Fans who say the players arent good enough

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Of course they have to answer for it.

But asking a winger, no matter how good he is, to get ''quality early crosses in'', is too much to ask no matter how talented he is.

Failure of the system to get attacking players into areas where a good cross could be achieved is something I would highlight...and I really tried to see the good in Hughton. I even posted a thread stating my belief he''d keep us up after we lost to Southampton.

But the facts to my mind are that he had no clear footballing philosophy other than to keep organised, collapse into two banks of four when not on the ball and to hit the channels when possession is recycled and hope it drops for an advancing midfielder/ forward dropping deep.

Trouble is our midfielders weren''t advancing as they were told to track both runners therefore giving up their own opportunities to break and the forwards werent dropping into pockets of space as Elmander was in the channels as a wide target man for some reason unbeknownst to me other than Hughton maybe trying to give Hooper the flick ons from wide that he got from Samaras at Celtic and RVW/Hooper play off the last shoulder. So, the opportunities for wingers such as Snodgrass to cross from good positions were few and far between.

That said when he was in a good position he took to o long to deliver/tried to do too much too often.

So yes the blame should be proportionally attributed but do you see why I feel the tactical approach should harbour a larger portion of the blame?

[Bill 1,788]

God, is he still ranting on this nonsense !Players with a good rating, goal scorers with high success rates all coincidentally failed when they come to Norwich.Bassong looked a shadow of his former self and Ruddy regularly showed signs of the hee bee jeebiesA number of players spoke out about not agreeing with the tactics - and even the manager himself admitted that the players were able to win (v Everton) ignored his tactics. Redman has now much the same comments.Wwith much of the same squad Hhughton turned an attacking positive team into a dire, defensive , almost scared team. the rest of us coild see it, the crowd at CR could see it, as could every commentator.But hey, EVERYONE else is wrong and it was not the fault of the person who was responsible.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,076]

But players are on the pitch to do a job they are paid handsomely for. They didn''t do it

Players, like any employee, are paid to do the job their boss tells them to do. If the bosses tactics are explicitly to slow down play, keep rigidly to positions and not cross early, you cant blame the player for sticking to the game plan and ''following orders''. If you contravene an order in the army you get court-martialed. But you are suggesting that players should have ignored their ''orders''? How do you think that would have gone? A large majority of fans feel the failings you highlight were deliberate tactics by Hughton, not a failing in the player. The job they are paid to do is to follow the managers instructions. The argument is whether those were instructions or not

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]Players, like any employee, are paid to do the job their boss tells them to do. If the bosses tactics are explicitly to slow down play, keep rigidly to positions and not cross early, you cant blame the player for sticking to the game plan and ''following orders''. If you contravene an order in the army you get court-martialed. But you are suggesting that players should have ignored their ''orders''? How do you think that would have gone? A large majority of fans feel the failings you highlight were deliberate tactics by Hughton, not a failing in the player. The job they are paid to do is to follow the managers instructions. The argument is whether those were instructions or not[/quote]

Quite. Tactics are down to the manager and the players have to put them into action.  So -  I am 100% certain that Snodgrass was not told to hold up play, dribble around while the defence gets settled and then try a dolly drop cross. But that is what he tries to do most of the time. So who''s fault is it?

The only time first time  crosses came in were when Ollson or Martin were given the ball.  Snodgrass - and Redmond to a certain extent - did not do this nearly enough.  It would be interesting to see what the stats are for first time crosses.  But that is what the forwards needed - something to challenge for before the defence has got fully organised.   It only needed a little bit of variation or the occasional early cross to get defenders thinking a bit more.  So you are right - the question is what were the instructions? If none were given and it was left up to the players then the players  were not good enough.   If there were instructions given - were they carried out to the letter - or were players not good enough to carry out the instructions?   Or were the instructions bad - ie Snodgrass was told to run into blind alleys all the time instead of varying it sometimes and putting in the odd early cross?    Doesn''t it make you think?

Oh and City 1st - don''t bother to answer again - this is a discussion - you wouldn''t understand.............

