Hughton is wasting van Wolfswinkel - latest blog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

Totally fair comment as far as Wolfswinkel''s dilemma is concerned. I''m hoping to see Tettey and Fer in CM tomorrow as they''re our two best passers and I don''t think we can afford to entertain Hoolahan in a four man midfield with his inability to tackle or win the ball.

Overly harsh on Snodgrass in my opinion. One of the better performers against Fulham the other day, albeit that''s not massive praise in the context of the result.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Excellent piece (incidentally, I''m 63 & had no problem with cultural references!).

How often has the Hooligan been available concurrently with RvW? My main beef would be the lack of game time given to a Wes/RvW combo. Wes gets criticised for being uninfluential in some games, but I suspect that''s because there''s nobody with the nous or ability to get on his wavelength. I believe Ricky could be that man.[/quote]Crawler![;)]

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Daniel Brigham"]So just to be clear Lake. You think the current gameplan of pushing it out wide, cutting inside, allowing the opposition to get back in numbers and delivering the ball late will get the best out of RVW?[/quote]

No. I think it would be fair to say that a mixture of  tactics would be best.  I can''t imagine that the game plan is only to play out wide.  That would be stupid.   If we are one dimensional then the players do have to take some responsibility for that.

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Daniel Brigham"]So just to be clear Lake. You think the current gameplan of pushing it out wide, cutting inside, allowing the opposition to get back in numbers and delivering the ball late will get the best out of RVW?[/quote]

No. I think it would be fair to say that a mixture of  tactics would be best.  I can''t imagine that the game plan is only to play out wide.  That would be stupid.   If we are one dimensional then the players do have to take some responsibility for that.[/quote]Yes, but the ****ing manager is responsible for the tactics LDC. The players are expected to adhere to instructions and stick to the game plan. With the quality of players in our squad we should not be one dimensional.If we are then the solution to the problem surely lies off the pitch.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Daniel Brigham"]So just to be clear Lake. You think the current gameplan of pushing it out wide, cutting inside, allowing the opposition to get back in numbers and delivering the ball late will get the best out of RVW?[/quote]No. I think it would be fair to say that a mixture of  tactics would be best.  I can''t imagine that the game plan is only to play out wide.  That would be stupid.   If we are one dimensional then the players do have to take some responsibility for that.[/quote]Yes, but the ****ing manager is responsible for the tactics LDC. The players are expected to adhere to instructions and stick to the game plan. With the quality of players in our squad we should not be one dimensional.If we are then the solution to the problem surely lies off the pitch.[/quote]

I get the point.   The buck stops with the manager, I understand that.   All I am saying is that the opposite can be true too.   The manager sets the team up and they go on the pitch and cock it up. 

[ron obvious 1,502]

Crawler!Wink [;)]

Just because I''m down with the kids in the hoodie & have an extensive knowledge of popular beat combos.

Get with the programme, daddio.

