Chris Hughton

[Guest alex]

No he isn't and he never has been.

he is dear boy he is

 

tell me who has a better record of results?

I don't see how that equates to success as such, given nearly all those games were in the 2nd tier of English football. Ridiculous to try and say he's been more successful here than Keegan, Robson or Joe Harvey, to name but three. That's not a dig at Hughton in any way, it's just me highlighting you're talking out of your anus again.

[JawD 31]

Got to back Alex on this one like. You simply can't compare antything CH has or has not done yet. He hasnt had a proper stint at the top tier and you cant compare his one good season in the Championship against some of our great managers who spent years in the top flight. Its just far too early. As for being successful, surely winning something is the pinnacle of success? Not like our list is very long to choose from there. After that Id say Europe and top tier progress.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

I do. Wasn't his reaction to being asked if he was after Keane pretty telling?

 

Well he obvs should have fucking worked harder, shouldn't he have? What the fuck does he get paid for.

 

It's also his job to coach so let's see if he can make anything out of Xisco, Best or Stroller. He didn't have lots of cash and I think he's done pretty well

[OTF 6148]

I'm glad he didn't just buy any old garbage. In doing so it would give Ash;ey ample argument for withdrawing any future transfer budget - "I gave you money and you bought a bag o' shite, why should I give you more?".

 

Hopefully that's not your Best argument...

[Rob W 0]

No he isn't and he never has been.

he is dear boy he is

 

tell me who has a better record of results?

Stan Seymour - FA Cup twice

Joe Harvey - Div 2 Champs ( equivalent to today's Championship) and Fairs Cup.

 

If Chris wins us the FA or League cup, then he may equal these two. Long way to go til he's the most successful.

 

 

if you look at games won v games played he's wayyyy ahead............

 

and all my life I've wanted a consistent (winning) team

[JawD 31]

No he isn't and he never has been.

he is dear boy he is

 

tell me who has a better record of results?

Stan Seymour - FA Cup twice

Joe Harvey - Div 2 Champs ( equivalent to today's Championship) and Fairs Cup.

 

If Chris wins us the FA or League cup, then he may equal these two. Long way to go til he's the most successful.

 

 

if you look at games won v games played he's wayyyy ahead............

 

and all my life I've wanted a consistent (winning) team

 

If the ratio is the same in 2 years I'll agree.

[shackbleep 0]

No he isn't and he never has been.

he is dear boy he is

 

tell me who has a better record of results?

I don't see how that equates to success as such, given nearly all those games were in the 2nd tier of English football. Ridiculous to try and say he's been more successful here than Keegan, Robson or Joe Harvey, to name but three. That's not a dig at Hughton in any way, it's just me highlighting you're talking out of your anus again.

 

Opta's fucking dream, Rob like...

[Guest alex]

No one's saying he doesn't have the best win-ratio. But if he hasn't still got the best win-ratio at the end of this season will that mean he's gone from being our most successful manager ever to not being that in the space of nine months or whatever? How does that work? Likewise, the season we went down, WBA won more games than us and Boro and as many as Hull but finished bottom of the table. So while the win-ratio is a handy-ish way of looking at how well a manager has done during his tenure, it by no means tells the whole story. Also, I don't remember win-ratios even being mentioned before the days of Sky, the Premier League etc. which says it all really.

[ChezGiven 0]

Overall league points gained, weighted by the league they were gained in would be a far better statistic.

 

You'd then need to include points for cup wins and weight them higher, the further in the competition and to carry different weights according to Carling, FA, EU, CL.

 

That would give you a score that is biased towards longevity, which is fair enough as thats a metric of success anyway.

 

I'm open to suggestion on the weighting scheme.

[Kitman 2188]

Overall league points gained, weighted by the league they were gained in would be a far better statistic.

 

You'd then need to include points for cup wins and weight them higher, the further in the competition and to carry different weights according to Carling, FA, EU, CL.

 

That would give you a score that is biased towards longevity, which is fair enough as thats a metric of success anyway.

 

I'm open to suggestion on the weighting scheme.

 

Your score should be increased x 100 if you weren't given enough time by the Board and fans to prove your genius *

 

 

 

 

* copyright Sam Allardyce

[LeazesMag 0]

No one's saying he doesn't have the best win-ratio. But if he hasn't still got the best win-ratio at the end of this season will that mean he's gone from being our most successful manager ever to not being that in the space of nine months or whatever? How does that work? Likewise, the season we went down, WBA won more games than us and Boro and as many as Hull but finished bottom of the table. So while the win-ratio is a handy-ish way of looking at how well a manager has done during his tenure, it by no means tells the whole story. Also, I don't remember win-ratios even being mentioned before the days of Sky, the Premier League etc. which says it all really.

