Looking at the other likely teams around us next season there are many who seem to share traits with Hughton's style thus far. Cardiff: Malky has a number of young players who play pragmatically, grinding out narrow victories with a mean defence, especially Hudson. Stoke: Pulis seems to distrust creative players, preferring physical, attritional play. Wet Sham: Allardyce plays a pressing game, happy to concede possession but to pressurise the other team into mistakes. Long ball features frequently. This contrasts markedly to the football played by Villa, Watford, Palace, Swansea and Newcastle. The question mark I have over Hughton is whether he is prepared to evolve his style to suit the opposition/ strengths of the players especially as the squad is going to improve. I hope he can and would base this hope on the attacking style he developed in parts at Newcastle and the cultured football he coached at Spurs (obviously disregarding the George Graham era)
Personally I've had enough of watching the ****e he served up this season, I'm happy were not going down, but it was more by luck than judgement, and I don't want to pay to watch that again next year. We're all on a high after the last result, but just remember it was only one game, a small beam of light in a very long dark tunnel!
I take your point and there is admittedly little to draw on as evidence he will change. However, there are one or two incidents that suggest there is at least a possibility. For example, his criticisms of the skill level of our players is, IMO, terrible man management, but it at the very least implies that he believes he can bring in better players. Perhaps it is a premise too far, but you could also argue it means that the players he brings in he will have faith in and will therefore be more flexible. Also, on occasion (or at least when we needed to) Hughton has directed an all out attack. The other thing to bear in mind is that Hughton's greatest experience was as manager of Newcastle, where the standard of player was, over all, higher than here. In that sense, he is on new ground and has had to find his feet, not only trusting his players, but also himself. The confidence gained from this season implies that we will play with a bit more belief next season. He won't, after all, have to spend the summer steadying an extremely rocky boat. Finally, fan pressure genuinely works. I think we can do change it even if he doesn't want to. There are other examples. However, I accept that we should not hold onto Hughton purely in the tenuous hope that things may change for the better. That's why I would put a ten game (or so) limit. In my book, it has to change and fast. He is on his last chance. My substantive reasons for keeping him are twofold. Firstly, he has been, and I think this is indisputable, extremely impressive in the transfer market. People might highlight Becchio, but I maintain that Becchio could still be an alright signing, and in any event has cost us very little. I'd like a bit more of the Bassong, Turner, Snodgrass and RvW action. Perhaps we could move Hughton to coach or chief scout?!? Secondly, I think it is appallingly bad form to sack a manager who has, in purely points on the board terms, done a very commendable job. This chopping and changing of managers at a whim is horrible to see and I don't want my club to be in the same bracket as City if we can possibly help it. I appreciate that this is a slight contradiction with my ten game ultimatum above, but then I'm actually relatively confident that our style will change, for no other reason than that I smell it in the air so the ultimatum won't be necessary.
I'm afraid that (the part in bold) is rubbish. The rest I completely agree with. Whether it was pretty or not (it wasn't) the victories against Man U and Arsenal were masterful demonstrations of how organisation can beat superior skill, just like last night. We have been better tactically than the teams below us, after all the table doesn't lie. We have been unlucky at least as much as lucky.
I don't think that Hughton has been critical of "the skill level of our players", but he has been realistic. He inherited a team recruited from the lower leagues (Ruddy is the only exception) and recognised the critical weakness of a defence that had managed three clean sheets in 42 matches (the source of most moans last season). He made that his priority and brought in PL level players to put that right. Unfortunately he didn't have the money to bring in attacking players other than Snodgrass and that has limited his options. He tried to improve this in January, but because of financial restrictions, only succeeded in part. Holt hasn't been the same player this season and this can, in part, be attributed to playing as a sole striker much of the time. I don't accept the rather fanciful notion that CH has 'sucked the confidence out of the players' or has 'shackled them by making them more defensive'. In the last 12 games City have won 3, drawn 4 and lost 5. In the same 12 games under PL last year they won 2, drew 3 and lost 7. In those 7 losses City scored 3 goals and conceded 17. That was pretty dire, IMO. The pressure of playing in the PL over a whole season takes a heavy toll when many of your players are trying to punch above their weight. It happened last year and it happened again this year, as it has to clubs who have been in the PL longer than we have (eg. Newcastle, Sunderland, Fulham, Villa, and Wigan). RvW is an indication that CH knows this, and further quality players added this summer will strengthen the team's ability to stay the course next year with a better balance between defence and attack and that, IMO, will make all the difference. Saying 10 games is unfair as new players will have to gel, but the difference should be apparent by Christmas when City will have played every other team once. Then we will have a much better idea of the quality of our team and it's manager. I, for one, look forward to that.
Sorry, but you've used this stat on here a lot now, so I want to take issue with it. Why 12 games? Because it is the stat which most makes this season look good compared with last season. This is cherry picking. A sounder comparison would be 19 games (half a season). Then I'm sure this season would come out worse. Another important difference is that we were completely safe for most of those 12 games last season, whereas we were not at all safe for the 12 games this season. I'm not arguing with your general point that we finished last season poorly, too, but I don't like the use of loaded statistics.
In the very first match after being beaten by Fulham he said something like "we have to accept that teams in the Premier League are technically a lot better". Or words to that effect. If that's not criticising their technical ability, it's at least highlighting his low opinion of them. While I accept that it might be a realistic assessment, I think it is terrible man management. He needs to have faith in his players.
