[Albion] Do we miss Hughton?

[Dr. No]

Would we be thriving top ten?

Disappointed that @Dr no has not made an appearance as yet

No.

 

[OvingdeanSeagull]

Hughton would've taken us down with the lowest points total in premier league history if he'd stayed. Trossard and Maupay wouldn't have signed (Trossard said specifically that he wouldn't have) and he'd lost the dressing room. The football was just horrendous to watch. How can anyone miss that?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[AlastairWatts]

Absolutely right. But as a matter of interest, where did Trossard say that?

 

[sparkie]

Absolutely right. But as a matter of interest, where did Trossard say that?

He didn't. He said he signed because of Potter, he didn't actually say anything about Hughton. Now you can interpret it as an implication, but it is somewhat putting words in his mouth.

 

[Withdean11]

Defensively, absolutely. If we could get him coaching the defenders and Potter the forwards we'd be laughing.

Last season, after 24 games, we had conceded 36 goals.

This season, after 24 games, we have conceded 34 goals.

And that's without playing with 10 men behind the ball.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Potter is coaching the forwards

Sent from my MI 6 using Tapatalk

And coaching the defenders as if they are forwards . . .

 

[MattBackHome]

I adore CH with every fibre of my being, but I don't miss him at the helm one bit.

 

[GT49er]

Yes it has, deary me. After last season for whatever reason or benchmark Bloom used, he sacked Hughton. If Hughton is still the answer (for the club/bloom) at this time or for the future then why isn't he here?

Bloom decided it. Time has nothing to do with it - no-one knows what would have happened if Bloom had acted differently, and no-one ever will know..

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I adore CH with every fibre of my being, but I don't miss him at the helm one bit.

This. Lovely bloke but the football in his last season .....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[symyjym]

In our promotion season we went to Molineux and beat them comfortably.

They are now miles ahead of us...... but they've only come back "better than ever" because they were sold to the mega money Chinese consortium, Fosun, who put Jorge Mendes in charge of transfers.

Wolves play great football but similar to Man City, they won the lottery with money no object buyers who wanted to spend big on their new project and attract top players.

You really can buy success.

It could be considered that we won the lottery with Bloom's good several hundred million investment, interest free, loan to the club.

If you want to dismiss Wolves as an example we can look at Sheffield United getting it right in the lower leagues, making good signings, like Norwood who we gave away to them, and they are storming the Prem economically. Has Sheffield United bought their success too?

 

[Hampster Gull]

Last season, after 24 games, we had conceded 36 goals.

This season, after 24 games, we have conceded 34 goals.

And that's without playing with 10 men behind the ball.

We were goal difference -9 last year vs -7 this year according to the BBC, so if we have conceded 2 goals less according to you then we scored the same number of goals in both years, and that’s with playing expansive attacking Potterball vs 10 men behind the ball. It’s an odd world

 

[peterward]

Bloom decided it. Time has nothing to do with it - no-one knows what would have happened if Bloom had acted differently, and no-one ever will know..

Again, in all due respect youre misinterpreting only half of what I wrote, the whole of which, in context, to me seemed crystal (and not taken literally) wheras i guess as you quote just second half, youre taking first half not literally as its meant?and the other half (is taken literally).
Of course its down to Bloom only, i dont and havent said it isnt, and I dont disagree that we'll never know if Hughton may have been a success if Bloom had acted differently.

"Time will tell if Potter is the answer, Time has already answered that Hughton isnt"

For the final time! as this is all getting too ridiculous........

We cant see into the future today (thus nobody knows how Potters tenure ends), is he the answer? ........ in the future after time has passed, and after one day he leaves, we'll be able to look back and see what we cant today. was he the answer?

