Hughton/Holt

[Mr Jenkins 0]

The Michu situation is an interesting one, he was pretty much a mid field player, who scored goals, when he went to Swansea and they promoted him to.a striker. The chances of another gem like him appearing, particularly in those circumstances is highly unlikely. I think we will look to Europe however, and hopefully will find a player or two that will fit into our set up.

Are European leagues getting a similar uplift to the Prem next season with a lot more money going to the clubs, I imagine this is just a PL situation but presumably other European leagues also renegotiate or have renewed media contracts which will give them increased revenue from time to time. It could be that for one season at least PL clubs such as Norwich who rely on our PL income so much may be better off than mid table European teams and better able to land contracts with European players.

[nutty nigel 7,526]

[quote user="Firedawg"]Just to play ''Devil''s advocate'' could you handle playing like Stoke very week for guaranteed Premier league status rather than ''Lambert''s gung ho style football with all the risk it entails ? I could not stomach it personally ![/quote]

 

That''s another good point. Although of course we don''t play anything like the way Stoke do. I can live with us playing the way we do now. Supporting Norwich in the premier league is not like the old first division or the championship. The outcome can be predicted within a few places for all the clubs with a very few exceptions. One of the exceptions being us last season. Norwich will do what they have to do to survive in the knowledge that they have no chance of being anything better than mid-table.

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

So we are marginally more entertaining than Stoke, can anybody think of any of the other 18 teams in the league who are less entertaining? QPR perhaps.

Stoke scored twice at Old Trafford, I''d argue that they are the only team with a more defensive set up than us, and we''ve only scored 1 more goal than them.

[Bill 1,788]

"and football is entertainment first for fans"

 

Yes, if you recognise that the entertainment comes from success, not how it is achieved. You won''t see a successful club without a bigger following than before, and however ''well'' a team plays if the sucees is not there the following drifts away.

 

The problem we have is at the moment that we seem to be getting the worst of both. The football is not so much dull, as it has little promise of excitement. Excellent saves, goal line clearances are exciting but lose their shine when it is always our goal they feature in.

 

However we put it, there is an understanding amongst many fans that we are being too cautious, too safe or whatever way you like to describe it when we may not need to. The Everton game showed what can be achieved if you take the game to the opponents. Yesterdays game showed what will happen if you sit back and try to defend hoping that something can be grabbed from a set piece.

 

We should be looking forward to the next game wondering how many we might score, not whether we might score, or not.

 

The difference might be in whether we have a coach or a manager in charge.

 

 

 

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Comparing us to Stoke is misleading and provocative.

Having played in Italy, what''s we are doing is "shutting games down", ensuring as far as possible that the game is played in non-threatening areas. We are filling the spaces between the lines and ensuring that angles are covered. We concede space to non-threatening areas that the opposition occupy and Marshall the formation so that the least effective players on the opposition have the maximim amount of possession. We often overload when the converse is true and presure well in numbers on higher tariff threatening players.

It is inaccurate to compare this to long ball football (or as a corollary to imply that it is any way outdated).

[nutty nigel 7,526]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]So we are marginally more entertaining than Stoke, can anybody think of any of the other 18 teams in the league who are less entertaining? QPR perhaps. Stoke scored twice at Old Trafford, I''d argue that they are the only team with a more defensive set up than us, and we''ve only scored 1 more goal than them.[/quote]

 

Now that''s not a fact is it? Some people find Stoke entertaining however most of their oppositions fans don''t. Some on here would definitely prefer a long ball game because the ball would be in the penalty box a lot more. For me the way we play is a country mile better than Stoke but I can appreciate others who would prefer the more direct approach. I guess lambert was a kind of halfway house between us and Stoke.

 

I will go back to that goal against Sunderland once again. because there was a goal at the end of it all those sideways and backwards passes were part of a glorious team goal. Howevber if there had been no goal at the end of it then it would have been boring. As it was there were fans getting irate imploring us to "get it forward". For most I would suggest the result is the be all and end all and any football that doesn''t have the club in forward momentum is boring. Unfortunately there''s not much forward momentum to be had from where we are.

 

 

[Rolf Harris 31]

[quote user="canarygirl"]The Michu situation is an interesting one, he was pretty much a mid field player, who scored goals, when he went to Swansea and they promoted him to.a striker. The chances of another gem like him appearing, particularly in those circumstances is highly unlikely. I think we will look to Europe however, and hopefully will find a player or two that will fit into our set up.

