Is anyone willing to give CH credit

[RodneyTrottersFC 0]

[quote user="Beefy is a legend"]

My point in this thread, is that numerous posters came on here criticising CH, saying he''d treated Wes badly and that it was clear that Wes wouldn''t play again so we should just sell him. That simply isn''t the case. Still, any excuse to have a moan at the manager isn''t to be passed up I suppose.[/quote]

My beef with CH over Wes is not because I feel he''s "mistreating" but simply that, because I rate him highly, I think it''s silly not to use him more.

My point is: not all that want Hughton out are simply moaning for the sake of it.... I''d go as far to say that there''s probably just one or two with that mentality :-)

[chicken 0]

City1st - that''s utter carp and you know it.

How has Hughton been humiliated? Wes never criticised Hughton, he simply said he wanted to play more games and was attracted to the idea of playing under Lambert where he had experienced what he considered his most successful time as a player.

How is he a yes man? If he was a yes man Hoolahan would have got his way and be gone.

You can have your view that you feel Hughton is not the right man to lead the club forward but please, just quit making stuff up just to try and enforce your opinion.

[pete 318]

I give CH all the credit for turning City into the team we are today.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="RodneyTrottersFC"][quote user="Beefy is a legend"]

My point in this thread, is that numerous posters came on here criticising CH, saying he''d treated Wes badly and that it was clear that Wes wouldn''t play again so we should just sell him. That simply isn''t the case. Still, any excuse to have a moan at the manager isn''t to be passed up I suppose.[/quote]

My beef with CH over Wes is not because I feel he''s "mistreating" but simply that, because I rate him highly, I think it''s silly not to use him more.

My point is: not all that want Hughton out are simply moaning for the sake of it.... I''d go as far to say that there''s probably just one or two with that mentality :-)[/quote]Yes, Rod. Unfortunately though he words his argument quite well, that''s rather where Beefy''s case begins to fall apart.He suggests that we should all form our opinions/discussion only on  demonstrable  facts etc. Fair enough, but I would suggest that it''s only belief and supposition that''s keeping Hughton in a job these days. Simply because, if we were taking Beefy''s advice and judging him purely on FACTS then the only ones available of those are recent form /results. And they do not make pretty reading, do they ? By anyone''s standards they are poor enough for him to have been shown the door long ago. And it''s only , presumably, because the board believe( without any concrete evidence to base it on)  that he remains the best option. The last tangible plank that they have for this (ie not being in the bottom 3) may well have been pulled from under them in the next few days, so, to take the hint from this thread''s title, if that becomes the case then Hughton''s ''credit rating'' will not be fit for purpose at all.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="chicken"]City1st - that''s utter carp and you know it.

How has Hughton been humiliated? Wes never criticised Hughton, he simply said he wanted to play more games and was attracted to the idea of playing under Lambert where he had experienced what he considered his most successful time as a player.

How is he a yes man? If he was a yes man Hoolahan would have got his way and be gone.

You can have your view that you feel Hughton is not the right man to lead the club forward but please, just quit making stuff up just to try and enforce your opinion.[/quote]

dearie me, it gets worse

Hughton has not wanted to play Hoolahan, yet he has a public spat and is back in the squad. Who the hell do you think made that decision ? Do you really think that because Hoolahan swore about the club etc he has suddenly become a better player ?

Right or wrong the manager should be backed to the hilt or replaced. this was not his decision, just as when Becchio spoke out he found himself on the bench and on the pitch. Did you not hear the ironic cheers from the crowd ?

Hughton is a yes man as is well known for it within the club. PLayers leaving or going aren''t that much to do with Hughton or Bechio and Fox would have long gone - it certainly wasn''t Hughton''s decision over Holt.

Hoolahan was kept because the board recognise the dire position we are in and we need every available player. especially someone of Hoolahan''s ability.

Next time pay closer attention to the press interviews, the local media usually have a good ear for what is going on and you can gauge where the problems are by their line of questioning.

[RodneyTrottersFC 0]

You might enjoy my article/essay/epic novel, Reggie... Give it a read if you have a spare half hour (no joke) ... Its posted on here

[chicken 0]

Unfortunately City1st it is you who gets worse.