Whilst nobody highlighted or questioned, the first part "Time will tell if Potter is the answer" I guess it was obvious and not taken literally that Potter (in future) will not leave because of a Seiko watch, or because the time is 3:47pm or for anything to do with Big Ben, Greenwich or lines of longtitude, he will leave because he chooses to or because hes sacked by Bloom. If its the former, the club/Bloom may or may not deem that hes still the head coach/manager answer for our club, if he's sacked (once that is past tense, sometime in the future) the club/bloom have deemed he's not the answer (and enough time has now passed to show this from where we stand today - unable to predict the future).

1 year, 18 months ago, you could just as easily have written "Time will tell if Hughton is the answer" (for our club and primarily for what our owner wants and lists as his priorities).
From what was then the present tense, to that future point (where he was sacked) and now looking back with retrospect in past tense, time (now passed) has shown hes not the answer.

The answer to whom? of course Bloom, the man who owns the clubs shares, put in all the money and the hirer/firer of managers/head coaches.

Do you think I implied in the second part only, that Hughton isnt here because its a Friday or a certain time of the day or because of his watch sense? I honestly thought it obvious both statements, taken in context are not literal

Maybe i'll go to the brexit thread, as I totally concur with you on that

 

[peterward]

It could be considered that we won the lottery with Bloom's good several hundred million investment, interest free, loan to the club.

If you want to dismiss Wolves as an example we can look at Sheffield United getting it right in the lower leagues, making good signings, like Norwood who we gave away to them, and they are storming the Prem economically. Has Sheffield United bought their success too?

Youre not wrong, who are we to complain with such an incredible owner as TB, good analogy about Sheff United as well...... Theyre probably the best current example of an average size club without mega money owners.

Mentioned before, in Wilder they seem to have the perfect hybrid of the best of Potter and the best of Hughton. Can press, pass and attack real quick, then fall quickly into strict banks of 4 to defend without the ball. Hughtons defence with Potters attack.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Again, in all due respect youre misinterpreting only half of what I wrote, the whole of which, in context, to me seemed crystal (and not taken literally) wheras i guess as you quote just second half, youre taking first half not literally as its meant?and the other half (is taken literally).
Of course its down to Bloom only, i dont and havent said it isnt, and I dont disagree that we'll never know if Hughton may have been a success if Bloom had acted differently.

"Time will tell if Potter is the answer, Time has already answered that Hughton isnt"

For the final time! as this is all getting too ridiculous........

We cant see into the future today (thus nobody knows how Potters tenure ends), is he the answer? ........ in the future after time has passed, and after one day he leaves, we'll be able to look back and see what we cant today. was he the answer?

Whilst nobody highlighted or questioned, the first part "Time will tell if Potter is the answer" I guess it was obvious and not taken literally that Potter (in future) will not leave because of a Seiko watch, or because the time is 3:47pm or for anything to do with Big Ben, Greenwich or lines of longtitude, he will leave because he chooses to or because hes sacked by Bloom. If its the former, the club/Bloom may or may not deem that hes still the head coach/manager answer for our club, if he's sacked (once that is past tense, sometime in the future) the club/bloom have deemed he's not the answer (and enough time has now passed to show this from where we stand today - unable to predict the future).

1 year, 18 months ago, you could just as easily have written "Time will tell if Hughton is the answer" (for our club and primarily for what our owner wants and lists as his priorities).
From what was then the present tense, to that future point (where he was sacked) and now looking back with retrospect in past tense, time (now passed) has shown hes not the answer.

The answer to whom? of course Bloom, the man who owns the clubs shares, put in all the money and the hirer/firer of managers/head coaches.

Do you think I implied in the second part only, that Hughton isnt here because its a Friday or a certain time of the day or because of his watch sense? I honestly thought it obvious both statements, taken in context are not literal

Maybe i'll go to the brexit thread, as I totally concur with you on that

You should write a whodunit book, it would be quicker

 

[GT49er]

Again, in all due respect youre misinterpreting only half of what I wrote, the whole of which, in context, to me seemed crystal (and not taken literally) wheras i guess as you quote just second half, youre taking first half not literally as its meant?and the other half (is taken literally).
Of course its down to Bloom only, i dont and havent said it isnt, and I dont disagree that we'll never know if Hughton may have been a success if Bloom had acted differently.

