Ricardo's report v Man Utd

[morty 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"]I shall counter that with the fact that 4 of their midfielders are easily better than 5 of ours.I think Hughton got things about as right as he could have done today, but you''d never see it that way, would you?[/quote]Well they weren''t in the first half. And yes, if we had made some attempt to change the game in the 2nd half, I would think he did things about as right as he could have done.Sadly in recent games against Fulham and Sunderland we played a 4-4-2, and never switched to a 4-5-1 when the opposition were on top of us in the second half.  Today we played 4-5-1 and with the game running away from us didn''t switch to a 4-4-2 despite the fact the opposition did exactly that.He never trys anything despite being happy to employ both formations in different games.[/quote]The thing is, as someone also said, why should 4-5-1 necessarily be seen as negative? Its generally only 4-5-1 when you don''t have the ball, and more likely 4-3-3 when you do.Its not like flicking a switch just changing formations, especially without making a substitution. You have to have the right players who are comfortable in each system. Depending on pace, ability, spatial awareness etc, some players will play better in some formations, but not in others.I really don''t think he got much wrong today. Personally I think he should stick with 4-5-1, especially if we sign a quality number 10.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Bury Yellow"]Trouble is people it was the loss to Fulham who were beaten 6 nil today by…Hull.

That speaks volumes about our mindset. How ironic that we played well today[/quote]A funny old game indeed yet people still see our 0-1 defeat at Hull as some kind of disaster.[/quote]Where we failed to even look like scoring against 10 men?[/quote]A great shame that but when you go down to 10 you know that its all about defending. How many times have we seen 10 beat 11 let alone hang on to a lead.The table shows that Hull were not the rabbits we thought they were. (As Liverpool discovered)

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"]I shall counter that with the fact that 4 of their midfielders are easily better than 5 of ours.I think Hughton got things about as right as he could have done today, but you''d never see it that way, would you?[/quote]Well they weren''t in the first half. And yes, if we had made some attempt to change the game in the 2nd half, I would think he did things about as right as he could have done.Sadly in recent games against Fulham and Sunderland we played a 4-4-2, and never switched to a 4-5-1 when the opposition were on top of us in the second half.  Today we played 4-5-1 and with the game running away from us didn''t switch to a 4-4-2 despite the fact the opposition did exactly that.He never trys anything despite being happy to employ both formations in different games.[/quote]The thing is, as someone also said, why should 4-5-1 necessarily be seen as negative? Its generally only 4-5-1 when you don''t have the ball, and more likely 4-3-3 when you do.Its not like flicking a switch just changing formations, especially without making a substitution. You have to have the right players who are comfortable in each system. Depending on pace, ability, spatial awareness etc, some players will play better in some formations, but not in others.I really don''t think he got much wrong today. Personally I think he should stick with 4-5-1, especially if we sign a quality number 10.[/quote]When he goes 451 everyone wants 442, when he goes 442 they want 451.The poor f......r is never going to get it right with some people.At the end of the day, if he keeps us up he will have done o.k. and that''s the bottom line.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="morty"]Its not like flicking a switch just changing formations, especially without making a substitution. You have to have the right players who are comfortable in each system. Depending on pace, ability, spatial awareness etc, some players will play better in some formations, but not in others.[/quote]Man U did, and it worked for them. We NEVER try.  Not even when playing 4-4-2, we don''t switch it to 4-5-1 even with Wes on the bench and the game running away from us.  Today the recently impressive Elmander would have worked to change to a 4-4-2 - nope stick with 4-5-1 till the end, by the time he did enter the pitch with a few minutes to go the formation was irrelevant as everyone was pushed up.I can tell you one thing that wouldn''t work today, doing nothing, because it didn''t.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"]Its not like flicking a switch just changing formations, especially without making a substitution. You have to have the right players who are comfortable in each system. Depending on pace, ability, spatial awareness etc, some players will play better in some formations, but not in others.[/quote]Man U did, and it worked for them. We NEVER try.  Not even when playing 4-4-2, we don''t switch it to 4-5-1 even with Wes on the bench and the game running away from us.  Today the recently impressive Elmander would have worked to change to a 4-4-2 - nope stick with 4-5-1 till the end, by the time he did enter the pitch with a few minutes to go the formation was irrelevant as everyone was pushed up.I can tell you one thing that wouldn''t work today, doing nothing, because it didn''t.[/quote]Lets face it, nothing Hughton is ever going to do will sit right with you, will it?

[Matt Juler 151]

Nothing wrong with the initial setup, but after Utd scored we never once looked like getting back into the game. Bringing a sub on in the 89th minute is a joke, we needed to make that change with at least 15 to go. We may go on to lose 0-2, but you have to be brave and take that gamble. We almost seemed content with 0-1, sums up the current management team.

