Chris Hughton is @#£%&#£ Clueless

[morty 0]

You obviously just chose to pay attention to the bits you wanted to, and missed "Hoolahan 5, two efforts on goal, but poor and subbed."

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="morty"]You obviously just chose to pay attention to the bits you wanted to, and missed "Hoolahan 5, two efforts on goal, but poor and subbed."[/quote]Which report are you quoting, Morty, because not in the ones I saw? Average mark seven, and both the Times and Torygraph described him as Norwich''s most influential player . Did any other Norwich player produce more than 2 meaningful efforts on goal ??I notice you''ve made no comment on my observation that we looked toothless even against 10 men

[morty 0]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="morty"]You obviously just chose to pay attention to the bits you wanted to, and missed "Hoolahan 5, two efforts on goal, but poor and subbed."[/quote]Which report are you quoting, Morty, because not in the ones I saw? Average mark seven, and both the Times and Torygraph described him as Norwich''s most influential player . Did any other Norwich player produce more than 2 meaningful efforts on goal ??I notice you''ve made no comment on my observation that we looked toothless even against 10 men[/quote]The Sun, feel free to sneer.I have commented in other threads, there was only going to be one result once they went down to ten, and parked the bus. Its happened to far, far better teams than us.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="morty"]The Sun, feel free to sneer.

[/quote]As if I would.......

[morty 0]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="morty"]The Sun, feel free to sneer.

[/quote]As if I would.......[/quote]Ah right, your journo is better than my journo, because he told you what you wanted to hear?Lol[Y]

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="morty"]The Sun, feel free to sneer.

[/quote]As if I would.......[/quote]Ah right, your journo is better than my journo, because he told you what you wanted to hear?Lol[Y][/quote]Oh for heaven''s sake, Morty. For once in your life, lighten up.  My comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. Do you never take anything in the spirit it was intended, ffs ?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="morty"]The Sun, feel free to sneer.

[/quote]As if I would.......[/quote]Ah right, your journo is better than my journo, because he told you what you wanted to hear?Lol[Y][/quote]Oh for heaven''s sake, Morty. For once in your life, lighten up.  My comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. Do you never take anything in the spirit it was intended, ffs ?[/quote]Put a smiley icon, to let me know you''re not being the miserable git you usually are then.[;)]

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="morty"]Put a smiley icon, to let me know you''re not being the miserable git you usually are then.

[/quote]Don''t do emoticons and such, Morty. Nor Twatter etc.Miserable git ? You make me sound as though I''m the Morrissey of the Pink Un forum .....

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="morty"]Put a smiley icon, to let me know you''re not being the miserable git you usually are then.

[/quote]Don''t do emoticons and such, Morty. Nor Twatter etc.Miserable git ? You make me sound as though I''m the Morrissey of the Pink Un forum .....[/quote]

 

Morrisey? Nora Batty more like....

 

 

 

[a1canary 0]

Back on topic, i think the situation was not right for Howson, even if the manager wanted to give him game time.

I noticed as soon as Hooly went off we stopped using the wings and started trying to play through the middle. Which is never going to give us much of a chance against 10 men behind the ball all crammed in to the penalty area. We needed to stretch them and keep feeding Olsson and Redmond but we almost completely stopped doing that after the substitutions. Which given that the subs also involved going to two up front, makes even less sense. Howson is a more direct player who looks to go forward whereas Hools looks for runners and plays in to the channels which is exactly what we needed to keep doing with Stoke down to 10 men. As it was, our chances actually dried up when they went down to 10.

It was a poor tactical move if you ask me.

[Guest]

I don''t entirely agree A1.

Wes is a mercurical player who is brilliant on his day, but Howson is more capable of picking up the ball and driving forward. Presumably, Hughton expected Stoke to push on as they were losing, meaning more space to pick the ball up and counter.

In absence of Fer, and given Wes had played 3 games in a week, I can see why Howson was brought on to provide more drive to the midfield. It would not necessarily have been my choice, but there''s a lot of justification for it. In hindsight, Wes would have been a better choice if Hughton had known Walters was going to get sent off, but that is knowledge after the fact.

You are aware that he subbed Hoolahan off with 20 minutes to go - 10 minutes before Walters was dismissed?

