Battle of the bosses

[RodneyTrottersFC 0]

From the "bottom" teams, only Sam Alladyce, Alan Pardew and Paul Lambert are comparable to Chris Hughton.

CH win % is 25% (17/68)

SA win % is 30% (20/67)

AP win % is 36% (24/66)

PL win % is 28% (19/67)

Games in hand could only make it worse...

Last season CH won 10 this season 7

Last season SA won 12 this season 8

Last season AP won 11 this season 13

Last season PL won 10 this season 9

Newcastle have already won more games and Villa very nearly have too!

CH loss % is 43% (29/68)

SA loss % is 45% (30/67)

AP loss % is 44% (31/66)

PL loss % is 45% (30/67)

While Hughton''s loss record is slightly best overall.... The actual "current" loss record is the opposite. ...

Last season CH lost 14 this season 15

Last season SA lost 16 this season 14

Last season AP lost 19 this season 12

Last season PL lost 17 this season 13

So much for progression... already have lost more games than last season

And from those 3 teams in the past 2 seasons, we''ve mustered 7 points from 18... that''s 1/12 wins (West Ham, this season) and 7/12 losses (each team both seasons, + Villa, twice this season) :-/

[barclay_boy111 0]

not pleasant reading

[Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . . 0]

To be honest every single stat i see with regards to Hughton makes for utterly depressing reading, just makes me shake my head in disbelief and wonder how on earth this guy is still in a job.

[Crafty Canary 545]

He''s a very nice man!

[Yobocop 1,424]

You can put as many stats as you want up on here but these are the only stats you need:

PL finishing position with Norwich: 12th

CH finishing position with Norwich: 11th

Whichever way you look at it that is progression, we won''t progress this season though in fact we''ll probably finish anywhere between 18th-15th

That is not good enough for the investment this club has made and he needs to go..

This is not good enough so he needs to go

[Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . . 0]

Progression? Under Lambert we finished on more points, won more games, scored more goals, were mentally stronger, could win on the road, and were a far better side. Under Hughton we have been regressing for over 12 months with no end in sight. Yet he''s still backed by the board and a few deluded supporters. Amazing really.

[RodneyTrottersFC 0]

I agree completely with both your comments Tony Cottee

[ricardo 7,928]

3 teams above us in the league have won more games than we have.Shocking!!!!!I''m absolutely stunned by that news.

[Yobocop 1,424]

We finished Higher in the league that is progession whatever way you look at it

Put it this way, Chelsea one season finish on 81 points and finish 2nd, then next season they get 78 points but win the league, which is the more successful season? By your logic it''s the season where they finished 2nd when clearly this isn''t the case.

However unless we have a complete turnaround this season will be seen as a failure if we don''t progress from last seasons finish and if we lose next week it''ll be curtains for hughton

[Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . . 0]

Not necessarily.That analogy doesn''t really work for a few reasons.Agreed.

[RodneyTrottersFC 0]

[quote user="Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . ."]Progression? Under Lambert we finished on more points, won more games, scored more goals, were mentally stronger, could win on the road, and were a far better side. Under Hughton we have been regressing for over 12 months with no end in sight. Yet he''s still backed by the board and a few deluded supporters. Amazing really.[/quote]

And despite conceding more, we also had a better GD our first season up... points then GD then goals scored... as these determined where one finishes in the league

[RodneyTrottersFC 0]

... lol

... and so determine what place you finish by comparing to how other teams did THAT season, you could say points, GD and goals matter more then the ultimate position

[Houston Canary 0]

On one hand, we have more clean sheets, but on the other hand, we''ve given up more clean sheets than a pay-by-the-hour motel.

[Aggy 941]

Why are those three the only ones who are comparable? What about those managing teams below us? What about those who have been sacked from teams in and around us?

And why can their games in hand only make it worse? Surely if they lose or draw their games in hand, their win percentages go down (ie; get closer to Hughton''s), therefore making the percentages look better, not worse?

[Yobocop 1,424]

Exactly my point aggy, surely the only real stat we should worry about is where we finish in the current league

Happy to hear the reasons my analogy doesn''t work

[RodneyTrottersFC 0]

Ricardo: just overlook I chose those teams Specifically because their managers have been in the top flight as long and similar size clubs.... kinda the whole point of the post.... plumb

Yobocop: 1st is better than 2nd and 3rd-6th is better than 7th-10th, 11th-17th is better than 18th- 20th. I don''t just mean the obvious sense... but within those parameters the result is the same thing

[RodneyTrottersFC 0]

You''re welcome btw... I always feel obliged when someone asks if they''re misunderstanding the point...

Aggy: we are, obviously, comparable to more teams... I''d say: the best we should/could achieve, with a good season, is maybe 8th... so that would give me 12 other teams I''d say we''re on par or better than... but... For the 1000th time: it''s not NCFC I''m comparing Hughton''s results ... or if you like to be kinder: NCFC results under our current manager... and the only teams that have had the same manager since Hughton came in are the aforementioned... hence the point of the post.

I also think should consider championship clubs (at least in the current EPL) too... being league 1 was far unsuited for us and for a long time: championship standard was our standard.

And lol... ya grrreat plumb... you are right, duh, but I think if I writ about how "if they fail to win their games in hand, their accuracy won''t be as ahead" that wouldn''t really make sense or suit the tone..... even if they do FTW... all their win percentages would still be better than ours!

