We must be the unluckiest team in the whole PL... nearly every game our opponent's goalkeeper has a blinder. West Ham and Cardiff were played off the park by us and we somehow lost both games. No good blaming the manager when realistically we would that game 9 times out of 10. Even if we can't score (and people can say poor finishing but what about inspired goalkeeping) there is no way we should of lost that game! One mistake and we get punished and then to add insult to injury they grab another on the counter-attack - 2 goals from only 3 real chances they had all game. If we had all the points we deserved when we deserved we would already have stayed up by now.
Sorry mate heard this a thousand times this season. Kind of get what your saying but you don't "deserve" anything in football and if we go down it won't be because of bad luck. It will be because either the players are not good enough or the manager is not good enough or both. You can't be unlucky all season.
What's the saying? You make your own luck. Hughton's too rigid. He makes the same substitutions, sticks to the same players and thinks a draw is good enough. The other saying? Fortune favours the brave, Hughton isn't brave enough.
We weren't unlucky, our finishing was just poor. Keepers are paid to stop shots, you can't think of yourself as unlucky if they save a few. Although I echo your sentiments we were the better team bar sloppy mistakes.
You did miss a few good chances but so did we. Cole and Diame both should have scored. That's the worst we've played for quite a long time and yet we still won. With your remaining fixtures, things are looking bleak for you.
Not sure what match you were watching, but just about every other commentator suggests in the West Ham v Norwich match, Norwich were extremely unlucky not to get at the very least a point. You won't get luck like that again this season
You seem to be arguing with things i've not even said. I never said you didn't deserve a point. All I said was we missed a few clear cut chances too. Cole header in the first half and Your keepers wonder save from Diame's shot. A draw would probably have been a fair result but we took the points and its US that will be staying up
Norwich were very clearly the more talented and creative side last night. The football was free flowing and exciting. It was most definitely not the horrid defensive football that we have seen a lot of this season. Much more like the performance the fans have been craving. Disappointed with the result but not the performance.
We have now strung together three decent performances with the net gain of one point. Generally we have defended well but a combination of individual errors defensively eg from ruddy last night and poor finishing means that even when we control matches we seldom score and are liable to concede. I do struggle to comprehend ch's substitutions unless hooper or Redmond were injured or shot. To me fer looked knackered after an hour and we could have done with fresh legs there. Elmander for hooper does not suggest a man looking to win a match. Pleased with tettey and once again the defence looked solid until Ruddy's error. Really disappointing result and we are starting to look like we couldn't buy a win however well we play which is a real concern. Still let's hope the spurs game is described as a must win and then we will probably pull out a result!
A reader's letter from the match report in the Evening News. I also think some of the blame lies at the feet of those "supporters" who have blindly followed CH and his inept backroom staff down into the abyss. Most of us have been saying for a long time now that CH isn't right for this team, isn't right for this league, and yet those goody-goods tell us to 'get behind the manager and the team!' Well where's it gotten us? Losing to Hull, Fulham, West Ham, Cardiff? It's time we united and put our combined foot down, otherwise we might as well just flush our hard-earned money down the nearest toilet!
Here's the piece in full - together with many reader comments - some of who are telling it how (they think) it is, and not mincing their words, either http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/spor...2_0_premier_league_loss_at_west_ham_1_3316736
Hooper looked absolutely knackered so I wasn't surprised that he came off, however for Elmander to be his replacement rather than The Wolf was a big mistake in my opinion. The last two lossses (Cardiff and last night) were down to good substitutions from the opposition manager as Zaha and Diame were both instrumental in our defeat in each of the respective games, I read a stat last night that in the 60+ substitutions Hootun has made this season not one of them has scored or created an assist. I have to say that in itself is pretty shocking.
Sums it up well. We didn't lose because of team selection, tactics or (IMO) substitutions. We lost because of a goalkeeping error. Hooper has been substituted at around the same time in several games; that suggests to me there is a fitness/energy levels reason for it. That said, generally speaking substituting one striker for another seldom makes a difference; goals are created from midfield so freshening up the midfield is much more crucial. Someone was complaining about CH saying he made the substitutions to bring on fresh legs. Given that nobody was actually injured, and that team selection and tactics were pretty much spot on, bringing on fresh legs was absolutely the correct reason for making the substitutions (and is the principle reason why substitutions are made irrespective of who you are talking about). There comes a point in the game when your fresh second choice for a position can be expected to outperform your wilting first choice (Pilkington for Redmond in this case). Like Hooper, since coming back in, Tettey has been substituted at around the same time in the game, which suggests to me that his condition is being carefully monitored.
Cromer appreciate you're annoyed, but this is a ridiculous concept. Being "supportive" by definition cannot have damaged the team. The reason these "goody-goods" were telling everyone to get behind the manager and the team was because that was specifically not happening, and (Man City at home aside) still isn't. So you can't really say "where's it gotten us?" because it has happened. If everyone had got behind th manager and the results had continued, then I'd agree. I agree that the "goody-goods" have been naive, and arguably have held misplaced confidence in something which is quite apparently not working. However, it is massively clutching at straws to suggest they are somehow to blame for our predicament. At this stage the only dispute is how much Hughton is to blame and whether Hughton is the right man to try to guide us to safety. I have wanted Hughton out sinced the beginning of December, but I am still adamant (and in fact believe it is undeniable) that we should be behind the team while he is in place. To suggest otherwise is completely counter-intuitive.
As bad things appear to the Hughton 'outers', it's not really the happy-clappers fault, so I find such rantings as quite pointless. I do wish though that those who still have faith in the manager would give a good explanation as to why though, following the substitutions last night. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
Sorry Robbie, but this is way too simplistic. I accept that some of the more frothy-mouthed have deliberately ignored Ruddy's error in their delight at Hughton-bashing, but the truth is that a goal-keeping error was increasingly likely given Hughton's changes. As soon as Redmond came off I knew the game was going to deteriorate. His pace had frightened the West Ham defence and pushed them deeper, giving us space to play actually quite a nice passing game. Taking him off released a pressure valve which allowed West Ham to compress us, making some sort of error much more likely as we had less time on the ball. Taking off Elmander for Hooper exacerbated this problem yet further - Hooper's not lightening, but he's no slouch, especially compared to the West Ham defenders. He certainly gassed them on one occasion. Whereas Elmander couldn't outpace me. Snodgrass was the obvious option to replace with Pilkington given his performance in the match and his inability to play on the counter. If that had occurred, I actually think Elmander coming on would have been a reasonable substitution because it would have given us a good two-man option of speed and target man to take pressure off. As it was, the substitutions were an unmitigated disaster and, while you can't legislate for Ruddy making a mistake, massively increased the risk that he would.
Absolutely, hence why I highlighted it. Of course people are quite correct to support their team through good times and bad, so to suggest they are in any way responsible for our current painful, slow, turgid descent into obscurity is risible It makes you realise just how thoughtful and insightful the majority of contributors to this forum are though, doesn't it
