It's not the team. It's Hughton.

[Insidersknowledge 0]

We arguably have a stronger squad this season than last season. Last season we were successful cuss we has something to prove.

Last season we played many formations; 4-1-2-1-2, 3.5-2, 4-3-3. This season we play either 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1. It''s such a bad formation. For it to work effectively you need pace on the wings, and two strong forwards that will win headers.

In the premiership which team play 4-4-2? Non. Not even Stoke. Why? Because it too negative. Hughton sets his teams out to defend and to not conceded goals. We have not got the defensive set up to go out and minimise conceding gaols in return for less goals scored. Last season we went out with the mentality to score goals. If we score more than the opposition we win. Wether we conceded 3 - if we score 4 we win.

Hughtons mentality of a set formation that we clearly can''t play and is it too disciplined isn''t working. Teams out play us.

The formation must change.

[Militant Canary 0]

I disagree both with your interpretation of events and with your obvious general swipe at Hughton.

Players have been known to be able to adapt and flourish in more than one system- though it may take time- and we have deployed more than one system this season (both in terms of formation and methods of play). Perhaps its all too nuanced?

Still crying over Lambert I take it?

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

Well that''s funny OP because at Chelsea on saturday I could have sworn that I saw Wes tucked in behind Holty...Anyway our midfielders on saturday (not inc. Wessi) were very fluid.Benno stayed on the flanks with Johnson, Howson and Tettey moving position constantly.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="Insidersknowledge"]We arguably have a stronger squad this season than last season. Last season we were successful cuss we has something to prove.

Last season we played many formations; 4-1-2-1-2, 3.5-2, 4-3-3. This season we play either 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1. It''s such a bad formation. For it to work effectively you need pace on the wings, and two strong forwards that will win headers.

In the premiership which team play 4-4-2? Non. Not even Stoke. Why? Because it too negative. Hughton sets his teams out to defend and to not conceded goals. We have not got the defensive set up to go out and minimise conceding gaols in return for less goals scored. Last season we went out with the mentality to score goals. If we score more than the opposition we win. Wether we conceded 3 - if we score 4 we win.

Hughtons mentality of a set formation that we clearly can''t play and is it too disciplined isn''t working. Teams out play us.

The formation must change.[/quote]

Teams that played 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 over the weekend:

Sunderland

Norwich

Reading

Everton

Southampton

Fulham

Newcastle.

Manchester Utd. have played a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 in the Premier League since Ferguson was put in charge.

Stoke have only recently switched to a 4-5-1

The 4-4-2 is an outdated formation in MOST leagues, the Premier League is not one of them.

[mrs miggins 0]

[quote user="Insidersknowledge"]We arguably have a stronger squad this season than last season. Last season we were successful cuss we has something to prove. Last season we played many formations; 4-1-2-1-2, 3.5-2, 4-3-3. This season we play either 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1. It''s such a bad formation. For it to work effectively you need pace on the wings, and two strong forwards that will win headers. In the premiership which team play 4-4-2? Non. Not even Stoke. Why? Because it too negative. Hughton sets his teams out to defend and to not conceded goals. We have not got the defensive set up to go out and minimise conceding gaols in return for less goals scored. Last season we went out with the mentality to score goals. If we score more than the opposition we win. Wether we conceded 3 - if we score 4 we win. Hughtons mentality of a set formation that we clearly can''t play and is it too disciplined isn''t working. Teams out play us. The formation must change.[/quote]

 

your knowledge blows my mind..........as does your spelling

[Webbo118 0]

Formations don''t win football matches. Players do.

[Jacko 0]

Norwich played 4-4-2 a total of 7 times under Lambert in the 2011/12 league campaign. This yielded wins over Swansea and QPR. Draws with Stoke and Chelsea. Defeats to Aston Villa, West Brom and Man Utd. Projected into a 38 game season this would have given Norwich a grand total of nearly 44 points.

[thenorthstand 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]Formations don''t win football matches. Players do.[/quote]

Formations dont win football matches, but they definitely can lose them.

