Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Are Hughton’s tactics too negative?

Are Hughton’s tactics too negative?


  • Total voters
    319
  • Poll closed .


drew

Drew
NSC Patron
Oct 3, 2006
23,609
Burgess Hill
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.

Sorry but don't agree with that at all. No manager can dictate the flow of a game on the pitch once it's started other than by the introduction of subs and/or changing shape and tactics, which is exactly what CH is responsible for. Yesterday we were fortunate that WH were poor and we took advantage. He doesn't have to shout instructions and rant and wave as that is not his style but if we go a goal up it is him and not the players that decide the tactics for the rest of the game. Game plans will be decided before the match starts. If we go a goal up this is what we'll do and if they go a goal up this is what will happen. Injuries the way the opposition play may alter that but it will be the manager that decides how to combat it, not the players.
 




Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,458
Hove
Sorry but don't agree with that at all. No manager can dictate the flow of a game on the pitch once it's started other than by the introduction of subs and/or changing shape and tactics, which is exactly what CH is responsible for. Yesterday we were fortunate that WH were poor and we took advantage. He doesn't have to shout instructions and rant and wave as that is not his style but if we go a goal up it is him and not the players that decide the tactics for the rest of the game. Game plans will be decided before the match starts. If we go a goal up this is what we'll do and if they go a goal up this is what will happen. Injuries the way the opposition play may alter that but it will be the manager that decides how to combat it, not the players.

How do you explain after the first goal, where initially we didn't sit back at all, it was only after about 25/30mins that we started to retreat after WHU got their act together a bit. Then when we took the lead again, we didn't sit back at all from then on. I don't you have game plans in the way your suggesting. How could you know before the game how on top you might be if you score? No way you'd have a plan to retreat if you were dominating - and yesterday, we didn't, we did go for a second for some time. Perhaps that was the game plan - if so then I might be wrong, but it also suggests CH is not negative.
 




drew

Drew
NSC Patron
Oct 3, 2006
23,609
Burgess Hill
How do you explain after the first goal, where initially we didn't sit back at all, it was only after about 25/30mins that we started to retreat after WHU got their act together a bit. Then when we took the lead again, we didn't sit back at all from then on. I don't you have game plans in the way your suggesting. How could you know before the game how on top you might be if you score? No way you'd have a plan to retreat if you were dominating - and yesterday, we didn't, we did go for a second for some time. Perhaps that was the game plan - if so then I might be wrong, but it also suggests CH is not negative.

The manager will have a game plan and as the game develops he will give instructions (whether he gives them or his coach passes it on, it is still the manager's instructions) or the players will know what the manager expects as the game evolves. Of course you don't know how on top you will be but they will have a various game plans depending on how the game evolves. If you are playing a poor team then obviously you aren't going to sit back when you score but it was clear at Soton that once we scored it was a case of preventing them scoring rather than pressing home that advantage.
 






GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,181
Gloucester
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.
It ay not be what you were trying to say, but whichever way you look at it, it was a vindication of the 'yes' votes rather than the 'noes' - those of us who thought we were too defensive minded just wanted a slight adjustment of the balance between defence and attack. Yesterday, for whatever reason, we got it - and it worked! That is vindication!
 


erkan

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2004
896
Eastbourne
That was the opinion of the 'yes' side! Only idiots thought those voting yes were calling for gung-ho all-out attack.
Who has mentioned gung-ho all-out attack apart from you..?

Those voting "yes" were calling for Chris Hughton to be a little bit less negative in his tactics.



I

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone




Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
Reckon CH learnt a valuable PL lesson yesterday = Fortune Favours The Bold.

You think he leant that yesterday?

Not last season when he missed out being Champions by 2 points.
Or the season before where he missed being promoted by 2 goals.

You is callin him well fick.

I'll hazard a guess, with the Albion being 13th 3 points +GD above relegation Mr Hughton has learned the power of pulling up the drawbridge bridge and given the choice wouldn't do a single thing differently if he had to do it all over again.

Fingers crossed 5pm on Saturday, after a dire goalless draw, will prove that point.
 


Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,250
Cumbria
Who has mentioned gung-ho all-out attack apart from you..?

Those voting "yes" were calling for Chris Hughton to be a little bit less negative in his tactics.



I

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Oh dear, this is in danger of derailing into Brexit, where everyone voted for a different answer within the same answer!
 






Brighton Mod

Its All Too Beautiful
The best thing that happened to us on Saturday was West Ham scoring. Once 1-0 up we started to retreat into our own half again and at one stage were playing five across the back, then West Ham scored and forced us to attack the game, which we did and hey presto we scored three but could have had six or seven. Saturdays game was one where the reigns were unshackled fromour players and look what happened. But we should remember that West ham on the day were a very poor side.
 


