Why do some people think that Hughton has had a hard time managing us?

He inherited a good squad of very well drilled ATTACKING players that was brilliantly developed over a three year period. All it needed was a few upgrades in certain positions, not a complete system overhaul.

People who say that he hasn't been backed by the board are talking s**te too. He was allowed to bring in the defenders that we needed, he was allowed to spend money on a ressie keeper, he was allowed to spend money on Snodgrass and add him to his two other good wingers available. Those were the players that we needed to improve the ALREADY good squad/system. He had the resources, it was up to him to use them correctly.

Some will say that he had sod all to work with strikers wise, but he chose not to use Moro (9 goals last season) much at all before chucking him away to Leeds, he chose to play Holt as a lone striker for most of this season despite the fans knowing that he couldn't perform that role early last season. So did he really deserve to be given extra money to bring in new strikers when he couldn't even effectively use the ones that he already had? Is it really the board's fault when poor tactics are used?

It was his choice to completely change the way we play, a completely unnecessary one might I add. Why are people saying he's done a great job for undoing three years of hard work? Odd.

That's not me saying "sack him" or "he has done a s**t job", but to say that he has done great/is blameless is absolutely ludicrous.

Posted By: Common Sense Police, Apr 27, 19:22:29