[Petriix 2,834]

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]Norwich played 4-4-2 a total of 7 times under Lambert in the 2011/12 league campaign. This yielded wins over Swansea and QPR. Draws with Stoke and Chelsea. Defeats to Aston Villa, West Brom and Man Utd. Projected into a 38 game season this would have given Norwich a grand total of nearly 44 points.[/quote]

...but against Swansea we switched to the diamond at half time and that''s what made the difference!

[Gingerpele 0]

People who are obsessed with formations are outdated.

Very few teams play strict rigid systems nowadays. We don''t, before anyone tries to claim we do.

Spain in Euros is perfect example, 6 midfielders but Iniesta, Fabregas and Silva were as attacking/advanced for most of the games as any other striker for any other team would have been. Add in Alba who might as well have been a 7th midfielder.

It''s about personal, how they move around the pitch, how they cover the defensive movements(?) and position themselves in attacking movements. How they move on and off the ball.

I don''t think we''re quite getting that right at the moment though. Improve on that and I think we will be just fine.

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Frank"][quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]Norwich played 4-4-2 a total of 7 times under Lambert in the 2011/12 league campaign. This yielded wins over Swansea and QPR. Draws with Stoke and Chelsea. Defeats to Aston Villa, West Brom and Man Utd. Projected into a 38 game season this would have given Norwich a grand total of nearly 44 points.[/quote]

...but against Swansea we switched to the diamond at half time and that''s what made the difference![/quote]

No we didn''t. Hoolahan only came on in about the 76 minute. We were already 3-1 up by that stage and we were the better side first half despite going in behind. Against Blackburn and Liverpool introducing Grant Holt and playing 4-4-2 gained us draws in both of those fixtures as well.

I do hope we play the diamond at times this season and I am not suggesting that 4-4-2 is the answer to all our collective prayers. But as someone else has already said in this thread you can definitely play 4-4-2 in the Premiership and get decent results. So I don''t have a problem with it.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]People who are obsessed with formations are outdated.

Very few teams play strict rigid systems nowadays.[/quote]Spot on GP.Very often the difference in two formations could simply be a couple of players being pushed slightly further up the pitch or even a player moving further across, which is how 4-4-1-1 can turn into 4-2-3-1 or even 4-3-3 with relative ease.Against Chelsea we were simply outplayed by a better team filled with top quality players. Hazard alone cost more than out entire side and I don''t think he was even that great on Sat either!I actually think that the Spurs result from last season has deluded some people into thinking we''re a top 6 team and should beat anyone, the truth is that we had a good game against Spurs and they were poor at the same time, I also remember when we played them earlier in the season and they made us look distinctly second rate...Chances are that we aren''t going to take many points off the ''big'' sides, that doesn''t mean we shouldn''t try to, but neither should it mean we should expect results against them either.We were very unlucky not to get 3 points against Spurs, QPR and West Ham so far but apparently opposition keepers aren''t allowed to have good games, nor are our strikers allowed to not score every game!I fully expect Arsenal to give us a mauling in our next game as I think they''re playing some great football and we''ve not pressed as well as we need to in order to hamper their gameplan. I can live with that as long as we then pick up from there and get results against Villa, Stoke and Reading.It doesn''t matter if we beat the big boys, as long as we get results against the mid-table and relegation candidates...

[Steady On... 0]

It''s not the team

It''s not Hughton

It''s you

You and "your kind"

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Gingerpele"]People who are obsessed with formations are outdated.

Very few teams play strict rigid systems nowadays.[/quote]Spot on GP. Very often the difference in two formations could simply be a couple of players being pushed slightly further up the pitch or even a player moving further across, which is how 4-4-1-1 can turn into 4-2-3-1 or even 4-3-3 with relative ease. Against Chelsea we were simply outplayed by a better team filled with top quality players. Hazard alone cost more than out entire side and I don''t think he was even that great on Sat either! I actually think that the Spurs result from last season has deluded some people into thinking we''re a top 6 team and should beat anyone, the truth is that we had a good game against Spurs and they were poor at the same time, I also remember when we played them earlier in the season and they made us look distinctly second rate...  Chances are that we aren''t going to take many points off the ''big'' sides, that doesn''t mean we shouldn''t try to, but neither should it mean we should expect results against them either.We were very unlucky not to get 3 points against Spurs, QPR and West Ham so far but apparently opposition keepers aren''t allowed to have good games, nor are our strikers allowed to not score every game!I fully expect Arsenal to give us a mauling in our next game as I think they''re playing some great football and we''ve not pressed as well as we need to in order to hamper their gameplan. I can live with that as long as we then pick up from there and get results against Villa, Stoke and Reading.  It doesn''t matter if we beat the big boys, as long as we get results against the mid-table and relegation candidates...[/quote]

