History will treat Hughton kindly

Parma Ham's gone mouldy · March 9, 2014

Yesterday''s game could reasonably be considered a typically average performance from Hughton''s Norwich. Many repeated and repeating elements were evident.

Hughton has carefully constructed a drilled methodology that grinds out points based on repeated coaching positions. He is keen to control the controllable.

In a league where 26-28 games are not won, it is logical to coach a side to defend well. The current premier league has 11 sides that need to do this for the majority of the season as they are faced with superior quality, firepower and finances. Such sides not only gave better players, but key weaponry that needs to be nullified. "We look after our own game" is a luxury exclusive to the superior. For everyone else it is a journalistic soundbite that cannot - and should not - be executed in practice.

"Defending" should not be confused with "defensive". If you are mostly inferior, you inevitably do a lot of the former. Over time fans conflate it with the latter. Often the team - and the manager - do not have the luxury of the choice. Fans are naturally - and necessarily and admirably - biased. Religious faith is a prerequisite of support. Players are invested with abilities beyond their range, the favourite have the luxury of their best moments leaving a mental imprint, others less fortunate gave their errors or undesirable characteristics noted - often to the exclusion if any positives they may bring. Many of the difficulties Hughton faces - and much of the criticism he receives - are a product of the premier league, financial disparity, wages to turnover ratios and could be applied to almost any if the bottom 11 and any of those managers. The manager simply does not have that much influence over results, points and club success.

The game yesterday wrote large some of the polemic elements that characterise views on Hughton and which appear repeatedly on this board however.

Hughton is a good coach. He has drilled a clear, repeated, repeatable pattern of play and methodology on the team. The players know what is required of them, they do their best to enact it and carry it out with diligent effort. They work for the team and - by extension - the manager. His methodology is to ensure that Norwich are hard to score against by tightening the spaces between and in front of the defenders. He is particularly concerned about conceding via transition turnovers and counter-attacks. Our slow, deliberate forward progress in possession is to ensure that we are less vulnerable to the counter thrusts of sides winning the ball from us as we make - or try to make - penetrative passes to score. If players are not out of shape at this strategic point, it is far more difficult for opponents to score or create chances without gambling with their own shape. Like a boxing counter- puncher we are willing teams to do this so we can exploit their subsequent structural weakness.

Learning to defend strongly and teaching players in all positions to quickly revert to a specific shape when out of possession, requires discipline and work. It is not random or "clueless", it is entirely the opposite. It is also something that requires constant repetition to drill and become natural when under pressure. If you have a side that is (mostly) inferior in resources to the opposition, it is a coaching theory to maximise your odds by drilling your side to a scheme that they can always fall back on and which requires something out of the norm for the opposition to score. You are forcing the opposition To demonstrate their superiority in a way they may not always be able to do. The calculation is that you will always be able to repeat your chosen tactic.

This approach is designed to maximise your odds over the long term (say a season). In order to reinforce it, the logic is to repeat it to some degree regardless of circumstances. The belief is that this will accumulate more points - on average - over the course of a season. It is an inflexible - and arguably ruthless - approach that (almost) deliberately ignores circumstance.