To be fair, all statistics are loaded. The parameters are always chosen for a reason. That's why there was the oft-quoted "Norwich have won two in twenty" or whatever it was - because to go back further would mean a greater percentage of wins and to take it from more recent games wouldn't be as dramatic. I agree that the safety aspect is a good point though. Still, we took some fair old beatings last season whatever your parameters. Sunderland away was diabolical. Admittedly, it wasn't in such a big clump as with Hughton, but then Lambert is a better manager after all...
Rob, I accept your point about the 'two wins in twenty'. As you say, all stats are loaded. What the stats from this thread suggest is that those of you who want to keep CH have nothing to worry about because, if you are representative of the fans as a whole, he will clearly be there at the start of next season. I can't speak for the other 'sceptics' (Carrabuh, ILD, Mexican) but I hope I am completely misguided in my assessment of him and that he can take us forward next season. Despite the snide comments of a couple of posters, my club will always be more important than my being proved right or wrong.
I don't think your assessment of him will ever be "wrong". Nothing you have said is unreasonable, that I've seen, it's just that you're assessing him on this season alone. I think that's a perfectly acceptable means of assessment and I'm sure, even if our style changes for the better under Hughton, you will still have the same assessment of this season, though your view of Hughton's managerial stint as a whole may be more positive. I think the reasons for the stats on this thread are that: A) humans are, as a whole, naturally positive, meaning that, broadly speaking, if there are small signs of potential we will assume potential exists; and B) the majority of fans don't like change for one reason or another. That's not to say that you or any of the other "doubters" are negative, just that you have decided you can't see any evidence for positivity, which is impossible to argue with because it's really just a matter of opinion. It also suggests that you may be more prepared for big changes. I know I prefer gradual change if possible, whereas others advocate immediacy.
We have the basis of a team that can compete in the PL. 1. Hopefully, Ruddy won't be out for more than half of the season injured (I'm sure we would have been safe a few weeks ago had that not been the case). Bunn was an able deputy (and has got better under Dave Watson's guidance), but his lack of command in the box in his early games cost us. 2. Turner was woeful in the first few games and R Bennett was even worse - both have shown massive improvements over the season. Whittaker shold be back to full fitness for next season and can play anywhere along the back 4. 3. BJ has grown in stature and confidence throughout the season whereas Tettey's form has dipped after his early performances - hopefully he'll be fully fit and raring to go next season. Howson has improved in the last 2 games and is far better in a more attacking role. 4. Snoddy has had a really good season (POTS for me) and Pilks has shown he can play - he needs to not go 'AWOL' in some games and some competition for his place would be good. 5. Hoolahoops has been patchy at best - is Butterfield his natural successor?? I don't know the answer to that one and if not, then I hope a new signing will fulfil that role. 6. GH has had a poor season by his standard and his future role at the club may be as an 'impact sub'. RvW is coming in and will certainly give the crowd a lift Finally, CH has more money in the transfer kitty than ever before and I expect him to spend it wisely - OK, he may well buy the odd 'dud', but I've been impressed with most of his signings!!!
As usual a pretty fair assessment, but didn't we have a team that was capable of competing in the Premiership last season and the beginning of this season? The only thing that changed was the management.
Why are my views "RUBBISH" and yours aren't? If you were at the Man U game then you would know that we could and probably should ahve been 3-0 down in the first 15 minutes, call it what you want skill, luck, fate I'ts the truth!
I accept that any collection of games is selective, Vietnam, but it was in response to people banging on about 2 wins in 22 (conveniently ignoring the fact that we had won the previous three games and were 10 games unbeaten before that). The only fair comparison is a whole season, but people were banging on about what has happened lately never happened under Lambert. I also find ILD's logic that the "only thing that changed was the management" more than a little curious. Leaving aside un-measurable factors like the 'adrenalin rush' of any team newly promoted to the PL and the two away wins after the opposition (Bolton and QPR) had players stupidly sent off, losing Ruddy for 5 months was a major difference between the two seasons. City have 3 points less than they had at this stage last season. You could also compare PL to his predecessor MacLeish. In 2011-12, Villa ended up with 38 points and a GD of -16 and MacLeish was sacked. This year, Villa, in spite of adding players like Benteke and Vlaar, have 40 points and a GD of -22. Hardly a huge sea change! Will Lambert be sacked? I doubt it.
Err, I didn't say that. I said to call it "more by luck than judgement" is rubbish. I said I agreed with the rest of your views. Apologies if it was construed as though all your views are rubbish, it certainly wasn't intended that way, I used a strong word because the whole "luck" thing really is rubbish . I only highlighted it because it really irritates me when commentators say "oh, he hit the bar four times, it was so unlucky", because no, actually, he wasn't unlucky - he simply didn't aim accurately enough. If you're going to play that game, we're seriously bloody lucky we're not in the conference right now... As I said, the rest of your post I completely agreed with and I just felt it would have been perfect without that line!
On the issue of luck, quite often the margins in football are so thin that whether a particular team is relegated could be ascribed to good or bad fortune. This season, for instance, QPR and Reading were obviously worse than anyone else in the league and definitely 'deserved' to go down. Of the others, though, any of about eight teams could have gone with only minor changes in the script. I'll give a concrete example. Suppose we had shut up shop against Villa instead of going for a winner. Probably the final score would have been 1-1 (OK, I know this isn't certain, but please accept it for the sake of argument). Then (assuming the same results elsewhere) Villa would now be facing an away game at Wigan knowing defeat would send them down. Is that 'luck'? Not sure. But if it is, then every season some promoted teams have been luckier than their opponents and some relegated teams less lucky.
