Realistically what should have been done differently?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

As many on this thread (pretty much the only sensible one on this site today) have said Norwich are always going to be up against it with Liverpool. I was disheartened to see Norwich going for 4-4-2 as it gave Liverpool far to much space in midfield - Gerrard, Allen and Sahin is probably the most balanced midfield in the League apart from Arsenal''s.

 

I would love to see Norwich going for a 4-2-3-1 against Chelsea - and pray that Pilkington and Bassong are back. Norwich have looked much weaker without Pilkington as Surman really isn''t a winger (although a player I like a lot). The fact there are only 3 proper wingers at the club and 2 of them have been injured shows that sticking with 4-4-2 was optimistic. I have never belived in the maxim of ''don''t change a winning side'' (in Norwich''s case a well performing side) but can see why Hughton wanted to stick with a team that had come so close against QPR, West Ham and Tottenham and certainly weren''t outplayed by Newcastle.

 

Chelsea away will be a big test for any side this season and if Norwich lose (which is the most likely outcome) this board will again erupt with stupid arguements about getting Holloway (of all people) to replace Hughton. I seem to recall everyone saying before the season started that Norwich had a tough start and that we should refrain from panic until after a nasty October - that went well didn''t it?

[Vazzza 62]

I still can''t believe Hughton played a 4-4-2 with the players we had available on Saturday. Its like he blindly picks the tactics to what he wants to do on the day, regardless of the opposition or how they will shape up. Fulham really should have been 4-4-2, 90% of the fans and board knew it after the way pre-season had shaped up. Liverpool on Sat should have been 4-5-1, I think most of us knew it before a ball was kicked, why didn''t Hughton?

 

On appointment I was a big Hughton fan, the more I see of him the more I think he isn''t tactically sound, has no balls when it comes to making changes during the game, and interviews terribly. I think he shows far too much respect to any team we play, and talks us down far too much. Hell if I was playing for him he''d make me feel like a small fish in a very very big pond. I actually think its 99% down to the mentality he''s instilling in the team, he''s treating us like "Little old Norwich"

[Vazzza 62]

CORRECTION: 90% of the fans and this message board

(after a re-read I saw how that might be a bit confusing!)

[ZLF 274]

Turner at the back was the right call,  more experience than bennett and settled down against toon;  he just had a mare.

 

I think the only real mistakes were with our midfield,  4-5-1 plays to our strengths (and accomodated Wes whose performance the week before warranted another start).   

 

I do think the writing has been on the wall for Howson/Johnson as a central midfield combo so it was no surprise to seem them overwhelmed on sat;   howson is better further forward and has simply been uninspiring,  either change him or move him forward.  BJ has grafted but has his limitations.   I would have swapped Howson for either tettey or fox (sub after 60 mins is fine if it helps get them fully match fit,  bringing howson on,  its working for holt) and probably persevered with BJ.

 

Up front - just the one where my opinion is morison is more effective at that than either jackson or holt.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Sorry Zipper but Turner at the back was clearly not the right call because his "mare" was not out of character based upon his first few performaces for us. There were several of us on here who expressed nervousness at the possibility of Turner facing Suarez in the days leading up to the game and questioned whether it would be better to play the more mobile Bennett or move R.Martin inside and play E Bennett at right back. What we feared was exactly what transpired.

Michael Turner has been absolutely appalling for us and should not get anywhere near the first team again for a long, long time.

Other than that i expected to maybe see Tettey start at the base of the midfield and to see Wes playing off Holt. I know that Hoot would have got the usual stick for playing "one up front at home" but against the bigger teams I think that formation is the way to go and gives us more solidity in the midfield area. I was therefore very surprised when I saw the team on Saturday and my initial reaction was "wrong team."

I am convinced Hoot has wanted to play 4-2-3-1 since he came in but fear that after fulham he has not had the courage to stick by his convictions. He has not been helped by Holt''s loss of form, Tettey''s lack of fitness and Butterfield not yet being fit. I feel saturday gives him an ideal chance to try this formation in a game where we are not expected to get anything. We should try it and if it works then we should stick with it for a few games and try and get a settled team.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Vazzza"]

CORRECTION: 90% of the fans and this message board

(after a re-read I saw how that might be a bit confusing!)