 

Rob the WUM and by fuck its working

[Guest alex]

No one's saying he doesn't have the best win-ratio. But if he hasn't still got the best win-ratio at the end of this season will that mean he's gone from being our most successful manager ever to not being that in the space of nine months or whatever? How does that work? Likewise, the season we went down, WBA won more games than us and Boro and as many as Hull but finished bottom of the table. So while the win-ratio is a handy-ish way of looking at how well a manager has done during his tenure, it by no means tells the whole story. Also, I don't remember win-ratios even being mentioned before the days of Sky, the Premier League etc. which says it all really.

 

Rob the WUM and by fuck its working

I know he's on the wind-up tbf but I see no problem in demonstrating the fallacy of his argument at the same time.

[LeazesMag 0]

No one's saying he doesn't have the best win-ratio. But if he hasn't still got the best win-ratio at the end of this season will that mean he's gone from being our most successful manager ever to not being that in the space of nine months or whatever? How does that work? Likewise, the season we went down, WBA won more games than us and Boro and as many as Hull but finished bottom of the table. So while the win-ratio is a handy-ish way of looking at how well a manager has done during his tenure, it by no means tells the whole story. Also, I don't remember win-ratios even being mentioned before the days of Sky, the Premier League etc. which says it all really.

 

Rob the WUM and by fuck its working

I know he's on the wind-up tbf but I see no problem in demonstrating the fallacy of his argument at the same time.

 

aye, of course maybe he actually believes what he say

[Rob W 0]

Got to back Alex on this one like. You simply can't compare antything CH has or has not done yet. He hasnt had a proper stint at the top tier and you cant compare his one good season in the Championship against some of our great managers who spent years in the top flight. Its just far too early. As for being successful, surely winning something is the pinnacle of success? Not like our list is very long to choose from there. After that Id say Europe and top tier progress.

 

 

hmmm - our great mangers in the top flight didn't do very well TBH - Stan Seymour was the only real long term achiever...... and he never looked like winning Div 1

 

no consitency - thats always been the trouble

Edited September 1, 2010 by Rob W

[Guest alex]

SBR had 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the top flight.

[Rob W 0]

No one's saying he doesn't have the best win-ratio. But if he hasn't still got the best win-ratio at the end of this season will that mean he's gone from being our most successful manager ever to not being that in the space of nine months or whatever? How does that work? Likewise, the season we went down, WBA won more games than us and Boro and as many as Hull but finished bottom of the table. So while the win-ratio is a handy-ish way of looking at how well a manager has done during his tenure, it by no means tells the whole story. Also, I don't remember win-ratios even being mentioned before the days of Sky, the Premier League etc. which says it all really.

 

Rob the WUM and by fuck its working

I know he's on the wind-up tbf but I see no problem in demonstrating the fallacy of his argument at the same time.

 

aye, of course maybe he actually believes what he say

 

 

I quote a fact - you may not like it - he's won 34 out of 56 played or 60.7% - KK in 92-97 was 55%

[tinofbeans 86]

SBR had 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the top flight.

 

Him, not keegan was our best manager of the last 20 years. if he was given the same relative budgets and support, i reckon we could have cracked the top 2 again.

[Guest alex]

No one's saying he doesn't have the best win-ratio. But if he hasn't still got the best win-ratio at the end of this season will that mean he's gone from being our most successful manager ever to not being that in the space of nine months or whatever? How does that work? Likewise, the season we went down, WBA won more games than us and Boro and as many as Hull but finished bottom of the table. So while the win-ratio is a handy-ish way of looking at how well a manager has done during his tenure, it by no means tells the whole story. Also, I don't remember win-ratios even being mentioned before the days of Sky, the Premier League etc. which says it all really.

 

Rob the WUM and by fuck its working

I know he's on the wind-up tbf but I see no problem in demonstrating the fallacy of his argument at the same time.

 

aye, of course maybe he actually believes what he say

 

 

I quote a fact - you may not like it - he's won 34 out of 56 played or 60.7% - KK in 92-97 was 55%

Rob, you said he was our most successful manager. How is that a 'fact' when it's so subjective, you're using such narrow criteria and, essentially, comparing apples with oranges (i.e. top flight and 2nd tier games)?

