Papering over cracks

[KeelansGlove 0]

Great Result.

Far from convincing display, thought Elmander allowed Hooper to get into the game more.

3 valuable points lets see some more positivity against Newcastle and hope Hughton has learned something from the second half display.

I remain to be convinced but happy with 3 points all the same.

[Aggy 752]

I''m not sure it was papering over the cracks really. If we performed in every game as we did in the second half today, we would stay up comfortably. We pushed high up the pitch, often closing them down well in their own half, we soaked up pressure and never really looked in too much trouble, and whilst we weren''t passing it around like Arsenal we still created a few decent chances.

Basically, we played with some urgency and fight - and because the bottom half of this division is so poor, fight and urgency as good as keeps you up.

[YellowBlood 0]

When you''re in the rut we''re in, this sort of game can get you out of that rut and lift the confidence. We rode our luck at times but sometimes you need that little bit of luck to get things going in your direction.There is plenty we still need to work on and Hughton won''t be getting carrying away. He knows we need this to be the start of our climb up the table and the forefront of things to come for the rest of the season. Enjoyed the win but am not getting carried away.

[The Masked Raccoon 0]

CUSDP, ever heard of confidence? We got the break we needed and built on and got the 3 points back.

If all you can do is find something to moan about from that...then could you please sod off please? Stupid fan!

[Levi Stubbs 0]

[quote user="T"]The emphasis on the coach is ridculous. In my experience, a top qualified coach is a top qualified coach and its me that has to perform not the coach, only I can do it so the emphasis all the time on Hughton just demonstrates that all CH''s critics do not have a clue about professional sport at all.[/quote]What is your experience exactly?

[Nuff Said 5,089]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="iron_stan"]ldc thinks we played like 1970s brazil for 90 minutes[/quote]

A match lasts 90 minutes.   After 90 minutes we get three points and score three goals.   That''s good enough for me and should help boost the confidence for the next game.  

[/quote]

Come on LDC. You know a positive result after 90 minutes is a false result, in the same way 11th last season was a false position.

[Yellow Bird 0]

I do see where the opening poster is coming from, but what I can''t understand is, it was a really, really big game for Hughton today, so why were we truly awful in the first half, but improved in the second? Yes, Hughton probably gave the half time talk of his career, but, after last week''s shambles and Hughton''s job possibly on the line today, why didnt we perform first half?

[barclay_boy111 0]

Completely agree.

I am so happy for the team and for the club that we have the 3 points in the bag .. But their is no way on earth that the performance on a whole was something to be proud of.

Going 1-0 to a striker less team, scoring 1 goal from open play, relying on a FK (don''t get me wrong fantastic FK from Snodders) and a soft penalty to take the lead is woeful.

The players still clearly arnt happy Fer''s celebration proved it in my eyes running straight to Bassong and the whole team following and not even glancing at Hughton.

How Redmond isn''t starting is beyond me because if what I just saw was an "unfit" Redderz then what is the guy like when he''s fit?!

We desperately need 1 possibly 2 CB in Jan as Turner and Bennet are just not premier league material.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="I.S."]

I''m willing to accept that, but just remind me, who brought Hooper, Snodgrass and Fer to the club?[/quote]

err, the board of directors liasing with the scouting networkor perhaps you believe that all the interest from the club in Snodgrass a year before Hughton joined us was him preparing the ground ahead .......... or that he travels around Europe looking at players most of the weekas to the credit then it is only when the players are seen to be ignoring Hughton''s rather one dimensional tactics that they started to perform as well as they cantodays idea was to try and hit balls over or through the defence ... something that was twigged very early on and easily contained by WHUin that light perhaps it might be better if Hughton and the other two did spend their time wandering around europe ................ or anywhere that is far enough away from Colney

[barclay_boy111 0]

Oh and the lack of closing players down makes me sick, when we did eventually push wet spam we gained the ball with and looked threatening but majority of the time we just stood off players and gave them too much time

[*** 0]

Any team who have strikers in their side would have taken us to the cleaners in the first half.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

To all the posters who have used the expression ''strikerless''.......as a way of belittling the opposition, can anyone name the Spanish Club that regularly play ''strikerless''....oh and also have several league and cup , not to mention Champ league titles in the trophy cabinet in recent years?

[*** 0]

[quote user="wcorkcanary"]To all the posters who have used the expression ''strikerless''.......as a way of belittling the opposition, can anyone name the Spanish Club that regularly play ''strikerless''....oh and also have several league and cup , not to mention Champ league titles in the trophy cabinet in recent years?[/quote]

 

Are you seriously comparing West Ham or us to THEM?[:S]

[mrs miggins 0]

please don''t compare west ham to barcelona

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"]Any team who have strikers in their side would have taken us to the cleaners in the first half.[/quote]

Rubbish because any team with strikers would have had fewer midfield players and Howson and Fer would have been competing on more equal terms.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

No Wiz , i am not, i am merely making the point that playing 4-6-0 is not an admission by the side that plays that formation, that they are a) easy to beat or b) unable to score. Kevin Nolan played the false 9 with some aplomb. Those guys beat spurs 3 nil remember, playing strikerless. None of W hams players , when presented with an opportunity to score would say'' i''m not a striker ...i have no right to score''

[Fergodsake 0]

Im sorry but one of the reasons we struggled so much in the first half was because the midfield was over run. A 4-4-2 is always going to find it hard in the middle of the park against a 4-6-0. To claim that a team with strikers would have destroyed us in the first half is based on the false logic that West Ham would have somehow had 13 players worth on the pitch. Also West Ham cant be compared to Barcelona, but they also beat Spurs playing without an out and out striker. Credit where its due, they won with a highly convincing second half display after a performance last week I assumed would be the end of the manager, if Hughton gets that level out of the team against Newcastle and Palace we will get points.

