Chris Hughton is @#£%&#£ Clueless

[can u sit down please 0]

Nige, Lambert has 3 in total. 1 goal and 2 assists.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

My mistake buddy. But still just one goal and probably a shame you couldn''t comment on the rest of my post.

 

But I would add that I would never have thought it possible that a thread starting off with one of HBMs effin&jeffin rants could possibly have turned into such an interesting discussion. Thanks Hoggy[Y]

 

 

[can u sit down please 0]

I''ve not read the whole post, just jumped to the last page.

Happy to help [Y]

[can u sit down please 0]

I''ve not read the whole post, just jumped to the last page.

Happy to help [Y]

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]I''ve said it all season, we need to press higher up the pitch.

We are winning balls in our own 3rd and there is still a lot of ground to make up to score.

By having the wingers pushed up on to the full backs, it would stop rvw chasing them down and sticking to the width of the 18yd box.

If he did that I feel he would get more chances. Up top on his own, he is doing the work of 2/3 players.

At times on Saturday we were letting stoke have the ball and having 10 men behind the ball leaving Ricky so far up on his own he may well have been on mars.

Look at Wigan yesterday. They did it, yes you can get caught out by leaving gaps, but press well enough and in the right areas and teams can''t settle to hurt you.[/quote]

Pressing high can be effective, but for every Wigan getting away with it there are plenty that get picked off, like Sunderland did, despite starting so promisingly.

In truth, while it wasn''t an exhilarating game, City didn''t do a lot wrong against Stoke (second half) other than give a weak referee an opportunity to give a soft penalty.

As you say, it''s a tactic that perhaps could have been utilised more often this season, we''ve certainly done it on occasion but if we played like it every week we''d be every bit as predictable as it''s claimed we are now.

I still don''t really think it''s the system that''s the problem but the players being asked to play it sometimes. There''s a nagging thought in my mind that our best option up top playing the system we do would be Elmander...Wolf AND Hoops on the bench, that would rattle a few cages...

I must be wrong....

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]I''ve said it all season, we need to press higher up the pitch.

We are winning balls in our own 3rd and there is still a lot of ground to make up to score.

By having the wingers pushed up on to the full backs, it would stop rvw chasing them down and sticking to the width of the 18yd box.

If he did that I feel he would get more chances. Up top on his own, he is doing the work of 2/3 players.

At times on Saturday we were letting stoke have the ball and having 10 men behind the ball leaving Ricky so far up on his own he may well have been on mars.

Look at Wigan yesterday. They did it, yes you can get caught out by leaving gaps, but press well enough and in the right areas and teams can''t settle to hurt you.[/quote]

Pressing high can be effective, but for every Wigan getting away with it there are plenty that get picked off, like Sunderland did, despite starting so promisingly.

In truth, while it wasn''t an exhilarating game, City didn''t do a lot wrong against Stoke (second half) other than give a weak referee an opportunity to give a soft penalty.

As you say, it''s a tactic that perhaps could have been utilised more often this season, we''ve certainly done it on occasion but if we played like it every week we''d be every bit as predictable as it''s claimed we are now.

I still don''t really think it''s the system that''s the problem but the players being asked to play it sometimes. There''s a nagging thought in my mind that our best option up top playing the system we do would be Elmander...Wolf AND Hoops on the bench, that would rattle a few cages...

I must be wrong....

[Matt Morriss 69]

Let''s get the facts right here people. Wes was subbed on 65 mins, with a full 30 mins still left to play.

He was also not looking remotely tired. He is a professional athlete who hasn''t played much football of late. Let''s get it straight. He wasn''t tired.

Hughton decided to sit on a 1-0 lead so he made a cautious sub, as evidenced by Howson sitting deep.

Facts are Hughton constant cautious approach has cost us points, again!!

[morty 0]

[quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"]Let''s get the facts right here people. Wes was subbed on 65 mins, with a full 30 mins still left to play.

He was also not looking remotely tired. He is a professional athlete who hasn''t played much football of late. Let''s get it straight. He wasn''t tired.

Hughton decided to sit on a 1-0 lead so he made a cautious sub, as evidenced by Howson sitting deep.

Facts are Hughton constant cautious approach has cost us points, again!![/quote]How do you know that he wasn''t tired? So he hadn''t played the previous Sunday, then the Wednesday, so by my count he was involved in three games in six days.And whats so wrong, if your strikers aren''t scoring goals, with trying to win a game one nil?

[Matt Morriss 69]

br>But really, the Wes substitution only looks bad in hindsight, because of the sending off.Thats the thing though, a gamble. Although it felt like a loss, we''re still a point closer to safety.

