Incidently I did look into the Udinese manager when the rumour surfaced we'd made contact last week and his record looks very good for a club similar in stature to ourselves, I do like the sound of him.
What I do know is Hughton certainly is not the BEST man for the job and that there will be considerably more out there who are better. Just by going by the sheer number of managers.[/QUOTE] It's not possible to argue against that statement,however I would qualify it.Whilst there certainly are better managers amongst the number available it's identifying them where the problem comes.How many people would have backed Southampton changing Adkins? It looked mad.I think Cardiff have taken a huge risk,Malky would have slugged out a 0-0 with Sam yesterday and Cardiff would have not been in the drop zone. At least 50% of manager changes don't work out well.Hindsight is a wonderful thing,but that is what we need here.
gruffy, I´m sure the players don´t feel that way, just my opinion after following them from afar, and not negativity just for negativity´s sake, just being a shade realistic, I´d love to be able to say they were world beaters, but the fact is, they´re not. If they were, they´d be able to take games by the scruff of the neck and turn them back in our favour, they´d be able to lift us whenever heads began to drop, and so on and so on. In my opinion only one player in the squad has visibly improved from last season to this, and that´s Howson, Ruddy is nowhere near the player he was last year, I know his injury was much to blame, but he´s just not rediscovered his form, Bassong is nowhere near the player he was last year, Snodgrass is nowhere near the player he was last year, and all three were very big players for us last year. Hughton has done nothing visibly different from this year to last, so the fall in their performances seems to point to them rather than to him, he certainly had no trouble in inspiring them last season. It´s hard to say much about the new players who´ve come in, because we´ve nothing much to compare them to, but I´ve always thought that expectancy levels rose far too high, just because of the amount of cash we spent, we´ll have a better idea once they´ve been here for a couple of years.
What I don't get is why people only seem to use statistics as a tool to back Hughton. Yes, we are 15th now, 2 points above the drop zone. A few weeks ago we were 6 points above the drop zone. Our position right now doesn't even slightly matter, it is only our position after 38 games that matters. Right now, we are UNQUESTIONABLY one of the worst three teams in the division. All of the teams around us, with the exception of Fulham (who beat us) are making improvement. And I haven't made that comment after reading a text book, I say it after watching and analysing football matches. We are one of the worst three teams in the Premier League right now. If nothing changes, we will be relegated.
I think I´d agree with most of that, except I´d say that `If nothing changes we might be relegated`, but why should any of that be a reason for getting rid of Hughton? because as you so rightly say, our position now doesn´t even slightly matter, even if we are perhaps ´right now, unquestionably one of the worst three teams in the division´. Incidentally people also use statistics as a tool to discredit him.
That was because Cruyff's post correctly referred to the current situation as "bizarre", i.e. strange and unusual. Not at all the traditional relegation scrap then.
We don't necessarily need to sack Hughton, but we need to create more chances, score more goals and concede less. I don't think signing more players will make that happen because I believe we already have players good enough. I think changing the manager is the easiest (and perhaps best) way to change things positively.
Well I hope you´re right, certainly having a fully fit squad to choose from would help, but they still need to start showing they are, too many shaky performances and unforced errors for this level.
I've named several a number of times on here, but for starters, for my money, I'd say Martin Jol. I think he can do a better job than Hughton. And yes, your semantic point is correct.
I can't believe we're repeating this. No, I'm saying that, using the limited knowledge you have, you must be able to form an opinion on who would be better. As you say, there are many managers, and as a football fan, I would hope that you know a little bit about one or two of them. Given that you have used your limited knowledge to form the opinion that Hughton should be sacked, surely you can also use your limited knowledge to suggest who you believe would be better? It's not hard, I've managed it. Of course we have to accept that the board know more, but if you say that, you might as well say that the board know better about keeping Hughton in a job. You say yourself he has more things to consider, so surely that is also the case for whether Hughton keeps his job? You can't have your cake and eat it.
I can tell. Seriously though, since that rumour about Francesco Guidolin came out of nowhere, I am now positive that McNally has been lining up a replacement ready if necessary. The one thing we know is he likes everything planned and timed on his own terms. I (with admittedly no foundation) believe McNally would have sacked Hughton in early December had he lined up a replacement. Next time we look very shaky, I'm positive there will be an immediate change.
Yep, by extension, exactly my thoughts. Although probably not healthy for Hughton's motivation either if that's the case!
There will have been a constantly reviewed contingency plan for replacing CH ever since he was first appointed. Does "lined up" mean any more than that? If not, I don't see how you can draw any conclusions at all.
With all respect, that's why I said it was foundationless. So no, lined up is completely different in the way I used it. "Lined up" there meant someone who had agreed to join and was ready as soon as Hughton was removed. As in signed, sealed and just waiting to be delivered. I have accepted I don't know this, but some evidence points to this being plausible, not least McNally's style. The reason I say this is that there have been a number of people having a dig at McNally for not replacing Hughton yet. All I am saying is that from the limited evidence we have, it is equally possible that he has been working exceptionally hard to locate the right individual to be brought in. I suppose the conflict is - do the fervent Hughton outers think we would be better off firing Hughton and having no manager until one is found, or finding one and replacing Hughton in one smooth transition? I, personally, favour the latter and on McNally's two examples at Norwich I'd say he does too, but the norm is probably the former so I can see why people might prefer to move Hughton on asap. There is no way McNally had a "contingency plan" from the moment CH was appointed - that would be a ridiculous waste of his time. I would imagine that a "contingency plan" was set in motion once it became clear that our premier league status was at risk, either about 2/3 of the way through last season or over the course of the summer.
Pretty sure he would at least have a list of people he would consider if CH left. It is just common sense surely? Football changes so quickly, bad results, someone comes in for your manager, illness etc of course it is sensible to have a plan if something goes wrong, you would be mad not to.
But from the beginning it would presumably be the same people who he had in reserve if getting Hughton hadn't been successful? What I mean is that he hardly would have been contingency planning on the basis that Hughton wasn't successful at that stage, but I accept it's a moot point given that we couldn't possibly say.
