Well I don't count watching one match at Portman Road as "bothering to follow Chris Hughton's managerial career as a whole" -- any more than watching us for parts of last season.
Personally I am pretty happy with the way we are playing (much better than last season) and my only real concern is that we are having a lot of good performances for not many points in return. We have been on the wrong side of two excellent goalkeeping displays (Villa and Cardiff) playing a team inspired from above (Arsenal) and a team capable of bringing on £60m of talent in the last quarter to change the game (Chelsea). Hull and Spurs I'll give to the critics although better teams than us will go to White hart Lane and be dominated. We are only in the bottom 3 on goal difference and at this stage of the season a couple of wins would move us comfortably into the to half. In my opinion these wins will come if we keep playing as well as we have done in the past few matches. We do have some players who are not firing on all cylinders and are still getting match sharp. We made a pretty drastic change to the first team over the summer and it will take time for these guys to gel and develop into a tight unit. I'd be much more concerned if we were playing poorly and getting beaten every week, and much happier if we managed to win despite playing badly but we are where we are. IF we are still hovering around the bottom 3 or 4 by Christmas I will be both very surprised and concerned. We have much better players this season - Fer is awesome and Redmond is doing really well and will only improve, Olsson is class and I am convinced the Hooper and RvW will soon find their shooting boots. Yes our league position is not where I'd want it to be but we have the players to climb up the table and the strength in depth to keep on doing so when the likes of Cardiff and Hull start to struggle. I am more optimistic this season than last and even if we are in trouble come the transfer window we will have funds to strengthen if necessary. Things are not perfect currently but certainly a lot better than last season and only going to get better.
@Norfolkbhoy Another respected voice (as also vietnamcanary's) adding weight to the growing concensus that we are making progress in the right direction.
just as well you grabbed your first three point haul since early august on saturday or you'd be in danger of falling towards the lowest level of league football in this country. i mean, imagine playing in the fourth tier! you might not have to imagine it. i think you'll experience it very soon
I'm not sure that anyone is saying that they can not see significant improvements in the way we are playing over the last 4 games. I am certaintly enjoying watching us a little more again. But as much as there are green shoots. There are also obvious problems. Not scoring goals is the most obvious one. Not creating enough clear cut chances. Not getting the ball to our undoubtedly talented strikers. Poor deliveries of any wide ball, why is Snoddy still taking corners? As mentioned in a post above, some important players struggling for form. For all the plaudits who thought CH did a magnificent job shoring up our defense last season, with a more positive approach we once again look at times very fragile at the back. The lack of a plan B still seems evident. My fear with this is that as with last season we could get found out and struggle even more. Cardiff changed at halftime and stiffled us more effectively after the break. For all those assuming that the improvements will continue (For the record I hope and think they might) but what if this is part of a brief purple patch (Like last years 10 game run), only this year we aren't winning yet and come dec/jan the oposition have figured us out again (Like Cardiff appeared to 2nd half) and we have less points on the board and go quietly in to the Championship? Some of these problems have strong roots in last season. So whilst things are steadily improving, I will still sit on the fence as to my belief in CH. I am not as down on him as during the 2nd half of last season or in the summer when I thought he should of beeen replaced. But he still has a lot to prove in my eyes before I believe he is the long term managerial man for the job. Of course its not my eyes that count, so I like most will be happy for DM to decide who runs the team. Bah!
The biggest worry for me is that a team which plays well and doesn't get the points ends up playing badly and not getting the points. That's just a general observation, not a comment on CH's performance of late. We need some points on the board but Man City away doesn't look very hopeful, while West Ham seem to have perfected the knack of getting dull 0-0 away draws.
Good post. My thoughts, for what they are worth: Not scoring goals is the most obvious one. Agreed. Not creating enough clear cut chances. I believe, though it's difficult to tell from Squawka, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but we created no fewer than 11, yes 11, clear cut chances... Not getting the ball to our undoubtedly talented strikers. This is a big problem, though I think inherently linked to the defensive issues, the strikers not quite being settled yet and poor decision making from our wingers. Poor deliveries of any wide ball, why is Snoddy still taking corners? More short corners please. I would point out that the one replacement, Pilks, directly contributed to Chelsea's breakaway goal. As mentioned in a post above, some important players struggling for form. Yep, though a number of people have said and I agree that Snodders is taking more flak than he really should. He's simply trying too hard - the majority of our most dangerous play still comes through him. For all the plaudits who thought CH did a magnificent job shoring up our defense last season, with a more positive approach we once again look at times very fragile at the back. Completely agree. As you might have seen from my thread yesterday, I think this is a real issue that needs addressing fast, or we won't scrap the odd point against the top teams, which is vital for survival. The lack of a plan B still seems evident. My fear with this is that as with last season we could get found out and struggle even more. Cardiff changed at halftime and stiffled us more effectively after the break. They did, though again I thought it was still down to our dodgy looking defence that we didn't commit forward in numbers. We actually have plenty of options for a plan B - not least Elmander for a bit of directness, Redmond for a bit of unpredictability and Hoolahan for a bit of creativity. Sadly all three haven't quite come good recently. Some of these problems have strong roots in last season. So whilst things are steadily improving, I will still sit on the fence as to my belief in CH. I am not as down on him as during the 2nd half of last season or in the summer when I thought he should of beeen replaced. But he still has a lot to prove in my eyes before I believe he is the long term managerial man for the job. I'm completely with you on this one. As much as I don't want to be protrayed as an "outer", I'm afraid that if the results aren't there by early December, as I've always said, I think it's time to move Hughton on. If only because unfortunately our fans might have driven him out through a lack of support for the team at home. Take a look at AVB's response this weekend - fans make a big difference to a team's performance and if a manager loses the fans, rightly or wrongly, he needs to go. If Hughton can go with his head held high, so much the better. It's the fans' pressure that is causing a lot of our problems at the moment.
