Why Hughtons A Clown

[Matt Morriss 69]

Very simple for me. We have the players to adopt the same formation, tactics and mix of defensive and attacking players as Chelsea and Man City with their 4231 and 4132 lineup. Chelsea had Matiz and Luiz sitting behind Hazard, Ramires, Willian and E''too.

Man City has Demichelis sitting behind Silva, Toure, Navas and the striker, forget who played up front now.

A very good balance of defensive players and attacking, as opposed to our ultra defensive midfield of Guti, Johnson, Tettey and Snoddy. We have two out and out defensive midfielders with little to no attacking ability/contribution, and two wingers who are very heavily defensively minded too, or at least have strong defence abilities, which Hughtons likes in his wingers, and are told to play to those strengths.

Now given that our main problem is attacking, creating and scoring goals why does Hughton still persist with, and in fact now has chosen an even more defensive midfield, against Cardiff the aformentioned midfield four stunned me with its defensiveness.

We can easily replicate Chelsea and Man Citys formations and style of player in either formation

Hooper

Pilkington Hoolahan Redmond

Tettey Fer

Hooper Van Wolf

Pilkington Fer Redmond

Tettey

This would give us a good balance of attacking and defence. But Hughton wont do it will he. Chelsea and Man City of course have great players, but they play in the upper echelon of the prem, were down the other end, but it doesnt mean we cant play with the same style.

Were far too defensive under Hughton when we dont have to be.

This is why Hughton is a clown. A clueless clown.

[Kolin Kob 0]

[quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"]Very simple for me. We have the players to adopt the same formation, tactics and mix of defensive and attacking players as Chelsea and Man City with their 4231 and 4132 lineup. Chelsea had Matiz and Luiz sitting behind Hazard, Ramires, Willian and E''too.

Man City has Demichelis sitting behind Silva, Toure, Navas and the striker, forget who played up front now.

A very good balance of defensive players and attacking, as opposed to our ultra defensive midfield of Guti, Johnson, Tettey and Snoddy. We have two out and out defensive midfielders with little to no attacking ability/contribution, and two wingers who are very heavily defensively minded too, or at least have strong defence abilities, which Hughtons likes in his wingers, and are told to play to those strengths.

Now given that our main problem is attacking, creating and scoring goals why does Hughton still persist with, and in fact now has chosen an even more defensive midfield, against Cardiff the aformentioned midfield four stunned me with its defensiveness.

We can easily replicate Chelsea and Man Citys formations and style of player in either formation

Hooper

Pilkington Hoolahan Redmond

Tettey Fer

Hooper Van Wolf

Pilkington Fer Redmond

Tettey

This would give us a good balance of attacking and defence. But Hughton wont do it will he. Chelsea and Man City of course have great players, but they play in the upper echelon of the prem, were down the other end, but it doesnt mean we cant play with the same style.

Were far too defensive under Hughton when we dont have to be.

This is why Hughton is a clown. A clueless clown.[/quote]I don''t agree with this "too defensive" thing. Its sometimes true but not always. We had nearly 30 shots against Cardiff for example.There was a good reason to play with the four midfield players we did. Hoolahan was probably not right in the head for that game, Redmond has generally been best as an impact sub, and Pilkington and Fer were poor in the previous game (probably our two worst players versus Newcastle in my opinion). He was picking his form midfield. It''s not a defensive midfield either. There''s two defensive players and two attacking players in there.And I am sorry, but Chelsea and Man City''s better and more expensive players DO mean that it is hard for us to copy their style, whatever you may say.Chris Hughton is not a clueless clown.

[T 190]

So what does that make an abusive keyboard warrior who thinks they know better than an experienced, fully qualified and respected football coach not to mention the 700m of transfer fees paid by ManC in recent years?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Man City have only played with Demichelles in midfield once this season - up until the Chelsea game they have been playing a 4-4-2. But as they have two world class midfielders in Fernandinho and Toure they can do so.

 

When Howson, Fer and Tettey were all fit Hughton did use them in a midfield three - very similar to how Chelsea set up.

 

Hughton has been hamstrung by injuries and whilst performances and results having been good enough this season it is harsh to call Hughton a ''clown'' over the way he sets up the midfield when he hasn''t had two of his three first choice midfielders available to him for most of the season.

 

 

[hogesar 9,611]

See, whilst i do want Hughton to leave, i don''t agree with some of the petty name calling, some of it quite offensive. In this case its just ''clown'' but the point is still relevant.

I don''t think he''s even that bad a manager. I do however, think sometimes things just don''t work out - or things don''t ''click''. Hughton doesn''t click in my opinion with the club, it''s fans or even the players in particular.

I generally don''t have a problem with his starting line ups, other than some of the 4-4-2''s we''ve played. I do think he has absolutely no idea how to change the course of a game during one, and it''s his primary weakness in my opinion, but i don''t think he''s an absolutely diabolical manager as some make out.

[Patches OHoolahan 0]

Does he make appearances at children''s birthday parties?

