The Polarity of Truth

[Canary On The Wire 0]

This idea of Hughton playing ''negative football'' is a complete and hilarious myth. We are a passing, progressive team. The problem is that by and large his approaches haven''t worked in the final third as of yet (although pushing wingers narrow to support Hooper has brought some joy of late).By all means criticise Hughton for playing unsuccessful attacking football...as that is what we have done on many occasions this season.But Hughton does not set his teams up to play negative football. This is a myth propagated by fans who need a pseudo-knowledgeable way of saying ''I don''t like our manager. I never have, and I never will.''If that''s your viewpoint, fair enough. But have the balls to say it rather than making up this ''negative football'' stuff. Thanks.

[BroadstairsR 2,135]

In this instance I prefer to accept Grant Holt''s published interpretation of the tactics employed whilst he was at Carrow Road.

I would like you to be right though.

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]In this instance I prefer to accept Grant Holt''s published interpretation of the tactics employed whilst he was at Carrow Road.

I would like you to be right though.[/quote]

THIS

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Well, what would you say about this season?

[Canary On The Wire 0]

"On a matchday I wasn''t enjoying the way we were playing - we were set up more defensively." - Grant Holt (who didn''t use your buzzword negative as far as I am aware)

I would argue that a more defensive setup is not necessarily more negative. In the same way a more attacking setup is not necessarily positive,would you say that route one football is ''positive football''? I wouldn''t.We pass the ball well and move dynamically through midfield through the movement of Fer and Howson, as well as breaking runs from the likes of Redmond and Olsson. You see plenty of support for the attacks from Olsson, and Redmond is never shy in getting forward, Howson is always bursting to get on the ball and run and Fer is no stranger to being in forward areas- his goals and assists speak for themselves.People will point at goals scored and say ''look, negative'' but I don''t see that as the case. We are a positive side moving through the middle of the park, for definite. Where we fall down is in linking with the frontman. Hughton doesn''t seem to know how to get the best out of his strikers, but his recent move to support Hooper with wide midfielders coming narrow is commendable and has borne fruit. Just because Hughton has been unsuccessful in linking properly with RvW and latterly Hooper does not make his approach ''negative''. It makes it unsuccessful attacking football.

[BroadstairsR 2,135]

Yes, but all football teams are positive to a certain extent because the rules of the game state that the one which scores the most goals wins.

It is the scale of ''positivity'' which is the mute point with CH.

Jack Charlton once said (as Manager of Middlesboro) that his team started a game with one point and his first duty as manager was to preserve that point.

I''m sorry but sometimes Hughton''s approach reminds me of that quote.

Long may it not last.

[lake district canary 4,530]

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]We are a passing, progressive team. The problem is that by and large his approaches haven''t worked in the final third as of yet (although pushing wingers narrow to support Hooper has brought some joy of late).[/quote] I agree with you and the signs are that things are starting to improve

on the goalscoring front.   Great goalkeeper, resilient defence,

starting to see Fer at his best and Hooper starting to find his feet

too.  Howson some would say one of the best performers this season. So

lots to be positive about.  It will take a lot for the people who see

CH''s approach as negative to change their minds, but the answer lies with the players and continued improvement on the pitch.

[Holtcantshoot 0]

Certainly some improved results recently but calling our defence "resilient" is the metaphorical equivalent of saying a sieve makes a good bucket.

[The gut 0]

Your view is valid and no one should question your right to have it COTW and by the same token you should allow others to have theirs. I definitely think you are wrong to claim you know why others think the way they do.

I wouldn''t expect to be the only one with my view (but don''t mind if I am) and I can assure you that you are way off the mark. I like Hughton, I always have done. From his time as a player, while a coach and manager at other clubs. I was pleased he became our manager, I supported him and his tactics even when I did not agree with them until I thought he''d had long enough to change his approach quite recently. I''m not particularly bothered about the results or league position but I''m fed up with the style of football. Put a label on it any way you want but in my opinion he sets out his priority as not getting beat and tentatively probing for a win, I see that as negative football. If he was more attack minded I don''t think I would want him out but right now but I do because I don''t think I''m going to see the type of game that I want to watch. I can guarantee you though that I like him, hopes he has success and good fortune in whatever he does. I''d be more than happy for him to be our longest serving manager if he changed how he played. Is that ok?

[0 0]

approaches in the final third haven''t worked because the team is set up to sit so deeply that there is simply no support going forward.

[Salopian 1]

I''m not sure what anyone whould call the formation on Saturday - 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1, but it certainly didn''t look like 4-5-1. For an away game that was fairly attacking, and we did struggle a little defensively when the Baggies turned up the gas.

But I recall Hughton saying last season that very few teams played with two strikers. So has he had a radical conversion from his defensive philosophy of last season?

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

I''d sort of agree with the OP in the case of the last few weeks, particularly at home. I think that the penny has finally dropped with Hughton that our defence simply is not up to holding on for a clean sheet most games (though at WBA, there were fledgling signs that we may have learnt some lessons on this too).But how you can make such a blanket statement covering the WHOLE of Hughton''s tenure, beggars belief, quite frankly. You clearly have forgotten the turgid performances last season v Newcastle, Fulham, QPR and Wigan, to name but 4. And, as others have said, I''d rather take the views of Grant Holt as accurate than the OP''s, tbh.But, as I say, there may be a few green shoots recently to suggest that he''s learnt by his past errors. Time will tell.

