Our record against top 8 teams, 2 wins out of 14 games

[biddles911]

The answer, unfortunately for us, is two fold. 1) we lack the requisite quality at the top of the pitch against the best defences and 2) Hughton is often tactically arrogant in how he approaches the biggest games.

The first point will surely be solved this summer, whether we go up or not, as I expect Hughton to bring players of a higher class in at the top end of the pitch.

As for the second point, I don't see that changing. I just see Hughton making upgrades to the team (and consequently the squad) that will see us better able to compete given our favoured formation and style.

Of course there have been other factors too, like poor refereeing decisions against Boro, Burnley (in both games), Derby (in both games), as well as injuries to key players mid season. But I'd say the first two reasons are the crucial factors.

Perhaps you'd like to justify your second comment?

And I don't really agree with the comment re poor refereeing decisions. We've benefited as well as suffered from this and every other team could point to the same too.

Agree with your first comment, though it's debatable given our excellent overall scoring record. I think Hemed is good, potentially excellent, but has insufficient support in Baldock, who is not good enough at this level.

I thought Wilson might be the answer initially but he's dropped off dramatically since New Year, whether because of illness, injury or whatever?

That only leaves BZ who can't really sustain a full match and has been injured for weeks anyway,

I think we've been lucky in that other players such as Knockaert, Skalak and Stephens have stepped up to the plate, supported by both Dunk and Goldson recently, hence our recent high goal tally against lesser teams but I don't really feel we've played well recently in terms of controlling games.

It's also been the case that few of these teams had much to play for so once we got on top they pretty much threw in the towel e.g. Fulham.

Not sure where that leaves us in terms of the play offs but I certainly feel we deserve to win through. Whatever happens, it's been an incredible turnaround since last season and they've played some great football too.....

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Think this is an issue that needs more discussion than refs. Why on earth have we been so ruthlessly efficient against the average and poor teams in the league, yet have a record against the best teams that clearly doesn't mark us out as a top 2 team deserving of automatic promotion? What is the football logic going on here?

Anyone have theories? We are kind of the Graham Hick of the Championship this season, we excel on flat tracks but once the bowling gets world class it's a struggle.

We had the same number of points as the 2nd in the table. We only lost out on goal difference, so we were as good as a top two team. As pointed out 89 points would get you promoted in the vast majority of seasons.
Next moan LI?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Perhaps you'd like to justify your second comment?

And I don't really agree with the comment re poor refereeing decisions. We've benefited as well as suffered from this and every other team could point to the same too.

Agree with your first comment, though it's debatable given our excellent overall scoring record. I think Hemed is good, potentially excellent, but has insufficient support in Baldock, who is not good enough at this level.

I thought Wilson might be the answer initially but he's dropped off dramatically since New Year, whether because of illness, injury or whatever?

That only leaves BZ who can't really sustain a full match and has been injured for weeks anyway,

I think we've been lucky in that other players such as Knockaert, Skalak and Stephens have stepped up to the plate, supported by both Dunk and Goldson recently, hence our recent high goal tally against lesser teams but I don't really feel we've played well recently in terms of controlling games.

It's also been the case that few of these teams had much to play for so once we got on top they pretty much threw in the towel e.g. Fulham.

Not sure where that leaves us in terms of the play offs but I certainly feel we deserve to win through. Whatever happens, it's been an incredible turnaround since last season and they've played some great football too.....

All I mean by it is that he very rarely adjusts tactically to the opposition. I know many people prefer that attitude, but the very best managers don't always just impose one style and one formation in a one-size-fits all approach as they respect that the opposition strengths need to be countered. Arsenal Wenger is another example of a manager that uses his system no matter the scenario, and whilst it will work 80% of the time when you've got a better side than the opposition, it's an arrogant approach to take when the opposition are equally as good as you (or better). Unfortunately, there's been a number of scenarios this season where Hughton's tactical inflexibility has led to us dropping points.

