[Albion] Are Hughton’s tactics too negative?

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I think we’ll still stay up but I’m losing faith with Hughton

So you think we are good enough to achieve our clear aim for the season

But you don't have faith in the man you believe will achieve that aim.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

I'm a no, because I don't think we have the tools or the quality to simply 'attack' teams like people believe, especially away from home, especially when the opposition are behind. It is a massive simplification of what happens in a football match. If we could keep the ball better, then we could be more positive, but we don't. Our fullbacks last night panicked in possession in tight spots, our wingers rarely beat their man, our forwards are a bit slow. It is a fantasy that we can simply turn a switch and suddenly attack teams forcing them back when we cannot retain possession well enough - in short we'd be taken apart.

Our achilles heal at present isn't a lack of attack, it is an inability to shut teams out.

Have to disagree with this if we are using last night as an example. We sprung out of the traps and Southampton looked like they were going to get overrun early on and you could see that they lacked any confidence. When we scored we should have continued in the same vein as I think we would have had a comfortable victory but we allowed their confidence to grow by sitting deep and not competing. In the end they gave us the run around and looked like the team most likely to win in. I don’t believe that would have been the case if we had continued our early style of play and even if they had equalised while playing like that it still would have only been 1-1 at that point.

 

[Lethargic]

The original question was simply "Are Hughtons tactics too negative?", no ifs, buts or maybes. With no other conciderations just the simple question I stick with my answer of yes but is it really that straightforward and am I a bedwetter no. I agree the team are not as good as others and we are incredibly inexperienced and niave in this league but there have been times when we should have pressed higher or made more attacking substitutions. Agree he is taking generally the best approach to survive but sometimes this has been ttoo negative and "safe" when we could have killed some games.

 

[NooBHA]

Half of the team are new acquisitions, so should be PL standard, and surely some from last year are PL standard? You also told us that Murray and Hemed were good enough and would score when given the chance.

A point away generally is a good point, but if the game allows for more we should be fighting for it, not settling for the point we thought we'd be happy with.

And I don't think people felt we were too negative in those games.

Are you quoting Harry Redknapp? It's not all down to the players, the manager is the most significant member of the team and deserves the credit when we do well and not so well.

I don't disagree with much of what you say and Murray and Tomer haven't actually missed too many chances when they have come their way but not too many clear cut chances are being created for them and they won't create too much for themselves out of nothing.

I know that half of them are new acquisitions but the squad is still evolving and it will gradually get better each transfer window.

The Manager is part of the squad I agree but when they players step over the line sometimes they cant always carry out any game plan and that is sometimes due to opposition players stunting that plan.

I agree with you 100% that if there is opportunities to try and take 3 points away from home you should attempt to take it. Chris does this by trying to defend a lead. It worked at lower levels when opposition players weren't as good. It actually almost worked last night.

As you know I won't ever say anything overly negative about Chris; however, hand on heart I do believe that this season is about amassing points bit by bit and getting another year in this league when you can strengthen the squad again. And for me I think he is doing it his way because at the end of the day he knows his players better than we do.

He has earned the right to do it his way based on what he has achieved so far at Brighton

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I'm a no, because I don't think we have the tools or the quality to simply 'attack' teams like people believe, especially away from home, especially when the opposition are behind. It is a massive simplification of what happens in a football match. If we could keep the ball better, then we could be more positive, but we don't. Our fullbacks last night panicked in possession in tight spots, our wingers rarely beat their man, our forwards are a bit slow. It is a fantasy that we can simply turn a switch and suddenly attack teams forcing them back when we cannot retain possession well enough - in short we'd be taken apart.

Our achilles heal at present isn't a lack of attack, it is an inability to shut teams out.

You’re not asking the key question though. Why do we struggle to keep the ball better and consequently fail regularly to keep teams at arms length?

 

[Noah All]

I wanted to vote NO and certainly at Home that's true. But Away I think CH sets up not to lose, (even if we go ahead), and there have been matches in which this approach has cost us points. So it's a reluctant YES from me.

 

[*Gullsworth*]

I voted no. We have not got the players.....speedy players to go gun Ho. We would be ripped to shreds more often than we have this season. I understand people who say we should go down fighting and we are beaten before we start but we are in a very tough league, a league above what we are used to. Last season's last few games was a pointer for me, Bristol City were there for the taking to win the title. Murray looked so knackered and slow and so did the others, is wasn't all after the event performances is was because we were not good enough!
We didn't get promoted by thrashing every one and with ease, it was a workmanlike consistent season, now we are against far better opponents week in week out, same as Huddersfield and Newcastle we are finding our level. Survive this season and I would expect an improvement on the squad again to compete with more confidence.
It is very frustrating not being able to compete at a higher tempo and attacking flair but I think the majority of us knew we would struggle to survive and would have have en bitten your hand off for fourth from bottom. Hughton has normally subbed attacker for attacker, sometimes to late for our liking but overall I think he knows the limitation of the squad and has managed the rotation well with what he has.
I don't think there are many managers (what we could afford) who could do better with what Chris has to play with.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You’re not asking the key question though. Why do we struggle to keep the ball better and consequently fail regularly to keep teams at arms length?

