History will treat Hughton kindly

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]What I dont understand is why we dont play quick counter-attacking football when we have the players to do it. Both Olsson and Redmond have serious pace. Play Olsson at left midfield and Redmond at right midfield we have two players who can break at pace and if not find the net themselves, play in RvW, which, as said on another thread is his main strength. If Hughton wants a resiliant well drilled defensive unit, then thats fine, have a a defensive unit (back four and central three) who soak up play, but release the ball as soon as it is won to the two players capable of exploiting the space behind their defence, who have presumably pushed up. I cant imagine there would be too many defenders who would fancy a race with Olsson or Redmond, but at the moment our wingers are too shacked by defensive responsibility. When we have a player like Redmond in particular, not trying to get him running in one on one outpacing the defenders seems madness, it seems the obvious way to capitalise on the defensive solidity you hope to achieve, whilst also worrying the defence about pushing up, thus taking some pressure off our own defence. But Hughton seems to hope that the ball will go in on its own as long as the back door is shut. Redmond could be sensational if used properly, but we make him ineffective for the opposition without them having to[/quote]

 

This is a puzzle for me too.  It''s obviously a strength of Lambert - that first year back in the Prem we scored a lot of goals by either quick counter-attacks (e.g. both goals at WBA away) or by winning the ball in the opposition''s final third and mounting a quick attack (e.g. both goals in the win at Spurs). It still works for Lambert, witness Villa''s 3rd and 4th against us.  Of course, the weakness is that it works best when the other side commit a lot of players to the attack and leave themselves open to the counter.  Hence Villa do well away from home but less well at home (unless they are fortunate that Benteke scores a great goal and then gets a second given despite a blatant foul, forcing the away side to commit more to the attack...).

 

So is the answer that there''s only so much flexibility you can achieve in coaching and if you focus on the rapid counter-attack, that limits the time you can spend coaching a more measured approach ?

[The Great Mass Debater 1,081]

[quote user="Brienne"]Good post GPD. Particularly take your point about players being drilled to dispair, it used to be called over coaching, results in the loss of ability to play whats in front of you, the making of clever and intuitive decisions is replaced by fear. Has been evident ever since Hughton took over and has crept through the squad like a terminal disease, so sad to witness players losing or lacking the confidence to acces their inate skill set.[/quote]

 

Definitely agree with this. Players forget how to play their natural game

[KeelansGlove 0]

I have to say that this thread in my opinion does sum up everything that is wrong with Norwich under Hughton.

We are generally good defensively but not good enough never to make an error and when we do it costs us and we create so little going forward its generally game over.

The biggest problem with this is the fact there isn''t any movement, no plan B makes watching Norwich City a poor second to drying paint.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Using boxing terminology I deliberately described the approach as counter- punching. This is not the same as counter-attacking. Hughton''s measured approach is not designed to allow for counter-attacks, it is a slow deliberate build up that - whilst not penetrative - tempts the opposition to take themselves out of shape. In effect we want them to try to punch us, we are expecting it and waiting for it. This is distinct from the counter-attacking "you attack, we attack" version, whereby you come under pressure having lost possession trying to score a goal.

Those that have pointed out that we don''t use our pace, or even truly penetrate methodically via the counter-punching methodology have a valid point, we appear to fear the counter counter-attack (ahem). Those who question what this leaves in terms of goalscoring intention are entitled to do so.

I have had more than one manager who felt that "you front lads" can make magic happen from very little. Huge attention was paid to defensive and midfield shape and organisation. It is not unreasonable to observe that this can be controlled in coaching terms. The great dilemma for such coaches is that scoring a goal can be observed to require a little chaos theory, somebody has to come out of shape, destroy the pattern of the opposition to manufacture an opportunity. This inevitably means a compromise in your own defensive structure (when in possession of the ball) in order to create. Alternatively you isolate the striker, hope he will score some goals out of nothing, wish for risk-free goals from shots outside the box, plus the valuable resource of set pieces. These are low risk goals that characterise our season and tessellate with the Hughton approach. Points are gained from clean sheets and going behind is hard to recover from (you would have to go out of shape). This also explains why we are better defensively (more clean sheets), yet have conceded a high number of goals (once we are behind to recover we must "go out of shape" which the manager doesn''t want to ever do and the players have been drilled to never do, and thus almost can''t).

