Jump to content

Sam Hutchinson saying his face didn't fit (twice) and not being fully paid on time


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Sumi Shimamoto said:

I agree.

My recollection is that Lopez did a great (and underrated) job in the run of games to get us to 6th and then to Wembley and it was harsh for him to lose his place for the final.

Particularly given that, some time later, didn't Sam state in an interview that he wasn't fully fit at Wembley - still not fully recovered from glandular fever?

 

 

I'm pretty sure that almost everyone would have put Hutchinson in for the final.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BIG D said:

 

I'm pretty sure that almost everyone would have put Hutchinson in for the final.

 

And that's why there are only 91 managers plying their trade in the top 4 divisions and hundreds of thousands sat in the stands...

Just not bothered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mattitheowl said:

 

Not sure what you mean by the first statement...

 

As for the rest.  It's easy to feign 100% commitment to the fans in the stand who think a lunging, last ditch challenge is a brilliant piece of football.  Talk to people who know the game and they'll laugh and explain what it really is.  

 

Sadly we don't live in those simple times any more so you can like them all you want but it's irrelevant to what we're talking about.  

 

So on the pitch he feigned it?  Another bold statement. He did a good job for us in a solid team - more than just lunging last ditch tackles. I just don't like bitchiness and cattiness. The guy did a good job, thank him and we move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet Hirsty, Sheridan, Carlton and Pearson would be classed as wrong'uns these days. Strong personalities in the dressing room - can you imagine Monk in charge of them?

 

lol

 

 

Difference was they had a manager who could handle their personalities (and no, I'm not saying Hutchinson is as good as they were. Just commenting on the abilities of the respective managers)

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

It's easy to launch yourself in to last ditch tackles 60 yards from your own goal and get up a beat your chest.  Kiss the badge when you win and salute the fans.  Fans lap that up, it's just playing to the crowd and good on him for knowing how to play the game.  People so often mistake commitment for competence.  Sam was a good player for us at times, but his tub thumping always outweighed his actual ability (IMO).  And like you say, you know f*ck all about what happened behind the scenes so you can't criticise a manager for freezing him out.  Once under Jos was an event, twice becomes a trend.

 

 

Monk could be the best man manager in the world and best judge of character, but the worlds worst tactician, the two things don't necessarily link up.  Dropping a bad apple doesn't mean you are a good or bad football manager.

 

 

That's literally his job!  There have been players who've given far more to the cause who get far less plaudits than Hutch.  He knew how to play the crowd and that's it.  Apparently he still knows how to do it in the media too!

 

 

What if the manager tried that and it didn't work?

 

Also characterising depression as something that makes everyone act or feel the same way is nonsense.  Someone with depression might need a firm hand, not an arm round the shoulder.

If dropping that ‘bad apple’ contributes to the teams downfall then that’s absolutely the managers fault. I never asked whether the 2 things were mutually exclusive, i asked whether the critics of Hutchinson would admit Monk may have got it wrong if Monk’s vision fails? 
 

I’d also argue that, to be a successful football manager you need a team around you that can deliver on both the man management front and,  tactical front. 
 

I wonder how Monk would have got on with a Di Canio character in the team? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Some people are just so funny a manager does not pick a player so all of a sudden the player is a bad influence, useless and anyone who likes him can follow him to the next team he plays for.

 

In the 1990's when we were actually in the top flight we had a manager called Pleat who didn't play Hirst, Sheridan, Waddle does that mean all 3 of these are rubbish, trouble maker and don't know what they are doing  - NO it just means some manager are muppets and instead of playing their strongest team, they play the players they like, or the ones that do what the manager says even if its a load of tosh.

 

Hutch/Westwood in the team Sheffield Wednesday 3rd at Christmas

 

Since these not in the team 13 points out of a possible 51 in 17 games, team now 13th and 17 points off 3rd.

  


I remember Gary Megson freezing out club top goal scorer at the time Neil Mellor for giving away a penalty away from home (can’t remember the opponent). I’m pretty sure we were told he was injured when years later Mellor confirmed he wasn’t, Megson just dropped him. 

 

But when Jos drops Hutch for doing similar away at Brentford there’s some conspiracy behind it and it’s because Hutch is a bad egg. Some managers make a judgement or decision because they are pissed off, doesn’t mean it’s right. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BIG D said:

I bet Hirsty, Sheridan, Carlton and Pearson would be classed as wrong'uns these days. Strong personalities in the dressing room - can you imagine Monk in charge of them?

 

Difference was they had a manager who could handle their personalities (and no, I'm not saying Hutchinson is as good as they were. Just commenting on the abilities of the respective managers)

 

It's well documented that one of those players was chugging champagne the night before a game and another had a punch up with his manager. I imagine plenty more has been kept in the dressing room from that same group. That doesn't suggest to me there was an enormous amount of control over them. That's not to take away from how good they were however.

