The old Chris Hughton discussion thread

[Optimistic Nut]

We're not Wigan or Stoke, but we were scarily close to being Leeds, Southampton, Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday...

[Guest Brummiemag]

And I do care how we play so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By the way I'm not a lone voice, the increasing numbers of empty seats are and will be evidence of that. 

[JH]

And I do care how we play so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By the way I'm not a lone voice, the increasing numbers of empty seats are and will be evidence of that.

 

96% of the people in the other thread would disagree with that.

[David Icke - Son of God]

And I do care how we play so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By the way I'm not a lone voice, the increasing numbers of empty seats are and will be evidence of that.  

 

I remember there being a load of empty seats when we got relegated, which is what you're effectively advocating with your "rather lose in style" bollocks. Can't remember there being a comparable drop off when we've played poor football in the top division.

[Guest malandro]

And I do care how we play so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By the way I'm not a lone voice, the increasing numbers of empty seats are and will be evidence of that.

 

96% of the people in the other thread would disagree with that.

He’s right though. The kind of football being advocatied (ugly, boring and negative) makes going to the match a fairly joyless experience. Winning provides a temporary respite from the drudgery but as it’s highly unlikely we’ll be winning many games next season what’s left is paying £20+ to be bored shitless for ninety minutes. While the ‘hardcore’ supporter might put up with it many will decide it’s a waste of money and find something enjoyable to do instead.

 

Far better to invest a bit of money in the product and play your way to safety than reduce the pitch size and cross your fingers.

 

[Guest MrBrown]

And I do care how we play so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By the way I'm not a lone voice, the increasing numbers of empty seats are and will be evidence of that.

 

96% of the people in the other thread would disagree with that.

He’s right though. The kind of football being advocatied (ugly, boring and negative) makes going to the match a fairly joyless experience. Winning provides a temporary respite from the drudgery but as it’s highly unlikely we’ll be winning many games next season what’s left is paying £20+ to be bored shitless for ninety minutes. While the ‘hardcore’ supporter might put up with it many will decide it’s a waste of money and find something enjoyable to do instead.

 

Far better to invest a bit of money in the product and play your way to safety than reduce the pitch size and cross your fingers.

 

 

I'm not  sure anyone is advocating ugly, boring, negative football. The debate appears to be between those who would be willing to be relegated playing pretty football rather than ugly football, and those who can deal with a season of consolidation, where the football won't always be the best, but which lays the foundations for success in the long term, allowing us to progress to a level where we are playing great football on a weekly basis.

 

I don't think anyone wants to see ugly football all the time, and given the choice between staying up playing attractively or negatively, it's really a no-brainer. That's not how this debate started, though. It started because a poster stated they'd rather be a yo-yo club playing nice football than stay up this year playing scrappy football.

 

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that we'll be far from an ugly side this year. I believe Hughton showed enough last season to suggest that he would, in an ideal world, like to play reasonably attractive football where prudent to do so (ie, against the majority of sides). How else do you explain his sticking with Guthrie over Smith, and his aquisition of a genuine winger in January?

 

He's also shown an awareness of where the team needs strengthening, and his signings have addressed positions we all acknowledged needing sorting out, regardless of how you assess the signings themselves.

[Guest malandro]

And I do care how we play so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By the way I'm not a lone voice, the increasing numbers of empty seats are and will be evidence of that.

 

96% of the people in the other thread would disagree with that.

He’s right though. The kind of football being advocatied (ugly, boring and negative) makes going to the match a fairly joyless experience. Winning provides a temporary respite from the drudgery but as it’s highly unlikely we’ll be winning many games next season what’s left is paying £20+ to be bored shitless for ninety minutes. While the ‘hardcore’ supporter might put up with it many will decide it’s a waste of money and find something enjoyable to do instead.

 

Far better to invest a bit of money in the product and play your way to safety than reduce the pitch size and cross your fingers.

 

 

I'm not  sure anyone is advocating ugly, boring, negative football. The debate appears to be between those who would be willing to be relegated playing pretty football rather than ugly football, and those who can deal with a season of consolidation, where the football won't always be the best, but which lays the foundations for success in the long term, allowing us to progress to a level where we are playing great football on a weekly basis.