Nope. It didn''t look bad in hindsight because of the sending off, it made it much worse. It looked bad because we were winning 1-0, on top of the game, and Wes was having a very good game and was instrumental in every attack we had, and in fact was the only player testing the keeper.

Taking him off killed our attacking impetus and allowed Stoke back in the game. I can''t believe some of the comments trying to excuse and rationalise the Wes sub. He was tired, he was getting muscled off, Howson would offer more. All tosh.

Hughton has dropped a huge clanger here, it was the worst decision of his woeful time in charge and completely indicative of his negative, cautious tactical ethos and the reason we find ourselves in a relegation battle again.

Wake up people.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"]Let''s get the facts right here people. Wes was subbed on 65 mins, with a full 30 mins still left to play.

He was also not looking remotely tired. He is a professional athlete who hasn''t played much football of late. Let''s get it straight. He wasn''t tired.

Hughton decided to sit on a 1-0 lead so he made a cautious sub, as evidenced by Howson sitting deep.

Facts are Hughton constant cautious approach has cost us points, again!![/quote]How do you know that he wasn''t tired? So he hadn''t played the previous Sunday, then the Wednesday, so by my count he was involved in three games in six days.And whats so wrong, if your strikers aren''t scoring goals, with trying to win a game one nil?[/quote]

I know he wasn''t tired because I know Wes Hoolahan. When Wes gets tired its obvious because he starts giving the ball away and making the wrong decision mentally and generally his impact on the game fades rather quickly and rather evidently. I''ve seen it a hundred times.

On Saturday he didn''t look remotely tired and in fact his last contribution was a sublime pass with the outside of his boot out to Redmond who mis controlled it out for a throw. Not the mark of a tired Wes.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"]Let''s get the facts right here people. Wes was subbed on 65 mins, with a full 30 mins still left to play.

He was also not looking remotely tired. He is a professional athlete who hasn''t played much football of late. Let''s get it straight. He wasn''t tired.

Hughton decided to sit on a 1-0 lead so he made a cautious sub, as evidenced by Howson sitting deep.

Facts are Hughton constant cautious approach has cost us points, again!![/quote]How do you know that he wasn''t tired? So he hadn''t played the previous Sunday, then the Wednesday, so by my count he was involved in three games in six days.And whats so wrong, if your strikers aren''t scoring goals, with trying to win a game one nil?[/quote]

I know he wasn''t tired because I know Wes Hoolahan. When Wes gets tired its obvious because he starts giving the ball away and making the wrong decision mentally and generally his impact on the game fades rather quickly and rather evidently. I''ve seen it a hundred times.

On Saturday he didn''t look remotely tired and in fact his last contribution was a sublime pass with the outside of his boot out to Redmond who mis controlled it out for a throw. Not the mark of a tired Wes.[/quote]In your opinion.In my opinion, he did look tired. And taking him off also served to give Howson some game time.

[can u sit down please 0]

What''s frustrating Duncan is that when we do press we look better, rather than 2 banks soaking up pressure.

What''s also frustrating is most teams have evolved into us this style, it seems as though we are still using dial up internet rather than fibre optic broadband.

We''ve been picked off quite a lot so what harm would it do? Soaking up pressure and letting teams play is asking for it.

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]What''s frustrating Duncan is that when we do press we look better, rather than 2 banks soaking up pressure. What''s also frustrating is most teams have evolved into us this style, it seems as though we are still using dial up internet rather than fibre optic broadband. We''ve been picked off quite a lot so what harm would it do? Soaking up pressure and letting teams play is asking for it.[/quote]

 

Which of the teams in the bottom half do you class as playing this "pressing" style, week in, week out?

 

 

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"]Let''s get the facts right here people. Wes was subbed on 65 mins, with a full 30 mins still left to play.

He was also not looking remotely tired. He is a professional athlete who hasn''t played much football of late. Let''s get it straight. He wasn''t tired.

Hughton decided to sit on a 1-0 lead so he made a cautious sub, as evidenced by Howson sitting deep.

Facts are Hughton constant cautious approach has cost us points, again!![/quote]How do you know that he wasn''t tired? So he hadn''t played the previous Sunday, then the Wednesday, so by my count he was involved in three games in six days.And whats so wrong, if your strikers aren''t scoring goals, with trying to win a game one nil?[/quote]

I know he wasn''t tired because I know Wes Hoolahan. When Wes gets tired its obvious because he starts giving the ball away and making the wrong decision mentally and generally his impact on the game fades rather quickly and rather evidently. I''ve seen it a hundred times.

On Saturday he didn''t look remotely tired and in fact his last contribution was a sublime pass with the outside of his boot out to Redmond who mis controlled it out for a throw. Not the mark of a tired Wes.[/quote]In your opinion.In my opinion, he did look tired. And taking him off also served to give Howson some game time.

[/quote]

On what evidence did he look tired tho? Was he giving the ball away? No. Was he getting robbed? No. Was he still a major attacking influence on the game? Yes.

Come on, we all know very well when Wes is getting tired as its very evident. He starts giving the ball away, getting robbed and mis placing his passes.

[Guest]

Am I the only person who thinks Wes wasn''t having one of his best games?

We barely had a chance in the first half, and the way I saw it, he was certainly struggling to have a huge impact on the game. Certainly was not defensive or unreasonable to bring Howson on in his place IMO.

[morty 0]

[quote user="I.S."]Am I the only person who thinks Wes wasn''t having one of his best games?

We barely had a chance in the first half, and the way I saw it, he was certainly struggling to have a huge impact on the game. Certainly was not defensive or unreasonable to bring Howson on in his place IMO.[/quote]No, you''re not.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]I''ve said it all season, we need to press higher up the pitch. We are winning balls in our own 3rd and there is still a lot of ground to make up to score. By having the wingers pushed up on to the full backs, it would stop rvw chasing them down and sticking to the width of the 18yd box. If he did that I feel he would get more chances. Up top on his own, he is doing the work of 2/3 players. At times on Saturday we were letting stoke have the ball and having 10 men behind the ball leaving Ricky so far up on his own he may well have been on mars. Look at Wigan yesterday. They did it, yes you can get caught out by leaving gaps, but press well enough and in the right areas and teams can''t settle to hurt you.[/quote]

 

this is a great point.. I can remember a stream from earlier in the season (yes im a plastic.. blah blah!) and Dean Sturridge said that he thought, in our third and the midfield third we looked like a top 8 team in the premiership, winning the ball and playing much better than most.

 

he said in the final third we get way too isolated, with only 1 or 2 players forward. if we could commit more we''d create more.

 

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]I''ve said it all season, we need to press higher up the pitch. We are winning balls in our own 3rd and there is still a lot of ground to make up to score. By having the wingers pushed up on to the full backs, it would stop rvw chasing them down and sticking to the width of the 18yd box. If he did that I feel he would get more chances. Up top on his own, he is doing the work of 2/3 players. At times on Saturday we were letting stoke have the ball and having 10 men behind the ball leaving Ricky so far up on his own he may well have been on mars. Look at Wigan yesterday. They did it, yes you can get caught out by leaving gaps, but press well enough and in the right areas and teams can''t settle to hurt you.[/quote]

 

this is a great point.. I can remember a stream from earlier in the season (yes im a plastic.. blah blah!) and Dean Sturridge said that he thought, in our third and the midfield third we looked like a top 8 team in the premiership, winning the ball and playing much better than most.

 

he said in the final third we get way too isolated, with only 1 or 2 players forward. if we could commit more we''d create more.

 

 

[/quote]And likely concede more.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]I''ve said it all season, we need to press higher up the pitch. We are winning balls in our own 3rd and there is still a lot of ground to make up to score. By having the wingers pushed up on to the full backs, it would stop rvw chasing them down and sticking to the width of the 18yd box. If he did that I feel he would get more chances. Up top on his own, he is doing the work of 2/3 players. At times on Saturday we were letting stoke have the ball and having 10 men behind the ball leaving Ricky so far up on his own he may well have been on mars. Look at Wigan yesterday. They did it, yes you can get caught out by leaving gaps, but press well enough and in the right areas and teams can''t settle to hurt you.[/quote]

 

this is a great point.. I can remember a stream from earlier in the season (yes im a plastic.. blah blah!) and Dean Sturridge said that he thought, in our third and the midfield third we looked like a top 8 team in the premiership, winning the ball and playing much better than most.

 

he said in the final third we get way too isolated, with only 1 or 2 players forward. if we could commit more we''d create more.

 

 

[/quote]

And likely concede more.
[/quote]

 

perahps.. although not necessarily.. if we commit an extra couple of bodies forwards it can pin defenders deep, meaning the opposition midfield have to get back and help out. the space this gives our midfield to regain and retain possession with the defence means we can probe and exploit and wait for the chance to attack.

all speculation, no games is the same.