[/quote]

 

It''s interesting Vazza. Because last season Lambert played 4-5-1 at home to Liverpool and we lost 3-0. Losing 5-2 is a better result. It''s marginal but it is better. In both games we totally failed to blunt the threat of Suarez.

 

And looking a bit deeper last season''s 4-5-1 we had 39% posession, 8 shots of which 3 were on target and won 5 corners while Liverpool obviously had 61% posession, 15 shots of which 9 were on target and won 7 corners. This season''s 4-4-2 we had 50% posession, 10 shots of which 7 were on target and won 5 corners while Liverpool had 50% posession, 10 shots of which 6 were on target and won 5 corners.

 

Now while stats aren''t always a reliable way to sum up a game there is nothing there to even hint that those supposed 90% of people were right is there?

 

 

[Vazzza 62]

Quite interesting seeing how our stats match up to last season, however both teams have had so many changes since then I''m not sure if comparisons can really be made.

You are right however, we may have lined up with a 4-5-1 and got spanked all the same, so its impossible to say that was the right formation to use, just definitely wasn''t wrong like the 4-4-2!

In the thread "Pick your team vs Liverpool" someone was looking at 3 CB''s and 2 wing backs, 2x DM''s and then an attacking 3 like the below. 

GK:        X  
CB:      XXX
WB:   X       X
DM:      XX
W:     X       X
ST:         X 

I think there could be a lot to be said for this formations using the players we have. Garrido and E. Bennet for the WB positions.Any of Fox/Tetty/Bradley and Howson for the DM postions. Snoddy/Pilks/Wes/Butterfield in the advanced wing areas and Holt up front.

I think using this, we will effectively have 5 at the back when we are under pressure, with 2 DM''s in front. This should be pretty solid against any team in the Prem, and there is plenty of pace for the WB''s to aid the attacking 3 when we do have the ball. If Howson is utalised in one of the 2 DM positions then he will also add a lot going forward.

I think this will give us good natural width, and keep us solid in the middle of the park.

 

[ZLF 274]

Hi Jim - I have been critical of Turner and appreciate that view completely.      We could have picked bennett as the only real alternative but if I am honest am not sure he is that much better as his game against fulham was not great either.  With turner having been ok (not good) for the last 60 mins against toon I can see why he was picked.  With a second error strewn start we do now have to turn to Bennett against Chelsea.  

 

Would it have made that much difference on Sat?  I dont know - Turner was not alone in poor defending - the difference is its the others first ones really.

 

I dont think martin at CB is an option either (his performances last season were not great imo and he has performed better at right back,  where we did not have an option) and playing people out of position is a fools game. So whoever we chose meant that we had a weak cb partnership with the absence of Bassong.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Bassong was a huge miss. But we still don''t know if he would have handled Suarez. Our main failing on Saturday was not the mistakes we made but our inability to handle him at all. Just like last season. Rarely does one player make so much difference in a single game of football. He''s now done it to us twice.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Vazzza"]

Quite interesting seeing how our stats match up to last season, however both teams have had so many changes since then I''m not sure if comparisons can really be made.

You are right however, we may have lined up with a 4-5-1 and got spanked all the same, so its impossible to say that was the right formation to use, just definitely wasn''t wrong like the 4-4-2!

In the thread "Pick your team vs Liverpool" someone was looking at 3 CB''s and 2 wing backs, 2x DM''s and then an attacking 3 like the below. 

GK:        X  
CB:      XXX
WB:   X       X
DM:      XX
W:     X       X
ST:         X 

I think there could be a lot to be said for this formations using the players we have. Garrido and E. Bennet for the WB positions.Any of Fox/Tetty/Bradley and Howson for the DM postions. Snoddy/Pilks/Wes/Butterfield in the advanced wing areas and Holt up front.

