Would you suffer a West Ham victory if?

[*** 0]

It finished Hughton as Norwich manager?

 

I don''t wish it or court it, but if thats what is needed then I''m prepared to suffer it.

 

Anyone else this desperate yet?

[splutcho 196]

You do wish it. We can all see through you.

Again, no I will not support anyone in beating Norwich.

I do now agree his position is getting to be untenable however.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

Oh FFS.

[ricardo 8,034]

No, its already a 6 pointer. We need a minimum of 5 points from the next 3 games and preferably 7.Changing the manager is not going to alter the fact that we aren''t good enough.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

That''s not really true Ricardo. Our players are more than good enough to achieve a comfortable mid table finish, and that''s not just my opinion but the opinion of most City fans I know and a great deal of neutrals, including the vast majority of the media.

We''re currently less than the sum of our parts.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

I will sleep soundly tonight knowing that my club has such a martyr.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]That''s not really true Ricardo. Our players are more than good enough to achieve a comfortable mid table finish, and that''s not just my opinion but the opinion of most City fans I know and a great deal of neutrals, including the vast majority of the media.

We''re currently less than the sum of our parts.[/quote]

Agree totally with this Mr B. This squad, particularly when fit, is more than capable of making a decent fist in the PL.

I just do not understand tha mindset of those who want to persist with Hughton. If you''ve spent money on a decent squad, and the manager cannot get a good run of results, then what you do is get rid of him and bring someone else in who can.

[......and Smith must score. 1,600]

[quote user="ricardo"]No, its already a 6 pointer. We need a minimum of 5 points from the next 3 games and preferably 7.Changing the manager is not going to alter the fact that we aren''t good enough.[/quote]Don''t follow that one Ricardo.The chances are the players would be comfortably good enough if there was another man in charge.

[Green and Yellow fellow 0]

No. But the point is, if we loose to West Ham, Hughton should be sacked. End Of.

In reality none of us expected to to get anything out of Man City, it was just the way our team were so easily turned over. Our fans spend time and money to travel to Man City, where after 25 mins the game was already finished. Not good enough.

That would have to be the final straw, West Ham at home is a game where he HAS to prove a point. He has to prove that he''s still capable of putting out a team which can play positive football and get the three points when we needed them. I last recall the time when he was under a similar amount of pressure, we came out at beat West Brom 4-0. Makes you wonder even more now if West Brom and City were already thinking of their holidays.

But lets all back Hughton if he''s still here on Saturday for one last time under this situation, and hope he comes up with the goods. If he doesn''t he has to go. Simple.

[Guest]

[quote user="First Wizard"]

It finished Hughton as Norwich manager?

 

I don''t wish it or court it, but if thats what is needed then I''m prepared to suffer it.

 

Anyone else this desperate yet?

[/quote]

Look at me,look at me, I''m Wheeze no mates seeking more attention.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="ricardo"]No, its already a 6 pointer. We need a minimum of 5 points from the next 3 games and preferably 7.Changing the manager is not going to alter the fact that we aren''t good enough.[/quote]Don''t follow that one Ricardo.The chances are the players would be comfortably good enough if there was another man in charge.[/quote]Wishful thinking at best. There is something very wrong with a team that concedes an average of 2 goals a game. People keep focusing on the strikers and seem to ignore the fact that if you concede 70+ goals in a season you will certainly be relegated. We aren''t losing unlucky 1-0''s.When relegation threatened clubs sack their managers people think the problem will be solved. There''s an article somewhere that investigated this premise and found that it made no difference at all in the medium to long term and very little difference in the short term.

[Guest]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="ricardo"]No, its already a 6 pointer. We need a minimum of 5 points from the next 3 games and preferably 7.

Changing the manager is not going to alter the fact that we aren''t good enough.
[/quote]

Don''t follow that one Ricardo.

The chances are the players would be comfortably good enough if there was another man in charge.
[/quote]

Wishful thinking at best. There is something very wrong with a team that concedes an average of 2 goals a game. People keep focusing on the strikers and seem to ignore the fact that if you concede 70+ goals in a season you will certainly be relegated. We aren''t losing unlucky 1-0''s.

When relegation threatened clubs sack their managers people think the problem will be solved. There''s an article somewhere that investigated this premise and found that it made no difference at all in the medium to long term and very little difference in the short term.
[/quote]

Unless you find another Lambert Ricardo. I hate to harp on about Lambert but wonder if there is another one out there somewhere?

