The old Chris Hughton discussion thread

[Guest BlacknWhiteArmy]

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

 

Aye, he's said it in every ESPN game we've had, starting with Rangers.

[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.

 

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 the referee cost us the game, but you can't afford to shut up shop like we tried to do today - it's why we lost last week too.

 

Changing the play after you've gone behind is too late.

[Ronaldo]

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

 

God almighty.

[Skeletor]

There's nothing gung ho about the way we play. We play nice possession football, whilst rarely creating chances.

[midds]

The problem with playing Ameobi up top by himself is that when he (frequently) forgets how to play football, every time you play the ball up to him he can't keep hold of it and it comes back at you constantly.

 

IIRC, Carroll was coming on for Ameobi (like for like) until Johnson scored and he changed it and dragged Nolan off so we had 2 up top to go for the equaliser.

[quayside]

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

 

Yup.

[ChezGiven]

There's nothing gung ho about the way we play. We play nice possession football, whilst rarely creating chances.

 

Tiote and Jonas at full back isnt gung ho?

[Optimistic Nut]

4-4-2 got slaughtered during the World Cup, now everyone seems to want it back.

 

Fickle as fuck.

[Skeletor]

There's nothing gung ho about the way we play. We play nice possession football, whilst rarely creating chances.

 

Tiote and Jonas at full back isnt gung ho?

 

Nope.

[ChezGiven]

There's nothing gung ho about the way we play. We play nice possession football, whilst rarely creating chances.

 

Tiote and Jonas at full back isnt gung ho?

 

Nope.

 

Not too arsed how its described but our style of play is not negative.

[Ronaldo]

It is very negative.

[Skeletor]

Gung ho to me is like Keegan's entertainers team. All out attack whether it was home or away.

[Dave]

It is very negative.

 

 

You're trying too hard.

[ChezGiven]

Playing a high line and dominating or equaling chances on and off target? You dont have a clue mate.

[JH]

4-4-2 got slaughtered during the World Cup, now everyone seems to want it back.

 

Fickle as f***.

 

I've never said anything about the formation before. 4-4-2 has always been the way for me.

[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.

 

I agree the referee cost us the game, but you can't afford to shut up shop like we tried to do today - it's why we lost last week too.

 

Changing the play after you've gone behind is too late.

 

So according to you the reason we lost today was because between the period of them changing it round and bringing Johnson on and Johnson scoring, we didnt go 4-4-2?

 

[Ronaldo]

Take away the Villa game and we've scored 4 goals in 6 games. We rarely create chances, don't commit men forward from midfield, and sit back like old men at sunset and hoof it when we're satisfied with the result.

 

We also play Kevin fucking Nolan, which is as cynical as it gets.

[Stu]

thought we passed the ball around well today, Ronaldo...

[ChezGiven]

It is very negative.

 

 

You're trying too hard.

 

He's not trying as he cant count.

[Ronaldo]

thought we passed the ball around well today, Ronaldo...

 

We did in the first half, certainly. Sadly half-time included a team-talk, again.

[JH]

So according to you the reason we lost today was because between the period of them changing it round and bringing Johnson on and Johnson scoring, we didnt go 4-4-2?

 

 

Aye, because that's what I said.

 

I agree the referee cost us the game, but you can't afford to shut up shop like we tried to do today - it's why we lost last week too.

 

Changing the play after you've gone behind is too late.

[ChezGiven]

thought we passed the ball around well today, Ronaldo...

 

We did in the first half, certainly. Sadly half-time included a team-talk, again.

Another one who thinks Hughton hasn't spoken to the players since the final whistle at Stoke.

[Ronaldo]

Go to bed, mate. You're usually a good poster, but tonight you're getting very confused and talking rubbish.

[ChezGiven]

Anyway, 'rarely create chances' is just idiotic.

[ChezGiven]

So according to you the reason we lost today was because between the period of them changing it round and bringing Johnson on and Johnson scoring, we didnt go 4-4-2?

 

 

Aye, because that's what I said.

 

I agree the referee cost us the game, but you can't afford to shut up shop like we tried to do today - it's why we lost last week too.

 

Changing the play after you've gone behind is too late.

Again contradicting yourself, either it was the referee or its because we tried to shut up shop. You saying 'its why we lost last week too' implies the latter not the former.