(22-08-2021, 10:32 AM)Uwantlee Wrote:

(22-08-2021, 10:20 AM)wassy04 Wrote:

(22-08-2021, 10:12 AM)Uwantlee Wrote: Gotta be CH out... I know shock right.

Sorry but if we had lost 4 games but shown a desire to win, an intent to attack the opposition and actually had a go at teams then I could get behind the manager.

If we had been unfortunate in games and lost because we were trying to win the games or he had shown he was capable of changing his approach I could get behind him.

I understand people frustration with dane also but if we are going to blame others we need to loom deeper than just dane. He has had little time to implement anything. If he had been bought in earlier then fine but a few weeks in the job. No... we could have been making signings prior to his arrival but decided to sit and wait until he was in knowing full well he had a contract with barnsley that didn't end until the end of June. Knowing he was back in America until the second week of June. Dane may have been slow starting but there are other people working at the club who could have been doing.

And yes yes OK there has been a lack of CH signings but let's look at the 4 he has made last season and the 3 this. Garner, knockeart  krov and Murray... only garner was of any real use. Knockeart was an expensive passenger. Murray had a good game and then barely played  krov was ineffective in most games . Hovarth may well be good but it doesn't matter how many errors samba makes he doesn't want to change. Tutu.... shock we sign a player with injury history and he gets injured. Zinc looks quality but he will be gone in January so will need to replace him.

CH has had 7 signings... he needs more but do we really want him bringing in more of his own.

98th minute goalkeeper error falls under the unlucky category in my opinion.

Yes it could do.... but it was coming was it not. I mean we sat off and sat off the whole second half as seems to be our tactic. We invited them on... now a better team wouldn't have taken until the 98th minute and cov were not a good team.

The thing is the only person who couldn't see us losing was CH... it was obvious that the goal was coming as it has been in each of the 4 games. 2-1 sounds close but in reality we were never in with a chance of winning these games because of the way we played.

I know other will disagree but I vote CH out because of the tactics he employs not because of his lack of signings. 6 defeats in a row now is it? 2 wins in 18 games. Managers have been sacked for far less... wars, karanka and Martin O'Neil. I. Not saying any of these managers were the answer but I also don't think Ch is the answer I never have and 46 games later I stand behind that.

(22-08-2021, 08:44 AM)Paplane Wrote: Dane out. To leave CH defenseless (literally) against Stoke yesterday was inexcusable. He should've come out himself to apologise.

(22-08-2021, 10:08 AM)stirred Wrote: Dane out?! Wowsers! Based on the transfer business that hasn’t yet been done in a window that has over a week to go, in a market affected by the financial effects of the pandemic, when we’re changing strategy of trying to buy hot prospects that are sought after by other clubs instead of taking the cart round clubs and shouting Bring out yer dead. And after inheriting a budget that sounds close to FFP constraints.

I think I’d give him at least until the end of the window!

(22-08-2021, 02:58 PM)Woan Wrote: My complaint is not the formation but the way we utilise it. 4-2-3-1 can be an attacking formation but needs a spoiling b*****d played with a progressive ball player. Right now with Colbackward and Yates we don't have that. Jack's default is to play it back or sideways often without looking forward and Ryan just can't pass very well. It's either an inability or unwillingness to play the ball to our front 4 but even more dire than this is that we are set up in a way that hinders progressive passing. Yesterday when Mighten, Taylor or anyone in the front 4 tried to press, our DMs were playing so deep that Stoke could exploit huge gaps in the middle of the park.

It is this lack of cohesiveness between the lines that is the most disappointing and it's not a new thing. I expected much more from a seasoned manager like Hughton.

(22-08-2021, 02:58 PM)Woan Wrote: My complaint is not the formation but the way we utilise it. 4-2-3-1 can be an attacking formation but needs a spoiling b*****d played with a progressive ball player. Right now with Colbackward and Yates we don't have that. Jack's default is to play it back or sideways often without looking forward and Ryan just can't pass very well. It's either an inability or unwillingness to play the ball to our front 4 but even more dire than this is that we are set up in a way that hinders progressive passing. Yesterday when Mighten, Taylor or anyone in the front 4 tried to press, our DMs were playing so deep that Stoke could exploit huge gaps in the middle of the park.

It is this lack of cohesiveness between the lines that is the most disappointing and it's not a new thing. I expected much more from a seasoned manager like Hughton.

(22-08-2021, 03:24 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(22-08-2021, 02:58 PM)Woan Wrote: My complaint is not the formation but the way we utilise it. 4-2-3-1 can be an attacking formation but needs a spoiling b*****d played with a progressive ball player. Right now with Colbackward and Yates we don't have that. Jack's default is to play it back or sideways often without looking forward and Ryan just can't pass very well. It's either an inability or unwillingness to play the ball to our front 4 but even more dire than this is that we are set up in a way that hinders progressive passing. Yesterday when Mighten, Taylor or anyone in the front 4 tried to press, our DMs were playing so deep that Stoke could exploit huge gaps in the middle of the park.

