Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Great Mass Debater

How is Hughton's system supposed to work?

Recommended Posts

With all the talk of tactics and systems, I find myself struggling to understand what Hughton is trying to do with the team. The football at the moment doesnt seem to be too successful. We cant score the goals required and we cant stop them going in. What is Hughtons game plan supposed to be? By playing inverted wingers, it doesnt seem that the idea of the lone striker is for him to be a target man. So are the goals supposed to come from the wingers directly, the central striker or the midfielders bombing on? Are we supposed to control possession (by having 3 in midfield) or are we supposed to be a counter-attacking team designed to break at pace once we''ve soaked up pressure - because I dont see us dominating possession or playing on the counter.

This isnt a negative post, Im simply asking how Hughton''s system is supposed to work, because Im not quite sure what we''re supposed to be or how we''re supposed to play? We dont seem to be very effective at anything.  So what is wrong? Is the team a bunch of headless chickens (ie there is no gameplan) or do we not have the right players for the kind of system Hughton wants to play? I just dont get what he''s trying to do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, OP. There''s no obvious team ethos whatsoever. The closest thing we had to a team and tactics that worked was when Tettey was played as the holding midfielder - credit to Hughton for that. Very unlucky to lose him. If Hughton makes it till christmas, I would want him to invest in a better DM, and get rid of Johnson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TC - What did, exactly? Whatever it was, it didn''t work in the first half. I would argue that whatever it was, it didn''t work until we got a penalty and the player''s confidence started flowing. That''s the only time we play well - when we''ve scored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

With all the talk of tactics and systems, I find myself struggling to understand what Hughton is trying to do with the team. The football at the moment doesnt seem to be too successful. We cant score the goals required and we cant stop them going in. What is Hughtons game plan supposed to be? By playing inverted wingers, it doesnt seem that the idea of the lone striker is for him to be a target man. So are the goals supposed to come from the wingers directly, the central striker or the midfielders bombing on? Are we supposed to control possession (by having 3 in midfield) or are we supposed to be a counter-attacking team designed to break at pace once we''ve soaked up pressure - because I dont see us dominating possession or playing on the counter.

This isnt a negative post, Im simply asking how Hughton''s system is supposed to work, because Im not quite sure what we''re supposed to be or how we''re supposed to play? We dont seem to be very effective at anything.  So what is wrong? Is the team a bunch of headless chickens (ie there is no gameplan) or do we not have the right players for the kind of system Hughton wants to play? I just dont get what he''s trying to do

[/quote]
If he has not bought the players for the system he wants to play that is a whole different level of incompetence.
But you point does have merit. He likes to play with one striker up top but has spent a lot of money on strikers that are ill suited to that role.
I really hope this point can be shot down because if not we have spent an awful lot of money with no great purpose in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be argued that it does work. In fact I would argue it does. We finished 11th last season with his systems and we''re currently 16th this season with his systems. What criteria would you use if it''s not that?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="MancCanary"]TC - What did, exactly? Whatever it was, it didn''t work in the first half. I would argue that whatever it was, it didn''t work until we got a penalty and the player''s confidence started flowing. That''s the only time we play well - when we''ve scored.[/quote]

Maybe the first half was part of the necessary journey that lead us to the second half and then that was part of the system that produced three goals and ultimately three points. The system works (except when it doesn''t).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Sussexyellow"][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

With all the talk of tactics and systems, I find myself struggling to understand what Hughton is trying to do with the team. The football at the moment doesnt seem to be too successful. We cant score the goals required and we cant stop them going in. What is Hughtons game plan supposed to be? By playing inverted wingers, it doesnt seem that the idea of the lone striker is for him to be a target man. So are the goals supposed to come from the wingers directly, the central striker or the midfielders bombing on? Are we supposed to control possession (by having 3 in midfield) or are we supposed to be a counter-attacking team designed to break at pace once we''ve soaked up pressure - because I dont see us dominating possession or playing on the counter.