 

I don't think anyone wants to see ugly football all the time, and given the choice between staying up playing attractively or negatively, it's really a no-brainer. That's not how this debate started, though. It started because a poster stated they'd rather be a yo-yo club playing nice football than stay up this year playing scrappy football.

 

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that we'll be far from an ugly side this year. I believe Hughton showed enough last season to suggest that he would, in an ideal world, like to play reasonably attractive football where prudent to do so (ie, against the majority of sides). How else do you explain his sticking with Guthrie over Smith, and his aquisition of a genuine winger in January?

 

He's also shown an awareness of where the team needs strengthening, and his signings have addressed positions we all acknowledged needing sorting out, regardless of how you assess the signings themselves.

What makes you think we’re laying the foundations for long term success? Our revenue for 11/12 isn’t likely to be much higher than it will be for this season, especially if we finish 16th playing negative football. If we can’t afford to assemble a squad that can’t stay up without resorting to stifling tactics this season there seems little chance it’ll change in the future.

 

The debate started because it has been reported that Hughton has decided to reduce the size of the pitch. If true this strongly suggest we’ll be really going for it on the negative front. It might keep us up but I don’t see it as laying the foundations for playing decent football in the future. Once a team has gone down this route it is very difficult to change direction.

 

For me we should have laid the foundations for the future last season. Committed ourselves to style of play a club of NUFC’s stature should aspire to. If that meant another season or two in the CCC so be it. What we got was a going up is all that matters attitude, and now it looks like it’ll be staying up at all costs is all that matters. Both are/were important but it’s all short term thinking. We’re not so much making progress as simply switching divisions.

 

[Heron]

Our club needs us - as a 12th man, especially this season. Instead of being the critics of the past why can't we just unite and believe in the man who got us here?

 

Hughton - rock on fella.

[OzzieMandias]

And I do care how we play so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By the way I'm not a lone voice, the increasing numbers of empty seats are and will be evidence of that.

 

96% of the people in the other thread would disagree with that.

He’s right though. The kind of football being advocatied (ugly, boring and negative) makes going to the match a fairly joyless experience. Winning provides a temporary respite from the drudgery but as it’s highly unlikely we’ll be winning many games next season what’s left is paying £20+ to be bored shitless for ninety minutes. While the ‘hardcore’ supporter might put up with it many will decide it’s a waste of money and find something enjoyable to do instead.

 

Far better to invest a bit of money in the product and play your way to safety than reduce the pitch size and cross your fingers.

 

 

I'm not  sure anyone is advocating ugly, boring, negative football. The debate appears to be between those who would be willing to be relegated playing pretty football rather than ugly football, and those who can deal with a season of consolidation, where the football won't always be the best, but which lays the foundations for success in the long term, allowing us to progress to a level where we are playing great football on a weekly basis.

 

I don't think anyone wants to see ugly football all the time, and given the choice between staying up playing attractively or negatively, it's really a no-brainer. That's not how this debate started, though. It started because a poster stated they'd rather be a yo-yo club playing nice football than stay up this year playing scrappy football.

 

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that we'll be far from an ugly side this year. I believe Hughton showed enough last season to suggest that he would, in an ideal world, like to play reasonably attractive football where prudent to do so (ie, against the majority of sides). How else do you explain his sticking with Guthrie over Smith, and his aquisition of a genuine winger in January?

 

He's also shown an awareness of where the team needs strengthening, and his signings have addressed positions we all acknowledged needing sorting out, regardless of how you assess the signings themselves.

What makes you think we’re laying the foundations for long term success? Our revenue for 11/12 isn’t likely to be much higher than it will be for this season, especially if we finish 16th playing negative football. If we can’t afford to assemble a squad that can’t stay up without resorting to stifling tactics this season there seems little chance it’ll change in the future.

 

The debate started because it has been reported that Hughton has decided to reduce the size of the pitch. If true this strongly suggest we’ll be really going for it on the negative front. It might keep us up but I don’t see it as laying the foundations for playing decent football in the future. Once a team has gone down this route it is very difficult to change direction.

 

For me we should have laid the foundations for the future last season. Committed ourselves to style of play a club of NUFC’s stature should aspire to. If that meant another season or two in the CCC so be it. What we got was a going up is all that matters attitude, and now it looks like it’ll be staying up at all costs is all that matters. Both are/were important but it’s all short term thinking. We’re not so much making progress as simply switching divisions.

