[Albion] Are Hughton’s tactics too negative?

Bold Seagull said:

Had this discussion a bit yesterday, my take on it is that Chris is a manager who gives a lot of responsibility to his players. Yes he will prepare them, highlight the dangers of the opposition, look at shape and tactics, but I don't think he dictates the flow of the game on the pitch. I don't think he is yelling instructions to sit back when we take the lead, he allows his team to organise how they see the game.

Yesterday I felt highlighted this approach, because first half we did sit back after the goal, however second half we didn't sit back after taking the lead again. Had this been a tactical approach we would have see the same thing after each goal, but we didn't, this was the players dictating the game. I think Chris allows his players to manage the game, something he often refers to.

Will be interesting to see if this result gives us the confidence a win gave the likes of Swansea. I have high hopes that yesterday could be the catalyst for a real sense of belief and confidence.

Click to expand...

drew said:

Sorry but don't agree with that at all. No manager can dictate the flow of a game on the pitch once it's started other than by the introduction of subs and/or changing shape and tactics, which is exactly what CH is responsible for. Yesterday we were fortunate that WH were poor and we took advantage. He doesn't have to shout instructions and rant and wave as that is not his style but if we go a goal up it is him and not the players that decide the tactics for the rest of the game. Game plans will be decided before the match starts. If we go a goal up this is what we'll do and if they go a goal up this is what will happen. Injuries the way the opposition play may alter that but it will be the manager that decides how to combat it, not the players.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

How do you explain after the first goal, where initially we didn't sit back at all, it was only after about 25/30mins that we started to retreat after WHU got their act together a bit. Then when we took the lead again, we didn't sit back at all from then on. I don't you have game plans in the way your suggesting. How could you know before the game how on top you might be if you score? No way you'd have a plan to retreat if you were dominating - and yesterday, we didn't, we did go for a second for some time. Perhaps that was the game plan - if so then I might be wrong, but it also suggests CH is not negative.

Click to expand...

redoubtable seagull said:

This should be a third option on this poll. I bet it would gain most votes.

Click to expand...

NooBHA said:

That is not what I am trying to say.

The point I was trying to get across is that he does it the way he thinks best to try and attain enough points to stay up. I get the impression that the best way to do that is : away from home to stop the teams in and around you from taking 3 points against you and at home to try and take 3 points from them and if you can do that then that will keep you up.

It doesn't always go to plan but so far this season, only 2 teams in and around us have actually beaten us. There has been the odd whippin in there from the ''Big Boys'' but we are new to this league and in the conclusion we have to accept that he is gonna do it his way because he is the one who knows the players best and he is the one who studies the opposition before every game.

I trust him to do the job and keep Brighton in this League because I have watched his teams for years and when you get a poor performance from them I have seen many times over the years, come out in the next game and play teams off the park. Man Management and Motivational skills are second to none when the chips are down.

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

That was the opinion of the 'yes' side! Only idiots thought those voting yes were calling for gung-ho all-out attack.

Click to expand...

redoubtable seagull said:

This should be a third option on this poll. I bet it would gain most votes.

Click to expand...

Tom Hark said:

Reckon CH learnt a valuable PL lesson yesterday = Fortune Favours The Bold.

Click to expand...

erkan said:

Who has mentioned gung-ho all-out attack apart from you..?

Those voting "yes" were calling for Chris Hughton to be a little bit less negative in his tactics.



I

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

How do you explain after the first goal, where initially we didn't sit back at all, it was only after about 25/30mins that we started to retreat after WHU got their act together a bit. Then when we took the lead again, we didn't sit back at all from then on. I don't you have game plans in the way your suggesting. How could you know before the game how on top you might be if you score? No way you'd have a plan to retreat if you were dominating - and yesterday, we didn't, we did go for a second for some time. Perhaps that was the game plan - if so then I might be wrong, but it also suggests CH is not negative.

Click to expand...

Brighton Mod said:

Were you at Southampton? There is no other way to describe the approach to that game other than negative, we had them on the ropes and should have increased our advantage, instead, we adopted the siege mentality and conceded. I had us down for 6 points from the two games. People are buzzed up on Satyrdays win and rightly so, but don't let it cloud your vision of all the other games we have played this season. However, our form is improving and two wins in three games is good.

