Daniel Brigham 0 Posted August 23, 2013 Hello allHere''s my latest blog about why all of the talk about Norwich''s best XI is irrelevant now (despite being fun!). There''s been a lot of talk about Norwich''s best XI. A lot of chat, a bit of arguing, the occasional slightly embarrassing fall-out and even the increasingly rare mention of David Fox''s name. Yet none of it matters. We’re all wasting our time. For the starting XI is dead.The ‘first team’ has been slowly prodded and elbowed out of the way by the gigantium, popular new-kid on the block: the squad. No long is 11 the magic number. It’s all about the 25. Once there was a time when the starting XI was the only thing that mattered in football. Substitutes used to be blokes who were drafted in when people didn’t turn up to matches in the early 1800s, before substitutions were finally allowed in English league football for the first time in the 1965-66 season (only one, mind, and only if there was an injury – and, this being the days of Nobby Stiles, ‘injury’ tended to man ‘catastrophic loss of limb’). Now it’s all about the depth of a team’s squad. There was a time when a manager not knowing his best XI was a bad thing, a sign of chopping and changing his starters too regularly like someone trying a succession of crash diets without ever losing weight. Now it is a sign of a master tactician, using the depth and fullness of his squad to magic up a starting XI that works against one opposition, and then picking a different line-up and formation that works for the next game. Of course, the big clubs have invested in the importance of large squads for several years. That has been the luxury their wealth has bought them. Van Nistelrooy having an iffy game? Bring on Solskjaer or Forlan. Henry injured? Start up top with Bergkamp and Wiltord. It is no longer the domain of only the giants, though. Now it’s the turn of the little guys.Norwich’s 10-game unbeaten run last season came when Chris Hughton could pick an XI that was injury-free and on top of their game. It was Norwich’s prepubescent squad at its peak. As soon as the form of a few players dropped off and injuries were picked up, Norwich struggled. The results reflected the shallow nature of the squad – the team was treading water. Norwich were still a ‘first XI’ club rather than a ‘squad club’, but that was the nature of their finances at the time. Hughton spent his money on shoring up the backline and there was little left over to improve the attacking element. He simply didn’t have the tools throughout the season for Norwich to score more freely when the best players where injured, which was why it was hard to understand some of the criticism directed at Hughton. He didn’t have the tools at his disposal to improve things. It was like telling Noah he should have used steel not wood to build his arc. Hughton has worked hard, and astutely, over the summer to not add quality and depth, to turn Norwich into a ''squad club''. Last season if Anthony Pilkington or Robert Snodgrass were injured only Elliott Bennett was available to step in. Now it''s Bennett (when fit) and Nathan Redmond, plus Martin Olsson can play a wing role – something that would have been foremost in Hughton’s mind when scouting for a second left-back. No matter which two you pick from those five you know you’re guaranteed to have a quality attacking threat. Last season the question of feeding (a constantly hungry) Grant Holt through the middle fell to Wes Hoolahan and, briefly, Kei Kamara. This year, players are lining up to feed the Wolf: Hoolahan, Leroy Fer, Redmond, Johan Elmander, Jonny Howson and Jacob Butterfield can all play off the striker. If Ricky van Wolfswinkel or Gary Hooper go hungry it won’t be for a lack of transfer activity.Hughton has created a squad that gives him five or six different starting XIs that will provide Norwich with enough quality to compete with most sides in the Premier League. It is a significant improvement from last season, when it was strongest XI or bust. With the increase in squad strength comes new responsibility for Hughton: keeping so many good players happy. After all, not all of them will get to play as much as they would like. How do you keep Hooper happy with a role on the bench if van Wolfswinkel keeps scoring? How do you stop Hoolahan eyeing a move away if Elmander, Fer or Howson keep him off the pitch? Will Javier Garrido regret his permanent move if he finds Olsson ahead of him? Hughton will be happy with these problems, though. They''re good ones to have. After all, it’s better to have good players desperate to play than average players having to play. Daniel Brigham is features editor of The Cricketer magazine.Follow him on Twitter: @cricketer_dan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
William Darby 0 Posted August 23, 2013 A good read that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,156 Posted August 23, 2013 Interesting. It always struck me that one of the big differences between Lambert and Hughton was use of the squad. Under Lambert, he would make huge use of the squad with changes for almost every game, so that as fans we couldn''t predict who he would choose even if everyone was fit - so opposing teams would have no idea who they''d be planning. And during a game Lambert would always use substitutes to change the lineup whenever he wanted - if we were behind at 60 minutes, you could bet that he''d have a couple of substitutes on. Whereas Hughton was much more conservative, basically he found an XI that worked, and generally stuck with it barring injury, and he was clearly reluctant to use substitutes unless necessary (although I felt he got a bit better at this later in the season). So it will be interesting to see this season whether the improved squad means he makes more tactical changes between and during games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
