Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
baggie192

An Outsider's View

Recommended Posts

Neil Adams, that''s a strange one. Give the guy the hardest last 4 games so he''s basically peeing on a bonfire. Then appoint him after relegation and waste a fortnight preperation time. What I don''t get is if that was the long term plan. Why not sack Hughton at Christmas and give him a realistic chance of keeping you up? Is Hughton coming to ours, who knows? He''d fit our structure, I''m ambivalent, there are other better and worst options out there. Can we convince them? Luckily that isn''t my job, but, Norwich did us a favour with this appointment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
''What I don''t get is if that was the long term plan. Why not sack Hughton at Christmas and give him a realistic chance of keeping you up?"

It''s a strange one isn''t it. You should be grateful we didn''t as I believe we would have stayed up had that been done. As for Hughton, if I were a baggies fan I would be praying he doesn''t get the job, if he does, lay big money on your relegation, it will soften the blow and go some way to comfort you for all the hours of negative football you have just watched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, you could say the OP has certainly had his eyebrow raised by our clubs decision.

I think Adams has awful lot to prove. I hope he is mentally strong enough to take on the challenge that is in front of him.

I fear for him somewhat though, he is starting on shaky foundations, and as such will have to get results early, the calls for his sacking will start very early if not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="baggie192"]Neil Adams, that''s a strange one. Give the guy the hardest last 4 games so he''s basically peeing on a bonfire. Then appoint him after relegation and waste a fortnight preperation time. What I don''t get is if that was the long term plan. Why not sack Hughton at Christmas and give him a realistic chance of keeping you up? Is Hughton coming to ours, who knows? He''d fit our structure, I''m ambivalent, there are other better and worst options out there. Can we convince them? Luckily that isn''t my job, but, Norwich did us a favour with this appointment[/quote]

Players are ''on holiday'' so I am not too sure what you on aboutIf he would fit your structure then you are either in a far, far greater mess than even you can imagine, or you haven''t a clue about the damage this man causedNot sure how we did you a favour as we are not in the same division

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JF"]''What I don''t get is if that was the long term plan. Why not sack Hughton at Christmas and give him a realistic chance of keeping you up?"

It''s a strange one isn''t it. You should be grateful we didn''t as I believe we would have stayed up had that been done. As for Hughton, if I were a baggies fan I would be praying he doesn''t get the job, if he does, lay big money on your relegation, it will soften the blow and go some way to comfort you for all the hours of negative football you have just watched.[/quote]Both our boards have made terrible mistakes in he last 6 months. Yours getting rid of Hughton too late, ours, getting rid of Mel too soon. If it was going to be Hughton I think we would have appointed by now. Its the one crumb of  comfort I have :) I''d like Landrup or Paul Clemant, I fear a Keith Downing though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Houghton will make Pepe Mel''s brand of football look like vintage early 2000''s Arsenal.  You''ll need several grams of the old "truck driver specials" just to get to half time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="baggie192"]Neil Adams, that''s a strange one. Give the guy the hardest last 4 games so he''s basically peeing on a bonfire. Then appoint him after relegation and waste a fortnight preperation time. What I don''t get is if that was the long term plan. Why not sack Hughton at Christmas and give him a realistic chance of keeping you up? Is Hughton coming to ours, who knows? He''d fit our structure, I''m ambivalent, there are other better and worst options out there. Can we convince them? Luckily that isn''t my job, but, Norwich did us a favour with this appointment[/quote]

Players are ''on holiday'' so I am not too sure what you on aboutPerhaps my ignorance of your system, as we use head coach/DOF system which means we''ve re-signed the likes of Dorrans and Brunt. Plus the signing of Gardner which means the next coach can hit the ground running, where as a manager would have to be appointedIf he would fit your structure then you are either in a far, far greater mess than even you can imagine, or you haven''t a clue about the damage this man caused As amanager he probably did cause chaos, but, he wouldn''t be used as a manager just as a head coach In that role at both Newcastle and the Blues he did ok. In your first season with him you were 11th. As I''ve said elsewhere I can take him or leave himNot sure how we did you a favour as we are not in the same divisionYou''re a desirable club though only just relegated so therefore direct managerial competition