Agree with the above,   we will need to take points off some of the top teams - as we did last season.   We may or may not get a mauling against Arsenal, but the intention should be that we go out to win that game.    We mustn''t get into the habit of thinking we are going to lose games.  We have to set our stall out somewhere and show some backbone after the last two results.  At home to Arsenal would be a good place to do it.    Arsenal''s defence has looked a little wobbly on occasion this season - so I hope we get in amongst them.   Any win against a lower team would be welcome, but to beat Arsenal would be a massive boost to everyone.    The season has to start somewhere.  

[Militant Canary 0]

Just a very swift message to say that I agree with most of what you say Indie, but I wouldn''t be quite so hard on us.

We beat Spurs last season because we deserved it and Spurs played well, they had chances and the result could have gone against us. But it didn''t and we deserved the win.

The previous Spurs game last year was one were Bale ran the show. It was a performance that showed what he is capable of (doesn''t make him world class, however- 3/4 performances like that a season isn''t enough. A truly world class player, even when he/she has a bad game, does special things that effect the game. Bale just isn''t there yet and its premature to say otherwise. I digress. Sorry).

They also had good performances from Modric and Parker. We had our chances, though. It could have been a different result.

However, completely agree that Arsenal will probably beat us. Nonetheless, I expect to see improvement, especially with players coming back from injury. Its easy to forget we''ve had some notable absences this season. Basically, the international break has come just at the right time (unlike last time).

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Yet again we see how trends change and history gets rewritten.  Throughout Lambert''s time there was constant criticism of his tactics, frequent talk of the cracked diamond and calls for him to play 442 on the basis that it gives more width and English players only really understand 442.

 

Now, the world is turned on its head.  Lambert was right all along. 

 

In a seperate criticism of Hughton, there is justified regard for the bold and matchwinning tactical changes made midmatch by Lambert.  Yet, whilst rightly admiring the boldness and the effectiveness, little regard is given to the fact that these changes were often necessary because Lambert got the tactics wrong in the first place.

 

Yet here we are, mythologising the man who left and abusing the new guy who is not only trying to fill unfillable shoes but still does not have all his players available to him.   After a handfull of games.  The word "madness" will not leave my mind.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Militant Canary"]Just a very swift message to say that I agree with most of what you say Indie, but I wouldn''t be quite so hard on us. We beat Spurs last season because we deserved it and Spurs played well, they had chances and the result could have gone against us. But it didn''t and we deserved the win.

 

The previous Spurs game last year was one were Bale ran the show. It was a performance that showed what he is capable of (doesn''t make him world class, however- 3/4 performances like that a season isn''t enough. A truly world class player, even when he/she has a bad game, does special things that effect the game. Bale just isn''t there yet and its premature to say otherwise. I digress. Sorry). They also had good performances from Modric and Parker.

 

 We had our chances, though. It could have been a different result. However, completely agree that Arsenal will probably beat us. Nonetheless, I expect to see improvement, especially with players coming back from injury. Its easy to forget we''ve had some notable absences this season. Basically, the international break has come just at the right time (unlike last time).[/quote]

 

Because that was one of Lambert''s suicide note formations/selections. We played Hoolahan behind Holt and Morison with a lightweight (in terms of numbers and playing style) midfield of Surman, Fox and Crofts, up against a Spurs midfield of Modric, van der Vaart, Sandro and Parker, with Bale floating around.