[Rivvo 257]

Unfortunately I think it was just bad timing, Wes was not having the hoped for effect on the game and had been brushed off too easily by a very physical Stoke side, Howson was the right swap at the time, however if Hughton had waited to make a later sub then they would have been down to 10 men and that would have suited Holahan far more, he would have had the time and space that he needs and hadn''t been getting in the preceeding minutes.

[Guest]

So what you''re saying is that Chris Hughton makes his subs too early, and he should have waited until later in the match?

[a1canary 0]

I was at the game for once but it''s a fair point about the sub being before Walters'' dismissal so maybe i was too harsh on Hoots for that.

But from my excellent view from my box in the N&P ;)  it was clear to see that after Hools went off the play down the wings dried up and they kept trying to play through Stoke with no reward.

The Howson or Hoolahan question is an intersting one - they are obvious replacements for each other as advanced central midfielders, and yet are very different players. Howson is more direct and having him in the side focuses more of our play through the middle, while Hoolahan tends to invite the wide players to have a bigger impact on the game down the channels. If you think back what seems a long long time ago and we actually strung together some wins in that autumn period last year, Hoolahan feeding Pilkington and Snodgrass, supported by the full backs was the key to our attacks. Without Hoolahan, our wing play has been less effective imo. What Hoolahan does is bring the wingers in to the game much higher up the pitch where they are more effective. If the wingers have the ball not far ahead of the half way line, they either have to beat their man or put long crosses in from only just in the final third rather than from the byline or in line with the penalty area. Note our goal against Stoke came from a free kick cross near the byline.

[morty 0]

Heres a point to consider.If your strikers aren''t scoring, is it so crazy to set out a plan of trying to win one nil?

[Guest]

Depends if you believe they''re not scoring because of lack of form/ability, or whether the tactics are wrong I suppose.

As the manager, you are obviously going to think the former!

[hogesar 9,671]

Problem is, Hoolahan is the only player we have who''s movement in and around the striker causes defences problems. Ask Shawcross.

At 1-0, Hughton decided the game was won if we defended properly. Unfortunately, having watched us all season it was pretty inevitable that we would cock up or make a mistake of some kind.

Howson sat too deep. Whether that was through instruction, flow of the game or inability to keep up with play. I don''t know.

All I do know is it''s another 2 points dropped and unfortunately, it ain''t quite good enough

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Problem is that we are now at the stage where any disappointment is greeted by relating it to a mistake Hootun made. In the moment it''s quite simple, the substitution of Wes was in an attempt to hang on t a 1-0 lead and it backfired. Hootuns fault. But later when you analyse it maybe not so. If you''re not so ready to apportion blame perhaps the substitution was right. Footballers are athletes. Football clubs, not just our football club, employ  a host of fitness coaches to assess players capabilities. I would think the 70 min substitution was pre-determined. Wes was playing his 3rd game in 6 days. He may also needed for the next game if the injury situation doesn''t improve. The fitness coaches in all probability would have said 70 mins max. They may also have concluded 20 mins was the next step for Howson.

 

Before you shout me down for this remember what you see with your own eyes from our club and other clubs when players in such an intense position embark on 3 games in 6 days. In fact not many players in such positions would where full squads are available. Or if it makes you feel better carry on tracing everything back to the manager and blaming him. And when you see other clubs make the same substitutions for the same reasons blame Hoots for that too.

 

 

[Indy 3,300]

The only mistake made by Hughton was to name 3 attackers and one midfielder in 7 subs.

 

I didn''t think Hughton did too much wrong, Elmander & Hooper for RVW & Tettey was forced change.

 

I''m not going to crticise Hughton for things which make sense, Wes has only played a few games of late and Howson is coming back off injury.

[Katie Borkins 1]

Reckon he knows when his Direct Debits are due though.

[hogesar 9,671]

Whilst i agree with the sentiment NN - just think why every disappointment is linked back to Hughton. He''s a nice guy, so it''s not cause he''s a twat.

It''s because none of his subs for the entire season have been effective, most have had the opposite effect. For the most part this season we''ve under performed - bar a few good results. So things get traced back to Hughton because he''s done more wrong than right.