 

 

 

Getting back into the Premiership at first attempt is an example of reprehensible short-termism?

[ChrisMcQuillan]

And I do care how we play so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By the way I'm not a lone voice, the increasing numbers of empty seats are and will be evidence of that.

 

96% of the people in the other thread would disagree with that.

He’s right though. The kind of football being advocatied (ugly, boring and negative) makes going to the match a fairly joyless experience. Winning provides a temporary respite from the drudgery but as it’s highly unlikely we’ll be winning many games next season what’s left is paying £20+ to be bored shitless for ninety minutes. While the ‘hardcore’ supporter might put up with it many will decide it’s a waste of money and find something enjoyable to do instead.

 

Far better to invest a bit of money in the product and play your way to safety than reduce the pitch size and cross your fingers.

 

 

I'm not  sure anyone is advocating ugly, boring, negative football. The debate appears to be between those who would be willing to be relegated playing pretty football rather than ugly football, and those who can deal with a season of consolidation, where the football won't always be the best, but which lays the foundations for success in the long term, allowing us to progress to a level where we are playing great football on a weekly basis.

 

I don't think anyone wants to see ugly football all the time, and given the choice between staying up playing attractively or negatively, it's really a no-brainer. That's not how this debate started, though. It started because a poster stated they'd rather be a yo-yo club playing nice football than stay up this year playing scrappy football.

 

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that we'll be far from an ugly side this year. I believe Hughton showed enough last season to suggest that he would, in an ideal world, like to play reasonably attractive football where prudent to do so (ie, against the majority of sides). How else do you explain his sticking with Guthrie over Smith, and his aquisition of a genuine winger in January?

 

He's also shown an awareness of where the team needs strengthening, and his signings have addressed positions we all acknowledged needing sorting out, regardless of how you assess the signings themselves.

What makes you think we’re laying the foundations for long term success? Our revenue for 11/12 isn’t likely to be much higher than it will be for this season, especially if we finish 16th playing negative football. If we can’t afford to assemble a squad that can’t stay up without resorting to stifling tactics this season there seems little chance it’ll change in the future.

 

The debate started because it has been reported that Hughton has decided to reduce the size of the pitch. If true this strongly suggest we’ll be really going for it on the negative front. It might keep us up but I don’t see it as laying the foundations for playing decent football in the future. Once a team has gone down this route it is very difficult to change direction.

 

For me we should have laid the foundations for the future last season. Committed ourselves to style of play a club of NUFC’s stature should aspire to. If that meant another season or two in the CCC so be it. What we got was a going up is all that matters attitude, and now it looks like it’ll be staying up at all costs is all that matters. Both are/were important but it’s all short term thinking. We’re not so much making progress as simply switching divisions.

 

 

We'd have been so skint after that we'd have been signing Steve Claridge to play in goals as our star signing of the summer.

 

The financial impact would have been unbearable.  We're on the right course. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

If we hadn't bounced straight back it would have been football (and probably financial) apocalypse TBH.

 

It was the one and only thing we could do to save our medium-term prospects of ever doing anything... any other result would have been disaster.

[Guest malandro]

And I do care how we play so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By the way I'm not a lone voice, the increasing numbers of empty seats are and will be evidence of that.

 

96% of the people in the other thread would disagree with that.

Hes right though. The kind of football being advocatied (ugly, boring and negative) makes going to the match a fairly joyless experience. Winning provides a temporary respite from the drudgery but as its highly unlikely well be winning many games next season whats left is paying £20+ to be bored shitless for ninety minutes. While the hardcore supporter might put up with it many will decide its a waste of money and find something enjoyable to do instead.

 

Far better to invest a bit of money in the product and play your way to safety than reduce the pitch size and cross your fingers.

 

 

I'm not  sure anyone is advocating ugly, boring, negative football. The debate appears to be between those who would be willing to be relegated playing pretty football rather than ugly football, and those who can deal with a season of consolidation, where the football won't always be the best, but which lays the foundations for success in the long term, allowing us to progress to a level where we are playing great football on a weekly basis.

 

I don't think anyone wants to see ugly football all the time, and given the choice between staying up playing attractively or negatively, it's really a no-brainer. That's not how this debate started, though. It started because a poster stated they'd rather be a yo-yo club playing nice football than stay up this year playing scrappy football.

