The old Chris Hughton discussion thread

[Mick]

Hughton only had two things to do today, the first was the line-up and playing Nolan was a mistake.  The first two substitutions were made for him and he got the last one sopt on.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

[ChezGiven]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently shite, so very far from 'spot on'.

[ChezGiven]

Hughton only had two things to do today, the first was the line-up and playing Nolan was a mistake.  The first two substitutions were made for him and he got the last one sopt on.

Yeah, he actually hasnt seen the players since the final whistle at Stoke.

[Mick]

Yeah, he actually hasnt seen the players since the final whistle at Stoke.

 

What the players do in training is irrelevant if they don't do it on match days. 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently shite, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

[Cajun]

Did the vast majority right again today imho. Love the guy.

 

Love it how you've hid away for a week after Hughton threw away the game against Stoke 

 

Where was your 'support' then eh? 

 

That's a point, where's Jon?

 

Not taking the piss but I really don't need to view the football forum after a defeat, I could tell you exactly what has been posted and by who without even logging on. It's predictable, boring shite which is why I don't bother with it for a while after. If anyone put forward a logical and reasonable argument to debate with it would be worthwhile but as said it's the same, tired, lazy cliches.

 

Anyway... didn't think he did much wrong today, if it wasn't for someone else ineptitude (the ref) we probably would have come away with a very good 3 points.

 

I fully expect an argument full of "shouldn't play Nolan" "subs not right" "442 or else" and/or "Perch is shit" response but I won't read it anyway so waste your time (the always negative fuckers on the forum)

[Dave]

Did the vast majority right again today imho. Love the guy.

 

Love it how you've hid away for a week after Hughton threw away the game against Stoke 

 

Where was your 'support' then eh? 

 

That's a point, where's Jon?

 

Not taking the piss but I really don't need to view the football forum after a defeat, I could tell you exactly what has been posted and by who without even logging on. It's predictable, boring shite which is why I don't bother with it for a while after. If anyone put forward a logical and reasonable argument to debate with it would be worthwhile but as said it's the same, tired, lazy cliches.

 

Anyway... didn't think he did much wrong today, if it wasn't for someone else ineptitude (the ref) we probably would have come away with a very good 3 points.

 

I fully expect an argument full of "shouldn't play Nolan" "subs not right" "442 or else" and/or "Perch is shit" response but I won't read it anyway so waste your time (the always negative fuckers on the forum)

 

You smell.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Did the vast majority right again today imho. Love the guy.

 

Love it how you've hid away for a week after Hughton threw away the game against Stoke 

 

Where was your 'support' then eh? 

 

That's a point, where's Jon?

 

Not taking the piss but I really don't need to view the football forum after a defeat, I could tell you exactly what has been posted and by who without even logging on. It's predictable, boring shite which is why I don't bother with it for a while after. If anyone put forward a logical and reasonable argument to debate with it would be worthwhile but as said it's the same, tired, lazy cliches.

 

Anyway... didn't think he did much wrong today, if it wasn't for someone else ineptitude (the ref) we probably would have come away with a very good 3 points.

 

I fully expect an argument full of "shouldn't play Nolan" "subs not right" "442 or else" and/or "Perch is shit" response but I won't read it anyway so waste your time (the always negative fuckers on the forum)

 

[ChezGiven]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently shite, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently shite, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

 

Not in the post I quoted or the bit I put in bold before saying it was 'Spot on' he didn't.

[ChezGiven]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently shite, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

 

Not in the post I quoted or the bit I put in bold before saying it was 'Spot on' he didn't.

 

Only because of the forum settings, i can still see it in this reply.

[ChezGiven]

Yeah, he actually hasnt seen the players since the final whistle at Stoke.

 

What the players do in training is irrelevant if they don't do it on match days. 

 

Well we were unlucky to lose, so they got something from their week long preparations right.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently shite, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

 

Not in the post I quoted or the bit I put in bold before saying it was 'Spot on' he didn't.

 

Only because of the forum settings, i can still see it in this reply.

 

Apology accepted.

[ChezGiven]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently shite, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

 

Not in the post I quoted or the bit I put in bold before saying it was 'Spot on' he didn't.

 

Only because of the forum settings, i can still see it in this reply.

 

Apology accepted.

 

None proferred. The premise of his point was full of shit.

[Mick]

 

Well we were unlucky to lose, so they got something from their week long preparations right.

 

I'm not trying to have a go at Hughton because he wasn't as bad as soome are saying.  Still, I can't see anything in how Nolan played that could justify how well he's possibly trained.  If Hughton picks him based on training even though he offers very little during a game then he deserves all of the stick he gets.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently shite, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

 

Not in the post I quoted or the bit I put in bold before saying it was 'Spot on' he didn't.

 

Only because of the forum settings, i can still see it in this reply.

 

Apology accepted.

 

None proferred. The premise of his point was full of shit.

 

Not the bit I put in bold which I was specifically................

 

Tell him he's full of shit in future, not me.