[KeelansGlove 0]

Positive ? Negative ? Defensive ? Effective Attractive ?

Colour it however you like, since Hughton arrived we have consistently failed to get the ball to whatever striker has been playing leaving them isolated.

To some degree his style was effective last season (although not pretty to watch) We all hoped this was a transition and that in the summer he would get the players in to play to his preferred system and we would be more balanced between attack and defence.

Whilst we signed Leroy Fer who gives us more in midfield going forward than many players we had last season we failed to sign a number 10 to link the play and support the lone striker in terms of scoring goals.

The Strikers we signed were less able to play the role of isolated front man feeding on scraps than Grant Holt and simply didn''t get the ball.

The thing that worried me as far back as the first pre season games was that we were not evolving, we didn''t try different formations or personnel we just tried to persevere hoping that something would change (it didn''t) our strikers were spectators at best seeing the ball launched from range over their head toward the goal 20-30 yards away.

I was firmly an outer before the Palace game and although we couldn''t manage it for a full 90 minutes we actually looked cohesive going forward in the first half and for the first time since Hughton arrived I thought he may have started managing rather than sticking to his game plan regardless of its failure.

I was not particularly concerned by our results but I was concerned that we were creating very few decent chances (note decent chances, not the hit and hopes v Cardiff etc) and on this basis couldn''t see us gaining enough points for survival.

Anyway the result at WBA was fantastic we got the ball to Hooper and he did what he does when you give him the ball. We need to work on our ball retention and learn when we do things right but at least its something positive.

I am happy with progression however slow as long as we move forward and if Hughton can show he can adapt and give us decent attacking football when the opportunity arises then fine but the facts are we have been poor in the final 3rd of the pitch since he arrived and recently looked terrible at the back (the only area he actually seemed to address last year)

I think he has signed great players, just needs to keep adapting to fin a way to get the best out of them. As long as he keeps trying to adapt he will have my support regardless of the results. Go back to the rigid formation with no support for the strikers again and I thin he should pack his bags.

[Rock The Boat 1,322]

"KeelansGlove"]Positive ? Negative ? Defensive ? Effective Attractive ?

Colour it however you like, since Hughton arrived we have consistently failed to get the ball to whatever striker has been playing leaving them isolated.

To some degree his style was effective last season (although not pretty to watch) We all hoped this was a transition and that in the summer he would get the players in to play to his preferred system and we would be more balanced between attack and defence.

Whilst we signed Leroy Fer who gives us more in midfield going forward than many players we had last season we failed to sign a number 10 to link the play and support the lone striker in terms of scoring goals.

The Strikers we signed were less able to play the role of isolated front man feeding on scraps than Grant Holt and simply didn''t get the ball.

The thing that worried me as far back as the first pre season games was that we were not evolving, we didn''t try different formations or personnel we just tried to persevere hoping that something would change (it didn''t) our strikers were spectators at best seeing the ball launched from range over their head toward the goal 20-30 yards away.

I was firmly an outer before the Palace game and although we couldn''t manage it for a full 90 minutes we actually looked cohesive going forward in the first half and for the first time since Hughton arrived I thought he may have started managing rather than sticking to his game plan regardless of its failure.

I was not particularly concerned by our results but I was concerned that we were creating very few decent chances (note decent chances, not the hit and hopes v Cardiff etc) and on this basis couldn''t see us gaining enough points for survival.

Anyway the result at WBA was fantastic we got the ball to Hooper and he did what he does when you give him the ball. We need to work on our ball retention and learn when we do things right but at least its something positive.

I am happy with progression however slow as long as we move forward and if Hughton can show he can adapt and give us decent attacking football when the opportunity arises then fine but the facts are we have been poor in the final 3rd of the pitch since he arrived and recently looked terrible at the back (the only area he actually seemed to address last year)

I think he has signed great players, just needs to keep adapting to fin a way to get the best out of them. As long as he keeps trying to adapt he will have my support regardless of the results. Go back to the rigid formation with no support for the strikers again and I thin he should pack his bags.

A good, measured post Mr. Keelan and not much there that most would disagree with. Do you think that Chris Hughton in trying very hard to sign a number "10" during the close season is aware of the problem? The missing link between midfield and attack.

We couldn''t get the players we had targetted and we haven''t reached our full potential as a team because of it.

I think we will go back into the market this January to get someone in for that position. Up until now Wes is the best candidate for the job, not wishing to knock the lad because he has been a fantastic player for us, but we should now be able to afford the next level up and buy a better quality player to cover us for the next 3-4 seasons.

[Brighton Yellow 0]

I have been saying what the OP has said for a long time. The whole notion of negative tactics is completely flawed. Its quite an idiotic reaction to not playing Lmberts tactics.

[KeelansGlove 0]

I would disagree and say that on the whole the tactics have been negative primarily because we do not have the players to make them positive.

Not to mention the lack of any formation changes when game plan not working.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

This negativity is a rum ol'' do! I thought we played far more positively at home to Cardiff than we did at home to Palace. I reckon how these tactics are received is based primarily on results.

 

 

[TCCANARY 263]

I think on some times we''re positively negative and that''s not a bad thing, in the Lambert era we we''re negatively positive and that wasn''t a bad thing either. What we need to do is strike a balance so that we can be positive and negative when its to our advantage.