Hoolahan.

[Rolf Harris 33]

[quote user="Crispy"]It was more the formation change than the loss of Hoolahan last night.

We went 442 and suddenly our players looked uncomfortable and the opposition has so much space in the midfield.

Had Howson or Butterfield played in Hoolahans position and same changes been made at half time the same situation would have occurred.[/quote]Hughton went for a defensive 442, you notice the full back no longer came up to support. Subsequently we conceded 2.

[Six Pack 105]

[quote user="Crispy"]It was more the formation change than the loss of Hoolahan last night.

We went 442 and suddenly our players looked uncomfortable and the opposition has so much space in the midfield.

Had Howson or Butterfield played in Hoolahans position and same changes been made at half time the same situation would have occurred.[/quote]

Yes - we did revert back to 4-4-1-1 afterwards

and Yes - Howson & Butterfield were on the pitch

and Yes - your analytical skills are questionable

[Rolf Harris 33]

If notice Howson had to stay around the half way line. Hughton wanted Tettey to push up further, don''t know why though would rather of been the other way round.

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]Maybe we don''t need a SS/AM? How about a midfield three of (R to L) Butterfield-Fer-Howson?; all clever players that are good at going forward but can do the defensive stuff as well.[/quote]

 

I think that would work fine. A lot of the time. But in tems of strikers it would leave us with only Hooper and RVW, and the sense from last night (I didn''t watch) is that they won''t easily play together. Plus Becchio, who isn''t Premier League standard and in any event doesn''t frighten defenders. He plays best with his back to goal, linking up play - an upgraded Wilbrahamovic. He won''t physically bully defenders, attacking them in the way that Holt did in 2011-12 but didn''t last season.There is an argument that English football is getting more sophisticated, and moving away from that type of player. A good thing. But it would be a brave manager who didn''t have that option available. Hence, I imagine, the bid for Toivonen, who would be perfect, since he wouldn''t be taking up a squad place as someone who is only a striker.

[Yelloow Since 72 56]

CH has mentioned the possibility of Fer playing further forward so it could happen. I don''t think 20 minutes is enough to judge Hooper and RvW playing together. I doubt it would be a standard 4-4-2 in any case. More like the 4-4-1-1 that Celtic played with Hooper and Stokes, perhaps, with the front two switching around to create more fluidity and confuse the opposing defence.

[pilksfanclub 0]

I think Wes isn''t getting an upgrade but Fer, Howson and even Hooper will play that role if Wes isn''t. It would explain why Fox is still here as it would mean there is a realistic chance of him getting minutes

[Crispy 4]

[quote user="Six Pack"][quote user="Crispy"]It was more the formation change than the loss of Hoolahan last night.

We went 442 and suddenly our players looked uncomfortable and the opposition has so much space in the midfield.

Had Howson or Butterfield played in Hoolahans position and same changes been made at half time the same situation would have occurred.[/quote]

Yes - we did revert back to 4-4-1-1 afterwards

and Yes - Howson & Butterfield were on the pitch

and Yes - your analytical skills are questionable[/quote]I like how you question my analytical skills implying Howson & Butterfield were on the pitch when the goals were being conceded. Neither were on the pitch when their first went in and when the 2nd goal went in Butterfield had been on for seconds. I stand by my comments. Hoots formation changes were our demise yesterday not the players. Hoots started with his tried and tested formation the first half that has worked most of last season for us and when he tinkered with it in the second half we fell apart. 442 or arguably 4411 does not work with 2 players that want to be playing at the tip.It has to be either RVW or Hooper with Hoots standard 4 - 5 - 1. Obviously I can''t prove it but I honestly believe you could have swapped Hoolahan for Howson & Hooper for RVW and we still would have bossed the first half. It''s obviously the formation Hoots has drilled into the players and knows how to execute.Hoolahan is a great player but I do not believe yesterday was an example of his importance but more of how Hoots really only has 1 formation up his sleeve.The only time I can remember Hoots changing tactics in a game to good effect last year was KK vs Everton and I would argue that the tactics didn''t change the game but purely KK''s hunger.Maybe I am wrong but I do watch allot of football as a sports media professional and have the ability to watch Norwich quite subjectively.

