Daniel Brigham 0 Posted September 23, 2013 What is David McNally thinking right now? For three years this chief executive lark must have seemed like the easiest job in the world. Sack rubbish manager, bring in good manager, go up two divisions, easily stay in the Premier League, lose manager, replace him effectively and finish higher in the table. Now the fans are booing. The haven’t booed like this since August 8, 2009. Why are they booing? How has this happened? Perhaps he’s thinking that being chief executive of a football club isn’t so easy after all. Now he has a decision to make. To stick or twist. To back the manager or back the boo-boys. When the murmurings over Hughton began at the back end of last season McNally’s answer was simple. Keep him. He’d improved the squad, tightened the defence, led us on a monumental 10-game unbeaten run and would improve our attack when funds where available in the summer.Now the answer is far less simple. Over the summer Hughton has done as promised and improved Norwich’s attack. The trouble is, he hasn’t improved Norwich’s attacking. Not yet, anyway. We are just five games into the season. It’s all a bit early for booing isn’t it? As Steve Clarke said after WBA won their first game on Saturday, “it takes time if you sign players and try to change things around.”Saturday was Gary Hooper''s debut in the Premier League, it was the first time Jonny Howson and Leroy Fer had started in the middle together. It’s an often-repeated statement, but it is true: it takes time for players to gel. There were encouraging signs that Howson and Fer were keen to play through the middle – which is Ricky van Wolfswinkel’s preferred method of receiving the ball – although too often they took the decision to send the ball out wide to Robert Snodgrass or Nathan Redmond. It quickly became predictable, fanning the boos and the moans.To score in the Premier League you need to be able to attack and create from all over the pitch, not just from the wings. Howson, Fer, Hooper and van Wolfswinkel all have the technique and guile to move the ball intelligently and precisely at speed. So McNally will want to know whether Hughton puts too much emphasis on instructing his players to play it out wide or whether it is a case of the players still getting used to each other to find those vital little pockets of space. If it’s the former then Norwich may well be in trouble this season. At this stage, however, I’m willing to believe it’s the latter. Hughton wouldn’t have pursued Fabio Quagliarella, Ola Toivonen and finally Johan Elmander so energetically if he wasn’t intending to set Norwich up to attack more through the middle, to bring a different dimension to an attack too reliant on crosses as a source of goals. On the evidence of the last couple of games, however, Elmander has forgotten how to play in that position effectively. Some fans – including me – are puzzled as to why Howson or Wes Hoolahan haven’t started behind van Wolfswinkel; both are the kind of players whose strengths are spotting the 10-yard pass that van Wolfswinkel will thrive on. But it is Hughton’s prerogative to try out the new options available to him – which, as well as Elmander, has also included playing Fer in the hole.The correct combination has to be found sooner rather than later. And it has to apply away from home as well. Last season it didn’t nark so much that we set up rather negatively away from Carrow Road – with the squad we had it was important to ensure we had a solid base as teams looked to attack us. This year is different. We’ve bought well enough to be able to compete on an attacking basis with most sides outside of the top six, home and away. This may not be a popular opinion, but despite the two poor results at Hull and Tottenham, there are signs from those games that Hughton doesn’t see one point as the limits of our expectations away from home anymore.Against Hull Norwich started brightly, dominated possession and looked lively until Hull went down to 10 men, at which point we ran out of ideas at an alarming rate; it didn’t help that Howson and Fer were being deployed out of position. At Spurs our midfield was missing an extra body due to Hughton starting with two up top; no one could get on the ball in the centre and create anything. The two poor performances weren’t necessarily down to being set up defensively but being set up incorrectly. It’s barely comforting, but it does at least hint at a more positive attitude away from home. Will it be comforting enough for McNally? Probably. He’s spent too much money on attacking talent to suddenly lose faith in Hughton, and he should be allowed time to show he can get the best out of the players he has brought in. McNally does, however, need to monitor the situation carefully. It is often difficult for a manager to recapture the trust of disgruntled supporters. At the moment there are still enough fans