Hughton's logic regarding Hooper against Liverpool?

[vos 155]

As Hughton stated at the recent AGM he tends to be more in to strategy and tactics to try to counter the strengths of the opposing teams. I think this is wrong because it is immediatedly putting the onus on our players to attempt to stunt the opposition rather than concentrating on playing to their own strengths and take the game to them. Obviously it will still be a big problem to match the big teams but it would give us more of a chance to gain a result. Hughton is sending out teams with the mindset that the opponents are better than us and we can only but try to contain them. As we all know he is always praising the strength of our opponents - even Crystal Palace. !!!

Last night was a Hughton classic. To combat Gerrard, an influential player, Bradley Johnson played further up the pitch on the left hand side - a situation I have never seen him in before. Fer on the other hand, with Howson our best attacking midfielder, had the job of shielding the defence and to keep a close eye on Suarez. Fer is a big guy and his role would have been better filled by a smaller "tigerish" defender. Unfortunately apart from Johnson we do not have one. So basically we messed up because Hughton mainly concentrated on the opposition. Apart from Suarez, Liverpool were nothing special.

I do not think it really matters who is the sole striker because they are left totally isolated with very little support. Wes has not done too badly but I am afraid in this division he is being constantly caught in possession and putting us in to trouble. We desperately need some positive management.

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="can u sit down please"][quote user="Warren Hill"][quote user="lincoln canary"]

I''m not sure there is any logic to his decisions. I think he still genuinely believes he can set up with a defensive minded midfield and prevent teams from scoring for 90 minutes. Despite the fact its failed on every occasion this season. The man is stubborn and its costing Norwich City. Play to our strengths rather than trying to combat the oppositions. Particularly when its clear the players are not good enough to carry out the strategy Hughton has.

Why is he so stubborn? What does he see that actually makes him think last nights team selection can actually work? It''s clear he isn''t changing so he has got to go.

[/quote]

 

It''s no more stupid than thinking if we went toe-to-toe with these teams that we''d come off best. Which strengths of ours would you have played to Lincoln?

 

[/quote]

Teams similar to us are getting results against the teams you seem to think we should bow down too.

Why aren''t we even coming close?[/quote]

In a nutshell CUSDP

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

Tactics aside, I also consider it to be poor man-management by Hughton.

The transition to the Premier League will not have been an easy undertaking for Gary Hooper. It was a big step-up for him. Some doubted his ability to make this with any degree of success.

The problem was compounded by his early season injury and eventually when his opportunity did arrive he found himself the victim of a system that was less than favourable to a striker with his attributes.

Just as he has started to find his feet, gain in confidence a get on the score-sheet he is effectively ''dropped'' in favour of an ageing player who was initially brought in as cover and who hardly ever rattles the net these days in any case.

Reading between the lines it was because Elmander ''works harder.'' Nonsense!

Confused and negative thinking IMO.

Bemused of Broadstairs.

[Warren Hill 0]

Seattle Canary, you are an idiot.

Lincoln Canary managed to see what I was saying even if he disagreed. You on the other hand seem to think that I mean we shouldn''t bother playing them? You''re an idiot!! I can''t get away from it.

I''m saying we can''t turn up and outplay them, certainly not with the available personnel, we managed to trade blow for blow with Chelsea earlier in the season but that''s conveniently ignored by Wazzy Van Moron and Can You Sack Hughton Please too...

The game plan we go out with is to be difficult to break down, 40 yard wonder strikes aside, individual errors, certainly at Newcastle and last night are undermining that.

We''re pretty limited with player choice which makes plans to be effective pretty limited too. I just hope we can cut out the errors and be more effective Saturday. A win there - as far fetched as that may sound - would be huge.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Hmm, let''s have a go at answering the OP. Casting aside hindsight, prior to the match I suspect the Elmander or hooper decision was difficult. I'' m not all sure that the correct decision was made, but to portray it as clueless is unfair.

A number of given parameters existed. A lack of wide midfielders made it necessary to play Hoolahan. He is a fine link player, but does not threaten in behind a four with pace. Thus pace from deep was required, playing Redmond was therefore a shoe-in given both points above. Fer and Howson were also easy names to post on the team sheet in the circumstances. This is a midfield potentially lacking in tactical discipline and without a holding midfielder screening the area in from of the centre backs, thus Johnson.

