True it does take time, but he had pre-season and arguably last season to build, plan and set up from. If last season was anything to go by he has a clear idea of the formation that he wishes to play. So unless JH had the worst pre-season with abysmal fitness at game 1. Then why would it take so long for him to be played in position and in this formation? It may be that we don't look back from here and these 3 occationally assisted by BJ and WH kick us onwards and upwards. It will still be my opinion that may be just may be he should have perhaps figured this out earlier, planned it ahead a little, afterall when he signed Fer he had to have been thinking "and he'll play great here with .... & ..... With regards position, I actually do think we'll be alright, but those sort of noises probably eminate out of many a fan who's side has been relegated and whilst the refs more often than not seem to favour the big boys it's the same for our relegation rivals. And if's, but's and had we's, do not lift you out of the drop zone. Bah!
Did you listen to CH's interview for Sky (link posted a couple of days ago by RBF)? Responding to a question about taking time to find the best formula, CH said something like this: "Of course you do your research on players and have your ideas about what they will bring and how they will fit in, but it is only when they arrive and you see them in action that you really get to know them and how to get the best from them". He's said much the same previously, as I pointed out when people were critical of him playing Fer in an advanced position. People on here had already made up their minds that Fer was best playing DM and slated Hughton for trying him further forward. Personally I'm all for a manager who keeps an open mind until he feels he really does know his players.
What he says from the quote you have brought in, is very reasonable. However I do struggle to comprehend how he thought AT, BJ and LF would work well together in the middle. Whilst I would say I am/was a doubter in playing LF as the forward most of a midfield triumverate on that occation it was just horribly unbalanced. Would you want to see that midfield again? The other point would be that I'm not sure that I or others saw LF as purely a DM, I thought he was and evidence suggests he is. The guy who can go box to box not limited and defensive (BJ and AT) or only at his best with a little more freedom and further forward (JH). He was supposed to be the link (Well in my mind at least) a bridge between the defence and attack that had previously been missing. I think again my problems were mostly surrounding what I and others perceived as an abject lack of freedom for the players to go out and move and express themselves i.e. get the best from them. Bah! Edit: I don't want to restart world war 3 about the style etc again here. It's improving very slowly its just our differing opinions it would seem on whether another manager might expedite the process.
you can try as much as you want in pre season to test new formations or whatever but its not until you get into the nitty gritty of league football that you find the real stuff out. it took him 7 or 8 games last season to get it right and i think its been the same this time around. lambert took even longer when we were in the premier league to find the right formula. you don't just click your fingers like some fans expect! has moyes worked his team out at united? mourinho certainly hasn't at chelsea! some fans are far, far too impatient. with regards howson, he is still not playing in the position leeds played him in, ie off a striker. he is still being used from deeper, just not as deep as before, but whose to say where his best position is? most of us think he's better further forward but i know people who prefer him deeper. who is right? its down to personal preference.
Me neither. I do wonder though why you are so confident that anyone coming in to replace CH would be sure to expedite an upward trajectory rather than a downward one. You trust McNally to see us OK? So do I!
The other thing to consider is that Fer, like RvW, is a better player than arguably we had a right to be signing this summer. Clearly he's our best midfielder, and so you want him to be doing a lot of work, and to get as much as possible out of him. Would we necessarily get that if he was told to sit deep, Johnson style? I'm not sure. We've tried playing him as the attacking midfielder, and in a more defensive role, and I think this current system where he does act as a bridge is bringing out the best we've yet seen from him.
Surely not any longer? We are a professionally run club now and should have the systems in place to provide objective measures of the relative effectiveness of different deployments of the players. I know some still think that the only measure you need is wins or losses (or how much the fans are entertained ) but it's simply not that crude any more is it? Put another way, a particular set up may initially come about through a managerial hunch or preference or because of injuries or whatever; but the question of whether the hunch or preference etc. was a good one is a different matter. Incidentally, a question I would like to put to McNally sometime is how strong is our analytic team now. Do we employ specialist analysts, how many, what resources are they provided with etc. etc. Chris Hughton is a very thorough guy so I would think he has built this side of things up along with everything else.
While it's a bit worrying to be 18th in the table (though equal on points with 4 other teams), I feel there is a growing solidity in this side that we haven't seen since the early 90's. This time last year, City were winless and had 3 points, a goal difference of -12, and were about to lose 4-1 to Chelsea before embarking on the 10 match unbeaten run. While that type of run is unlikely to happen again, this new solidity suggests that another disappointing run of results after the New Year is also unlikely. A lot will depend on the players, of course, but I can't help feeling that there is a lot more to come from RvW, Elmander and Hooper, especially as Howson, Tettey and Fer adjust further to their new roles. The pace and crossing ability of Olsson is also only beginning to show what can be done as the gelling continues. That's enough to make me confident (but not 'smug', as GM suggests!).
I wouldn't be confident of someone coming in and it improving imediately (Although a new manager can often get an initial bounce in results). Before the transfer window opened I would of considered getting someone else in because they would have then had pre-season and their own player signing imput, now with the situation as is, it really would be crazy to get rid of him. However had we (I know it didn't) lost to Stoke, got roundly tonked by Arse, and Chelski and then failed to beat or even draw with Cardiff then I would of thought it considerably less barmy. It is very much a results business afterall. After DM said it was embarassing to be in the bottom 3, I do wonder if that was a thinly veiled threat, that the board expects better? (I know he mitigated the statment by talking about the performances) But if he continued to feel embarassed i.e. we remained in or around the bottom 3 would he act in December? to give the new guy the transfer window. I don't think we will be in the bottom 3 then but hypothetically speaking, I thnk he might if that were the case. Bah!
