Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
a1canary

Just what IS the difference between Neyul's and Neil's Norwich?

Recommended Posts

...and i don''t mean the obvious ones like Neil''s is better! Or even that under Neil we look more solid, less likely to concede and more incisive...All this much is obvious.

What i''m intrigued by is WHY, what are we doing differently when we''re talking about exactly the same players? We started like a house on fire after all, confidence flowing, then the wheels came off completely and Neyul looked clueless about getting us back on track. All this seems to suggest he failed to implement some pretty basic things that Neil has corrected quite early on to do with how and when you attack or defend and the moments the players choose to attack or to just keep the posession. Is it really as simple as that? What else has AN done?

Interested to hear thoughts on this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There will always be the psychological answer.It was very easy to blame Neil Adams, the players may even have felt that the blame was more focused on him than them.When any club changes the manager mid season like that, it''s unlikely that anyone will hold the manager accountable unless they are completely dire. Sometimes it just gives the players a kick up the arse in regards to pulling their finger out.The other interesting factor is Phelan. Results did improve and become more consistent with his arrival.But at the end of the day it comes down to lots of things, perhaps it is just that AN''s management style is more suited to the group of players we have at the club at this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"]Good organisation, hard work and mental toughness.Probably a bit of belief too.[/quote]

Plus i think and a "big bit of self belief" which stems from the manager, and a willingness to go the extra yard for each other from the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a few:

Number 1 -Most obvious: Playing Grabban upfront on his own. Adams did this at the start of the season and we were winning games and top of the league because of his goals. When Adams played him in a two (which he can''t do as well) and then dropped him our position in the league dropped....to 11th. Alex Neil has noticed this and he''s back up top on his own, except instead of Hoolahan in the number 10 role, there''s now Hooper who is also doing well as he also gets himself in good attacking areas.

2 - Settled back 4. We were conceding sloppy goals before (also the next point), now that we have a settled defence, they have a better understanding.

3 - Most importantly. Tettey is finally being asked to play as more of a defensive midfielder than he had done previously. Was fantastic last week. Not only strong in the tackle, but can control the ball and dictate play. The position he now plays means that we won''t get caught on the counter too much as (like Alex says) he shields the defence, unlike before when I was moaning at Adams for not doing this whilst Tettey and Johnson were moving up the pitch at the same time hand in hand.

4- Like you said in the OP, were are simply playing a much more balanced game, or like I''ve said what we are playing a''Smarter'' game now. We''re actually now starting to think about the way we are and should be playing; a balanced game. Taking no chances or risks. Like I said at the start of the season; we have the players, we just need to be smart in how we play them. Unlike before when Adams was playing without any tactical awareness, we now see players dropping back in centre midfield when the other pushes up. We are playing more as a team since Alex has got his teeth into the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The obvious ones to me seem to be that we are squeezing the space that we let the opposition play in and are pack-hunting when not in possession of the ball. Against Wolves we were hunting in packs all over the pitch.Bassong looks more assured than Turner or Cuellar at the mo (hope it lasts) and as mentioned Grabban feels like a new signing to replace that crap old striker we had called Grabban.Work ethic up.Fitness looks to be improved.Look like they might be getting to grips with how he wants them to play now. All positives in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading between the lines of a few player interviews it seems to me that Neil has imposed an extremely clear strategy which is being drilled into them during training and that the players have bought into it.

In short ... Every man knows his job and every man believes that if he does it he will win.

Reminds me a lot of the impact Lambert had in League One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can''t help but feel that the results that Adams did get were a slight false dawn; Brentford, Cardiff, Blackburn and Watford were not what I''d consider convincing victories in the same way I would the win against Wolves.

I just think we were too attack minded and lacked a more tactical approach... As someone has said in another thread, we didn''t change the team to suit the opposition and frankly we arnt good enough to just play however we want and win. I think that has changed with Neils arrival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The clue is in the word "manager".   Adams was/is a coach.   He brought coaching ability and the passion, but didn''t bring enough management skills to the proceedings - certainly not enough to get the best out of the squad we had. In patches, yes, the team did well, but it was hit or miss and you never felt comfortable watching the matches.  The four games I went to early in the season were the height of discomfort and we won those matches!  It has taken a strong man manager to come in and sort the players out. 

