What have we learnt so far?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

May you live in interesting times....

As we come up for air following yesterday''s fine win, some fears are being allayed, some questions are being answered and some interesting new questions are arising.

The threat of relegation sucked us into a negative vortex that rather too comfortably chimed with the instincts of the previous manager. Fears abounded that this was the new reality for the club, that decline and rot was long term.

For many the decision to appoint Neil Adams compounded and confirmed that Norwich had meakly accepted their lowly status and taken a cheap, in-house option as our stock had fallen so low. Ambition had been abandoned.

The failure of the premier side, the inadequacy of resources, the failure of management and networks, the wasted opportunity and wasted cash had left us damaged and bereft.

We can now revise and contextualise some these fears.

We got promoted on a momentum roll that was thrilling. We had a messianic manager who sweated the assets and jumped ship at the top of the curve. We sensibly got a prosaic manager who identified defensive frailties and largely solved them. We survived beyond the logic of the maths and our finances. We reached out for a leap into relative lower middle comfort. The manager was unable to progress his thinking and curb his fearful instincts. Being generally inferior at a high level is arguably less fun for fans than bring superior at a lower level. He bet the farm on a magician striker, who never appeared to fit the constrictive model. However.....

We retained a relatively strong core of better-than-championship players, who have the mentality to dominate the championship, plus an ability to survive in the lower reaches of the premiership when positive (such as the year after a promotion). The jump from this to sustained top tier membership is huge and it would be negligent not to have a contingency plan. Buying endless mercenaries a la QPR (Hull?) is a high risk strategy that can destro a club following relegation. Contextually the players we purchased : Snodgrass, Fer, Redmond gave notably increases their value, despite only being with us a relatively short time. Contrary to the view that this is selling the Crown Jewels, it is actually very good business and in no way a guaranteed outcome. In the circumstances it is a great validation of transfer strategy, not an indictment of it. The hardest and most expensive part of the equation is goalscorers. There are £30-£50m players who have repaid fractions of their outlay at the finest clubs, so the failure of RvW and Hooper is relative.

Norwich made a brave call in appointing Neil. Given the all-pervading negativity it was a hostage-to-fortune call that displayed massive faith in him. The thread "why Adams is the exception to the rule" outlines the qualities that inspired this decision. Neil wants the Norwich job. Others wanted a "job at this level" or "a club like Norwich".

On a practical level it can be noted that in the Premuer League you might carry 28 senior professionals, all on reasonable wage terms. In the Championship - and following relegation - you must lower costs (and amortise losses), whilst also taking further calculated risks. An example would be gambling on less injuries, adding a couple of utility, multi-position players and retaining a core of (say) 18 senior professional on good wages. If you had the great fortune of a youth cup winning side, a very logical gamble would be to fill the spaces from 18-25 with the best of the youth cup winners, plus some last-minute premier loans if required. Whatever the potential or relative ability of youth players, if they don''t get a chance and actually play, what is ultimately the point? Now given the negativity that abounded, selecting a man who would be perceived as a little Norwich option, who would give the youth a chance (a risky thing for any manager, very few of whom actually follow through in practice on their fine words about young-enough-good-enough until they stumble on a Rooney) was incredibly brave, and - despite the suspicion and fears of many fans - very much in keeping with Norwich footballing principles and intended to provide the kind of short passing, fluid, fast-moving football that fans love to see.

We have also learnt that Neil is not fixed on a method like his predecessor. Though as an aside, there was coaching evidence that a method was very, very carefully crafted which de-facto implied that the players at the time were not quite good enough to make it any other way (whether that was a negative self-fulfilling prophecy that wasted resources or a brutal look-in-the-mirror survival strategy based on realpolitik that results and denouement showed was the best we could do, is an essay question for historical revisionists).

The triumvirate of Johnson and Tettey screening, with Hoolahan at point, though without being overtly attacking, is a fabulously balanced mini-unit that provides too much power and asks too many tactical questions for teams in this league. Allied to the threat (real or otherwise) posed by Redmond, the guile and tactical nous of Lafferty (which I have been impressed by) and the fact that Grabban appears to be one of those wonderful strikers who scores goals, despite not having obvious blast-out weapons. He reminds me of Andy Cole in that he doesn''t appear brilliant at anything, misses lots of chances, but keeps getting lots of chances and comes off the pitch having scored a goal or two...any coach will tell you these players are priceless.