Please can someone explain what exactly is meant by "having a Plan B"? Some dramatic change in formation like going 3 at the back or what? Can anyone point to a PL league team which patently has a Plan B? If it means no more than what we have already seen tried this season -- playing 2 strikers either from the start or at some point in the game, changing the personnel by substitution, or simply going all out in attack in search of the win (which has cost us 2 games already), why keep bemoaning the lack of something we already do? This is a genuine question. I simply don't know what it means other than "making changes which alter the pattern of the game (for the better presumably, though it often turns out for the worse -- and not just in our case).
'plan b' is a mythical term portrayed by supporters when they are unconvinced that their manager is flexible enough. no manager in world football actually has a 'plan b'
I don't believe that no manager has a plan b. I think you're both trying to straw man the concept. It is simply a case of changing the shape, usually with the personnel, to get a goal when it has not been forthcoming with the previous formation. The perfect example was Hoolahan coming on against Arsenal. It completely changed our shape and was our plan B to try to score that last goal - a commendable effort. The real problem is that our plan b's (of which I have just pointed out we have several) haven't worked yet. I do agree that it often doesn't work though. I would say it was the one aspect that Lambert consistently, far more than any other manager in my experience, got right - after he had got the measure of the opposition, if it wasn't working he often knew who to bring on and where to put them. This meant we scored a torrent of late goals, often directly influenced by the substitutes, which was a huge reason why we rose up the division. That is a rare skill and not something we can expect from 90% of managers. It is therefore not necessarily something we can hold against Hughton, though I can't help but feel Lambert would have made a triple substitution on Saturday, playing the diamond because we knew Cardiff weren't going for it, but needed two up fron without relinquishing midfield control! That is not a criticism of Hughton, mind, merely a commentary on how lucky we were with Lambert.
i've spoken to people about this and its a bit of an in-joke in football, the whole 'plan b' thing. it's a lazy supporter saying. what i mean is managers don't set out during the week with a 'plan a' and a 'plan b'. they have a plan a and they work on that, depending on the opponents. its vital not to get mixed messages across, every player needs to understand their roles. if during a game things aren't going to plan they will try something else. if that constitutes a 'plan b' then fine, but its not exactly 'planned' - they improvise on the given scenario. how would they possibly know if 'plan b' would be any use?! mourinho summed it up perfectly. every sub he makes is brilliant but its down to the players as to whether they are viewed as brilliant or stupid. not a lot the manager can do in that situation other than make an educated guess and hope for some magic. even then, opposition managers are able to counter-act.
Fine, so "having a Plan B" truly is an empty concept. While seemingly heavy with additional significance, it actually means no more than making tactical changes during the game intended to alter the outcome. In that sense every team and every manager has a (or even many) plan Bs. Good, so we don't lack one, I'm relieved. The last set of stats I saw relating to the effectiveness of substitutions in the PL, which covered the greater part of last season, showed that the effectiveness of CH's substitutions was very similar to that of managers such as Wenger and Rogers (not necessarily a recommendation, but at least it shows he is not in some wayout league of his own). They also belied the claim that CH made little use of substitutes; in fact his use of the substitutes available to him was relatively high. So what we are really saying is that we would like to see him make changes which turn points-losing situations into points gaining ones, e.g. potential draws into wins, potential losses into draws or even wins. Of course we would, but I suspect some of us think it happens far more often than it actually does. When it happens, the manager is a genius; but when it doesn't nobody remembers the failure (except possibly when a manager makes substitutions to hold on to a one-goal lead and his team promptly concede).
I think the point is not that Hootun didn't have a 'Plan B' ready and waiting before the game, rather that we didn't try anything particularly different in the second half until the last few minutes, aside from switching Snods onto the left for a bit when Redmond came on. I would have liked to have seen Howson or Fer push further up once Elmander came on but that didn't appear to happen and up until the 85th minute when the Wolf came on all we did was change the personnel rather than tactics/formation.
yes, i recall seeing that too. basically, it shows that although hughton might not always make the early change that so many often crave, when he does make a change it worked more often than most managers changes did. i was somewhat surprised to see him comfortably ahead of a certain paul lambert too because for me, he was as good as i've seen at influencing games whilst in progress. he was often naive (and continues to be so) in his pre-match tactics but he is lucky to be astute enough to correct these when in play. mind you, lambert didn't have much quality to put on from the villa bench last year.
that's fine - that's completely different although i take on board some people might call this plan b (incorrectly). must just pick you up on one thing though because leroy fer was pushed forward for the final 15 minutes and remained so even when wolf came on.
Just to add to that, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the most telling substitutions are often like for like, and particularly in midfield. I.E. they are effective because they replace tired legs with fresh legs doing the same job. Simply restoring the energy levels, in other words, may be more effective than disrupting the team by changing shape. The other point I'd make is that, while we have this picture of Lambert as the master of tactical adjustment and effective substitution based on what we experienced in his time with us, has anybody looked into whether the same is true of his tenure at Villa Park? There doesn't seem much evidence of that last season or indeed so far this. Just asking; I don't know the answer.
I'm fairly certain the special one portrayed how to implement the mystical plan b against us the other week?
Regarding the timing of substitutions, analysis has shown that timing matters hugely when your team is losing, but hardly at all when your team is not losing. (Sorry to keep banging on about stats and analysis, but I really do think we need to recognise that there is a whole level of understanding of what goes on on a football pitch and what factors influence it and by how much that people simply do not take into account.)