who believe Hughton does indeed know what he is doing, despite what the Barclay unhelpfully sings. But another couple of poor results against Watford and Stoke and the clamour for a premature change of manager could become too great for McNally to resist. Daniel Brigham is features editor of The Cricketer magazine.You can follow him on Twitter: @cricketer_dan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted September 23, 2013 [quote user="Daniel Brigham"]What is David McNally thinking right now? For three years this chief executive lark must have seemed like the easiest job in the world. Sack rubbish manager, bring in good manager, go up two divisions, easily stay in the Premier League, lose manager, replace him effectively and finish higher in the table. Now the fans are booing. The haven’t booed like this since August 8, 2009. Why are they booing? How has this happened? Perhaps he’s thinking that being chief executive of a football club isn’t so easy after all. Now he has a decision to make. To stick or twist. To back the manager or back the boo-boys. When the murmurings over Hughton began at the back end of last season McNally’s answer was simple. Keep him. He’d improved the squad, tightened the defence, led us on a monumental 10-game unbeaten run and would improve our attack when funds where available in the summer.Now the answer is far less simple. Over the summer Hughton has done as promised and improved Norwich’s attack. The trouble is, he hasn’t improved Norwich’s attacking. Not yet, anyway. We are just five games into the season. It’s all a bit early for booing isn’t it? As Steve Clarke said after WBA won their first game on Saturday, “it takes time if you sign players and try to change things around.”Saturday was Gary Hooper''s debut in the Premier League, it was the first time Jonny Howson and Leroy Fer had started in the middle together. It’s an often-repeated statement, but it is true: it takes time for players to gel. There were encouraging signs that Howson and Fer were keen to play through the middle – which is Ricky van Wolfswinkel’s preferred method of receiving the ball – although too often they took the decision to send the ball out wide to Robert Snodgrass or Nathan Redmond. It quickly became predictable, fanning the boos and the moans.To score in the Premier League you need to be able to attack and create from all over the pitch, not just from the wings. Howson, Fer, Hooper and van Wolfswinkel all have the technique and guile to move the ball intelligently and precisely at speed. So McNally will want to know whether Hughton puts too much emphasis on instructing his players to play it out wide or whether it is a case of the players still getting used to each other to find those vital little pockets of space. If it’s the former then Norwich may well be in trouble this season. At this stage, however, I’m willing to believe it’s the latter. Hughton wouldn’t have pursued Fabio Quagliarella, Ola Toivonen and finally Johan Elmander so energetically if he wasn’t intending to set Norwich up to attack more through the middle, to bring a different dimension to an attack too reliant on crosses as a source of goals. On the evidence of the last couple of games, however, Elmander has forgotten how to play in that position effectively. Some fans – including me – are puzzled as to why Howson or Wes Hoolahan haven’t started behind van Wolfswinkel; both are the kind of players whose strengths are spotting the 10-yard pass that van Wolfswinkel will thrive on. But it is Hughton’s prerogative to try out the new options available to him – which, as well as Elmander, has also included playing Fer in the hole.The correct combination has to be found sooner rather than later. And it has to apply away from home as well. Last season it didn’t nark so much that we set up rather negatively away from Carrow Road – with the squad we had it was important to ensure we had a solid base as teams looked to attack us. This year is different. We’ve bought well enough to be able to compete on an attacking basis with most sides outside of the top six, home and away. This may not be a popular opinion, but despite the two poor results at Hull and Tottenham, there are signs from those games that Hughton doesn’t see one point as the limits of our expectations away from home anymore.Against Hull Norwich started brightly, dominated possession and looked lively until Hull went down to 10 men, at which point we ran out of ideas at an alarming rate; it didn’t help that Howson and Fer were being deployed out of position. At Spurs our midfield was missing an extra body due to Hughton starting with two up top; no one could get on the ball in the centre and create anything. The two poor performances weren’t necessarily down to being set up defensively but being set up incorrectly. It’s barely comforting, but it does at least hint at a more positive attitude away from