I think using this, we will effectively have 5 at the back when we are under pressure, with 2 DM''s in front. This should be pretty solid against any team in the Prem, and there is plenty of pace for the WB''s to aid the attacking 3 when we do have the ball. If Howson is utalised in one of the 2 DM positions then he will also add a lot going forward.

I think this will give us good natural width, and keep us solid in the middle of the park.

 

[/quote]

 

I suggested 3 at the back last week Vazza. But I would only be confident to try it with Bassong. Then I''d be interested to see how it would work with Martin, Bassong and Barnett at the back with Elliott Bennett and Garrido wing backs. But remember, Lambert tried it a couple of times and it didn''t work.

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Nutty - in my view both under lambert and now it seems also under Hughton we struggle far more against mobile strikers who drop deep to pick the ball up and run at us than we do against more "orthodox" strikers. We also consistently struggle with attacking midfielders who play in the "hole" between the midfield and the strikers. For me that why Suarez was always a bit worry, particularly when bassong was out. f course Suarez is a world class player and most defenders would struggle against him but i would think bassong would have dealt with him better because he seems to be a bit more positionally aware than Turner and also has more pace.

Aguero is another player with the same sort of style who we completely failed to get to grips with last season at Carrow Road. Looking at Chelsea, therefore, the presence of Mata, Hazard and Oscar in their team is ominous.

I think the prevalence now of these types of players who do not play as out and out strikers is one of the reasons why so many teams are playing 4-2-3-1 (or a variant thereof) and why hughton would ideally like to play that way as well. i would certainly feel more comfortable againts some of the big boys if we had 2 midfielders sitting in front of the back for and reducing the space in which these players operate. Generally, Howson and Johnson have been quite effective at that this season but clearly on Saturday it didn;t work. I hope Tettey can prove to be the answer!

[Vazzza 62]

I think with the additions of the new players on the books we are much better equiped to play the wing backs system now. We have a natural WB in Garrido, and E. Bennett seems to have a good enough tackle to play there. Tetty can play a proper DM holding role, although BJ is a combative midfielder I still wouldn''t call him an out and out holding player, Fox has the distribution but not the tackling side of his game and Howson should really be playing further up the pitch IMO.

I think we''d be much stronger in this system now than we were last year. Also I think it''ll fit the Hugton style better than it suited Lambert. I think the problem with Hughton is the playing staff don''t suit his managerial style. Maybe the Wing back system will be good for all??

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="Salopian"]

1) Release Howson, to get further forward. He is wasted playing at the back, and seems only half the player of last season

[/quote]

I think you''re forgetting that undel Lambert, Howson spent most of hus time as the deep midfielder in a diamond. He''s actually higher up the pitch then he was under Lambert.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Looking at our best performance of the season: Spurs away.

Bassong was available which clearly makes a huge difference. Without his Newcastle injury I think we might have got something there. Unlucky for Hughton.

Pilkington played and this gives us real width, early balls and crosses. He has been a real miss. Unlucky for Hughton.

Holt played from the start and was inventive in his play. Holt is a better partner for Jackson so his being dropped and Moro starting with Jacko is self inflicted damage by Hughton.

We began with two strikers and made the opposition think about defending rather than just attacking as per Liverpool. Hughton has seldom been as attack minded at home against peer sides QPR and West Ham. Self inflicted damage by Hughton.

In other aspects Hughton has been unlucky in not having Fox or Benno but he has overlooked flair in Wes.

Under Lambert we seldom had 50% possession but ironically against Liverpool we did. It didn''t seem that way but overall our possession has been higher under Hughton which he might see as us being more solid and competitive. The Newcastle game was a good example of this and like other close games the finger was pointed at a lack of finishing.

The absence of Bassong and inclusion of Turner (although this could have been any other defender) equates to goals conceded in abundance through poor defending. Garrido and Tierney cannot be ignored but broadly this is the case.