Adams also has an enviable spine, which is the key to championship-winning sides. Ruddy, Turner, Martin, Johnson, Tettey, Hoolahan, Grabban. All good pieces, mentally strong, In the right places.

Add the priceless commodity of pace from 3/4 areas, Redmond, grabban, Murphy, Jerome...and this is a classic formula for championship success.

There is a difference between better-than-the championship and good-enough-for-the-premier. They are not necessarily the same thing, and one does not necessarily prove the other.

Given our relatively meteoric rise, we have actually put in place a stable core, allied to a number of players who proved good financial investments.

This is an achievement of which many clubs would be envious (and a good number of current premier clubs would be thoroughly unsure of bring able to replicate). We also have a manager who loves the club and wants to give us what we want.

We do live in interesting times.

Parma

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

Thanks Parma ,, a good read !

[Horse Renoir 1]

Agreed, I enjoyed that!

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

Very good read, as usual Parma. Sums it up beautifully!

[OldRobert 38]

Very good read Parma............Ta.[;)]

[Europe_93 11]

We have lost Ricky, Leroy Fer, Snodgrass & Pilkington, Bassong has been marginalised and Hooper has still to feature. So not all, but a big chunk, of last summer''s investment yet to make a contribution. However, we still could field 2 teams, either one of which would be the envy of most in this division, and potentially we will add to that before the transfer window closes.

With all these losses and only a couple of additions, it does however seem that a team has been re-built. Players sharing responsibility, a team ethos and improving performance levels, albeit at a lower standard. I wonder how much this has to do with more perceived parity among the squad (i.e. in terms of wages)?

To date we have taken 9/12 points, a ratio of 8/12 over 46 games is likely required, so we are on track at a very early stage, things currently look bright but have achieved nothing yet. I am heartily encouraged by a good early foundation for a long hard season.

I think Neil Adam''s is building a team with flexibility in mind, and while the Tettey, Johnson & Hoolihan triangle is key at the moment, while we are getting a foothold in the division I think this will evolve over the season. The immediate goal is promotion but we should also look to create / evolve into a team that could play in the premiership. For me, that is about having quality defenders that don''t require 2 holding midfielders to protect them, which will in turn allow us an added threat going forward.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Thanks for a considered and well written OP. An excellent assessment in my view.

[Phil Schmil 0]

Excellent post. Thanks, Parma

[westcoastcanary 173]

Not just a good read, pretty much spot on throughout IMHO.

[kingsway 94]

To be honest the Championship has been everything that I thought it would be, full of tough, organised sides who probably give it a little bit more to beat us the highest ranked side in the League this season courtesy of our 3rd from bottom finish last time around!

I''ve said all summer that our squad is one capable of challenging at the top if the spirit, coaching, respect of Adams from the players and attitude is right combined with having a rub of the green and nothing in the first 4 games has changed my opinion of that!

The negative reaction after the Wolves was way, way over the top, cause while our tempo wasn''t right in the 1st half, had Olsson not been sent of we likely wouldn''t have lost. Also if we played Tetty instead of the powder puff Surman we''d of been stronger. We will lose games this season and in a way the Wolves game was a wake up call to all who thought it would be easy!

[ricardo 7,328]

Parma generally hits the nail on the head and this well written piece is no exception.

[Rock The Boat 1,322]

A couple of questions for you Parma. I enjoy reading your thought-provoking posts, and so I remember last season you talking about the necessity to maintain a shape, in particular where there is a turn-over situation.

One thread I well remember we got talking about turning over the turnover, and how to counter that. It got slightly heady at that point!

My question to you is, why this season are we not seemingly bothered about such matters? Post-match comments made by Neil Adams included a comment that at half-time he wanted the team to move the ball upfield quicker. That''s a whole lot different to last season when the mantra was about keeping shape, which we did quite well but not well enough. Is it because we are now in a lower division that moving the ball quicker is not so dangerous tactic; or was last season a flawed tactic? And then why was Hughton allowed to continue with it?

And finally, if we do acheive promotion, should we continue with current tactics (they were successful under Lambert) though everyone was saying we would be found out after the first season, and therefore we had to change our system?

[ron obvious 1,495]

Parma, you should publish! "Collected Essays on the Perfidies of the Great Game (as experienced by NCFC) would go down a storm! Well I''d buy a copy.