 

The balance of power has shifted enormously to the players. If they want to behave in a certain way, what can the manager do to bring them into line? Fining them is not all that effective given the salaries of many of them, some don't care about being dropped and will even feign injury in some cases. So then what? It's too easy to go on about the manager forcing his will onto a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BIG D said:

I bet Hirsty, Sheridan, Carlton and Pearson would be classed as wrong'uns these days. Strong personalities in the dressing room - can you imagine Monk in charge of them?

 

lol

 

 

Difference was they had a manager who could handle their personalities (and no, I'm not saying Hutchinson is as good as they were. Just commenting on the abilities of the respective managers)


This is it.

 

I get the impression Monk is quite confrontational and I get the same impression Hutch is the same. Clash of personalities, Monk gets the hump and decides this bloke has got 6 months on his contract left isn’t getting any younger and decides to leave him out. That’s all it is.

 

My argument would be that the top managers manage these type of characters because these types are usually your best players. If Owlstalk was around in the 90s I imagine the same people would be piping up and telling us to get rid of Di Canio and Carbone. 
 

It’s no coincidence that Carlos who has managed some of the top European clubs and Bruce who has won titles and managed big clubs in this country managed to handle the likes of FF and Hutch.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be very few on here that know the inside story of what happened with him, Monk and Jos. They didn't like him. The first thing Bullen did was bring him back in from the cold. He may be a bad egg, he may be the victim of poor man management - the vast majority on here don't know just like we don't know what happened with McGughan, Bates, Westwood, George Hirst etc. The players fell out with Pleat apparently. Wilson couldn't handle Di Canio - in those circumstances it's the managers who got the blame even though Di Canio and Carbone weren't exactly the easiest players to manage through their careers and Waddle, Hirst, Sheridan etc were always pretty vocal about what should be. Clough and Pleat couldn't handle Sheridan properly - does that make him poo. Should we slag him off? It's all very muddy and if you aren't privy to the details it's very hard to judge. And no Hutchinson isn't as good as those players. 

 

 So I'm not slagging Monk,Jos, Carlos, Bullen, Gray or Hutchinson off. All I really know is what Hutchinson gave on the pitch and I was pretty happy with that. Time for him to go. Thank him for some good memories and we look for the next player to support. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 0wl18 said:

If dropping that ‘bad apple’ contributes to the teams downfall then that’s absolutely the managers fault. I never asked whether the 2 things were mutually exclusive, i asked whether the critics of Hutchinson would admit Monk may have got it wrong if Monk’s vision fails? 
 

I’d also argue that, to be a successful football manager you need a team around you that can deliver on both the man management front and,  tactical front. 
 

I wonder how Monk would have got on with a Di Canio character in the team? 

Probably the same as at least 3 very succesful managers did who got rid of him at various points in his career

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ronnie Starling said:

Funny how Sam forgets how well the team performed without him in the side in the run of games which saw us get a play off place in the 2016-2017 season. Didn't finish well when he came back into the team and missed his penalty in the shoot out. A winner eh Sam? 

 

Has he forgotten it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grandad
3 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Screenshot 2020-07-02 at 10.48.42.jpg

 

1.56 points per match in over 100 games


Wow

 

he was better than I thought

 

 

 

Monk has 1.29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mattitheowl said:

Let's be really honest here.  Hutch got a free ride from the fans because he was badge kissing, hard tackling, tub thumping, ex-manager mocking "club man".  In reality though I doubt that carried much weight with his team mates.  I've read all the secret footballer books and he describes this player to a tea, and explains how the fan favourites for the above reasons are usually hated by their team mates because they are all about themselves and not the team.  The "last ditch" tackles are just showboating from someone who could either do it properly or have already f*cked up badly to need to make that tackle.

 

I can't say I ever enjoyed watching him play to be honest, he's not really my kind of player but at times he did a job for us.

 

Oh yes, that's a great description of the kind of character that easily wins fans over..definitely our fans. We so easily have the wool pulled over our eyes by a 'badge kisser' ( Megson, Hutchinson ) or a character that isn't actually that good in his position ( Reda Johnson,  Majid Bougherra) . 

 

Not sure what the reason behind defending Jordan Rhodes to the hilt is though,  despite him being shocking for three seasons....he's a nice bloke and fans don't like to be wrong about signings they've clamoured for? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SallyCinnamon said:


This is it.

 

I get the impression Monk is quite confrontational and I get the same impression Hutch is the same. Clash of personalities, Monk gets the hump and decides this bloke has got 6 months on his contract left isn’t getting any younger and decides to leave him out. That’s all it is.

 

My argument would be that the top managers manage these type of characters because these types are usually your best players. If Owlstalk was around in the 90s I imagine the same people would be piping up and telling us to get rid of Di Canio and Carbone. 
 

It’s no coincidence that Carlos who has managed some of the top European clubs and Bruce who has won titles and managed big clubs in this country managed to handle the likes of FF and Hutch.

i love it when people bring up Di Canio as an example of how if you cant handle him then it shows you are a bad manager.

 

Capello and Trapattoni werent too shabby at management......both showed him the door at their respective clubs at the time.

 

Some managers tolerate these type of players....some get rid......neither is the right or wrong way and neither proves a good or bad manager

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...