[*** 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"]

I shall counter that with the fact that 4 of their midfielders are easily better than 5 of ours.

I think Hughton got things about as right as he could have done today, but you''d never see it that way, would you?
[/quote]

Well they weren''t in the first half. And yes, if we had made some attempt to change the game in the 2nd half, I would think he did things about as right as he could have done.

Sadly in recent games against Fulham and Sunderland we played a 4-4-2, and never switched to a 4-5-1 when the opposition were on top of us in the second half.  Today we played 4-5-1 and with the game running away from us didn''t switch to a 4-4-2 despite the fact the opposition did exactly that.

He never trys anything despite being happy to employ both formations in different games.
[/quote]

The thing is, as someone also said, why should 4-5-1 necessarily be seen as negative? Its generally only 4-5-1 when you don''t have the ball, and more likely 4-3-3 when you do.

Its not like flicking a switch just changing formations, especially without making a substitution. You have to have the right players who are comfortable in each system. Depending on pace, ability, spatial awareness etc, some players will play better in some formations, but not in others.

I really don''t think he got much wrong today. Personally I think he should stick with 4-5-1, especially if we sign a quality number 10.
[/quote]

When he goes 451 everyone wants 442, when he goes 442 they want 451.

The poor f......r is never going to get it right with some people.

At the end of the day, if he keeps us up he will have done o.k. and that''s the bottom line.
[/quote]

 

And if, as I believe, he takes us down?

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="morty"]Lets face it, nothing Hughton is ever going to do will sit right with you, will it?[/quote]Not true at all, but he is hardly doing a wonderful job just a couple of points above the drop zone either.  It will just be difficult to get used to the fact Hoot very rarely changes it, no matter what is happening. How he can watch the game just drift away as it did today, and make no tactical change makes you wonder why he is even there.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

I have played and coached in Italy and categorising today''s performance by Norwich is laughable.

Norwich were aggressive, pressed hard into attacking areas of the pitch and throughout the second half relied on one for one defending when United broke.

This would be considered suicidal in Italy. United overloaded the forward midfield areas to try to unbalance us and move us into reverse positions and we gambled by ignoring this and trying to cause them problems by allowing Redmond and Hoolahan to play fluidly and without strict defensive responsibility others than dropping into zonal areas after losing possession.

Norwich have recently also developed their defensive play by making greater efforts to retain the ball for longer in defensive areas, drawing forwards in to pass them out of the game. "Pissing about at the back" you call it in England.

"Football" you call it everywhere else.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"]Lets face it, nothing Hughton is ever going to do will sit right with you, will it?[/quote]Not true at all, but he is hardly doing a wonderful job just a couple of points above the drop zone either.  It will just be difficult to get used to the fact Hoot very rarely changes it, no matter what is happening. How he can watch the game just drift away as it did today, and make no tactical change makes you wonder why he is even there.[/quote]Yeah, you have kinda just proved my point lol[Y]

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

I have played and coached in Italy and categorising today''s performance by Norwich as negative is laughable.

Norwich were aggressive, pressed hard into attacking areas of the pitch and throughout the second half relied on one for one defending when United broke.

This would be considered suicidal in Italy. United overloaded the forward midfield areas to try to unbalance us and move us into reverse positions and we gambled by ignoring this and trying to cause them problems by allowing Redmond and Hoolahan to play fluidly and without strict defensive responsibility others than dropping into zonal areas after losing possession.

Norwich have recently also developed their defensive play by making greater efforts to retain the ball for longer in defensive areas, drawing forwards in to pass them out of the game. "Pissing about at the back" you call it in England.

"Football" you call it everywhere else.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"]I shall counter that with the fact that 4 of their midfielders are easily better than 5 of ours.I think Hughton got things about as right as he could have done today, but you''d never see it that way, would you?[/quote]Well they weren''t in the first half. And yes, if we had made some attempt to change the game in the 2nd half, I would think he did things about as right as he could have done.Sadly in recent games against Fulham and Sunderland we played a 4-4-2, and never switched to a 4-5-1 when the opposition were on top of us in the second half.  Today we played 4-5-1 and with the game running away from us didn''t switch to a 4-4-2 despite the fact the opposition did exactly that.He never trys anything despite being happy to employ both formations in different games.[/quote]The thing is, as someone also said, why should 4-5-1 necessarily be seen as negative? Its generally only 4-5-1 when you don''t have the ball, and more likely 4-3-3 when you do.Its not like flicking a switch just changing formations, especially without making a substitution. You have to have the right players who are comfortable in each system. Depending on pace, ability, spatial awareness etc, some players will play better in some formations, but not in others.I really don''t think he got much wrong today. Personally I think he should stick with 4-5-1, especially if we sign a quality number 10.[/quote]When he goes 451 everyone wants 442, when he goes 442 they want 451.The poor f......r is never going to get it right with some people.At the end of the day, if he keeps us up he will have done o.k. and that''s the bottom line.[/quote]

 

And if, as I believe, he takes us down?