I've asked the right question, and given you the answer, man for man we are simply not quite as good as the opposition in a lot of cases. Our first touch, our second touch, our speed of thought knowing where the next bit of space is. You could see it last night, tiny moments, a first touch that is just a foot away than where you'd want it to be, a quick pass that just needs the receiver to stretch a bit more, a bit of space we're not finding. The answer to your question is quality, not tactics. If we stay up, it will because we have battled hard for every point we've had.

You cannot keep a team at arms length who have equal or better quality than you. There is no magic wand. You beat better opposition through application, work rate, desire, and a fair bit of luck half the time.

 

[Perry Milkins]

So here is the thing.

If we are able to stay in this league and benefit from improving the squad in the summer then Chris will either continue is this awful dreary manner or prove us wrong with more gallant and positive football. Then my NSC colleagues we will have our complete answer.

Simples.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Have to disagree with this if we are using last night as an example. We sprung out of the traps and Southampton looked like they were going to get overrun early on and you could see that they lacked any confidence. When we scored we should have continued in the same vein as I think we would have had a comfortable victory but we allowed their confidence to grow by sitting deep and not competing. In the end they gave us the run around and looked like the team most likely to win in. I don’t believe that would have been the case if we had continued our early style of play and even if they had equalised while playing like that it still would have only been 1-1 at that point.

Well, for me we did continue to look the more dangerous, but at some point you have to accept that Southampton started to string some passes together, and started to take some risks with their fullbacks especially bombing on. That isn't a tactical decision from Chris, that is the flow of the game. Had we kept the ball better, had Izquierdo and March carried more of a threat, I dare say we would have had more chances.

I don't buy that we influence the game that much that the only reason Southampton started to get their act together was because we started to sit back. On the contrary, Southampton started to get their act together and forced us back in my opinion. The only way we could counter that is to keep the ball, and as I said above, at times we lack the quality to do that, to take the sting out of the opposition.

 

[amexer]

I have said no because Burnley play the same way and look where they are. Just defended better then us espec from corners

 

[Triggaaar]

As you know I won't ever say anything overly negative about Chris

I don't have much negative to say either, I'm delighted he's at our club and hope he stays here for years. I am questioning whether he's being too negative at the moment though. In his first full season with us, I don't think he expected us to be as good as we were, and consequently he (IMO) settled for a point (games like Preston and Shef Wed) when we could have got more, and then we missed out on GD. The following season he was (IMO) less cautious - he knew how good we were, and we didn't try and win home/draw away, we tried to win just about every game, and it paid off. I'm just wondering if we'd get an extra point or two (in total, allowing for dropping the odd point) if we were more adventurous.

however, hand on heart I do believe that this season is about amassing points bit by bit and getting another year in this league when you can strengthen the squad again.

I'd bite yer hand off for another year in the league. If he gets us there, it's job done. The concern is we'll narrowly miss out, which could potentially be due to not having a go.

He has earned the right to do it his way based on what he has achieved so far at Brighton

No doubt.

 

[Stat Brother]

Chris does this by trying to defend a lead. It worked at lower levels when opposition players weren't as good. It actually almost worked last night.

How many of your 4,444 posts do you think have included a variation of that line?

It's odd that so many knickers are currently twisted over issue 1.1 from the Chris Hughton playbook.

If those posters aren't used to CH's Albion (and I'll hazard a guess all his teams before us) defending a lead and getting away with it/almost working/screwing it up,*** by now they never will do.



***delete as appropriate.

Oh and for future record it didn't work at lower levels, it just had a higher rate of success at lower levels.
I, like you, can think of games when points were waved goodbye by substituting off all attacking intent.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Propper is basically playing as an advanced centre half. We couldn't be set up more negatively, it's not a handbrake - the wheels have been removed!

 

[Billy the Fish]

Have to disagree with this if we are using last night as an example. We sprung out of the traps and Southampton looked like they were going to get overrun early on and you could see that they lacked any confidence. When we scored we should have continued in the same vein as I think we would have had a comfortable victory but we allowed their confidence to grow by sitting deep and not competing. In the end they gave us the run around and looked like the team most likely to win in. I don’t believe that would have been the case if we had continued our early style of play and even if they had equalised while playing like that it still would have only been 1-1 at that point.

Was going to post something similar, I think they players proved in the first 15 minutes that they DO have the tools to retain possession in the right circumstances. The problem last night was the lack of intent to clear our lines and move the play into their half. Sometimes I counted 6 players across the back line with another 3 just in front and they were all just strolling out and allowing Southampton to keep the ball and have another go at us. You just can't do that for 75 minutes at this level, teams will invariably pull something out of the bag.
[MENTION=19110]Sussex[/MENTION]_guy_2k has touched on it above, there's a direct correlation with the tactics and how easy it is for the players to retain possession. If the only option for the player with the ball is to go backwards or hoof it and we're being pressed in our own half then they are going to lose possession more often than if they have two or three choices for a pass.