[sonyc 6,145]

The West Ham match will end as a draw.....2-2 probably. And we will know nothing more about the manager situation in the immediate aftermath... but the international break will be interesting because I truly expect the board to act then. He has West Ham to set up a team to win ....but no doubt it will be the same 451 we have shown quite clearly is not our best set up. Obvious to at least 20,000 I reckon. We need new ideas and formations. We have the players.

[*** 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="ricardo"]No, its already a 6 pointer. We need a minimum of 5 points from the next 3 games and preferably 7.

Changing the manager is not going to alter the fact that we aren''t good enough.
[/quote]

Don''t follow that one Ricardo.

The chances are the players would be comfortably good enough if there was another man in charge.
[/quote]

Wishful thinking at best. There is something very wrong with a team that concedes an average of 2 goals a game. People keep focusing on the strikers and seem to ignore the fact that if you concede 70+ goals in a season you will certainly be relegated. We aren''t losing unlucky 1-0''s.

When relegation threatened clubs sack their managers people think the problem will be solved. There''s an article somewhere that investigated this premise and found that it made no difference at all in the medium to long term and very little difference in the short term.
[/quote]

 

So you wanted to keep Gunn too Ricardo, and Worthy, Grant and Roeder?

[Mr Brownstone 0]

So what is the problem Ricardo?

Lambert''s back 4 consisted of Tierney, Drury, Lappin, Whitbread, Ward, Ayala, Bennett, Martin and Naughton, it never once looked like it was in a relegation battle and finished a comfortable 12 on 47 points.

Last season Hughton brought in virtually a whole new back 4 we went on a great run from October to December. The rest is history and although we flirted seriously with relegation those 2 wins against West Brom and Citeh bumped us up to 11th place on 44 points.

He''s hugely improved the starting 11 again this year so why shouldn''t we be able to improve, or at least equal last seasons position?

[Mr Brownstone 0]

Oh, and Richie De Laet.

[Bws Cat 0]

" I don''t wish it or court it, but if thats what is needed then I''m prepared to suffer it.

Anyone else this desperate yet?"

There''s actually a Freudian slip wiz makes here.

Wiz makes the statement that he doesn''t want to "wish it or court it" yet only a few sentences later he states "anyone else this desperate yet?"

"Anyone else" being the key here.

Surely if wiz was not of this opinion he would say something more akin to " does anybody think this?" ?

Anyone else suggests he''s made his mind up.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="ricardo"]No, its already a 6 pointer. We need a minimum of 5 points from the next 3 games and preferably 7.Changing the manager is not going to alter the fact that we aren''t good enough.[/quote]Don''t follow that one Ricardo.The chances are the players would be comfortably good enough if there was another man in charge.[/quote]Wishful thinking at best. There is something very wrong with a team that concedes an average of 2 goals a game. People keep focusing on the strikers and seem to ignore the fact that if you concede 70+ goals in a season you will certainly be relegated. We aren''t losing unlucky 1-0''s.When relegation threatened clubs sack their managers people think the problem will be solved. There''s an article somewhere that investigated this premise and found that it made no difference at all in the medium to long term and very little difference in the short term.[/quote]

 

So you wanted to keep Gunn too Ricardo, and Worthy, Grant and Roeder?

[/quote]They all have their "sell by" dates, even Lambert.Hughton will have his but only McNally will know when that is.The rest is just hot air.

[skeps 0]

lose at home to a relegation rival would leave us in a situation wher we need to win 9-10 game''s in the next 4 months, no thanks

[......and Smith must score. 1,600]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="ricardo"]No, its already a 6 pointer. We need a minimum of 5 points from the next 3 games and preferably 7.Changing the manager is not going to alter the fact that we aren''t good enough.[/quote]Don''t follow that one Ricardo.The chances are the players would be comfortably good enough if there was another man in charge.[/quote]Wishful thinking at best. There is something very wrong with a team that concedes an average of 2 goals a game. People keep focusing on the strikers and seem to ignore the fact that if you concede 70+ goals in a season you will certainly be relegated. We aren''t losing unlucky 1-0''s.When relegation threatened clubs sack their managers people think the problem will be solved. There''s an article somewhere that investigated this premise and found that it made no difference at all in the medium to long term and very little difference in the short term.[/quote]It may be wishful thinking but are we instead going to limp along as we are ?How do you truly define a relegation threatened club anyway ? I''ll bet this investigation included a lot of situations where there were a lot less games than 28 for the team to play. If we act swiftly we''ll be OK, if we don''t it''ll be a lot lot harder.

[Brightside 0]

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]That''s not really true Ricardo. Our players are more than good enough to achieve a comfortable mid table finish, and that''s not just my opinion but the opinion of most City fans I know and a great deal of neutrals, including the vast majority of the media.

