Mike Phelan worked with SAF for years and no doubt spent far more time on the training pitch than him. Anyway it's all academic CH is with us until Christmas
Lets get one thing straight. I do NOT have an agenda to get the manager out. I just know that we need to turn the good performances we have had against Chelsea and Arsenal to points against Cardiff and West Ham and I am a little nervous.
Given that research into the relative contributions of skill and quality of management on the one hand, luck in one shape or form on the other, to the outcome of any particular match (55% skill etc, 45% luck), there is really no point in letting single matches sway your judgement or emotions (those are different by the way!). The Hull game was massively influenced by elements of luck in the shape of injuries, timing in the season, and so on. Judgements need to be shaped by more substantial factors such as identifiable trends, perceived progress (e.g. in improving the squad, getting the shape right, players becoming adjusted to a new style of play, partnerships developing, etc. etc.). None of those are significantly altered by a single match. So, like the team, you are heading in the right direction JR!
my issue with phelan is that he has never been a manager. he could end up being a long-term coach who takes the transition into management in his stride and becomes a good manager like steve clarke or, dare i say it, chris hughton, but there is little guarantee simply because he worked with sir alex. he's the kind of guy you could take a gamble on if you're in the championship imo, but not in our shoes. this all goes to prove though that there really isn't any obvious candidate who anyone can pinpoint and say 'yeah - he could do the business and move us forward'. people may highlight cases like swansea and southampton where continental coaches have come in and flourished but i could probably name you 20 who have failed miserably. could the likes of slaven bilic, ralf rangnick, mircea lucescu or thomas tuchel (who is the guy i would possibly go for if we had no alternative) make the grade? they'd all be massive gambles. hughton is not a massive gamble - he's a steady hand, and that, ultimately, is what is required at our club - that is why change could be a grave error.
i know you don't, i never said you did! you praised the performances and have said you can see improvement. everyone will be a little nervous about every game we play - that's how it should be - it means its a big game, and surely what we want is to be involved in big games. if we lose to cardiff we will not be 'doomed' as some would no doubt say - but a win would certainly get us right on track
Steve McClaren and Brian Kidd also worked under SAF. They didn't exactly set the world alight as managers did they? Also wasn't Peter Grant (sorry for the language) a very good coach, and therefore the ideal person to be a manager?
Going slightly off topic but isn't the whole point supporting our club and many like us, the excitement and nervousness felt just before KO and the elation or gut wrenching feeling at full time of each game, not knowing the outcome before the game whether it's Arsenal away or Crystal Palace at home and that we'll be fighting for our lives week in week out to sustain or PL status? Or would you rather be a plastic or 'support' a team like Chelsea where you know that going into every match, you have a 90% chance of winning, will finish in the top 3 year on year and if you don't, your chairman goes out and spends another Zillion!!
I agree with this statement. In fairness it was great when we were regularly in the top ten for a few seasons but the roller-coaster of my 45 years watching and suffering has been far more real than the plastic fans of more monied clubs.
carrowluke - Not that far off topic - and I agree with you in that if I turned up at CR each week expecting to win, it wouldnn't be long before I considerd giving up my season ticket. I seriously hope we continue to have to strive to maintain our PL status, as opposed to Steve Downes who would rather see us in a lower league and winning more games than losing!!!
For what it's worth, Tettey seems to think we'll play two up top against Cardiff: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24627380
Malkay Mackay is guna look pretty **** when we kick the **** out of Cardiff Saturday Then why are you going to say? Players conspired against Hughton? Tierney has shagging someone's missus or hey were on the beach. Fact is there's a really nasty element to our support and it's always bed there and it has held us back for generations. Sometimes it's subtle sometimes it's not.
Hmm, whilst I'm going to be left looking foolish if we go 4-4-2 and batter them (frankly, fingers crossed!), I'm not convinced it's the right way to go. Firstly, who do you sacrifice? Tettey, leaving us a little short defensively in the middle, or Howson, our top goal scorer!? We've looked good of late playing 4-3-3, and I'd rather see Pilks or Snodgrass having the freedom to come into central positions than play 4-4-2 and risk losing the midfield battle.
I'm with you on this. The system looks as though its starting to click quite nicely and I'd like to see it continue to develop. I doubt Hughton will go 4-4-2 in any case.
Maybe we will be trying 4:4:1:1, which is very flexible. Hooper and Stokes played a lot together at Celtic -- this is from Hooper's Wikipedia entry: "While at Celtic, Hooper struck up an excellent partnership with fellow striker Anthony Stokes. They scored over 40 goals between them in their first season together and were considered to be Celtic's best strike partnership, although on many occasions, especially for big matches, Georgios Samaras was often used alongside Hooper. Hooper expressed his disappointment at this because he felt that he worked very well with Stokes ...... In their partnership Hooper usually had a more advanced role, playing off the shoulder of the last defender, or in the box, and making runs in behind. His strength, pace, finishing ability and awareness made him suitably adapted to this role. Stokes usually played a deeper role, coming short to get the ball and creating space through his dribbling skill and passing. Although Hooper is more suited to an advanced role, and Stokes to a deeper one, they were capable of switching and both have the skills required to play in either role. This made it very hard for defenders to mark them." Given that RvW often played in a position behind the central striker in Holland before being used primarily in the advanced role in Portugal, it doesn't seem too implausibe to see the two forming a partnership similar to Hooper/Stokes, interchanging the roles during the game. Still means sacrificing one of Tettey, Fer and Howson though, so like DH and danary I would prefer at least to start the game with our recent shape.
Have we forgotten that Chris Hughton is completely lacking in imagination and is stuck in some distant past era when nobody played anything but 4:4:2? But looking on the bright side, many of our most critical "supporters" are stuck there too so at least they'll only have his substitutions or Snoddy's poor crossing to moan at!
That was something I was considering, I'd certainly expect us to use one striker a little deeper if we did play two, but having no idea how well it would work, I'd rather we stuck with what we know for an undoubtedly important game. If Hooper and the Wolf could hit off a partnership in the way that Hooper and Stokes did, that'd be great, but I'm not convinced it'd click into place immediately in the way that "SAS" (I hate that phrase...) have at Liverpool. I'm not sure we've got the time in league games to let it develop either, and we seem loathed to use cup games to experiment, preferring to rotate the squad. I do feel if we wanted to play two strikers, a Liverpool style 3-5-2 with wing-backs would be preferable, and I do feel we have players who could play that way. However, Liverpool seem to have found it's made them good going forward but vulnerable at the back, and we'd probably exacerbate the defensive issues. I'd love Hughton to surprise us with it though and us pick up a comfortable three points...
What a load of bollocks. Stop going to watch your team because they are too successful? I can imagine it. "Nar, not going to the title decider this weekend, whats the point, we'll only win." Sorry JR, you don't think Chelsea/Utd/Arsenal fans get nervous when they play other teams on their level. Its what rides on the games that bring the excitement, not the likelihood of winning and losing. Those bigger teams have the stress an knowledge that they HAVE to win all those games, not like us.