It is this lack of cohesiveness between the lines that is the most disappointing and it's not a new thing. I expected much more from a seasoned manager like Hughton.

I hear what you're saying.

But do you think Hughton really wants to play Yates and Colback together?  We know it.  He knows it.  Who else has he got right now?  Well, we've signed Garner with rumours swirling about more coming in.  And I think Garner will...make that difference.  But we don't have Krov'.  And I don't think Car or Brennan are the no.10s who can hold it up though.

We only have to go back to last season and the successful combination of Cafu and Garner.  They worked?

SA.

(22-08-2021, 03:35 PM)Woan Wrote:

(22-08-2021, 03:24 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(22-08-2021, 02:58 PM)Woan Wrote: My complaint is not the formation but the way we utilise it. 4-2-3-1 can be an attacking formation but needs a spoiling b*****d played with a progressive ball player. Right now with Colbackward and Yates we don't have that. Jack's default is to play it back or sideways often without looking forward and Ryan just can't pass very well. It's either an inability or unwillingness to play the ball to our front 4 but even more dire than this is that we are set up in a way that hinders progressive passing. Yesterday when Mighten, Taylor or anyone in the front 4 tried to press, our DMs were playing so deep that Stoke could exploit huge gaps in the middle of the park.

It is this lack of cohesiveness between the lines that is the most disappointing and it's not a new thing. I expected much more from a seasoned manager like Hughton.

I hear what you're saying.

But do you think Hughton really wants to play Yates and Colback together?  We know it.  He knows it.  Who else has he got right now?  Well, we've signed Garner with rumours swirling about more coming in.  And I think Garner will...make that difference.  But we don't have Krov'.  And I don't think Car or Brennan are the no.10s who can hold it up though.

We only have to go back to last season and the successful combination of Cafu and Garner.  They worked?

SA.

Not sure if he really wants to or not but I get what you're saying. At this point Fornah may not be the worst choice. At least he can pass a ball. I'm not sure if we set up with our DMs so deep by design or they do it on their own. Either way, Hughton should have addressed it because it isn't working.

(22-08-2021, 03:39 PM)wassy04 Wrote:

(22-08-2021, 03:35 PM)Woan Wrote:

(22-08-2021, 03:24 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(22-08-2021, 02:58 PM)Woan Wrote: My complaint is not the formation but the way we utilise it. 4-2-3-1 can be an attacking formation but needs a spoiling b*****d played with a progressive ball player. Right now with Colbackward and Yates we don't have that. Jack's default is to play it back or sideways often without looking forward and Ryan just can't pass very well. It's either an inability or unwillingness to play the ball to our front 4 but even more dire than this is that we are set up in a way that hinders progressive passing. Yesterday when Mighten, Taylor or anyone in the front 4 tried to press, our DMs were playing so deep that Stoke could exploit huge gaps in the middle of the park.

It is this lack of cohesiveness between the lines that is the most disappointing and it's not a new thing. I expected much more from a seasoned manager like Hughton.

I hear what you're saying.

But do you think Hughton really wants to play Yates and Colback together?  We know it.  He knows it.  Who else has he got right now?  Well, we've signed Garner with rumours swirling about more coming in.  And I think Garner will...make that difference.  But we don't have Krov'.  And I don't think Car or Brennan are the no.10s who can hold it up though.

We only have to go back to last season and the successful combination of Cafu and Garner.  They worked?

SA.

Not sure if he really wants to or not but I get what you're saying. At this point Fornah may not be the worst choice. At least he can pass a ball. I'm not sure if we set up with our DMs so deep by design or they do it on their own. Either way, Hughton should have addressed it because it isn't working.

Addressed it how?! This attitude is so frustrating, he could've picked Fornah but we already look like we have too many kids in the team, plus if its anyone like Johnson he'd be abandoned after a few average games.

He just had to wait for the Garner deal to go through, I'm sure he was even more frustrated than the fans. The delay on Garner along with the lack of left back has basically cost Hughton his job.

(22-08-2021, 01:58 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(22-08-2021, 10:08 AM)stirred Wrote: Dane out?! Wowsers! Based on the transfer business that hasn’t yet been done in a window that has over a week to go, in a market affected by the financial effects of the pandemic, when we’re changing strategy of trying to buy hot prospects that are sought after by other clubs instead of taking the cart round clubs and shouting Bring out yer dead. And after inheriting a budget that sounds close to FFP constraints.

I think I’d give him at least until the end of the window!

Excuses!

SA.