Game of two halves and the problem with 4 5 1

[priceyrice 133]

So i see some people on this board are still calling for a change to 4 4 2. From the evidence of this season it seems that 4 5 1 is definitely our best formation and when we play well the formation works well, however i do think the formation does tend to lead to us fans seeing two different Norwich teams turn up each side of the half way mark.

I can think of many recent games when we have implemented the 4 5 1 and have looked great in the first half (mainly at home, well ok, only at home), the passing has been quick, the midfielders getting close to Holt and we play the majority of our game in the opposition half. However, it tends to be that we go ahead in the first half and come out in the second on the back foot. The opposition pushes up and we defend too deep, this is when our problems occur. When this happens the gap between the midfield and Holt becomes huge, we have to rely on a long ball forward with little chance of success or a rare counter.

This was highlighted against Spurs and if you look at the majority of game we have been winning in the first half, the second half tends to be as i explained above.

I have to wonder if a solution to this problem could actually be to switch to the 4 4 2 when we are winning. This means the midifeld don''t need to be so close to Holt to keep the ball and we can rely on some more long balls with a better chance of retaining it with two upfront.

What do others think, any other explanations for our poor second half showings

[Scooby 0]

Good post Pricey.  The problem, as I see it may have come from Mr Hughton''s half time team talk, where he may have told the lads to defend the lead rather than add to it.  In the first half, as you quite rightly imply, we pushed up the park, harrying and chasing Spurs until they were forced to give up the ball. This, bringing our midfield much closer to Holty.  Noticeably, in the second half, we sat back and allowed them space, at which time Scott Parker, who was absent in the first 45, started dictating the game.

The difference, as I saw it, was that in the first half Alex Tettey seemed to be given free reign to attack. So much so that he was often the furthest player up the pitch in support of Snodders and Holty, even on occasion getting to the byline to cross. It looked to me more like a 4-1-4-1.  In the second half however, he assumed his normal spot alongside BJ allowing that much more space in the middle of the park for Spurs to exploit.  This also led to Wes having to cover more ground and, inevitably, be substituted as he was knackered.

These are of course, just my observations but from my seat, near the front of the Upper Barclay, you do get a very good view of how teams are set out to play.

[By Heck It's Fleck 10]

Great post. Has been evident in so many games this season, West Ham at home, Swansea away to name just a few. We seem to struggle to hold the ball for long periods once we go ahead, almost inviting pressure.

[priceyrice 133]

[quote user="Scooby"]Good post Pricey.  The problem, as I see it may have come from Mr Hughton''s half time team talk, where he may have told the lads to defend the lead rather than add to it.  In the first half, as you quite rightly imply, we pushed up the park, harrying and chasing Spurs until they were forced to give up the ball. This, bringing our midfield much closer to Holty.  Noticeably, in the second half, we sat back and allowed them space, at which time Scott Parker, who was absent in the first 45, started dictating the game.

The difference, as I saw it, was that in the first half Alex Tettey seemed to be given free reign to attack. So much so that he was often the furthest player up the pitch in support of Snodders and Holty, even on occasion getting to the byline to cross. It looked to me more like a 4-1-4-1.  In the second half however, he assumed his normal spot alongside BJ allowing that much more space in the middle of the park for Spurs to exploit.  This also led to Wes having to cover more ground and, inevitably, be substituted as he was knackered.

These are of course, just my observations but from my seat, near the front of the Upper Barclay, you do get a very good view of how teams are set out to play.

[/quote]

The view from the first row of he upper barclay is a good tactical viewing point, used to have my season ticket there, you get the extra leg room too!

It seems are observations are pretty similar, I remember thinking in the first half that Hughton must have taken the reigns off Tettey because he was often getting forward, something we need to see more of IMO!

I am not so sure it is the team talk, i fail to believe that in so many games were we have been leading at half time, and at home, that Hoots would tell the team to sit back, surely this is a tactic to employ later in a game. Whatever the reason for our tendency to drop back in the second half, it needs to be fixed!

[Scooby 0]

Agreed. Whatever happened to ''attack is the best form of defence''. One more goal, 2-0 up, and the game was ours.