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The club, as with scouting and ''drawing up targets'' etc is continuing as beforeThis has probably been the least disruptive re-appointment, as per Foley joining at virtually the same time that Adams was re appointed managerAs to competition then it is just as much the suitability of the manager as getting some ''name''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baggie, you have to understand that Hughton was doomed to fail at Norwich before we even kicked a ball in anger.  The players we had were used to a gung ho approach and he tried to organise them - and some of the players were less than clever in their attitude towards that.  Also, a lot of our fans turned against him almost from the first pre-season friendly.  He actually did well to get a ten match unbeaten run together which effectively kept us up - after that run and the bubble burst, the players could not maintain the level they achieved in that run - they basically had been playing above themselves.    They did well to finish 11th.

This season has been a mixture of injuries, new players not settling, fans unrest and Hughton running out of ideas on how to turn it round. For what its worth though, I think Hughton - in the right set up - could do a good job at a lower premiership club.   He needs the right set up to start with though - and players that are used to a disciplined way of playing.   Our players were not really up to playing how he wanted, often enough - most of our fans blame the manager totally, but some fault has to  lie with our players too imo.   

If Hughton goes to WBA, I hope he gets better treatment from the fans than he did here - he was on a hiding to nothing taking over from Paul Lambert - and some of our fans couldn''t cope with him not being Paul Lambert.   However, he did fail here and ran out of ideas, so we move on to Adams now with renewed hope and enthusiasm.  

(Cue accusations from Norwich fans accusing me of a Hughton "love in" - but believe me, the above is an accurate reflection of our two seasons with Hughton in charge.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]The club, as with scouting and ''drawing up targets'' etc is continuing as beforeThis has probably been the least disruptive re-appointment, as per Foley joining at virtually the same time that Adams was re appointed managerAs to competition then it is just as much the suitability of the manager as getting some ''name''.

[/quote]Which brings me back to my original point. If your board had appointed him at christmas you would have caught us. Mel wasn''t backed, the Squad we had a rotton core now gladly departed. 90% of Baggies are upset that Mel never got a fair crack, because we could see what he trying to do. All your board had to say to Adams, when he was appointed is "have these 5 games plus next season" would there have been such a backlash as you''re seeing now? Boh Boards have made massive cock ups 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The players were used to a gung-ho approach"

Er, no.

The players were conditioned to believe they could win any game and didn''t have to retreat to the edge of their own 18 yard box, tugging their forelocks and apologising for being in the same league as the big boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="baggie192"][quote user="City1st"]The club, as with scouting and ''drawing up targets'' etc is continuing as beforeThis has probably been the least disruptive re-appointment, as per Foley joining at virtually the same time that Adams was re appointed managerAs to competition then it is just as much the suitability of the manager as getting some ''name''.

[/quote]Which brings me back to my original point. If your board had appointed him at christmas you would have caught us. Mel wasn''t backed, the Squad we had a rotton core now gladly departed. 90% of Baggies are upset that Mel never got a fair crack, because we could see what he trying to do. All your board had to say to Adams, when he was appointed is "have these 5 games plus next season" would there have been such a backlash as you''re seeing now? Boh Boards have made massive cock ups  [/quote]Adams'' caretaker appointment was a desperation measure. We were doing ok after the Sunderland game, 7 points clear of the drop zone with 7 games to go. But we always knew with our dismal record against Fulham, and 4 horrendous games at the end, that we needed something from the West Brom game.We lost against West Brom, the fans were up in arms, and then board were forced to act.Presumably the board saw something in those last 5 games that impressed them, but before that he wasn''t a contender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" The players we had were used to a gung ho approach and he tried to

organise them - and some of the players were less than clever in their

attitude towards that."that just about sums up your grasp of the gamea sentence of meaningless nonsense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" The players we had were used to a gung ho approach and he tried to

organise them - and some of the players were less than clever in their

attitude towards that."that just about sums up your grasp of the gamea sentence of meaningless nonsense

Pompous twit.  The players were plainly struggling to adapt to the change of manager. Hughton tried to get them to play a more disciplined way than they were used to - and some of them were not up to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="baggie192"][quote user="City1st"]The club, as with scouting and ''drawing up targets'' etc is continuing as beforeThis has probably been the least disruptive re-appointment, as per Foley joining at virtually the same time that Adams was re appointed managerAs to competition then it is just as much the suitability of the manager as getting some ''name''.