Click to expand...

Brighton Mod said:

Were you at Southampton? There is no other way to describe the approach to that game other than negative, we had them on the ropes and should have increased our advantage, instead, we adopted the siege mentality and conceded. I had us down for 6 points from the two games. People are buzzed up on Satyrdays win and rightly so, but don't let it cloud your vision of all the other games we have played this season. However, our form is improving and two wins in three games is good.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

I was. We started brightly, Izqueirdo could have scored after 45 secs, we attacked them from the off, they were slow to react, we got a pen, and continued to attack after that. The game changed when our quality on the ball stopped us from a) keeping possession of the ball, and b) getting quality passes or crosses in the final third. This enabled Southampton to gain confidence, start to press and put pressure on us, we got nervous, started to defend our lead. My point remains, that this wasn't a tactical blueprint for the game, it was how the game developed. Yes we had a siege mentality but I don't believe this was the intent had we kept the ball more effectively.

Chris was quoted on Saturday as saying:
"Izquierdo's goal 'lifted the stadium', the most pleasing thing was that at 2-1 we could have been nervous and sat back on it but we didn't."

This isn't a quote from a manager that instructs his team on what to do after scoring, or has specific instructions throughout a game, this is a manager that lets his team respond to the match situation. Through organisation, drills, training, he will trust them to defend if they need to, but attack when they're on top. Had West Ham been better, we probably would have ended up with a rear guard action, but we attacked, not through tactical instruction, but because the players took that responsibility and realised they had West Ham on the ropes.

My argument isn't that we haven't been negative, because we have, that isn't what the thread is asking, it is asking if Hughton's tactics are too negative, I don't believe they are because his tactics are a lot down to organisation, but also responsibility to the players to respond to the match as it unfolds. Our negativity stems directly from how we're performing. If our wingers are off their game, we're not penetrating the opposition, they're getting the ball and playing well, yeah you get pushed back no matter how tactically you want to attack.

Click to expand...

Brighton Mod said:

The best thing that happened to us on Saturday was West Ham scoring. Once 1-0 up we started to retreat into our own half again and at one stage were playing five across the back, then West Ham scored and forced us to attack the game

Click to expand...

Brighton Mod said:

I had us down for 6 points from the two games.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

Chris was quoted on Saturday as saying:
"Izquierdo's goal 'lifted the stadium', the most pleasing thing was that at 2-1 we could have been nervous and sat back on it but we didn't."

This isn't a quote from a manager that instructs his team on what to do after scoring, or has specific instructions throughout a game, this is a manager that lets his team respond to the match situation.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

I was. We started brightly, Izqueirdo could have scored after 45 secs, we attacked them from the off, they were slow to react, we got a pen, and continued to attack after that. The game changed when our quality on the ball stopped us from a) keeping possession of the ball, and b) getting quality passes or crosses in the final third. This enabled Southampton to gain confidence, start to press and put pressure on us, we got nervous, started to defend our lead. My point remains, that this wasn't a tactical blueprint for the game, it was how the game developed. Yes we had a siege mentality but I don't believe this was the intent had we kept the ball more effectively.

Chris was quoted on Saturday as saying:
"Izquierdo's goal 'lifted the stadium', the most pleasing thing was that at 2-1 we could have been nervous and sat back on it but we didn't."

This isn't a quote from a manager that instructs his team on what to do after scoring, or has specific instructions throughout a game, this is a manager that lets his team respond to the match situation. Through organisation, drills, training, he will trust them to defend if they need to, but attack when they're on top. Had West Ham been better, we probably would have ended up with a rear guard action, but we attacked, not through tactical instruction, but because the players took that responsibility and realised they had West Ham on the ropes.

My argument isn't that we haven't been negative, because we have, that isn't what the thread is asking, it is asking if Hughton's tactics are too negative, I don't believe they are because his tactics are a lot down to organisation, but also responsibility to the players to respond to the match as it unfolds. Our negativity stems directly from how we're performing. If our wingers are off their game, we're not penetrating the opposition, they're getting the ball and playing well, yeah you get pushed back no matter how tactically you want to attack.

Click to expand...