He was saying he could see why fans would be unhappy because of style and results and whether fans would be happier if the style was better and results were the same, thats the general jist of it all.
If Goals scored are only marginally worse than most others around us,surely the problem lies with the defence.Or am I missing something? We have conceded 20,Sunderland 22, Palace 21. Perhaps a major rethink is required with back 4
burnley are not 'very easy on the eye' they've got two strikers who are flying - that takes you a long way in the championship. granted i've only seen them twice but even you must have noticed that they were wretched against ipswich this season (although they still won). his watford side were notoriously direct and he's taken that to burnley too. there's nothing wrong with playing that way - its working for him - but my point is, is he a better manager than hughton and why would he be a better alternative? i see no reason at all. as for this defensive nonsense. i have no idea what durham said but if he thought we went to the etihad to play defensively he's wrong - we just never tried! if we'd played defensively every player would have worked hard to defend. they didn't. we've not really played defensively all season, we've been far more measured with the ball, and had a lot of possession. the problem is, we aren't creating clear cut chances and when we do, we miss them or are choosing the wrong option. and for **** sake, he was not defensive at birmingham. he was defensive at norwich last season but he did it because we were incredibly weak at the back. you are so unbelievably biased against hughton i'm amazed you're not begging us to keep him. problem is, i think deep down you know he's quite good, potentially very good, and you'd rather we got rid - just in case.
Considering the soundbites that were coming from CH before the season started - We are looking to be hard to score against - I think you might be right
it doesn't work like this but without the man city game (disaster) and the arsenal game (clinical finishing) we've only let in 9 in 8 - that sounds a little better than average to me or at least par for a mid table side. but you are right, certainly in the last two or three games the individuals in defence aren't playing well and we have struggled because of it. its still the midfield which worries me more than anything.
Oh no, i would love you to keep him as if you keep it will only get worse supers. I think what dyche would bring togetherness and a siege mentality which from the last week indicates is what you may need. I do believe that if Hughton does go, Malky will replace,
Supers not being funny fella, you had a go at somebody yesterday for dismissing the 10 game unbeaten run last season, so you can't really dismiss those 2 games and say you are about on average with goals conceded.
maybe you should read what i said. 'it doesn't work like this' was what i put - i am not dismissing those two games - they count as much as any and could come back to bite us in the bum later in the season, but by highlighting the fact we conceded more than half our goals in just two games of football against two top teams, it does show that the defence isn't perhaps quite as bad as it looks by looking at the 'goals against' column this morning. we've kept three clean sheets this season, this despite already playing spurs, arsenal, citeh and chelsea (three of which away)
he might bring that, sure, but i'd like to think we'd go for something a little more sophisticated, otherwise it is a quick-fix appointment and we may as well get pulis who has proven he can do it at the top level
Really? We got what was deserved on Saturday, and in truth it could have easily been more. Arsenal cut the defence to ribbons at will for 15 minutes to romp home Spurs destroyed us, but couldn't hit the back of the net quite as often. Villa tore us apart on several occasions and could have bagged 4 Everton, Hull, Southampton and Stoke were thankfully not over-effective in the final third, and in part down to the defence but also in part to their lack of creativity.
Do the Mail's 'stats' include Elmander? Are they actually true? I agree with Supers that much depends on the opposition so far. Hull and Cardiff packed their defences, making it particularly difficult for the single striker. Of the other 8 games, five have been against top 6 sides. As statisticians would say, the sample is on the flimsy side. I do think the midfield has been adjusting to threading the ball through to the striker. We need to give it more time before we start judging the impact over the season as a whole.
well if you want to play it that way, why not say we could have scored 6 against cardiff? we should have beaten stoke more comfortably. we lost to a dodgy penalty at hull. we missed a penalty against villa who were absolutely terrible for most of the game but rode their luck? it doesn't work like that. we are where we are. over the course of the ten games i think we are currently about 3 or 4 points behind where we should be and possibly where we deserve to be on our performances so far. we've defended well in about half our games and not so well against others, but the big boys will always be capable of cutting us to ribbons on their day. after 19 games i think we could fairly judge both the manager, defence and attack on their performances but not after ten lopsided fixtures
given west ham will play something like 4-6-0, should we then play 2 up front to avoid isolation of a single-front man?
If getting shots on target is our problem due to the number of chances created from midfield I'd like to ask "WHAT HAS WES DONE WRONG?!" I believe we miss his creativity and ability to pick out a killer pass. Also the wingers such as Snodgrass do not get their crosses in quick enough when they get to the by-line but instead stand there with the ball and then just pass it to someone only a few yards from them or just huff the ball into the box by which time all the opposing defenders have got back.
by the way, i'm never going to defend saturday or indeed tuesday (although not so bothered by that) - it was shockingly bad. we were dire, and the score was totally fair. but we played appallingly. we haven't played like that for a long time - even spurs was better than this. at least spurs pushed us back, citeh didn't even need to do that, we just rolled over and had our belly tickled.
Sorry Supers, we are exactly where we deserve to be, through the inability to convert chances, and leaking goals quicker than RMS Titanic leaked water at times.
to be fair, i think having seen wes recently, his legs have gone but more importantly so has his speed of thought. very sad to say it but i think he's finished as a top flight footballer
