Where did it all go wrong? A theorem on Chris Hughton's time at Norwich City

[Empty Mirror 0]

Not so.

If you were Delia, and were still smarting from the vitriol you encountered from the fans when your supposedly "amateur" attempts to manage our club, culminating in the appointment of a club legend with no managerial experience led to our fall to the third tier, and if you had then been praised by all and sundry for appointing a "football man" in McNally, and "allowing him to run the club", how much of a hurry would you be in to confront said "football man" over what was and remains very much his choice of manager? Especially if your own choice might be yet another club legend? Or might you just sit on your hands and let the "football man" take the blame, as he is starting to?

If you were our Chief Executive, and if your falling out with our most successful manager ever (in statistical terms) had played a part (I put it no higher, and apportion no blame for said falling out) in that manager''s departure, and if you''d had your man Hughton ready to parachute in within a week of that departure, might you just be unwilling to admit now that you got it wrong, and might you - despite a reputation for previous toughness - perhaps back your man a bit too long?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

People can mention this game or that, but there was never one result or even a set of results that made his position untenable. And last night didn''t either. No-one can seriously think Hughton would have put out that team if his job depended on it.[/quote]Exactly so Purple and that is why those that have called it that he would still be in his job after Xmas got it spot on. We had claims in October and November that he would be gone by the weekend when it was never remotely probable that this would happen. It was obvious in December that barring a catastrophic set of results he would still be in his job. Now we come to the Hull game and it''s quite possible that a different scenario will play out. With still no turn in form this could very well be the result that does for him. I am thinking along the lines of Worthy and Burnley. Nobody could survive that. However should we win then there is little or no chance of a change. Some won''t like it but barring that catastrophic event he could very well go on right through the season.Events will determine his fate and Saturday will be the first big crunch.[/quote]Yes, well ricardo, one idiot here kept saying - including very recently - that Hughton would last the whole season. Oh, hold on, that was me...[:$]

[basil brush 0]

For me - with a degree of hindsight - it was wrong from the very first game away at Fulham. This set the tone for the rest of his tenure.

That game showed that the players were not comfortable of playing in the way that Hughton wanted them to. And probably couldn''t understand why they had to play that way either, especially the ones that played under the previous more proactive and offensive manager.

Hughton and Norwich have never been the right fit and one would expect his tenure to end very soon. I suspect they may be a split in the board which is why Hughton still has employment here...

.

[thebigfeller 200]

@It''s Character Forming:I think it is quite spectacularly naive to believe that good class players, who:- Will never win the league- Will never play in the Champions League- Have very little chance of playing at the World CupTherefore view turning out in run-of-the-mill Premier League games as the pinnacle.All

sport at all levels operates according to the principle of ''what next?''

And those with the right attitudes always want to get better; always

want to achieve more. These guys have hopes, dreams and ambitions just like anyone else in sport, you know.Hughton''s team selection that night took

that chance away from them. A chance which hardly ever comes around

nowadays; and probably won''t for a number of our squad ever again. That

very approach epitomises the corporate, joyless grind that is Chris

Hughton''s Norwich City; the exact opposite of the

damn-the-torpedoes-full-steam-ahead revolution under his predecessor.As for our form: since that League Cup game, our league record is as follows:P 43 W 10 D 12 L 21 P 41 A 69 Pts 42That''s relegation form.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Empty Mirror"]Not so.

If you were Delia, and were still smarting from the vitriol you encountered from the fans when your supposedly "amateur" attempts to manage our club, culminating in the appointment of a club legend with no managerial experience led to our fall to the third tier, and if you had then been praised by all and sundry for appointing a "football man" in McNally, and "allowing him to run the club", how much of a hurry would you be in to confront said "football man" over what was and remains very much his choice of manager? Especially if your own choice might be yet another club legend? Or might you just sit on your hands and let the "football man" take the blame, as he is starting to?

If you were our Chief Executive, and if your falling out with our most successful manager ever (in statistical terms) had played a part (I put it no higher, and apportion no blame for said falling out) in that manager''s departure, and if you''d had your man Hughton ready to parachute in within a week of that departure, might you just be unwilling to admit now that you got it wrong, and might you - despite a reputation for previous toughness - perhaps back your man a bit too long?[/quote]Actually, given the quite unbelievable Ipswich which she, her husband and the then board had made of it, what''s incredible was how little vitriol Delia received. At many, many clubs, she''d have been hounded out; but to her everlasting credit, she finally acknowledged she was out of her depth, and put things right.What I''d expect at any properly run club is for McNally, the football man, to have the final say; for the whole board to work together; but at times like this, for at least a degree of creative tension to surface: which is never a bad thing. That actually drives things forward by forcing those at the helm to constantly question and scrutinise things. If Delia thinks Malky is the man, she''d be entirely within her rights to put his case to the other board members.As for McNally: I hope to goodness that isn''t what''s happening - but then again, as CEO, he must always be fully supported by his fellow board members too. If there''s any question at all here of "we''ll back you when you get it right, but you can take the fall if you get it wrong", that''d be appalling.This isn''t and must never be a question of egos, reputations or whatever. It''s about everyone at the club working for its good; about them putting NCFC first, second and third, and leaving no stone unturned in that process.But are they?