[Bill 1,788]

it is not really a discussion, merely you parroting out the same nonsense with nothing to back it up -"So -  I am 100% certain that Snodgrass was not told to hold up play,

dribble around while the defence gets settled and then try a dolly drop

cross. But that is what he tries to do most of the time. So who''s fault

is it?"err, the managerif it is wrong and he did it ''most of the time'' why did Hughton never tell him to stop ?

[The Great Mass Debater 1,076]

I think we''ve identified the point on which we disagree LDC. I feel very much that Snodgrass was doing exactly what Hughton wanted. Play was regularly focussed down our right to go through Snodgrass. Snodgrass has played like that ever since we acquired him. If Hughton didnt like what he saw he could have dropped or moved Snodgrass. He didnt, Snodgrass was always the first name on the teamsheet and considered the key player. I really dont think Hughton was watching Snodgrass and sharing our frustration. How many times was Snodgrass seemingly having a shocker, and yet it was never him subbed off.

The fact that many fans, contrary to his POTS status with another group of fans see him as the primary culprit for moves being ineffective does not marry with the fact that Hughton made him the focus of the team, with everything going through him and the first name on the teamsheet. If Hughton did not like what he saw, that wouldnt have happened. The signing of Gutierrez in January suggested he wanted another player playing in the same style on the left, slowly ambling forward and building attacks slowly.

We seem to both agree that this was a cr*p tactic. Where we disagree is that, cr*p as it was, this was Hughton''s deliberate tactic. How the f*ck it was supposed to work is anybody''s guess. It was a crap tactic, hence mine, and many others'' deduction that Hughton was a crap tactician.

You seem to be implying that this tactic was either an accident, as you put it ''no instructions given and left up to the players'' (which is just as awful), or that Hughton wanted the attacking with pace and early crosses that we all wanted, but that the players couldnt do it. If this was the case, why was Snodgrass undroppable?

I proclaim that team was playing the exact way that Hughton wanted them to play, and not that Hughton wanted them to play a different way and they failed at it. I quite agree they were not suited to the Hughton plan, but by this point they were Hughtons hand picked players - so if they werent suited to his system, again, who takes responsibility for recruiting them?

We both agree the tactics we employed were cr*p. Doesnt mean it wasnt simply a cr*p plan from the manager

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="City1st"]it is not really a discussion, merely you parroting out the same nonsense with nothing to back it up -"So -  I am 100% certain that Snodgrass was not told to hold up play,

dribble around while the defence gets settled and then try a dolly drop

cross. But that is what he tries to do most of the time. So who''s fault

is it?"err, the managerif it is wrong and he did it ''most of the time'' why did Hughton never tell him to stop ?[/quote]

The manager - as is well known - relies on his players to have the acumen to be able to do their jobs.  Its called player responsibility.   That is how he was successful at Newcastle - it was largely up to the players.  Hughton is not a dictatorial kind of manager and will always need the players to do it for him.   That may be a weakness, but on the whole, his teams respond to his management with a good deal of faith and respect - as happened at Newcastle and Birmingham.    The job at Norwich was always going to be difficult in that regard, especially following a manager like Lambert.   Starting to build a side with a different philosophy was always goung to be tough.  Fair enough, it didn''t work - you could blame the board for picking Hughton - but a lot of fans seemed to like the idea too - some didn''t but a lot did.     Overall though, surely its best forgotten and we move on.  But the point stands, despite your attempts at debunking everything I write.   The players are what the players are - a new manager may or may not get better out of them than Hughton did - but a bad passer is still a bad passer and a player who makes poor decisions on the ball is always going to do that - unless they learn to put it right themselves.   

[Bill 1,788]

"who takes responsibility for recruiting them?"certainly NOT Hughton on his own, though he was solely responsible for picking the teamwhat is totally illogical from LDC is the notion that Hughton would be implementing tactics that he knew his players were not capable of delivering, but continuing with them in the secure knowledge that some numpty on a football forum would spend most of his working hours defending him

[ron obvious 1,498]

Perhaps Hughton felt that was the only option he was landed with? Snodgrass is rubbish on the left & Redmond likes playing on the left so he can cut inside & try to score (he doesn''t seem to ''do'' crossing in any meaningful way).

