[Albion] Are Hughton’s tactics too negative?

[Turkey]

I don't think Hughton sends out his sides to be negative, but he does drill into them that their first job is to defend properly. To get their positioning, lines, marking and pressing when we don't have the ball correct.

I don't believe the tactics were different today, perhaps I'm a looney, but I think when we are away from home, or up against superior opposition, they tend to have a lot of the ball, which means we are deep and defensive and we don't gamble by leaving people up high for a quick turnover if we win the ball back. His philosophy is like his set up defending corners which he said at the fans forum, he prefers everyone back in defence, to defend the first danger. Today, at home, against opposition who were not at their best, we didn't have to do that defensive work quite as much.

 

[chaileyjem]

[same point as someone else in thread]

 

[GT49er]

Laughable revisionism.

If we had drawn today then NSC would have been absolutely full of thickos criticising our manager.

Ah yes, I get where you're at now. Anyone who disagrees with you is a thicko.

Righty ho. Goodbye.

 

[NooBHA]

Wasn't to be.

Ah well at least 84 of us were vindicated by a display of attacking prowess. I had spoken on Friday to someone and after the conversation I knew he was gonna batter West Ham's doors down yesterday because it was mentioned to me that they would come and sit it.

As I said on a few threads before it's all about targeting your points enough to keep you up this year.

 

[BensGrandad]

Was this a change of tactics yesterday or just the players up ping their game as has been expected of them for the past few weeks.

 

[NooBHA]

Was this a change of tactics yesterday or just the players up ping their game as has been expected of them for the past few weeks.

Maybe they just got a wee kick up the backside although from what I heard Dunk and Duffy were actually superb against Southampton. - These things don't need to be done one demand to a MOTD interviewer that some on here seemed to demand.

 

[GT49er]

Ah well at least 84 of us were vindicated by a display of attacking prowess.

I'm not sure you were actually. You voted that CH wasn't too defensive, so when the team plays slightly less defensively, you regard that as a vindication for saying it was right as it was?
On the other hand, the 236 who voted 'yes' (the vast majority of whom were not calling for the team to go galloping forward in gung-ho kamikaze attack after attack, just for a slight adjustment of the balance between attacking and defending) got what they - sorry, we - wanted yesterday. Not for one minute are we claiming any credit - I'm sure Chris will, as always, have made up his own mind - but yesterday's performance and result rather vindicates the view of the majority.

 

[BensGrandad]

I heard that they were better than in recent games but couldnt be described as superb as the goal came from a mistackle/kick by Dunk. In fairness to them they were as TV used to say Normal Service Resumed yesterday

 

[One Love]

Actually I've changed my mind since yesterday and now believe that the negativity we show has been a lack of confidence rather than negative tactics.

Hopefully we now have the belief to be more forward thinking.

 

[Bodian]

Actually I've changed my mind since yesterday and now believe that the negativity we show has been a lack of confidence rather than negative tactics.

Hopefully we now have the belief to be more forward thinking.

I think a lot of it is that. But also, if you go one up, then concentrate on defending the lead - then when you concede you've lost the mindset, and can't get back into attacking mode. The difference yesterday is not that we were 'gung-ho' but that we continued to look for a second goal when one up. So, when we did concede, we didn't have to change tactics or approach, we just carried on as we were. I do think that we're much more likely to get a goal back, or go ahead again if we haven't let teams have so much of the ball. It is very much played in the mind as much as anything else.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I'm not sure you were actually. You voted that CH wasn't too defensive, so when the team plays slightly less defensively, you regard that as a vindication for saying it was right as it was?
On the other hand, the 236 who voted 'yes' (the vast majority of whom were not calling for the team to go galloping forward in gung-ho kamikaze attack after attack, just for a slight adjustment of the balance between attacking and defending) got what they - sorry, we - wanted yesterday. Not for one minute are we claiming any credit - I'm sure Chris will, as always, have made up his own mind - but yesterday's performance and result rather vindicates the view of the majority.

