[Albion] Are Hughton’s tactics too negative?

[Triggaaar]

And what you have to remember about Norwich, is that Lambert walked out on them in the June that summer. Hughton had 10 months in charge with a squad that largely wasn't his, and a side that has continued to slide since then. They had a lack of investment given they'd had a couple of good seasons in the top flight, highlighted that their record signing was still only £8m - a small fee by PL standards. Madness that certain posters are insisting his entire managerial career is as a negative one, pretty much based upon a 10 month spell at Norwich!!

I thought Chris was there for the season before, finishing 11th or so, and then the season when he left?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Right, nobody said it was going to be easy.
But how many of our fans are really dumb enough to have thought it would be easy? This board is littered with posts saying '17th will do' etc. We knew a point away would be a good result, but yes, those that went were disappointed with the way the team played - is that really unreasonable of them?

Of course there are a few dumb fans with every club, not sure it warrants a dissertation though.

Clickbait. He's got us talking about it, hasn't he? He also has to produce something every day.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Right, nobody said it was going to be easy.
But how many of our fans are really dumb enough to have thought it would be easy? This board is littered with posts saying '17th will do' etc. We knew a point away would be a good result, but yes, those that went were disappointed with the way the team played - is that really unreasonable of them?

Of course there are a few dumb fans with every club, not sure it warrants a dissertation though.

Agree with this but at times recently the overriding mood of those posting most vocally on NSC has been about disappointment and underachievement and questioning of Chris Hughton.

The thread in question hopefully represented a peak in the graph of those unhappy with CH's supposed negativity. People can say what they like in terms of backtracking and self-justification but the frustrated 74% were willing to side publicly with the laziest of criticisms of our brilliant manager.

 

[Triggaaar]

Agree with this but at times recently the overriding mood of those posting most vocally on NSC has been about disappointment and underachievement and questioning of Chris Hughton.

We hadn't won a league game in 7, and were one of the favourites to go down, so of course were worried and disappointed that we weren't doing well. And yes, of course we will question which of our players are good enough and which aren't, and we'll question whether Hughton is doing as well as he could.

The thread in question hopefully represented a peak in the graph of those unhappy with CH's supposed negativity.

Hopefully, but also note that even those who thought he was being too negative didn't want him to leave, they just thought he could be more positive.

People can say what they like in terms of backtracking and self-justification but the frustrated 74% were willing to side publicly with the laziest of criticisms of our brilliant manager.

I disagree. The poll wasn't 'Hughton out?', it was simply is he too negative. And saying so isn't lazy, no idea where you get that from.

 

[Triggaaar]

Clickbait. He's got us talking about it, hasn't he? He also has to produce something every day.

Well he hasn't got me to click on anything. What he has done, is turned me against the paper. I used to buy it and keep some of the stuff on Brighton, but I wouldn't dream of buying it now.

 

[seagulls4ever]

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.

I think that post is based on too many assumptions. This is a quote about a single match where it looked like to me (as I have already mentioned) Chris set up his team to play in a completely different way in order to create the chances we needed to create in order to score goals, because we have struggled so much recently with that. And he got his tactics absolutely spot on in that match - we created the most chances we have done all season - and his tactical alterations may actually represent a self admission that he had been too cautious at times this season. He may have realised tactical alterations were required otherwise we wouldn't create enough chances to win games. There were clear tactical alterations that I have already spoken about. But our tactics are always slightly different at home compared to what they are away, anyway. The quote proves absolutely nothing given it is based on a single game (at home) - we don't know what he instructed the team to do in other matches or what the plan was prior to the match, particularly the Southampton match which forms the most part of the discussion, and other away matches (in which many argue the balance of the team has not been quite right), or matches against teams in the bottom half generally. In the West Ham game he set the team up in a way that allowed more space for the wingers, to get them more involved in the game, and create more chances (among other tactical alterations). The tactics were clearly different between the West Ham game and the Southampton game. Some of it has to do with how Southampton played, how the game unfolds and how the players perform of course (although Southampton were shit), but a lot of it has to do with the tactical set up as well, and in my opinion the balance created by the tactics in that game was slightly too negative (as it has been in other games this season). Of course that doesn't mean I don't think Chris is doing a fantastic job, which he is. But as always, most people aren't going to change their opinion, and people will pick and choose information to make their point! The original question was Chris's tactics been too negative to the extent that it has cost us points this season, and regardless of how the players have performed in individual matches, based on what I have seen so far, I am slightly in the yes camp to that question. I'm not expecting us to be set up every week like we were against West Ham, but I hope Chris will trust the team and try to set them up going forward to create more chances in our remaining games than he did in a lot of the games we have played so far. If that's the case then at that point we may still have differing opinions as to how that materialised. We will see.