There is a lack of set piece nous, solidity and height in these four midfielders and a distinct lack of fixed 9 pivot to play off. On paper, in offence you can imagine a Christmas tree shape with Hoolahan staying central and Redmond breaking wider, thus the decision was who was best suited out for that pivot, hold up role for the others to play off. Defending set pieces would have certainly been a thought in Hughton''s mind. Penetration was to come from Redmond, maybe even Howson from deeper. Hoolahan was the fluidity and thus a Dutch 9 was planned. Not designed to run in behind, or even move that much, rather a structural player that can protect the ball and buy time for deep-lying midfielders to join on counter-attack and turnover. Out of hooper and Elmander, the latter is probably better suited to that job.

Would I have dropped a goalscoring striker coming into form (even to protect him or because he was slightly less suited to an envisaged role)? No I wouldn''t, as an ex-striker I would be sensitive to putting a handbrake on goalscoring players confidence and instincts,they have a habit of going on rolls and making unlikely things happen, but I could see the coaching logic intended.

[Holtcantshoot 0]

I think Hull did quite a good job of stifling Liverpool at the weekend using a 4-5-1 system. We may have been unluckly that Coutinho (sp?) returned for this game. However I think our last two home games have shown that a 4-4-2 and going all out attack out score opponents seems to be the best chance we have of getting a positive result. Tough choice away from home and I assume he brought Johnson in as an unsuccessful attempt to hinder Suarez, don''t really see an issue with playing Hooper ahead of Becchio though as he is beyond doubt a better player. Surely he wants to play whenever he can too?

[Jonzey 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]However, and this is where I think Hughton lost the plot last night... he then brought on Hooper when the team was losing 3-0. Where was the logic in that? At that stage, it wasn''t worth risking injury to Hooper. Hughton should have given Beccio a chance to get some match fitness rather than risk Hooper.I think Hughton panicked at 0-3 down and realised that if we got thrashed then he might not get a chance to be the manager against WBA so brought on Hooper.That is the only logic I can see which would explain Hughton''s decision to name Hooper as a sub, and then bring him on when the team was losing 3-0.[/quote]Yep, made no sense. Why not bring Hooper on at half time for a midfielder and give it a go? Why not give Becchio a run out? Why risk Hooper if all is lost?

But starting with Elmander? I just cannot see why.

[Andrew Spanton 1]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]Tactics aside, I also consider it to be poor man-management by Hughton.

The transition to the Premier League will not have been an easy undertaking for Gary Hooper. It was a big step-up for him. Some doubted his ability to make this with any degree of success.

The problem was compounded by his early season injury and eventually when his opportunity did arrive he found himself the victim of a system that was less than favourable to a striker with his attributes.

Just as he has started to find his feet, gain in confidence a get on the score-sheet he is effectively ''dropped'' in favour of an ageing player who was initially brought in as cover and who hardly ever rattles the net these days in any case.

Reading between the lines it was because Elmander ''works harder.'' Nonsense!

Confused and negative thinking IMO.

Bemused of Broadstairs.[/quote]

I agree with this. CH''s handling of Hooper left a lot to be desired and is perhaps a typical example of his approach to man-management

Hooper is just finding his feet in the team and EPL. Leading up to the game Hooper was quoted in the press as being excited by the prospect of playing at Anfield. He was clearly up for it but was then left on the bench looking a bit of a numpty given his press quotes. I respect CH''s decision to choose the team that he felt would implement his tactics best. However I believe that our biggest problem is players not performing at the top of their game, regardless of tactics. This is down to poor motivation and man-management.

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it seems Hughton''s call was the right one.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Reminds me of when i think Hollloway or McCarthy got fined for playing a weakened team (funny thing was, they didn''t do that bad).

Perhaps Hughton was looking at the bigger prize? It''s a questionable attitude to have, but perhaps that was the difference between 3 points and a -2 goal difference and 1 point and a -1 goal difference...