[Albion] Albion (Hughton?) performance - the short term effect of Ashworth's appointment?

[Cozzy]

Question is ... who was behind the formation change to 4-3-3 ?

Was it originally forced by injuries & then CH forced to keep it rather than change back to 4-4-1-1 or was he just plain stubborn even though it was not working. Or was it part of Ashworths grand plan to have all the squads play the same system and 4-3-3 was the chosen one that was going to be the blueprint for the future.

I know all conspiracy theory but ...........

 

[Goldstone1976]

As is your thread.

So you've said. Why not read a different one then?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

So you've said. Why not read a different one then?

Because you keep replying and I keep getting unwanted notifications.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I alluded to this very thing on a post on the Hughton Sacked thread haven't seen that...I'd have replied there if I had - apologies and in a chat with a few Brighton fans.

I don't think there was any deliberate attempt to destabilse things God, no - me neither but any slight tension between the two could certainly have had an adverse effect. I can't imagine their future visions for the club / business were the same because, if they were, there would have been no point getting Ashworth in.Exactly!

I have thought what you posted before. Our form before Ashworth was WAY better than after.This assertion is simply a fact. I'm not sure why others seem to be contesting that. And we've seen what I would call briefings to the press as well. That Independant story about arguments between CH and the players. The Metro story about the players going on the piss. I'm not saying for a minute that they were briefed by DA but my opinion is that they had to come from somewhere. So either someone internally had it in for CH or someone outside the club, with a rival, saw there was an opportunity to sow discord with a well placed word to a journo mate.Well, the briefings had to come from somewhere, for sure. And whoever they did come from didn't have Hughton's best interests in mind.

...

 

[Goldstone1976]

Because you keep replying and I keep getting unwanted notifications.

Turn them off then.

Or put me on ignore.

 

[El Presidente]

why start a meaningless thread?

***Klaxon Alert***

Latest reports from Mid Sussex suggest a pot has been trying to call a kettle black.

 

[Nobby]

I think the appointment not only upset the applecart, sending apples in all directions, but set it trundling off down the hill, picking up speed, careering wildly towards a beautiful football stadium, just as a really nice football manager was walking out of the door to go home.

But was it pushed?


Ashworth OUT

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

*My role is to keep Chris Hughton in a job as long as possible*, or words to that effect.



There may be a hidden menace in that statement.

It is exactly the sort of HR-speak that is said when an employee is put on a *performance enhancement program* - a process which inevitably ends in the sack or redundancy.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

If you care to check, you'll see that I have never offered an opinion about whether Chris should stay or leave. Not once.

Your premise, that I'm a happy clapper, is "garbage".

The scary thing is that if we do by some miracle stay up, Hughton will have exceeded our minimum target for this season - we’d have stayed up and reached a Cup semi. Hard to fire a man who has just “over performed”.

Think you did.

 

[clapham_gull]

Interesting quote from Paul Hayward in the Telegraph

The word around Hughton’s coaching team was that Glenn Murray, Dunk and Duffy were the three players most responsible for keeping Brighton up. None will be glad to see Hughton go. At the same time a summer cull will need to take out players who pursued personal agendas and were not supportive of the manager when results began to crumble. Bloom needs to be as ruthless in the dressing room as he was in the dug-out.

He also states Ashworth had nothing to do with the sacking.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Think you did.

Nope. An observation that it is hard to fire someone who has "over performed", not an opinion that he should or shouldn't be. You also missed the bit where I said "The scary thing is...".

I know I haven't offered an opinion on whether or not he should go because I was so bloody torn on it. Still am.

Onwards and upwards though. UTA.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Interesting quote from Paul Hayward in the Telegraph



He also states Ashworth had nothing to do with the sacking.

What an excellent piece. Thanks for the link.

"Ashworth will need a stellar summer of buying and selling players if Hughton’s replacement is to stand any chance of making it a survival hat-trick."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...as-paid-price-mistakes-others-brightons-next/

Just for clarity, I wasn't positing that Ashworth deliberately tried to remove Hughton. Rather, that his presence and steps he may have taken to carve out his niche destabilised Hughton, affecting his confidence, and thus the team's performance on the pitch.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I think it's an interesting theory.

In any working environment, a new senior role being developed and given to an outsider, will create uncertainty.
I daresay it changed many of the working relationships at the club.

That may have included some of the players.
Chances are that it had an impact on CH - I wonder what [MENTION=30752]NooBHA[/MENTION] thinks?

 

[NooBHA]

I think it's an interesting theory.

In any working environment, a new senior role being developed and given to an outsider, will create uncertainty.
I daresay it changed many of the working relationships at the club.

That may have included some of the players.
Chances are that it had an impact on CH - I wonder what [MENTION=30752]NooBHA[/MENTION] thinks?

NooBHA thinks all this needs to remain confidential

 

[Papa Lazarou]

The Argus article published here

[tweet]1127987798370209794[/tweet]

Written by Naylor says that Ashworth was not involved in the decision to sack Hughton. So, you could read that as proof that we wasn't involved, OR he was and the club are at pains to suggest he wasn't.

 

[Goldstone1976]

NooBHA thinks all this needs to remain confidential

yep. It's one thing a fan positing a possibility; it's quite another a person who may have actual factual knowledge confirming or denying!

Are you planning to post on NSC mid-long term now? Or will you transfer your allegiance to Chris' new club (when that happens)?

I, for one, would miss your posts if you move on, and thank you for your contributions since you joined.

 

[Goldstone1976]

The Argus article published here

[tweet]1127987798370209794[/tweet]

Written by Naylor says that Ashworth was not involved in the decision to sack Hughton. So, you could read that as proof that we wasn't involved, OR he was and the club are at pains to suggest he wasn't.

Or - as I posted in response to the Telegraph piece above, that it's not relevant to my suggestion. I never suggested that Ashworth actively tried to get Hughton fired; rather that his presence destabilised him and negatively affected his and thus the team's performances.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The Argus article published here

Written by Naylor says that Ashworth was not involved in the decision to sack Hughton. So, you could read that as proof that we wasn't involved, OR he was and the club are at pains to suggest he wasn't.

As [MENTION=19]Icy Gull[/MENTION] has written on another thread, there are rumours that training focused on defending alienating the attacking players.

Now all the players would know Ashworth is the senior figure reporting back to Barber/Bloom on all footballing matters through the club, from the U8s up to the senior side. Suddenly from getting on with training, there is a senior person observing, asking players their opinions etc. on all things, and all of a sudden you can create a culture of 'yeah, come to think of it, we do spend too much time on the defensive side in training'.

Not saying that has happened, but it would be close minded not to consider the many angles that may have led 2019 to be such a disappointment.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Or - as I posted in response to the Telegraph piece above, that it's not relevant to my suggestion. I never suggested that Ashworth actively tried to get Hughton fired; rather that his presence destabilised him and negatively affected his and thus the team's performances.

I hope Chris Hughton has the sort of personality that doesn't fall to pieces when a new person joins the management team.

So, to be clear, are you suggesting Ashworth's mere presence could have adversely affected Chris' ability to manage the team, or do you think Ashworth has said / done / promised something that has caused this?

Just trying to get a steer on what you are suggesting / insinuating here.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

NooBHA thinks all this needs to remain confidential

Booooooo!