It could be argued that Hughton pretty well gave up on our strikers, & saw most of our goals as coming from midfield. It would also explain why BJ got so many games, as he is (occasionally) a bit of a goal threat.

As I said before, I think the non-arrival of a Quagesque player & EB''s injury scuppered Hughton''s plan A. There was no plan B because we were then effectively left with no strikers - what we saw was plan Up Excrement Creek Sans Paddle.

Manager gambles & loses. Manager goes. ''Twas ever thus.

[barclay_boy111 0]

Have you actually watched the championship last season? We would be lucky to get kid table last season.

Yes I agree it''s not just a coincidence that our "big" player we bought in all flopped (barring Ollson in my opinion)

But their where a lot of poor player this season half of which could walk away and we could replace with better quality players.

[barclay_boy111 0]

*mid

[Bill 1,788]

"Hughton is not a dictatorial kind of manager"then clearly you have not spoken to anyone who has sat near him in the Main Stand or works at Colneythe one thing I picked up in the one time I sat in the Main Stand was that Hughton was not an easy going chap, and the later stories of his bullying attitude rang true .... my way or you are outthe reality on here is that you, LDC, have painted yourself into a corner and are unwilling to take on board whatever is said and will continue with this absurd position, much as the sketch in  Life of Brian .. what have the romans ever done for us ?it is also clear that you have little understanding of the game and rather than offer any constructive analysis of the play or tactics you have simpy set out to ne''arsay whatever anyone else has said

[Mr Jenkins 0]

LDC has lost this argument and deep down I''m sure he knows it, if he doesnt then there is little hope.

I dont think he is ever going to admit it though!!

[Yellow Wal 314]

Ron - Although I agree that Redmond likes to play on the left so that he can cut inside and shoot I would suggest that is because he was instructed/encouraged to do that.

As I have reported before, on a Radio Norfolk interview by Josh Murphy after he provided the cross for Snodgrass to head home against Fulham, he said that he was encouraged to come inside and shoot. I can see no reason why Redmond would not have the same instruction/encouragement. Last season it worked for him ............. in August against Southampton (and I felt Boric should have saved it) and not again all season. As that was his tactical approach he created very little for those around him!

If the Quag had been signed I am sure he would have come across the same frustration as Leroy and it would not have been any better. Fer, on so many occasions, had no space to attack the defence as, with both Redmond and Snodgrass so far inside, there was nowhere for him to go.

At the same time because we closed down our own space there was no room for him to make any telling through balls.

He must have been as frustrated as hell.

The tactics used helped no-one.

The players suffered.

The supporters suffered.

And the Club suffered.

[ron obvious 1,498]

Yellow Wall - that is rather my point. I don''t remember Redmond producing any decent crosses at all from either wing. Now I''m suggesting that it may be that he simply isn''t very good at it - has anyone any knowledge of his Brum days? He always seemed to be more the sort of player that likes to start wide & attack players (rather like Stirling) than one who heads for the goal line to whip the cross in. So in practice there was no competition for Snodgrass in the attacking right midfield position. Now with Quagliarella supporting RvW this may not have been such a problem, as he would presumably been the creative link between Snodgrass & RvW/Hooper, with Fer coming from deeper.

Without Quag but with EB we could at least have tried different combos of Snodgrass or Redmond more central, Olsson or Redmond on the left. We ended up with the worst of all worlds.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,076]

If a Quagliarella was so vital to Hughtons system though, why did we not go hell for leather for one in January. I know McNally says we almost got a number 10 from one of the top 4 clubs, but after seemingly missing out in the summer, and seeing how lost we were without one, how did we allow this to happen a second time?

[ron obvious 1,498]

''Allow'' it to happen??? I don''t understand.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,076]

Allow a situation where the window closes and we havent signed a player in this key position for the second window running. You have a month in January, why did we not ensure we had at least one signing in this area (even someone way down our list of choices) well before the window shut. Getting to the point where your expected signing collapses at 6pm on deadline day leaving you up sh*t creek is a very risky strategy. If the quag type player was identified as so vital, and you''ve spent half a season rueing missing out on one, you''d expect the club to make sure they got someone capable of playing this position, even someone second rate but available, rather than ending up with noone again.

