The logic of Hughton's approach

[Lavanche 0]

I personaly hope Hughton doesnt become too obsessed to use "new signings" as Elmander and Redmond both have quite many weaknesses in their game.

In my opinion Hughton''s greatest flaw is that he doesnt mix things up at all when they are working for a few games.

Elmander might be a good option for some teams, but as said in starting post posession is quite big asset in modern football and Elmander always brings the long ball option "too easy to try" and he doesnt drop down enough to be a pure 10 which will make us suffer like against Tottenham.

Redmond otherwise will be always good option if we get our passing somewhat working, but when we are without the ball he is almost useless, if he doesnt have the freedom to roam near centre of the pitch waiting for a counter and that is quite much asked from a Garrido or Olsson to defend alone in this level. I wouldnt also play him in the middle in free role as he still needs to know when to dribble and when to release.

In my opinion we still lack playmaker and that is one of the reason why Hoolahan always make us look a bit better even thought he wouldnt do much on the field and as Purple said we are still playing like we would have intelligent passer in 10 spot with Elmander and that is something we need to fix.

I personaly would prefer that we would continue using Hoolahan at least against the sides we know midfield is under pressure or even go for pure 4-3-3 with Pilkington and Redmond on the field at same time and Howson + Fer handling the ball with Tettey or Johnson taking most of defensive responbilities, but it seems Hughton prefers it otherwise ^^

I just feel Elmander doesnt have enough creativity in him to carry us forward and I know for sure Hooper doesnt offer anything more except mayby a bit more pace, but with loss of target player.

But Hughton is the manager and I trust he will find the balance between strenght and creativity. Fact is that when we dont get our passing rhytm work, we will always look like lesser side and in my opinion we dont find any answers from using 3 players in the middle of the pack who are more familiar with brute strenght than creativity.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Good post Lavanche

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,246]

Lv point re Elmander is well noted. English football is characterised by the identification of danger - particularly in defensive areas - a half second before it is truly there (as an Italian defender et al would view it).

As you correctly observe, in Norwich terms thus tendency is exacerbated by the presence of an easy "out ball" (currently to Elmander) that does not evoke ire from stands or manager, but equally does nothing to build pattern of play if retain possession. Ironically (and I am not advocating a return) Holt was particularly good at making such clumsy balls into something more productive, as he was well able to retain possession from such limited balls and win cheap free kicks. That this was so does not make it a good, viable strategy for the current squad or Premier League generally.

As identified we must find a constructive way to link midfield and attack, which Hoolahan does indeed offer the best option for doing, though the lack of pace throughout the side, when coupled with our desired counter-punching style, make him a blunt weapon that can often be sidetracked as he will not go beyond RVW or shoot from worked openings. Fer should not play the 10 role, leaving Redmobd as the current least worst option. Minimising - as you rightly note - his rather weak positional sense. He would at least ensure (possible ) penetration beyond RVW and a stretching of the distance between opposition defence and midfield, potentially mitigating somewhat against the kind of oppressive dominance suffered vs Spurs.

[ron obvious 1,517]

Fantastic thread this with some of my favourite posters on it.

PHgm, don''t you think it might be worth persevering with Wes a little more though? I believe he is still the one player we have capable of unlocking the tightest of defences. He has upped his game so much as well since he arrived - chasing back & harrying defenders, far less going round in ever-decreasing circles & trying to beat the same man 5 times for example - that Hughton might be able to squeeze that little bit more out of him in the areas you suggest. He can do it; I''ve even seen him score with his right foot! (And his head!).

Redmond could easily develop into something phenomenal for us, but I think, for this season at least, Wes remains our best chance as a game changer.

[Yellowfuture 71]

PHGM

"Fer should not play the 10 role, leaving Redmond as the current least worst option. Minimising - as you rightly note - his rather weak positional sense. He would at least ensure (possible ) penetration beyond RVW and a stretching of the distance between opposition defence and midfield, potentially mitigating somewhat against the kind of oppressive dominance suffered vs Spurs. "

Good to read your posts on this, the prospect of Redmond playing 10 does cunjour up exciting attacking images, there is of course also a role for a 10 to drop back and assist a midfield from time to time when it is struggling, not sure if he has this in his game at the moment but I appreciate you did say this was the least worse option.

I was interested in your dismissal of Fer in the 10 role. He obviously had a very good game playing a deeper role against Southampton, but he is a very gifted player and did play just behind the striker on occasions for Feyenoord, not recently I accept, but none the less he may be worth a try. Also of course his ability to drop back when we are under pressure would also help in situations like we found ourselves in last Saturday. Maybe an option away from home?

