Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

Second time around

Recommended Posts

Did we ''get found out'' last season when the second time we played most teams we struggled ?So far both Fulham and Everton have beaten us at the second go. Yes there were mitigating circunstances as both us and Fulham had supposedly lesser teams ou and it was the cup not the league - and Everton were at home and on a roll.However the noticable feature of the Everton games was how easily they were able to suss out our tactics leaving us pretty floored. And the one thing you know about Hughton is he has little idea (or intention maybe) of how to change a game plan, other than late substitutions in like for like exchanges.Hull should be a strong pointer to the way the test of the season pans out (presuming he is still here). Away, when they were down to 10 men they were there for the taking. But no, a very dismal defeat.What will it be on Saturday ? More of the same. Back off and allow their midfield control. Static play when we have the ball, a sort of Subbeteo style of football. No attacking in numbers.If fans can see these failures, don''t you think the opposition haven''t also done their homework and will know how to get the better of us.

ps hopefully some one here will watch the game and not the league table - will watch the game and not spend their time counting meaningless numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the end, results come down to performance level as much as formations. We know we can win games playing 451, 4411 and in a diamond and probably 442 as well if the players turn up and perform.

So even if Hull know how we''ll play, if Redmond and Snodgrass put decent balls in, if Hooper and Rv get on the end of them, if Fer and Johnno establish some control in midfield and if the defence is solid... we will win, however much homework they have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are rather based on this -http://guiadoscuriosos.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/birdman21.jpgthe more they fail the more likelihood there is of success ............ one day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He selects the team, he selects the tactics, he organises the training/coaching, most of the players have joined since he has been here..................... but it is not his fault

oh dear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this excuse of blaming the players simply doesn''t wash and is bandied about freely by those who constantly defend Hughton.

Just name me one player that has improved under this regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m certainly not absolving CH from blame for the situation we''re in. As I say, we need the players to perform but equally the manager''s role is to give the players the confidence, freedom and belief to perform well as a unit. This is where CH has failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
City1st, of course Hughton is responsible as the manager of the club. But what if a player misses a penalty, or a striker misses a sitter, or a defender makes a basic error leading to a goal?

I suppose you would say that is Hughton''s fault because he signed the players? Tactics and coaching clearly do not always determine the outcome of the match, but I do agree that we need to see a good performance, both in terms of tactics and motivation/energy.

If we don''t see either of those it''s fair to say Hughton will be out by the end of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frightening many seem to have gone backwardscompare Hooper, RVW, Fer and Becchio with what they were beforewhat on earth must they be thinking ?Look at Ruddy, Bassongsomething is badly amiss if all these professionals are suffering

ps perhaps the apologists could tell us all why there is a need for a manager if it is all down the players and nothing to do with him ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
By apologist, I assume you mean reasonable rather than unhinged and polarised?

You say Bassong has gone backwards due to the manager. Well as far as I am aware, he has only ever played under Hughton. So by your logic, I can only assume you think Hughton was a good man-manager for Bassong last season but has deteriorated this season?

No one is making apologies for the manager, but as highly-paid elite professionals these players should be doing the basics regardless of whether Chris Hughton or Doris the tea lady is managing them.

If you want to reduce all our woes purely down to "the manager is useless" then you are more than entitled to your opinion, but I believe the real world tends to be a bit more nuanced than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is amazing the self righteousness of Houghton supporters when they describe themselves as reasonable?

Reasonable would be weighing up bother sides of the argument, listing pros and cons, negatives and positives, listing them and when one comes out greater than the other, that would generally form the opinion.

So I dare any of you to list the pros and cons to back up your opinions. see where it comes out!

Snake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="I.S."]By apologist, I assume you mean reasonable rather than unhinged and polarised?

You say Bassong has gone backwards due to the manager. Well as far as I am aware, he has only ever played under Hughton. So by your logic, I can only assume you think Hughton was a good man-manager for Bassong last season but has deteriorated this season?

No one is making apologies for the manager, but as highly-paid elite professionals these players should be doing the basics regardless of whether Chris Hughton or Doris the tea lady is managing them.