As for the reason of the sub that would be the only logical one as Wes''s movement was the only thing causing any real problems for the Stoke defence.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]Whilst i agree with the sentiment NN - just think why every disappointment is linked back to Hughton. He''s a nice guy, so it''s not cause he''s a twat.

It''s because none of his subs for the entire season have been effective, most have had the opposite effect. For the most part this season we''ve under performed - bar a few good results. So things get traced back to Hughton because he''s done more wrong than right.

As for the reason of the sub that would be the only logical one as Wes''s movement was the only thing causing any real problems for the Stoke defence.[/quote]Do you think though that perhaps we haven''t got the strength in depth also?

[morty 0]

This was our bench on Saturday.

• 03 Whittaker
• 08 Howson
• 11 Hooper
• 12 Pilkington
• 13 Bunn
• 16 Elmander
• 19 Becchio

Other than the not fully fit yet Pilkington and Howson, it really doesn''t look that strong.

[hogesar 9,671]

Uhrm, yes Morty i would agree with that, we do lack strength in depth.

Most sides around us have the same problem, it''s hard on a limited budget to build that strength in depth. On top of which - which premier league standard player would be happy coming here to sit on the bench and provide that depth? Not many, on the wages we pay.

And whilst i wouldn''t blame Hughton for any of that - the things he could get right - like substitutions, he doesn''t. Admittedly they''re a gamble but his success rate of 0% doesn''t inspire me. The overall quality of our football doesn''t inspire me. We''ve looked much better since Tettey came back but the fact he couldn''t come up with a system that remotely worked with a couple of CM''s out suggests he doesn''t have enough flexibility in his own tactics to deal with having a limited squad.

That''s where, the likes of Lambert excelled. I certainly think Hughton has the better eye for a Premier League footballer, for example. But the ability to motivate an entire squad to perform above their means for the most part is very difficult, and something not many managers can do. Unfortunately, to do well in this league, we need someone like that again.

Now, don''t get me wrong, we have enough idiots within our fan base - like those who boo''d at the sign of Elmander coming on. But we also have thousands upon thousands who''ve watched Premier League football week in week out - whether NCFC were there or not. Most of the bottom teams around us are more exciting, score more goals (more than 1 a game, or average more than 0.8 a game - something even Stoke can beat us too) and even sometimes string two wins together.

When you''re 1-0 up at home to Stoke and predicting the inevitable because we''re unlikely to score another, regardless of any sending off later in the game - fan''s get angry and fed up because they can predict what will happen before the manager does.

[hogesar 9,671]

And looking at that bench - as far as attacking options go i don''t think it''s that bad.

I think Howson, Hooper, Pilkington and Elmander/Becchio can all offer something a bit different. It''s a bit of a gamble but Stoke were hardly piling on the pressure so i''d have kept Wes on, and replaced one of the holding midfielders (Tettey, when he was injured) for Howson. He can perform that role as a holding midfielder OK, but is also more likely to create something.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]Uhrm, yes Morty i would agree with that, we do lack strength in depth.

Most sides around us have the same problem, it''s hard on a limited budget to build that strength in depth. On top of which - which premier league standard player would be happy coming here to sit on the bench and provide that depth? Not many, on the wages we pay.

And whilst i wouldn''t blame Hughton for any of that - the things he could get right - like substitutions, he doesn''t. Admittedly they''re a gamble but his success rate of 0% doesn''t inspire me. The overall quality of our football doesn''t inspire me. We''ve looked much better since Tettey came back but the fact he couldn''t come up with a system that remotely worked with a couple of CM''s out suggests he doesn''t have enough flexibility in his own tactics to deal with having a limited squad.

That''s where, the likes of Lambert excelled. I certainly think Hughton has the better eye for a Premier League footballer, for example. But the ability to motivate an entire squad to perform above their means for the most part is very difficult, and something not many managers can do. Unfortunately, to do well in this league, we need someone like that again.

Now, don''t get me wrong, we have enough idiots within our fan base - like those who boo''d at the sign of Elmander coming on. But we also have thousands upon thousands who''ve watched Premier League football week in week out - whether NCFC were there or not. Most of the bottom teams around us are more exciting, score more goals (more than 1 a game, or average more than 0.8 a game - something even Stoke can beat us too) and even sometimes string two wins together.