The icing in the cake was to be RVW. Though as an ex-striker and striking coach, it is unclear to me exactly how the methodology employed - and intended for the season - made him the perfect candidate. Magari Quagliarella......

[can u sit down please 0]

I believe in hughtons tenure we have scored 1 goal on the counter attacke (fer at WBA)

While I agree we soak up pressure I can''t agree that we hit teams back.

The stat I read after the WBA game somewhere.

[nutty nigel 7,526]

All these stats will become irrelevant if we drop into the bottom three. Because then the league table will tell your story for you. Until then you''ll keep looking for them..

 

Tell me, how does that one goal compare with the other teams?

 

 

[can u sit down please 0]

Don''t know, but opta joe tweeted it to stand out, so I''m guessing poorly.

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Don''t know, but opta joe tweeted it to stand out, so I''m guessing poorly.[/quote]

Guessing?

Context, lad, context.

You hate Statistics anyway.......

[lowlyfendweller 0]

A great post that I think some did not read thoroughly enough.

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"Using boxing terminology I deliberately described the approach as counter- punching. This is not the same as counter-attacking. Hughton''s measured approach is not designed to allow for counter-attacks, it is a slow deliberate build up that - whilst not penetrative - tempts the opposition to take themselves out of shape. In effect we want them to try to punch us, we are expecting it and waiting for it. This is distinct from the counter-attacking "you attack, we attack" version, whereby you come under pressure having lost possession trying to score a goal.

Those that have pointed out that we don''t use our pace, or even truly penetrate methodically via the counter-punching methodology have a valid point, we appear to fear the counter counter-attack (ahem). Those who question what this leaves in terms of goalscoring intention are entitled to do so.

I have had more than one manager who felt that "you front lads" can make magic happen from very little. Huge attention was paid to defensive and midfield shape and organisation. It is not unreasonable to observe that this can be controlled in coaching terms. The great dilemma for such coaches is that scoring a goal can be observed to require a little chaos theory, somebody has to come out of shape, destroy the pattern of the opposition to manufacture an opportunity. This inevitably means a compromise in your own defensive structure (when in possession of the ball) in order to create. Alternatively you isolate the striker, hope he will score some goals out of nothing, wish for risk-free goals from shots outside the box, plus the valuable resource of set pieces. These are low risk goals that characterise our season and tessellate with the Hughton approach. Points are gained from clean sheets and going behind is hard to recover from (you would have to go out of shape). This also explains why we are better defensively (more clean sheets), yet have conceded a high number of goals (once we are behind to recover we must "go out of shape" which the manager doesn''t want to ever do and the players have been drilled to never do, and thus almost can''t).

The icing in the cake was to be RVW. Though as an ex-striker and striking coach, it is unclear to me exactly how the methodology employed - and intended for the season - made him the perfect candidate. Magari Quagliarella......

Parma, were you born in Stoke?

[Block Y Seat 176 80]

Agree, RVW is not a pace and power player, more the mathematician looking for a slide rule pass. Feel sorry for him, imagine being a vegetarian and staying as a guest on an extended holiday and being feed pork and beef.

H

[can u sit down please 0]

He didn''t tweet the others so I don''t know, all I know it was our first one.poor.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Using boxing terminology I deliberately described the approach as counter- punching. This is not the same as counter-attacking. Hughton''s measured approach is not designed to allow for counter-attacks, it is a slow deliberate build up that - whilst not penetrative - tempts the opposition to take themselves out of shape. In effect we want them to try to punch us, we are expecting it and waiting for it. This is distinct from the counter-attacking "you attack, we attack" version, whereby you come under pressure having lost possession trying to score a goal.

[/quote]Parma, we are agreed that Hughton is frightened of counter-attacking when the opposition, its attack having failed, is out of position, because that would lay us vulnerable to the counter-counter-attack. Fine.So his idea, as now explained, is that by us holding on to the ball we will so frustrate the opposition that they will finally rush at us, Lambert-style, getting out of position, and THEN we will attack.There are three obvious problems with this plan. Firstly, a team is more likely to be dangerously out of position if its attack has failed (with players stranded upfield) than if it is simply trying to win the ball. Secondly, Hughton''s psychology. If he is afraid of fast and committed attacking for fear of being hit on the counter (or counter-counter) then that will still apply. It doesn''t matter whether the opposition has (supposedly) got out of shape because of an attack of theirs that has failed or because they get out of shape trying to win the ball off us. Either way, Hughton''s fear of the counter-(or counter-counter, or counter-counter-counter...) attack will manifest itself.The third problem is that to frustrate the opposition into this lemming-like rush, we have to hold on to the ball. We have to turn into Barcelona. And we are a long, long way from being able to do that. All the opposition has to do is wait for us to give the ball away. Which will happen quitee soon enough. No streetwise Premier League manager (Pardew, for example) is going to miss this obvious point. He won''t tell his team to rush at us if we keep the ball for a few passes.