Exactly this. A slight adjustment, a wee bit more coming out of the shell, a touch more belief. The margins are very fine at this level all over. No one is saying CH out, least of all me, but this hanging on to a lead and lack of belief in big games needed tweaking. So far, so good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BN41Albion]

Exactly this. A slight adjustment, a wee bit more coming out of the shell, a touch more belief. The margins are very fine at this level all over. No one is saying CH out, least of all me, but this hanging on to a lead and lack of belief in big games needed tweaking. So far, so good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This with bells on!

 

[BensGrandad]

My only concern with CH is the continual use of like for like substitution which you can predict before the game starts as soon as the line up is announced. Other managers realize that it is not working so change not only the players but the system being used to try to gain an advantage but CH never does and this irks me.

 

[NooBHA]

I'm not sure you were actually. You voted that CH wasn't too defensive, so when the team plays slightly less defensively, you regard that as a vindication for saying it was right as it was?
.

That is not what I am trying to say.

The point I was trying to get across is that he does it the way he thinks best to try and attain enough points to stay up. I get the impression that the best way to do that is : away from home to stop the teams in and around you from taking 3 points against you and at home to try and take 3 points from them and if you can do that then that will keep you up.

It doesn't always go to plan but so far this season, only 2 teams in and around us have actually beaten us. There has been the odd whippin in there from the ''Big Boys'' but we are new to this league and in the conclusion we have to accept that he is gonna do it his way because he is the one who knows the players best and he is the one who studies the opposition before every game.

I trust him to do the job and keep Brighton in this League because I have watched his teams for years and when you get a poor performance from them I have seen many times over the years, come out in the next game and play teams off the park. Man Management and Motivational skills are second to none when the chips are down.

 

[TheDuke]

I do think CH can be a bit too defensive when we have the lead but the opposition also dictates that. Did anyone notice in the last 15 minutes or so we were moving the ball around their penalty area a bit "Arsenalesque". It was really encouraging that the confidence was that high we could pass so many times so high up the field. Bloody good sign I believe

 

[Bold Seagull]

Had this discussion a bit yesterday, my take on it is that Chris is a manager who gives a lot of responsibility to his players. Yes he will prepare them, highlight the dangers of the opposition, look at shape and tactics, but I don't think he dictates the flow of the game on the pitch. I don't think he is yelling instructions to sit back when we take the lead, he allows his team to organise how they see the game.

Yesterday I felt highlighted this approach, because first half we did sit back after the goal, however second half we didn't sit back after taking the lead again. Had this been a tactical approach we would have see the same thing after each goal, but we didn't, this was the players dictating the game. I think Chris allows his players to manage the game, something he often refers to.

Will be interesting to see if this result gives us the confidence a win gave the likes of Swansea. I have high hopes that yesterday could be the catalyst for a real sense of belief and confidence.

 

[Triggaaar]

Ah well at least 84 of us were vindicated by a display of attacking prowess.

Too easy to claim victory yet.

I had spoken on Friday to someone and after the conversation I knew he was gonna batter West Ham's doors down yesterday

You could have told us!

because it was mentioned to me that they would come and sit it.

So you're saying it was West Ham's doing, not Chris's?

 

[NooBHA]

Too easy to claim victory yet.
You could have told us!
So you're saying it was West Ham's doing, not Chris's?

It's called doing your homework on the opposition. So definitely Chris and the players doing

 

[Claude samdamme]

West Ham played like we did on weds and got punished - if soton were a better side they would have done the same to us

 

[redoubtable seagull]

Exactly this. A slight adjustment, a wee bit more coming out of the shell, a touch more belief. The margins are very fine at this level all over. No one is saying CH out, least of all me, but this hanging on to a lead and lack of belief in big games needed tweaking. So far, so good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This should be a third option on this poll. I bet it would gain most votes.