[Matt Morriss 69]

="Grant Holt''s 3 year contract"]Well that''s funny OP because at Chelsea on saturday I could have sworn that I saw Wes tucked in behind Holty...Anyway our midfielders on saturday (not inc. Wessi) were very fluid.Benno stayed on the flanks with Johnson, Howson and Tettey moving position constantly.

Yeah 4-4-1-1 as the OP said! And I can tell Johnson definitely didn''t move position constantly. He was left wing all game.

The OP is spot on. 442 is archaic. It''s not so much the 442 rather the old fashioned rigid way Hughton plays it.

There''s no flexibility, Hughton has proved himself tactically clueless, and this comes from Calderwood as well.

When things aren''t working they have no ideas, nothing changes and we just see like for like subs.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"][quote user="Frank"][quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]Norwich played 4-4-2 a total of 7 times under Lambert in the 2011/12 league campaign. This yielded wins over Swansea and QPR. Draws with Stoke and Chelsea. Defeats to Aston Villa, West Brom and Man Utd. Projected into a 38 game season this would have given Norwich a grand total of nearly 44 points.[/quote] ...but against Swansea we switched to the diamond at half time and that''s what made the difference![/quote] No we didn''t. Hoolahan only came on in about the 76 minute. We were already 3-1 up by that stage and we were the better side first half despite going in behind. Against Blackburn and Liverpool introducing Grant Holt and playing 4-4-2 gained us draws in both of those fixtures as well. I do hope we play the diamond at times this season and I am not suggesting that 4-4-2 is the answer to all our collective prayers. But as someone else has already said in this thread you can definitely play 4-4-2 in the Premiership and get decent results. So I don''t have a problem with it.[/quote]

One thing I do remember about that Swansea away game is the manager and players complaining about how physical we were. That is clearly something we need to get back to if we want to start winning games again. We are definitely the Prem soft-touch at the moment and teams must just love playing us.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

"The OP is spot on. 442 is archaic. It''s not so much the 442 rather the old fashioned rigid way Hughton plays it."

 

I don''t understand this Matt. What is the old fashioned rigid way Hughton plays it?

 

 

[Timmah 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"][quote user="Frank"][quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]Norwich played 4-4-2 a total of 7 times under Lambert in the 2011/12 league campaign. This yielded wins over Swansea and QPR. Draws with Stoke and Chelsea. Defeats to Aston Villa, West Brom and Man Utd. Projected into a 38 game season this would have given Norwich a grand total of nearly 44 points.[/quote] ...but against Swansea we switched to the diamond at half time and that''s what made the difference![/quote] No we didn''t. Hoolahan only came on in about the 76 minute. We were already 3-1 up by that stage and we were the better side first half despite going in behind. Against Blackburn and Liverpool introducing Grant Holt and playing 4-4-2 gained us draws in both of those fixtures as well. I do hope we play the diamond at times this season and I am not suggesting that 4-4-2 is the answer to all our collective prayers. But as someone else has already said in this thread you can definitely play 4-4-2 in the Premiership and get decent results. So I don''t have a problem with it.[/quote]

One thing I do remember about that Swansea away game is the manager and players complaining about how physical we were. That is clearly something we need to get back to if we want to start winning games again. We are definitely the Prem soft-touch at the moment and teams must just love playing us.

[/quote]

 

I think that''s rubbish. The ex Leeds lads have put in some crunchers this season, it was a topic of discussion at the back of the Barclay against Liverpool. Nobody gets an easy ride against Holt either. The fact we haven''t had a shedload of cards is just another stick for some people to beat the club with, pathetic really.

 

 

[paul moy 235]

Timmah, we will have to agree to disagree because I didn''t see the crunching tackles on Suarez or Mata etc, or much of anything to deter them scoring or creating goals. Obviously I was watching different games.

[Timmah 0]

I''m happy enough with that Paul, don''t think I''ve ever agreed with anything you''ve said anyway!!

 

For what it is worth, somebody definitely went through Suarez, he was also physically assaulted for the phantom penalty, but then you maybe only see what you want through your negative specs.

 

What I will say is that if you throw yourself into committed tackles against the players you mentioned, more often than not you will be left in a heap on the floor as they dance away.

