Dieumerci Mbokani

[It's Character Forming]

For balance I would accept Hughton's first season was "ok" in the end with some good moments whereas RVW has been a complete flop tbh.  But I don't think RVW has the attributes needed to succeed in the Prem and I would put a large part of the blame for signing him into Hughton. So overall I have a bigger downer on hughton 

 

[morty]

Yeah I forgot it was that far back.  Obviously 94/95 was another relegation season and 93/94 we were 12th so again thanks to those 2 wins in the last 2 games Hughton ended up one place higher, which (I repeat) massively flattered him IMO.  And I'm pretty sure 92/93 we did a bit better.....

This is probably my biggest issue with the whole debate. Can people not take those two wins as exactly what they were? Instead of some amazing conspiracy that the team won despite Hughton's tactics, or the teams we played were on the beach? If Lambert had won those two games would they be described in the same way? Your points total over the season is what it is, a reflection of how you have played over a season.

As Beausant says above, a little balance is required.

Hughton's biggest failing was that he wasn't Paul Lambert.

 

[It's Character Forming]

Well I agree we need a balanced view but for me the lack of balance is in this oft-repeated "best finish in 20 years " that Hughton is credited with and I think that's massively flattering .  

A a fair appraisal of Hughton's first season would be that we had a nightmare start after which he got in some new defenders and steadied the ship, then we had the 10-game unbeaten run featuring some fine victories but based on a very defensive approach which was often painful to watch (it's fun to beat Arsenal and ManU 1-0 at home but 0-0 away at Reading is like watching paint dry).

After Christmas our form dipped and we struggled; the home game against Reading was a must-win which we managed to eke out otherwise we'd have been right back in the relegation scrap. At the end of the season for a home game against WBA (who had nothing to play for) the shackles came off and we swept them aside but it's important to remember that with 2 games to go, if we hadn't won and other results had gone differently, we could still have been in trouble (Lambert's achievement was to steer us to safety well before then(.  Then for the final game at ManC neither side had anything riding on the result and it was a great performance by City - I'll never forget being there when we won at the Etihad, but I wouldn't kid myself that we'd have got that result if ManC had needed the win. A draw in either of those games would have left us in 14th.

so at the end of Hughton's first season my feeling was that he's got the job done in a solid but uninspiring way.  We'd been one of the lower goal scorers in the Prem and with a record transfer budget I looked forward to Hughton improving the attacking part of the squad.  Frankly I expected  building the team around RVW - I knew nothing about him when he signed but given how early we got him and the fee paid I assumed he'd be what Hughton wanted to replace Holt.  But he wasn't, and this isn't just hindsight - I remember seeing a Bleacher report article after RVW had scored on his debut saying he wasn't cut out to succeed in the Prem, and that journo was spot on.  To make it worse we'd spent quite a lot of money on Hooper too and also Elmander came in on big wages, but none of them even came close to to replacing Grant Holt in the team. And that's what I can't forgive Hughton for- he had the time and plenty of money to get the sort of strikers he needed but he spent big on players that were simply wrong for his style of play.  He wasn't constrained at that point - RVW is our record signing- Hughton simply got it wrong.

Yes, it's true by Christmas the Board apparently decided not to give him yet more money to spend, presumably hoping his defensive solidity would keep us up and not trusting him to get it right if he tried again at signing a striker, especially given the inflated prices you pay in January.  Was that a mistake, or would he have wasted the money and got us relegated anyway (but £Ms worse off so perhaps unable to spend the money to get in Grabban and Jerome?) It's impossible to say but I can at least understand the logic for the Board making that decision.

And that's my view on Hughton- the first season a mixed bag but he did enough; the second season he got it horribly wrong.

 

[morty]

Completely agree on the "Best finish in 20 years" being a bit over hyped, we all knew that despite it, there were underlying issues to be addressed. 

If we take all the hyperbole away from the contrasting points of view on Hughton, we probably all pretty much agree on the sequence of events, your post above sums up pretty much how I saw it.

 

[Beauseant]

Completely agree on the "Best finish in 20 years" being a bit over hyped, we all knew that despite it, there were underlying issues to be addressed. 