[Canary Poirot 1]

I take issue with the current approach made by Hughton in terms of the tactical set up of our team at the moment. I feel he, like many managers at the top of football in England at the moment have lazily fallen into a pattern of following the current fashion of received wisdom - that is playing the 4-2-3-1 formation come rain or shine, as it is the best line up for a top team.

 

Anyone watched England recently playing the 4-2-3-1 formation against Ukraine, groaning at the complete lack of ability to open up the opposition to create genuine chances? Now the problem to me, as it is for us, is the desire to fit players into this formation, regardless of the players'' individual strengths. England lack the individuals to play such a formation as it relies on having two or three genuine world class players with flair, guile and creativity. England simply don''t have players like that (instead having all out action players Gerrard, and goal scoring midfielders (Lambert). Nor do Norwich. Tottenham do. The 1998 French world cup winning team, where that formation came to prominence, certainly did (Zidane, Djokaoff, Henry, Trezaguet etc). I think it''s far better to approach setting up the team and formation to play to players'' strengths rather than rigidly trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

 

So where did it go wrong against Tottenham last Saturday. Many have moaned about that performance, but for me, aside from the obvious excellence of Spurs, I feel we would''ve played better had Hughton set the team up differently. It struck me that there was little point playing either Snodgrass or Redmond against Spurs at WHL as neither offered decent defensive cover and had zero support going forward. We needed a more energetic workman like midfield filled with defensive minded players sitting deep with a very narrow mindset (i.e. no out and out widemen/wingers). I would''ve played Elmander up top to win balls and hold up play and look to win set pieces - realistically our only chance.

 

Sometimes it is necessary to set up a team to nullify the opposition. Adaptation of formation and tactics, particularly away from home, will be critical if we are to stay up. Playing 4-2-3-1 come rain or shine will lead to a miserable return in terms of number of points won this season from away games. Against the weaker teams I''d like to see a more adventurous positive formation even away from home (4-1-2-1-2 narrow diamond). If we don''t see that, expect a lot of draws and a long hard slog of a season where we''ll be relying on Palace, Hull, and one other being worse than us.

[Jim Smith 2,365]

I agree with the suggestion of trying Redmond behind the striker in the role Elmander played on Saturday. I think he could cause a fair bit of havoc there whilst at the same time bringing Pilks back on the left would give us a bit more defensive solidity without compromising on the attacking threat.

I thought Elmander was awful in that role on Saturday and every time an attack went through him it slowed right down. I think he is more one for the targetman role if we need to mix things up and go long from time to time.

I think an advanced midfield 3 of Snoddy, Redmond and Pilks has a bit of everything you need and behind them we should play Fer with either Tettey or Howson.

The other change i would really like to see is Olsson given a chance at left back. His complete lack of action in the league has been a real mystery to me but i think a game like Saturday where we know Villa will almost certainly play with the pacey Agbonlahor and Weimann out wide in a 4-3-3 is the right game for him to come in. Not only does he have more pace to cope with these players but his attacking ability may force them on the back foot a bit more.

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

[quote user="Canary Poirot"]

I take issue with the current approach made by Hughton in terms of the tactical set up of our team at the moment. I feel he, like many managers at the top of football in England at the moment have lazily fallen into a pattern of following the current fashion of received wisdom - that is playing the 4-2-3-1 formation come rain or shine, as it is the best line up for a top team.

 

Anyone watched England recently playing the 4-2-3-1 formation against Ukraine, groaning at the complete lack of ability to open up the opposition to create genuine chances? Now the problem to me, as it is for us, is the desire to fit players into this formation, regardless of the players'' individual strengths. England lack the individuals to play such a formation as it relies on having two or three genuine world class players with flair, guile and creativity. England simply don''t have players like that (instead having all out action players Gerrard, and goal scoring midfielders (Lambert). Nor do Norwich. Tottenham do. The 1998 French world cup winning team, where that formation came to prominence, certainly did (Zidane, Djokaoff, Henry, Trezaguet etc). I think it''s far better to approach setting up the team and formation to play to players'' strengths rather than rigidly trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

 

So where did it go wrong against Tottenham last Saturday. Many have moaned about that performance, but for me, aside from the obvious excellence of Spurs, I feel we would''ve played better had Hughton set the team up differently. It struck me that there was little point playing either Snodgrass or Redmond against Spurs at WHL as neither offered decent defensive cover and had zero support going forward. We needed a more energetic workman like midfield filled with defensive minded players sitting deep with a very narrow mindset (i.e. no out and out widemen/wingers). I would''ve played Elmander up top to win balls and hold up play and look to win set pieces - realistically our only chance.

