[Albion] Article - Football Changed and Chris Hughton Didn’t Keep Up

[Nobby]

You seem very sure of your figures. Care to tell us where you get them from?

Nevertheless you’ve picked up on one aspect and ignored another. Howe was already looking at the PL when they went up from L1 and started his first PL season with mainly Championship players. When Saints and Watford needed new coaches for their projects they weren’t hammering down our door for Hughton.

But the direction we’ve gone in is the other modern form of coach. Potter had no money in Sweden or Swansea. Southgate took a miserable England and made them one of the top four teams in the world in FOUR years obviously without money. That is in the article.

Bloom’s whole premise is that you don’t need to break the bank, but then a Brighton fan would know that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like your piece, and I felt your pain too.
Keep writing up your opinions, it all provides great debate!

But your last sentence on your last post here, is where you don’t seem to understand that each teams relative standing is completely related to funding.
Otherwise, Liverpool would sometimes finish bottom half and Spurs get relegated.

Phil McNulty BBC, predicted the League table pre season, and he was incredibly accurate. Most teams were placed within a couple of places of actual positions, and many were 100% accurate.
He knew that if you don’t try and break the bank, then you don’t improve League position.
Unfortunately, that is a sad FACT.

Chris Hughton’s issue was that he was trying to keep us up with a relatively poor quality squad. His misjudgement may have been that ultra defensive tactics would achieve that. And he didn’t realise that his job was on the line for not playing attractive football.
In the end, he was proved right across the season.

So your piece doesn’t really address how a manager who does “move with the times”, will achieve a better League position - say above 15th - unless significant funding, specifically on wages, will do any better than CH.
Unfortunately for Graham Potter, he has inherited a poor quality squad, and even if he “moves with the times”, I don’t think that he will be given the level of investment needed to improve it to a mid table squad as some on here seem to think we will achieve.

Stump up the cash TB, please don’t rely on the development squad, or Global Warming will be irrelevant compared to the sea level rise from the bedwetters on here.

Anyway, UTA

 

[El Presidente]

The problem with writing stuff like this is that just by NOT saying something the meaning can be misconstrued.

I don’t think Hughton is a dinosaur, just that there are other, newer approaches to football at our level and above (I.e. International) that have been successful and that I agree with Bloom that we need to try. Furthermore there are in vogue football trends (the press) that not only could we not execute but that we were vulnerable against.

I do believe he’s a mile away from Warnock but I also believe he’s a mile away from Klopp, Poch, Smug Eddie and Nuno. Only time will tell if we should add Potter to that list or if, in fact, we’ve made a terrible mistake.

On the whole I think this has been a decent thread with some excellent points raised on both sides. Hopefully see you in the WSU for a Bovril in the new season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the thread title is insidious, inferring that CH was in some way behind modern football coaching best practice and knowledge.

He's UEFA qualified, attends conferences and meetings with metronomic like regularity and if you've ever heard him speak at LMA or other gatherings will know he's held in high regard for his technical knowledge and willingness to take on ideas.

The statement that 'he didn't keep up' suggests that he was on easy street and just going through the motions, deeply disrepectful IMO.

 

[jamie (not that one)]

90% agree and while football is always evolving I don't think the tipping point was CH not adapting to 2019 football. He has been released from clubs in the past for the exact same reason we released him.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

We've discussed this before and I agree [MENTION=616]Guinness Boy[/MENTION]. I think the lack of actual tactics cost us on more than one occasion, all this "we play one way" stuff is fine on the assumption that the players are working hard enough and getting the results. Essentially, our win at Palace was absolutely crucial but that was a game in which we did almost nothing at all. Murray's goal came from a defensive mistake and a brilliant finish from Glenn, the winner was a moment of brilliance (after a magnificent pass from Dale Stephens!). The win at Newcastle was something similar, a fortunate goal won us the game. We essentially went into every game intending to be strong defensively, prevent the opposition scoring and then believe that we'll take a chance, if we create one. We didn't attempt to expose the weakness(es) of other teams, we didn't alter our gameplan to try and outfox the opposition and we were predictable and easy to play against.

For the games where you can argue the "tactic" worked (ie, Newcastle away and Palace away), you have to concede that Fulham away and West Ham away were examples of the lack of actual tactics. We got into a 2-0 lead in both games but had no idea how to manage the game or close it out, resulting in a defeat and a draw.

