Stick or Bust

[Killiecanary]

I was talking to a mate about a similar topic earlier today.

we were saying that actually there isn't very much difference at all between the top 8 in the Champ and the bottom 12 in the Prem.  If that were a league of 20 it would be almost impossible year on year to say who was likely to do well and who was likely to struggle at the start of the season.  

The top 8 in the Prem usually is a cut above (well usually top 4 and then the next 4) and is most often very predictable.  But the next 20 clubs in th country I don't really see much between - then it is down to form and management and tactics.  

Which is why I am such a defender of Alex Neil.  I think he can operate in  this market successfully and can help us get that premier league stability we all seek...I just don't think you get it by constantly chopping and changing managers.

 

[Canaryboy]

we were saying that actually there isn't very much difference at all between the top 8 in the Champ and the bottom 12 in the Prem.  

What I see when I look at the Championship big hitters I just see a load of teams piling up huge debts, all gambling on hitting the Premier League jackpot, some of who will get lucky and some of whom may become the next Bolton when their owners pull the plug and decide to stop covering their huge losses. 

Brighton   £131m in debt

Ipswich Town £82.4m in debt

Middlesbrough  £76m in debt 

When the Parachute payments stop you either cut your cloth and hope to massively overachieve, or you load yourself with mammoth amounts of debt and risk becoming a Blackburn or Bolton. 

There may not be a huge difference in the quality of the Middlesbrough squad and our squad, but they are financing theirs by borrowing from their chairman's umbrella company, and we are financing ours with our income. 

Middlesbrough's last set of accounts showed a loss of £20m. 

Our last set of accounts showed a loss of £5m, yet presumably covered by our profit of £6.7m the season before rather than borrowing.

So whilst the quality of the squad may be comparable, this actually perfectly illustrates the difference between a team with parachute payments and what a club has to do to compete when it doesn't have them (load themselves with debt).

 

[GJP]

At this stage we had 19 points under Hughton. Key differences:

1) The style of play. It made me want to pour boiling coffee into my eyes.

2) The lack of adaptation. Couldn't change a game, subs couldn't have an effect nor could Hughton change formation, structure, or style.

3) We had lost heavily to Arsenal (4-1), Liverpool (5-1) and Man City (7-0).

4) We had broken our transfer records in the summer, Hughton had a team that had just spent a couple seasons in the Prem as opposed to one which had been in the Championship.

So yeah, entirely different scenario essentially.

1) Hughton's style wasn't often exciting but we did play some good football under him. At the moment I don't think you could say that AN's style is that different. I wonder how people would have seen the Villa game under if it had been under Hughton - it could be said that we sat off in the second half, looking to protect our 1 nil and that the subs were too late coming.

2) That's quite similar to the first point. Does AN make many game changing decisions?

3) Losing is losing. Hughton also got some good results against the top sides.

4) Fair point.

I know people will probably think I'm anti Alex Neil but I'm not. 

 

[Canaryboy]

In the first quarter / third of Hughton's second season we completely dominated the possession in a lot of games and had a ridiculous number of chances but just couldn't get the ball in the back of the net. Norwich 0-0 Cardiff in October being the perfect example, we had 31 shots and 61% of the possession. 

After a period of being clearly the better team most weeks but failing to come away with points the team just seemed to enter a period of terminal decline in morale and confidence. 

Perhaps the the fine line between success and failure that season really was just getting the striker signing terribly wrong, or not playing at least one winger on their natural side. Ricky Van Wolfswinkel was the lead character in 50 Shades of Fail. 

 

[Din]

1) Hughton's style wasn't often exciting but we did play some good football under him. At the moment I don't think you could say that AN's style is that different. I wonder how people would have seen the Villa game under if it had been under Hughton - it could be said that we sat off in the second half, looking to protect our 1 nil and that the subs were too late coming.

2) That's quite similar to the first point. Does AN make many game changing decisions?

3) Losing is losing. Hughton also got some good results against the top sides.

4) Fair point.