 

 

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]Formations don''t win football matches. Players do.[/quote]

Formations bore me rigid to be honest.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

"The OP is spot on. 442 is archaic. It''s not so much the 442 rather the old fashioned rigid way Hughton plays it."

 

I don''t understand this Matt. What is the old fashioned rigid way Hughton plays it?

 

 

[/quote]

Two deep lying midfielders, full backs not crossing the halfway line, players stuck in their positions with no licence to roam.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

"The OP is spot on. 442 is archaic. It''s not so much the 442 rather the old fashioned rigid way Hughton plays it."

 

I don''t understand this Matt. What is the old fashioned rigid way Hughton plays it?

 

 

[/quote] Two deep lying midfielders, full backs not crossing the halfway line, players stuck in their positions with no licence to roam.[/quote]

 

The diamond is a 442. Flat midfield four is a 442. I see Hughton''s 442 as being a kind of inbetween. Instead of Wes being the point of the diamond I see the wide midfielders often cutting inside. Lambert did play that way sometimes.

 

But I''m a bit like Trucky and formations bore me rigid too. At least we save on viagara....

 

 

[kellybrook 0]

Good god what a tit you are.  You evidently have not watched Man Utd in the past ten frigging year.  4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 nearly every bloody game.Idiot.[quote user="Insidersknowledge"]We arguably have a stronger squad this season than last season. Last season we were successful cuss we has something to prove.

Last season we played many formations; 4-1-2-1-2, 3.5-2, 4-3-3. This season we play either 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1. It''s such a bad formation. For it to work effectively you need pace on the wings, and two strong forwards that will win headers.

In the premiership which team play 4-4-2? Non. Not even Stoke. Why? Because it too negative. Hughton sets his teams out to defend and to not conceded goals. We have not got the defensive set up to go out and minimise conceding gaols in return for less goals scored. Last season we went out with the mentality to score goals. If we score more than the opposition we win. Wether we conceded 3 - if we score 4 we win.

Hughtons mentality of a set formation that we clearly can''t play and is it too disciplined isn''t working. Teams out play us.

The formation must change.[/quote]

[Shack Attack 0]

The only problem with talk of formations is that not everyone agrees on the terminology.. How far back does a second striker have to drop before you go from a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1/4-4-1-1? When does a midfielder in a four become a one just in front of the defence? Is a wide player on the right hand side of a 4-2-3-1 still a winger? What is a false nine and how are they different from a conventional ten? When Manchester United used to play with Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo were they playing a 4-3-3, a 4-4-2 or a 4-6-0?Somebody earlier in the thread claimed that talk of formations was out dated because modern teams were fluid (I''m paraphrasing here) and then proceeded to use Spain as an example to prove their argument. This is nonsense. Spain no more prove that all modern teams are fluid in their formations than Holland did in the 1970s. Spain are unique (sorry haters [;)]) just like the Dutch were. The only difference is that they are not quite so arrogant as to believe that they have a divine right to win because their football is the prettiest.The best teams are fluid because the best teams have the best players and the best players can adapt to a range of different stlyes. The most significant thing about the team under Lambert was that it was able to adapt to a range of formations/tactics despite being made up almost entirely of lower league English players who have probably played in flat 4-4-2 formations for most of their careers. It is not something you see very often and was why Lambert received so much praise.Teams made up largely of lower quality players (I know that sounds incredibly disrespectful but I couldn''t think of a more polite way to say what I wanted to get across [:$]) tend to suceed in one of two ways. Either they have a very well drilled and tight formation that stifles better players (think Mr Roy and his banks of four or Greece when they won the European Championships), a tactical quirk which other teams cannot cope with (Stoke and Rory Delap) or they have a maverick in charge who will take the gamble which other managers would bottle out of. I haven''t seen enough of Norwich under Chris Hughton to say whether he or his team match up to any of those but it was obvious where his predecessor fitted in.

[TCCANARY 263]

The most rigid formation is the 2-5-3, thousands of games are played every day using it. I don''t know why professional teams don''t adopt it, it always provides fantastic entertainment providing you stick to the no spinning rule.

 

[Phillip J Fry 0]

Time to return to the 2-3-5?