Hughton and Norwich

[Thunder Bolt]

Perhaps AN should have done a bit more investigation and he could have checked who they were playing in the last four games!

Fact of life is that managers carry the can for failings within a club and that's probably what happened to Hughton. He's proved he was a good manager at Birmingham and Newcastle and is doing so again with us.

Perhaps AN knows more than you think he does.

 

[Stat Brother]

Perhaps AN should have done a bit more investigation and he could have checked who they were playing in the last four games!

All if's and but's.

But as NooBHA points out replacing CH with a nobody has to got to go down as failure from their board.

Had they replaced Hughton with a 'specialist' manager, or had the courage of their convictions earlier, then fair enough.
But to dither about, do nothing, dither some more then act halfheartedly, at the 11th hour, they have to take full responsibility.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Of the 28 (28 goals in 38 league games) goals they scored all season, 2 of them were scored after Hughton had left so his team scored just 26 goals in 33 games. Not exactly encouraging that the team would get a goal in those last 5 games, let alone getting the win they needed.

Just looking at the fixtures from February onwards, they lost to Cardiff, lost to West Ham, lost to Aston Villa (4-1! ), lost to Southampton, lost to Swansea and then lost to West Brom in his last game in charge. In that time they got draws against Man City and Stoke, both at Carrow Road, and beat Tottenham and Sunderland, also at Carrow Road. Anyone who suggests that they would have been better off keeping him than firing him, whoever else stepped up, are looking back with hindsight only. At the time, it was perfectly understandable because they were trying to stay up and had lost confidence in him.

But again, none of it makes any difference at all to the fact that he's ideally suited here and he's doing a quality job.

 

[Wilko]

Back to Saturday, I really hope we set up to win. It is all very well settling for a point but that is arguably what cost us last season, drawing against the top teams away from home is grand but at home we should be looking to take 3 points off Norwich, Newcastle and the others.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Let's just hope we get the luck.

After Burnley's last second equaliser ( with Barton still on the pitch ), and Massive's dodgy goal last season, then perhaps the Fates of Football can even it out this year in the big Amex league games.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Pritchard scores v Leeds in the EFL Cup, but no red cards for them tonight yet

 

[downham seagull]

If you truly believe that's a valid argument, then that's ridiculous.

He managed 33 of the games, and left them in a state to be relegated. As I said, the board felt like the last 4 games were going to be guaranteed defeats and they felt like they'd have a better chance of getting the result they needed from Fulham away by having someone else take charge, which is why the sacked him. I remember thinking, and saying, at the time that Hughton had done a bad job at Norwich, they weren't scoring any goals and they weren't good enough to stay in the Premier League. I still believe that was the case, but it's a blip on his record.

At the Albion he's been magnificent, a perfect fit. I felt at the time of appointing him that he would be a success here because he's a very good Championship manager and he's proven that to be the case. I also think that the problems he had at Norwich wouldn't have any bearing on him here, and I say again that if we go up I don't think there's any scenario in which we would sack him. I don't think the board or our chairman would choose to sack him. I think he'd a better manager in the Premier League for us than he was at Norwich, but we have to get there first.

Not ridiculous! the board sent them down not Chris, wasn't allowed to finish the job.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Not ridiculous! the board sent them down not Chris, wasn't allowed to finish the job.

Do you GENUINELY believe that? Same question to [MENTION=30752]NooBHA[/MENTION] who liked it without comment.

 

[Icy Gull]

Do you GENUINELY believe that? Same question to [MENTION=30752]NooBHA[/MENTION] who liked it without comment.

I wonder what would have happened to Leicester the season before last and Sunderland in Poyet's first season at Sunderland if their directors had reacted in what you seem to consider a reasonable way? Both pretty well nailed on for relegation and both won games that nobody expected them to to stay up.

You sound like like you would have been at home in the Norwich director's box the season Hughton was sacked.

I imagine CH would have done better than the muppet who replaced him but we'll never know and it's to our advantage now too.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Let's just hope we get the luck.

After Burnley's last second equaliser ( with Barton still on the pitch ), and Massive's dodgy goal last season, then perhaps the Fates of Football can even it out this year in the big Amex league games.