All season I felt confident that our team was very good, comfortably midtable. But the collapse in the second half of the season wasn't a massive surprise because even when we were picking up results, we weren't playing well as a team and we didn't look particularly strong or confident. I like Chris Hughton, and 5 months of dire football doesn't outweigh the 4 years which preceded that spell, he's a legend to me - but not a manager good enough to continue the progression of the club.

 

[Triggaaar]

Southgate took a miserable England and made them one of the top four teams in the world in FOUR years obviously without money.

You can't compare national football with our club football, regarding money. It's not like Southgate couldn't select the likes of Harry Kane due to a lack of finance. I also doubt England are one of the best 4 teams in the world.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think the thread title is insidious, inferring that CH was in some way behind modern football coaching best practice and knowledge.

He's UEFA qualified, attends conferences and meetings with metronomic like regularity and if you've ever heard him speak at LMA or other gatherings will know he's held in high regard for his technical knowledge and willingness to take on ideas.

The statement that 'he didn't keep up' suggests that he was on easy street and just going through the motions, deeply disrepectful IMO.

Well, I don't take it as disrespectful, or even deeply disrespectful. There is somewhat of a disparity between the headline for and the content of the article, with the headline being a little more extreme. You're obviously deeply disappointed that Chris got the boot, which is fine. The decision has divided fans who usually agree on most things and provide well-grounded arguments for doing so. Bloom has stated that it was the most difficult decision he's made as chairman and, as already stated on here, I take that to be a genuinely felt comment.
Something has gone badly wrong in 2019, hopefully we can all agree on that. The reason offered by Bloom was 3 wins in 23, so he was very much pointing to what occurred in the second half or final two-thirds of the season.
There are multiple factors that could explain what went wrong:
-- Hughton's tactical ability and coaching was insufficient at PL level (which is what I take the OP to be saying)
-- Hughton lost the players
-- the players didn't perform
-- the recruitment in the summer was sub-standard
-- injuries to key players (Gross, Izquierdo) neutered our ability to score from open play
There are no doubt other explanations that could be offered, but I take the first three all to involve CH (although to varying degrees). My view is that he hasn't demonstrated that he's got sufficient attacking ideas to get the most out of the squad, and ended up reverting to dour defensive type to haul us over the line. What I mean by this is his team in the PL doesn't have one of two things: either a consistent attacking style that the players know and can deliver (I do appreciate that it's the top clubs that can do this best, with City and Liverpool the most obvious examples of consistent styles; lower down Wolves and Bournemouth both have clear identities, and even Palace too); or sufficient variety, adaptability and flexibility of attacking style such that we can confuse opponents not only between games but within them -- and it is this that I think Potter has been brought in to try to deliver.

 

[Guinness Boy]

You can't compare national football with our club football, regarding money. It's not like Southgate couldn't select the likes of Harry Kane due to a lack of finance. I also doubt England are one of the best 4 teams in the world.

They reached the semi final of a World Cup. That's the very definition of "one of the best 4 in the world".......

 

[Machiavelli]

We've discussed this before and I agree [MENTION=616]Guinness Boy[/MENTION]. I think the lack of actual tactics cost us on more than one occasion, all this "we play one way" stuff is fine on the assumption that the players are working hard enough and getting the results. Essentially, our win at Palace was absolutely crucial but that was a game in which we did almost nothing at all. Murray's goal came from a defensive mistake and a brilliant finish from Glenn, the winner was a moment of brilliance (after a magnificent pass from Dale Stephens!). The win at Newcastle was something similar, a fortunate goal won us the game. We essentially went into every game intending to be strong defensively, prevent the opposition scoring and then believe that we'll take a chance, if we create one. We didn't attempt to expose the weakness(es) of other teams, we didn't alter our gameplan to try and outfox the opposition and we were predictable and easy to play against.

For the games where you can argue the "tactic" worked (ie, Newcastle away and Palace away), you have to concede that Fulham away and West Ham away were examples of the lack of actual tactics. We got into a 2-0 lead in both games but had no idea how to manage the game or close it out, resulting in a defeat and a draw.

All season I felt confident that our team was very good, comfortably midtable. But the collapse in the second half of the season wasn't a massive surprise because even when we were picking up results, we weren't playing well as a team and we didn't look particularly strong or confident. I like Chris Hughton, and 5 months of dire football doesn't outweigh the 4 years which preceded that spell, he's a legend to me - but not a manager good enough to continue the progression of the club.

This is another (and probably better) way of saying what I have done in the ^ post.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I think the thread title is insidious, inferring that CH was in some way behind modern football coaching best practice and knowledge.

He's UEFA qualified, attends conferences and meetings with metronomic like regularity and if you've ever heard him speak at LMA or other gatherings will know he's held in high regard for his technical knowledge and willingness to take on ideas.

The statement that 'he didn't keep up' suggests that he was on easy street and just going through the motions, deeply disrepectful IMO.

Yes, the headline is exaggerated and a touch click-baity. Again, sadly, no one these days reads something that says "Chris was a nice bloke but on to the next". As [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] says, all you need to do to get context is read and understand the piece.

Even then I don't expect everyone will agree by a long, long chalk and I'm glad some of NSC's more articulate posters do not - it's made for a good debate.

However, you can attend all the conferences you want but if you allow a drinking culture to happen among senior players, if you neglect players relative fitness and if you can't cope with the press you have to wonder what they are discussing

 

[Bakero]

Football is not a complicated game. One of the most astute analysts of football is former Leeds legend Johnny Giles and he argues that you pick the best 11 players you have available, you put them on the field and you get them to play their best. The expansive football that people talk about is not new - the Real Madrid of the 1960s - the Ajax team of the 1970s - the French international team of the 1970s - the Dutch team of the same period - Ajax of the mid-1990s - the Barcelona team under Cruyff - etc. When you have the players you can play fast-flowing, entertaining football.

It's not as if Michels, Van Gaal and Cruyff bought the best players and sent them out to run about a bit. They developed the players and the system was key.

 

[Triggaaar]

They reached the semi final of a World Cup. That's the very definition of "one of the best 4 in the world".......

Don't be silly. Or do you think Brighton are one of the 4 best teams in England?

 

[El Presidente]

Well, I don't take it as disrespectful, or even deeply disrespectful. There is somewhat of a disparity between the headline for and the content of the article, with the headline being a little more extreme. You're obviously deeply disappointed that Chris got the boot, which is fine. The decision has divided fans who usually agree on most things and provide well-grounded arguments for doing so. Bloom has stated that it was the most difficult decision he's made as chairman and, as already stated on here, I take that to be a genuinely felt comment.
Something has gone badly wrong in 2019, hopefully we can all agree on that. The reason offered by Bloom was 3 wins in 23, so he was very much pointing to what occurred in the second half or final two-thirds of the season.
There are multiple factors that could explain what went wrong:
-- Hughton's tactical ability and coaching was insufficient at PL level (which is what I take the OP to be saying)
-- Hughton lost the players
-- the players didn't perform
-- the recruitment in the summer was sub-standard
-- injuries to key players (Gross, Izquierdo) neutered our ability to score from open play
There are no doubt other explanations that could be offered, but I take the first three all to involve CH (although to varying degrees). My view is that he hasn't demonstrated that his got sufficient attacking ideas to get the most out of the squad, and ended up reverting to dour defensive type to haul us over the line. What I mean by this is his team in the PL doesn't have one of two things: either a consistent attacking style that the players know and can deliver (I do appreciate that it's the top clubs that can do this best, with City and Liverpool the most obvious examples of consistent styles; lower down Wolves and Bournemouth both have clear identities, and even Palace too); or sufficient variety, adaptability and flexibility of attacking style such that we can confuse opponents not only between games but within them -- and it is this that I think Potter has been brought in to try to deliver.

I agree with practically everything you say. I've said on many occasions, what do fans think is realistic for a club with a bottom three budget in the Premier League, and to date have not had a measured answer.

My view is that players win matches, bigger budgets tend to allow clubs to recruite better players, and the manager then has to make the best out of what he's got. Has Chris Hughton underperformed here, in the opinion of Tony Bloom the answer is yes and so he got the bullet.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think the thread title is insidious, inferring that CH was in some way behind modern football coaching best practice and knowledge.

He's UEFA qualified, attends conferences and meetings with metronomic like regularity and if you've ever heard him speak at LMA or other gatherings will know he's held in high regard for his technical knowledge and willingness to take on ideas.

The statement that 'he didn't keep up' suggests that he was on easy street and just going through the motions, deeply disrepectful IMO.

This. Perhaps Guinness boy has been affected by tabloid headlines and felt the need to grab attention or appear smart.