It is, in the sense that it is about gaining points, which determine which league you are in and whether you win championships or trophies. But there is a lot of research which indicates that results are not what a decision to retain or replace a manager should be driven by. It is pretty obvious, one would think, that sacking your manager when he has already got your club into deep trouble is not really a very sensible strategy. The situation in which to do it is when the club is in a stable position and the manager can be replaced with (initially) negligible impact. Gunn was replaced before he had had a chance to show by results that he was the right (or wrong) man for the job; McNally had clearly decided he wasn't the right man before the season kicked off. Southampton replaced Adkins just when he had turned results around and they had climbed out of the relegation spots. Their CEO had decided he wasn't the man to take the club forward long term even if he kept them in the PL that season (Pochettino did no better results-wise than Adkins probably would have done; they ended the season on 41 points, just three above the target survival total of 38, which is exactly the same gap as when the change of manager was made). Our manager's performance is being assessed all the time, along with everyone else's at the club (as McNally has often said). The decision to replace him won't be made on the basis of results; it'll be made for reasons other than, and largely irrespective of, results.
I find that a very interesting statement. Because after a fashion thats what a number of us wanted in removing CH immediately after last season. A premier league club still, an improving squad and a vastly improved transfer kitty. In a way dependant on your belief of CH ability to improve further the time seemed ripe to me. The second half of that statement I do agree with, if you can change/upgrade on your terms, it is the optimum situation to be in. However the first half I'm not so sure about and would be totally case by case dependent. Has the manager; Lost the dressing room? Given any sort of convincing argument as to how he will turn it around? Been so under supported that actually you feel he's doing the best with a bad situ, even if that will definitely lead to relegation? Really though, although there could be mitigation to the "already got your club into deep trouble" for me the bottom line would be, do we (The board) believe he can get us out of it? If he is a manager who has shown such ability before may be even at another club but basically has some credit from his previous endevours he may get more time than, an inexperienced manager or one who has proved little till that point in his tenure. All things considered though if he has got you into deep trouble I actually think its quite the oposite to "obvious" that you should stick with that manager. Bah! p.s. I actually think that sunderland would of definitely gone down had O'Neil stayed so sometimes I think twisting has to be done. Still wouldn't of started the next season with PDC, thats just madness!
Interesting developments at Cardiff reported today. Malky's right-hand man Moody replaced "over his head" and an inexperienced 23-year old from Somewherestan appointed in his place suggest all may not be well (rumours also of dressing room dissatisfaction to do with bonus payments). Maybe we are about to see my post above acted out by Vincent Tan and his board .
the club have said nothing as well. sounds like tan and malky don't exactly see eye to eye. very bizarre you'd have thought that cardiff need malky more than malky needs cardiff
A situation that has always puzzled me. A club appoint a manager and they are then saddled with his "team" to help him, some of whom are palpably not up to the job. Why do the clubs not reject those under the manager they consider less than suitable. And in my opinion we have at least one in that category ar Carrow Road.
There is in reality a very good reason for bringing in a management team rather than just a manager. Whatever business you look at, success is very seldom down to just a single individual; and football management is clearly very much a joint enterprise. Furthermore, appointing a manager on his own makes the task much more difficult for him, since he has to spend time "training" his support staff as well as his players. Many incoming managers like to bring in, not only the assistants they have achieved success with, but also key players who help the existing squad adapt to his approach. If a club doesn't like the look of the manager's subordinates, they are questioning the manager's judgement and would be better to look elsewhere.
personally speaking, if we are struggling near the foot of the table around christmas, i'd be more than happy to shake up the backroom staff. i would not remove our current manager unless i'd tried that and it didn't work.
Honestly I can't see us being bottom five by Christmas. Yes we may struggle to get anything from Arsenal but I think now that we've found the right players and formation we'll more than hold our own against the clubs outside the top six. Hopefully Hooper will get match fit and push RvW for a spot and BJ will be pressuring the central three for a place. One great thing about our current squad is that nobody (perhaps with the exception of Bassong and Ruddy) is not under pressure to keep their place. I just hope that CH is strong enough to drop the likes of Snod if they do not perform up to expectations.
That assumes that the manager is comfortable with the club enforcing such a change on him. Could you imagine, say, Paul Lambert continuing at Villa if Culverhouse and Karsa were dispensed with? (I've seen some suggestions that the replacement of Moody as head of recruitment at Cardiff is an indirect attempt to get rid of Malky. Has a certain plausibility to me (the ploy I mean, not the objective).
It wouldn't have to be an instantaneous change though, as a manager change tends to be. Rather than firing a manager + 3 backroom staff members, you could bring in an extra person to support the manager, and see how things change. For us, I've seen suggestions that we don't have anyone with experience as a striker or attacking midfielder, which could be hindering our attacking play. I would imagine there's enough spare budget to bring in an extra coach, see if it brings anything to our on-field performances, and then either keep the extra coach, or drop whichever of those already employed who CH and DM felt made the least contribution. A lot of the improvements our club make over the next few years are likely to be incremental steps, and I see no reason why that shouldn't extend to the coaching staff. CH brought arguably championship-level coaches to Norwich with him, and if we feel improvements can be made in that area, I see no reason why all three shouldn't be slowly replaced with better coaches, potentially over a 2-3 year period. The board are backing CH, CH should know what his medium-to-long term plans for the playing style are, so should be able to bring in coaches to suit that.
Just seen this, written by a Cardiff fan elsewhere: If 14th isn't good enough for the owners, Malky's really going to struggle to be in a job by the end of the season. Looks like there's potentially another Blackburn brewing there, I must admit. I guess I could have also posted this on the relegation thread, as instability is not going to do them any favours.