Didn't Burnley have what appeared to be a valid goal chalked off in that game?

 

[Durlston]

Norwich could well play a strong team tomorrow night because if they win they're in the quarter-finals and with Liverpool v Spurs and the Manc derby, that knocks out two powerful sides at least. Just hope it's Dirty Leeds as usual with extra-time and penalties.

Why didn't I put any money on the draw after 90 minutes? Because I'm stupid.

But Norwich just gone 2-1 up. That has to be good from an Albion view. If they hold out they'll be focused on the draw for the quarters, then hopefully a big match on Sky and on Saturday some of their players are still weary. Hope.

 

[NooBHA]

Do you GENUINELY believe that? Same question to [MENTION=30752]NooBHA[/MENTION] who liked it without comment.

I do because I had seen a lot of their games that year where they absolutely slaughtered Cardiff home and away and West Ham home and away where the opposition keeper s were outstanding against them. I saw matches where they led against Stoke and Stoke got dodgy penalty in last minute for an equaliser to deny them the 3 points.

I saw them batter Hull to death for 80 mins and just couldn't get the ball in the net and I know for a fact that not once during that season were they able to get their best three midfielders of Howson, Fer and Tettey on the pitch at the same time due to at least one of them being injured at any given time and the very first game after he was sacked that's when Fer I think it was due to be back when they did all play together.

So I saw their matches and so did the Board and they knew that the team was playing well - I will concede that they did have some awful matches and I do concede that some of those matches CH should in my opinion have attacked a few teams more away from home but every time they got into trouble the team pulled out a big performance and got the win. I am not 100% sure but I don't think they were ever in the bottom 3 any time after Xmas.

So YES I agree with the other Poster, the Board took them down. Chris would have pulled out the results to keep them safe. The match he got sacked after (at home to West Brom) , they were woeful that day but that was Norwich that year, they blew hot and cold but they were doing enough to stay up.

Plus the 2 or 3 months that Van Wolfswinkel was out injured cost them dear because despite his lack of goals, if he hadn't got an early injury I think he would have built confidence early in the season and he would have got goals. His confidence was just shot to pieces by the injury and he just couldn't get up to speed playing at a level of football he had never played at before.

In summary, he had 5 games to get 4 points and no matter who those games were against, he would have got the points

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I do because I had seen a lot of their games that year where they absolutely slaughtered Cardiff home and away and West Ham home and away where the opposition keeper s were outstanding against them. I saw matches where they led against Stoke and Stoke got dodgy penalty in last minute for an equaliser to deny them the 3 points.

I saw them batter Hull to death for 80 mins and just couldn't get the ball in the net and I know for a fact that not once during that season were they able to get their best three midfielders of Howson, Fer and Tettey on the pitch at the same time due to at least one of them being injured at any given time and the very first game after he was sacked that's when Fer I think it was due to be back when they did all play together.

So I saw their matches and so did the Board and they knew that the team was playing well - I will concede that they did have some awful matches and I do concede that some of those matches CH should in my opinion have attacked a few teams more away from home but every time they got into trouble the team pulled out a big performance and got the win. I am not 100% sure but I don't think they were ever in the bottom 3 any time after Xmas.

So YES I agree with the other Poster, the Board took them down. Chris would have pulled out the results to keep them safe. The match he got sacked after (at home to West Brom) , they were woeful that day but that was Norwich that year, they blew hot and cold but they were doing enough to stay up.

Plus the 2 or 3 months that Van Wolfswinkel was out injured cost them dear because despite his lack of goals, if he hadn't got an early injury I think he would have built confidence early in the season and he would have got goals. His confidence was just shot to pieces by the injury and he just couldn't get up to speed playing at a level of football he had never played at before.

In summary, he had 5 games to get 4 points and no matter who those games were against, he would have got the points

Excellent post, so I say fair enough. But 28 goals all season says something relevant to me, and having looked at their results over the course of the season, I can't agree. They were poor and deservedly relegated in my opinion.

 

[NooBHA]

Excellent post, so I say fair enough. But 28 goals all season says something relevant to me, and having looked at their results over the course of the season, I can't agree. They were poor and deservedly relegated in my opinion.