Inverted wingers cut inside and deliver balls to a single striker. Odds of a goal are low, but equally opposition full backs have to attack on the outside or long way round, maximising defensive recovery time. These wide players are also stepping into or attacking the weaker side of the full back, allowing for low risk shooting opportunities. These wide players return to a narrow midfield without the ball and remain connected to their own full back, doing man-and-a-half defensive cover. As with yesterday, they are not encouraged to run beyond the lone striker and often gone short to receive the ball with backs to goal. Hoolahan connects well and offers options, but is not a player who lays the ball early. He will also not run beyond the lone striker. He looks tidy in possession, but makes his choices in leisurely fashion. The above factors ensure we do not counter or stretch teams. We lack pace and the pace we do have is constrained by the methodology that requires careful positioning by the wide players. Redmond''s pace would be better used going beyond RVW and his dribbling better used In the 10 position, where risk of (his) tactical compromise is far less. RVW cuts a forlorn and frustrated figure. Analysing his movement and counterpointing it with footage of his previous career goals and inherent style and playing strengths, it is a legitimate question to ask whether his particular skills match the precise requirements of Hughton''s structure. He is a willing worker now, but stretching teams on The counter by moving wide into space to receive the ball, then driving angled runs towards and into the Box for shooting opportunities (his modus operandi) are not seen or likely to occur with our set up. Playing on your own up front is a thankless task and it was hard not to reach the conclusion yesterday that Crouch''s predictable, repeated, hard-to-combat structural play is what would suit Hughton''s way better. Many a defender-turned-manager has a view that strikers create and score goals in an alchemists moment and are the (separate) cherry on the (main) cake. In coaching and managerial terms I am not convinced that Hughton knows what strikers need. He has bought an expensive toy and expects it to perform something out-of-the-ordinary once a game to exploit the clean sheet that has been religiously worked on. In coaching terms I see far less methodology in the phase between midfield possession and chance creation.

Hughton''s rigid philosophy will continue to garner points on a regular basis. We are often hard to beat via his coaching structures. Keeping Norwich up - even only just or via 3 worse teams each year - is a scenario that would have been the dream one only a couple of years ago. We should not underestimate it now simply because of (artificially) raised expectations.

Our full backs are however over-protected and Hughton''s methodology simply does not allow for altered circumstances (and are typically influenced by the position a manager played as a player). Indeed he has the coaches (as opposed to the manager''s) autistically repetitive patterns even when 4-1 down after 37 minutes or 1-1 against a deep-defending 10 men. It was noticeable in the last 15 minutes that Olsson was repeatedly allowed the ball by the opposition, but he was still conscious that he was the pace entrusted with watching opposition breakouts. He was somewhat paralysed by what he has been drilled to do and the circumstances. The manager displays the same (deliberate) inflexibility. He is reinforcing his one-card-trick methodology.

Yesterday Olsson could have played more centrally in the last 15 minutes, in a sweeping defensive role, to counter counters with his pace (even though Stoke showed no real appetite to do so). Johnson had a good game, but in the last 15 minutes his deep midfield area was where the ball was in the space the opposition conceded. Howson sensible dropped in here to play the Gerard generalissimo role and a further player could have replaced Johnson, with perhaps a Becchio central target-man cameo a la crouch to bounce off. Elmander is tactically clever enough to have dropped into midfield spaces, to the yards outside the box where the shooting opportunities inevitably occurred against a tightly packed defence. Hughton perceived a danger from 10-man Stoke that I did not see.

Hughton does not have a plan B because he does not want one. This is unwavering belief in his coaching method being enough to keep Norwich up. The odds are (just) that he is correct. It is a recipe for repeated, narrow survival, not seat-of-the-pants entertainment. There is less action at higher levels anyway and this is inevitable and (mostly) more professional. It is not boring, but if goalmouth action is your criteria, it is not entertaining either. We are a much more professional, organised side than we have been for many years, but not winning 28 games a season is hard for all fans. You can only win every week in League 1. There is too much (money) to lose for pleasing the masses to be the priority (blame Murdoch not Hughton)

Hughton would (arguably) not have been able to have engineered the miracle that Lambert produced. It could also be argued that Lambert could not (either via temperament, ambition, ability or belief In his resources moving forward) have achieved the more prosaic and pragmatic miracle of repeated safety. The odds are that Norwich will again (just) stay up this season. It will likely be the case that Hughton will be replaced regardless, this now appears both an inevitable and pragmatic option. History will judge him more warmly than many currently do. Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you get what you need.