[/quote]Which brings me back to my original point. If your board had appointed him at christmas you would have caught us. Mel wasn''t backed, the Squad we had a rotton core now gladly departed. 90% of Baggies are upset that Mel never got a fair crack, because we could see what he trying to do. All your board had to say to Adams, when he was appointed is "have these 5 games plus next season" would there have been such a backlash as you''re seeing now? Boh Boards have made massive cock ups  [/quote]Which is what has caused quite a bit of discord this end of things. It was clear a few weeks after the previous Xmas that Hughton was not the man for the job. In one stunning insight when we turned a 0-1 to Everton into a 2-1 Hugton admitted that the players had gone against his instructions and attacked ! From what I have been reliably informed this dissent continued and was only resolved by the club backing Hughton ... something I think they now realise they continued with for far, far too long.His ineptness was legendary. Away to a 10 man Hull Hughton was clueless as to how to change things around. We lost. Game after game was the same. Players who should have been fired up looked totlly mystified as whether they should follow their instincts or Hughtons failing tactics. I''m sure more will come out, as folk begin to grasp just how incompetent as a manager he was - and i don''t doubt that the comment by Mick Dennis (elsewhere) about Adams resolving a couple of player problems has been put up to highlight the contrast with Hughtons ''bully boy'' tactics.Aa good manager leads by example and by installing belief and confidence in those he leads. Hughton was the opposite of that using the simple tactic of do as I say or you are out. No wonder there was so much ''celebration '' when he went.Thankfully we have a bold an imaginative board who are prepared to be positive to keep the club moving forward. It would have been all too easy to appoint a name and so dodge their responsibility.At the moment it is looking very good. A massive breath of fresh air to replace the stagnant and fetid negativity of Hughton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]" The players we had were used to a gung ho approach and he tried to

organise them - and some of the players were less than clever in their

attitude towards that."that just about sums up your grasp of the gamea sentence of meaningless nonsense

Pompous twit.  The players were plainly struggling to adapt to the change of manager. Hughton tried to get them to play a more disciplined way than they were used to - and some of them were not up to it. 

[/quote]what a pile of nonsensical sh ite !how can you claim that Fer, RVW and Hooper were all playing the same game ie one that they could not adapt to at CR.  All were at different clubs in different countries. What about all those who were with him the season before - were they still struggling to adapt, if so why were they not moved on that summer ?]]and what on earth is this guff supposed to mean ?some of the players were less than clever in their

attitude towards that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately City 1st, your posts are made up of little bits of gossip, rumour and 2+2=5, conspiracy theories and prejudice. You spout nonsense as if it is gospel and do it in a way that is unpleasant, innacurate and plainly misleading. There seems no end to the depths of how low you will sink in twisting things around - you have even accused Hughton of bullying - with no evidence to back it up. Give it a rest, you''re giving yourself a bad name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]Unfortunately City 1st, your posts are made up of little bits of gossip, rumour and 2+2=5, conspiracy theories and prejudice. You spout nonsense as if it is gospel and do it in a way that is unpleasant, innacurate and plainly misleading. There seems no end to the depths of how low you will sink in twisting things around - you have even accused Hughton of bullying - with no evidence to back it up. Give it a rest, you''re giving yourself a bad name.

[/quote]Pot, kettle, black.Though you are clearly miles ahead on the "politeness to other poster" stakes.The fact remains, painting the Lambert era as "gung ho" is far too simplistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]  

(Cue accusations from Norwich fans accusing me of a Hughton "love in" - but believe me, the above is an accurate reflection of our two seasons with Hughton in charge.)