If you want to reduce all our woes purely down to "the manager is useless" then you are more than entitled to your opinion, but I believe the real world tends to be a bit more nuanced than that.[/quote]Oh dearI did NOT say Bassong has gone backwards due to the manager. Try reading my post, or is this merely a trait of the apologists - make up lies rather than replying to the posts.If these "players should be doing the basics regardless of whether Chris Hughton or Doris the tea lady is managing them" then why is he here ? Why not simply get them to play as they should. Either he has an effect or he doesn''t.But then you are someone who believes that the national and local media are unhinged. Those voting on recent polls are unhinged as are the overwhelming number of posters on here. All of us unhinged, whereas you and a dwindling band of apologists are perfectly sane as you cling onto your view that it is not Hughton''s fault.Perhaps you also believe you are Napoleon as well, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="snake-eyes"]It is amazing the self righteousness of Houghton supporters when they describe themselves as reasonable?

Reasonable would be weighing up bother sides of the argument, listing pros and cons, negatives and positives, listing them and when one comes out greater than the other, that would generally form the opinion.

So I dare any of you to list the pros and cons to back up your opinions. see where it comes out!

Snake[/quote]

 

Well now I don''t think that post is reasonable Snake. I don''t think it''s reasonable not to treat posters as individuals. I accept that there are some right nutters on here with all kinds of views. But to group the ones together that I disagreed with and class them all as unreasonable would be unfair. You do it. City 1st is fond of doing it. So in my eyes the pair of you are unreasonable[;)]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh and all Hughton-outers cling the fact that everything is due bad managing even when manager would do just what was asked in previous post from outers ^^

I have always been supporter of Hughton and I have said many times that Hughton is hitting his head on the wall until he starts either to play Hoolahan or gets us a good playmaker either for deep position or advanced.

But I also see the positives. Outside of few games we have still played ok football even with our big flaws, but for example in Fulham cup game only thing I would have seen manager to do differently at start would have been sitting deep to prevent those goals.

As tactically both goals were well covered, but players made mistake. Then you look what players were on the field. Two experienced CB''s and fullbacks. At least two of them are always in our starting lineup and Olsson needed resting and for CB''s we had only Bennett fit apart from Bass and Martin.

Oh yeah and my pros:

Good signings with right attributes and either lot room to develope or enough experience.

Better and more developed football than under Lambert

Team looks to be trusting his judgement

Calm professional who tries to imply his own vision

cons:

Can''t get midfield working with strikers

Lately seems to try please fans too much under pressure or is too desperate to stay in his own vision.

We are not getting enough points at this moment, but I expect this to change soon as injuries are over.

Doesn''t trust Hoolahan.

So I''m quite much tied at the moment. I would change him for a clearly better manager, but I''m not one of those who would change him just for the changing sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Good signings with right attributes and either lot room to develope or enough experience.

Better and more developed football than under Lambert

Team looks to be trusting his judgement

Calm professional who tries to imply his own vision

"

This has to be a send up.The players are scouted and then signed by the board. if you seriously think that Hughton has the time to do all the work involved, which is spread over a dozen or so folk then you are either on a total wind up or completely clueless. If Hughton signed Becchio then why has he been virtually frozen out.As to "Better and more developed football than under Lambert" that is about te one thing that unites all - the football is woeful and looks it.Trusting his judgement ! Do you actually watch games ? If you did you would see how uncomfortable the players appear with this one dimensional zonal sh ite. Likewise with this guff about a playmaker. We are not closing down the opposition and are not moving as a team when we have the ball. We need to stop sitting off the opposition. This is the PL players of this quality do not usually need two touches, nevermind the three or four we give them.Yes, I accept he is trying to impose his vision but it has been proven to be flawed. Week after week after week. Commentators even point out where it is so blindingly obviously failing and yet you actually are asking for it to be worse !This might explain why you cannot grasp why he "Can''t get midfield working with strikers". It is because the team is not playing as one unit. We gain possession at the back and that is the time for our players to remain in their zone. No movement, no giving the player with the ball options, just stay static and he will find you. Any wonder that so many passes go astray, that the opposition can do what we don''t and close us down.It is so bl oody blindingly obvious and yet what do we get offered up in his defence. A ragbag of sky football cliches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="snake-eyes"]It is amazing the self righteousness of Houghton supporters when they describe themselves as reasonable?

Reasonable would be weighing up bother sides of the argument, listing pros and cons, negatives and positives, listing them and when one comes out greater than the other, that would generally form the opinion.

So I dare any of you to list the pros and cons to back up your opinions. see where it comes out!

Snake[/quote]

 

Well now I don''t think that post is reasonable Snake. I don''t think it''s reasonable not to treat posters as individuals. I accept that there are some right nutters on here with all kinds of views. But to group the ones together that I disagreed with and class them all as unreasonable would be unfair. You do it. City 1st is fond of doing it. So in my eyes the pair of you are unreasonable[;)]

 

 [/quote]

 

You are right Nutty, just reread my post and I missed out a crucial word...SOME.