[LinkNR9 0]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]Re the earlier suggestion about Butterfield, he is simply not good enough to replace Wes. Having watched a number of the pre-season games, Butterfield looks Championship level at best.[/quote]Wow, sack him now.By the same rules, how do you think we, as a team will do in the Premier League considering weve been beat by 2 MLS sides and a pub team?[/quote]

Perhaps I should have added "As well as every game Butterfield has played for us at Carrow Road", but I assumed that was obvious. 

He''s been very average for us and he has not improved in the pre-season games; it''s my guess that I won''t have to "sack him", I think he''ll be shown the door again in a few weeks'' time, either another loan or permanently. 

As for the team, the OP was right in my opinion, we could struggle if we don''t have someone who can stand in for Wes.    

[/quote]So your basing it on 2 League Cup games and 3 Pre-season games? A young lad who has come with bags of potential after a long and serious injury? Glad your not involved in player development. Also,  I guess your giving RVW9 2 more games aswell?

We hardly set up our team around Wes last year and did fine.[/quote]

You''re right, of course. Many apologies for having an opinion (should know better as an ex semi-pro player). I promise not to post such uninformed trash again.

[hogesar 10,536]

You won''t find an exact replacement for Hoolahan.

Because i doubt there is one.

He is a `special` player.

He has faults which stops him from being one of the best AM''s in the Premiership, but you can''t discount his worth in a team.

He''s quite unique, he''s very one-footed, but when he''s in the team, there''s a sense that the cohesion is up another level.

[CDMullins 490]

[quote user="LinkNR9"][quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]Re the earlier suggestion about Butterfield, he is simply not good enough to replace Wes. Having watched a number of the pre-season games, Butterfield looks Championship level at best.[/quote]Wow, sack him now.By the same rules, how do you think we, as a team will do in the Premier League considering weve been beat by 2 MLS sides and a pub team?[/quote]

Perhaps I should have added "As well as every game Butterfield has played for us at Carrow Road", but I assumed that was obvious. 

He''s been very average for us and he has not improved in the pre-season games; it''s my guess that I won''t have to "sack him", I think he''ll be shown the door again in a few weeks'' time, either another loan or permanently. 

As for the team, the OP was right in my opinion, we could struggle if we don''t have someone who can stand in for Wes.    

[/quote]So your basing it on 2 League Cup games and 3 Pre-season games? A young lad who has come with bags of potential after a long and serious injury? Glad your not involved in player development. Also,  I guess your giving RVW9 2 more games aswell?

We hardly set up our team around Wes last year and did fine.[/quote]

You''re right, of course. Many apologies for having an opinion (should know better as an ex semi-pro player). I promise not to post such uninformed trash again.[/quote]I know im right, if you think you can base an opinion on a player on 5 non-comeptitive games, you clearly should know better.Oh and for the record, I spent my youth at Leeds United, Coventry City, York City and Halifax Town, I am a qualified referee, have a UEFA B coaching licence and played semi pro.

[Nuff Said 5,868]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"][quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]Re the earlier suggestion about Butterfield, he is simply not good enough to replace Wes. Having watched a number of the pre-season games, Butterfield looks Championship level at best.[/quote]Wow, sack him now.By the same rules, how do you think we, as a team will do in the Premier League considering weve been beat by 2 MLS sides and a pub team?[/quote]

Perhaps I should have added "As well as every game Butterfield has played for us at Carrow Road", but I assumed that was obvious. 

He''s been very average for us and he has not improved in the pre-season games; it''s my guess that I won''t have to "sack him", I think he''ll be shown the door again in a few weeks'' time, either another loan or permanently. 

As for the team, the OP was right in my opinion, we could struggle if we don''t have someone who can stand in for Wes.    

[/quote]So your basing it on 2 League Cup games and 3 Pre-season games? A young lad who has come with bags of potential after a long and serious injury? Glad your not involved in player development. Also,  I guess your giving RVW9 2 more games aswell?