Still, and I want to make this abundantly clear, all managers have their weaknesses and Hughton, despite having his, and done a brilliant job for us. It's not a criticism, rather a subjective analysis of what I personally think are the reasons why we didn't go up automatically,

I agree other teams have benefitted and suffered. But I can count many more situations where we've had decisions go against us than ones that have gone for us.

Re my first point, it is debatable, but actually our goals for record has been markedly improved in recent weeks when we've handed out a couple of drubbings. Over the course of the season, I don't personally think our forwards have shown enough against the very best sides in this division. Part of the reason for that may be tactical too (I'd argue it is), but I do mainly think it's because that's the weakest area of our team right now (and again, it is just my own personal opinion).

 

[Binney on acid]

Tony Bloom is a professional gambler. Burnley gambled on Gray (parachute payments, Ings money). Boro gambled on Rhodes and we gambled on sticking with Hemed and Zamora.

 

[biddles911]

All I mean by it is that he very rarely adjusts tactically to the opposition. I know many people prefer that attitude, but the very best managers don't always just impose one style and one formation in a one-size-fits all approach as they respect that the opposition strengths need to be countered. Arsenal Wenger is another example of a manager that uses his system no matter the scenario, and whilst it will work 80% of the time when you've got a better side than the opposition, it's an arrogant approach to take when the opposition are equally as good as you (or better). Unfortunately, there's been a number of scenarios this season where Hughton's tactical inflexibility has led to us dropping points.

Still, and I want to make this abundantly clear, all managers have their weaknesses and Hughton, despite having his, and done a brilliant job for us. It's not a criticism, rather a subjective analysis of what I personally think are the reasons why we didn't go up automatically,

I agree other teams have benefitted and suffered. But I can count many more situations where we've had decisions go against us than ones that have gone for us.

Re my first point, it is debatable, but actually our goals for record has been markedly improved in recent weeks when we've handed out a couple of drubbings. Over the course of the season, I don't personally think our forwards have shown enough against the very best sides in this division. Part of the reason for that may be tactical too (I'd argue it is), but I do mainly think it's because that's the weakest area of our team right now (and again, it is just my own personal opinion).

Think we're pretty much agreeing in practice though I still think your judgement of Hughton's tactical ability is a bit harsh.

Unlike most premiership managers and some championship managers, I don't think he's got the depth of squad or variety of abilities to swap tactics at will though his more recent signings e.g. Knockaert have allowed us to become much more of a counter-attacking side since the New Year, so I think he has been more flexible than you're suggesting?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Think we're pretty much agreeing in practice though I still think your judgement of Hughton's tactical ability is a bit harsh.

Unlike most premiership managers and some championship managers, I don't think he's got the depth of squad or variety of abilities to swap tactics at will though his more recent signings e.g. Knockaert have allowed us to become much more of a counter-attacking side since the New Year, so I think he has been more flexible than you're suggesting?

I don't doubt there are minor differences on occasion, although mostly they're slight tweaks within the same personel i.e. The defensive line dropping deeper and counter attacking, like you suggested. However, there have been a number of occasions this season where the game has required us to go man-to-man in midfield, to push our wingers higher up the pitch and to play more effectively with one up front by allowing the wide men to link with the lone forward.

Hughton has, on occasion, played the right personel, but stylistically he's set them up in a very rigid 451 so that, rather than dominating the midfield, we become a defensive side trying to hold out and usually end up overrun. But even those instances where he has changed the personel and formation a bit (and it has been very rare), he's not done it against our bingest rivals - he's taken an almost arrogant approach of believing we'll always impose our style on the opposition. There's nothing wrong with that in theory, but in reality the very best managers get the most out of their squads by making minor tactical and stylistic changes to maximise their team's strengths and minimise the weaknesses of the opposition. I think Hughton does the first bit, but doesn't always do the latter part when it's blatantly required, and this has cost us in many of the bigger games.

But, like I said, overall we're really lucky to have him and he's done a great job. It's just a minor gripe in the context of the overall thread.

 

[Eeyore]

Our points total would have been enough to see us promoted in any of the last EIGHTEEN years. If we'd have scored a consolation goal when we were 3-0 down at home to Boro, we would have been promoted.