 

The generalisation would be unfair, but I do not believe it to be unreasonable to say that terms used by such posters like ''You obviously know nothing about football'', ''You are not a proper supporter if you want Hughton out'', ''Hughton Outers are unreasonable'' or ''Daily Mail readers''., are self-righteous!

 

It is not the point of view that is self-righteous, but the way it is put across in a ''Holier than thou'' manner.  Whilst strongly putting across my views I do always try to provide evidence to back up my case and also try and see both side of the argument, which I have demonstrated on previous posts.  I did challenge all posters to honestly list Negatives and Positives, Pros and Cons for the manager to see whether the views were based on evidence or just gut feeling.  So far I have only seen Lavanche have a go.

 

So yes my post was unreasonable, to the extent that I missed a word out which grouped all together, and for that I apologise. However I would still like to see how people have come to their views as to understand better why!

 

Snake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I read your post City1st, and you said "Look at Ruddy and Bassong" directly after talking about players going backwards. What is your point with regards to them?

Also, I never said the manager does nothing. Clearly he has a major role which he is not doing well and has a huge responsibility for our poor performances. I never suggested otherwise, so perhaps you ought to take your own advice and actually read peoples'' posts rather than metaphorically foaming at the mouth with nonsense about Napoleon.

In addition, I don''t recall calling the national and local media unhinged - just referring to a few people on here who seem to think you either have the opinion Hughton is responsible for all our woes, or you must be part of a dwindling band of crazy apologists. It doesn''t seem to be allowed to hold your own moderate opinion. Also, if you''re suggesting that the mainstream media is balanced and thoughtful I would be concerned for your sanity.

Anyway, back to my original point, and I will explain it slowly so you can at least understand the point I am trying to make even if you do not agree as I am clearly not conveying my opining very well.

The players have a responsibility to the club and the fans to be doing the basics - working hard and at least trying to perform regardless of their feelings about the manager in charge. I can accept and understand that they may not play well, but at the very least they should still be committed. I personally find it bizarre that people level all criticism towards the manager, yet in the same breath make continual apologies for the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Lavanche"]Heh and all Hughton-outers cling the fact that everything is due bad managing even when manager would do just what was asked in previous post from outers ^^

I have always been supporter of Hughton and I have said many times that Hughton is hitting his head on the wall until he starts either to play Hoolahan or gets us a good playmaker either for deep position or advanced.

But I also see the positives. Outside of few games we have still played ok football even with our big flaws, but for example in Fulham cup game only thing I would have seen manager to do differently at start would have been sitting deep to prevent those goals.

As tactically both goals were well covered, but players made mistake. Then you look what players were on the field. Two experienced CB''s and fullbacks. At least two of them are always in our starting lineup and Olsson needed resting and for CB''s we had only Bennett fit apart from Bass and Martin.

Oh yeah and my pros:

Good signings with right attributes and either lot room to develope or enough experience.

Better and more developed football than under Lambert

Team looks to be trusting his judgement

Calm professional who tries to imply his own vision

cons:

Can''t get midfield working with strikers

Lately seems to try please fans too much under pressure or is too desperate to stay in his own vision.

We are not getting enough points at this moment, but I expect this to change soon as injuries are over.

Doesn''t trust Hoolahan.

So I''m quite much tied at the moment. I would change him for a clearly better manager, but I''m not one of those who would change him just for the changing sake.[/quote]Lavanche, I get your idea (shared by Parma) of the kind of football Hughton is trying to play. A more solid system than the kind of Charge of the Light Brigade stuff attributed to whatshisname who was here before.I am not convinced that IS what he is trying to do, but for the sake of argument suppose it is. Hughton, having got through last season, then had an uninterrupted summer, with the ninth largest net transfer spend in Europe, to get the required players in and train them in pre-season to play this system. But now both you and Parma are reduced to saying that Hughton is still trying to achieve this vision.But even if we are only, say, half there there seems an obvious problem with your advocacy of this way of playing. The kind of more measured football you and Parma say is the aim should produce one clear benefit, amid any drawbacks. It should be more solid defensively. Otherwise what is the point? But after conceding 1.52 goals per game last season we are conceding 1.66 this. Even if you regard 7-0 at Man City as a bit of a freak (I don''t) and reduce that to a 4-0 we would still be conceding at the rate of 1.52 per game (while of course scoring significantly fewer).You claim that is not the fault of tactics but of individual errors. The truth is that any defence - even the best kind of Italian defence - will make individual errors if it comes under sustained pressure. And that is what is happening with us.I don''t know whether there is a basic flaw in this system you say Hughton is aiming for, or whether the system would be successful if applied properly. Which ever is true, despite all the time and money at Hughton''s disposal, it ain''t working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I.S.