We hardly set up our team around Wes last year and did fine.[/quote]

You''re right, of course. Many apologies for having an opinion (should know better as an ex semi-pro player). I promise not to post such uninformed trash again.[/quote]I know im right, if you think you can base an opinion on a player on 5 non-comeptitive games, you clearly should know better.Oh and for the record, I spent my youth at Leeds United, Coventry City, York City and Halifax Town, I am a qualified referee, have a UEFA B coaching licence and played semi pro.[/quote]

Binners

[LinkNR9 0]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"][quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]Re the earlier suggestion about Butterfield, he is simply not good enough to replace Wes. Having watched a number of the pre-season games, Butterfield looks Championship level at best.[/quote]Wow, sack him now.By the same rules, how do you think we, as a team will do in the Premier League considering weve been beat by 2 MLS sides and a pub team?[/quote]

Perhaps I should have added "As well as every game Butterfield has played for us at Carrow Road", but I assumed that was obvious. 

He''s been very average for us and he has not improved in the pre-season games; it''s my guess that I won''t have to "sack him", I think he''ll be shown the door again in a few weeks'' time, either another loan or permanently. 

As for the team, the OP was right in my opinion, we could struggle if we don''t have someone who can stand in for Wes.    

[/quote]So your basing it on 2 League Cup games and 3 Pre-season games? A young lad who has come with bags of potential after a long and serious injury? Glad your not involved in player development. Also,  I guess your giving RVW9 2 more games aswell?

We hardly set up our team around Wes last year and did fine.[/quote]

You''re right, of course. Many apologies for having an opinion (should know better as an ex semi-pro player). I promise not to post such uninformed trash again.[/quote]I know im right, if you think you can base an opinion on a player on 5 non-comeptitive games, you clearly should know better.Oh and for the record, I spent my youth at Leeds United, Coventry City, York City and Halifax Town, I am a qualified referee, have a UEFA B coaching licence and played semi pro.[/quote]

So we''re now both NCFC fans who have differing opinions. End of.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Wes is a player who attracts all kind of polar opposites of opinions. I have mixed views about his worth to the team. There was a spell where he just didn''t do anything but run around in ever decreasing circles, just trying to hold on to the ball, instead of one touch and pass, which is sometimes required. There were other times when he just disappeared from games. Other times where he wasn''t quite on his game and his control would let him down and we would lose possession too easily. Generalisations, yes, but having said all that, he does seem to have developed from where he used to be and more recently - especially under Hughton - he seems more consistent and effective in what he does.

He still has a role imo and with better players around him, may well flourish even more this season. It does depend on if anyone else is brought in too. So still an important player for us, but if we get Quagrophenia, or similar, his chances may be limited.

[/quote]

I am sure Hughton playing him on the wing helped his development!

[nutty nigel 7,870]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"][quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]Re the earlier suggestion about Butterfield, he is simply not good enough to replace Wes. Having watched a number of the pre-season games, Butterfield looks Championship level at best.[/quote]

Wow, sack him now.

By the same rules, how do you think we, as a team will do in the Premier League considering weve been beat by 2 MLS sides and a pub team?
[/quote]

Perhaps I should have added "As well as every game Butterfield has played for us at Carrow Road", but I assumed that was obvious. 

He''s been very average for us and he has not improved in the pre-season games; it''s my guess that I won''t have to "sack him", I think he''ll be shown the door again in a few weeks'' time, either another loan or permanently. 

As for the team, the OP was right in my opinion, we could struggle if we don''t have someone who can stand in for Wes.    

[/quote]

So your basing it on 2 League Cup games and 3 Pre-season games?

A young lad who has come with bags of potential after a long and serious injury?

Glad your not involved in player development. Also,  I guess your giving RVW9 2 more games aswell?


We hardly set up our team around Wes last year and did fine.
[/quote] You''re right, of course. Many apologies for having an opinion (should know better as an ex semi-pro player). I promise not to post such uninformed trash again.[/quote]

I know im right, if you think you can base an opinion on a player on 5 non-comeptitive games, you clearly should know better.

Oh and for the record, I spent my youth at Leeds United, Coventry City, York City and Halifax Town, I am a qualified referee, have a UEFA B coaching licence and played semi pro.
[/quote]

 

I used to call bingo and clean bogs.....