It's an interesting debate with a reasonable argument for both sides. If I had to apportion blame I'd say I 70% disagree with [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION], I don't think you can just put it down to the quality of our players because any team would make more errors when playing that deep. He is right though that there were some terrible basic errors last night, in ridiculous parts of the pitch.

 

[Bold Seagull]

How many of your 4,444 posts do you think have included a variation of that line?

It's odd that so many knickers are currently twisted over issue 1.1 from the Chris Hughton playbook.

If those posters aren't used to CH's Albion (and I'll hazard a guess all his teams before us) defending a lead and getting away with it/almost working/screwing it up,*** by now they never will do.

***delete as appropriate.

Oh and for future record it didn't work at lower levels, it just had a higher rate of success at lower levels.
I, like you, can think of games when points were waved goodbye by substituting off all attacking intent.

To counter your point though [MENTION=435]Stat Brother[/MENTION], Chris has never had anything but a newly promoted side to work with in the PL. Chris was sacked as Newcastle manager with them at P16 W5 D4 L7 pts19, with the fans largely happy. They'd just been promoted, they beat Villa 6-0, Everton & Arsenal away, smashed Sunderland 5-1, drew against Chelsea.

Here is a kicker for you: Newcastle scored more goals in those 16 games than 15 of the other teams in the league!! Only 4 teams had scored more. Would it be wrong to mentioned they won the Championship title scoring 90 goals!

This impression he is a negative manager is frankly rubbished by how many goals his promoted sides have scored, and how many Newcastle were scoring. His other experience in the PL is with us and Norwich, 2 of the weaker squads to have competed. As I will continue to repeat, this isn't a manager holding back a team capable of more attacking play, this is a manager doing his absolute best with what he has at his disposal.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I've asked the right question, and given you the answer, man for man we are simply not quite as good as the opposition in a lot of cases. Our first touch, our second touch, our speed of thought knowing where the next bit of space is. You could see it last night, tiny moments, a first touch that is just a foot away than where you'd want it to be, a quick pass that just needs the receiver to stretch a bit more, a bit of space we're not finding. The answer to your question is quality, not tactics. If we stay up, it will because we have battled hard for every point we've had.

You cannot keep a team at arms length who have equal or better quality than you. There is no magic wand. You beat better opposition through application, work rate, desire, and a fair bit of luck half the time.

Possibly. But there are tactical reasons for the things you’re complaining about. The lack of verticality in our movement, and consequently a variety of options on the ball, as well as our wide men often being on top of our full backs are all reasons for us being under the cosh more regularly than necessary. If you don’t have a regular, effective out ball over the course of 90 minutes then it becomes very difficult to get out of the back. And that lack of an out ball is often due to the positioning of our attacking and midfield players, and their lack of movement into areas that can hurt opposition teams.

 

[Stat Brother]

To counter your point though [MENTION=435]Stat Brother[/MENTION], Chris has never had anything but a newly promoted side to work with in the PL. Chris was sacked as Newcastle manager with them at P16 W5 D4 L7 pts19, with the fans largely happy. They'd just been promoted, they beat Villa 6-0, Everton & Arsenal away, smashed Sunderland 5-1, drew against Chelsea.

Here is a kicker for you: Newcastle scored more goals in those 16 games than 15 of the other teams in the league!! Only 4 teams had scored more. Would it be wrong to mentioned they won the Championship title scoring 90 goals!

This impression he is a negative manager is frankly rubbished by how many goals his promoted sides have scored, and how many Newcastle were scoring. His other experience in the PL is with us and Norwich, 2 of the weaker squads to have competed. As I will continue to repeat, this isn't a manager holding back a team capable of more attacking play, this is a manager doing his absolute best with what he has at his disposal.

I'm not going on a 'negative' bibble here.
It's just odd that posters are complaining about being 'negative' after taking the lead.
CH has always done that, unless playing Norwich at home, a midfielder gets bought on for an attacking player and they sit in front of our penalty area disrupting play.

In the Championship it worked enough, but wasn't much fun to watch.
NSC would have a moan.
NooBHA and another would come on here to defend it by saying 'well it usually works', even if it didn't this time.

Being surprised by Hughton sitting on a lead (as the opposition are now forced to attack) is like being surprised that Father Christmas hadn't had a shave.

 

[trueblue]

No, because I don't think he sets up the team to be negative - it just tends to work out that way as the game goes on. Possibly because we're not quite good enough to take on and beat teams consistently. I'd like us to be more adventurous with our changes in the matches against teams outside of the 'big 6' but whether that would be the right approach and pay dividends is very debatable. It's noticeable that when we do take a risk in games, we're quite often then exposed very quickly on the counter-attack. Such is life in the Premier League until we can get pacier players throughout the line-up.

 

[GT49er]

My thought for the Day (somewhat in line with comment in post #97).

If you play "Defence versus Attack" there are only two possible outcomes: a victory for Attack, or a 0-0 draw (which may be a sort of moral victory for Defence, but is worth diddly-squat.