[Madison 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"]Yep. And as an aside, this miserable inability to understand how to deploy players in the hole, and link them up effectively with a striker, is quite horribly British. At international level, our sides are absurdly predictable: everything in straight lines, no triangles (which are what good football is actually all about) at all. And that goes back to coaching and general attitudes throughout the English and British games.So here we have Hughton: the quintessential British gent, even given his Irish mother. He was assistant manager of the Republic of Ireland, the world''s most relentlessly, pathologically boring international team; his methods at Newcastle and Birmingham were simple and straightforward enough. Norwich, meanwhile, have been packed with British players for years now, more than maybe any other Premier League club: so it was the ideal job for him when he was appointed, but now that we''ve begun to upgrade to players from more cerebral footballing cultures, he just doesn''t know what to do.Hoolahan''s treatment by both club and country has been because he''s the sort of player who British managers (or foreign managers when they take over international teams on these islands and swallow the stereotype about our players completely: see Trapattoni, G; Capello, F; and Eriksson, S-G) just don''t trust. They don''t track back enough, you see; they''re ''luxuries''. But actually, they''re the only sort of player who can unlock defences at the highest level; an industrious workhorse like Snodgrass is never, ever going to have the same impact.So England wasted a player of the vision of Scholes; chucked him, then Joe Cole, then Gerrard out onto the left wing when every one of them should''ve been in the hole behind Rooney; and Ireland wasted Hoolahan, as Norwich have done for a year and a half now too. It''s clueless: all so predictable, everything in straight lines.What amazes me about Hughton, though, is he spent his entire club career for one of the few sides in England who''ve never played this way. For as long as I can remember, Tottenham have invariably tried to play like a continental side; actually, like a Dutch side in many ways. But good old, dependable, safety first Chris doesn''t seem to have learnt a single thing about their methods; and neither has his assistant: regarding whom, the least said, the better.This is why I desperately want us to look overseas now. We''re 15th in the world''s highest profile league: with a huge catchment area, tremendous fanbase, excellent stadium, facilities and youth system. There''s dozens of hugely talented coaches in France, Holland, Germany or Italy who''d love a job like that - and if we want to sign players like Nicolas Burdisso, who rejected our interest in him yesterday, we have to upgrade our management team to people who have a far, far better grasp of the modern, globalised game. [/quote]

Great addition to Daniels excellent OP well done guys it was a pleasure to read your views.

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Daniel Brigham"]So just to be clear Lake. You think the current gameplan of pushing it out wide, cutting inside, allowing the opposition to get back in numbers and delivering the ball late will get the best out of RVW?[/quote]No. I think it would be fair to say that a mixture of  tactics would be best.  I can''t imagine that the game plan is only to play out wide.  That would be stupid.   If we are one dimensional then the players do have to take some responsibility for that.[/quote]Yes, but the ****ing manager is responsible for the tactics LDC. The players are expected to adhere to instructions and stick to the game plan. With the quality of players in our squad we should not be one dimensional.If we are then the solution to the problem surely lies off the pitch.[/quote]

I get the point.   The buck stops with the manager, I understand that.   All I am saying is that the opposite can be true too.   The manager sets the team up and they go on the pitch and cock it up.  What almost every week for more than a calendar year ?[/quote]

[Monty13 2,234]

Good piece Daniel, I don''t always agree with everything you write, but in this case you pretty much have called it as I see it.

After skimming through the previous pages of the usual childish bickering I can''t see anyone who''s even really come up with a legitimate counter argument. (apologies if you have I wasn''t reading all of the waffle to find out)

Imo the biggest failing this year has been the refusal to play Wes. He wouldn''t be perfect for every game but we didn''t get someone better and Hughtons response seems to have been an almost childish reluctance to use him. In most situations he would have been perfect to bridge that gap between RVW/Hooper and our midfield and get them playing through the middle, off the shoulder and to feet, utilising both these guys strengths

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

Quote yesterday from Paul Doyle, chief sports writer of The Guardian:"Norwich look like a side that are over-coached, that has a very rigid shape, and don''t apparently have the freedom to do anything beyond follow their strict instructions."

[nutty nigel 7,536]