More power to your elbow (or 2 fingers if your typing''s like mine). Brilliant stuff.

[Europe_93 11]

Hughton''s philosophy (IMHO) was to try and keep possession of the football, Adam''s approach is much more to make chances when we are in possession.

Hughton''s tactic was flawed because although he had this approach he predominantly played midfielders to break up play (and protect the back 4) rather than retain the ball (i.e. Johnson / Tettey preferred to Fox / Hoolahan). Snodrass is another example, he doesn''t necessarily have the pace to get up and support on the break, hence his value in the current set up would be diminished somewhat.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

At the risk of grasping an unpopular nettle, it would be remiss not to state that much of what Hughton did was intently thought through and specific. Much of football instruction - and received wisdom - is general, cliched and vague. Whilst players can be instinctive, they generally require clear and defined instruction and it is not unreasonable to characterisers group as soldiers looking for a clear general. As several sports psychologists have noted - reading putts in golf is a good example - it is better to be clear and positive in your decision, than necessarily "right". This allows for the look-and-react human auto-correction to come into play.

All if the above is vastly more achievable when you are:

a) better than the opposition

b) in a position where you have little to lose

c) in an environment without great pressure (b&c may be the same)

The phrase "we''re going to focus on our own game" - something which is understandably prevalent on this board - is mostly rubbish. It is an exclusive luxury of the superior.

Ferguson dropped Rooney in the QF against Real because he HAD to prepare for the strengths of the opposition. He mostly didn''t have to bother.

Hughton found himself - more or less weekly - against better teams, with more money and greater weapons. Much of this was inherent to the situation in the Premier and was unavoidable. Thus he rightly had to contend with the shape Norwich were in when they lost possession against superior sides or sides with dangerous weapons (nearly all in premier).

Where Hughton was right to identify and prepare for these dangers, that his talent, history and acculturalised learning lead him to focus autistically on defence (even when in good positions in attack!), was a deep and fundamental flaw that was initially beneficial (Lambert''s defensive nous remains open to question and we needed restructuring in this area to survive as we did), but became an autistically repetitive scenario even when great opportunities presented themselves (Stoke).

Nonetheless Hughton was anything but clueless. He was regimented, detailed and worked intensely. He was faced with a vastly different set of parameters.

Hughton''s calculation was that this strategy was the best odds to achieve the goals with the resources available. It was also designed to glean points from higher teams, not merely admitting mini-league defeat and constructing a game more suited to just beating palace, hull, etc. It was a reasonable thesis, but it rather over-valued the quality of some of the weaker teams and made us passive in those games. I enjoyed analysing it - as it was clear that we were watching a meticulous coach with a clear plan - though I would argue that the purity of the coaching method overwhelmed the benefits that can be had by the management of men (vid Lambert). Hughton''s method, whilst well calculated, basically told the players that they weren''t quite up to it any other way. The look-in-the-mirror-honesty German method is hugely powerful if ingrained deeply, but carries high risk of negative psychological gremlins in imperfect footballers.

The great danger was that the players would find it hard to break free from these experiences, but Neil has done extremely well to have them flowing freely again. Clearing the mind and embracing the "look-and-react" is wonderfully liberating for players. It is far harder to retain when you lose much more often at a higher level. We genuinely can "just focus on our own game" now, because there are very few dangerous weapons at this level (cav. van la parra). We genuinely have some, plus we also have done gritty men that don''t take backwards steps (almost redundant in premier, but still much needed in second tier).

For what it''s worth, the shape of what Neil is creating shows he understands the value of potent, individual weapons that cause issues for the opposition. He is buying and integrating different kinds of players, that give both a variety of options and pose different tactical and technical challenges for the opposition that they need to answer. This principle would ideally be continued into the top tier, but such playthings are expensive.........and others already have them there.....

Our momentum and fearlessness might well count in our favour year one....years two and three are entirely different both psychologically for the players and in terms of expectations from the fans.

If and when we return to such a position, let us hope that we have all learnt something....