 

Sometimes it is necessary to set up a team to nullify the opposition. Adaptation of formation and tactics, particularly away from home, will be critical if we are to stay up. Playing 4-2-3-1 come rain or shine will lead to a miserable return in terms of number of points won this season from away games. Against the weaker teams I''d like to see a more adventurous positive formation even away from home (4-1-2-1-2 narrow diamond). If we don''t see that, expect a lot of draws and a long hard slog of a season where we''ll be relying on Palace, Hull, and one other being worse than us.

[/quote]

 

This is one of the weird aspects of the current debate. Hughton is being criticised for being too defensive-minded, yet the problem with the team he picked against Spurs was that it was too attacking. Howson as one of the two in central midfield and Elmander as this fish out of water link-player. No wonder Spurs dominated in midfield.As to whether Hughton is generally a defensive coach, perhaps he is (although one statistic from a small sample to throw into the mix is that 100 per cent of our goals this season have been in open play). But as Parma points out, solid defence allied to clever, well-timed attacks can be very effective (Arsenal at home last season). It is a sophisticated, rather un-English way to play.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

The only problem with that approach though Purple is that you''re relying on having an extremely high goal to chance conversion ratio playing that way.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

The only problem with that approach though Purple is that you''re relying on having an extremely high goal to chance conversion ratio playing that way.

 

 

[/quote]

 

That is true, NBS, (although whether this is actually what Hughton is trying to do is still a question!), But he has spent a great deal of money to acquire two pure goalscorers in RvW and Hooper.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,246]

The issue of the number 10 is not (necessarily) the identity of the number 10, but rather how and where possession is received.

In order to achieve an effective, repeated pattern of play that will create more opportunities for chances, whilst retaining our hard-earned defensive solidity and protection against fast-breaking midfield-dominated opposition, we need to take a more holistic approach to achieve more attacking opportunities.

It would be my view that Manager''s have an understandable tendency to be over- influenced by the position they played as players. In Norwich''s case I would suggest that the full backs are over- protected and required to cover over-obsessively for opposition breaks that might occur should we lose possession. I do not believe that they currently provide sufficient options to midfielders (even when they are unlikely to receive the ball). This does indeed retain our defensive shape, but very rarely troubles the shape inherent to a 4231.

It should be noted that the weakness of the 4231 is that the spearhead 9 is often isolated. The benefit is that the chosen 10 is a fluid midfielder that drops and forms the point of a centre 3 without the ball, forming an initial pyramid high up the pitch and preventing fast central penetration. Given this is true, 4 flat defenders are not required in possession (to protect against a single spearhead), indeed it is crucial that 2 1/2 of these players move into constructive "option" positions (again whether they expect to receive the ball or not). We do not often do this currently, restricting the options to our midfield players, who are in any case outnumbered.

Hence we begin to realise that we cannot just "play our own game", but must fully appreciate what our opponents are trying to achieve and how.

Due to limited options, space and numbers, and a desire to ensure no space tor the opposition exists for them to break into, we are likely to have a midfield far nearer to the defence than it is to the attack. Simply improving the number 10 would improve a little, due to a Quagliarella being capable of scoring from distance (say), but even this would not really ensure that we receive the ball higher up the pitch with more and better options available. This must be achieved by ensuring that the players with the most time when playing against a 4231 have the ability to maximise it. Thus a player such as Martin must play at centre back and must ensure that "danger" is kept in perspective and must have confidence in his technique and passing, so that neither his teammates or his manager feel the need to cover for him when he is in possession, in reading the numbers and options in midfield and moving the receipt of pass points higher up the field for all players. That this all starts from 4 year olds taking 1,000 touches an hour in a metre square and learning to manipulate the ball for fun in a tiny space (whether they end up as Russell Martin or RVW) is a whole other can of pomodori....

