[Albion] Good Chris Hughton interview today

[Chicken Run]

I'll ignore the snidey 'bad for business' comment, I don't make money out of what I do in terms of the football finance stuff other than being paid a salary for my day job. The media and social media work is unpaid, usually without even expenses, including the talk to the Albion business breakfast at the Amex.

The budget measurement does include the academy spend, if you look at what the Albion's investment arm does is it aims to make profits out of player recruitment. Nothing wrong with that, our second highest transfer fee received if the £4m figures quoted is accurate was in respect of Ales Mateju, expect to see similar gains in respect of Tau, Mac Allister and Arce etc. It makes sound business sense, but it's not 'football' as such as these players are recruited for significant fees but are highly unlikely to be seen at the Amex due to work permit and other issues.

As for the link between wages and points, it's a fairly close one IMO as shown below. The romance of football is dead, even getting to the FA Cup semi final is sneered at by many these days.

View attachment 112512

It was snidey but tbf you haven’t ignored it really have you [emoji23]

 

[GT49er]

Some posts on this thread are beyond belief. Regardless of whether people are/were Hughton in or Hughton out, regardless of any theories/fantasies/stupid ideas put forward as facts, regardless of what should have happened, or shouldn't, or didn't - and regardless of comments made by people claiming to know what was said at meetings between CH and TB at which they weren't present .............

..................... FFS, if Chris Hughton says he was surprised to be sacked, then he was surprised! Geddit?

 

[Guinness Boy]

I'm with you 100% that money now dominates the game. In an ideal world there would be no dullards clogging up the airways talking about it either

It's not an ideal world though and you discuss it eloquently. I genuinely didn't mean to dig.

But, back to my main point, I can see how the playing budget would separate Man City from, well, just about everybody else, or even keep a truly woeful Man Utd side away from relegation danger (whilst underachieving by their own standards) but I'm amazed it makes that much difference in the middle to low table group. Your graphs obviously show a correlation but, for me, Palace are pissing money up the wall while Fulham spent a fortune and went straight back down. I noticed Plucky Bournemouth calling us "Infrastructure FC" last season and if you really can buy places on the ladder then it's not entirely suprising that their investment is targetted on the pitch rather than off. It'll probably take at least 5 years to see who's really got the strategy right.

 

[El Presidente]

It's not an ideal world though and you discuss it eloquently. I genuinely didn't mean to dig.

But, back to my main point, I can see how the playing budget would separate Man City from, well, just about everybody else, or even keep a truly woeful Man Utd side away from relegation danger (whilst underachieving by their own standards) but I'm amazed it makes that much difference in the middle to low table group. Your graphs obviously show a correlation but, for me, Palace are pissing money up the wall while Fulham spent a fortune and went straight back down. I noticed Plucky Bournemouth calling us "Infrastructure FC" last season and if you really can buy places on the ladder then it's not entirely suprising that their investment is targetted on the pitch rather than off. It'll probably take at least 5 years to see who's really got the strategy right.

IMO in the short/medium term you can usually buy your way to relative success. Wolves did it last season and with the owners being willing to fund a 50,000 seater Molyneux should stay there, Palace have gone purely down the player spend route (they have four players on £100k+ a week) and succeeded but Fulham made a cardinal error in dismantling the spine of the team who had taken them up and replacing with mercenaries.

As for Bournemouth, they recruited exceptionally well in the lower divisions and many of those players have now established themselves in the Premier League. Their recruitment in the Premier League has been more hit and miss, with Ibe and Solanke looking like £40m spunked away and Brooks (who we should have signed) and Ake looking like bargains.

 

[Bwian]

Any actual evidence he was told this?

Yes

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Kneon Light]

Yes

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

Are you going to share or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

What I did see in a number of games was CH urging the wingers (including Solly) to get forward more.
However there is no doubt CH liked his wingers to track back to support the full backs but that is not the same as playing them out of position which is why I said:
"The wingers were asked to track back (possibly too much - but that's a different argument) but no wingers started as fullbacks"

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I'm not sure what games you were watching but the wingers never operated in the full back position. The were, however, very deep as they were expected to support the full back on whichever flank they operated on.

Quite.

Which is double-banking, and basically good defending.

Your full-backs should not blindly leave their position and go out wide to confront the winger, as this leaves a massive hole. This is basically why Schelotto is so awful, he has no defensive awareness about where his colleagues are, and also why he got fearful bollockings from Duffy at Everton, Palace and Liverpool.