When you''re 1-0 up at home to Stoke and predicting the inevitable because we''re unlikely to score another, regardless of any sending off later in the game - fan''s get angry and fed up because they can predict what will happen before the manager does.[/quote]I wasn''t trying to excuse things he has got wrong just by the depth of squad, I think you''re right, he has a very specific template of how he wants to play, and struggles to come up with an alternative when he can''t select the players he wants to.I think we are very much treading water, hoping for the best, until we can add again to the squad in the summer.Yeah, I had a bit of a shout at booing people on Saturday, utterly stupid and pointless.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]And looking at that bench - as far as attacking options go i don''t think it''s that bad.

I think Howson, Hooper, Pilkington and Elmander/Becchio can all offer something a bit different. It''s a bit of a gamble but Stoke were hardly piling on the pressure so i''d have kept Wes on, and replaced one of the holding midfielders (Tettey, when he was injured) for Howson. He can perform that role as a holding midfielder OK, but is also more likely to create something.[/quote]But really, the Wes substitution only looks bad in hindsight, because of the sending off.Thats the thing though, a gamble. Although it felt like a loss, we''re still a point closer to safety.

[hogesar 9,671]

You''re right in that we certainly need to add to the squad.

Whilst it wouldn''t have helped our goal scoring problems i think with another holding midfielder in our squad who Hughton rates playing the two holding one more offensive (Fer) would see us with a few more points than we''re currently on. Saying that we might not have then had Elmander alongside Hooper which started Hoopers short scoring run.

And yep, you''re right re hindsight. I think i''d have had less of a problem with the substitution if Howson hadn''t sat so much deeper. I expect Howson to sit at least just as high because he doesn''t have the movement to get into positions the same way Hoolahan does - confusing.

As for those people booing it was beyond stupid - and not fair on a player who''s been no worse than RVW.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="hogesar"]Whilst i agree with the sentiment NN - just think why

every disappointment is linked back to Hughton. He''s a nice guy, so it''s not

cause he''s a twat. It''s because none of his subs for the

entire season have been effective, most have had the opposite effect. For

the most part this season we''ve under performed - bar a few good results. So

things get traced back to Hughton because he''s done more wrong than right. As

for the reason of the sub that would be the only logical one as Wes''s movement

was the only thing causing any real problems for the Stoke

defence.[/quote]

 

Not sure that''s true. The idea that his subs have had a negative effect is mainly fuelled by that stat about no goals and no assists from subs which is usually reported as a failing of end of the world proportions. However the article that stat comes from shows goals and assists from EPL managers this season. Hoots is bottom with 0 goals and 0 assists. Just above him is Lambert with 1 goal and 0 assists. And yet Lambert is seen as a substitution genius. However Hoots record with these subs doesn''t cost us as much as many seem to think. Norwich have scored nearly half their goals (10) after 60 mins. Our goal difference for the last 30 mins of games is -4. The first hour it''s -18.

 

 

The bigger problem is that we don''t have enough quality on the bench to hurt PL teams. When we were in League One we cashed in heavily at the end of games by bringing on players of a greater quality than the tired opposition. To a lesser degree we managed the same in the Champs. However possibly the only time I''ve seen step up after using subs this season was at Cardiff when we brought on Fer, Redmond and RVW. I''m sure if we had a fully fit squad and could regularly have players of that quality on the bench we may be able to make a difference against perhaps the bottom half dozen teams. However as it stands we can''t afford that luxury and those players start.

 

 

[can u sit down please 0]

I''ve said it all season, we need to press higher up the pitch.

We are winning balls in our own 3rd and there is still a lot of ground to make up to score.

By having the wingers pushed up on to the full backs, it would stop rvw chasing them down and sticking to the width of the 18yd box.

If he did that I feel he would get more chances. Up top on his own, he is doing the work of 2/3 players.

At times on Saturday we were letting stoke have the ball and having 10 men behind the ball leaving Ricky so far up on his own he may well have been on mars.

Look at Wigan yesterday. They did it, yes you can get caught out by leaving gaps, but press well enough and in the right areas and teams can''t settle to hurt you.