 

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that we'll be far from an ugly side this year. I believe Hughton showed enough last season to suggest that he would, in an ideal world, like to play reasonably attractive football where prudent to do so (ie, against the majority of sides). How else do you explain his sticking with Guthrie over Smith, and his aquisition of a genuine winger in January?

 

He's also shown an awareness of where the team needs strengthening, and his signings have addressed positions we all acknowledged needing sorting out, regardless of how you assess the signings themselves.

What makes you think were laying the foundations for long term success? Our revenue for 11/12 isnt likely to be much higher than it will be for this season, especially if we finish 16th playing negative football. If we cant afford to assemble a squad that cant stay up without resorting to stifling tactics this season there seems little chance itll change in the future.

 

The debate started because it has been reported that Hughton has decided to reduce the size of the pitch. If true this strongly suggest well be really going for it on the negative front. It might keep us up but I dont see it as laying the foundations for playing decent football in the future. Once a team has gone down this route it is very difficult to change direction.

 

For me we should have laid the foundations for the future last season. Committed ourselves to style of play a club of NUFCs stature should aspire to. If that meant another season or two in the CCC so be it. What we got was a going up is all that matters attitude, and now it looks like itll be staying up at all costs is all that matters. Both are/were important but its all short term thinking. Were not so much making progress as simply switching divisions.

 

 

 

Getting back into the Premiership at first attempt is an example of reprehensible short-termism?

No, but making an instant return the only objective was. I know you don’t understand but give it a few years and the fragility of the foundations that underpinned our return to the topflight will become self evident.

[jdckelly]

If we hadn't bounced straight back it would have been football (and probably financial) apocalypse TBH.

 

It was the one and only thing we could do to save our medium-term prospects of ever doing anything... any other result would have been disaster.

this, getting up first time round was the only option, or would people like a reminder of what happened to leeds and southampton who didnt get back up first time round

[Guest malandro]

If we hadn't bounced straight back it would have been football (and probably financial) apocalypse TBH.

 

It was the one and only thing we could do to save our medium-term prospects of ever doing anything... any other result would have been disaster.

That’s just scaremongering. We could have balanced the operating costs and taken a slower route back to the PL. Instead we increased the debt by £25m and returned to the PL seeming unable to afford any player who costs more than £1m. For club with 40,000 plus crowds and £35m of extra TV money coming in it’s not really a very clever position to be in. 

[Cronky]

If we hadn't bounced straight back it would have been football (and probably financial) apocalypse TBH.

 

It was the one and only thing we could do to save our medium-term prospects of ever doing anything... any other result would have been disaster.

 

 

Thats just scaremongering. We could have balanced the operating costs and taken a slower route back to the PL. Instead we increased the debt by £25m and returned to the PL seeming unable to afford any player who costs more than £1m. For club with 40,000 plus crowds and £35m of extra TV money coming in its not really a very clever position to be in. 

 

Are you sure you're not getting yourself into a bit of an NE5 state here? - Digging yourself deeper into a weaker position out of stubbornness?

[Guest malandro]

Quite sure. I haven’t mentioned SJH once.

[OzzieMandias]

If we hadn't bounced straight back it would have been football (and probably financial) apocalypse TBH.

 

It was the one and only thing we could do to save our medium-term prospects of ever doing anything... any other result would have been disaster.

 

 

Thats just scaremongering. We could have balanced the operating costs and taken a slower route back to the PL. Instead we increased the debt by £25m and returned to the PL seeming unable to afford any player who costs more than £1m. For club with 40,000 plus crowds and £35m of extra TV money coming in its not really a very clever position to be in. 

 

Are you sure you're not getting yourself into a bit of an NE5 state here? - Digging yourself deeper into a weaker position out of stubbornness?

 

Gosh, why ever would that be?

[merlin]

It is essential that the club stay in the PL - if that means the side has to play 'pragmatic' football to do so, then so be it. Clearly, Ashley is NOT going to provide the necessary funds to obtain players who are able to play attacking football AND get results on a regular basis, so the manager has to make do with the resources at his disposal. In the current financial climate, it is clear that even Man U are not going to be major spenders in the transfer market, so at this point one can understand Ashley's caution but the difference between prudent spending and staying up is a very hard one to call.