[/quote]The post is an accurate reflection in your head. we dont all have to agree with you.Oh I forgot...most dont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"][quote user="lake district canary"]Unfortunately City 1st, your posts are made up of little bits of gossip, rumour and 2+2=5, conspiracy theories and prejudice. You spout nonsense as if it is gospel and do it in a way that is unpleasant, innacurate and plainly misleading. There seems no end to the depths of how low you will sink in twisting things around - you have even accused Hughton of bullying - with no evidence to back it up. Give it a rest, you''re giving yourself a bad name.[/quote]Pot, kettle, black.Though you are clearly miles ahead on the "politeness to other poster" stakes.The fact remains, painting the Lambert era as "gung ho" is far too simplistic.[/quote]

The tenor of my post was correct - Lambert was more open - and if down, put on more strikers rather than just swap them around.  A more gung-ho attitude than most managers.  I should maybe have put the word - "more" gung-ho than Hughton, that''s all.  

But as for City 1st - some of the stuff he has put on here and on other threads has been almost libelous - especially the several times he has accused Hughton of "bullying".   Fair enough,  Hughton failed, he wasn''t good enough to handle the situation  - but the extra vilification he receives from City 1st based on nothing but tittle tattle and his own conspiracy theory mentality - and then put out as if it is gospel - is something that should be picked up on whenever he does it.   Arguing your case is fine, but City 1st doesn''t do arguing - whenever he is questioned on  what he has written - he very quickly resorts to nonsensical accusations and misleading verbiage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d say there''s some truth to what LDC has written. You can''t explain away two years of crap football with it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should maybe have put the word - "more" gung-ho than Hughton, that''s all.

More is superfluous - you couldn''t be less gung-ho than Hughton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]"The players were used to a gung-ho approach"

Er, no.

The players were conditioned to believe they could win any game and didn''t have to retreat to the edge of their own 18 yard box, tugging their forelocks and apologising for being in the same league as the big boys.[/quote]

Quite right.

I have never understood the gung ho term being applied to the Lambert era.

His tactics were a sound judgement based on the players he had, the players he brought in and the realisation that there aren''t enough good defenders around to approach games hoping to hang on for a draw.

But as other teams have also realised, scoring one more than the opposition secures more points and ultimately more satisfaction and approval from the fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="keelansgrandad"][quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]"The players were used to a gung-ho approach"

Er, no.

The players were conditioned to believe they could win any game and didn''t have to retreat to the edge of their own 18 yard box, tugging their forelocks and apologising for being in the same league as the big boys.[/quote]

Quite right.

I have never understood the gung ho term being applied to the Lambert era.

His tactics were a sound judgement based on the players he had, the players he brought in and the realisation that there aren''t enough good defenders around to approach games hoping to hang on for a draw.

But as other teams have also realised, scoring one more than the opposition secures more points and ultimately more satisfaction and approval from the fans.[/quote]

The defence wasn''t strong under Lambert, but his tactics and team selection were often a mystery to us - but we nearly always gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was Lambert.   Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn''t.  Under him we were  poor in quite a few games but managed through throwing caution to the wind, to pull out a point or two against the odds     Hughton simply tried initially to improve the defence (rightly imo) and then develop strategies to improve outfield play.    His approach relied on the players being able to handle that - unfortunately they weren''t able to and the problems just got harder and harder to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="keelansgrandad"][quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]"The players were used to a gung-ho approach"

Er, no.

The players were conditioned to believe they could win any game and didn''t have to retreat to the edge of their own 18 yard box, tugging their forelocks and apologising for being in the same league as the big boys.[/quote]

Quite right.

I have never understood the gung ho term being applied to the Lambert era.

His tactics were a sound judgement based on the players he had, the players he brought in and the realisation that there aren''t enough good defenders around to approach games hoping to hang on for a draw.