Sent from my iPhone

canarybubbles · March 10, 2014

I worked my way through this, and I think it generally makes sense. There does seem to be one basic problem with your logic, though. If there are 11 teams in a league of 20, for ''the majority of the season'' they cannot face ''superior quality, firepower and finances''. 11 out of 20 IS the majority. This is even more true if we factor in Southampton and Newcastle, who are much more vulnerable and closer to our level than Chelsea or MC. That means there are 24 games a season which even a lower team can reasonably target without having to become as dour as we have.Having said that, your overall analysis of why Hughton plays the way he does seems sound. It begs the question, though, do we want it? I know that wasn''t the point of your post, but it seems the natural next question. Do we care that much about being in the Prem that we are willing to more or less write off a game as soon as we go 0-1? Is the game worth the candle?I''m sure many on here would say yes. Some would say no.For me, football is meant to be fun at some level. Frustration can sometimes be part of the overall fun. At the moment it isn''t. It''s like going to the dentist''s.

PurpleCanary · March 10, 2014

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]1) In a league where 26-28 games are not won, it is logical to coach a side to defend well. Hughton...has drilled a clear, repeated, repeatable pattern of play and methodology on the team.2) His methodology is to ensure that Norwich are hard to score against by tightening the spaces between and in front of the defenders. He is particularly concerned about conceding via transition turnovers and counter-attacks. Our slow, deliberate forward progress in possession is to ensure that we are less vulnerable to the counter thrusts of sides winning the ball from us as we make - or try to make - penetrative passes to score. If players are not out of shape at this strategic point, it is far more difficult for opponents to score or create chances without gambling with their own shape. 3) Like a boxing counter- puncher we are willing teams to do this so we can exploit their subsequent structural weakness.4) The calculation is that you will always be able to repeat your chosen tactic.

This approach is designed to maximise your odds over the long term (say a season). In order to reinforce it, the logic is to repeat it to some degree regardless of circumstances. The belief is that this will accumulate more points - on average - over the course of a season. It is an inflexible - and arguably ruthless - approach that (almost) deliberately ignores circumstance.[/quote]1) So far so unexceptional.2 Absolutely. In the sense that this is Hughton''s plan.3) No. this is where Parma''s arguments (and presumably then Hughton''s tactics) make no sense, because this is a flat-out contradiction of Point 2). If our "counter-punching" - our counter-attacking - is "slow, deliberate" then it isn''t really counter-attacking at all, which is pretty much by definition fast.And there won''t be any "structural weaknesses" in the opposition to exploit. There are only structural weaknesses if you attack quickly. If you attack "slowly, deliberately" then the opposition defence has time to regroup into shape. Making "penetrative passes" harder.For real counter-attacking you only have to look back to the recent Villa game when, at 2-1 to them, we lost the ball in their penalty area. Four passes later the ball was in the back of our net, with the scorer being one of FIVE Villa players in our penalty area. With our defence structurally weak. But we - as Parma admits - just don''t do that kind of counter-attack. Because? Because we are scared of a counter-counter-attack.4) And the other flaw in the plan. I have made this point before but will repeat it. Hughton''s idea, as explained by Parma, is reminiscent of what Inter Milan did under Helenio Herrera in the 1960s. To be essentially defensive, to be virtually impossible to score against, and to win games with one goal.Various problems with that. Firstly, Herrera was a Machiavellian-genius coach, and Hughton is not. Secondly, Inter WERE virtually impossible to score against, and we are not. They could successfully repeat their chosen tactics and we cannot. Thirdly, Inter, when they did attack, attacked with some pace amd width on both flanks, through Jair and Facchetti, and had a near-genius playmaker in Mazzola. Which also we lack.In other words Inter could, most of the time, implement their game plan. Because they were good and had the players. Usually (until they met the Celtic hordes) they were in control of circumstances.But, as Parma effectively admits at the end, if you are not always in control of circumstances -and Norwich City under Hughton often are not - then the strategy is likely to come unstuck. It is essentially based on not conceding, on not making defensive mistake. But we do screw up. Better teams than us do. Most teams do. "It is an...approach that (almost) deliberately ignores circumstance." Quite. As the stark, unspun figures (with last season''s in brackets) demonstrate:Goals scored per game: 0.75 (1.0789).Goals conceded per game: 1.517 (1.526).We are as near as dammit letting in as many goals as last season (to blame individual error as some kind of aberration is to miss the point) and scoring significantly fewer. In practice Hughton''s decision to emasculate the attack is based on the absurdly optimistic assumpton that the defence will never make a mistake. Of course it will. And has. Hughton is indeed ignoring circumstance.We may stay up (I have made a small wager that we will) but - as Parma explains it - Hughton''s strategy has an awfully large flaw running through it.

