How long do we give him?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Hairy Mary Quite Canary said:
So now the players have publicly backed him via Captain Martin. I don't think that holds the same awkward sentiment as when a Chairman "backs" his manager.


I’m not ready to hit the panic button yet. We’ve had some shockers recently but we have also played well against other quality opponents. We can’t seem to score. This is a major problem and obviously needs fixing. The good news is that we have the personnel. I don’t believe that our problem lies in a lack of quality in the midfield or forwards depts. That does mean however that the way we play, tactics and integrating the team is the issue. That’s a coaching / management issue and does sit in Hughton’s lap.

My thoughts are that Hughton should be given longer though. He showed over the course of a season that he can steer Norwich into a mid-table finish. He’s brought in more quality players and needs time to get them to perform at their best. I can’t comment on his coaching prowess but if you bring in a significant number of players (and importantly) lose influential players from the dressing room, there’s going to be a period of adjustment. It will be easy for the “Hughton Out” brigade to say, “told you so” if things don’t improve before Xmas but equally, the minority that called for his head in the 2nd half of last season should be aware that they were ultimately wrong in the context of where we finished last season.My other comfort - McNally is in charge and will make the right decision on what and when any major changes need to be made.
Click to expand...

Were we wrong though? Had he of gone in Feb, Mar or even April me may have finished higher!

Bah!
 
gruffnuts said:
Egg on faces? Behave. We were awful for the vast majority of last year and 11th place flattered us. With two games to go, we were very worried and in with a good chance of going down.
Click to expand...

so, exactly the same position as about 8 other teams then. for as long as we are in this division we will often find ourselves scrapping around for points at the end of a season. i completely agree that we struggled for form after our very difficult christmas run last season and confidence was clearly damaged losing 4 in 9 days, but we actually finished the campaign quite strongly, winning 3 of our last 5 and 4 of our last 8. why is this ignored? 11th place did not flatter us. we were 7th just before christmas! we dropped to 16th in april - never lower than 4 points above the drop zone. the final position is the ONLY way to judge a season. its truly stupid to think otherwise.
 
Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed said:
so, exactly the same position as about 8 other teams then. for as long as we are in this division we will often find ourselves scrapping around for points at the end of a season. i completely agree that we struggled for form after our very difficult christmas run last season and confidence was clearly damaged losing 4 in 9 days, but we actually finished the campaign quite strongly, winning 3 of our last 5 and 4 of our last 8. why is this ignored? 11th place did not flatter us. we were 7th just before christmas! we dropped to 16th in april - never lower than 4 points above the drop zone. the final position is the ONLY way to judge a season. its truly stupid to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous, your just picking and chosing statistics to support your argument! <whistle>

Bah!
 
As Alexander Pope said, "do not judge the whole by the part". It's ridiculous to pick out some games and ignore others just so you can be criticical. The crunch time is now. CH's future will most probably be determined by the next 3 games. If they go well the pressure will ease, if they don't, then the Board must decide what is to happen.
 
RiverEndRick said:
As Alexander Pope said, "do not judge the whole by the part". It's ridiculous to pick out some games and ignore others just so you can be criticical. The crunch time is now. CH's future will most probably be determined by the next 3 games. If they go well the pressure will ease, if they don't, then the Board must decide what is to happen.
Click to expand...

and that, in a nutshell, is probably where we stand right now <ok>
 
1 Arsenal - Played - L 1-4
2 Chelsea - Played - L 1-3
3 Liverpool
4 Tottenham - Played - L 0-2
5 Man City - Played - L 0-7
6 Southampton - Played - W 1-0
7 Everton - Played - D 2-2
8 Man Utd
9 Newcastle
10 Hull - Played - L 0-1
11 West Brom
12 Cardiff - Played - D 0-0
13 Swansea
14 Aston Villa - Played - L 0-1
15 West Ham
16 Fulham
17 Stoke - Played - W 1-0
18 Norwich - N/a
19 Sunderland
20 Crystal Palace
 
it's easy to say oh the recent deterioration of Goals conceeded is against top sides, but (a) we don't know if this rot will stop against 'lesser' teams and (b) have our so called rivals been battered 7-0 and 4-1 by top 6 sides? other than palace, i don't think so (i know this could still happen). to me (b) is a little worrying, i don't really get 'it's ok because it was man city' when others are only losing marginally.
 
It's certainly not ok to concede 7 goals just because it was Man City. I was just trying to provide a bit of perspective that when you look at our goals against tally, we have conceded the vast majority against the biggest sides in the league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back