It has been over a month since the stuff with Hoolahan started, how many games has that been now? I believe he was still in the matchday squads when it started.

He has also been a regular in the match day squads even if he hasn''t played as much this season. The same can be said of the situation with Becchio - who I note didn''t go anywhere in January, was the same, very much a regular in match day squads but not a regular starter.

That would suggest to me that Hughton already valued Wes - despite the massive void of evidence you have put forward to undermine it.

It''s interesting that you say pay close attention to the local media - because it wasn''t the local media that blew the situation out of proportion was it?

As for Hughton not having a say in which players stay or go, I think you to be very much a fool for saying it. With Hoolahan if the only interested party was Villa, then it is possible the board blocked it on principle. But having said that, your source of all invaluable information - the local media - were making murmurings that Hoolahan could be allowed to leave if a replacement was found.

It would be so much easier for Hughton to have shut out Becchio and Hoolahan (Fox is a pretty poor example as he has been loaned out - and I''m not sure he wants to leave the best pay he has had in his career to date).

He''s the better man for realising that he is working with limitations, why reduce those further? He''ll need every player he''s got over the final stretch. It is that simple. January is no time to decide whether a ''senior'' player should be allowed to go or not. The summer is for that.

I actually think it is Wes who ends up with more egg on his face. As a fan I am not narked with Wes but to be so desperate to want a move away and then a couple of weeks later be happy to be at the club and willing enough to play a part even from the bench.

The most embarrassing thing about this though is the complete isolation you appear to view this in City1st. This sort of things has happened time and time again in football, just that Norwich have rarely been in this sort of position before. In that in the past the players normally moved on with our blessing - and when it came down to it we took the money and ran as we needed it.

Now we can dig in a bit we are seeing the choices that have to be made after the fallout and personally I see no problems.

Wes was in the squad prior to this little storm in a tea cup. He was left out whilst the window was open and now it has been shut for a week he will be introduced back into the match day squad.

That is ofcourse unless you prefered my initial response and Hughton is infact just an intergalactic lizard man!

[Bill 1,788]

As expected the usual old make it up and reply to that instead than address the points I DID make

so briefly

I talked of press interviews not simply the local media

You warble on about Hughton valuing Hoolahan after admitting he hasn''t played much - nor has Becchio but he is also supposedly ''valued''. As with the previous Jan signings (esp Howson and Bennett) these were signings by the board, not Lambert.

If you actually read what you wrote about Hoolahan staying it is not only contradictory but illogical.

Fox would not lose his contract by moving - the club are still liable for any difference

Maybe from where I am viewing it it may seem isolated to you - but there is little else to add other than I know what I am saying is correct and I suggest that next time you reply you actually reply to what is posted, not start from the premise of wanting to be correct and twisting words and facts to fit that view.

This has been a massive climb down for Hughton and one that has caused a few ''ripples'' through the club, and it''s still early days.

[chicken 0]

And I know what you are saying is bunkham.

I haven''t made anything up. You have.

And as a matter of fact what you are saying is entirely illogical too.

If the board buys the players without any input from the manager and tell him who he should play, then surely it is the board that are to blame for our current predicament not Hughton, and the blame should lay at their feet?

The more you bang on, the more what you are saying, or trying to utterly falls apart.

[Beefy is a legend 224]

quote user="Reggie Strayshun"quote user="RodneyTrottersFC"quote user="Beefy is a legend"

My point in this thread, is that numerous posters came on here criticising CH, saying he''d treated Wes badly and that it was clear that Wes wouldn''t play again so we should just sell him. That simply isn''t the case. Still, any excuse to have a moan at the manager isn''t to be passed up I suppose./quote

My beef with CH over Wes is not because I feel he''s "mistreating" but simply that, because I rate him highly, I think it''s silly not to use him more.