home. Will it be comforting enough for McNally? Probably. He’s spent too much money on attacking talent to suddenly lose faith in Hughton, and he should be allowed time to show he can get the best out of the players he has brought in. McNally does, however, need to monitor the situation carefully. It is often difficult for a manager to recapture the trust of disgruntled supporters. At the moment there are still enough fans who believe Hughton does indeed know what he is doing, despite what the Barclay unhelpfully sings. But another couple of poor results against Watford and Stoke and the clamour for a premature change of manager could become too great for McNally to resist. Daniel Brigham is features editor of The Cricketer magazine.You can follow him on Twitter: @cricketer_dan[/quote] Toivonen, Quagliarella and Elmander are not the same kind of player. Toivonen is either hard-driving, straight-line attacking midfielder or an old-style rampaging English centre, Quagliarella is more of a ball-player who can fulfil the modish No.10 linking role or be a second striker; Elmander is essentially an old-style English centre-forward.Quagliarella is the only one of the three really suited to this No. 10 link position that Hughton has thought, up until now anyway, that Elmander could fill. It isn''t that Elmander has forgotten how to play there; it has never really been his thing. For Sweden, for example, he plays up front with the mad genius behind, pulling the strings. And even if it had been Elmander''s thing in the past, now at 32, in the physically demanding Premier League, it certainly isn''t. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Brigham 0 Posted September 23, 2013 Agree with everything you say there Purple. But all were chased/brought in by Hughton to provide a link between midfield and attack. Agree that Elmander is best suited to being a target man but upon signing him Hughton repeatedly referenced the fact he can play behind the main striker - he played there a lot for Bolton. I don''t believe he would have been bought in if he wasn''t perceived as still possessing that part of his game. Hughton was (rightly) very keen on someone who can help us create chances through the middle (he also mentioned on many occasions that both Hooper and RVW could work as a link man) but on early evidence Howson, Hoolahan (or indeed Redmond) would be more creative than Elmander. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted September 23, 2013 Hooper made a notable difference when he came on in terms of work rate and tempo, and it might be that the change required is a simple RvW < Hooper swap. Though comments made around the time of the Hooper signing suggested he could also "drop deep" so may slot in to replace Elmander, though neither Hooper nor RvW are likely to win it in the air and hold it up.I''m quietly confident that a fully fit Hooper will be a sight to see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jedi 0 Posted September 23, 2013 Our main problem is predictability we never mix it up formation, playing squad or tactics. It''s getting embarrassing, even when he makes substitutions they''re like for like, and mostly after the horse has bolted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted September 23, 2013 [quote user="Daniel Brigham"]Agree with everything you say there Purple. But all were chased/brought in by Hughton to provide a link between midfield and attack. Agree that Elmander is best suited to being a target man but upon signing him Hughton repeatedly referenced the fact he can play behind the main striker - he played there a lot for Bolton. I don''t believe he would have been bought in if he wasn''t perceived as still possessing that part of his game. Hughton was (rightly) very keen on someone who can help us create chances through the middle (he also mentioned on many occasions that both Hooper and RVW could work as a link man) but on early evidence Howson, Hoolahan (or indeed Redmond) would be more creative than Elmander.[/quote] If that WAS Hughton''s belief at the time then events on the field should by now have persuaded him otherwise. As Clive Allen said in the BBC''s minute-by-minute on Saturday, Elmander just isn''t working as a No 10.My suspicion is that he was bought as a last resort after we failed to get the other two, with Hughton hoping (erroneously) he might be able to play in that crucial link role but also knowing he could play him up front, as the Holt replacement. If Elmander is going to have a decent part to play this season it will be in that latter role. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Brigham 0 Posted September 23, 2013 Again, I agree Purple. He wouldn''t have been brought in if one of Quag or Toiv had come here. Would be surprised to see him attempted in the no.10 role again - he''s been completely anonymous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