[/quote]You of all people should know the answer to that.A manager lives or dies by the results be he Paul Lambert or Chris Hughton.

[Surfer 1,547]

" How he can watch the game just drift away as it did today, and make no tactical change makes you wonder why he is even there. "

I wonder if there is a special chapter FIFA''s coaching manual titled "Making Pointlessly Late Substitutions"?

Because CH isn''t the only manager that does this …

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]I have played and coached in Italy and categorising today''s performance by Norwich is laughable.

Norwich were aggressive, pressed hard into attacking areas of the pitch and throughout the second half relied on one for one defending when United broke.

This would be considered suicidal in Italy. United overloaded the forward midfield areas to try to unbalance us and move us into reverse positions and we gambled by ignoring this and trying to cause them problems by allowing Redmond and Hoolahan to play fluidly and without strict defensive responsibility others than dropping into zonal areas after losing possession.

Norwich have recently also developed their defensive play by making greater efforts to retain the ball for longer in defensive areas, drawing forwards in to pass them out of the game. "Pissing about at the back" you call it in England.

"Football" you call it everywhere else.[/quote]

I realise that Parma but it don''t half put my nerves on edge when they nearly keep getting caught out. Sometimes I''d prefer to see it go into row Z.[:D]

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

The question is "when?" Ricardo. I would observe that English defenders (and the frenetic nature of the English game) encourages defenders to sense danger a half second before it is really there. This may not sound like much, but the ability to sense danger, retain sang froid, give yourself a fraction longer to make a better decision and a pass that retains possession is utterly fundamental to how and when the midfield receives the ball, with what kind of space and angles, and - crucially - what shape the opposition are then moved into. Retaining possession Is also an excellent defensive tool, which is often overlooked.

In England Ferdinand was criticised for the odd casual mistake, leading to a cheap goal, but many utterly failed to take account of all the chances, goals, problems that didn''t occur and the contribution he made to team shape and constructive midfield possession by retaining the ball.

I qualify my statement however by observing that wishing to play this way is not the same thing as having the personnel to do it...

[ron obvious 1,502]

Many thanks as per Ricardo.

I really must get a new PC - I watched the stream on a decent machine today & it was a revelation - as were Norwich! What a first half!

"My son bought me a very thought provoking book for Christmas, called "The Numbers Game" (why everything you know about football is wrong). Apparently a result in a football match is determined more by luck than in any other comparable field sport. I found it difficult to believe but the statistics are compelling and after today''s game I think I have been converted to this idea."

And Amen to that. I would refer m''Lud to posts I have made many times before!

And the scoreline really tells you very little about a game. We performed far better in that game than in most of our wins. That is all you can do; play to the best of your ability. You''ll still lose games like today - you might even lose against Fulham if the luck is really against you, just as we might have won on Boxing day despite playing rubbish. But long term you''ll win more by playing better (surprise surprise).

I still think our trajectory is, erratically, upwards. Everyone at the club is learning. Players need time to know each other''s game, managers to know their players.

Patience, friends, patience. A cardinal virtue, but sadly going out of fashion.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Totally agree as usual Parma..

That calmness and almost zen like ability to see beyond the immediate is what Bassong at his best brought to us last season even when those around me were screaming "Get rid of it".

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Bang on Ronnie

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="Matt Juler"]Nothing wrong with the initial setup, but after Utd scored we never once looked like getting back into the game. Bringing a sub on in the 89th minute is a joke, we needed to make that change with at least 15 to go. We may go on to lose 0-2, but you have to be brave and take that gamble. We almost seemed content with 0-1, sums up the current management team.[/quote]

No Xmas markets or festive drinks today?