Brighton Mod

Its All Too Beautiful
How do you explain after the first goal, where initially we didn't sit back at all, it was only after about 25/30mins that we started to retreat after WHU got their act together a bit. Then when we took the lead again, we didn't sit back at all from then on. I don't you have game plans in the way your suggesting. How could you know before the game how on top you might be if you score? No way you'd have a plan to retreat if you were dominating - and yesterday, we didn't, we did go for a second for some time. Perhaps that was the game plan - if so then I might be wrong, but it also suggests CH is not negative.

Were you at Southampton? There is no other way to describe the approach to that game other than negative, we had them on the ropes and should have increased our advantage, instead, we adopted the siege mentality and conceded. I had us down for 6 points from the two games. People are buzzed up on Satyrdays win and rightly so, but don't let it cloud your vision of all the other games we have played this season. However, our form is improving and two wins in three games is good.
 


Turkey

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2003
15,584
Were you at Southampton? There is no other way to describe the approach to that game other than negative, we had them on the ropes and should have increased our advantage, instead, we adopted the siege mentality and conceded. I had us down for 6 points from the two games. People are buzzed up on Satyrdays win and rightly so, but don't let it cloud your vision of all the other games we have played this season. However, our form is improving and two wins in three games is good.

We go defensive when the other team get possession. Away from home, against a term who saw that game as a must win, they were always going to put pressure on us, especially given how badly they started.
 




Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,458
Hove
Were you at Southampton? There is no other way to describe the approach to that game other than negative, we had them on the ropes and should have increased our advantage, instead, we adopted the siege mentality and conceded. I had us down for 6 points from the two games. People are buzzed up on Satyrdays win and rightly so, but don't let it cloud your vision of all the other games we have played this season. However, our form is improving and two wins in three games is good.

I was. We started brightly, Izqueirdo could have scored after 45 secs, we attacked them from the off, they were slow to react, we got a pen, and continued to attack after that. The game changed when our quality on the ball stopped us from a) keeping possession of the ball, and b) getting quality passes or crosses in the final third. This enabled Southampton to gain confidence, start to press and put pressure on us, we got nervous, started to defend our lead. My point remains, that this wasn't a tactical blueprint for the game, it was how the game developed. Yes we had a siege mentality but I don't believe this was the intent had we kept the ball more effectively.

Chris was quoted on Saturday as saying:
"Izquierdo's goal 'lifted the stadium', the most pleasing thing was that at 2-1 we could have been nervous and sat back on it but we didn't."

This isn't a quote from a manager that instructs his team on what to do after scoring, or has specific instructions throughout a game, this is a manager that lets his team respond to the match situation. Through organisation, drills, training, he will trust them to defend if they need to, but attack when they're on top. Had West Ham been better, we probably would have ended up with a rear guard action, but we attacked, not through tactical instruction, but because the players took that responsibility and realised they had West Ham on the ropes.

My argument isn't that we haven't been negative, because we have, that isn't what the thread is asking, it is asking if Hughton's tactics are too negative, I don't believe they are because his tactics are a lot down to organisation, but also responsibility to the players to respond to the match as it unfolds. Our negativity stems directly from how we're performing. If our wingers are off their game, we're not penetrating the opposition, they're getting the ball and playing well, yeah you get pushed back no matter how tactically you want to attack.
 


Moshe Gariani

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2005
12,197
I was. We started brightly, Izqueirdo could have scored after 45 secs, we attacked them from the off, they were slow to react, we got a pen, and continued to attack after that. The game changed when our quality on the ball stopped us from a) keeping possession of the ball, and b) getting quality passes or crosses in the final third. This enabled Southampton to gain confidence, start to press and put pressure on us, we got nervous, started to defend our lead. My point remains, that this wasn't a tactical blueprint for the game, it was how the game developed. Yes we had a siege mentality but I don't believe this was the intent had we kept the ball more effectively.

Chris was quoted on Saturday as saying:
"Izquierdo's goal 'lifted the stadium', the most pleasing thing was that at 2-1 we could have been nervous and sat back on it but we didn't."

This isn't a quote from a manager that instructs his team on what to do after scoring, or has specific instructions throughout a game, this is a manager that lets his team respond to the match situation. Through organisation, drills, training, he will trust them to defend if they need to, but attack when they're on top. Had West Ham been better, we probably would have ended up with a rear guard action, but we attacked, not through tactical instruction, but because the players took that responsibility and realised they had West Ham on the ropes.

