Daniel Brigham 0 Posted February 14, 2014 Norwich are in real trouble and blaming the strikers for missing chances in the last three games is missing the point, says Daniel Brigham. Have you ever played Whac-A-Mole? We’re not talking about casual rural violence here but the arcade game where a mole pops up out of a hole and you whack it back down, only for another mole to immediately spring up in its place. Norwich appear to be suffering from acute Whac-A-Mole-itis. They’ve spent all season looking as creative as Peter Andre in a science lab and when they finally whack that problem on the head up pings another one: the chances are being created, but now they’re not being taken. This is a giganti-mole, and if it isn’t walloped on the head soon then big, bad relegation beckons. It''s hard to blame Chris Hughton for Tuesday night’s defeat, for us missing the sort of chances that Geoff Boycott''s nan would have scored. Tactically he set the team up well from the start, we dominated midfield in a manner we''ve seen on too few occasions this season and we played with far more wit than West Ham. Simply, his strikers haven''t done the job that should come most naturally to them. That''s not Hughton''s fault. Hmm. Or is it? Perhaps, on a macro level, Hughton is to blame for all these moles popping up. He manages them, he coaches them. Plus, Norwich''s strikers have scored just 16 goals in the 62 Premier League matches Hughton has been in charge of. That''s one every 348 minutes across nearly two seasons. Or, to be less numerical about it, that’s Nigel Farage levels of awful. So there''s a precedent there, a pattern across 18 months of misfiring strikers playing in a system that sees goals as a bonus rather than a necessity, like feeding tigers pedigree chum. If you haven''t had a drink for a few months you''re more like to make an idiot of yourself after a couple of pints. Strikers are no different with taking chances. Because of this there is enormous pressure on us to take advantage of the all-too-rare occasions that we batter teams, which makes the muggings by Cardiff and West Ham even more painful. But let''s not play the victims. We may have been mugged but we were staggering down a dark alley with our pants down and our wallet hanging out of a pocket. Every team will have matches in a season where they dominate the opposition, miss chances and come away with nothing. The difference is that most sides create a healthy number of chances in every game. We don''t. If you were thinking positively, and ignoring that stat of 16 goals in 62 games, then you could logically argue that now we''ve started playing well and creating chances the goals will soon come when our strikers stop being so shellshocked. These are good forwards after all.It would be great if that happens. It may well save our season. But Hughton''s history suggests it''s unlikely, that we won''t cut teams open as consistently as we did against Cardiff and West Ham. The evidence from Tuesday night showcased Hughton''s mindset in a nutshell. Nathan Redmond, creator of our best chances against Manchester City and West Ham, who breaks at speed and stretches terrified defences, was taken off ''for fresh legs''. Meanwhile Robert Snodgrass, who had a decent game while creating little and attacking ponderously, was once again kept on the pitch. Maybe his legs don’t have a sell-by date. Snodgrass was excellent last season and a lot of the criticism of him this season has been over the top. But defenders have got wise to him, they know he will invariably cut inside and attempt to dribble into the box, and he has so far failed to add to or adapt his game to compensate. That Hughton refuses to even consider substituting Snodgrass speaks volumes for his attacking mindset. It''s all about the set pieces, innit. For Norwich''s strikers, watching Snodgrass attack must be similar to the frustration a hungry baby feels when their parents decide to ‘do the aeroplane’ at dinner time. All they want is for mum and dad to stop faffing around and bloody feed them. It''s becoming increasingly odd that we signed Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper. Both of them are poachers, at their best when allowed to roam the penalty area. But Hughton expects his strikers to forever track back, to defend before attacking. He wants to turn them into something they are not. At the moment it is crippling us. It''s been crippling us all season and nothing has changed. Hughton might be trying to whack the mole, but he keeps missing again and again.He looks increasingly anxious and an anxious manager means an anxious team. The players appear to like him but perhaps they are losing faith in his rigid, timid methods. It can only be so long that a team is happy with being shackled by their manager, however well meaning the shackling is. Releasing those restraints, whether with a huge change of philosophy from Hughton or with a new manager entirely, could be the only thing that whacks the final mole. It could be the only thing that saves a good side from relegation. Daniel Brigham is features editor of The CricketerYou can follow him on Twitter: @cricketer_dan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,473 Posted February 14, 2014 Daniel, that is one damn funny post. I agree with just about all of it too.Only comment I would make is that Redmond gets worked out just as much as Snodgrass - but that''s probably because he''s the only player they need to concentrate on.Robert''s nay a bad player, but I think his overall style is a large part of our problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bury Yellow 2 Posted February 14, 2014 Another excellent post Daniel.I just hope some, any, members of the board will read it. Well I suppose they will, then sit on their hands knowing we could put out 11 sheep on The Carra and we would still bring in a crowd of 12,000 :-)Frustrating times indeed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Brigham 0 Posted February 14, 2014 Ron - Redmond has the advantage of greater pace and is more two-footed. He''s also been hitting the byline more often recently rather than cutting in all of the time. I''ve often thought Snodgrass would be better behind the striker, especially while Howson was out. Would seem to suit his game more,. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,518 Posted February 14, 2014 Daniel Brigham "If you were thinking positively, and ignoring that stat of 16 goals in 62 games, then you could logically argue that now we''ve started playing well and creating chances the goals will soon come when our strikers stop being so shellshocked. These are good forwards after all. It would be great if that happens. It may well save our season. But Hughton''s history suggests it''s unlikely, that we won''t cut teams open as consistently as we did against Cardiff and West Ham."This sums up what I have been saying, except for the last sentence. "Hughton''s history suggests it''s unlikely" - I would say that the opposite is true. His history is that he has free scoring teams. The "work in progress" that so many of us were hoping to see coming to fruition is imo on the verge of being successful - if we carry on playing well and creating chances. The long time where goals have been difficult to come by is one of the reasons why they are struggling to get going, but once they do we will have a very good team. It has to start happening soon though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow Wal 314 Posted February 14, 2014 Daniel Brigham wrote the following post at 14/02/2014 3:32 PM:Ron - Redmond has the advantage of greater pace and is more two-footed. He''s also been hitting the byline more often recently rather than cutting in all of the time. I''ve often thought Snodgrass would be better behind the striker, especially while Howson was out. Would seem to suit his game more,.Daniel - the only reason Redmond has been hitting the byline more recently, and long may it last, is because he has played more on the right wing instead of always the left.Even at West Ham he had a run on the right in the first half but was rarely seen there in the second.At the end of the day, Daniel, Redmond is a RIGHT winger, and that is where he should play. Unfortunately that would mean a change of position for another player .................. or that player being dropped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Brigham 0 Posted February 14, 2014 I hope you''re right LDC but there isn''t all that much evidence from it. Hughton has managed in 80 Premier League matches, his teams scoring 87 times. For Norwich it''s 60 goals in 64 matches. My stat above of our strikers scoring 16 goals in 62 matches is slightly wrong - it''s actually 16 in 64 (my maths isn''t great!)There''s not much there to suggest we''re going to become regular scorers any time soon. I hope I''m wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
im spartacus canary 0 Posted February 14, 2014 so in a nutshell daniel not only is hughton a clueless buffoon and negative he is also unlucky ? wow what an appointment .... Hughton out !!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites