so, when exactly 'should' Hughton have been sacked?

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

I think it''s fairly universally accepted ,amongst those who wanted him out, that this has come too late but what''s the concensus of opinion on when it should have happened?

my opinion may be more radical than most, the warning signs were there after the defeat at Hull in August that Hughton hadn''t learned anything from last season with his inability to be proactive to an advantageous situation that afternoon with Hull being down to 10 men with failure to turn the game around.

He should have gone then and I saw nothing in the ensuing 8 months that will ever convince me otherwise.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I was one of last season''s "pant wetters" and I''d have ideally liked him replaced last summer, but having kept us up I agreed with the consensus that he deserved 10 games to demonstrate that we were moving in the right direction after all the money that was spent in the summer.

 

For me he should have gone after the 7-0 mauling at The Eithad. It wasn''t losing heavily that worried me, we''d done that to Citeh under Lambert, it was the way we just rolled over and gave up as soon as we went 1 behind. They didn''t believe they were good enough, and that is a very dangerous game to play.

 

[Stowmarket Canary (not Delia) 0]

I agree with Mr Brownstone

[Highland Canary 76]

Last summer as was widely debated at the time.

[Crispy 4]

Every time he was on the brink of being sacked .... he won another game.

In the end the lack of consistency overshadowed his rare decent result.

[Waveney Canary 0]

After the biggest humiliation in the clubs history ie the Luton cup game.

[Making Plans 936]

There have been any number of appropriate times - After the 2nd game at Hull - the writing was on the wall regarding intention & tactics against 10 men for over an hourThe home game against Villa - the penalty debacle indicated something was wrongSpurs & Arsenal away - never turned up for either4 nil & 7 nil within 4 days in Manchester - total capitulation twice in a weekFulham at home & both Cup games against them - hoodoo or no hoodoo, 3 shocking performances Cardiff, W Ham, Villa, Southampton, Swansea away - our away form had already been set in tablets of stone long before but it just got worseBut for me, it should have been after the home league defeat by Fulham & just before the January transfer window

[iron_stan 0]

at the start of december

[Herman 9,694]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Last summer as was widely debated at the time.[/quote]

 

And I still completely disagree.[:D]

[50 years a Supporter 0]

After Man City 0-7 and before West Ham 3-1

I guess we''ll never know now, but I''m almost sure he would have been fired had the team not turned that half time deficit around. In my mind, if we do get relegated it will ironically be because of that game - one of the few victories he did preside over. 

[Ketts Rebel 0]

Following the bad run over xmas.

[The gut 0]

For me it was after Cardiff at home. That game removed all doubt that he would ever throw caution to the wind, read the flow of the game and make a positive change to plan A and go all out for a win against a team that offered no threat whatsoever.

[Indy_Bones 441]

Looking at the summer signings, you have to be fair to Hughton and say that he signed some genuinely good players, all of whom had good track records or great potential.The problem was that he then completely misused half of them (along with existing players) by persisting with his overly defensive approach which gave too much respect to opponents and left us looking scared and lost after going behind every single time.I''d probably agree that he should have gone after the Man City game, and absolutely no later than the 5-1 destruction by Liverpool.I personally wanted him gone in the summer, but was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and chance to bring in new players which could have easily facilitated a much better style of play, he squandered that chance and was then given FAR too long to continue f**king things up...

[LostTheFaith 0]

At the end of this season if we had gone down.

Last season finishing 11th was an unmitigated success . Anybody who cannot see that had it in for Hoots from day one.

[Cantiaci Canary 556]

When we lost to Villa at home this season.

It confirmed to me that all of the frustrating errors and blatant decay that had polluted Jan-May 2013 had not been addressed let alone fixed.

We have been guilty of being too generous to a severely limited manager and will now almost certainly pay the price for it ... Survival could have been so easily achieved.

[The gut 0]

Fair point KeepTheFaith, I''ve often thought the board had it in for him right from day one.

I always got that feeling every home game since he was here that our twenty odd thousand supporters also wanted him out and couldn''t wait for opportunity to chant for his head.

I think it was cos he was irish

[Katie Borkins 1]

The board trusted him to splash the cash so he deserved time to show he could build a team, but I reckon that his time was up at Christmas when that was obvious he hadn''t taken us forwards despite spending all that dough. He just wedged more expensive square pegs into the same round holes.

[Bill 1,788]

The board trusted him to splash the cash so he deserved time to show he could build a team, ....................despite spending all that dough.

that is priceless !

[ricardo 7,328]

The Board do what every Board does. Pick a manager, hope for the best, accept the plaudits when it goes right and cut the guys legs off when it goes wrong.In the end, they are still here and he''s gone.How long before the first "Adams Out" call?Every manager is on borrowed time. Even Lambert knew that.

[BOO 0]

End of last season

[Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . . 0]

[quote user="KeepTheFaith"]At the end of this season if we had gone down.

Last season finishing 11th was an unmitigated success . Anybody who cannot see that had it in for Hoots from day one.[/quote]Even though relegation looked a forgone conclusion under Hughton, he deserved to stay on the basis of an 11th place finish the previous season? So basically, in your eyes, Chris Hughton was bigger than Norwich City FC.

[lake district canary 4,530]

If he was going to be sacked this season, it should have happened after the 7-0.   That it didn''t showed the board were going to stick with him, hoping that results would improve - and they did, with more clean sheets and enough wins to keep us clear of trouble...until Saturday.   In the end it was either a brave or foolish decision, we could argue about, but the problem in the past was not just when to sack him, but if they did sack him, who would have taken his place?   Not easy running a football club..................

[city4eva 207]

At the end of last season, thats not hindsight its what i said at the time

[The 12th Devine 0]

Didn''t want Hughton in the first place but always respected the board''s decision to stick with him and, unlike many on here, I think survival of any kind is the most realistic ambition for us each season – hence didn''t regard our constant flirtation with relegation as the crime it was perceived to be.

For me, while never joining the hate camp, I felt like the Boxing Day defeat to Fulham would have been about right. That said, with the paucity of options to replace him with I can''t blame the board for holding out. Even now a ready replacement isn''t obvious, hence plumping for the co-commentator (a very good co-commentator at that and a man who might – I hope – surprise us all).

[LostTheFaith 0]

How was relagation a forgone conclusion ? 5 points clear and 5 games left numpty! The crown reaction Saturday got him sacked.

It''s still in our hands and it should have still been Chris Hughtons. But now, as ever, I am 100% behind the club, manager and players . Never booing always a true supporter.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

I make that four votes for after the 7-0 at the Etihad, three votes for various times in December, three votes for last summer, two for after Fulham, and a vote each for after Hull (a), after Luton in the FA Cup, after Cardiff (h) and after Villa (h). Given such remarkable unanimity it is astonishing the board didn''t act at that one obvious moment.

[Aggy 747]

7-0 City game, after the Fulham/Man Utd games after Christmas, any point in January, after the West Ham loss. After the Villa or Stoke games last month - could probably have got a better manager in with 9 or 10 games left than you can with 5.

To be fair, there are quite a few times there where he dug himself out of a whole with subsequent results, or was given the benefit of the doubt with a transfer window coming up. But that''s fine when it happens once or even twice a season. When there are four, five or six times when he''s on a "win or you''re out" ultimatum, alarm bells should be ringing.

The West Ham game was the big one. 1 win in 11 league (13 in total) games, 9 points in that same period, loads of "winnable games" during that spell, an international break for the new manager to regroup and reorganise, and 12 games left - ie; long enough for a new manager to change things. That was the cut off point for getting in someone decent as a replacement, that should have been stick or twist for good in my opinion.

[Molly Windley 76]

Specsavers must have had a huge run on those 20/20 hindsight/foresight bifocals.Whats the earliest that someone has claimed to have called for him to be sacked?I thought he should have been sacked one week before that.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,075]

I thought the writing was on the wall after the Hull game too, but I hoped things would change. IMO the 7-0 at Man City should have been thre final nail in the coffin

[morty 0]

[quote user="Molly Windley"]Specsavers must have had a huge run on those 20/20 hindsight/foresight bifocals.Whats the earliest that someone has claimed to have called for him to be sacked?I thought he should have been sacked one week before that.[/quote][:D]