William Darby 0 Posted August 23, 2013 [quote user="Its Character Forming"]Interesting. It always struck me that one of the big differences between Lambert and Hughton was use of the squad. Under Lambert, he would make huge use of the squad with changes for almost every game, so that as fans we couldn''t predict who he would choose even if everyone was fit - so opposing teams would have no idea who they''d be planning. And during a game Lambert would always use substitutes to change the lineup whenever he wanted - if we were behind at 60 minutes, you could bet that he''d have a couple of substitutes on. Whereas Hughton was much more conservative, basically he found an XI that worked, and generally stuck with it barring injury, and he was clearly reluctant to use substitutes unless necessary (although I felt he got a bit better at this later in the season). So it will be interesting to see this season whether the improved squad means he makes more tactical changes between and during games.[/quote]I''d say it generally would. If modern top division football makes a regular same first XI redundant. Modern managers need to be more tactically aware than yesteryear, with old fashioned fag packet managers who picked the same side and same formation week in week out extinct.Maybe it''s one of the key ideas that Lambert realised that would keep us up. Not necessarily upgrade your first XI but upgrade your entire squad to expand your tactical choices.Take Blackpool, did excellent for first half of the season. Then they got found out the second half and had nothing in reserve to see them through.And I think the penny''s dropped with Stoke. They''ve realised that if they carried on with hoofball inevitably it''ll go tits-up. And have attempted to rethink how they have to play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,520 Posted August 23, 2013 Thats a great read DB. We do have a stronger squad. However, I disagree slightly in that I think Hughton likes to reward his players for playing well. We saw it last season with Whittaker and Martin. They both had spells in and out of the team. It seems that if you are in the team and playing well and the results are happening, you will stay in the team. Hughton seems to go for a consistent approach - similar tactics every game - the same team whenever possible - presumably because consistency of performance is required and that is easier if things don''t change that much. Some people seem to think that is wrong and we should be chopping and changing, but to me it makes sense. Players know where they are - they play well, they stay in the team. Its good psychology. Then if we have a bad result or two - or an injury or two - the players that step in know they have to do very well to stay in the team themselves. I''m not a fan of squad rotation. At the worst under Lambert, the team looked like they didn''t know each other - even though at the best they were brilliant. we need the strong squad - as you say - so we can consistently put out a strong side, whatever the situation, but I will be surprised if we see very much rotation this season. It depends on results, I guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
im spartacus canary 0 Posted August 23, 2013 good article... i didn''t like you at first but you''ve won me over, who is it you write for? something to do with cricket ? i suppose if you can make that boring pile of shyte interesting writing about football must be a doddle to you ? [:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
im spartacus canary 0 Posted August 23, 2013 i always wonder if the players who get picked for the carling cup take it as a bit of an insult ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Brigham 0 Posted August 24, 2013 Hi Spartacus. Thanks (I think!). I write for the cricketer magazine, as well as a bit of footy and cricket freelancing. Football is easier to write about because it''s a much bigger game so there are more issues to talk about. It also makes people a lot angrier than cricket ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
im spartacus canary 0 Posted August 25, 2013 entertaining as your blogs are it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the game yesterday ? joseph goebals would be proud of the hughton rues soft penalty bollocks that archant put out as a match report... or don''t you want to rock the boat like the rest of them ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Brigham 0 Posted August 25, 2013 I don''t really do verdicts after matches because everyone seems to! Thought Norwich were obviously very, very poor but I''m not worried (yet). Hull will win games at home this season, and Norwich are the kind of side they''ll target, much like we did when we were promoted. They were very well organised, harried and pressed and played well I thought - much like we were at home against Arsenal and Utd last season.If our forward players are still failing to create much in 4/5 games time then I''ll start to get worried. A bit more game time for Snodgrass (who was uncharacteristically poor), Fer, RVW, Elmander and Hooper and we should start creating a lot more. If we don''t then we''re in real trouble.Also, would ditch Garrido and have Olsson at left-back. Far more creative and solid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted August 25, 2013 Perhaps something comparing Hughton & Calderwood''s tactical approach to football matches with Cook & Flower''s tactical approach to cricket matches... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
im spartacus canary 0 Posted August 26, 2013 [quote user="Mister Chops"]Perhaps something comparing Hughton & Calderwood''s tactical approach to football matches with Cook & Flower''s tactical approach to cricket matches...[/quote]surely there can be no comparison ? even me who knows bugger all about cricket knows that we won the ashes quite convincingly...hughton would have shut up shop after winning the 1st test and played for 4 draws Share this post Link to post Share on other sites