Really interesting article by Archant's Paddy Davitt. Especially these quotes and anyone who doubts what we can achieve with CH at the helm would do well to remember them - "It will take considerably longer than a matter of months for the transition to be complete. Hughton is not just trying to accumulate points but assimilate new players into the squad he inherited from the Scot. Lambert and Hughton are chalk and cheese - as individuals, as characters, as managers – but both have proven methods that work. Contrast Lambert’s urgings from the technical area with the impassive, calm way Hughton surveys the scene on a matchday. Lambert always gave the impression he was an intuitive operator; someone who viewed the management game through the eyes of a player. Hughton is a studious manager, the product perhaps of greater experience at the coalface allied to an even temperament which combines in a cooler, more calculated approach." http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/spor...ghton_is_also_a_tough_act_to_follow_1_1521585
All managers are different,we all know that,but they live or die by RESULTS. We all know if CH's systems don't work in long term (this season) he will be a worried man. my opinion(for what it's worth) is that CH is a "glass half empty" person whilst PL is "a glass half full". As long as we achieve our aim this season (17th or better) CH will have done his job.
Should the worst happen, I am sure we would not make any changes. Basing a managers ability on trying to keep us in the Premier League is not reasonable.
It depends on the manner of relegation though. If we go down with two or three games left to play, and it is clear the players have little fight or desire left, then I would like to see a change. If we give it everything we have, and continue to play with the same level of passion throughout the course of a season, while continuing to get results that give us a chance of survival, then by all means Hughton should be kept on. It shouldn't come to that though.
This season was always gonna be a season of consolidation (as mentioned above 17th of higher) and I believe we now have a better manager for this role. Our downfall last season was lack of clean sheets and feel with the defensive signings made and set up of team we should certainly achieve this. We just about have enough attacking talent to trouble most of the teams in the league so by shoring up the back we should be okay. Not that its a particularly pretty model to follow, but Stoke are the perfect example of this. And to be fair if after the next few seasons we in the same position as them I would be happy. I know the football purists will disagree but hand on heart wpuld rather frustrate and beat teams ugly then go down playing attractive football.
I don't get this clean sheets fetish.Surely it would have been better to,for example,beat QPR and lost to West Ham without a clean sheet? We would now have had 4 points instead of 3.Draws accumulate points so very slowly,we desperately need wins and it's worth throwing caution to the wind against mid table sides to get them even if we lose some in the bargain.
As I have written elsewhere, one of the fundamental differences between PL and CH was that PL always went for the win and had a 'we'll score more than them' philosophy. CH is more circumspect and by keeping a clean sheet means you have a point and one goal will convert that to three. PL was possibly more exciting whereas CH is steadier, I would say that both are good at their job but CH is still pretty new here and the transition is ongoing which is a tough gig.
the thing is, its long been the case that the 'slow and steady' teams are the ones who stay up long term, and the 'gung ho' teams go down. we were in the latter category last term but caught many by surprise. to stay up long term we HAD to change philosophy. i have no idea if lambert would have tried to sort us out defensively but hughton certainly figured that was the main priority when he first arrived. its the teams we need to emulate such as stoke, bolton (i know they're down now but they had a safe decade up there - likewise charlton before them), west brom, sunderland, fulham etc, the teams that always avoid the dogfight because they are hard to beat, not because they have a go at teams every week. its very, very easy to lose five or six on the bounce in this league, much harder than reeling off two or three wins in a row! as i keep saying its about striking the right balance. we were too top heavy last year and at the moment i wouldn't say we are too bottom heavy, we just haven't quite had the breaks yet. if we struggle to score in the next four or five games then the balance needs to be re-addressed once more.
My views exactly. Yes, last season was great to watch due to the number of goals scored, but luckily, we accumulated most of our points by the end of January, so we were safe. I'm sure CH appreciates that we need to be scoring goals and that he and his coaching staff are addressing that part of the game. I believe we will struggle to get many points from our next 4 games, but any that we do will be a massive bonus.
I don't necessarily agree that we were gung ho last season. An attacking philosophy was ours alright but I believe Lambert tinkering was based on cutting his suit to the cloth. And luckily or cleverly, it worked. I think the only time he dramatically got it wrong was the first 20 minutes away to Chelsea last year. Once he realised the error we were much better. I guess I'm saying he respected but didn't fear anyone. When we were beaten well it was mostly a case that the opposition were far better on the day. I also agree that a clean sheet is not the be all its made out to be. 38 0-0 draws is no guarantee of safety.
we were gung ho. we effectively played two at the back at times as our full backs marauded forward and with no holding player we were constantly exposed defensively. it was a naive way of playing but it was exceptionally exciting too - it wouldn't have kept working though and needed to be addressed. fear is a good word to use though and i agree with that - but it actually helps to have a little bit of fear. you could be heading into danger and without any fear you may be careless. we are hardly going out to draw every game 0-0, that's preposterous - all that's happened is we've become better defensively and lost a little bit of the fluidity we had before - the way some people are carrying on you'd think we are playing 10 at the back!
Time will tell.If we survive then Hughton has achieved massively,if we fail narrowly it's still pretty good.We just look unable to score.Holt has definitely been at the pies but that doesn't matter that much because speed isn't his strength anyway.I think if he gets a goal or two that will help.We desperately need that first win - a lucky one will do just fine.
Of course it is, that is my point. People can bang on about what they like and make it sound different to suit their argument.. "We've only lost once this season"=We haven't won a game yet "Three draws shows we've tightened up at the back"=We've missed enough chances to have won 3 games. "We're playing hoofball"=We're utilising the pace of our strikers against a slow defence. Supporters will make of it what they will. Thats good. Thats why this site doesn't dry up because of inacitivity.
Some excellent posts on the subject. Wew are creating goal scoring opportunities. If I remember correctly, it was somethig like 20 shots on goal against West Ham and over 60% on target and but for some inspired goalkepping by Friedel the week before, we would have scored more than 1 goal. IMO, there isn't too much needs to change before the goals start going in and we register our first win and we've still got a couple of key players out injured!!!
as i say, if we struggle to score goals over the next four or five games then we need to tinker with the tactics slightly but it really isn't a problem at this stage. i've been encouraged by the way we're working and although there are still issues (as there always will be with teams of our stature) the pluses far outweigh the negatives. fact is, we'll probably be in a relegation battle no matter how we play but had we not tightened up we'd have been in far greater danger of struggling than we are by doing so