[morty 0]

Did Hughton play this style at Newcastle and Birmingham?If not you have to ask yourself why.

[Wiz 0]

KeelansGlove wrote: no plan B makes watching Norwich City a poor second to drying paint.

 

Very harsh but also very true.[:(]

[ron obvious 1,502]

haisbrohacker wrote the following post at 11/03/2014 7:58 AM:

Agree, RVW is not a pace and power player, more the mathematician looking for a slide rule pass.

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

This is true. And I believe it''s the reason why he appealed to Hughton so much. It fits in with his logical, rational approach to the game.

I couldn''t quite understand PC''s post; I take it he meant that we rely on pulling the opposition out of shape, which is what PHgm said, so aren''t you saying the same thing?

I agree about the Barcelona analogy though; I think Hughton gets more frustrated at our ability to consistently hang on to the ball. When was that wonderful goal we scored (BJ I think scored it) when we had about 30 passes before the final killer one? That''s what Hughton wants to see I''m sure.

Lambert trusted his players - he had no other choice - so inspired them to play consistently above their level & gave them free rein to express themselves (rather like Brian Clough). Fundamentally, Hughton does not trust his players. And it shows.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Bravo Ron and a valid question from Morty.

Jas on another thread touched on it:

Re: "anyone but Hughton"

Both Jas and CUSDP have valid points. There is an ABH environment.

It may be that the commonly-heard "he''d probably keep us up each year, but I just don''t feel connected/entertained/ encouraged" will be something we long for in years to come.

The actualite'' appears too much for too many however and so a summer change looks inevitable and pragmatic. There will be an unseasonably fair wind for the new messiah as a consequence as Jas says.

The relentless, repetitive coaching strictures that characterise Hughton''s methodology will not be lamented in their absence and the lack of sympathy will be a consequence as CUSDP notes.

For the religious amongst you though, who believe in the greatness and limitless potential of Norwich and the players, Hughton''s calculation is that this is a good as they are and drilling them in this way increased the odds. If we go down gloriously, entertainingly in future years and eat for a typical period away from the top flight table....will we long for that which we rejected? £100m and worldwide exposure 24 hours a day might be harder to live without than even attacking football....

[Block Y Seat 176 80]

In essence aren''t we really looking for a Hoolahan style player but with a better engine, finishing and passing ability.

Would just one new player transform our side and make best use of our new strike force?

If that is the case why change the manager because results will follow.

H

[morty 0]

[quote user="haisbrohacker"]In essence aren''t we really looking for a Hoolahan style player but with a better engine, finishing and passing ability.

Would just one new player transform our side and make best use of our new strike force?

If that is the case why change the manager because results will follow.

H[/quote][Y]

[lharman7 39]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lharman7"]Wow, the idea of ''Total Football'' at Carrow Road! Lol, some of you really do make me laugh![/quote]

How old are you?  If you remember the late 1980''s you will remember the quality of football was just what you describe - total football - and it led to one of our best achievements ever in the early 90''s.   Imo what we are trying to do is build a way of playing that is sustainable and effective. It is obvious we are not there yet, but that does not mean we should stop trying.

[/quote]

I''m 34 and yes I remember our football played in the late 80''s early 90''s. We didn''t play ''total football''! We had a good and exciting team which played on the fast counter attack. We were also able to score more than a goal a game.

Something I and a very large amount of supporters very much miss!

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="ron obvious"]haisbrohacker wrote the following post at 11/03/2014 7:58 AM:

Agree, RVW is not a pace and power player, more the mathematician looking for a slide rule pass.

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

This is true. And I believe it''s the reason why he appealed to Hughton so much. It fits in with his logical, rational approach to the game.