[quote user="Madison"][quote user="thebigfeller"]Yep. And as an aside, this miserable inability to understand how to deploy players in the hole, and link them up effectively with a striker, is quite horribly British. At international level, our sides are absurdly predictable: everything in straight lines, no triangles (which are what good football is actually all about) at all. And that goes back to coaching and general attitudes throughout the English and British games.So here we have Hughton: the quintessential British gent, even given his Irish mother. He was assistant manager of the Republic of Ireland, the world''s most relentlessly, pathologically boring international team; his methods at Newcastle and Birmingham were simple and straightforward enough. Norwich, meanwhile, have been packed with British players for years now, more than maybe any other Premier League club: so it was the ideal job for him when he was appointed, but now that we''ve begun to upgrade to players from more cerebral footballing cultures, he just doesn''t know what to do.Hoolahan''s treatment by both club and country has been because he''s the sort of player who British managers (or foreign managers when they take over international teams on these islands and swallow the stereotype about our players completely: see Trapattoni, G; Capello, F; and Eriksson, S-G) just don''t trust. They don''t track back enough, you see; they''re ''luxuries''. But actually, they''re the only sort of player who can unlock defences at the highest level; an industrious workhorse like Snodgrass is never, ever going to have the same impact.So England wasted a player of the vision of Scholes; chucked him, then Joe Cole, then Gerrard out onto the left wing when every one of them should''ve been in the hole behind Rooney; and Ireland wasted Hoolahan, as Norwich have done for a year and a half now too. It''s clueless: all so predictable, everything in straight lines.What amazes me about Hughton, though, is he spent his entire club career for one of the few sides in England who''ve never played this way. For as long as I can remember, Tottenham have invariably tried to play like a continental side; actually, like a Dutch side in many ways. But good old, dependable, safety first Chris doesn''t seem to have learnt a single thing about their methods; and neither has his assistant: regarding whom, the least said, the better.This is why I desperately want us to look overseas now. We''re 15th in the world''s highest profile league: with a huge catchment area, tremendous fanbase, excellent stadium, facilities and youth system. There''s dozens of hugely talented coaches in France, Holland, Germany or Italy who''d love a job like that - and if we want to sign players like Nicolas Burdisso, who rejected our interest in him yesterday, we have to upgrade our management team to people who have a far, far better grasp of the modern, globalised game. [/quote]

Great addition to Daniels excellent OP well done guys it was a pleasure to read your views.[/quote]

 

Quality reading for here I agree. Great to have Shaun back posting.

 

But I''m afraid what has overshadowed this for me is your avatar Madi. Do you own that wonderful hat?

 

 

[scrappy33 0]

Here''s Redmond, he goes past his man, he beats another, rvw gets away from his marker, can Redmond deliver the cross? Arrh its a wild shot into row z. Ricky looks fustrated.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Quote yesterday from Paul Doyle, chief sports writer of The Guardian:"Norwich look like a side that are over-coached, that has a very rigid shape, and don''t apparently have the freedom to do anything beyond follow their strict instructions."[/quote]Nope, it''s clearly all the player''s fault PC, Hughton has obviously asked them to go out and play free flowing attacking football of the standard that would make even Barcelona cry, but they''ve completely ignored him and decided to play "football by numbers" instead.Despite this happening for close to 18 months now, the players are still ignoring the manager and somehow we haven''t heard of any problems or serious tension between the players and Hughton, nor have any players been fined for refusing to listen to a word the gaffer says as far as we know.Obviously this is the truth of the matter (Isn''t it LDC)...?

[city4eva 209]

OP I think you have it spot on.Now if you had said black is white then LDC would have agreed with you

[Daniel Brigham 0]

Interesting quote that from Paul Doyle. Could also apply to some top managers, such as Mourinho. Difference is that he has much better players at his disposal but also that the rigid gameplan is one that suits his players. It''s not a bad thing that every player knows exactly what their role is as long as that role suits the player.

[Madison 0]

Nutty my wonderland hat was designed purely to illustrate football is a mad old game.

Lets face it we have to be a little insane to follow this club for a lifetime of ups and downs which can be frustrating at times with hints of ecstasy. However it''s a story not to be missed!

I tip my hat to great posts just like this one!

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Daniel Brigham"]Interesting quote that from Paul Doyle. Could also apply to some top managers, such as Mourinho. Difference is that he has much better players at his disposal but also that the rigid gameplan is one that suits his players. It''s not a bad thing that every player knows exactly what their role is as long as that role suits the player.[/quote]It is also reminiscent of Italian football  (particularly Inter) back in the 1960s. And highly succesful Inter were - three Serie A titles and two European Cups under Herrera.I am not complaining about the general idea as such. I think managers should have a tactical vision of how they want their team to play and demanding that from the playeres.. Otherwise what is the point of having a manager?But it does need to be the right vision. And to be implemented properly. And there are grave doubts about whether either of those is the case with Hughton.