 

[El Presidente]

Yes, the headline is exaggerated and a touch click-baity. Again, sadly, no one these days reads something that says "Chris was a nice bloke but on to the next". As [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] says, all you need to do to get context is read and understand the piece.

Even then I don't expect everyone will agree by a long, long chalk and I'm glad some of NSC's more articulate posters do not - it's made for a good debate.

However, you can attend all the conferences you want but if you allow a drinking culture to happen among senior players, if you neglect players relative fitness and if you can't cope with the press you have to wonder what they are discussing

If Graham Potter can get Shane Duffy to spend more time in poetry recitals and less time in Katie Price, Molly Malones and the casino then fair play to him.

 

[Machiavelli]

If Graham Potter can get Shane Duffy to spend more time in poetry recitals and less time in Katie Price, Molly Malones and the casino then fair play to him.

It's this that might just be the most delicious thing about Potter's appointment. But it does raise an additional rationale for the decision than I offered, and which the OP has just mentioned, ie the alleged 'favouritism' or indulgence of a few key players that Bloom might have been concerned about.
And it's so sweet that we can agree on things, so:
-- alcohol is fantastic
-- porn is despicable

 

[Nobby]

I think the thread title is insidious, inferring that CH was in some way behind modern football coaching best practice and knowledge.

He's UEFA qualified, attends conferences and meetings with metronomic like regularity and if you've ever heard him speak at LMA or other gatherings will know he's held in high regard for his technical knowledge and willingness to take on ideas.

The statement that 'he didn't keep up' suggests that he was on easy street and just going through the motions, deeply disrepectful IMO.

Yep
This

 

[Guinness Boy]

We've discussed this before and I agree [MENTION=616]Guinness Boy[/MENTION]. I think the lack of actual tactics cost us on more than one occasion, all this "we play one way" stuff is fine on the assumption that the players are working hard enough and getting the results. Essentially, our win at Palace was absolutely crucial but that was a game in which we did almost nothing at all. Murray's goal came from a defensive mistake and a brilliant finish from Glenn, the winner was a moment of brilliance (after a magnificent pass from Dale Stephens!). The win at Newcastle was something similar, a fortunate goal won us the game. We essentially went into every game intending to be strong defensively, prevent the opposition scoring and then believe that we'll take a chance, if we create one. We didn't attempt to expose the weakness(es) of other teams, we didn't alter our gameplan to try and outfox the opposition and we were predictable and easy to play against.

For the games where you can argue the "tactic" worked (ie, Newcastle away and Palace away), you have to concede that Fulham away and West Ham away were examples of the lack of actual tactics. We got into a 2-0 lead in both games but had no idea how to manage the game or close it out, resulting in a defeat and a draw.

All season I felt confident that our team was very good, comfortably midtable. But the collapse in the second half of the season wasn't a massive surprise because even when we were picking up results, we weren't playing well as a team and we didn't look particularly strong or confident. I like Chris Hughton, and 5 months of dire football doesn't outweigh the 4 years which preceded that spell, he's a legend to me - but not a manager good enough to continue the progression of the club.

Great post [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[El Presidente]

They reached the semi final of a World Cup. That's the very definition of "one of the best 4 in the world".......

Or...as has been said on this and other threads when anyone mentions the Albion getting to the FA Cup semi final, a very easy route to the semi-final, beating Panama, Tunisia and Sweden, drawing with Columbia and losing to Croatia and Belgium.

Gareth Southgate, very nice measured guy with a waistcoat...

 

[Guinness Boy]

Or...as has been said on this and other threads when anyone mentions the Albion getting to the FA Cup semi final, a very easy route to the semi-final, beating Panama, Tunisia and Sweden, drawing with Columbia and losing to Croatia and Belgium.

Gareth Southgate, very nice measured guy with a waistcoat...

As opposed to crashing out of a group with Costa Rica in it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[El Presidente]

It's this that might just be the most delicious thing about Potter's appointment. But it does raise an additional rationale for the decision than I offered, and which the OP has just mentioned, ie the alleged 'favouritism' or indulgence of a few key players that Bloom might have been concerned about.
And it's so sweet that we can agree on things, so:
-- alcohol is fantastic
-- porn is despicable

As someone who has never tasted alcohol I can't comment on the former.

As someone who has one of the largest collections of the latter on NSC I think you've been unfortunate in terms of the latter in what you've seen.