I couldn''t quite understand PC''s post; I take it he meant that we rely on pulling the opposition out of shape, which is what PHgm said, so aren''t you saying the same thing?

I agree about the Barcelona analogy though; I think Hughton gets more frustrated at our ability to consistently hang on to the ball. When was that wonderful goal we scored (BJ I think scored it) when we had about 30 passes before the final killer one? That''s what Hughton wants to see I''m sure.

Lambert trusted his players - he had no other choice - so inspired them to play consistently above their level & gave them free rein to express themselves (rather like Brian Clough). Fundamentally, Hughton does not trust his players. And it shows.[/quote]Wow Ron! Does this make me even harder to understand than Schopenhauer? I am sort of flattered...[;)]I will try to explain it again. As I understand what Parma is saying Hughton is trying to do the crucial difference is in how you try to pull the opposition out of shape. And here two different methods are being contrasted.There is the counter-attack way, in which when the opposition attack breaks down in your half you then attack immediately, at pace, and probably in numbers. The advantage is that the attack has a good chance of success, because the opposition is badly out of shape. The disadvantage is that if you then lose the ball, you are badly out of shape.As easy example of that comes from the Villa away game. We lost the ball in their penalty area. Four passes later Villa had five players in our penalty area and the ball was in the back of our net for the crucial third goal. But - the Hughton argument goes - that kind of cavalry-charge attack is too dangerous because if you don''t score and instead lose the ball with half your outfield in the opposition penalty area then you are at serious risk of conceding.The second method is that when the opposition attack

breaks down in your half you do not attack quickly, at pace and in numbers but as Parma said in his OP: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.The obvious problem with that as a method is that it allows the opposition, if at all out of position, to regroup and be hard to penetrate, as Parma sorts of admits with that phrase about trying (as opposed to succeeding) to make penetrative passes. And there is a basic flaw in the idea that if we attack slowly then the opposition will get so frustrated it will come at us and lose shape that way. As I said before, if we were Barcleona and held on to the ball for minutes on end that might happen. But we are not, and it won''t. As you say:Agree about the Barcelona analogy though; I think Hughton gets more frustrated at our ability to consistently hang on to the ball.In other words Hughton''s method of pulling the opposition out of shape relies on us doing something we can''t do! It is an ideal-world strategy that falls apart when confronted by grim reality.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="lharman7"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lharman7"]Wow, the idea of ''Total Football'' at Carrow Road! Lol, some of you really do make me laugh![/quote]How old are you?  If you remember the late 1980''s you will remember the quality of football was just what you describe - total football - and it led to one of our best achievements ever in the early 90''s.   Imo what we are trying to do is build a way of playing that is sustainable and effective. It is obvious we are not there yet, but that does not mean we should stop trying. [/quote]

I''m 34 and yes I remember our football played in the late 80''s early 90''s. We didn''t play ''total football''! We had a good and exciting team which played on the fast counter attack. We were also able to score more than a goal a game.

Something I and a very large amount of supporters very much miss![/quote]

Strange how the memory plays tricks.  The side I remember under Stringer was a side who could keep the ball, pass accurately and play with patience, waiting for the openings.  It was almost the total football as near as you could want it at Norwich.   We did not get more direct until Walker took over, but his success was based on the groundwork done by Stringer.  

As a philosophy, I don''t think Hughton''s way is that much different from Stringer''s.   Keep the ball, pass and move and keep a good shape when you haven''t got the ball.  The problem Hughton has is that in some games we give the ball away too cheaply so we keep having to revert to the defensive  - but when it works it works well.  

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lharman7"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lharman7"]Wow, the idea of ''Total Football'' at Carrow Road! Lol, some of you really do make me laugh![/quote]How old are you?  If you remember the late 1980''s you will remember the quality of football was just what you describe - total football - and it led to one of our best achievements ever in the early 90''s.   Imo what we are trying to do is build a way of playing that is sustainable and effective. It is obvious we are not there yet, but that does not mean we should stop trying. [/quote]

I''m 34 and yes I remember our football played in the late 80''s early 90''s. We didn''t play ''total football''! We had a good and exciting team which played on the fast counter attack. We were also able to score more than a goal a game.