 

Plenty of players have come in for criticism on here.  Bassong, Whittaker, Redmond, RvW, Snodgrass, Martin, Fer, Johnson to name but a few.  Yes they have a responsibility and are criticised when they don''t perform or appear to be giving the effort.

 

The reason why the Manger gets so much stick is because when you have so many not performing regularly and often at the same time, you have to ask yourself why.

 

It is easy to say that they play for the club and it doesn''t matter whether they like or respect the manager they must at all times give it everything. However, the human psyche is not as simple as that.

 

For example, at work, if you are unhappy at work it is harder to be motivated to give it everything, even if you believe you are.  Sub-consciously, you are asking questions like, ''Why do I bother?'', '' I don''t agree with this''. Belief is a very strong motivator! Doubt is just as strong a motivation killer. Even though the club pays your salary, the Manager is your direct link to it.  If that relationship is fractured in any way, the relationship to the club is also. Motivation and behaviour is something I have some background in.

 

Whilst agree, that great pride should be had by just putting on the shirt, when belief is diminished, it is hard to motivate yourself.

 

Snake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Snake, good post, and cannot disagree with anything you say there. I am sure we have all had jobs where you know you aren''t performing as you should be due to motivational issues.

I agree most players come in for criticism for playing poorly, but I am talking about players with obviously weak characters who hide when the going gets tough. Bradley Johnson, for instance, will never be the most gifted footballer in the squad, but he appears to be one of few who actually have a pair and are up for a battle. There appear to be few problems with his motivation.

I agree the main driver is belief (which is why PL was so good when he was here), but there are many other factors that can affect a person''s performance.

That said, if the manager has lost the dressing room then clearly his position is untenable. I cannot believe the board would continue to support the manager if they and the players had lost all faith in his vision, and if they are despite this, then we have real problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="snake-eyes"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="snake-eyes"]It is amazing the self righteousness of Houghton supporters when they describe themselves as reasonable?

Reasonable would be weighing up bother sides of the argument, listing pros and cons, negatives and positives, listing them and when one comes out greater than the other, that would generally form the opinion.

So I dare any of you to list the pros and cons to back up your opinions. see where it comes out!

Snake[/quote]

 

Well now I don''t think that post is reasonable Snake. I don''t think it''s reasonable not to treat posters as individuals. I accept that there are some right nutters on here with all kinds of views. But to group the ones together that I disagreed with and class them all as unreasonable would be unfair. You do it. City 1st is fond of doing it. So in my eyes the pair of you are unreasonable[;)]

 

 [/quote]

 

You are right Nutty, just reread my post and I missed out a crucial word...SOME.

 

The generalisation would be unfair, but I do not believe it to be unreasonable to say that terms used by such posters like ''You obviously know nothing about football'', ''You are not a proper supporter if you want Hughton out'', ''Hughton Outers are unreasonable'' or ''Daily Mail readers''., are self-righteous!

 

It is not the point of view that is self-righteous, but the way it is put across in a ''Holier than thou'' manner.  Whilst strongly putting across my views I do always try to provide evidence to back up my case and also try and see both side of the argument, which I have demonstrated on previous posts.  I did challenge all posters to honestly list Negatives and Positives, Pros and Cons for the manager to see whether the views were based on evidence or just gut feeling.  So far I have only seen Lavanche have a go.

 

So yes my post was unreasonable, to the extent that I missed a word out which grouped all together, and for that I apologise. However I would still like to see how people have come to their views as to understand better why!

 

Snake

[/quote]

 

I think you''re a top poster Snake and I agree you always try to provide the reasons for your views. Something I also try to do. The ressons why I''m not so keen to change the manager are well documented. Just to re-iterate while it''s a gamble either way I still feel, through past experiences, that the bigger gamble is to make the change. I could put some meat on those bare bones if you want but it just opens the circular arguments where I point out the cases where the change didn''t work and others point out where it did. And when i say "well he kept us up last year" others say soething about discounting ten games , concentrating on games we lost and beach football. But I didn''t enter this thread to debate this stuff I just get fed up with being grouped with other posters views and you were the proverbial straw that broke the camel''s back.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...