 

For the record[;)]

 

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"][quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LinkNR9"]Re the earlier suggestion about Butterfield, he is simply not good enough to replace Wes. Having watched a number of the pre-season games, Butterfield looks Championship level at best.[/quote]Wow, sack him now.By the same rules, how do you think we, as a team will do in the Premier League considering weve been beat by 2 MLS sides and a pub team?[/quote]

Perhaps I should have added "As well as every game Butterfield has played for us at Carrow Road", but I assumed that was obvious. 

He''s been very average for us and he has not improved in the pre-season games; it''s my guess that I won''t have to "sack him", I think he''ll be shown the door again in a few weeks'' time, either another loan or permanently. 

As for the team, the OP was right in my opinion, we could struggle if we don''t have someone who can stand in for Wes.    

[/quote]So your basing it on 2 League Cup games and 3 Pre-season games? A young lad who has come with bags of potential after a long and serious injury? Glad your not involved in player development. Also,  I guess your giving RVW9 2 more games aswell?

We hardly set up our team around Wes last year and did fine.[/quote]

You''re right, of course. Many apologies for having an opinion (should know better as an ex semi-pro player). I promise not to post such uninformed trash again.[/quote]I know im right, if you think you can base an opinion on a player on 5 non-comeptitive games, you clearly should know better.Oh and for the record, I spent my youth at Leeds United, Coventry City, York City and Halifax Town, I am a qualified referee, have a UEFA B coaching licence and played semi pro.[/quote]My dick''s bigger than yours, and my Dad could beat up your Dad.

[Alan_Grey 0]

I played two games for the South Harford Middle School year 7 ''C'' team.

Considering there were 30 or so boys in the year, being in the C team should tell you how crap I was.

[Six Pack 105]

[quote user="Crispy"][quote user="Six Pack"][quote user="Crispy"]It was more the formation change than the loss of Hoolahan last night.

We went 442 and suddenly our players looked uncomfortable and the opposition has so much space in the midfield.

Had Howson or Butterfield played in Hoolahans position and same changes been made at half time the same situation would have occurred.[/quote]

Yes - we did revert back to 4-4-1-1 afterwards

and Yes - Howson & Butterfield were on the pitch

and Yes - your analytical skills are questionable[/quote]I like how you question my analytical skills implying Howson & Butterfield were on the pitch when the goals were being conceded. Neither were on the pitch when their first went in and when the 2nd goal went in Butterfield had been on for seconds. I stand by my comments. Hoots formation changes were our demise yesterday not the players. Hoots started with his tried and tested formation the first half that has worked most of last season for us and when he tinkered with it in the second half we fell apart. 442 or arguably 4411 does not work with 2 players that want to be playing at the tip.It has to be either RVW or Hooper with Hoots standard 4 - 5 - 1. Obviously I can''t prove it but I honestly believe you could have swapped Hoolahan for Howson & Hooper for RVW and we still would have bossed the first half. It''s obviously the formation Hoots has drilled into the players and knows how to execute.Hoolahan is a great player but I do not believe yesterday was an example of his importance but more of how Hoots really only has 1 formation up his sleeve.The only time I can remember Hoots changing tactics in a game to good effect last year was KK vs Everton and I would argue that the tactics didn''t change the game but purely KK''s hunger.Maybe I am wrong but I do watch allot of football as a sports media professional and have the ability to watch Norwich quite subjectively.

[/quote]

Crispy, I wasn''t talking about the goals conceded at all. Your original post suggest Hoolahan should not be given any credit for the way we played. It was the formation that enabled us to achieve the performance in the 1st half.

I''m merely stating that in the 2nd half Hughton started with 4-4-2 then reverted back to one striker via substitutions. But this did not allow us to gain our early dominance in the game. Howson & Butterfield did play that 2nd half. I have nothing against Howson ( who is a central midfielder) or Butterfield - quite happy with them in fact and not criticising them,

People will always want to see more directness from our players but the facts are - Hoolahan is not direct but he is an absolute match winner for this club !

So give credit where credit is due.

Crispy, I feel honoured to be sharing this forum with knowledgeable professionals such as yourself but your dismissal of Hoolahan''s contribution just does not wash !

[Six Pack 105]

CD Mullins said: We hardly set up our team around Wes last year and did fine

?????????

I recall we were up against the ropes after about 6 games - no wins. Hughton afraid to use Hoolahan due to his size but was forced to bring him back.