Something I and a very large amount of supporters very much miss![/quote]

Strange how the memory plays tricks.  The side I remember under Stringer was a side who could keep the ball, pass accurately and play with patience, waiting for the openings.  It was almost the total football as near as you could want it at Norwich.   We did not get more direct until Walker took over, but his success was based on the groundwork done by Stringer.   As a philosophy, I don''t think Hughton''s way is that much different from Stringer''s.   Keep the ball, pass and move and keep a good shape when you haven''t got the ball.  The problem Hughton has is that in some games we give the ball away too cheaply so we keep having to revert to the defensive  - but when it works it works well.  

[/quote]Your memory is right. And if we had that kind of ability in the side now (in comparison with the opposition) we could play that way. And it may be Hughton''s dream. But it is a dream based on a squad he doesn''t have.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lharman7"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lharman7"]Wow, the idea of ''Total Football'' at Carrow Road! Lol, some of you really do make me laugh![/quote]How old are you?  If you remember the late 1980''s you will remember the quality of football was just what you describe - total football - and it led to one of our best achievements ever in the early 90''s.   Imo what we are trying to do is build a way of playing that is sustainable and effective. It is obvious we are not there yet, but that does not mean we should stop trying. [/quote]

I''m 34 and yes I remember our football played in the late 80''s early 90''s. We didn''t play ''total football''! We had a good and exciting team which played on the fast counter attack. We were also able to score more than a goal a game.

Something I and a very large amount of supporters very much miss![/quote]Strange how the memory plays tricks.  The side I remember under Stringer was a side who could keep the ball, pass accurately and play with patience, waiting for the openings.  It was almost the total football as near as you could want it at Norwich.   We did not get more direct until Walker took over, but his success was based on the groundwork done by Stringer.   As a philosophy, I don''t think Hughton''s way is that much different from Stringer''s.   Keep the ball, pass and move and keep a good shape when you haven''t got the ball.  The problem Hughton has is that in some games we give the ball away too cheaply so we keep having to revert to the defensive  - but when it works it works well.   [/quote]Your memory is right. And if we had that kind of ability in the side now (in comparison with the opposition) we could play that way. And it may be Hughton''s dream. But it is a dream based on a squad he doesn''t have.[/quote]It is my belief that Hughton is trying to create that kind of team - and you are right about the squad- but it is still developing. Its frustrating at times, but as long as we stay up, I think that next season will see it develop to the extent that we see more success on the pitch.  Ok, its a hope more than anything, but I am nothing if not hopeful.....and the alternative - to start again with someone else, holds no guarantees either. 

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="lake district canary"]It is my belief that Hughton is trying to create that kind of team - and you are right about the squad- but it is still developing. Its frustrating at times, but as long as we stay up, I think that next season will see it develop to the extent that we see more success on the pitch.  Ok, its a hope more than anything, but I am nothing if not hopeful.....and the alternative - to start again with someone else, holds no guarantees either. 

[/quote]ldc, you are getting SO close to the dark side. Just one more little step...

[GPs Beard 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lharman7"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lharman7"]Wow, the idea of ''Total Football'' at Carrow Road! Lol, some of you really do make me laugh![/quote]
How old are you?  If you remember the late 1980''s you will remember the quality of football was just what you describe - total football - and it led to one of our best achievements ever in the early 90''s.   Imo what we are trying to do is build a way of playing that is sustainable and effective. It is obvious we are not there yet, but that does not mean we should stop trying.
[/quote] I''m 34 and yes I remember our football played in the late 80''s early 90''s. We didn''t play ''total football''! We had a good and exciting team which played on the fast counter attack. We were also able to score more than a goal a game. Something I and a very large amount of supporters very much miss![/quote]
Strange how the memory plays tricks.  The side I remember under Stringer was a side who could keep the ball, pass accurately and play with patience, waiting for the openings.  It was almost the total football as near as you could want it at Norwich.   We did not get more direct until Walker took over, but his success was based on the groundwork done by Stringer.  
As a philosophy, I don''t think Hughton''s way is that much different from Stringer''s.   Keep the ball, pass and move and keep a good shape when you haven''t got the ball.  The problem Hughton has is that in some games we give the ball away too cheaply so we keep having to revert to the defensive  - but when it works it works well.  
[/quote]
Your memory is right. And if we had that kind of ability in the side now (in comparison with the opposition) we could play that way. And it may be Hughton''s dream. But it is a dream based on a squad he doesn''t have.
[/quote]

It is my belief that Hughton is trying to create that kind of team - and you are right about the squad- but it is still developing. Its frustrating at times, but as long as we stay up, I think that next season will see it develop to the extent that we see more success on the pitch.  Ok, its a hope more than anything, but I am nothing if not hopeful.....and the alternative - to start again with someone else, holds no guarantees either. 