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]I''ve said it all season, we need to press higher up the pitch. We are winning balls in our own 3rd and there is still a lot of ground to make up to score. By having the wingers pushed up on to the full backs, it would stop rvw chasing them down and sticking to the width of the 18yd box. If he did that I feel he would get more chances. Up top on his own, he is doing the work of 2/3 players. At times on Saturday we were letting stoke have the ball and having 10 men behind the ball leaving Ricky so far up on his own he may well have been on mars. Look at Wigan yesterday. They did it, yes you can get caught out by leaving gaps, but press well enough and in the right areas and teams can''t settle to hurt you.[/quote]

 

this is a great point.. I can remember a stream from earlier in the season (yes im a plastic.. blah blah!) and Dean Sturridge said that he thought, in our third and the midfield third we looked like a top 8 team in the premiership, winning the ball and playing much better than most.

 

he said in the final third we get way too isolated, with only 1 or 2 players forward. if we could commit more we''d create more.

 

 

[/quote]

And likely concede more.
[/quote]

 

And there''s the conundrum.

 

 If we are to play a higher pressing game we need better players than we have, our ball retention needs to be better or we''ll just knacker ourselves. It''s great chasing down and winning the ball in advanced areas but if you give it away within a few passes you''re back chasing again.

[Ray 111]

Morty,

We may concede more but would we score more than we concede? There lies the conundrum.

There are pleanty of teams above us who do it, so why can''t we?

Surely the object of the game is to score at least one more than you concede and you cannot do that unless you have bodies somewhere near the goal.

The question must be, do we have the players capable of scoring if they received more support and received the ball in situations where they are not surrounded by defenders because they have no one else to mark?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Ray"]Morty,

We may concede more but would we score more than we concede? There lies the conundrum.

There are pleanty of teams above us who do it, so why can''t we?

Surely the object of the game is to score at least one more than you concede and you cannot do that unless you have bodies somewhere near the goal.

The question must be, do we have the players capable of scoring if they received more support and received the ball in situations where they are not surrounded by defenders because they have no one else to mark?[/quote]Surely common sense says that if your forwards aren''t scoring, for whatever reason, then your best option is to play a tight, low scoring game?A case of Hughton cutting his cloth accordingly.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Warren Hill"][quote user="morty"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]I''ve said it all season, we need to press higher up the pitch. We are winning balls in our own 3rd and there is still a lot of ground to make up to score. By having the wingers pushed up on to the full backs, it would stop rvw chasing them down and sticking to the width of the 18yd box. If he did that I feel he would get more chances. Up top on his own, he is doing the work of 2/3 players. At times on Saturday we were letting stoke have the ball and having 10 men behind the ball leaving Ricky so far up on his own he may well have been on mars. Look at Wigan yesterday. They did it, yes you can get caught out by leaving gaps, but press well enough and in the right areas and teams can''t settle to hurt you.[/quote]

 

this is a great point.. I can remember a stream from earlier in the season (yes im a plastic.. blah blah!) and Dean Sturridge said that he thought, in our third and the midfield third we looked like a top 8 team in the premiership, winning the ball and playing much better than most.

 

he said in the final third we get way too isolated, with only 1 or 2 players forward. if we could commit more we''d create more.

 

 

[/quote]And likely concede more.[/quote]

 

And there''s the conundrum.

 

 If we are to play a higher pressing game we need better players than we have, our ball retention needs to be better or we''ll just knacker ourselves. It''s great chasing down and winning the ball in advanced areas but if you give it away within a few passes you''re back chasing again.

[/quote]Therein lies the crux for me. People are so polarized against the manager that they are actually missing the point that our squad really isn''t as strong as they think it is.We need the majority of the squad firing on all cylinders so we can be competitive. What difference could have Elliot Bennet made, and more importantly for me, if Pilkington looked anything like he did two seasons ago.

[can u sit down please 0]

Agree with pilks, but would he have been given the same freedom as two years ago?

Cut our cloth accordingly.....maybe with more support, our two dm''s holding and our full backs bombing on, maybe we would''ve scored more.

You can still be fairly solid without being too open. If we lose the ball more in the final 3rd than in the central areas and last 3rd like we currently are, we would prob concede less.

Just to add, I think Elliott Bennett is a champ player. Nice guy but nowhere near snoddy.

[Ray 111]

Morty,

You know what they say about common sense, it isn''t common or we would all think the same, however I do agree with the main thrust of your point. I think we do have players who are capable of scoring, it''s just they aren''t scoring for us, so, something needs to be done.

It could have become a psychological thing, if so let'';s sort it, it could be we are not playing to their strengths, if so let''s sort it, etc. etc.

The bottom linne is let''s sort it whatever the reason be. The prime responsibility for this obviously lies with certain key individuals, however we all have a part to play.