This isnt a negative post, Im simply asking how Hughton''s system is supposed to work, because Im not quite sure what we''re supposed to be or how we''re supposed to play? We dont seem to be very effective at anything.  So what is wrong? Is the team a bunch of headless chickens (ie there is no gameplan) or do we not have the right players for the kind of system Hughton wants to play? I just dont get what he''s trying to do

[/quote]
If he has not bought the players for the system he wants to play that is a whole different level of incompetence.
But you point does have merit. He likes to play with one striker up top but has spent a lot of money on strikers that are ill suited to that role.
I really hope this point can be shot down because if not we have spent an awful lot of money with no great purpose in mind.

[/quote]

 

Sussex, I think he tried to with - to an extent Toivonen - and more specifically with Quagliarella. I can''t say for certain, but the pursuit of Quagliarella always looked like being a forlorn one, and the net result was we ended up with no-one in that position he plainly was trying to fill. My suspicion is he should have realised that early on and switched to someone we could attract. But perhaps in his mind there was no-one else. But if so, why indeed are we playing a system for which we don''t have the players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Sussexyellow"][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

With all the talk of tactics and systems, I find myself struggling to understand what Hughton is trying to do with the team. The football at the moment doesnt seem to be too successful. We cant score the goals required and we cant stop them going in. What is Hughtons game plan supposed to be? By playing inverted wingers, it doesnt seem that the idea of the lone striker is for him to be a target man. So are the goals supposed to come from the wingers directly, the central striker or the midfielders bombing on? Are we supposed to control possession (by having 3 in midfield) or are we supposed to be a counter-attacking team designed to break at pace once we''ve soaked up pressure - because I dont see us dominating possession or playing on the counter.

This isnt a negative post, Im simply asking how Hughton''s system is supposed to work, because Im not quite sure what we''re supposed to be or how we''re supposed to play? We dont seem to be very effective at anything.  So what is wrong? Is the team a bunch of headless chickens (ie there is no gameplan) or do we not have the right players for the kind of system Hughton wants to play? I just dont get what he''s trying to do

[/quote]
If he has not bought the players for the system he wants to play that is a whole different level of incompetence.
But you point does have merit. He likes to play with one striker up top but has spent a lot of money on strikers that are ill suited to that role.
I really hope this point can be shot down because if not we have spent an awful lot of money with no great purpose in mind.

[/quote]

 

Sussex, I think he tried to with - to an extent Toivonen - and more specifically with Quagliarella. I can''t say for certain, but the pursuit of Quagliarella always looked like being a forlorn one, and the net result was we ended up with no-one in that position he plainly was trying to fill. My suspicion is he should have realised that early on and switched to someone we could attract. But perhaps in his mind there was no-one else. But if so, why indeed are we playing a system for which we don''t have the players?

[/quote]
Purple I can only agree. 
Having not got his elusive number 10 then he needs to set the team up for the players he has got, not the ones he wished he had. 
I think this is at the root of a lot of the frustration on this board. He persists when he needs to adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NuttyNigel - I would say that this season on the whole, it is not working. The performances have been on the whole, terrible. It may have worked for the odd half - but I think that is due to the confidence of the players But as I said in my "Little Norwich" post, I think the main problem is the gradual erosion of the player''s confidence, due to a number of reasons - tactics probably included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what criteria would you judge Hughton on Manc? And would you expect the board to agree. As far as I can see his objective is to somehow get enough points to remain in this league. Half the league''s managers have the same objectives. It''s boring though. I''m bored with it and blame the PL. Others are bored with it and blame Hughton. Should we change the objectives and accept that remaining in this league is not the be all and end all?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The start point with the system we use is that in most games in the Prem, the opposition will have better players, on an individual basis, in most positions.  So if we play 4 in midfield, we struggle to get the ball and end up getting overrun, e.g. conceding 60% possession to WH at home up until we equalized (fortunately) and they lost confidence.  5 in midfield  makes us competitive, we won''t dominate possession - especially as many other teams also have 5 in midfield - but it means at least we''ll be in the game with a decent chance (e.g. Arsenal away) or better (e.g. Cardiff at home).  Whenever we''ve gone with less than 5 in midfield, we''ve really struggled, so IMO we have to stick with 5 except for rare exceptions (of which Palace might be one).