 

[seagulls4ever]

With regards to that article, as I posted in the other thread:

I have defended Andy Naylor in the past, but I can't do so here. That's an absolutely shithouse article which completely misrepresents the thread/poll in question, and also misrepresents the contrasting tactics between the Southampton and West Ham games.

Of course, if it aligns with your point of view, you're going to be much more likely to think it's a good article!

To me it just stinks of not wanting to respect the opinion of others. He's trying to shut down the debate. That's never a good thing.

 

[Triggaaar]

it looked like to me Chris set up his team to play in a completely different way in order to create the chances we needed to create in order to score goals, because we have struggled so much recently with that. And he got his tactics absolutely spot on in that match - we created the most chances we have done all season - and his tactical alterations may actually represent a self admission that he had been too cautious at times this season. He may have realised tactical alterations were required otherwise we wouldn't create enough chances to win games. There were clear tactical alterations that I have already spoken about.

I've missed the posts where you've written about the change in tactics he made - what do you think Chris did differently?

 

[seagulls4ever]

I've missed the posts where you've written about the change in tactics he made - what do you think Chris did differently?

I made some brief comments in post #220.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I disagree. The poll wasn't 'Hughton out?', it was simply is he too negative. And saying so isn't lazy, no idea where you get that from.

"Hughton Out?", other than as parody, would be complete lunacy of which even NSC is not capable.

"Hughton is too negative" is, in my opinion, lazy criticism that has no basis in fact. It is "lazy" because it is just asserted on such flimsy evidence as "the Norwich fans said it" and crazy leaps in the dark like "our wingers get told to play as full backs". Having watched us under CH one of the clearest pictures that comes in to my mind is of adventurous and skilful wingplay combinations with our full backs in advanced positions...!!!

Of course I can also feel now as I type the gutwrenching anxiety when I recall watching us trying to hold out in the later stages of a match... and I can also clearly recall us failing to make a impression in other games with passes going astray, insufficient players getting into forward positions and our opponents growing in confidence... but I do not blame CH for those moments as they are largely inevitable and nothing to do with him being "too negative".

 

[Triggaaar]

The quote proves absolutely nothing given it is based on a single game (at home) - we don't know what he instructed the team to do in other matches or what the plan was prior to the match, particularly the Southampton match which forms the most part of the discussion, and other away matches (in which many argue the balance of the team has not been quite right), or matches against teams in the bottom half generally.

I agree with much of what you've written in your post, or at least understand the point of view, but I don't agree with this bit.

Yes the tactics were different, but Chris would not have commented that he was pleased the players didn't sit back if he hadn't been disappointed they had done so in other games this season. It makes it quite clear that there have been occasions where the team has sat back without it having been a specific instruction from Chris.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I agree with much of what you've written in your post, or at least understand the point of view, but I don't agree with this bit.

Yes the tactics were different, but Chris would not have commented that he was pleased the players didn't sit back if he hadn't been disappointed they had done so in other games this season. It makes it quite clear that there have been occasions where the team has sat back without it having been a specific instruction from Chris.

This is the whole crux of it.

PLAYERS respond to what is happening in the match. They respond to their opposition and what they feel is happening around them.

The idea that Propper and Stephens are somehow remote controlled by CH and deliberately hang back in positions that they and everyone else can sense are not working for the team is ridiculous. These things happen despite people's best efforts because the opposition get on top - first, they control the ball better and pass it better for a period and then they grow in confidence.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

With regards to that article, as I posted in the other thread:



Of course, if it aligns with your point of view, you're going to be much more likely to think it's a good article!

To me it just stinks of not wanting to respect the opinion of others. He's trying to shut down the debate. That's never a good thing.

On the contrary, it's being debated more than ever. It's clickbait, as I said previously.

 

[Triggaaar]

"Hughton is too negative" is, in my opinion, lazy criticism that has no basis in fact.

Of course it's not based on fact, we're talking about a very debatable point on the tactics of a manager, in games against different teams, with different players in different form, with different levels of luck on the field and different refereeing decisions. It's a discussion point about our football team, it's not a fact.

It is "lazy" because it is just asserted on such flimsy evidence as "the Norwich fans said it" and crazy leaps in the dark like "our wingers get told to play as full backs".

No, it's because people who have been watching our games have felt there are some occasions when we are too conservative. It goes without saying that different managers have different tactics, and that those tactics depend on the opposition, the players they have available, current team form, home or away, etc etc - and some managers will play a more adventurous style than others. Many of our fans clearly feel that Chris has been a bit cautious. We are allowed to talk about that, while also appreciating the job he's doing here.