[JawD 31]

No one's saying he doesn't have the best win-ratio. But if he hasn't still got the best win-ratio at the end of this season will that mean he's gone from being our most successful manager ever to not being that in the space of nine months or whatever? How does that work? Likewise, the season we went down, WBA won more games than us and Boro and as many as Hull but finished bottom of the table. So while the win-ratio is a handy-ish way of looking at how well a manager has done during his tenure, it by no means tells the whole story. Also, I don't remember win-ratios even being mentioned before the days of Sky, the Premier League etc. which says it all really.

 

Rob the WUM and by fuck its working

I know he's on the wind-up tbf but I see no problem in demonstrating the fallacy of his argument at the same time.

 

aye, of course maybe he actually believes what he say

 

 

I quote a fact - you may not like it - he's won 34 out of 56 played or 60.7% - KK in 92-97 was 55%

 

But based on your theory. They both had very similar ratio's in their first full season:

 

KK 1992/3 W29 of 46 = 63%

CH 2009/10 W30 of 46 = 65%

 

Now KK followed this with W23 of 42 = 55%

 

See where I'm going with this?

[Guest alex]

SBR had 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the top flight.

 

Him, not keegan was our best manager of the last 20 years. if he was given the same relative budgets and support, i reckon we could have cracked the top 2 again.

It's a tough one for me. I think one of the greatest tragedies of our last 20 or so years though (perhaps even more than not winning the league in 96) was him not taking over when KK left. I think he could've worked wonders with that team.

[JawD 31]

SBR had 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the top flight.

 

Him, not keegan was our best manager of the last 20 years. if he was given the same relative budgets and support, i reckon we could have cracked the top 2 again.

It's a tough one for me. I think one of the greatest tragedies of our last 20 or so years though (perhaps even more than not winning the league in 96) was him not taking over when KK left. I think he could've worked wonders with that team.

 

SBR would have tweeked KK's team where it needed and not ripped it apart bringing in his mates.

[shackbleep 0]

No one's saying he doesn't have the best win-ratio. But if he hasn't still got the best win-ratio at the end of this season will that mean he's gone from being our most successful manager ever to not being that in the space of nine months or whatever? How does that work? Likewise, the season we went down, WBA won more games than us and Boro and as many as Hull but finished bottom of the table. So while the win-ratio is a handy-ish way of looking at how well a manager has done during his tenure, it by no means tells the whole story. Also, I don't remember win-ratios even being mentioned before the days of Sky, the Premier League etc. which says it all really.

 

Rob the WUM and by fuck its working

I know he's on the wind-up tbf but I see no problem in demonstrating the fallacy of his argument at the same time.

 

aye, of course maybe he actually believes what he say

 

 

I quote a fact - you may not like it - he's won 34 out of 56 played or 60.7% - KK in 92-97 was 55%

 

As I said, uses Opta stats as wank fodder...

[Guest alex]

SBR had 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the top flight.

 

Him, not keegan was our best manager of the last 20 years. if he was given the same relative budgets and support, i reckon we could have cracked the top 2 again.

It's a tough one for me. I think one of the greatest tragedies of our last 20 or so years though (perhaps even more than not winning the league in 96) was him not taking over when KK left. I think he could've worked wonders with that team.

 

SBR would have tweeked KK's team where it needed and not ripped it apart bringing in his mates.

Yeah, he would've had the experience to know what was needed imo and wouldn't have felt the need to stamp his authority on the side so much as Dalglish (in particular) or Gullit did. He was a lot closer in terms of philosophy to KK than Dalglish was as well.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I know this is a bit off topic but have we had the most black managers of any Prem team? (Gullitt/Hughton)

 

I like Hughton, it's rare that someone involved in football these days isn't a complete bellend and he certainly comes across as a nice guy. Everyone is always going on about how dignified Avram Grant is but Hughton isn't popping round to the massage parlour after every game, he's quietly got on with a tough job and he's grown into the role after a shite start as caretaker when Keegan went. Look at that interview with Redknapp when he was f-ing and blinding like a twat because someone called him a 'wheeler dealer'. You wouldn't catch Hughton making a fool of himself like that, he's a humble guy for a football manager but you wouldn't cross him. If someone waved a bung at him he'd probably snap it off them and shove it up their arse, he's a moral character. A class apart from some of the scumbags involved in football these days, I'm proud he's our manager now.

[Guest alex]

Also had Steve Black here working under Keegan.