[nutty nigel 7,506]

How would you have lined up when the players were injured Matt? Tettey seems very important to your teams. Who would you have played in his place?

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="Kolin Kob"][quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"]Very simple for me. We have the players to adopt the same formation, tactics and mix of defensive and attacking players as Chelsea and Man City with their 4231 and 4132 lineup. Chelsea had Matiz and Luiz sitting behind Hazard, Ramires, Willian and E''too.

Man City has Demichelis sitting behind Silva, Toure, Navas and the striker, forget who played up front now.

A very good balance of defensive players and attacking, as opposed to our ultra defensive midfield of Guti, Johnson, Tettey and Snoddy. We have two out and out defensive midfielders with little to no attacking ability/contribution, and two wingers who are very heavily defensively minded too, or at least have strong defence abilities, which Hughtons likes in his wingers, and are told to play to those strengths.

Now given that our main problem is attacking, creating and scoring goals why does Hughton still persist with, and in fact now has chosen an even more defensive midfield, against Cardiff the aformentioned midfield four stunned me with its defensiveness.

We can easily replicate Chelsea and Man Citys formations and style of player in either formation

Hooper

Pilkington Hoolahan Redmond

Tettey Fer

Hooper Van Wolf

Pilkington Fer Redmond

Tettey

This would give us a good balance of attacking and defence. But Hughton wont do it will he. Chelsea and Man City of course have great players, but they play in the upper echelon of the prem, were down the other end, but it doesnt mean we cant play with the same style.

Were far too defensive under Hughton when we dont have to be.

This is why Hughton is a clown. A clueless clown.[/quote]I don''t agree with this "too defensive" thing. Its sometimes true but not always. We had nearly 30 shots against Cardiff for example.There was a good reason to play with the four midfield players we did. Hoolahan was probably not right in the head for that game, Redmond has generally been best as an impact sub, and Pilkington and Fer were poor in the previous game (probably our two worst players versus Newcastle in my opinion). He was picking his form midfield. It''s not a defensive midfield either. There''s two defensive players and two attacking players in there.And I am sorry, but Chelsea and Man City''s better and more expensive players DO mean that it is hard for us to copy their style, whatever you may say.Chris Hughton is not a clueless clown.[/quote]

Sorry but Gutierez is not an attacking player and that was very clearly a defensive selection. This is not meant as a criticism of Gutierez but my biggest fear when we signed him is that he would become an automatic pick on the wing ahead of our more attacking wingers because he gives us more solidity. Perhaps that''s true but he also gives defenders very little to worry about in comparison with Redmond or Pilks.

whilst I don''t agree with all that the OP says the one thing I do agree with is that Chelsea on Tuesday showed us the way forward against Man City which is to play 4-3-3/4-5-1/4-2-3-1 but with the front 4 including some genuine pace and pressing Man City in their own half. Redmond and Snoddy should be the wide men, Hooper up front and a midfield 3 of Tettey, Fer and Johnson/Gutierez. I do not want to see Jonas on the wing in a 4-4-2 on Saturday or we will pose no threat at all.

[chicken 0]

And this sums up exactly why what we are seeing is a very dodgy, inconsistent and generally pretty poor premier league season all round.

People criticise Hughton by suggesting he tries to get the team to play ugly football in the form of Stoke, Blackburn and Bolton of yesteryear.

They then look to the teams at the top of the table and suggest we should be playing more like them in the same formations etc whilst having been demanding two up front.

I still think our prefered formation is a sort of 4-1-4-1 with flexibility to a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1.

Defence isn''t our problem - midfield is.

If you can''t hold onto the ball going forward, no matter how good your defence are, they will struggle to hold off a team for 90mins.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I''ve never demanded two up front and think generally those who have are wide of the mark. It''s abundantly obvious that at this level possession is key and that more often than not playing 4 against 5 in midfield will see you struggle.

I''m a big fan of the 4-2-3-1 formation but my point is that to do it well the front 4 all need to carry some attacking threat. ideally I''d have Tettey and Fer as the two, Wes or Howson as the advanced midfield and Snoddy and Redmond/Pilks as the wide men. Unfortunately Howsons injury and the bizarre shunning of Wes for most of the season have meant we''ve not played it very much.

I also think the fact Hughton has basically abandoned his principles and gone 4-4-2 to appease sections of the fan base snd accomodate two strikers he bought at great expense but seemingly with little consideration of whether they could play in his preferred formation is another example of poor/weak management.

[chicken 0]

I think it''s injuries that have forced the hand more than anything else.

We have seen several players played whilst not fully fit because we have had few other options.

Wes can''t play wide - but he also reminds me of what Worthington said about Libra - you want him doing what he does further up the pitch.

It''s why whilst everyone loves and adores him as a technically gifted player, they can also grow frustrated with him when he hangs on to the ball for too long in our own half.

People may think Howson lacks the technical abilities but the truth is that we miss him because he tries to keep things simple and the ball moving. He is capable of a good range of passing too.

I actually think the best we have seen of the team this season is when we were virtually playing a 4-3-3 / 4-1-4-1.