I know people will probably think I'm anti Alex Neil but I'm not. 

1) What? When did we ever play 'good' football under Hughton that season? Maybe there was the odd game, but overall the football was dire. Not just from an entertainment point of view, but a physical one as well. Neil's style is completely different. Granted, there have been some exceptions recently, notably the Swansea and Villa games where at times we were holding on to the lead, however on those occasions we did hold onto the leads, ehich is what was important. Under Hughton we invariably would've lost them. The fact that we've both scored more and conceded less goals so far this season than we did at this exact point that season speaks volumes really.

2) He bought on Ryan Bennett at half time against Everton and he ended up getting an assist and helped us earn the draw. He bought on Mbokani who assited Howson to get us the winning goal. He changed the system just after Manchester United scored to make it 1-2, by bring Howson on for Wes, and that extra man in midfield helped to see out the game. Those are just in the last few weeks. He often gets his substitutions spot on. He also has the balls to make changes to the starting team. He dropped Ruddy for Rudd which turned out to be a great move, out of nowhere he gave Grabban a start against Arsenal and he scored, he bought Howson and Mbokani back into the side for the Villa game and both scored. He dropped captain Russell Martin for Ryan Bennett, which has made us so much more solid defensively. He's given runs in the team to O'Neil and Wisdom as well and both have impressed. Hughton rarely changed the side even when players were underperforming.

3) You haven't really understood his point. The fact that we haven't been thrashed by any of the big sides shows that we have been able to compete with them. Chelsea we narrowly lost, Manchester City we only lost due to a Ruddy f*ck up, and we beat United, and have taken points off Liverpool and Arsenal this season. In Hughton's season we lost 7-0 to Man.City, 4-1 to Arsenal, 5-1 to Liverpool, 3-1 to Chelsea and 4-0 to United. We also conceded 4 against both Villa and Southampton that season. With the exception of the Newcastle game (which was clearly just a one-off) we haven't conceded 4 or more at all this season.

 

[Canaryboy]

Also knew the exact minute that Hoolahan was going to set up Mbokani for the winner, had the subs ready in advance so they could get their applause  :lol:

 

[hogesar]

I understand what you're saying GJP, and I would reply in details but Din has kind of covered it for me!

 

[It's Character Forming]

Lots of good points here but Din's post sums up how I see it.  I had a season ticket in the late 90s and I saw plenty of games similar to Monday's except both sides on Monday were playing at a higher level - which is a massive difference!.  Villa are poor as a Prem side but they still have quite a few good players.  Also they are aware they're struggling and resorted to a lot a fouls which made it hard for us to create.  In the first half Mbokani seemed to be fouled every time he had the ball.

since the Newcastle game (and the introduction of Rudd and Bennett in defence) we've looked much more solid and have mostly cut out the silly errors which cost us quite a few points, which bodes well.

aloso looking back to Hughton 's second season we weren't badly placed in the table at halfway, the problem was that we were struggling to create scoring chances even when we dominated possession and it all went to pot from then onwards - losing at home to Palace was basically the start of the end for me.

 

[eatonparkboy]

What I see when I look at the Championship big hitters I just see a load of teams piling up huge debts, all gambling on hitting the Premier League jackpot, some of who will get lucky and some of whom may become the next Bolton when their owners pull the plug and decide to stop covering their huge losses. 

Brighton   £131m in debt

Ipswich Town £82.4m in debt

Middlesbrough  £76m in debt 

When the Parachute payments stop you either cut your cloth and hope to massively overachieve, or you load yourself with mammoth amounts of debt and risk becoming a Blackburn or Bolton. 

There may not be a huge difference in the quality of the Middlesbrough squad and our squad, but they are financing theirs by borrowing from their chairman's umbrella company, and we are financing ours with our income. 

Middlesbrough's last set of accounts showed a loss of £20m. 

Our last set of accounts showed a loss of £5m, yet presumably covered by our profit of £6.7m the season before rather than borrowing.