But as other teams have also realised, scoring one more than the opposition secures more points and ultimately more satisfaction and approval from the fans.[/quote]

The defence wasn''t strong under Lambert, but his tactics and team selection were often a mystery to us - but we nearly always gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was Lambert.   Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn''t.  Under him we were  poor in quite a few games but managed through throwing caution to the wind, to pull out a point or two against the odds     Hughton simply tried initially to improve the defence (rightly imo) and then develop strategies to improve outfield play.    His approach relied on the players being able to handle that - unfortunately they weren''t able to and the problems just got harder and harder to deal with.

[/quote]

Unfortunately, because there are not enough good defenders around, Hughton decided to stifle any progression or creativity, risk taking for want of a better expression, by using the midfield as a second line of defence.

Lambert was happy to keep the ball in the opponents half and not retreat and certainly not surrender possession and position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="keelansgrandad"][quote user="lake district canary"]The defence wasn''t strong under Lambert, but his tactics and team selection were often a mystery to us - but we nearly always gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was Lambert.   Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn''t.  Under him we were  poor in quite a few games but managed through throwing caution to the wind, to pull out a point or two against the odds     Hughton simply tried initially to improve the defence (rightly imo) and then develop strategies to improve outfield play.    His approach relied on the players being able to handle that - unfortunately they weren''t able to and the problems just got harder and harder to deal with.

[/quote]

Unfortunately, because there are not enough good defenders around, Hughton decided to stifle any progression or creativity, risk taking for want of a better expression, by using the midfield as a second line of defence.

Lambert was happy to keep the ball in the opponents half and not retreat and certainly not surrender possession and position.[/quote]

Agree the approach was different - but the team under Hughton was never supposed to be purely defensive - it was just designed to be more cohesive as a unit in defence and attack.   We saw instances where it worked well in several games - but there were too many other problems and situations that made it difficult to maintain week in week out.  It got out of hand in the end and when we started playing with more purpose and creating chances, the strikers still couldn''t score as they had lost too much confidence.  Hughton carried the can, rightly so,  but the one sided view that everything wrong was down to Hughton is not imo accurate.   Some will disagree with that, but things are never as black or white as  people make out - especially City 1st.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="keelansgrandad"][quote user="lake district canary"]The defence wasn''t strong under Lambert, but his tactics and team selection were often a mystery to us - but we nearly always gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was Lambert.   Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn''t.  Under him we were  poor in quite a few games but managed through throwing caution to the wind, to pull out a point or two against the odds     Hughton simply tried initially to improve the defence (rightly imo) and then develop strategies to improve outfield play.    His approach relied on the players being able to handle that - unfortunately they weren''t able to and the problems just got harder and harder to deal with.

[/quote]

Unfortunately, because there are not enough good defenders around, Hughton decided to stifle any progression or creativity, risk taking for want of a better expression, by using the midfield as a second line of defence.

Lambert was happy to keep the ball in the opponents half and not retreat and certainly not surrender possession and position.[/quote]

Agree the approach was different - but the team under Hughton was never supposed to be purely defensive - it was just designed to be more cohesive as a unit in defence and attack.   We saw instances where it worked well in several games - but there were too many other problems and situations that made it difficult to maintain week in week out.  It got out of hand in the end and when we started playing with more purpose and creating chances, the strikers still couldn''t score as they had lost too much confidence.  Hughton carried the can, rightly so,  but the one sided view that everything wrong was down to Hughton is not imo accurate.   Some will disagree with that, but things are never as black or white as  people make out - especially City 1st.........

[/quote]

Of course it was not all down to Hughton.

The club has, since Ron Saunders, been known as a progressive attack minded club.

If, after Lambert left, Hughton was told to keep us up at any cost, then the board betrayed the majority of NCFC fans who turned up, often against the tide of dwindling crowds, to watch good football first and foremost.

I will never go over the top in criticism of the board but do believe the current situation the club is in is because of some of the wrong decisions the board made, mainly in naivety.

We hear that McInally is a tough man. I wonder how much of that reputation is myth. I don''t believe for one moment that Delia wants a tyrant in charge.

And I believe many of the belly aching supporters have to accept that the majority of season ticket holders want the club run in the same fashion.

If you want the intensity of other clubs than clearly you will not get it, thankfully, at NCFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...