"Time will tell if Potter is the answer, Time has already answered that Hughton isnt"

For the final time! as this is all getting too ridiculous........

We cant see into the future today (thus nobody knows how Potters tenure ends), is he the answer? ........ in the future after time has passed, and after one day he leaves, we'll be able to look back and see what we cant today. was he the answer?

Whilst nobody highlighted or questioned, the first part "Time will tell if Potter is the answer" I guess it was obvious and not taken literally that Potter (in future) will not leave because of a Seiko watch, or because the time is 3:47pm or for anything to do with Big Ben, Greenwich or lines of longtitude, he will leave because he chooses to or because hes sacked by Bloom. If its the former, the club/Bloom may or may not deem that hes still the head coach/manager answer for our club, if he's sacked (once that is past tense, sometime in the future) the club/bloom have deemed he's not the answer (and enough time has now passed to show this from where we stand today - unable to predict the future).

1 year, 18 months ago, you could just as easily have written "Time will tell if Hughton is the answer" (for our club and primarily for what our owner wants and lists as his priorities).
From what was then the present tense, to that future point (where he was sacked) and now looking back with retrospect in past tense, time (now passed) has shown hes not the answer.

The answer to whom? of course Bloom, the man who owns the clubs shares, put in all the money and the hirer/firer of managers/head coaches.

Do you think I implied in the second part only, that Hughton isnt here because its a Friday or a certain time of the day or because of his watch sense? I honestly thought it obvious both statements, taken in context are not literal

Maybe i'll go to the brexit thread, as I totally concur with you on that

Sigh. It's like trying to argue with BG! Or perhaps, given the length of your post, it's more like JRG!

 

[amexer]

If he keeps us up happy with Potter. However we are in trouble and nobody knows how Potter will play or who he will select. At least with Hughton knew he would try and stay in game and nick a goal. 14 games to find out who was right. Hold on tight

 

[Withdean11]

We were goal difference -9 last year vs -7 this year according to the BBC, so if we have conceded 2 goals less according to you then we scored the same number of goals in both years, and that’s with playing expansive attacking Potterball vs 10 men behind the ball. It’s an odd world

Yep, same amount of goals scored at this stage last season.

However, i'm sure we have created more chances and had more shots on target this season. In fact, i wouldn't mind betting Maupay has already had more shots than Murray did all season. Glenn really was clinical last year. Unfortunately just doesn't fit in with how we play now. Had he not been as clinical, which he may not have been this year (year older) then we really would be in deep trouble with Hughton's style of play.

 

[NooBHA]

Last season, after 24 games, we had conceded 36 goals.

This season, after 24 games, we have conceded 34 goals.

And that's without playing with 10 men behind the ball.

You could look at that another way.

Last season the opposition scored 36 goals with 75% possession per game. This season they have scored 34 goals averaging 25% possession in a game.

That suggests to me that every time they get hold of the ball they score

 

[peterward]

Sigh. It's like trying to argue with BG! Or perhaps, given the length of your post, it's more like JRG!

no arguing here, told you the first time you'd got the context wrong! and explained why..... continually firing back with more of your own ideas and trying to attribute them out of context to me, is not an argument with me, its one with yourself.......

 

[Hampster Gull]

Yep, same amount of goals scored at this stage last season.

However, i'm sure we have created more chances and had more shots on target this season. In fact, i wouldn't mind betting Maupay has already had more shots than Murray did all season. Glenn really was clinical last year. Unfortunately just doesn't fit in with how we play now. Had he not been as clinical, which he may not have been this year (year older) then we really would be in deep trouble with Hughton's style of play.

Also Hughton when 10-1 mainly in the second half of season, he was more expansive (but not Potter like) 8n first half we are comparing