Waveney Canary · March 10, 2014

History will have him in the same camp as the rodent, Gunny, peter grant etc

the bristol nest · March 10, 2014

[quote user="Thorpe end canary"]History will have him in the same camp as the rodent, Gunny, peter grant etc[/quote]

No it won''t.

the bristol nest · March 10, 2014

CH is all about structure and avoiding weakness at turnover. This is why so many talk about him not realising ( as in making real) the potential of our players.

Indy_Bones · March 10, 2014

As history has proven, defensive football CAN be effective - but only if the opposition don''t have enough quality and guile to deal with it.Teams like Herrera''s Inter, or Rocco''s Milan managed to play ''Catenaccio'' to great success for a few years, but came totally unstuck against more focused attacking sides (such as Michel''s ''Total Football'' Ajax).As Purple correctly points out - we don''t have our own Mazzola to inspire the attacking play (and anyone who compares Wes to him should be shot), and even Olsson who''s probably been one of our best players this season, can''t hold a candle to the likes of Fachetti, who was a integral part of how Inter attacked (before then defending for the rest of the game).Chelsea showed that slower defensive play can work (as they did against Bayern), similarly the Inter side under Mourinho totally stifled Barca''s "tika-taka'', but bear in mind that both of these teams had world class players whilst still holding the capability to attack quickly and effectively if they wanted - we don''t.We all too often have a lack of creative quality in the centre of midfield, a lone striker who''s simply not suited to a target man role (be this Hooper or RVW), wingers and full backs who aren''t slow (but are told to slow play down), and defenders who are decent overall but have been guilty of individual costly errors (part of which is down to the amount of pressure we allow ourselves to be put under). The whole system simply doesn''t work with the players we have at our disposal, and in truth Hughton would have done FAR better at somewhere like Stoke than he would here.I have no doubt that Hughton has a good understanding of the game and particularly how to coach the players in the methods he wants to use, the problem is that he appears utterly blind to the situation that it''s NOT working, that the players DON''T like playing this way, and in many cases he''s completely and disgracefully misusing the talent available (RVW being the most obvious).History at best will see him as a nice guy who just about managed to keep us up DESPITE the god awful football on display, at worst it will see him as a narrow-minded, inflexible defender, who robbed a team full of self-confidence and belief and replaced it with rote, defensive displays which jarred the fans and sent the club backwards instead of forwards...

Reggie Strayshun · March 10, 2014

If he comfortably keeps us up for a second season, then I''d agree that history will generally look on his time here in a favourable light.If he doesn''t, then despite having the biggest transfer budget ever given to a Norwich manager , the fact will be that his controversial brand of football was a failure, and in football, failure is not looked on kindly.Simple as that, really?

lake district canary · March 10, 2014

Some really good points on here. Some of the criticism Hughton gets is understandable because of the way he wants to play is not working well enough - yet - but he is restricted because of the quality of the creative players to play his way. It justifies the view that the development is a long haul and that time is needed to get to the position where this style of play works at its best - in other words it takes time and money to get the right quality of players in sufficient numbers.

Football is not a cut and dried process - it doesn''t just happen - and if we can get three or four players in who can help us get the right balance to get this system to work better and more consistently, we will get the results, the goals - and we as fans will he much happier.

It does require patience on our part and that is difficult when things aren''t working as well as we''d like, but for me the bottom line is staying in this league so we can kick on again next season, get those extra players in and see the success of this system come to fruition.

