The Question should have read . Which style of play was worse that of Roeder or Hughton in their final season ? Hughton was good for the first season undoubtably.
Because a lot were quoting that last season was the worst they have seen in 40 years. For me it was very demoralising and frustrating, but it pales into insignificance compared to the Rodent era which caused our slide down to L1
In answer to the question, Hughtons "brand" of football was far far worse. Hughton just had a much, much better team.
Really? How many were outstanding Redmond nope Hooper nope RVW nope Bassong nope Turner nope Fer nope Whittaker nope Becchio nope Butterfield nope I'm not sure any of his signings could be described as such. Ollson was a good signing. Did he sign Snodgrass? Thats the only one I could say was outstanding. Lets face it it was only Turner, Snodgrass and Ollson that actually performed, even his best mate Bassong ended up a total mess. The rest did very little, were inconsistent or did absolutely nothing. I actually think his signings were quite poor in terms of what we got out of them on the pitch.
I think the point Rob is trying to make Carrabuh, and he probably should not have used outstanding to make it, is that those signings were, potentially, good. It was just the way they were used that made them appear deficient in quality. To my mind, Rodent ripped the heart out of the club, Hughton at least left us with the nucleus of a very good championship squad, which is largely still intact.
I can't see how CH first season can be described as good ! We had a very good run of games early on then after Xmas we barely got a point and just managed to scrape home late on with the aid of other clubs( WBA in particular). The style of play never changed from that Jan to when he was finally asked to piss off!
Historic victories over Man U Arsenal and Man City as well as surviving the drop made it a good season for me , last seasons displays were no better than having your teeth pulled . Those few victories against the big guns and the amazing 10 games without loss did gloss over some pretty dire football and long runs without scoring or winning that is for sure.
Goldeneadie is right - outstanding is probably the wrong word. You have to accept that not all transfers are going to be a success - even the best managers in the world have some shockers. Hughton only had a few failures and only one very expensive one (that doesn't appear to have cost us all that much in the long run). That is pretty impressive actually. Of the signings you list above, while i accept they have not been outstanding, Butterfield and Becchio aside they have been successful and some of them (Redmond, Hooper, Turner) may yet become outstanding. The bit where it's clear we're talking at cross purposes is that you say they were poor "on the pitch". Seeing as we're broadly in agreement that the performances in the pitch were in large part due to Hughton, that's different to their success as a transfer IMO. Most of the players have increased their value and been sold at a large profit despite poor performances, and of the ones who have stayed the strength of the squad has been substantially enhanced. Hughton made excellent signings, generally, he just didn't know how to use them. Contrast them with Lambert's signings and you'll see that many of Lambert's signings have ended up plummeting back down the divisions - but Lambert knew exactly how to get the best out of them when they were here. Rodent signed crap, played crap and left the club in crap. I know it's not really the question, but that makes him roughly three times worse a manager than Hughton to me. I don't care how tedious people find me banging on about it, Hughton's legacy will deservedly be that he took the club as a whole on a massive leap forward. It's a shame that people can't see beyond the first team - we all know the club needs more to survive than just good on the pitch,though obvious it's the most important thing.
For once I disagree with you, Carrabuh. I think there's very little wrong with that list of signings. They went backwards, like almost every player in the squad during the Hughton period, but that was more to do with how he bred fear and negativity into them than anything integral to the players.
Yeah, and he also came up against much, much, much, much, much, much, much better opposition players and managers. Interesting that you comment about the quality of players had at his disposal, many of whom he brought to the club, and in the next post you tell us how rubbish they were
for all Hughton's failings he did at least have a "brand" and it was all based around the plan of being solid at the back and using that as a base, it fell to peices once we conceeded we were dour to watch but the priciple was at least based around an idea and a set of tactic. Largely its these tactics that people dislike about him so much. Hughton did build towards how he wantefd to play though, he likes inverted wingers and brought in Snodgrass he likes a solid defensive base he brought in Tettey and Fer to sweep up and drive forwards. He was actually building. The debates about whether what he was building was the right thing or how well he was doing it will rage on but he was building. Roeder by comparison was far too scatter gun, he seemed to pick up a new loan signing every week who would come straight into the team play well for a few games, crap for a few, spend a few on the bench and then leave. There was no effort towards anything he was just trying to stubble upon something whilst systematically alienating everyone he worked with. I'd say he didn't really have a brand of Football, or if he did the turnover of players lack of quality meant it never showed.
The Rodent was the worst manager ever. CH did build a squad of decent players (IMO), he just could not get the best out of them as his whole outlook was over-ridden with fear and that reflected in the way they played. Looking back, Rodent sewed the seeds that eventualy led to third tier football. CH did not leave that kind of legacy!
I never said they were rubbish. Just that they were not outstanding Can you make sure your inferences are thought out before the moronic headslaps come out. Analytical gold
Incidently Roeder made the most outstanding signing (given the context) in Wes Hoolahan, who made far more of a difference than any Hughton signing
Ah, but you didn't just say "they were not outstanding" did you, you went on to say they "did very little, were inconsistent or did absolutely nothing" and then said that you thought them "quite poor" - which of course is an entirely different inference altogether from suggesting they are rubbish isn't it? Or is it? Can you please make sure your responses are properly thought out before you tell anyone to cut out the s Ta
He shouldn't be playing for us. My morals remain the same, don't mind him wanting to leave (it was fully understandable given who was in charge) making a point at Paul Lamberts Villa was wholly disgraceful and I have no time for him, he remains a rat weasel not fit to play for us. Thats how its going.
You only post when we lose and are becoming a parody of yourself.. We are top still yet you don't like the manager or players... I fully understood the venom spouted last season but you just seem to dislike everything and everyone that represent our club..