Are European leagues getting a similar uplift to the Prem next season with a lot more money going to the clubs, I imagine this is just a PL situation but presumably other European leagues also renegotiate or have renewed media contracts which will give them increased revenue from time to time. It could be that for one season at least PL clubs such as Norwich who rely on our PL income so much may be better off than mid table European teams and better able to land contracts with European players.[/quote]Michu is a false number 9, the new/current Spanish striker position playing a 433 formation.

[nutty nigel 7,526]

False number 9. Now there''s a thing.

 

That reminds me. Her indoors forgot my Steradent this week....

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

"Comparing us to Stoke is misleading and provocative"

Only to those who fail to realise that Stoke often play quite attractive football and have been taking clear steps to attempt to become a better footballing team. Charlie Adam is a good ball playing center midfielder who is a better passer of the ball than any of our center midfielders, even Fox. Michael Owen is a player who likes the ball on the floor.

"Having played in Italy, what''s we are doing is "shutting games down""

Where''s your wikipedia entry? And are you Javier Garrido?

"ensuring as far as possible that the game is played in non-threatening areas. We are filling the spaces between the lines and ensuring that angles are covered"

Stoke do this better than we do, 33 goals conceded this year, Stoke are the masters at this.... so please don''t attempt to profess some sort of superior football knowledge, this is precisely what Stoke do.

"the least effective players on the opposition have the maximim amount of possession"

And quite clearly that has worked fantastically against Rooney and Suarez this year? You are hardly selling this to me. You are arguing that we aren''t a Stoke, and then saying that our tactics effectively amount to doubling up on the best players on the pitch. I know what we do defensively, what do we do offensively?

"We often overload when the converse is true and presure well in numbers on higher tariff threatening players"

Higher tarriff? We are talking about football here not economics. What the hell is a higher tariff footballer? The opposite to Michael Owen I assume, who is pay as you go. Stoke also use this exact same defensive tactic.

"It is inaccurate to compare this to long ball football (or as a corollary to imply that it is any way outdated)"

And it is inaccurate to label Stoke''s style of football as "long ball". It would be more accurate to imply that they like putting the ball in the air and fighting in aerial challenges, much of their game evolves around set pieces. I hate to break it to you, but playing balls up to Holt for him to win a set piece is a huge part of our game too. Four of our goals have been direct free-kicks this year..... Holt and Snodgrass looking for free kicks in dangerous areas is clearly on our agenda every single week. We are at our most threatening when we have Turner, Bassong, and Holt in the box. Most of our goals seem to come from set-pieces, including Kamara''s last week.

[Rolf Harris 31]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

False number 9. Now there''s a thing.

 

That reminds me. Her indoors forgot my Steradent this week....

 

 

[/quote]He use to play inside forward for Rayo.

[Not Nigel 0]

Nigel,

"Now that''s not a fact is it?"

Of course not, it is highly subjective, but Norwich fans are getting a bit bored to. Stoke fans are bored to death because they have had five years of boring football, we''ve only had 7 months of this and people are already beginning to get frustrated.

"Some people find Stoke entertaining however most of their oppositions fans don''t"

Didn''t mind our home fixture with them last year, it was a very tough one. I don''t want long ball, but in fairness we already do resort to long balls to the lone striker a fair bit.

"Unfortunately there''s not much forward momentum to be had from where we are"

I''m pretty certain that we could get to the point where we are playing attacking football at home to teams around or below us in the league. Fulham and Newcastle at home were horrible to see for me, playing 4-5-1 with two defensive midfielders at home to two teams that we both off form and definitely beatable. I fully accept 4-5-1 against strong teams at home, but both Fulham and Newcastle were given far too much respect. I just hope that Hughton invests in attacking players and feels able to be a little more expressive in games like that next season.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

SUCR. Please refer to previous posts for current playing methodology and reasons for it.

[Not Nigel 0]

Forget all that, I just want to know who you played for in Italy.... Are you Arturo Lupoli? How many guesses do I get?

[Lavanche 0]

first of all it is 4-2-3-1. We have offensive middlefielder and our wingers play in offensive role and have right to cut middle. It would be 4-5-1 if they would stay wide and would try to play about the level of our center middlefielders when we are attacking.