Mr Jenkins · March 10, 2014

One trick pony with no ideas outside his box, if it dont work unable to change philosophy or react to immediate changes in a game.

Lack of ability to change something that doesnt work is a real real problem.

This inflexibility is so obvious and yet apparantly accepted by some with little critisism.

This was summed up for me by a post from a regular contributor to the board "but lets face it as soon as Stoke went down to 10 men there was only going to be one outcome"

Thats where we are, a recognition and almost acceptance by some that this is all we can expect, that really is not good enough.

Wiz · March 10, 2014

[quote user="Brienne"]One trick pony with no ideas outside his box, if it dont work unable to change philosophy or react to immediate changes in a game. Lack of ability to change something that doesnt work is a real real problem. This inflexibility is so obvious and yet apparantly accepted by some with little critisism. This was summed up for me by a post from a regular contributor to the board "but lets face it as soon as Stoke went down to 10 men there was only going to be one outcome" Thats where we are, a recognition and almost acceptance by some that this is all we can expect, that really is not good enough.[/quote]

This.

pete · March 10, 2014

Hughton apologist alert. Will never be able to play this way with our best defender from last year constantly losing concentration and making mistakes that are costing us dear.

lake district canary · March 10, 2014

[quote user="Brienne"]One trick pony with no ideas outside his box, if it dont work unable to change philosophy or react to immediate changes in a game.

Lack of ability to change something that doesnt work is a real real problem.

This inflexibility is so obvious and yet apparantly accepted by some with little critisism.

This was summed up for me by a post from a regular contributor to the board "but lets face it as soon as Stoke went down to 10 men there was only going to be one outcome"

Thats where we are, a recognition and almost acceptance by some that this is all we can expect, that really is not good enough.[/quote]

That quote was an indication that Stoke were going to bring everyone back and shut up shop. The point was that if they had kept 11 on the field it would have been easier to find gaps, not that we had accepted a draw.

Also, you say that some of us are almost accepting of the situation is not strictly true. Any apparent acceptance is only because what we see is an ongoing development of a system that at its best will provide the balanced football team we all want to see. I would argue that the four match spell from Cardiff away to Spurs at home is more like what we should expect week in week out. The only thing that was missing from those games was one or two more goals - and that is just down to strikers finishing their chances.

The system is a proven one - but it needs the players to implement it well enough - and that needs confidence and more depth in the squad.

morty · March 10, 2014

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Brienne"]One trick pony with no ideas outside his box, if it dont work unable to change philosophy or react to immediate changes in a game.

Lack of ability to change something that doesnt work is a real real problem.

This inflexibility is so obvious and yet apparantly accepted by some with little critisism.

This was summed up for me by a post from a regular contributor to the board "but lets face it as soon as Stoke went down to 10 men there was only going to be one outcome"

Thats where we are, a recognition and almost acceptance by some that this is all we can expect, that really is not good enough.[/quote]

That quote was an indication that Stoke were going to bring everyone back and shut up shop. The point was that if they had kept 11 on the field it would have been easier to find gaps, not that we had accepted a draw.

Also, you say that some of us are almost accepting of the situation is not strictly true. Any apparent acceptance is only because what we see is an ongoing development of a system that at its best will provide the balanced football team we all want to see. I would argue that the four match spell from Cardiff away to Spurs at home is more like what we should expect week in week out. The only thing that was missing from those games was one or two more goals - and that is just down to strikers finishing their chances.

The system is a proven one - but it needs the players to implement it well enough - and that needs confidence and more depth in the squad.

[/quote]The quote was mine, and it you have the meaning correct.

lake district canary · March 10, 2014

[quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Brienne"]One trick pony with no ideas outside his box, if it dont work unable to change philosophy or react to immediate changes in a game.

Lack of ability to change something that doesnt work is a real real problem.

This inflexibility is so obvious and yet apparantly accepted by some with little critisism.