If we take all the hyperbole away from the contrasting points of view on Hughton, we probably all pretty much agree on the sequence of events, your post above sums up pretty much how I saw it.

I'd go along with that. I don't think anyone would argue that Hughton didn't get it wrong in his second season, although its a fallacy to assume that all transfers in are either totally the manager's choice or his primary targets.  My issue was about the way in which fans of RvW have absolved the striker of any responsibility for his parlous return and heaped EVERYTHING onto Hughton's shoulders. He did some good things, he did some bad things. I met him a few times and liked him: he was humble and totally committed to helping the club succeed. Its very easy to depersonalise people, and I may well be guilty of that with RVW, but neither individual set out to fail, nor lacked commitment and both deserve respect for that.

 

[It's Character Forming]

Agree with you there Beauseant.  If anything I think Hughton is a bit too much of a nice guy to be a Prem manager.  I think AN has more of a straight down the line, my way or the highway approach, with a streak of ruthlessness, which is more what you need.

 

[Indy_Bones]

My issue was about the way in which fans of RvW have absolved the striker of any responsibility for his parlous return and heaped EVERYTHING onto Hughton's shoulders.

Sorry Beau, but that's genuinely how I see it.

As already stated, unless you're a world class 'complete' striker then you are highly reliant on your teammates to provide the ammunition for you to fire, if you get no ammunition then it's doesn't matter how accurate you may or may not be because it becomes a completely moot point.

We all saw the runs and movement RvW made, especially in the opening months of the season, but he got very little supply from those runs, instead we had the likes of Snoddy slowing down the play and either shooting himself, passing it back or sending over a cross that even a 7ft striker would have struggled to work with...

Is it RvW's fault that he was asked to play a role completely different than what he's always played and isn't suited to - no

Is it RvW's fault that he got little to no supply for the vast majority of games - no

Is it RvW's fault that he was our record signing and therefore more was expected of him thus increasing pressure to perform - no

Is it RvW's fault that he played in an overly defensive setup that offering little attacking threat, and even less pace when we did - no

Is it RvW's fault that on a number of occasions he was denied by goalkeepers making 'worldie' saves - no

Is it RvW's fault that Snoddy insisted on taking the pen off him which could have been a key turning point for his season and confidence - no

So what exactly has RvW done wrong then? Not scored enough - and frankly I don't f**king blame him considering how shitty our supply and style of play was, not to mention he was in an unfamiliar role, in a new country and in a new league which is is played at a faster and more physical pace. There may be a couple of aspects that were simply down to circumstances (e.g. the new country aspect), but the vast majority of the issues faced by RvW were caused either directly or indirectly by Hughton and the choices he made, so I absolutely do blame Hughton for the majority of RvW's failure that season, and no amount of debate is going to change that (although I obviously respect your right to view it differently and disagree with my own opinion).

 

[eatonparkboy]

I'd go along with that. I don't think anyone would argue that Hughton didn't get it wrong in his second season, although its a fallacy to assume that all transfers in are either totally the manager's choice or his primary targets.  My issue was about the way in which fans of RvW have absolved the striker of any responsibility for his parlous return and heaped EVERYTHING onto Hughton's shoulders. He did some good things, he did some bad things. I met him a few times and liked him: he was humble and totally committed to helping the club succeed. Its very easy to depersonalise people, and I may well be guilty of that with RVW, but neither individual set out to fail, nor lacked commitment and both deserve respect for that.

I don't fully understand the inner workings of a football club and certainly not ours. Maybe those of you who do understand or have a bit of inside knowledge or a "mole" at the club could explain the transfer process.

Does the manager not have the majority of input in any new signing? Even though a new manager will inherit his scouts, doesn't he take a look at any prospect? Please don't tell me he relies on YouTube (TIC)?

If not, then do we find the process of bringing in new players becomes a committee decision and we all know what normally is the outcome of those?

Is AN going to be slightly handcuffed, obviously allowing for the usual constraints such as fee and wages? 

 

[Canaryboy]

Does the manager not have the majority of input in any new signing? 