Of course I can also feel now as I type the gutwrenching anxiety when I recall watching us trying to hold out in the later stages of a match... and I can also clearly recall us failing to make a impression in other games with passes going astray, insufficient players getting into forward positions and our opponents growing in confidence... but I do not blame CH for those moments as they are largely inevitable and nothing to do with him being "too negative".

Indeed, that's what we're discussing. You're saying you feel it's not down to him. You may well be right. I'm not going to call you lazy just because your opinion isn't fact though.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Well he hasn't got me to click on anything. What he has done, is turned me against the paper. I used to buy it and keep some of the stuff on Brighton, but I wouldn't dream of buying it now.

I refused to buy it, when Tommy Elphick's name was splashed all over the front page, when it was known he was completely cleared of anything wrong, the previous day.

I have friends who buy it everyday, so when we get souvenir pages like the promotion etc, they pass them on to me.

 

[seagulls4ever]

I agree with much of what you've written in your post, or at least understand the point of view, but I don't agree with this bit.

Yes the tactics were different, but Chris would not have commented that he was pleased the players didn't sit back if he hadn't been disappointed they had done so in other games this season. It makes it quite clear that there have been occasions where the team has sat back without it having been a specific instruction from Chris.

I agree there must have been other games where the team has sat back when the manager hasn't wanted them too, some of our frustrating home draws I would expect. Some of that probably has to with the lack of experience the team has of the Premier League. Of course Chris's instructions and the balance he wants in each individual game will be different, and the tactical set up based on the players we have will influence the levels of 'sitting back'. The response of the players to given situations in matches will be influenced by the tactics the manager has decided upon before the match. So some of it has to do with the players, and some of it has to do with the tactics. As with most things, it's not black or white.

I think there's been some good debate in this thread. It's a shame Mr Naylor is trying to shit all over it.

 

[Triggaaar]

I made some brief comments in post #220.

Ok, you've compared the home game and the away game, but how were our tactics so different to other home games against bottom half teams? (not a rhetorical question)

 

[Triggaaar]

I think there's been some good debate in this thread. It's a shame Mr Naylor is trying to shit all over it.

Agreed. I have now managed to trudge through his dull outburst, and it seems he's slightly got his knickers in a twist over one negative poster on twitter. Seriously, WTF? The poster may well be a troll having a good laugh, why would a journalist actually publish a long response in the paper Then he tries to lump all those who voted yes into the same boat, accusing them of knowing nothing etc, when you can tell by reading this thread there are a lot of reasoned opinions and people who are only slightly veering one way or the other.

Maybe he's just in a bad mood that Stoke aren't playing well.

 

[Nixonator]

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/159...e_fans_expect_too_much_in_the_Premier_League/

[/I]


Here we go...

Unfortuantely I think that mindset spans more than just a 'tiny minority' as he suggests.

Agree with the large part of that article, other than the obvious swipe at this forum (as if he had to be 'referred' to it ).

At least he mentioned it by name I suppose, but he seems to imply that only 250 albion fans have this warped opinion, and they are all found on this forum.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Ok, you've compared the home game and the away game, but how were our tactics so different to other home games against bottom half teams? (not a rhetorical question)

My memory isn't good enough to recall the specifics of each game. But what I have generally felt is that because most of our attacking threat relies upon our wingers, we need to be trying really hard to get them into games, which we haven't done enough of. I think the best way to do that is by creating space for the wingers through the positioning and runs of the forwards, and by getting the wingers and full backs to interact with each other in attacking areas. But this comes at the expense of some defensive solidity. Part of the reason I don't think Knockaert has performed as well as we wanted him to do so this season is because we haven't created the conditions for him to do so. There have been a couple of minor criticisms about why Murray/Ulloa were seen running the channels against West Ham, but I think that's intentional and instructed to try and get our other attacking players more involved, but that's their main assets. I'm really hoping Locadia can help us more with this, much in the way that Baldock did for us the last couple of seasons, as last season we never seemed to play as well attacking-wise when Baldock was injured. So some of it will have to do with Hughton not getting the striker he wanted in the summer, as well. It's really hard for wingers to get into games if they don't have space to play in. It also doesn't help that Knockaert played a lot of games with Bruno, who's obviously really slow, which means whoever plays with him has to be careful not to allow him to become exposed. So I think having Scheletto in the team helps us as well. I still have belief that Knockaert can perform really well for us in the Premier League, allowing us to appear less 'negative', but he's extremely low on confidence himself at the moment, which is why he didn't perform that well against West Ham, even though he was involved in a lot (which is really promising). My contention is more with away games than it is with the home games, anyway.