My point is: not all that want Hughton out are simply moaning for the sake of it.... I''d go as far to say that there''s probably just one or two with that mentality :-)/quoteYes, Rod. Unfortunately though he words his argument quite well, that''s rather where Beefy''s case begins to fall apart.He suggests that we should all form our opinions/discussion only on  demonstrable  facts etc. Fair enough, but I would suggest that it''s only belief and supposition that''s keeping Hughton in a job these days. Simply because, if we were taking Beefy''s advice and judging him purely on FACTS then the only ones available of those are recent form /results. And they do not make pretty reading, do they ? By anyone''s standards they are poor enough for him to have been shown the door long ago. And it''s only , presumably, because the board believe( without any concrete evidence to base it on)  that he remains the best option. The last tangible plank that they have for this (ie not being in the bottom 3) may well have been pulled from under them in the next few days, so, to take the hint from this thread''s title, if that becomes the case then Hughton''s ''credit rating'' will not be fit for purpose at all./quote

Surely you ''outers'' can do better than this. Why Reggie should CH only be judged on recent results, rather than over a longer, more statistically significant, period of time. A period of time in which he has fulfilled the Club''s objectives.

City1st, you really are just making stuff up. Before the ''Wes saga'' broke he had just started two games in a row, v Man Utd and Crystal Palace. You seem to have conveniently avoided that fact when suggesting that Wes was not in the manager''s plans.

[Ray 111]

Mybe he is in because we onl have 18/19 fit players!

[morty 0]

Chicken, I would give up if I were you lol.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Beefy is a legend"] Why Reggie should CH only be judged on recent results, rather than over a longer, more statistically significant, period of time. .[/quote]Quite simply, Beefy, because  (and I know it''s a cliché), in football, you are only as good as your last result ....or to be fair, recent results. And the results , in the main, this season (and certainly in the last 3 months) have been appalling. You cannot cherry pick to suit your own argument. Either you judge on tangible facts, or you don''t. Furthermore, if we do fall into the bottom 3 in the next few days then this mythical ''objective'' that you speak of, will NOT have been fulfilled  !

[Europe_93 11]

[quote user="Beefy is a legend"]

There also seems to be a natural conflict between some fans'' objectives and the Club''s objectives. These fans want to see attacking, entertaining football. The Club wants to stay in the Premier League. Sometimes those two objectives do not coincide. I accept that and decide that, as a ''supporter'' of the Club what is most important to me is that the Club fulfils its objectives, rather than fulfilling my desire to see lots and lots of goals every week, because I understand that the only way for the Club to grow, get better players and, at some stage, a better manager, is to stay in this league and build on a steady, consistent basis.

However, this is just unacceptable to the ''want it all now'' group who, in my view, rather than being supporters are more like ''consumers'' of NCFC.[/quote]

There is no reason why the 2 objectives you mention should be mutually exclusive. Fundamentally our manager does not trust the players he has assembled.

Chris Hughton micro manages our players to play in a more defensive way and ends up stifling their ability, this by definition is frustrating for players and many supporters alike.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="morty"]Chicken, I would give up if I were you lol.[/quote]

Nah, sometimes someone has to stand up to the tide of utter carp. Especially from some posters who think if they simply repeat and bang people down with their ''facts'' that they will give up.

I especially love it when they state they are ''in the know'' as in they know people within the club.

I''m sure we all do, I know people who have worked as waiting staff at Delia''s and do things on match days, but contrary to popular opinion I somewhat doubt their view of Hughton is really that more informed than ours.

[Beefy is a legend 224]

quote user="Reggie Strayshun"quote user="Beefy is a legend" Why Reggie should CH only be judged on recent results, rather than over a longer, more statistically significant, period of time. ./quoteQuite simply, Beefy, because  (and I know it''s a cliché), in football, you are only as good as your last result ....or to be fair, recent results. And the results , in the main, this season (and certainly in the last 3 months) have been appalling. You cannot cherry pick to suit your own argument. Either you judge on tangible facts, or you don''t. Furthermore, if we do fall into the bottom 3 in the next few days then this mythical ''objective'' that you speak of, will NOT have been fulfilled  !/quote

It seems to me Reggie that by only seeking to judge CH on recent results, rather than his record in its entirety, the only person doing the cherry picking is you.