Defensively, shape is what Hughton is really good at...... there surely can be no debate on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

If you have a bottom three budget and finish 17th it is success.

Of course it is....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Are you going to share or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

What I did see in a number of games was CH urging the wingers (including Solly) to get forward more.
However there is no doubt CH liked his wingers to track back to support the full backs but that is not the same as playing them out of position which is why I said:
"The wingers were asked to track back (possibly too much - but that's a different argument) but no wingers started as fullbacks"

Wingers in my view (and if they were in my team), have an obligation to track back.

My one and only criticism is that we defended too deep at times, I have no problem with the shape, and the defensive masterclass at Wolves (and nearly) at Tottenham were a testament to this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[drew]

In your employment situation if your immediate superior was telling you that everything was fine but you saw signs that others were unhappy with your work output, which was a normal occurance in your job, would you tend to believe the immediate superior or the group expressing their displeasure as usual?

In his employment, CH had to constantly ignore much displeasure voiced by the Albion fans

He could ignore it but he has been in football long enough to know that managers of clubs near the bottom are under the threat of the sack. Also, exactly when did TB or PB tell CH everything was fine? The reality was that it was far from fine and even if someone had said it, pretty much all observers of the situation would disagree.

Even if he had seen the broadcast coverage how would he have known exactly what Bloom was unhappy about. What if a friend or family member of Hughton's had seen the look on Bloom's face in the broadcast coverage was he supposed to surmise that Bloom had not been truthful with CH in their meetings.

I'm trying to say that there had to be some lack of communication between CH and TB in their meetings or this would not have been such a surprise to a man such as Hughton with great integrity.My thinking is that TB did not show much integrity in his meetings with CH.

I would suggest that TB communicated to CH exactly what he intended. There would be no reason to put extra pressure on by threatening him with the sack if results didn't improve for example.

Yes, I'm religious in the fact I believe in the teachings of L.Ron Hubbard but NOT the Church of Scientology

In other words I despise most formal religions including what christianity does to people.

Begs the question which formal religions do you not despise?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

If you have a bottom three budget and finish 17th it is success.

Anything less is certainly failure, so yes 17th is the bare minimum success level.

 

[Kneon Light]

Wingers in my view (and if they were in my team), have an obligation to track back.

My one and only criticism is that we defended too deep at times, I have no problem with the shape, and the defensive masterclass at Wolves (and nearly) at Tottenham were a testament to this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fully agree

 

[Bwian]

Are you going to share or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

What I did see in a number of games was CH urging the wingers (including Solly) to get forward more.
However there is no doubt CH liked his wingers to track back to support the full backs but that is not the same as playing them out of position which is why I said:
"The wingers were asked to track back (possibly too much - but that's a different argument) but no wingers started as fullbacks"

You're just going to have to take my word on it. I have no reason to make things up. Yes, I'm delighted that Hughton has gone but I will not spread false rumours to justify my delight. I know you'll not believe it given your support of Hughton on every other matter, that is your prerogative.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

Wingers in my view (and if they were in my team), have an obligation to track back.

My one and only criticism is that we defended too deep at times, I have no problem with the shape, and the defensive masterclass at Wolves (and nearly) at Tottenham were a testament to this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK this is really picky. But.....

Firstly wide midfielders have an obligation to track back. Back in school days (and yes, this was many years ago but it's still valid) only 4-4-2 was really played and you had a "right midfielder" and a "left midfielder". The coaches first instruction to them was "up and down". They were expected to track back, tackle and join in attacks as well. They were box to box players but wider than the CMs.

But WINGERS? Wingers are little and quick and tricky. They create chances by getting to the by-line and cutting a cross back or cutting inside and shooting or winning penalties and free kicks. Look at the season that Palace went up from the Championship. The Gravity Whore and Bolassie caused absolute havoc and Murray mopped up the chances. None of us were saying "gee, I wish Zaha wasn't so good at defending, Palace are impossible to break down". We were far too busy damning his diving and grudgingly admiring Palace's goal tally.

And the players we had are wingers

Izquierdo is a winger. March is a winger. Knockaert is a winger. Jahanbaksh looked like a fish out of water out wide full stop.

Secondly we LOST at Tottenham. And we scored zero goals in both games combined. Mainly because our WINGERS had to make 80 yard runs to make a difference

 

[dazzer6666]

Still better than three other teams over thirty eight games - that's what mattered.