[ricardo 7,928]

[quote user="RodneyTrottersFC"]Ricardo: just overlook I chose those teams Specifically because their managers have been in the top flight as long and similar size clubs.... kinda the whole point of the post.... plumb

Yobocop: 1st is better than 2nd and 3rd-6th is better than 7th-10th, 11th-17th is better than 18th- 20th. I don''t just mean the obvious sense... but within those parameters the result is the same thing[/quote]My point is that this is where your argument falls down. Anyone suggesting that these are similar sized clubs to NCFC needs to remove their yellow and green glasses.I would be interested to hear your argument as to where you think we are on the same level either historically, financially or in any other terms of national recognition.

[KeelansGlove 0]

With the greatest of respect Ricardo (and im not even being ironic) I think you are showing your age here to some degree.

The general concept of "club size" is if not quite an outdated principle certainly something that has changed dramatically in the premier league era and even more specifically in the last few years of the megabucks sky contracts.

This is one reason that nobody connected with NCFC in terms of Staff or supporters is in the least bit interested in the concept of expanding Carrow road with the exception of those that cannot get tickets.

Norwich City are a well supported debt free football club owned by shareholders that are not interested in financial returns. Whilst we will never be able to compete with the Sugar daddies of this world I do believe we should consign also the "Little Norwich" tag to the history books as the differences outside the top8 are of less relevance than they were.

[ricardo 7,928]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]With the greatest of respect Ricardo (and im not even being ironic) I think you are showing your age here to some degree.

The general concept of "club size" is if not quite an outdated principle certainly something that has changed dramatically in the premier league era and even more specifically in the last few years of the megabucks sky contracts.

This is one reason that nobody connected with NCFC in terms of Staff or supporters is in the least bit interested in the concept of expanding Carrow road with the exception of those that cannot get tickets.

Norwich City are a well supported debt free football club owned by shareholders that are not interested in financial returns. Whilst we will never be able to compete with the Sugar daddies of this world I do believe we should consign also the "Little Norwich" tag to the history books as the differences outside the top8 are of less relevance than they were.[/quote]Perhaps you should explain that to Newcastle and Villa supporters but don''t be surprised if they laugh in your face.If Rodney''s selection of four selected clubs were put to a vote regarding their perceived position in English football''s pyramid, I wonder where NCFC would be placed.The fact is that we are a medium sized club with no more right to permanent membership of the elite than a dozen other clubs that continually recycle between the Premiership and the Championship. Apart from your perennial top eight the rest are destined to do time in a lower division at some time over the next dozen years or so just as they have over the last dozen.If that''s too painful to accept then you are better off supporting Man Utd or Arsenal or finding something else to do on Satyrday afternoons.

[KeelansGlove 0]

I''m sure many of them would primarily because they are good examples of what we are talking about. To some degree dinosaurs that the world has left behind.

Neither Villa or have any real cash to invest in players both probably servicing huge historical debts and both flirting with relegation in recent seasons.

The only real differences between them and us is history and fan base, history counts for nothing as I am sure Preston , Leeds , Forest and many others would be able to show.

Fan base continues to be marginalised on the basis of the shrinking percentage of revenue ticket sales now account for.

I am not saying it is irrelevant just marginalised and that the bottom 12 teams in the premier league should be in a position to compete with each other if not the top 8.

[Aggy 941]

Rodney, fine, but the fact that you''re discounting already-sacked managers means that you''re basically saying "look at these stats which only compare Hughton to more successful managers, and conveniently ignore all of those managers who had a worse record than him" (or at least a record bad enough for their respective clubs to sack them).

It''s like only taking the top 15 sides in the premiership, ignoring everyone in all the leagues below us, and still saying "Norwich are the worst side in the country".

A far more interesting and revealing set of statistics would be to compare Hughton''s results to all of the managers who have managed similarly placed clubs (let''s say bottom 8 or 9) throughout the whole season - so get the win ratios of Malky, Clarke, Di Canio, Jol etc. as well.

[ricardo 7,928]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]I''m sure many of them would primarily because they are good examples of what we are talking about. To some degree dinosaurs that the world has left behind.

Neither Villa or have any real cash to invest in players both probably servicing huge historical debts and both flirting with relegation in recent seasons.

The only real differences between them and us is history and fan base, history counts for nothing as I am sure Preston , Leeds , Forest and many others would be able to show.

Fan base continues to be marginalised on the basis of the shrinking percentage of revenue ticket sales now account for.

I am not saying it is irrelevant just marginalised and that the bottom 12 teams in the premier league should be in a position to compete with each other if not the top 8.[/quote]They do, that''s why there''s only 10 points between 10th and 20th whilst there''s 23 points between 1st and 9th.Next year 3 of the bottom 10 will be gone and replaced by another 3 who if they can survive the initial season will be pretty much on the same level. That''s what will happen every year under the present financial structure. About 8 teams are permanent members of the Premier League. Beneath them a couple of dozen also ran''s compete for their turn in the sun. In good years we get a nice tan, the rest of the time we wrestle with others in the shade.Take a step back and get some perspective. We are not one of the big boys and there is no indication that we are ever going to be. I don''t like it any more than you but the knowledge of that stops me crying over things that I know are never going to be.

[KeelansGlove 0]

We are not one of the big boys and will never be such. My perspective is that we have been short changed on the basis of what other clubs above us and below us have been able to get for their money in terms of entertainment and there should be no excuse for it based on size of the club. It should be far from a David and Goliath cup tie.