This record is an irrelevance, I think. Let's see what happens in the play-offs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Burnley came second two years ago with 93 points.

I looked at it earlier. In 9 of the last 25 years the team finishing second had the same (with a better goal difference) or more points.

Only one incident of a team finishing in third with over 89 points. Sunderland in 97-98 (90). Middlesbrough finished second that season.

89 points would have won the league on 10 occasions.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Other than Boro, none of the top six have beaten us in the League

 

[Ernest]

Just imagine if we had SINGED Glenn Murray when we could have done or got a better striker than Wilson on loan

 

[Giraffe]

It's all about the strikers isn't it. We knew in January they weren't quite good enough to compete with the top teams. Nothing has changed. Just that final third where we struggle against good quality defences.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

It's all about the strikers isn't it. We knew in January they weren't quite good enough to compete with the top teams. Nothing has changed. Just that final third where we struggle against good quality defences.

Or looking backwards perhaps we have not been as tight as we could,especially the early season throwing wins away...

 

[TSB]

It's all about the strikers isn't it. We knew in January they weren't quite good enough to compete with the top teams. Nothing has changed. Just that final third where we struggle against good quality defences.

No. If it wasn't for a set-piece mistake/a shit penalty decision, we'd have beaten Derby and Burnley and gone up as champions.
We scored in both games against Derby. We scored in both games against Burnley. We scored at Boro. We beat Hull at home.
Hemed got more goals than Vokes, Nugent, Rhodes, Martin, Forestieri and Hooper.

We were also joint-top scorers in the league.
That wasn't the problem.

 

[One Love]

Everyone knows CH has overachieved with the squad available. He has produced a team that is much greater than the sum of its parts.

However there comes a time against a very strong team where too many individual battles are being lost around the pitch and then we struggle to be able to play our A game. If Hemed, Baldock, Skalak/Murphy are in their opponents pockets how are we going to score without relying on set-pieces.

That's my theory as to what's been happening in the last two games which doesn't augur well if we get Derby again.

I also think the 5-0 and 4-0 wins may have made us a bit complacent and we just think it's going to happen for us without too much effort.

We haven't clicked for a while and played the football we are capable of. We need to very soon.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Tony Bloom is a professional gambler. Burnley gambled on Gray (parachute payments, Ings money). Boro gambled on Rhodes and we gambled on sticking with Hemed and Zamora.

Burnley and Boro both spent close on £10m on both of these. I would suggest that was way out of our league. You can't spend money you haven't got.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

You can discuss all you like about records against other leading teams, debatable refereeing decisions and managerial tactics but the inescapable fact is that both Burnley and Boro got off much more lightly with injuries than us. In defining any teams season, injuries are the single biggest factor. Although we managed to keep the spine of the team intact for most of the season. i.e Stockdale, Kayal, Stephens and Hemed, the loss of 7 other leading players, for weeks and weeks, leading to months, ultimately cost us being runaway winners of this division. Luck with injuries is what all managers pray for. Hughton was unlucky.

 

[Maldini]

You could go through every team and pick them apart.None is perfect including the two who have gone up however after all that is said and done we finished joint second so it can't be all that bad.We don't have the money of some other teams so to finish where we did is a great achievement.

 

[scamander]

No. If it wasn't for a set-piece mistake/a shit penalty decision, we'd have beaten Derby and Burnley and gone up as champions.
We scored in both games against Derby. We scored in both games against Burnley. We scored at Boro. We beat Hull at home.
Hemed got more goals than Vokes, Nugent, Rhodes, Martin, Forestieri and Hooper.

We were also joint-top scorers in the league.
That wasn't the problem.

Some very good points, the Barton incident overshadowed the two main reasons you didn't beat us in that match.
1. Finishing your chances - you had a sitter in the first half and in the second a squared pass would have made it 3-1 with 20 mins to go.
2. Keane had a free header in the box to equalise.

I said after the game that if we went up it'd be because we managed to find a result when really we should have been beat. That's why the players celebrated as they did at the end, it was a point which we shouldn't have got. I still look at Brighton and think they'll go up though, here's hoping.