 

It would seem that players like Cleverley(who scored for Man U against Celtic), may not now be available to us if Fergie is intent(or has no choice)in making do with what he has, and that would be a pity because young players with ability on season-long loans would have been a good stop-gap for NUFC. They might also make the football a bit more interesting with their skills, but Hughton has to do the best with what he is going to get and what he has now. I am not sure, though, that the side has the players to play percentage football like , say, Stoke ; we do not have the necessary speed or physique in defence, or the speed in midfield to carry that off but no doubt the side's ability to defend a slender lead will be vital in the coming season - it will also determine whether PL football is at SJP by 2011/12...

 

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

Even if we had the funds, or means to play attractive football, I'm not convinced at all that it would be more successful. WBA have played good football the last few times they've been in the PL, but have been comfortably relegated every time.

[wyn davies]

to me we have to go down the same route as we did first time when Keegan was manager. It isn't always a case of look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves, we need to invest.I'm not saying reach for the stars but at least reach a league position where we'll be attractive to new players. 

[mrmojorisin75]

Question for the stay up at all costs people:

 

How would you feel if our benevolent owner suddenly appointed Sam Allardyce (hypothetically), Phil Brown, or Gary Megson as manager in an effort to stay up?  [Lets say he fell out with Hughton.]  Or Bobby Gould, or Dave Basset.  You get the idea by now.

 

Genuine question; would win at all costs still be the order of the day?

 

Seems to me Hughton is getting a lot of kudos for promotion last season that's 'excusing' the teams style of play entirely, I'd like to see how that is if we end up in a war of attrition fighting for draws against WBA in the winter with Carroll up front and Smith and Nolan in midfield at home.

[Guest MrBrown]

Question for the stay up at all costs people:

 

How would you feel if our benevolent owner suddenly appointed Sam Allardyce (hypothetically), Phil Brown, or Gary Megson as manager in an effort to stay up?  [Lets say he fell out with Hughton.]  Or Bobby Gould, or Dave Basset.  You get the idea by now.

 

Genuine question; would win at all costs still be the order of the day?

 

Seems to me Hughton is getting a lot of kudos for promotion last season that's 'excusing' the teams style of play entirely, I'd like to see how that is if we end up in a war of attrition fighting for draws against WBA in the winter with Carroll up front and Smith and Nolan in midfield at home.

 

Here's an idea- why don't we wait and see how we play this season before implicitly comparing Hughton's style to Allardyce and Brown's?

[mrmojorisin75]

Question for the stay up at all costs people:

 

How would you feel if our benevolent owner suddenly appointed Sam Allardyce (hypothetically), Phil Brown, or Gary Megson as manager in an effort to stay up?  [Lets say he fell out with Hughton.]  Or Bobby Gould, or Dave Basset.  You get the idea by now.

 

Genuine question; would win at all costs still be the order of the day?

 

Seems to me Hughton is getting a lot of kudos for promotion last season that's 'excusing' the teams style of play entirely, I'd like to see how that is if we end up in a war of attrition fighting for draws against WBA in the winter with Carroll up front and Smith and Nolan in midfield at home.

 

Here's an idea- why don't we wait and see how we play this season before implicitly comparing Hughton's style to Allardyce and Brown's?

 

What wasn't what I was doing actually: we had Allardyce who had the approach 'anything to win' and he was unanimously hated by toon fans.

 

I'm not saying we'll be as bad as that under Hughton but I think most recognise he'll be aiming for a fairly limited game against a lot of teams, keep it tight and try to nick something especially away from home, and at home against the better teams. (personally I think that'll fail with the crop of players he has)

 

If he does that and we're really struggling I think it's a valid point to ask how long he can ride the promotion gravy train. 

 

On the other hand he might come out with 2 up top, Jonas and Routledge wide and Vuckic as one of the CM's and we get raped week in week out too - pretty sure the outcome would be the same for Hughton to be honest

 

No point in asking people not to speculate or debate pal, it's a fucking football forum.  There's little else to do until the season starts.

[Tachikoma]

Surely you mean "anything to draw".

[NG32]

Surely you mean "anything to draw".

 

Or anything to stop the other team, if if your own team doesn't attack.