Under Lambert, as I said, possession and goals didn''t go hand in hand and the classic examples are the two games against Rodgers'' Swansea side. The logical response to this would be to let in less goals and continue the smash and grab strikes to win more games. This might have been Hughton''s plan but, the absence of width and early ball/crossing players in Benno and Pilks plus a lack of invention in the hole area has foiled us.

The upcoming games are, ironically, ones to be less expansive in. The QPR and West Ham matches were ones where we should have been but as I said, injury played a part.

In summary we need certain key players to stay fit and for Hughton to be bold in the face of a poor start. If we can get the key players in and playing to their potential we could have 18 points at the half way stage still.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Jim, I do think Bassong would have dealt with Suarez better but it can only be a guess. Last season Tevez probably hurt us more than Aguero but we didn''t cope very well with him either. But everything points to you being right. We coped much better with Manchester United''s more conventional attack than we did with Citeh''s or even Liverpool''s. And I think you can add Dembele to your list because he''s hurt us twice now where as the more convetional Defoe we seem to cope with.

 

Perhaps the answer is to put someone on Suarez man for man like we used to years ago. I doubt you are an old codger like me but I remember in Bondy''s time we had a player called Richard Symonds who used to get a game if we wanted to blunt a particular threat. His best asset was his man marking skills and I suppose the idea is primarily to stop the likes of Saurez getting the ball in the first place. This could have worked on Saturday if we had such a player? Maybe Tettey can play that role?

 

 

[TCCANARY 263]

I think what should have been done differently is that we should of won the game.

Now some may say that I''m being a bit simplistic here but if you break things down I think you''ll find that I''m right.

 

[the bristol nest 0]

We have always looked better when Fox plays imo but even he needs someone to distribute to and to create with. Playing two up front and two defensive mids limits the available choices.We need Tetty and Fox in central midfield with Bennet and Pilks either side with Hoolahan/Butterfield/Howson behind Holt. Hoolahan would be my pick as I have not seen Butterfield as yet.

This leaves Snodgrass,Surman,Butterfield. Morison,Jackson etc to come on.

Also lets play square pegs in square holes as Surman, Snodgrass and Howson are all playing out of position imo.

Why we play defensively when this aspect of our play is so clearly our weak point baffles me.

[south of the border 0]

With the benefit of hindsight I think there was too much space between our denfence & midfield which gave  Suárez & their wide players far too much space to move into ''between the lines'' & the midfield did not/could not press the ball effectively, (we may have needed an extra body in midfield to match up to Liverpool''s five) but we needed to be far more aggressive in midfield & not sit off like our midfielders did for most of the time on saturday.  Its a high risk policy to play a high defensive line because you open yourself up to the ball being played in behind but it starves the likes of Gerrard & Allen time on the ball to feed their wide men or S uárez.As far as I can recall this is pretty much the way Lambert set us up to beat Brenden Rodger''s Swansea (same system as Liverpool''s) twice last season & David Moyes repeated when Everton also beat Swansea, although we conseaded 2 goals in the away game, as I said it is risky, but it seemed to work well enough for us to win the game.I think I would like to have seen a five man midfield (4-2-3-1) with Fox + Johnson or Tettey then Snodgrass + Hoolahan + Surman with Holt as the lone striker, main reason is that it gets Holt, Hoolahan & Fox on the pitch at the same time & it puts Hoolahan in his best position.However, against Chelsea I would be tempted to have Pilkington + Elliot Bennett if both are fit in for Snodgrass + Surman gives us width & a bit more pace in the wide areas, I also think Elliot Bennett is a better option defensively than Snodgrass which would give Russell Martin more cover.Hopefully Bassong will also be fit for the Chelsea game!!OTBC

[kellybrook 0]

"With the benefit of hindsight I think there was too much space between our denfence & midfield"Jesus wept.  Do you people watch the game?  Our midfield and defence were squashed together like a sandwich.

[Thumbelina 0]

[quote user="dpit"]I don''t think different team selections would have made a big difference. Yes it wouldnhave been nice to have Bassong yesterday but...[/quote]Well we didn''t have Bassong last season and we done ok. Why do you think that was if team selections and tactics don''t make a big difference?