Before Alex Neil talked to us he made it clear that he wouldn't come here unless it was agreed he'd have full control on who came and who left.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Before Alex Neil talked to us he made it clear that he wouldn't come here unless it was agreed he'd have full control on who came and who left.

I made this point in a different thread, that when they started the season with Adams, much was made of the 'football board' and how the manager would focus on first team stuff, with everything else delegated to other people. It seems strange that 6 months after setting this up they appoint a manager who seems to want to run the club from top to bottom.

Has the 'football board' approach been abandoned? Or is this a 'artistic differences' argument waiting to happen?

 

[Canaryboy]

My issue was about the way in which fans of RvW have absolved the striker of any responsibility for his parlous return and heaped EVERYTHING onto Hughton's shoulders.

I just struggle to apportion blame for that signing on anybody other than Hughton.

You correctly point out that sometimes we don't get our number 1 target, and have to resort to the B list or C list. 

But that clearly wasn't the case with RVW, we signed him months before the summer window opened, he was clearly our number one target.

The board had fulfilled their responsibilities by making the funds available and closing a deal. When it turned out that RVW wasn't the right player for us, the blame has to lay at the feet of the football side of the club for identifying him as a target. It doesn't matter whether he wasn't good enough or just didn't suit our tactics, either way.... how can you blame anybody other than Hughton for that? 

Yes he had a chief scout, but Hughton brought him from Birmingham too, he was a member of Hughton's backroom team. Hughton ultimately has to be the person who takes responsibility for the footballing side, there was nobody above him, we didn't have a Director of Football model and he wasn't a head coach being purchased players and told to make them play. 

The board made substantial sums available to the manager for investment, and he failed to improve performance accordingly (actually did the opposite).

Surely if you were a manager in any business you would expect to lose your job if all these things were true:

1. Your budget increased significantly. 
2. You did a bad job of recruiting the right people to build a team. 
3. You got your strategy wrong (or 'tactics' if you like). 
4. Departmental performance significantly declined.
5. You failed to reach performance targets.

Or would you expect to be given another year, and more money, to undo your mistakes? 

It doesn't make him a bad manager, but it does make him a manager who had performed badly / not met his objectives. It doesn't mean that he isn't capable of meeting objectives in a similar role, for another employer, but it does mean that the board were right to review his position and consider a change in personnel.

 

[GJP]

I have said this elsewhere before but seeing as we're talking about it again...

Up until the very last moment Hughton was not 100% sure on signing RVW. Sporting gave us a deadline and it was someone else  (easy to work out who) who decided to take the plunge and do the deal.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

I just struggle to apportion blame for that signing on anybody other than Hughton.

You correctly point out that sometimes we don't get our number 1 target, and have to resort to the B list or C list.

But that clearly wasn't the case with RVW, we signed him months before the summer window opened, he was clearly our number one target.

Dont forget that we also failed with bids to acquire Hooper before the deadline and went back for him the following window. That was a protracted pursuit as well. Both RvW and Hooper were very much primary targets - yet I am still left wondering what the masterplan was. I used this graphic once before and I will use it again:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Gnomes_plan.png   (url upload wouldnt work)

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

 it does mean that the board were right to review his position and consider a change in personnel.

Even though Gary Lineker (Bonkers!) and Alan Shearer (What do they want down there?!) disagreed

 

[Beauseant]

I have said this elsewhere before but seeing as we're talking about it again...

Up until the very last moment Hughton was not 100% sure on signing RVW. Sporting gave us a deadline and it was someone else  (easy to work out who) who decided to take the plunge and do the deal.

My understanding too.

 

[Beauseant]

Sorry Beau, but that's genuinely how I see it.

As already stated, unless you're a world class 'complete' striker then you are highly reliant on your teammates to provide the ammunition for you to fire, if you get no ammunition then it's doesn't matter how accurate you may or may not be because it becomes a completely moot point.

We all saw the runs and movement RvW made, especially in the opening months of the season, but he got very little supply from those runs, instead we had the likes of Snoddy slowing down the play and either shooting himself, passing it back or sending over a cross that even a 7ft striker would have struggled to work with...