[peateabee 0]

[quote] user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"]The logic of the approach also necessitates that we do indeed "encourage" superior teams to attack us. It is identified that these are our best odds of success as we are focussing on the moment when these teams are out if shape and we can profit from turnover transitions. It should also be noted that we are "designed" this way and are therefore fully prepared for it. That is carries risks is clear, that it carries less risk than risking your own shape to attack superior sides that can exploit the scenario better than you is the calculation. In effect we are therefore always in shape. Teams will have to overcome our game plan to beat us . If they are better than us, they will. If they are equal or inferior to us (or better than us, but underperform), the logic will be that the worst we will do in any of those scenarios is a point. It is a strategy for relentless, repeatable accumulation of points.[/quote]

As you point out alot of the teams we are playing have a more talented squad, but it''s not as if we have a division 3 squad. In fact all the squads in the premier league are talented and thats partly the trouble. If you constantly encourage talented players to attack you for 90 mins then the odds are they are going to create chances and if your having to defend for most of the match you are going to make a few mistakes here or there which might give them a goal. Add to that the fact that we are not a free scoring team and never win by more than one goal or win having conceded the first goal and if you don''t execute this gameplan perfectly you are asking for trouble. I think we need to find a better balance in our style of play between attack and defence. It doesn''t have to be a massive change, but as the results away from home show, the balance is not working.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

Don''t know where to start on this post - it has to be one of the best posts I''ve come across in years.

 

Definitely chief contender for Post of the Year [Y]

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--- PurpleCanary: Hughton is being criticised for being too defensive-minded, yet the problem with the team he picked against Spurs was that it was too attacking. Howson as one of the two in central midfield and Elmander as this fish out of water link-player. No wonder Spurs dominated in midfield.

I don''t think he wanted it to be too attacking, for starters the central midfielders were Fer and Johnson, not Howson. Second, I think he wanted Elmander to play the attacking midfield role, but he really was awful. I don''t blame the player, square pegs in round holes again just like Fer against Hull. We pretty much lined up 4-4-2, in our own half. This was only rectified on 74 minutes, after which we did ok, albeit Spurs probably sat back to protect their lead by then.

I don''t understand why Howson does not get a shot in the attacking midfield role, given license to attack, not just play as a third defensive central midfielder. The manager seems to like him and he always looks somewhat lacking in the defensive midfield position.

Other than that, I don''t think you can go too far wrong with Wes, he may not be a world beater but at least he makes himself available for the pass and lays it off to the wings successfully.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,246]

Just as we have identified the advanced defensive pyramid created by the 10 when possession is lost high up the pitch, we can create a similar shape with a makele sat in front if the middle defensive 2, allowing for full backs to play higher, offer increased midfield options and allow for a balanced 5 W in defence, whereby the makelele (Johnson) never attacks, but the full backs do (it could also be achieved via a flat 2 with a split 3 behind, but that''s a few years ahead for England, though not new to Hungary 53 and any decent European team since). This allows a Fer to truly play box-to- box with a regista passer alongside. Our missing ingredient throughout the side is pace, indeed counter-punching is dulled without it. Attacking as a unit is a nice, safe theory, though the reality is that others know what a defensive shape looks like and the can retreat into it too comfortably currently for effective counter attacks. Given the resources at our current disposal, an interesting option that would both maintain defensive stability, dominate the centre of the field and (perhaps) afford us more progressive and regular final third options would be a Christmas tree with Redmond and Hoolahan ahead of the middle 3 and both offering the possibility of breaking beyond RVW, piercing the channels and overloading the central midfield with short passing options. It would ask questions of an opposing 4231, ensure that the area between opposition defence and midfield was overloaded and still offer a very solid defensive shape, whilst maximising our most troublesome between the lines players (Redmond/hoolahan).

[4th floor 4]

Against Tottenham we seemed to get stretched when they attacked us down the wings, so we really needed someone like Fer (or even Whittaker) in a free role in front of the defence to help mop up and then counterattack. This would make a 4-1-4-1: five in midfield, defensively more solid and perhaps more able to hit on the break by playing it early to the wingers. The irony of Saturday was we were undone by defensive errors and not enough in midfield.

[Lavanche 0]

Yeah I noticed how far for example Johnson and Fer were at times from eachother in the middle, because we got so streched. Not normal in Hughton''s style.

I have wondered why our midfielders dont support more our fullbacks, but I think it is because of passing.

For example Xabi Alonso and Busquets have very good passing ability and they have good centre backs who can deliver the ball very well. So they wont get trouble even when dropping in formation of

3 4 3 when attacking. Johnson and Tettey doesnt offer same kind of ability and Fer''s passing range is limited too. This is one of the reasons I was so fond of the idea of Biglia in canaries.

What comes to Howson as a 10 I think Hughton thinks he doesnt have enough creativity or strenght to do the job there.

This way or that outside of Hoolahan I think we lack a creative player in both positions and that will be a problem in other games too than Hull and Tottenham.