[lake district canary 4,531]

I''ve just re-read Daniel''s article again and agree it is well written. I also see that my clumsy attempts at explaining my criticism of it were not that good.  I agree of course that Rvw is a class act and thet he is not being got the best out of. After seeing yesterday''s game it is still clear to me that it is the players who are as responsible as the manager. I think it just annoys me to see Hughton getting the blame all the time. Snodgrass was much better yesterday and a lot hinges on him because gets so much of the ball. If he is on top form we look much better, but we don''t see enough of that. Also the possession was better because we had players who could help keep it - Gutierrez for one.  So for me its still as much the player''s fault as it Houghton''s that Rvw doesn'' score enough. It''s a combination of factors.  The manager is part of it, the players are part of it - rvw''s fitness and confidence are part of it too.  He did well yesterday and looks as though he will score plenty once he gets going.That is my main criticism. The constant focus on Houghton does not give the whole picture. Of course he is responsible - but then so are the players and rvw himself.  Given time the manager,players and rvw himself will get it sorted.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Hughton - damned tablet [:(]

[Daniel Brigham 0]

LDC. I agree players have to take responsibility. I thought RVW looked good yesterday - don''t understand the attacks on him - but he also looked short of confidence.

I still think yesterday was further proof that our attacking gameplan doesn''t help our attackers. We had a lot of possession but too often it was slow and, as good as I thought Snodgrass was, we used him so much that it was becoming all-too predictable.

2 up front doesn''t get the best out of either Hooper or RVW - they could both do with a Hoolahan or a Howson linking midfield with attack so that more of the play comes through the middle rather than constantly from out wide.

Would also like to see Tettey back so that Fer can play a little more forward. He seems more reluctant to get forward when he has Johnson beside him.

Still, at least we won though!

[nutty nigel 7,536]

[quote user="Madison"]Nutty my wonderland hat was designed purely to illustrate football is a mad old game.

Lets face it we have to be a little insane to follow this club for a lifetime of ups and downs which can be frustrating at times with hints of ecstasy. However it''s a story not to be missed!

I tip my hat to great posts just like this one![/quote]

 

But we wouldn''t have it any other way! Shame the hat aint for real though..

 

 

[GPs Beard 0]

This is a good piece Daniel.

 

After the Hull match I was critical of RVW. I didn''t see the movement that others did, I also saw a lack of courage in wining attacking headers, and at least two poor attempts to score.

 

That said, and on reflection, it is hard to argue with the "rigidity" of the set up comments. Watching Snoddy run inside, time and time again when his full back has the ball is clearly direction rather than his own decision. Watching Hooper, RVW (and Holt) come deep to receive the ball is testament to the coaching philosophy of not playing longer passes into channels which results in much movement of the ball sideways, slowly and predictably.

 

Taking it that RVW is a good player we must therefore conclude that the system is not giving him his favoured opportunities. The desire to pass early, forward and at times longer has been coached out of the team, not because they don''t pass, but because the players are not encouraged to take up higher positions to receive. This is of course the main argument of Hughtons tactics; be minded of our shape should we lose the ball, a point that is best demonstrated by Snoddy who gets this , and Wes who doesn''t.

 

Thanks again Daniel.

 

[Katie Borkins 1]

I feel this is worth a bump, just for the opening post.

[lappinitup 629]

   

[lappinitup 629]

Doh, I always manage to screw one up. [:$]

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Doh, I always manage to screw one up. [:$][/quote]

Spoken like Sebastien Bassong himself [Y]

[TIL 1010 4,748]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Doh, I always manage to screw one up. [:$][/quote]I cannot believe you have still got Crafty''s computer. [:^)]