 

You then have the problem of who to play up front. RVW was learning to be very effective in this role but has now been out injured for ages.  The other strikers are all ones we''ve brought who were the best we were able to sign at the time.  Elmander has unfortunately failed to deliver, Hooper is a goal poacher but can''t deliver an all round game, Becchio is 4th choice and hasn''t done anything to show why he should start on the rare chances he''s had.  Unquestionably Holt would be better than any of them for this role, in the absence of RVW, but of course it now seems clear he decided to go and have a shot at European football and be a first choice starter in the Champ (anyway he''s been out injured a lot, too).f.

 

So who do you start up front, if you''re only playing 1 striker ?  Hooper, as the only one who looks like getting goals ?  Hard to pick one of the others in front of him, especially when he was looking much better in the 2nd half against West Ham - would you really have put Elmander or Becchio as starter

 

And in answer to the question of where the goals come from, clearly with 5 in midfield and 1 up front, the others have got to provide a lot of the attacking threat, so you''re looking at the attacking midfielders and the wingers, plus where possible the fullbacks, to all get into the box and support the striker. 

 

As for the inverted wingers, IMO it''s simply because they are playing the flanks where they perform best.

 

It''s by no means perfect.  We have to make do with the players we have.  Yes, they''re a lot better than many past City teams, but the comparison is with the quality of teams we''re coming up against in the Prem.

 

I can''t answer everything, like why Hughton delayed making subs (aside from Pilks injury (again)) until too late - before that, he''d made changes earlier in games this year when we were behind.  But I can see what he''s trying to achieve with the 451 system and why he''s relucant to use 442 most of the time.  It does bug me when people bleat on that 442 is more attacking, when we''ve looked so poor for most of the time we''ve played it.

 

I''d be interested to hear suggestions for a better system to use for our players, the only alternative I''ve really seen is 442 which for me is much worse than 451 for most games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say i agree he should play to the strength of his players as we are lacking in some areas. Playing to a system means people like Johnson getting game time and costing us points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So what criteria would you judge Hughton on Manc? And would you expect the board to agree. As far as I can see his objective is to somehow get enough points to remain in this league. Half the league''s managers have the same objectives. It''s boring though. I''m bored with it and blame the PL. Others are bored with it and blame Hughton. Should we change the objectives and accept that remaining in this league is not the be all and end all?

 

 

[/quote]

 

Didnt McNally say a top-half finish was the objective this season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A top half finish was always going to be a tall order, i expected to see improvement in the performances on the pitch and a final position of 11th -14th. We may still get that final position but for me the performances have now become worse than last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So what criteria would you judge Hughton on Manc? And would you expect the board to agree. As far as I can see his objective is to somehow get enough points to remain in this league. Half the league''s managers have the same objectives. It''s boring though. I''m bored with it and blame the PL. Others are bored with it and blame Hughton. Should we change the objectives and accept that remaining in this league is not the be all and end all?

[/quote]

His objective is somewhat more than that - if comments by the board themselves are enough evidence. http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/norwich_city_s_premier_league_target_this_season_is_top_10_finish_says_chairman_alan_bowkett_1_2872472

Therefore, he''s not reaching his objective. Sure, in the short-term i see what you''re getting at, we''re not in the bottom 3 so we''re unlikely to get rid of a manager who has done enough so far to keep us up. 

But fans aren''t bored of the PL and it''s wrong for you to assume that''s the case of others. People might be bored of our style of play, are poor attacking and at the moment our equally poor defending. The Premier League, itself, isn''t boring. Some of the football is very, very high quality and a pleasure to watch. But just because in some games we can''t even get a shot on target doesn''t mean it''s like it for all the other teams in and around of us.

I went to Newcastle on my own free will which was an insight into how mentally scarred i must already be. But i sat there, high up in that bloody stand where planes were having to divert to miss taking off the upper tier. And looked at our pattern of play. Which is pretty easy to do from up there. It was so bland and repetitive, nobody mixing things up. Then the manager gets a chance to, and plays Elmander right wing. Then we get a goal back, and wait till the 88th minute to make any kind of attacking-inspired substitutions. 