This was summed up for me by a post from a regular contributor to the board "but lets face it as soon as Stoke went down to 10 men there was only going to be one outcome"

Thats where we are, a recognition and almost acceptance by some that this is all we can expect, that really is not good enough.[/quote]

That quote was an indication that Stoke were going to bring everyone back and shut up shop. The point was that if they had kept 11 on the field it would have been easier to find gaps, not that we had accepted a draw. Also, you say that some of us are almost accepting of the situation is not strictly true. Any apparent acceptance is only because what we see is an ongoing development of a system that at its best will provide the balanced football team we all want to see. I would argue that the four match spell from Cardiff away to Spurs at home is more like what we should expect week in week out. The only thing that was missing from those games was one or two more goals - and that is just down to strikers finishing their chances. The system is a proven one - but it needs the players to implement it well enough - and that needs confidence and more depth in the squad. [/quote]The quote was mine, and it you have the meaning correct.[/quote]

Its not clear who you mean is correct, Morty, Brienne or me?

morty · March 10, 2014

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Brienne"]One trick pony with no ideas outside his box, if it dont work unable to change philosophy or react to immediate changes in a game.

Lack of ability to change something that doesnt work is a real real problem.

This inflexibility is so obvious and yet apparantly accepted by some with little critisism.

This was summed up for me by a post from a regular contributor to the board "but lets face it as soon as Stoke went down to 10 men there was only going to be one outcome"

Thats where we are, a recognition and almost acceptance by some that this is all we can expect, that really is not good enough.[/quote]

That quote was an indication that Stoke were going to bring everyone back and shut up shop. The point was that if they had kept 11 on the field it would have been easier to find gaps, not that we had accepted a draw. Also, you say that some of us are almost accepting of the situation is not strictly true. Any apparent acceptance is only because what we see is an ongoing development of a system that at its best will provide the balanced football team we all want to see. I would argue that the four match spell from Cardiff away to Spurs at home is more like what we should expect week in week out. The only thing that was missing from those games was one or two more goals - and that is just down to strikers finishing their chances. The system is a proven one - but it needs the players to implement it well enough - and that needs confidence and more depth in the squad. [/quote]The quote was mine, and it you have the meaning correct.[/quote]

Its not clear who you mean is correct, Morty, Brienne or me?

[/quote]You.Apologies for vagueness, I haven''t finished my first coffee yet.

Wiz · March 10, 2014

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Brienne"]One trick pony with no ideas outside his box, if it dont work unable to change philosophy or react to immediate changes in a game. Lack of ability to change something that doesnt work is a real real problem. This inflexibility is so obvious and yet apparantly accepted by some with little critisism. This was summed up for me by a post from a regular contributor to the board "but lets face it as soon as Stoke went down to 10 men there was only going to be one outcome" Thats where we are, a recognition and almost acceptance by some that this is all we can expect, that really is not good enough.[/quote]

That quote was an indication that Stoke were going to bring everyone back and shut up shop. The point was that if they had kept 11 on the field it would have been easier to find gaps, not that we had accepted a draw.

Also, you say that some of us are almost accepting of the situation is not strictly true. Any apparent acceptance is only because what we see is an ongoing development of a system that at its best will provide the balanced football team we all want to see. I would argue that the four match spell from Cardiff away to Spurs at home is more like what we should expect week in week out. The only thing that was missing from those games was one or two more goals - and that is just down to strikers finishing their chances.

The system is a proven one - but it needs the players to implement it well enough - and that needs confidence and more depth in the squad.

[/quote]

Agreed Troll, proven for failure.

lake district canary · March 10, 2014

[quote user="Jimbo Canary"]

[quote user="lake district canary"]The system is a proven one - but it needs the players to implement it well enough - and that needs confidence and more depth in the squad. [/quote]

Agreed Troll, proven for failure.

[/quote]

Your disrespect does you no credit. The system is a proven one by many clubs. We are trying to make it work for us.

PurpleCanary · March 10, 2014