Until such time as we have the right people in place, with the right skills and mindset and I include all positions on and off the field, then yes perhaps we should play tight low scoring games. All I want to see is it being sorted because we can''t continue on forever playing tight low scoring games, or if we do we will evenyually suffer in league position, support, income, etc.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Ray"]Morty,

You know what they say about common sense, it isn''t common or we would all think the same, however I do agree with the main thrust of your point. I think we do have players who are capable of scoring, it''s just they aren''t scoring for us, so, something needs to be done.

It could have become a psychological thing, if so let'';s sort it, it could be we are not playing to their strengths, if so let''s sort it, etc. etc.

The bottom linne is let''s sort it whatever the reason be. The prime responsibility for this obviously lies with certain key individuals, however we all have a part to play.

Until such time as we have the right people in place, with the right skills and mindset and I include all positions on and off the field, then yes perhaps we should play tight low scoring games. All I want to see is it being sorted because we can''t continue on forever playing tight low scoring games, or if we do we will evenyually suffer in league position, support, income, etc.[/quote]I don''t think we''re far off Ray, a few more quality signings in the summer and we''ll be competitive.But the fact is that with our budget, we really need to have as many as fit as possible, we''re always going to look depleted quickly when you take just 2 or 3 players out of the squad.Think of the difference Elliot Bennet pushing Snoddy for his place, and a fit Pilkington meaning we can use Redmond as an impact sub against tired legs.I''m sure Hughton didn''t buy the strikers he did  expecting them not to score goals, but when it has turned out that way, like I say, he has had to cut his cloth accordingly.

[Ray 111]

Morty,

I tend to agree, so roll on the summer when we can buy more quality or improve the fitness and/or mentality of the squad (including coaching staff). However, I still think more positivity and we would have more points, how many I couldn''t say, but look how we played against Chelsea, Man Utd and Man City at home, OK we only picked up one point, and many would argue that is one more that we expected but if we played in the same vein against ''lesser'' teams I''m certain we would have won when we drew and drawn when we lost in more games than we would have lost when drawing and drawn when winning. My memory says there have been 7 games we lost or drew when scoring first, let''s say one point per game lost, so we could have 36 points by now. Jjust my opinion of course!

[morty 0]

[quote user="Ray"]Morty,

I tend to agree, so roll on the summer when we can buy more quality or improve the fitness and/or mentality of the squad (including coaching staff). However, I still think more positivity and we would have more points, how many I couldn''t say, but look how we played against Chelsea, Man Utd and Man City at home, OK we only picked up one point, and many would argue that is one more that we expected but if we played in the same vein against ''lesser'' teams I''m certain we would have won when we drew and drawn when we lost in more games than we would have lost when drawing and drawn when winning. My memory says there have been 7 games we lost or drew when scoring first, let''s say one point per game lost, so we could have 36 points by now. Jjust my opinion of course![/quote]But this just circles back round to what we were talking about in the last few posts, our squad is barely good enough to be competitive enough, so it will be inconsistent.

[Ray 111]

Morty,

Yep, but why? Changing the thread of this thread slightly, I am convinced as I can be it''s a mental thing, I think this is an area we can improve on massively, besides playing ability.

I have a saying, which is, "the superlative performance you are about to give already exists in your head" Nothing can exist without it first being a thought in someones head, even the chair you are sat on Morty existed as an thought before it became a chair.

So it follows then the ''dire'' performance you are about to give also exists in your head, the managers/players who really understand this and know how to bring the superlative to the fore, are the ones who win games more often than not. Get this right and you can outperform someone who may have more natural ability, we''ve seen it enough times, a la Luton!!

[morty 0]

[quote user="Ray"]Morty,

Yep, but why? Changing the thread of this thread slightly, I am convinced as I can be it''s a mental thing, I think this is an area we can improve on massively, besides playing ability.

I have a saying, which is, "the superlative performance you are about to give already exists in your head" Nothing can exist without it first being a thought in someones head, even the chair you are sat on Morty existed as an thought before it became a chair.

So it follows then the ''dire'' performance you are about to give also exists in your head, the managers/players who really understand this and know how to bring the superlative to the fore, are the ones who win games more often than not. Get this right and you can outperform someone who may have more natural ability, we''ve seen it enough times, a la Luton!![/quote]Oh I don''t deny the fact that a positive mental attitude is what makes a succesful sportsman, not at all.Players feel the pressure just the same as fans do, and its their ability to deal with the pressure that increases their net worth (obviously as well as actual ability)I saw an article somewhere recently that sand Calderwood''s praises, as a man manager, which would maybe throw a few peoples theories out a tad.