We went on that "10 game" run that more-or-less confirmed our premiership status. Hoolahan started 28 games last season. His introduction to the team (like the season before) was a key to turning our season around.

As Hughton would say "hes a big player for us"

Yes we did do fine but it was Hoolahan again

[KeelansGlove 0]

Still think we will score very few goals if we continue to play wes In that position

[Lavanche 0]

Well I would bet we will score fewer goals, if we dont play him there and use two strikers.

[The Great Wall Of Tettey 0]

[quote user="Lavanche"]Well I would bet we will score fewer goals, if we dont play him there and use two strikers.[/quote]

Hoolahan isn''t as creative as everybody thinks.

Bassong scored and assisted as many as hoolahan last season. A player in hoolahans position needs to be scoring more than 7/8 a season and creating as many, and he isn''t getting anywhere near those figures.

I hope we sign a 4th striker and 442 is the way forward in my eyes. Also can''t see hughton paying all that money when he''s only playing 1 striker

[Downloads 35]

God lets hope not, any formation but 442.

 

I swear some people haven''t been watching us play this formation and without fail we are sh1te at it.

 

Having world class strikers wouldn''t guarantee you more goals if you don''t have much of the ball in the first place.

 

Also, FYI, being creative doesn''t mean scoring and assisting.

[Joanna Grey 0]

Downloads wrote - "Also, FYI, being creative doesn''t mean scoring and assisting."

You''re right, Wes was involved in a lot of "assist to an assist" type moves last season as well as holding the ball to allow our other forward players time to catch up. We have new players now that are more likely to be in the right positions earlier and who will benefit from a quick pass rather than a slow, measured build up.

[Downloads 35]

Okay, i''ll try to break it down Vaughany.

 

We have a striker running the line looking for a through ball. Hoolahan passes the ball between the left back and the central defender for Hooper to run onto, the pass is to the right-hand side of the goal and Hooper isn''t convinced he can score with the angle so Hooper cuts it back for Pilkington to score.

 

Is what Hoolahan does creative?

 

In my opinion a through ball or ''slide rule pass'' takes far more creativity than cutting the ball back as the weight of pass is far harder to get right - Which is why there aren''t many players who do this with regularity.

[ReadingCanary 0]

Does anyone actually know any teams in the Prem which play 4 4 2 ?Not having a go, I''m just generally interested.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,411]

[quote user="ReadingCanary"]Does anyone actually know any teams in the Prem which play 4 4 2 ?Not having a go, I''m just generally interested.

[/quote]

Reading and QPR did last season, which was a massive success for both teams.

I think the Braga game showed what happens when Norwich try to play 4-4-2.

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="ReadingCanary"]Does anyone actually know any teams in the Prem which play 4 4 2 ?Not having a go, I''m just generally interested.

[/quote]

Reading and QPR did last season, which was a massive success for both teams.

I think the Braga game showed what happens when Norwich try to play 4-4-2.

[/quote]

 

I think there were some other factors in why they were so hopeless, Bethnal, but point taken...

[Rolf Harris 33]

We played a defensive 442, Hughton did not use his wingers and full backs properly.

[ZLF 333]

our results last season give the strongest evidence of whether 442 works for us or not; unequivocally it did not - with our most insipid performances coming in that shape. Our 5 man midfield was struggled to often and did not have the passing ability to retain possession to dominate even periods of games in 4-5-1 - so our 4 man midfield was simply a non starter.

a 5 man midfield is not negative - was long as we can win the ball back & can pass accurately from deep and have some pace - we have solved the pace - but have we the former?

as someone else pointed out - we were clueless as an attacking force until wes was recalled. whether with fer and redmond he will remain as pivotal is hard to assess, but he remains head and shoulders above what was the existing squad.

[smooth 114]

Last year we could see we wanted to share the load with pilky picking up some of the weight and then snoddy. For me snoddy was the player we went through for most of the season, yes hoops did have a lot go through him. But I did not think he was ever a headline writer, dictated the whole game or was pivotal,he was to us but not in the whole game. Again if he was available who would want him, are there teams built to have a player like hoops, personally his value is here but I do think fabio can be a better starter for the whole season.