So please dont try to make it look worse than it is. Second thing is that it is not the formations fault that we sit deep when defending. Again all big teams that rely either fast counter attacks or short passing modern football use similar formation with us.

So when we playe 4-2-3-1 against some one it doesnt mean we are defending.

I personaly prefer the style we are playing at the moment when we get bodies forward. Quick passes to move our formation up and either we try to play good crossing opportunity or get a shot.

Build up can look dull as it means lot of passing back to get our people on the right areas and when opponents closing up works well we wont get anywhere as we lack pace and 1 vs 1 talents and our deep middlefielders are not that good with ball.

If Barcelona wouldnt make so many goals, would you consider their style dull? Or Spain? As they wont shot far, they wont give up the ball and they make a lot backpasses.

Our level is nowhere near those two teams, but Hughtons approach is similar when we attack.

I''m quite sure if we would have had Lambo this season, we would have gone down. We tried few first games to take the game to opponents half and it didnt work. Southampton who arguably has better players for attack are still under threat to drop down.

And as that said I agree that we are many times too cautious and slow, but many times it is the opponent who makes us look that way.

Another thing that bothers me against bigger teams is that we broke down so easily after we try to take the game to them after first goal. I think the problem lies in our middlefielders and fullbacks, but then again I''m only armchair manager.

I still see what Hughton is trying to do and as that is something that modern teams do and specially for bittish players it can be hard to teach as junior coaching is what it is in england I have to respect his approach. That us something that carries fruit in future and it will keep us in in premiership it seems.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Che, Michu was an attacking mid field player and now he plays as a striker for Swansea, that''s my understanding anyway!

[Not Nigel 0]

17 posts since 2003, claims to have played in Italy. Too old to be Lupoli.

Gaetano Giallanza was half-Italian and was here between 2000 and 2002, but he never played in Italy.

[nutty nigel 7,526]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]Nigel, "Now that''s not a fact is it?" Of course not, it is highly subjective, but Norwich fans are getting a bit bored to. Stoke fans are bored to death because they have had five years of boring football, we''ve only had 7 months of this and people are already beginning to get frustrated. "Some people find Stoke entertaining however most of their oppositions fans don''t" Didn''t mind our home fixture with them last year, it was a very tough one. I don''t want long ball, but in fairness we already do resort to long balls to the lone striker a fair bit. "Unfortunately there''s not much forward momentum to be had from where we are" I''m pretty certain that we could get to the point where we are playing attacking football at home to teams around or below us in the league. Fulham and Newcastle at home were horrible to see for me, playing 4-5-1 with two defensive midfielders at home to two teams that we both off form and definitely beatable. I fully accept 4-5-1 against strong teams at home, but both Fulham and Newcastle were given far too much respect. I just hope that Hughton invests in attacking players and feels able to be a little more expressive in games like that next season.[/quote]

 

I think you give Fulham too little respect. Possibly Newcastle too. I see my mate Worthy''s got a thread on here now. He didn''t pay much respect to Fulham either. He was far more disliked than Hughton and yet his philosophy was much the same as being asked for now. Whatever you say about how teams are set up and what you''d like to see the deciding factor is always winning. This place would be in meltdown if we played like we did under Worthy with Hucks in 2004/5.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,526]

Oh. And I''ve played in Spain, Turkey and America..

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

"This place would be in meltdown if we played like we did under Worthy with Hucks in 2004/5"

Worthington did what he could with a very limited budget that season, we came up with a better team this time around in my opinion.

[Rolf Harris 31]

[quote user="canarygirl"]Che, Michu was an attacking mid field player and now he plays as a striker for Swansea, that''s my understanding anyway![/quote]did you watch la liga?

[Rolf Harris 31]

They''d play a 4231 formation, so he''d would of played in the same spot as Wes but instead of playing attacking midfield/advance play maker he''d play inside forward. He then went to Swansea to play the same formation but behind Danny Graham but Laudrup decided that he''d play better in a 4213 playing as a false number 9 like Barcelona and the Spain national squad, so he now basically plays the Messi role for barce. Michu has Routledge and Hernandez either side of him with De Guzman behind, so basically Swansea has 4 attacking players up top with one defensive mid and procession/passing type player behind them and above the back four.