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="First Wizard"]Any team who have strikers in their side would have taken us to the cleaners in the first half.[/quote]Er,no, because without the six in midfield they would have won far less of the ball. You can''t have it both ways, if you push more men forward you weaken the midfield.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Looks like Cambridge Canary and Fergodsake understand the game.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Can i just make it clear, i am not holding WHU up as being of similar stature as barca, merely that the 4-6-0 or ''strikerless'' system does not handicap a versatile well coached team.

[Gordon Bennett 780]

Perhaps if West Ham''s striker was their twelfth player on the field they would have put us to the sword in that first half, but to suggest that taking a man out of their midfield and having for example Carroll up front instead would have put the game to bed represents a lack of understanding of the game.

West Ham bossed the first half, we bossed the second and collected a deserved three points. Should have, would have, could have and ifs & buts are all irrelevant.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Ricardo has grasped the principle too.

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="barclay_boy111"]Oh and the lack of closing players down makes me sick, when we did eventually push wet spam we gained the ball with and looked threatening but majority of the time we just stood off players and gave them too much time[/quote]You can''t close down when playing 4 against 6, you will inevitably be out passed. It wasn''t until Hooper and Elmander dropped back a bit second half that we got more of the ball.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Bagpuss has it too.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="Icecream Snow"][quote user="Andrew Spanton"]Completely agree CUSDP.

Fantastic win and desperately needed three points. However there is no doubt that a bit a fortune and individual brilliance won the game, not managerial brilliance.[/quote]So when we do badly it''s Hughton''s fault.When we do well, it has nothing do with Hughton and the players decided to mutiny against him?[/quote]

This. At this moment in time I''d get rid of Hughton but to give him stick for the first half "display" and no credit for the second half is very very harsh.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

Im afraid I have to agree with the papering over the cracks metaphore. I think what yesterday demonstrated more than anything though was how football is played in the mind and not on the pitch. Despite good intentions in the first 5 minutes, we were quickly suppressed by West Ham and we sunk into ourselves and the fighting spirit wasnt there. West Ham inevitably scored and it was looking like a foregone conclusion. Then we get a lucky break with the penalty, an opportunity to score, and with the goal we became invigorated, and we were totally different.

Until we got the lucky break with the penalty is was looking like more of the first half. Getting the goal breathed new life into us. It wasnt anything Hughton did. And we didnt score the goal from open play, it was a bit of a gift really. Howsons effort deserved better so there was a sense of justification in Snoddy''s excellent free-kick, but again not from open play. Fer did well for his third but West Ham seemd a bit tired by then.

Im not trying to be negative for the sake of it, and lets enjoy the win, but lets not all pretend that this was a resounding win as a direct consequence of Hughtons approach. We were awful for a large portion of the game. The goal changed everything, and I think we were fortunate to get the penalty.

As I said though, football is played in the mind, and lets hope that this changes the performances now. Lets hope that a win and some goals means the players can go into the next game with some positivity and will play to the standards we know they are all capable of. I really hope this is a turning point for the team psychologically, but lets not pretend that the worrying signs have gone away. The team need to try to build some positive momentum

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

---quote user="T: The emphasis on the coach is ridculous. In my experience, a top qualified coach is a top qualified coach and its me that has to perform not the coach, only I can do it so the emphasis all the time on Hughton just demonstrates that all CH''s critics do not have a clue about professional sport at all.

Well, firstly Hughton is the manager not just a coach. In all walks of life a decent manager can get more out of his staff, football management is no different. And indeed, if there is an attitude problem or mental failings, we know who chose to sign these players. Also the players do not decide the tactics and formations which can also impact games.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]we get a lucky break with the penalty[/quote][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]Getting the goal breathed new life into us. It wasnt anything Hughton did.[/quote][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]And we didnt score the goal from

open play...Snoddy''s excellent free-kick, but again not from open

play.[/quote][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]Fer did well for his third but West Ham seemd a bit tired by then.[/quote]And that''s how it is with you outers, finding an excuse for everything good but blame the manager for every failing. Aint that a fact?[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

Im not trying to be negative for the sake of it[/quote]Yeah, right! [:S] 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

That''s quite so, GMD. This arrogant, "you don''t understand professional sport " guff is both patronising and misses the point . All yesterday proved is , as you say, proof that so much of football depends on the mind, and, let''s face it good old luck .

A hopeful punt into the middle gets spilled by Jussi, (who normally catches them in his sleep), compounded by a flail at Hoopers leg, and voilà...a pen. Up till that point we could not hit a cow''s @rse with a banjo. You could then see a collective realisation from the team that it could just be our day, and the whole atmosphere changed. Nothing at all to do with CH''s tactical genius.

But I know that the team and the more realistic of us fans realise that we are not going to get such lucky breaks in every game, and it will still require a change of emphasis by Hoots if we are going to make the strides nneded to fulfil the squad''s potential.

That said, it may just be a turning point, and we may now be pushing at an open door rather than trying to pull teeth as we have thus far .