Is it RvW's fault that he was asked to play a role completely different than what he's always played and isn't suited to - no

Is it RvW's fault that he got little to no supply for the vast majority of games - no

Is it RvW's fault that he was our record signing and therefore more was expected of him thus increasing pressure to perform - no

Is it RvW's fault that he played in an overly defensive setup that offering little attacking threat, and even less pace when we did - no

Is it RvW's fault that on a number of occasions he was denied by goalkeepers making 'worldie' saves - no

Is it RvW's fault that Snoddy insisted on taking the pen off him which could have been a key turning point for his season and confidence - no

So what exactly has RvW done wrong then? Not scored enough - and frankly I don't f**king blame him considering how shitty our supply and style of play was, not to mention he was in an unfamiliar role, in a new country and in a new league which is is played at a faster and more physical pace. There may be a couple of aspects that were simply down to circumstances (e.g. the new country aspect), but the vast majority of the issues faced by RvW were caused either directly or indirectly by Hughton and the choices he made, so I absolutely do blame Hughton for the majority of RvW's failure that season, and no amount of debate is going to change that (although I obviously respect your right to view it differently and disagree with my own opinion).

And I think that's the beauty of this site. We both strongly disagree with each other but we've argued politely and with respect.

 

[Beauseant]

I don't fully understand the inner workings of a football club and certainly not ours. Maybe those of you who do understand or have a bit of inside knowledge or a "mole" at the club could explain the transfer process.

Does the manager not have the majority of input in any new signing? Even though a new manager will inherit his scouts, doesn't he take a look at any prospect? Please don't tell me he relies on YouTube (TIC)?

If not, then do we find the process of bringing in new players becomes a committee decision and we all know what normally is the outcome of those?

Is AN going to be slightly handcuffed, obviously allowing for the usual constraints such as fee and wages? 

Of course the manager has real input on targets, but the scouting network reports in to the football board and there's a degree of consensus. It's interesting that it appears that the football board got the Larrivey deal sorted only for Alex to veto it. Its also worth pointing out that Ewan Chester was head of scouting when RVW came in, and his name is mud at the club.Ultimately I accept that Hughton has to take ultimate responsibility for the signing of RVW, but not total responsibility, there's a difference.

 

[Canaryboy]

Even though Gary Lineker (Bonkers!) and Alan Shearer (What do they want down there?!) disagreed

Old boys club, Lineker played with Hughton at Spurs and Shearer was coached by Hughton at Newcastle. 

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Old boys club, Lineker played with Hughton at Spurs and Shearer was coached by Hughton at Newcastle. 

I think Jose said it best when he said this about football pundits...

“The best job in the world is to be a sacked coach. You get up at 10.30am, take breakfast, go for a jog followed by a sauna and a calm surf of sporting sites on the net.

“Lunch with friends, a siesta, a walk, a meeting with your adviser to see how the markets are doing, a visit to the bank to weigh up the interest rates, or to see if the salary the club is still paying you has cleared the account. Return home, have a great meal with the family. That still leaves you time to criticise people you don’t know.

“There are so many coaches in this world who want to work but can’t and there are those dashing blades who, through their quality and prestige, could work but don’t want to, because life as a parasite fulfils them professionally and economically. Get to work you idle scoundrel! And if you don’t want to, let others work in peace.”

 

[Indy_Bones]

Even though Gary Lineker (Bonkers!) and Alan Shearer (What do they want down there?!) disagreed

Yes, because they both subscribe to the view that results overrule anything else, so it doesn't matter if the players hate the way they're being told to play, it doesn't matter if the fans hate to watch the way the manager has them playing and it doesn't matter if we routinely get spanked by the big teams - as long as we're still in the league at the end of the season then they'll consider it to be job well done by the manager and that we should be damn grateful for finishing 17th and playing like crap all season...

Well, that might well be enough for messrs Shearer and Lineker, but I actually want to enjoy watching my team play, I can accept that we're not going to win every game and that there will be odd matches where a more reserved and defensive approach may well be the best choice, what I don't want is 38 games of utter, turgid, dross that I'd consider poor football at a non-league level, never mind the bloody Premiership!