You say poor but you didn't see them play one game for 90mins

I saw many games and I say they were poor in some matches but excellent in others

The 28 goals all season I covered with the Van Wolfswinkel injury.

You say deservedly relegated but the point we were discussing was would CH have picked up 4 points in the last 5 games to keep them up. Neither of us can re-write history but if I was honest my thoughts are that he was better off out of that club. He was never going to be accepted because he followed Paul Lambert got back to back promotions for them.

 

[downham seagull]

Do you GENUINELY believe that? Same question to [MENTION=30752]NooBHA[/MENTION] who liked it without comment.

Yes

 

[drew]

Totally disagree.

In his time at Norwich he had beaten Man Utd, Man City and Arsenal and taken points off Chelsea and Liverpool I am not sure about. He had a better chance of taking points off them again than the Manager of their U18s did.

With Millions at stake for staying up the Board got it wrong. If they were going to do it they should have waited till the end of the season. The fans didn't like him and he was never going to last beyond the end of the season but he would have kept them up because he knows how to grind out results when needed. Brighton fans saw that for themselves when he ground out results to keep Brighton in the Championship the year before last

Norwich hadn't taken any points off those four during that season though and that is what he would've been judged on. Surely you know football is not about what you did last season but what you are doing in the current season. I'm not saying I agree with the actions of Norwich but I suspect lots of clubs would have done the same in their position. Lots of clubs have changed managers and seen a change in fortune, albeit normally always temporary.

 

[NooBHA]

Norwich hadn't taken any points off those four during that season though and that is what he would've been judged on. Surely you know football is not about what you did last season but what you are doing in the current season. I'm not saying I agree with the actions of Norwich but I suspect lots of clubs would have done the same in their position. Lots of clubs have changed managers and seen a change in fortune, albeit normally always temporary.

Teams Do change manager.................................But no Board in their right mind replaces a Manager with experience with a manager who had not managed anything higher than an U18 team

 

[Pevenseagull]

I am sorely tempted to write a couple of hundred words.

But I can't be arsed


And they'd be no point.

 

[drew]

I do because I had seen a lot of their games that year where they absolutely slaughtered Cardiff home and away and West Ham home and away where the opposition keeper s were outstanding against them. I saw matches where they led against Stoke and Stoke got dodgy penalty in last minute for an equaliser to deny them the 3 points.

I saw them batter Hull to death for 80 mins and just couldn't get the ball in the net and I know for a fact that not once during that season were they able to get their best three midfielders of Howson, Fer and Tettey on the pitch at the same time due to at least one of them being injured at any given time and the very first game after he was sacked that's when Fer I think it was due to be back when they did all play together.

So I saw their matches and so did the Board and they knew that the team was playing well - I will concede that they did have some awful matches and I do concede that some of those matches CH should in my opinion have attacked a few teams more away from home but every time they got into trouble the team pulled out a big performance and got the win. I am not 100% sure but I don't think they were ever in the bottom 3 any time after Xmas.

So YES I agree with the other Poster, the Board took them down. Chris would have pulled out the results to keep them safe. The match he got sacked after (at home to West Brom) , they were woeful that day but that was Norwich that year, they blew hot and cold but they were doing enough to stay up.

Plus the 2 or 3 months that Van Wolfswinkel was out injured cost them dear because despite his lack of goals, if he hadn't got an early injury I think he would have built confidence early in the season and he would have got goals. His confidence was just shot to pieces by the injury and he just couldn't get up to speed playing at a level of football he had never played at before.

In summary, he had 5 games to get 4 points and no matter who those games were against, he would have got the points

What utter crap. How can you say he would have got the results to keep them up. Pure speculation. They hadn't taken points of Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool or Man Utd The board at Norwich gambled, as most boards would do (although some probably earlier) and it didn't pay off.

If you read my post properly, you would also see that I didn't blame CH for their relegation, he was just the fall guy.

 

[drew]

Teams Do change manager.................................But no Board in their right mind replaces a Manager with experience with a manager who had not managed anything higher than an U18 team

.

I don't disagree with that but what we don't know is whether they had someone else in mind which then didn't materialise. Who knows!