s doing such a sterling job knitting together a newly assembled squad at Crystal Palace?

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]Is that the same Holloway who''s doing such a sterling job knitting together a newly assembled squad at Crystal Palace?[/quote]To be fair they are showing plenty of effort but being totally outclassed by Swansea. Lucky it''s not 4 or 5 now.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="The New Boy Le Juge"][quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]So interesting to see certain board bully boys subtly adjusting their position on Chris Hughton as they sense the wind is changing. [/quote]

Morty seems to have gone missing. 

[/quote]

 

After pontificating on this obvious absentia of a prolific pontificator of succinct sarcastic verbage I have come to the inevitable conclusion that......he can''t be arsed. I''m sure I''m correct.

[BOO 0]

The New Boy (Le Juge) wrote the following post at 22/09/2013 2:51 PM:

RUDOLPH HUCKER wrote:

So interesting to see certain board bully boys subtly adjusting their position on Chris Hughton as they sense the wind is changing.

Morty seems to have gone missing.

I''m sure there is very good reason!

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

In terms of the tactics, does playing inverted wingers suit the top teams? ie do you play Robben and Ribery inverted because you''re a top team, and likely to have more possession and be occupying a position quite high up the pitch, allowing your wingers time on the ball and to jink their way in?

For a team likely to have whatever the opposite of the lion''s share is of possession, and occupying a deep defensive position, is inverted wingers not a completely inappropriate thing to do? In all of the debates about tactics and one up front and inverted wingers, the examples of teams effectively using this system seem to be the top teams.

We signed Wilbraham because Lambert said we needed a foothold in the opposition camp. Despite his detractors, he did a very good job of holding the ball up, and being a foothold in the opposition half whilst we got support further upfield.

Is playing inverted wingers totally incompatible with having little possession and playing a deep defensive line? The way we play just doesnt seem to work. Hughton has to be accountable for that, he decides on the tactics

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="City1st"]as has Spangles and the Pinkun Role Modelthough I suspect Schlong Connery will be along soonso all is not lost

[/quote]

Already have Mr Magoo, two pages back.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="The New Boy Le Juge"][quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]So interesting to see certain board bully boys subtly adjusting their position on Chris Hughton as they sense the wind is changing. [/quote]

Morty seems to have gone missing. 

[/quote]

After pontificating on this obvious absentia of a prolific pontificator of succinct sarcastic verbage I have come to the inevitable conclusion that......he can''t be arsed. I''m sure I''m correct.

[/quote]

Perhaps he is holding out to see if Stoke is the start of a ten game unbeaten run, so that he can be the very last person able to say "I told you so". 

Sometimes straws have to be clutched. 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Wolf"]The New Boy (Le Juge) wrote the following post at 22/09/2013 2:51 PM:

RUDOLPH HUCKER wrote:

So interesting to see certain board bully boys subtly adjusting their position on Chris Hughton as they sense the wind is changing.

Morty seems to have gone missing.

I''m sure there is very good reason![/quote]

Hangover? Broken smartphone? 

Or an even better reason? 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]In terms of the tactics, does playing inverted wingers suit the top teams? ie do you play Robben and Ribery inverted because you''re a top team, and likely to have more possession and be occupying a position quite high up the pitch, allowing your wingers time on the ball and to jink their way in?

For a team likely to have whatever the opposite of the lion''s share is of possession, and occupying a deep defensive position, is inverted wingers not a completely inappropriate thing to do? In all of the debates about tactics and one up front and inverted wingers, the examples of teams effectively using this system seem to be the top teams.

We signed Wilbraham because Lambert said we needed a foothold in the opposition camp. Despite his detractors, he did a very good job of holding the ball up, and being a foothold in the opposition half whilst we got support further upfield.

Is playing inverted wingers totally incompatible with having little possession and playing a deep defensive line? The way we play just doesnt seem to work. Hughton has to be accountable for that, he decides on the tactics[/quote]

Ribery is a world class player who can cut in and shoot or cut back out again and cross very well with his weaker foot.

Pilkington can do that, and that''s why Pilkington is the best wide player at this club. 

[BOO 0]

Next thing you know there will be someone on here impersonating him!