[lake district canary 4,530]

Excellent op Parma and I agree with your analysis on Hughton in your last post too.   For all his methodology and sensible ideas, Hughton''s time was surrounded by negativity from the very moment he was appointed.  The players we had who were used to Lambert''s methods clearly struggled to adapt to the new regime. The fans didn''t like the football that was being attempted and the new players that came into that negative atmosphere clearly struggled to rise above that negativity.    The net result was a big downer.    Hughton''s methodology could have worked and with a little luck in front of goal it may have done - and if we had stayed up under him, that success alone would have justified his methods.   But the overall tenent of his time as manager was negative and was "doomed" for the reasons we can all see. We have done well to keep a core of players who remember the Lambert years and have responded to Adams'' positive  ideas and the overall effect has so far been terrific.   The Johnson/Tettey/Wes triangle has woorked well - and actually I thought Ipswich tried to tackle that, more so than Watford and Blackburn, but as a result of that the front players had more space, hence the extra chances that were creted there.  It all bodes well for this season, as long as we can keep up the momentum and players like Murphy and other fringe players step up when needed and carry it on.  The strength in the squad does look good so things look positive on all fronts.  Long may it continue, I think the fans deserve it after such an agonising last two seasons.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

Predictably interesting posts, Parma. The latest in a long line (and

examples of the continuing virtues of this message-board). They are

particularly valuable for an exile who gets to see very little football

and needs to have tactics explained very slowly in very simple language.Quickly,

because it is water under the bridge (speaking as a disillusioned

supporter of his) on the over-conservatism of Hughton''s tactical

approach. One statistic I uncovered, just guessing it might be the case,

was that we were the only side in the bottom half of the table (ie of

our relegation rivals) last season who not once away from home came back

from behind to get a result. Not one draw, let alone a win. More than

that, we never even equalised before going behind again.The

result of a rigid and unchanging strategy based on not pushing too hard too soon to get into

the game, which might have worked if we''d had Barcelona''s midfield to

hold on to the ball and a defence solid enough not concede again. With

neither, it was an entirely flawed plan.As to Adams, a good

start but - without being negative - he has shown signs of having what

Napoleon looked for in a general, namely luck.Because of our

generally good financial position we have so far only lost two players

(Snodgrass and Fer) we might have liked to keep, and money has been made

available to fill gaps, especially up front. We are in the strange

position of having a markedly better strike force in the Championship

than we had in the Premier League.But good players take you only

so far. Hughton had some of those. The tactics need to be right, and

Adams has already shown the intelligence and courage to dump one

favoured tactical system for another.PS. Parma, you do know that Chinese saying is meant to be a curse?! Although I cannot think of anything more tedious than living in uninteresting times...

[T 190]

Parma, Bethnal and Ricardo make this message board worth reading. I agree with Parma''s analysis. CHs tactics were a response to the resources available but ultimately failed. However, while tactics and motivation undoubtedly have a role to play I still think that the quality of players are the most important factor including the fact that a good player will adopt his own tactics to circumstances.

[Rock The Boat 1,322]

You make two interesting points T. We can see that the bulk of the team is performing well at a lower level than last year, whether this team would have performed better had Neil Adams been appointed earlier is something we wont really be able to say with any certainty unless we go up next season and the main players remain. If price alone is a measure of quality (and I know it isn''t) then our expensively put together strike force should have been up to the job; and we know now it wasn''t.

The second point is interesting because it is an argument how far should a player adopt tactics that are different to how the manager has told him to play? I agree with Parma that Hughton really did give a lot of thought to his strategy; a point a game is near enough to survive which encourages a risk-free approach. For me, Hughton could have pulled it off but he lacked the ability to make tactical changes, especially once a game was underway. PC''s statistics about us never coming from behind backs up that theory, I think.

So should players take it upon themselves to rebel against the manager''s instructions and change tactics? There was one game, I think it was against Everton, where it looked as though the players were doing just that. But it is a very brave footballer who goes against his manager''s plans, he might find himself playing in the reserves if it goes pear-shaped.

The good news is that it looks under Neil Adams, the players do have more licence to switch roles and roam more freely when going forward; and the recall of Wes Houlahan in that pivotal role, and the departure of Snodgrass who slowed everything down, probably gives our forwards more of a chance to express themselves.

Interesting

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

The point re luck is well noted PC.

The Ekstrand sending off was a priceless example of a good Napoleonic Feneral moment.

Compare and contrast this with RvW visibly wilting as he meekly handed the ball to Snodgrass for the ill-fated Villa penalty. On such rolls of the dice....

Nevertheless, I personally felt that Norwich were superior (almost man for man) over Wolves and have been in all games since. Against Wolves, We endeavoured to keep the ball well, whilst they were vibrant and full of wide-eyed momentum, our nerves were evident and an element of the clash of backward and forward-facing psychology was evident. Van La Parra was a surprise, which coincided with an unfit and unfocused Olsson, who appeared as frustrated by his unexpected inadequacies on the day as the rest of us.

The sending off changed the game versus Watford and - whilst questions remained given the circumstances - a certain freedom and verve had returned. Psychologically, Goals matter. (Hughton note) Both forwards AND defenders benefit.

I felt the most searching questions were answered in the Blackburn game. The freakishly early and brilliant opening goal posed a threat to the players new found positivity and mental equilibrium. The coaching manual dictated the players should ignore the goal - it couldn''t really have been prevented - and play as if nothing had happened. That they actually then carried this out on grass was a clear demonstration that the players FEEL superior, mentally freer, stronger and are entirely happy that they can succeed (at this level). Other coaches and managers will have noted and been impressed by this reaction. They will change their tactics against us slightly as a result. Had we seen early games characterised by startled-rabbits-in-the-headlights reactions when confronted with in your face fervour of brutish British lower league football (vid Fulham), then teams would have gladly repeated this when against us. In truth - a la Ipswich - we have seen some pretty limited, two-dimensional, hard-working, balls-down-the-channel, get-them-turning football.

We have players that have seen all this before and can deal with it comfortably. Indeed - as Turner stated - he rather relishes it and (by implication) to some degree felt it suited the strengths of his game better than the premiership.

Not unlike the fans, I suspect many of the players will welcome the feeling of being too good for their opposition peers again. I would expect this to bring the best out of not only Turner, but Ruddy (show them what they''re missing), Johnson (with an extra half second I''ll show them I can play a bit too), Howson (I''ll play regularly and establish myself), Hoolahan (I''m loved and free) and maybe even Redmond (playing every week for a winger will enhance my career)...

[Icecream Snow 761]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]As to Adams, a good

start but - without being negative - he has shown signs of having what

Napoleon looked for in a general, namely luck.[/quote]Not as much luck as Lambert though. Having rewatched the seasons highlights of the 2011-2012 season I was surprised how fortunate we were that season. We certainly took full advantage of sloppy defending.  First game against Wigan. Norwich score from keeping/defensive error. Watson hits a screamer against the post with Ruddy well beaten.3-1 down at home to Blackburn, Johnson''s wildly deflected shot and a soft penalty get it back to 3-3A wasteful Liverpool side hit the post multiple times at Anfield and Norwich are hugely lucky only be 1 down at halftime. Holt does a better job and it finishes 1-1Collocini and Steven Taylor injured and replaced by two centre backs who can''t head the ball, Norwich win 4-2

[T 190]

Money still has to be well spent and clearly it wasn''t. However as ever in life less money gives less options.

A manager may set the tactics but within that general framework only the players make decisions and are responsible for how well any tactics are executed. I just think it is obvious that the quality of players is far and away more important than tactics - the role of tactics certainly plays a role but it is marginal compared to player ability and over obsessed with.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Very good read, as usual Parma. Sums it up beautifully! - Yellow Since 72

That was a summary!?!?

[Rock The Boat 1,322]

[quote user="T"]Money still has to be well spent and clearly it wasn''t. However as ever in life less money gives less options.

A manager may set the tactics but within that general framework only the players make decisions and are responsible for how well any tactics are executed. I just think it is obvious that the quality of players is far and away more important than tactics - the role of tactics certainly plays a role but it is marginal compared to player ability and over obsessed with.[/quote]

You''ve often made the point, T, that money accounts for somewhere between 70-80% of a team''s success and I think there is a lot of merit in that argument.

It still leaves 20-30% where managers, strategy, tactics, motivation, the fans and other factors still can have an effect. And where the line between success and failure is often a very fine line then that 20-30% segment is significant enough for us to have discussions about how how we can influence results in a way that money can''t buy.

I agree with you that money is the most significant factor as when cup competitions pair up rich versus poor clubs, regardless of the tactics the poorer clubs employ, they will invariably lose.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Icecream Snow"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]
As to Adams, a good start but - without being negative - he has shown signs of having what Napoleon looked for in a general, namely luck.

[/quote]

Not as much luck as Lambert though. Having rewatched the seasons highlights of the 2011-2012 season I was surprised how fortunate we were that season. We certainly took full advantage of sloppy defending. 

First game against Wigan. Norwich score from keeping/defensive error. Watson hits a screamer against the post with Ruddy well beaten.
3-1 down at home to Blackburn, Johnson''s wildly deflected shot and a soft penalty get it back to 3-3
A wasteful Liverpool side hit the post multiple times at Anfield and Norwich are hugely lucky only be 1 down at halftime. Holt does a better job and it finishes 1-1
Collocini and Steven Taylor injured and replaced by two centre backs who can''t head the ball, Norwich win 4-2
[/quote]

I think this completely misses the point.  You''ve got to get the ball into the opponents'' penalty area to create the situation where goalkeeping mistakes happen.

 

Similarly with the Newcastle CBs - they whinged massively and obviously took in this poster with their complaints about having to change the centre of their defence for the first time all season, whereas to that point we''d had different CB pairings for almost every game.  So where''s the luck in that ?  I''d say they were lucky they didn''t have to change earlier.

 

It''s true Liverpool had the chances to bury us at Anfield - but then we''re always told in the Prem it''s all about taking those chances.  Under Lambert our finishing was very clinical, in all 3 divisions - I don''t think that''s luck or coincidence.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

RTB, you touch on an interesting point re: players

"There is a difference between better-than-the championship and good-enough-for-the-premier. They are not necessarily the same thing, and one does not necessarily prove the other."

We are also learning about the players we have and perhaps better able to contextualise their abilities and strengths in a more balanced way than when in the maelstrom of premier decline.

Arguably the best player so far this year is Michael Turner. I think it is interesting and instructive to compare and contrast him with Russell Martin in respect of the above phrase and in terms of what fans do and don''t see.

Turner himself has stated that he feels comfortable and well suited to this league. He is dominant and has weapons to defend against the adversaries he finds here. Opposition attackers are typically big, strong and attack central areas, looking to burst through channels, feed off knock downs and second balls and get on the end on frequent, high crosses. Balls cone into the box from (sometimes well) outside it and even the best championship players he is up against (say Rhodes) stand on his toes and knock up against him. He has all of the attributes to deal with this and his performances grow in line with his confidence. Expect him to return to scoring ways from set pieces in the near future and score half a dozen during the season.

Russell Martin divides opinion. Many feel we require further defensive recruitment in the centre and on the right side. He is respected as steady, reliable and a good club captain.

I feel he is a great example of the reverse of the quoted phrase.

Whereas Turner is an example of the best model that existed as a template for British defenders five or ten years ago, Martin is a reasonable example of a modern defender moving into the future. Contrary to what many believe, Martin is undoubtedly a centre back.

His skills - positioning, fluidity of movement, comfort on the ball, playing between the lines in a defensive sense - is the benchmark for better premier defenders. He allows teams -regardless how they are set up tactically - to play with three players in the defensive line (or even two depending on the midfield screen, but that''s a more advanced chapter). He covers the crucial space between centre back and full back naturally and instinctively, moving even wider if necessary. He also steps and tracks players into 3/4 areas, which old-school centre backs fear.

Thus Martin may be considered a better footballer, but can contemporarily be far less effective than Turner at this level. Conversely Turner may make more notable (eye-catching clearances, last-ditch tackles) contributions in the Premier, but be less beneficial to tactical shape than Martin, who is better suited to dealing with the positions taken up by an Aguero or Silva. Such players do not come and still on anybody''s toes.

Thus - thinking forwards - we should maintain Martin at Centre back, even though he may get caught out in 2D strength and height battles against an Assombalonga for example. Turner will mostly take care of such players and few sides will have two of them. I would thus encourage Martin to not only follow strikers into 3/4 areas, but use the lower level of the second tier to step into these areas with the ball and develop his distribution.

Parma

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Following the Teamsheet vs Crawley:

"Whatever the potential or relative ability of youth players, if they don''t get a chance and actually play, what is ultimately the point? Now given the negativity that abounded, selecting a man who would be perceived as a little Norwich option, who would give the youth a chance (a risky thing for any manager, very few of whom actually follow through in practice on their fine words about young-enough-good-enough until they stumble on a Rooney) was incredibly brave, and - despite the suspicion and fears of many fans - very much in keeping with Norwich footballing principles"

We have also learnt that Neil is prepared to stick by his word, even when the heat is on. How many of you in his position - hand on heart - would have selected that line up and given so many young players a chance?