[ron obvious 1,498]

"even someone second rate but available, rather than ending up with noone again."

Not if the even someone is no better than, say, Hoolahan. Who we already have.

Hughton was trying to upgrade to a top ten class squad over a couple of seasons, which - particularly given the financial restrictions & other factors - was always going to be risky. He failed.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="City1st"]"Hughton is not a dictatorial kind of manager"then clearly you have not spoken to anyone who has sat near him in the Main Stand or works at Colneythe one thing I picked up in the one time I sat in the Main Stand was that Hughton was not an easy going chap, and the later stories of his bullying attitude rang true .... my way or you are outthe reality on here is that you, LDC, have painted yourself into a corner and are unwilling to take on board whatever is said and will continue with this absurd position, much as the sketch in  Life of Brian .. what have the romans ever done for us ?it is also clear that you have little understanding of the game and rather than offer any constructive analysis of the play or tactics you have simpy set out to ne''arsay whatever anyone else has said

[/quote]

Do you actually take the time to try and understand what is being said?   The tenor of what I said was that Hughton may have been weak in expecting his players to express themselves - and in that sense he was not dictatorial.  I am fully aware of his insistence of organisation that was so important to him.  Sometimes things are so obvious they don''t need to be said. 

You launch into posters as if you are the Lord Almighty and in the same post start accusations of Hughton being some kind of bully.    You are not alone in thinking that everything that has been wrong with the club over the last two years has been down to Hughton - but you - and others - ought to try and get a sense of perspective about the whole situation.   Managers come and go - we''ve had good ones and bad ones - and Hughton proved not to be up to the job - but it is the players that have to do the business.  

Going back to the op - which was to say would our players blossom next season under a new manager - and all I have been saying is that the players have something to prove and that some of them need to improve on what they have done this season, particularly Snodgrass and Johnson - and that they won''t necessarily be physically better players just because there is a new manager.    Nothing controversial in that, but you managed to turn it into a "Hughton is to blame for everything" thread.  Well done. Again.

[Bill 1,788]

I haven''t a clue what your first paragraph is on about - nor I suspect do you.What you have done though is to revert back to your time honoured ploy of making ups stuff to reply to, rather deal with the points.Nobody has claimed that "everything that has been wrong with the club over the last two years has been down to Hughton" ... that is just you making up stuff, again. You have not been saying that the players ''have something to prove'', your constant gripe has been that they are not good enough.Thankfully your last paragraph is at last an ackowledgement that you have been wrong (compare it with your previous rambles that the players were at fault).However what you have not explained still is why, if Snodgrass was at fault so many times, did Hughton not correct his play?  Is that not a the managers job ?

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="ron obvious"]I don''t remember Redmond producing any decent crosses at all from either wing. Now I''m suggesting that it may be that he simply isn''t very good at it - has anyone any knowledge of his Brum days?[/quote]Yet despite not providing a single decent cross all season, he somehow managed to have a higher cross success rate than Snoddy, who attempted twice as many as Redmond did...Redmond''s crossing really isn''t as bad as many make out, but I''d love to see Pilks back on the left with his crossing ability and Redmond on the right - now THAT would be a damn scary combination...

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Redmonds crossing do go spectacularly weong at times and thats what tends to influence peoples opinion, I dont know the stats say but I agree that his crossing is not as bad as some try to make out. His greatest strength at the moment is cutting in and making runs along the edge of the box and getting a shot off, a bit like the one Bale scored against us a couple of seasons ago.

Crossing is a skill he can work on and I am sure is something he can develop further in his game, he is going to be a mighty player when his crossing improves and full backs just will not know which way he is going to go.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Of course a talented young player like Redmond can improve his game but he must be guided towards what he needs to do.

I have no doubt in my mind that the emphasis put into Redmond''s game was for him to come inside and shoot at every opportunity.

This did not help him or the strikers that were playing with him.

I also would love to see him on the right, stretching the opposition and getting in balls behind the defence.

Hopefully a new manager will have different priorities.