My argument isn't that we haven't been negative, because we have, that isn't what the thread is asking, it is asking if Hughton's tactics are too negative, I don't believe they are because his tactics are a lot down to organisation, but also responsibility to the players to respond to the match as it unfolds. Our negativity stems directly from how we're performing. If our wingers are off their game, we're not penetrating the opposition, they're getting the ball and playing well, yeah you get pushed back no matter how tactically you want to attack.
You can't really explain it much better than that.

But people will keep coming back at you with an insistence that when we don't play like we did in the second half on Saturday it is a direct result of Chris Hughton's negative strategy and instruction. The Norwich fans said it when their team struggled and so did some pundit when asked for some expert analysis for the telly or in a newspaper.

The extent of people's psychological need to explain life in terms of controllable behaviours is pretty much limitless.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone
The best thing that happened to us on Saturday was West Ham scoring. Once 1-0 up we started to retreat into our own half again and at one stage were playing five across the back, then West Ham scored and forced us to attack the game
Having lost the lead, to then go on and win by a couple must give the team confidence, so I'm happy enough they scored the equaliser. But I don't agree that we retreated as soon as we scored. We scored after 8 minutes, and then continued to push forward before West Ham eventually got into the game.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone
I had us down for 6 points from the two games.
Well that was naive. Southampton were odds on to win on Wednesday, we were something like 5-1. We were more than 10-1 to get 6 points.
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone
Chris was quoted on Saturday as saying:
"Izquierdo's goal 'lifted the stadium', the most pleasing thing was that at 2-1 we could have been nervous and sat back on it but we didn't."

This isn't a quote from a manager that instructs his team on what to do after scoring, or has specific instructions throughout a game, this is a manager that lets his team respond to the match situation.
You really should credit the author.
 


warmleyseagull

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2011
4,385
Beaminster, Dorset
I was. We started brightly, Izqueirdo could have scored after 45 secs, we attacked them from the off, they were slow to react, we got a pen, and continued to attack after that. The game changed when our quality on the ball stopped us from a) keeping possession of the ball, and b) getting quality passes or crosses in the final third. This enabled Southampton to gain confidence, start to press and put pressure on us, we got nervous, started to defend our lead. My point remains, that this wasn't a tactical blueprint for the game, it was how the game developed. Yes we had a siege mentality but I don't believe this was the intent had we kept the ball more effectively.

Chris was quoted on Saturday as saying:
"Izquierdo's goal 'lifted the stadium', the most pleasing thing was that at 2-1 we could have been nervous and sat back on it but we didn't."

This isn't a quote from a manager that instructs his team on what to do after scoring, or has specific instructions throughout a game, this is a manager that lets his team respond to the match situation. Through organisation, drills, training, he will trust them to defend if they need to, but attack when they're on top. Had West Ham been better, we probably would have ended up with a rear guard action, but we attacked, not through tactical instruction, but because the players took that responsibility and realised they had West Ham on the ropes.

My argument isn't that we haven't been negative, because we have, that isn't what the thread is asking, it is asking if Hughton's tactics are too negative, I don't believe they are because his tactics are a lot down to organisation, but also responsibility to the players to respond to the match as it unfolds. Our negativity stems directly from how we're performing. If our wingers are off their game, we're not penetrating the opposition, they're getting the ball and playing well, yeah you get pushed back no matter how tactically you want to attack.

Good post, and emphasises that players as well as manager may be cause of negativity.

What is inescapable is that we have joint third fewest goals scored in PL; have a record against top 6 that reads P7 W0 D0 L7 F1 A18; and are in a relegation mix. The latter might not be surprising but it seems credible to ask whether a more positive approach might have adduced a few more points that would have us in top half and comfortable.

I have two beefs: 1) tactics against top 6 - we are only side not to have taken anything from top 6. Five games left, 3 at home, so things could change but the defending Alamo tactics have shown themselves to be badly wanting. Yes we had a go against Chelsea once gave them a two goal start, and were unlucky at Old Trafford, but generally we have sat back and hoped for the wind to blow something in, and against this quality that simply doesn't work; 2) Propper and Stephens seem to get a nosebleed once in opponents half. Better on Saturday but we need them to be providing goals and assists as well being part of back 6; Propper scores for Holland, 0 for us and not many opportunities, Stephens scored 9 goals over last two seasons yet hardly a shot this.

Not sure whether these are due to CH or in game necessities but I find it difficult to see how we can break through to comfort zone without addressing these problems.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here