That was when we had Tettey as the anchor with Howson and Fer ahead of him. Especially against Chelsea where we were every inch as good as them for nigh on 80mins if not better.

It''s abundantly clear that we need another creative central midfield player. Perhaps Snoddy could do the job there, I don''t know.

The injuries to Howson and Tettey have prevented us from playing that formation since, as well as Pilkington who had returned for the Chelsea game and was linking up with RVW incredibly well.

The difficulty any manager faces is finding the best formation with the players available to select from.

I don''t think we have had many players that haven''t been injured at some point this season.

[hertfordyellow 460]

I still can''t work out why Man City are better than Norwich City at playing football, it''s a real conundrum. I''m going to have to think about it some more and post later.

mmm why Man City are better than Norwich? that''s going to keep me stumped for a while.

[BOO 0]

Kolin wrote

"I don''t agree with this "too defensive" thing. Its sometimes true but not always. We had nearly 30 shots against Cardiff for example."

Your right Colin! we were much more defensive last season.

[ricardo 7,332]

I read the OP

And laughed

This forum is becoming contested with frustrated pretend premier league managers

[Warren Hill 0]

He is funny though, only the other day I saw him jump out from behind a door and throw a bucket of tinsel all over Pilky!!! How they laughed!!!

 

You should try and get some footage of his routine Matt - don''t smell his buttonhole flower though, he''ll squirt water at you and be careful if you go near his car as the doors have a tendency to fall off..

[Salopian 1]

He may be like a clown as I remember clowns, - out of their depth and suffering misfortunes. We laughed at their predicament, as it took us out of ourselves and our problems.

In one very important respect his is not a clown. Clowns do the unexpected, and delight us, but our manager is very predictable, especially in substitutions. He is not able, or is not prepared, to use imagination and do something different.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

How would you have lined up when the players were injured Matt? Tettey seems very important to your teams. Who would you have played in his place?

 

 

[/quote]

Im referring Nige more to the fact he now has a virtually fully fit squad to pick from, apart from Howson, we have the personnell to play as ive suggested, yet away at Cardiff he chooses the most defensive, devoid of creativity, attack shy midfield ive ever seen in a Norwich side. At bottom of the league Cardiff who havent won in 8 games.

They hadnt won for a reason and were there for the taking, but once again like weve seen so many times, Hughton is scared, cautious and defensive, and we lose again.

[Kolin Kob 0]

[quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

How would you have lined up when the players were injured Matt? Tettey seems very important to your teams. Who would you have played in his place?

 

 

[/quote]

Im referring Nige more to the fact he now has a virtually fully fit squad to pick from, apart from Howson, we have the personnell to play as ive suggested, yet away at Cardiff he chooses the most defensive, devoid of creativity, attack shy midfield ive ever seen in a Norwich side. At bottom of the league Cardiff who havent won in 8 games.

They hadnt won for a reason and were there for the taking, but once again like weve seen so many times, Hughton is scared, cautious and defensive, and we lose again.[/quote]It''s bizarre really that despite him choosing "the most defensive, devoid of creativity, attack shy midfield you''ve ever seen in a Norwich side", there''s a goal from a midfielder in the first 5 minutes, and the team got 27 shots on target.

[Budapest Canary 152]

With that defensive lineup we scored early on and looked clearly better the better side for the first 25 minutes. We could have easily scored more in that period of the game when Cardiff looked all over the place, the fact that we didn''t, has little to do with the lineup or formation but rather with the sloppiness of the efforts. (From this period Johnson''s poorly taken shot instead of passing to Hopper springs to mind...)

[fredherring 136]

I think the real clueless clown is the OP."as opposed to our ultra defensive midfield of Guti, Johnson, Tettey and Snoddy."WHEN HAVE WE PLAYED THAT LINEUP OTHER THAN AT CARDIFF?  REMIND ME HOW MANY CHANCES WE CREATED?"We can easily replicate Chelsea and Man Citys formations and style of player in either formation"THE FACT THEY HAVE WORLD CLASS PLAYERS IS IRRELEVANT THEN?"with their 4231 and 4132 lineup"FORMATIONS ARE IRRELEVANT - IT''S HOW THE PLAYERS OPERATE THAT MATTERS.

Glad I don''t bother reading "Huckerby''s boots" if it''s full of such negative, incorrect rubbish.

[TIL 1010 4,717]

[quote user="fredherring"]

Glad I don''t bother reading "Huckerby''s boots" if it''s full of such negative, incorrect rubbish.
[/quote]

Now, now don''t ask any questions about his website or podcasts or a torrent of abuse will follow.[;)]

[Rock The Boat 1,323]

Any one remember Coco the Clown?

He was very famous and came to my little Norfolk School in the 60s to promote road safety. Though at that time there wasn''t much traffic in my little Norfolk village. Still the thought was nice.

Having so much time to waste I checked out Coco the Clown on wikipedia and not only does he have a very full entry, he had quite an amazing life. Check it out. It''s worth a minute of your life.

I don''t think Matt whatever OP knows what a clown is. That Coco he was a real clown.