[Rogue Baboon 0]

Exactly this. It seems that you cannot suggest that we were brilliant but needed to change things. I don''t think 451 is any more negative than 442 used correctly. In the first half we were brilliant, not negative at all. Could not have asked for any more other than the deserved goal. But Moyes realised we were on top so changed it around. Once they got into the lead we did not look like getting back into it. Incannkt remember a clear cut chance in the second half. Going 442 may not have changed anything, we may have lost 2-0 instead. But we seemed content with the 1-0 defeat on the off chance that we might get a half chance instead of trying to force something. However, i don''t think we were negative for 1 second, and am not critising the way we set up at all

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Taking a further man out of midfield would have been suicidal. The only way that a further striker could have brought on (bearing in mind Wes and Redmond were also on) - given the way united overloaded the advanced midfield area - would have been to play long ball and introduce Elmander earlier and almost cede the midfield region. You can perhaps do this with a few minutes to go, but United were extremely dangerous on the counter ( and a little profligate with their final third decision making on a number of 2v2 breaks) and it would have moved the odds further in their favour not ours. Hughton absolutely went for it and was more positive throughout then I would have been.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

As i said, happy with being 1-0 down on the off chance that we might make something happen. We were losing but did not try and force it, so it just seemed to fizzle out

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

-------------Parma Ham''s gone mouldy--------

Taking a further man out of midfield would have been suicidal.

----------------------------------------------------------

Rubbish, that is exactly what Man United did to their side and they got back in the game. They dropped to a 4 against our 5.

I don''t fall for this 5 in midfield automatically means a 4 won''t create chances claptrap.

As for Hughton ''going for it at one down'', we had 2 shots in the 2nd half so sticking with the 5 did pee all to help our chances.

[Monty13 2,232]

Spot on report Ricardo, many thanks.

I said on another thread it just wasn''t our day and got some abuse for it, but after we failed to score in the first half I just new we would lose to a typical clinical out of nowhere united goal and it happened.

I for one was so glad to see us back to 451 with the little man just behind Hooper. Hughton got tactics, team selection and imo subs spot on today. Not much he can do after that.

The one thing I would concede is it was maybe worth throwing Elmander on a couple of minutes earlier but def not on 70 mins as some were suggesting. Vidic was winning everything in the air, going 442 and long would have been self destructive imo as we were probing well still through midfield even when we went a goal down.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--------------Monty13---------------

The one thing I would concede is it was maybe worth throwing Elmander on a couple of minutes earlier but def not on 70 mins as some were suggesting. Vidic was winning everything in the air, going 442 and long would have been self destructive imo as we were probing well still through midfield even when we went a goal down.

----------------------------------------

Having looked at the live postings we had 3 shots all from outside the area after the goal. Hooper Blocked 60'', Redmond Blocked 70'' and Murphy 83'' high wide and not very handsome.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

It would have been suicidal to go 4 in midfield? Because we might have lost a game we were already losing, and failed to create a clear cut chance for the last 30minutes in?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

United have players of high class and intelligent fluidity.

Giggs was replaced by welbeck who moved regularly between the the midfield and forward lines forcing Johnson to play a few yards deeper and further isolating Fer. Redmond offers little to the defensive structural shape and Hoolahan cannot patrol the central midfield area with authority and was not asked to.

It was therefore positive to leave this situation unchanged as we were already risking a great deal defensively.

Hughton allowed Martin to continue to overload the right side in the hope of forcing welbeck into wider, less threatening areas.

This can be observed in the repeated united breaks that saw Johnson in the right back position and the repeated occasions where Hoolahan picked up the ball, turned and created options in central areas near to Fer.

[Monty13 2,232]

Citizen, we still had plenty of opportunities to get in good positions and also a number of corners and free kicks. We just failed to convert good positions into chances due to a mixture of poor decision making, good defending and Man Utd defending deeper and wasting time when they went a goal up.

You may have seen it differently, but that''s how it looked to me. IMHO going 442 wouldn''t have changed the number of opportunities we had for the better, but its my opinion, in reality we will never know.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

[quote user="Monty13"]Citizen, we still had plenty of opportunities to get in good positions and also a number of corners and free kicks. We just failed to convert good positions into chances due to a mixture of poor decision making, good defending and Man Utd defending deeper and wasting time when they went a goal up.

You may have seen it differently, but that''s how it looked to me. IMHO going 442 wouldn''t have changed the number of opportunities we had for the better, but its my opinion, in reality we will never know.[/quote]

indeed we will never know, but we would have had (potentially) another option to aim at. And your post hits the nail on the head - we failed to convert good positions into chances. We should be converting chances into goals, but we cannot even create the chances for large portions of games. We seem to go through spells of having 1 good half per game and its something that needs to be sorted asap

[Guest]

I believe that formation is mostly irrelevant anyway - you could say that we played a 4-4-1-1, a 4-5-1, a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 today if you really wanted. None of which describe the system we played adequately.

Ultimately we do not have the squad players to bring real quality off the bench with our current injury list. Chucking Elmander on with more time to go may have paid dividends, but it''s all hindsight. We were well in it in the second half, poor decision making in the final third had more of an influence that formation/personnel IMO.