We''re currently less than the sum of our parts.[/quote]

Agree with the majority of this. The major problem for me is that we are already 1/4 through the season and are running out of time to achieve the 38 or so points I believe we will need to survive. We already need more than one point per game. The more time spent procrastinating the more we face championship football next year. The time for allowing Hughton time has gone. Unless we get all three points against West Ham he has got to go.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="ricardo"]No, its already a 6 pointer. We need a minimum of 5 points from the next 3 games and preferably 7.Changing the manager is not going to alter the fact that we aren''t good enough.[/quote]Don''t follow that one Ricardo.The chances are the players would be comfortably good enough if there was another man in charge.[/quote]Wishful thinking at best. There is something very wrong with a team that concedes an average of 2 goals a game. People keep focusing on the strikers and seem to ignore the fact that if you concede 70+ goals in a season you will certainly be relegated. We aren''t losing unlucky 1-0''s.When relegation threatened clubs sack their managers people think the problem will be solved. There''s an article somewhere that investigated this premise and found that it made no difference at all in the medium to long term and very little difference in the short term.[/quote]

The problem with these studies (if they really are that) they are based on stats.  And the most important stat is unknown.  And that''s the stat concerning what would''ve happened if the sacked manager had stayed.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="John from the Tomorrow People"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="ricardo"]No, its already a 6 pointer. We need a minimum of 5 points from the next 3 games and preferably 7.Changing the manager is not going to alter the fact that we aren''t good enough.[/quote]Don''t follow that one Ricardo.The chances are the players would be comfortably good enough if there was another man in charge.[/quote]Wishful thinking at best. There is something very wrong with a team that concedes an average of 2 goals a game. People keep focusing on the strikers and seem to ignore the fact that if you concede 70+ goals in a season you will certainly be relegated. We aren''t losing unlucky 1-0''s.When relegation threatened clubs sack their managers people think the problem will be solved. There''s an article somewhere that investigated this premise and found that it made no difference at all in the medium to long term and very little difference in the short term.[/quote]

The problem with these studies (if they really are that) they are based on stats.  And the most important stat is unknown.  And that''s the stat concerning what would''ve happened if the sacked manager had stayed.

[/quote]

 

Yes that is the problem. It''s all hypothetical. A team could stay loyal to their managers and we don''t know if any replacement would have done better. A team could sack their manager and we don''t know if the sacked manager could have done better than the replacement. That''s why it''s a gamble either way. Fear of failure is no good reason not to try. But that is equally applicable to keeping or sacking the manager. Posters are all over this board advocating sacking Hughton. But they don''t have to make that decision. I''m glad I don''t have to either.

 

There is one thing which may or may not be relevant. I think most promoted sides go back to where they came from within 3 years. Those that haven''t have been probably been braver keeping their managers and have benefited for that stability. But then maybe they haven''t had a manager as bad as Hughton? Who knows! It''s a sure bet I don''t. But I read on here last night that "anybody would be better than Hughton" and that so reminded me of "anybody would be better than Worthy". That didn''t turn out to be the case.

 

 

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

No we need 3 pts regardless

[im spartacus canary 0]

i don''t care how it happens any more i just want him gone

[*** 0]

[quote user="im spartacus"]i don''t care how it happens any more i just want him gone
[/quote]

 

Huzzah![Y]

[First Wazzock 1,014]

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]That''s not really true Ricardo. Our players are more than good enough to achieve a comfortable mid table finish, and that''s not just my opinion but the opinion of most City fans I know and a great deal of neutrals, including the vast majority of the media. We''re currently less than the sum of our parts.[/quote]

Everyone I know agrees with this!

[BOO 0]

Wazzy van Donkeydangler wrote the following post at 03/11/2013 6:01 PM:

Mr Brownstone wrote:

That''s not really true Ricardo. Our players are more than good enough to achieve a comfortable mid table finish, and that''s not just my opinion but the opinion of most City fans I know and a great deal of neutrals, including the vast majority of the media. We''re currently less than the sum of our parts.

Everyone I know agrees with this!

Absolutely agree

[Redders Right Foot 22]

oh ffs. "i dont wish it" and yet this is the second time you''ve mentioned you''re wanting of norwich to lose.

[*** 0]

[quote user="Wazzy van Donkeydangler"]

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]That''s not really true Ricardo. Our players are more than good enough to achieve a comfortable mid table finish, and that''s not just my opinion but the opinion of most City fans I know and a great deal of neutrals, including the vast majority of the media. We''re currently less than the sum of our parts.[/quote]

Everyone I know agrees with this!

[/quote]

 

Certainly the City fans I''ve met do.