My main gripe, the one thing i''ll always be frustrated about is Hughtons apparent inability to have an effect on the game with subs - or to even make it look like he''s trying to win the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A top 10 finish Hog. Where finish is surely the the deciding factor. At present we are 4 points off and have had an alarming amount of injuries. If we sacked the manager because of that we''d be a laughing stock.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that Nigel. But you have to measure it somehow. Quite a few fans are fed up of the performances - same as last season except results meant they couldn''t really complain - i certainly felt that our defensive solidity would keep us up that season regardless.
Unfortunately - that''s not the case this season and at some point someone somewhere has to make a decision. Of course - maybe they already have. It could be that Hughton is indeed the man for the job regardless of current performances.
I still - for some reason, maybe partially to shove it up the likes of Wiz''s throat - don''t really want Hughton sacked. The problem i have at the moment is he doesn''t really seem to helping himself. At the moment we look poor both defensively and offensively. Maybe that''s part of the transition - from an ultra-defensive side to a more offensive one. The problem is, you''re mixing that with relatively poor subs and tactical changes during the matches we''re not performing in. That''s what grates with me. 90% of fans just want to see us have a go - especially when we''re 2-0 down away from home and the Home team have hardly got out of second gear - nor are they causing us hosts of problems which would indicate we can''t afford to make an attacking change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top ten target comes from wanting continual improvement, first season back it was 12th, second season back it was 11th. If we are to take Mr Bowketts comments forward then in 10 seasons time we''ll be champions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it depends on quick movement and good passing, which have both been missing for much of the season. We have been slow in our build-ups, with the result that RvW and Hooper find themselves in a crowded penalty, because the defence has got back by the time we arrive. Did you notice how many Man City goals against Tottenham were scored by someone in acres of space and few defenders about? We are not Man City, but we do have at least one quick winger in Redmond, who unfortunately is usually played on the left wing.

 

Additionally, given that neither RvW nor Hopper are slouches, the CH system requires quick, decisive passing and movement. It''s not clear why this is not happening, given that Howson and Fer are quick. For whatever reason, our passing looks lethargic, we give the ball away too often, and attacks break down almost before they have started.

 

The system requires every player to pass the ball accurately, and not to the nearest player who is already marked, and for all to make themselves available in space. It requires knowledge of other player''s games ad anticipation. Perhaps it requires skills in excess of what some players possess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand Hog and I am as frustrated and bored as any of you. I also understand that should we approach games in a Worthy/Holloway manner relegation will pee many off even more. Hughton is continually hitting his targets. Another manager will likely come in and approach things in the same way. I heard a lot about how Southampton replaced Adkins but that was surely the opposite? Adkins was the Worthy/Holloway type and the new manager more like Hughton. The games I''ve seen between us and Southampton have been some of the most dire I''ve watched in this league.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So what criteria would you judge Hughton on Manc? And would you expect the board to agree. As far as I can see his objective is to somehow get enough points to remain in this league. Half the league''s managers have the same objectives. It''s boring though. I''m bored with it and blame the PL. Others are bored with it and blame Hughton. Should we change the objectives and accept that remaining in this league is not the be all and end all?

 

 

[/quote]

Good question. I suppose on the basis of progress based upon what happened last year and what we have spent. We have been incredibly inconsistent since that 10 game run, and that has carried on into this season. There has been no improvement in performance or result, and nothing the manager changes seems to have any effect, so I would suggest that it is a deeper-seated reason than that of "just tactics", or any one thing. I think it''s a general, all across the board lack of confidence from the players in his ability, which has been kind of proven by almost 12 months of terrible football. The number of wins since then says it all (7 or 8 is it?). But it''s a good question, as to what McNally could say as the reason for the sacking.

Like I''ve said elsewhere recently, it''s hard with Hughton to say exactly what''s wrong. It''s a bit of just about everything combining to make one big problem, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...