[/quote]

 

Hughtons style of football could not be further from the concept (for that is what it is) of Total Football. Total Football is, as most people know, a style of football developed in Holland , specifically Ajax, based on interchangeable position and being proactive. Ajax won the European Cup in the mid seventies playing a style that was as close to TF as ever seen before, and the Dutch national side scored a famous goal in the World Cup final in 1974 which is still used in coaching videos as a good example. From memory Holland got a penalty in the final from the first whistle without Germany touching the ball. If I''ve got that wrong apologies.

 

Tiki Taka is a derivative: interchangeable forward play but more important the high pressing (proactive) concept of winning the ball and scoring within 5-10 seconds of winning the ball.

 

If anyone can recall Norwich playing Total Football then I would suggest some form of mind bending hallucinogenic. Love to imagine Big Dunc having a go on the left wing. Mind you I wouldn''t have argued with him if he had wanted to.....

 

[ron obvious 1,502]

Ah PC! I think I see it now. Sort of isothermal expansion, rather than adiabatic??

I think perhaps we haven''t got players who fit either description (or not enough anyway).

[Mr Jenkins 0]

purple wrote "In other words Hughtons method of pulling the opposition out of shape relies on us doing something we can''t do! It is an ideal-world strategy that falls apart when confronted by grim reality."

Excellent discussion and I think this point is spot on. We do give the ball away far to easily but for me this is part of the dilemma. You dont have to have a team packed with great players to be able to hang on to the ball (although it helps) Look at Swansea under Martinez and Rodgers, they didnt have loads of quality but they just used simple movement off the ball, little triangles etc. to keep the ball. We are more than capable of doing that, the problem we have is that we are so fixed in a rigid structure that there is insufficient movement off the ball to enable us to make a series of successful passes, the ball often then goes back to Ruddy and is hoofed. This is a funamental flaw in the system of keep ball, the players must be given more freedom to enable it to happen.

[cj spud 0]

The Stringer Era is the one I grew up admiring the most, and something I still can''t help judging every other team by, but as other posters have already identified, there are missing elements in Hughton''s set-up, and to me it seems it''s not just players. At the risk of getting all misty-eyed it may be worth comparing the two here, to the best of our collective memories In one sense it was almost exactly as it is today: we could never get the best players, having to make do with cast-offs & lower division youngsters (I remember people moaning that we''d signed a Southampton reserve team regular when Andy Townsend turned up), but they all had one thing - technical ability. They could keep the ball and pass it accurately. What we could never afford was genuine pace; hence the way we played. But we did counter-attack. One of our standard tactics for a long time was to counter-attack from defending a corner for instance. Currently it seems, the players have been told specifically NOT to do this. The other difference I believe is that we do have players with pace now. Put it this way, both Redmond and RvW would love quick balls into space while the opposition defence are out of position, short numbered, or just napping - yet I can''t recall a single example of this happening this season.As for the Walker Era, I actually remember finding his tactics rather ''vulgar'' for a while, as it was such a shock to the system after Stringer. But it centered around having a player of Crook''s passing ability and the intelligence of Mark Robins & Ruel Fox to make use of it. Again, could that suit RvW?One thing these teams all had in common when it comes to their attacking play is coaching. Quality coaching, and lots of it! I mention this in reference to Parma''s point about some coaches thinking that goals come from ''magic'' rather than hard work & planning. I can vouch for this, because as a (youth) coach in the past I have realised I''d been guilty of this myself! But then I always played at Centre-Half ... [:P]

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Ah PC! I think I see it now. Sort of isothermal expansion, rather than adiabatic??

I think perhaps we haven''t got players who fit either description (or not enough anyway).[/quote]Ron, I am more familiar with chess than chemistry, so I will take your analogy as accurate! In chess there used - before the inventon of chess clocks - to be the ploy of Sitzfleisch. Taking so long over your moves that the poor opponent was driven to wild moves when his turn finally came. That appears to be the Hughton Plan, and we seem to agree, whatever the analogy, that there is a Grand Canyon-sized flaw in it.