[Tumbleweed 106]

Two comments from me.

1. I am not sure I agree with Purple that there has been no single result. In fact I think there have been plenty. Perhaps too many since we have a number of humiliations this season that they begin to blur into one. If you were to look for one cataclysmic result then it could only be one which actually caused relegation. Nor do I agree that you actually need one result anyway or even a tipping point. A pattern has developed, a downward curve. You just need to say enough is enough. If you get to the stage that you don''t think things will get better you must act. Even if we beat Hull- is the level of that performance irrelevant? What if they hit the bar 6 times, have a disallowed goal, a man sent off and we score a flukey last minute penalty. Would that make things OK? I would argue that it should not cloud the longer term judgement.

2. Some have said that the brief was to stay out of the bottom 3, that we are not in the bottom 3 and therefore the brief is being fulfilled. Respectfully I disagree wholeheartedly with this position. It is like a company CEO looking at a string of poor results, not doing anything because the company isn''t insolvent and then finding one day that it is and it is now too late. Being out of the bottom 3 now is virtually irrelevant. What matters is being out only on the day the season ends. If we do not think that will happen or there is a risk that it may not then corrective action must be taken. To fail to do so when all the evidence supports failure is reckless. We almost have a 34 game season playing top teams at the end when they are likely to be fighting tooth and nail for either the Prem title itself or a Champs Lge spot. For those who say it doesn''t matter when we play teams; again this is flawed in my view- this season for us is the flipside of last. On the basis of a 34 game season we are well below where we need to be to meet traditional survival thresholds.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

People can mention this game or that, but there was never one result or even a set of results that made his position untenable. And last night didn''t either. No-one can seriously think Hughton would have put out that team if his job depended on it.[/quote]Exactly so Purple and that is why those that have called it that he would still be in his job after Xmas got it spot on. We had claims in October and November that he would be gone by the weekend when it was never remotely probable that this would happen. It was obvious in December that barring a catastrophic set of results he would still be in his job. Now we come to the Hull game and it''s quite possible that a different scenario will play out. With still no turn in form this could very well be the result that does for him. I am thinking along the lines of Worthy and Burnley. Nobody could survive that. However should we win then there is little or no chance of a change. Some won''t like it but barring that catastrophic event he could very well go on right through the season.Events will determine his fate and Saturday will be the first big crunch.[/quote]Yes, well ricardo, one idiot here kept saying - including very recently - that Hughton would last the whole season. Oh, hold on, that was me...[:$]

[/quote]Who knows? that still might turn out to be right.Events dear boy, events.[;)]

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Tumbleweed"]Two comments from me.

1.  If you were to look for one cataclysmic result then it could only be one which actually caused relegation. Nor do I agree that you actually need one result anyway or even a tipping point. A pattern has developed, a downward curve. You just need to say enough is enough. 

2. Some have said that the brief was to stay out of the bottom 3, that we are not in the bottom 3 and therefore the brief is being fulfilled. Respectfully I disagree wholeheartedly with this position. It is like a company CEO looking at a string of poor results, not doing anything because the company isn''t insolvent and then finding one day that it is and it is now too late. Being out of the bottom 3 now is virtually irrelevant. What matters is being out only on the day the season ends. If we do not think that will happen or there is a risk that it may not then corrective action must be taken. To fail to do so when all the evidence supports failure is reckless. We almost have a 34 game season playing top teams at the end when they are likely to be fighting tooth and nail for either the Prem title itself or a Champs Lge spot. For those who say it doesn''t matter when we play teams; again this is flawed in my view- this season for us is the flipside of last. On the basis of a 34 game season we are well below where we need to be to meet traditional survival thresholds.[/quote]

No the cataclysmic result does not have to be the one that causes relegation and you do indeed need to have a tipping point. The Worthy/ Burnley and Saunders/Everton matches are the significant matches I site as evidence of this. Managers don''t survive when the crowd turns and if it turns on Saturday I think his days are numbered despite what McNally said.As for your second point, the club revealed that it had budgeted for 16th place. While that might seem a bit disappointing you can hardly point to it as a sacking offence if the manager achieves it. Fair enough if you don''t like the style but that''s another thing altogether.Which ever way you look at the relegation issue we are achieving close to 1 point per game and if we beat Hull which will even up the home and away game tally''s we will be slightly in front of that. We seem to be on course for about 38 points which has been enough in all bar 3 seasons since changing to the 38 game format.Things could get worse but it is by no means panic stations yet.

[Badger 2,405]

Very interesting post OP - thanks.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Tumbleweed"]Two comments from me.

1. I am not sure I agree with Purple that there has been no single result. In fact I think there have been plenty. Perhaps too many since we have a number of humiliations this season that they begin to blur into one. If you were to look for one cataclysmic result then it could only be one which actually caused relegation. Nor do I agree that you actually need one result anyway or even a tipping point. A pattern has developed, a downward curve. You just need to say enough is enough. If you get to the stage that you don''t think things will get better you must act.[/quote]But, TW, if so many single results, then which one to choose! In any event perhaps I wasn''t being clear. I wasn''t saying for a moment that if there had been such a bad result that would have been the time. That is not my view at all. What I look for is a much longer-term sense of a manager failing. The kind of downward curve you describe. But the trouble is that slide has happened too late on in the season and has been too gradual for there to have been a point at which you could say it was going to carry on AND - crucially - there was still time for a new manager to have an effect.If Hughton is sacked at the weekend and a new man has been lined up who already knows what he wants to do in the transfer market then the change might still just about be in time. But not ideal.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I do agree with some of the observations regarding that league cup tie v Villa. I was devastated at the way we threw away such a great chance of getting to Wembley which for most of our fans under 35 would have been a first. It was also an early indication of the kind of tactical inflexibility and inability to react to obvious issues on the pitch that has come to characterise Hughton''s regime. Even though the rush of goals did not come til late in the game it was very obvious from early on in that game that Lambert had given Villa the upper hand with the formation he put out, that we were being outnumbered in midfield, that our defensive midfielders were being overrun and that we could not retain possession but he just kept things as they were for most of the game.

For me though the pivotal moment when I realised Hughton''s management was severely flawed came at West Brom a few weeks later when, on the back of a 10 match unbeaten run so with the team high on confidence, he was comprehensively outmanoevred in the second half by Steve Clarke. That was the end of our run and the odd game aside we''ve been pretty poor ever since.

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

I think it started to go wrong the moment Grant Holt decided he wanted out.

The previous manager not only played a system that suited Holt''s strengths but he was smart enough to give the big man a lot of freedom both on and off the field.

Grant Holt was a big presence about the club, a never-say-die leader. During our run up the divisions we gained a reputation of late, late wins, which I think was down to the self-belief of the team as exemplified by GH.

When Hughton came in he was more hands-on, wanting a more controlled approach. He wanted Holt to play differently and in a way in which the big man was going to score fewer goals. I think mentally Holt switched off, his body language changed, he didn''t enjoy playing in a differerently structured manner and I think the enthusiasm he had drained away once he decided he wanted a move.

Being the natural leader around the club, once his enthusiasm was waning it had a knock-on effect with the other players. We know that they are capable of performing well, such as they did against Man U, but their heads now go down very quickly when things go against them. In the past they would have been motivated by the challenge.

Since Grant Holt left, there is no player with the same presence to step into his shoes. There is no leader. At the time of the announcement, I thought it a mistake to have two captains - a club and a team. It sounds like some inner London council job sharing scheme. It''s uninspiring.

If there is a fault with Hughton, it is that he comes across as too measured, too predictable and doesn''t offer inspiration. To a certain degree I would lay the same charges at Arsne Wenger, but he obviously has greater coaching and tactical skills than Hughton that outweigh the negatives.

So now Grant Holt teams up again with Lambert. Perhaps Wes will want out, the trio that was so much responsible for our success now recreated in the Midlands.

Will Hughton survive? Much depends upon Hull result but also depends on the nature of the new signings in January. It won''t be enough to bring in talented players similar to RVW, we need to bring in players with leadership qualities and layers that are prepared to give there all to the final minute of each game.

It''s the final throw of the dice for Hughton.

[hertfordyellow 460]

[quote user="Empty Mirror"]Not so.

If you were Delia, and were still smarting from the vitriol you encountered from the fans when your supposedly "amateur" attempts to manage our club, culminating in the appointment of a club legend with no managerial experience led to our fall to the third tier, and if you had then been praised by all and sundry for appointing a "football man" in McNally, and "allowing him to run the club", how much of a hurry would you be in to confront said "football man" over what was and remains very much his choice of manager? Especially if your own choice might be yet another club legend? Or might you just sit on your hands and let the "football man" take the blame, as he is starting to?

If you were our Chief Executive, and if your falling out with our most successful manager ever (in statistical terms) had played a part (I put it no higher, and apportion no blame for said falling out) in that manager''s departure, and if you''d had your man Hughton ready to parachute in within a week of that departure, might you just be unwilling to admit now that you got it wrong, and might you - despite a reputation for previous toughness - perhaps back your man a bit too long?[/quote]^^ good postI know McNally picked Hughton but I can''t think of many managers at the time that were available that would want to come here. It''s easy to say he picked the wrong man but I struggle to see that many alternatives. People have been saying Holloway, Zola for example but they have been proven not that great so can''t think they would have done better. Saying that, the amount of money McNally is paid is mind blowing. Whether it makes him look bad or not, he needs to pull the trigger, take the blame for the appointment because that is what he is paid millions to do.