 

Good to (very briefly) see you at the weekend btw.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

 

Well we were unlucky to lose, so they got something from their week long preparations right.

 

I'm not trying to have a go at Hughton because he wasn't as bad as soome are saying.  Still, I can't see anything in how Nolan played that could justify how well he's possibly trained.  If Hughton picks him based on training even though he offers very little during a game then he deserves all of the stick he gets.

 

At least he hauled the fucker off today. He's gonna pay for that later though when Nolan put hims back in the BDSM dungeon he obviously keeps him in. Brave in the circumstances.

[ChezGiven]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently shite, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

 

Not in the post I quoted or the bit I put in bold before saying it was 'Spot on' he didn't.

 

Only because of the forum settings, i can still see it in this reply.

 

Apology accepted.

 

None proferred. The premise of his point was full of shit.

 

Not the bit I put in bold which I was specifically................

 

Tell him he's full of shit in future, not me.

 

Good to (very briefly) see you at the weekend btw.

 

 

Johnny is too sensitive, not like you you leathery old git.

 

Nice to see you too mate.

[Mick]

 

At least he hauled the f***er off today. He's gonna pay for that later though when Nolan put hims back in the BDSM dungeon he obviously keeps him in. Brave in the circumstances.

 

 

He was spot on with his subbing of Nolan, pity he was started though.

[JH]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently s****, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

 

Not in the post I quoted or the bit I put in bold before saying it was 'Spot on' he didn't.

 

Only because of the forum settings, i can still see it in this reply.

 

Apology accepted.

 

None proferred. The premise of his point was full of s***.

 

I should have said I was on about the 2nd half specifically.

 

We played some very good stuff inbetween equaliser and half time (which i've said in another post), but they went in at half time, changed their play and ultimately came out and won the game, whereas we left it until they'd scored to change it (even before they scored, there were whispers it was Shola coming off for Carroll).

 

We were crap in the second half and looked much better in a 4-4-2.

[ChezGiven]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently s****, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

 

Not in the post I quoted or the bit I put in bold before saying it was 'Spot on' he didn't.

 

Only because of the forum settings, i can still see it in this reply.

 

Apology accepted.

 

None proferred. The premise of his point was full of s***.

 

I should have said I was on about the 2nd half specifically.

 

We played some very good stuff inbetween equaliser and half time (which i've said in another post), but they went in at half time, changed their play and ultimately came out and won the game, whereas we left it until they'd scored to change it (even before they scored, there were whispers it was Shola coming off for Carroll).

 

We were crap in the second half and looked much better in a 4-4-2.

 

That last sentence is slightly contradictory given we only went to 4-4-2 in the second half.

 

They changed it, we responded so where did it all go wrong? It was only Mancini's City ffs. The ref beat us in the end, not the delay in switching it.

[colinmk]

Here Chris, you heard of a little thing in football...it's called FOUR FOUR f***ing TWO.

 

It's no coincidence that when he took Nolan off and stuck Shola/Carroll up there together, we looked 500% better. We should play two up top more often.

 

I think also it was to do with fact they had just scored and werent as eager to push forward. We done perfectly well in the 2st half with 1 up front, expect it should have been Carroll and not shola

 

 

We barely did anything. It was City slowly getting better and better, until they brought on Johnson who had the quality to break us down.

 

We played the "Oh well, 1-1 is a good result, let's just stay like this and we'll definitely draw" which almost never works.

 

Spot on.  Just like last weekend's one nil win.

 

Since our best football was played in the first half, i'd say Johnny Hall's premise was patently s****, so very far from 'spot on'.

 

I think that's what he was getting at, 'job done' at half time sort of thing.

 

He said we should have played 4-4-2 and we were miles better when Nolan came off. I saw us play our best football in the first half.

 

Not in the post I quoted or the bit I put in bold before saying it was 'Spot on' he didn't.

 

Only because of the forum settings, i can still see it in this reply.

 

Apology accepted.

 

None proferred. The premise of his point was full of s***.

 

I should have said I was on about the 2nd half specifically.

 

We played some very good stuff inbetween equaliser and half time (which i've said in another post), but they went in at half time, changed their play and ultimately came out and won the game, whereas we left it until they'd scored to change it (even before they scored, there were whispers it was Shola coming off for Carroll).

 

We were crap in the second half and looked much better in a 4-4-2.

 

That last sentence is slightly contradictory given we only went to 4-4-2 in the second half.

 

They changed it, we responded so where did it all go wrong? It was only Mancini's City ffs. The ref beat us in the end, not the delay in switching it.

 

I agree with that. I'd be very surprised if we had managed to hold them like we did in the first half with a 4-4-2.

[Guest Chris P]

Waddle going on about how high we play the defence up the pitch. third match in a row i think. The first against villa. T other commentator today says "you've been saying that for 35 minutes but Newcastle are still in control.

 

tactically i like Hughtons style , its a bit gun'ho but as waddles co commentator said this afternoon , it seems to be working

[Guest Heneage]

I'm feeling for him right now. I acknowledge he's made mistakes, but he's had some shite luck.