For last season - yes - correct - hence Tony waiting until the end of the season before pulling the trigger (the 'gambler' punted on CH doing just enough, and almost came unstuck). However, we showed no signs whatsoever of being able to change what we were doing over those 20+ games and produced a number of absolutely shitehouse performances in the second half of the season with very, very few positives. There was nothing at all to suggest 2019/20 was going to be any different.

 

[Icy Gull]

For last season - yes - correct - hence Tony waiting until the end of the season before pulling the trigger (the 'gambler' punted on CH doing just enough, and almost came unstuck). However, we showed no signs whatsoever of being able to change what we were doing over those 20+ games and produced a number of absolutely shitehouse performances in the second half of the season with very, very few positives. There was nothing at all to suggest 2019/20 was going to be any different.

I think managers had worked out that we weren’t comfortable being pressed, so teams gave us no time on the ball. As we were set up to defend it meant the players had to pass sideways or backwards or hoof the ball forwards, and there was normally only Murray upfield, and heavily marked, so we had no outlet that gave us time on the ball. The confidence gradually eroded and we ended up defending and giving the ball away when we did have it. Simplistic? possibly, but that what I was seeing.

Was it the players or the tactics or a combination of both? All WILL be revealed but we didn’t have any other way to play which made us very easy to play against imo.

 

[dazzer6666]

I think managers had worked out that we weren’t comfortable being pressed, so teams gave us no time on the ball. As we were set up to defend it meant the players had to pass sideways or backwards or hoof the ball forwards, and there was normally only Murray upfield, and heavily marked, so we had no outlet that gave us time on the ball. The confidence gradually eroded and we ended up defending and giving the ball away when we did have it. Simplistic? possibly, but that what I was seeing.

Was it the players or the tactics or a combination of both? All WILL be revealed but we didn’t have any other way to play which made us very easy to play against imo.

Yep....and we always prioritised defence (wingers always supporting full backs as their primary responsibility, massive gap between Muzza and the midfield because they were always so deep etc) so didn’t pose much of a threat going forward (particularly if you add our lack of pace up front) creating almost nothing game after game (analysts would have been all over our stats).

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

OK this is really picky. But.....

Firstly wide midfielders have an obligation to track back. Back in school days (and yes, this was many years ago but it's still valid) only 4-4-2 was really played and you had a "right midfielder" and a "left midfielder". The coaches first instruction to them was "up and down". They were expected to track back, tackle and join in attacks as well. They were box to box players but wider than the CMs.

But WINGERS? Wingers are little and quick and tricky. They create chances by getting to the by-line and cutting a cross back or cutting inside and shooting or winning penalties and free kicks. Look at the season that Palace went up from the Championship. The Gravity Whore and Bolassie caused absolute havoc and Murray mopped up the chances. None of us were saying "gee, I wish Zaha wasn't so good at defending, Palace are impossible to break down". We were far too busy damning his diving and grudgingly admiring Palace's goal tally.

And the players we had are wingers

Izquierdo is a winger. March is a winger. Knockaert is a winger. Jahanbaksh looked like a fish out of water out wide full stop.

Secondly we LOST at Tottenham. And we scored zero goals in both games combined. Mainly because our WINGERS had to make 80 yard runs to make a difference

Sorry, but you really cannot compare championship Palace with PL Brighton. The two divisions warrant different styles even Townsend seems to put in a shift for them (BTW, I did like gravity whore)....... A lot of our players looked world beaters at that level too. We are playing in the toughest league in the world and it requires different demands.

Although we lost at Spurs, the 80 yard criticism goes back to my only concern regarding how deep we dropped. Ryan, Dunk and Duffy needed to push everyone up 10 yards higher, but as you alluded, the game has changed and although we have wingers, they are still in a team and need to do a dual job IMO. If they can't do it, then they need to go.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

you can't have CH and safety, one or t'other

Sorry not with you. The facts would suggest otherwise from the last two seasons......

The bigger questions are:

Does Potter equal safety?
Does Potter equal safety and progress?

Who knows - once again, I'd be satisfied with the first...... and delighted with the second.

 

[rogersix]

Sorry not with you. The facts would suggest otherwise from the last two seasons......

The bigger questions are:

Does Potter equal safety?
Does Potter equal safety and progress?

Who knows - once again, I'd be satisfied with the first...... and delighted with the second.

3wins in 23 is not "safe"

TB thought that to increase the probability of safety for next season, CH had to go.

fwiw; i backed hewts til the cardiff game