Alex Neil has come in and basically brought in an ethos that is clear and simple.  Play well and give it your best or you''re out of the team.   Allied to that he obviously gives players clear instructions on their jobs in a match - and again, they know they have to do their jobs or they will be out of the team.   Its managing at its best, covering all facets of the game - man management, tactical knowledge with a clear idea of what is  required - and the ability to communicate it to anyone that listens - players, fans, media etc etc.  Likeable but strong - the kind of person you would trust.   Hughton was likeable but weak in key areas, Adams was likeable but weak in key areas,  Neil is likeable but has the extra ingredients and an edge that Scottish managers seem to have more than most English ones. 

So what is the main difference between NA and AN''s Norwich?  

Scottishness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny how Scottishness is seen as an asset and yet their country is a wasteland of alcoholics and junkies, desperately in debt and unable to split from the union without sinking into the north sea.

Perhaps it is more that Neil is an outsider,able to be objective and straight with the players because he has no history with them.

After all, Peter Grant was Scottish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]Funny how Scottishness is seen as an asset and yet their country is a wasteland of alcoholics and junkies, desperately in debt and unable to split from the union without sinking into the north sea.

Perhaps it is more that Neil is an outsider,able to be objective and straight with the players because he has no history with them.

After all, Peter Grant was Scottish.[/quote]

True, but the Scottish spirit, when harnessed properly, is unstoppable. Matt Busby. Bill Shankly. SAF. Scottish Motor Racing drivers are legend. Andy Murray personifies it too - the only British winner of two grand slams since the 1930''s.  Scottish characteristics can be self-destructive, but when they get it right they are right up there with the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="bristolcanary"]I was enjoying the positivity of this thread until the Scottish stuff. What a load of parochial guff.[/quote]

A bit  ironic. Dismissing the character and influences of people from elsewhere is the definition of parochial.   Anyhow, the original Scottish reference was tongue in cheek.   If Bor or yourself couldn''t see that, I''m sorry. I''ll put a silly face on the end next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="bristolcanary"]I was enjoying the positivity of this thread until the Scottish stuff. What a load of parochial guff.[/quote]

A bit  ironic. Dismissing the character and influences of people from elsewhere is the definition of parochial.   Anyhow, the original Scottish reference was tongue in cheek.   If Bor or yourself couldn''t see that, I''m sorry. I''ll put a silly face on the end next time.

[/quote]Actually, you could insert that into your avatar and it would eliminate the need for extra effort on individual threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="bristolcanary"]I was enjoying the positivity of this thread until the Scottish stuff. What a load of parochial guff.[/quote]

A bit  ironic. Dismissing the character and influences of people from elsewhere is the definition of parochial.   Anyhow, the original Scottish reference was tongue in cheek.   If Bor or yourself couldn''t see that, I''m sorry. I''ll put a silly face on the end next time.

[/quote]Actually, you could insert that into your avatar and it would eliminate the need for extra effort on individual threads.[/quote]I thought he already had[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="bristolcanary"]I was enjoying the positivity of this thread until the Scottish stuff. What a load of parochial guff.[/quote]

A bit  ironic. Dismissing the character and influences of people from elsewhere is the definition of parochial.   Anyhow, the original Scottish reference was tongue in cheek.   If Bor or yourself couldn''t see that, I''m sorry. I''ll put a silly face on the end next time.

[/quote]Actually, you could insert that into your avatar and it would eliminate the need for extra effort on individual threads.[/quote]I thought he already had[;)][/quote]Oh, is that a face? I''ve obviously seen the "wrong end" of things again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="bristolcanary"]I was enjoying the positivity of this thread until the Scottish stuff. What a load of parochial guff.[/quote]

A bit  ironic. Dismissing the character and influences of people from elsewhere is the definition of parochial.   Anyhow, the original Scottish reference was tongue in cheek.   If Bor or yourself couldn''t see that, I''m sorry. I''ll put a silly face on the end next time.

[/quote]Actually, you could insert that into your avatar and it would eliminate the need for extra effort on individual threads.[/quote]I thought he already had[;)][/quote]Oh, is that a face? I''ve obviously seen the "wrong end" of things again.[/quote]Ouch![;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Bryan Gunn''s Scottish...

 

Just saying.

 

Ron Saunders is English...

 

Just saying.

 

Mike Walker is Welsh....

 

Jus....

 

 

[/quote]

As well as LDC''s silly face I think we need a big ''this post is ironic'' sign for those of us who read everything literally.

Saves the subsequent ''whoosh!'' posts.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...