On the site at 6pm - interview with McNally

[BOO 0]

Not surprised by what was said, pretty honest appraisal. I am with him on the performance point, performances have improved recently but regrettably results havnt!

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Vanwink"]Not surprised by what was said, pretty honest appraisal. I am with him on the performance point, performances have improved recently but regrettably results havnt![/quote]It seems to me that he was saying pretty much what most  reasonable supporters think - that things have been encouraging in the last few games and that the strikers now need to do their jobs.  

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]hughton has always played a 442 formation, so once hooper and RVW everyone expected him to try it and don''t think it''s him giving into pressure. Mcnally''s point was basically ''hughton is the manager for a reason, he''s done pretty well so far. Everyone thought 442 would work, but it didn''t and hughton recognised this.''

imo[/quote]No. McNally wasn''t saying that at all. He was saying the manager switched from a lone striker to to 4-4-2 just to please the people who ring up Canary Call. And McNally said as clearly as he could he thought that was a mistake that - presumably - cost us points. It was blatant criticism of Hughton.

[splutcho 173]

It absolutely was not a blatant criticism of Hughton at all.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

I can''t say that I gained much if any confidence from that that the right decisive decisions will be made.

On the face of it McNally generally came across well, as he usually does, however the substance of what was said left me feeling forlorn.

It came across that Hughton has kept his job this year largel because of his fantastic achievement last year. McNally reiterated the great job that Hughton did a couple of times, almost as if what he ''achieved'' was nigh on a miracle. Working under almost impossible circumstances of the lowest wage budget and ridiculous debt repayments. I feel that this was over exaggerated by McNally. Also, was our wage budget really lower than the likes of Reading who had many, many players from the Championship still? What other debt and financing did other clubs have to satisfy?

Even if one is in full agreement with the above, then an increased wage budget this season and no debt repayments, the current season''s performance must be seen as an almost polar opposite in terms of Hughton''s success, to last season''s ''miracle''.

One question I would have liked to have been asked was, was there money to spend on first team strengthening in the January transfer window and if so, why wasn''t it?

One final point is, how can anyone ever be 100% certain that a managerial change will be a success?

[dean 0]

[quote user="splutcho"]It absolutely was not a blatant criticism of Hughton at all.[/quote]

Quite. If anything he was making the point that the fans aren''t always right.

[ZLF 274]

So when hughton does not change to 442 as demanded he is stubborn and when he does try it, which he has consistently said he would when both hooper and ricky fit, he is weak for bending to fan power! Which it is - make your mind up fans - or is it any stick will do???

I think its clear the club recognise 442 is not a workable formation for us - but it needed proving. Now we have moved on and got a fit squad we have no more excuses and can and should pick up the necessary points.

interesting editing of the missing 6 minutes on the pinkun video compared to the canary player one...

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]So when hughton does not change to 442 as demanded he is stubborn and when he does try it, which he has consistently said he would when both hooper and ricky fit, he is weak for bending to fan power! Which it is - make your mind up fans - or is it any stick will do???

I think its clear the club recognise 442 is not a workable formation for us - but it needed proving. Now we have moved on and got a fit squad we have no more excuses and can and should pick up the necessary points.

interesting editing of the missing 6 minutes on the pinkun video compared to the canary player one...[/quote]Zipper,  I haven''t seen the Canary Player version. I was going on the EDP video, which doesn''t include that phrase about "...it needed proving". That does seem to put McNally''s views in a slightly different and less critical light. Certainly, though, as the EDP version has it McNally was effectively saying Hughton had been weak-willed in bowing to what the fans wanted. McNally linked the switch to 4-4-2 to calls for just that from fans, and said it had been a mistake. It was pretty clear.

[mrs miggins 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="mrs miggins"]hughton has always played a 442 formation, so once hooper and RVW everyone expected him to try it and don''t think it''s him giving into pressure. Mcnally''s point was basically ''hughton is the manager for a reason, he''s done pretty well so far. Everyone thought 442 would work, but it didn''t and hughton recognised this.''

imo[/quote]No. McNally wasn''t saying that at all. He was saying the manager switched from a lone striker to to 4-4-2 just to please the people who ring up Canary Call. And McNally said as clearly as he could he thought that was a mistake that - presumably - cost us points. It was blatant criticism of Hughton.[/quote]

i personally didn''t see it that way purple. Everyone knew he was gonna play 442 when our two best strikers were fit and hadn''t been scoring enough, plus the fact that he''s always played 442 everywhere except here

[Molly Windley 76]

Links to the full 20 minute video is below, rather more detailed than the hacked about versions in the press.

http://youtu.be/nHCAYaqsH8g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHCAYaqsH8g

[nutty nigel 7,531]

So are there different videos? Or are there  editored versions of one video? Is the version I linked to the original and full video? Why would anyone want to hack it about? So many questions but maybe someone knows the answers...

 

 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

I think it''s wrong to have a blanket statement that 442 was a mistake / isn''t a formation that works for us.

You can''t just rule out 442 as a possibility in all games and at all times in all games and a CEO certainly shouldn''t be ruling it out. Did Hughton tell McNally that the only reason he played 442 was because the fans wanted it?

If 442 was a mistake then I''d be interested to hear McNally''s thoughts on Hughton''s regular 443 formation!

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

*433

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Only just had time to catch up with this interview.I found the whole thing very downbeat to be honest. The message I got from McN is that the die is cast, and we''ll get what we deserve. He seemed to be suggesting that CH is in place till the end of the season, and if it all goes tits up, then so be it. I also got the distinct impression that if we do go down, then he himself will consider his position, which was something that was debated on here a couple of days back.I really cannot understand this fixation with what happened last season, either from posters on here nor, frankly, from Mc N . All that is best part of a year ago, and times have moved on.  The ten game unbeaten run and 11th place finish is ancient history now. We simply have not kicked on from it, and if I''d have been Goreham, I''d have pressed Mc N  if he felt that the club had progressed over the last year, or whether it had, effectively, gone backwards. And, if so, why ? And what was he as CEO planning to do about arresting this backward movement.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I got the impression that Hughton was playing 4-4-2 because he had little option with Howson and Tettey injured and Wes being "unavailable".

 

He only effectively had Fer and Johnson as fit CM''s (although I''d still like to see Snoddy play the Number 10 role) and with RVW and Hooper both fit together for the first time this season it wasn''t a huge surprise to see us line up 4-4-2 to me.

 

I''d be astonished if it was because he was pandering to idiots on Canary Call.

 

[basil brush 0]

Whether we stay up (unlikely) or go down (likely) after watching the interview I would say that Hughton will be not be here for the start of next season.

With hindsight, McNally would of probably sacked CH months had he of known where now. Sound daft, but he clearly thought we would be higher up the table and any changes in management could be dealt with in the summer. We don''t have much time, but it''s still potentially fixable if we get the right guy in - and fast.