So whilst the quality of the squad may be comparable, this actually perfectly illustrates the difference between a team with parachute payments and what a club has to do to compete when it doesn't have them (load themselves with debt).

It would be interesting to know how many clubs have actually managed to get back into the top flight during the parachute payments.

It is quite amazing to think that the unexpected success of the 2010-11 season may turn out to be the greatest moment in the club's history. Not just because of the football but because of the financial stability it has brought.

 

[GJP]

1) What? When did we ever play 'good' football under Hughton that season? Maybe there was the odd game, but overall the football was dire. Not just from an entertainment point of view, but a physical one as well. Neil's style is completely different. Granted, there have been some exceptions recently, notably the Swansea and Villa games where at times we were holding on to the lead, however on those occasions we did hold onto the leads, ehich is what was important. Under Hughton we invariably would've lost them. The fact that we've both scored more and conceded less goals so far this season than we did at this exact point that season speaks volumes really.

2) He bought on Ryan Bennett at half time against Everton and he ended up getting an assist and helped us earn the draw. He bought on Mbokani who assited Howson to get us the winning goal. He changed the system just after Manchester United scored to make it 1-2, by bring Howson on for Wes, and that extra man in midfield helped to see out the game. Those are just in the last few weeks. He often gets his substitutions spot on. He also has the balls to make changes to the starting team. He dropped Ruddy for Rudd which turned out to be a great move, out of nowhere he gave Grabban a start against Arsenal and he scored, he bought Howson and Mbokani back into the side for the Villa game and both scored. He dropped captain Russell Martin for Ryan Bennett, which has made us so much more solid defensively. He's given runs in the team to O'Neil and Wisdom as well and both have impressed. Hughton rarely changed the side even when players were underperforming.

3) You haven't really understood his point. The fact that we haven't been thrashed by any of the big sides shows that we have been able to compete with them. Chelsea we narrowly lost, Manchester City we only lost due to a Ruddy f*ck up, and we beat United, and have taken points off Liverpool and Arsenal this season. In Hughton's season we lost 7-0 to Man.City, 4-1 to Arsenal, 5-1 to Liverpool, 3-1 to Chelsea and 4-0 to United. We also conceded 4 against both Villa and Southampton that season. With the exception of the Newcastle game (which was clearly just a one-off) we haven't conceded 4 or more at all this season.

1) Some of the football wasn't great but some was alright. People seem to forget that we actually won a few games that season.

2) He brought Bennett on against Everton because Wisdom went off injured. Otherwise there was no suggestion he was going to change. And he didn't really drop Martin, he was suspended. He gave Bassong and Bennett 3 games together (all decent defensive performances) but as soon as we lost 2-0 at Watford he brought Martin back. Had Martin played at Watford and we'd lost 2 nil I doubt he'd have been dropped like Bennett was. Martin was woeful at CB against Newcastle, just as bad at RB against WBA in the next game but yet still got picked for the Man City game. 

3) Here's a different way of looking at it. We went to a slightly out of sorts Man City who were missing a couple of key players, got men behind the ball and still lost. We went to Chelsea and lost but Chelsea have been beaten 9 times in the league this season so we are we so chuffed about only losing 1 nil to them? 

AN started the season by saying he only knows one way to play - that being attacking. Well, obviously that's not the case because he has gone more defensive and he has got numbers behind the ball in a few games now. I'm not saying he's wrong to do that either as I firmly believe you have to be able to adapt but it's not as if we're playing a particularly great brand of football. And that doesn't bother me because I just want to win enough games to stay up.

 

[Bill and ben]

I've just re read this topic. Might I say first that I've learnt more about people's attitude to the club reading this topic and the fa cup equivalent than I could learn reading 200 posted in the other place?

for what it's worth I see this as a survival year and hopefully next year as a work in progress, but I hope that thereafter we aim to be a club that entertains and pushes on, not just a club that survives. To me a small club attitude is one which is content with its lot and protects it at all costs.  In this respect I agree with eaton.

 If we go down because we tried to entertain and tried to win every trophy then I'll not regret the gamble.