Why Redmond must start (latest blog)

[Daniel Brigham 0]

The solidity provided by Norwich''s new-look four-man midfield wall is an illusion. By Daniel BrighamWe’d all been having such fun. Four

games, 10 points, 14 goals. Then along came Reading, a team with a

point to prove and a manager with a career to rebuild. They gatecrashed

Norwich’s Christmas party, stealing the booze and tipping over the

portaloos.What a difference 48 hours – not even enough time to watch the whole of Breaking Bad

– had made. From singing ‘Ipswich Town, we’re coming for you’ as

Norwich crushed a hapless Millwall at 4.45pm on Friday to calling for

the sacking of Neil Adams on Canary Call at 4.45pm on Sunday, Norwich

fans’ view of the season had cartwheeled.Perhaps the mini

recovery had been too good to be true. Perhaps the wins over Wigan,

Huddersfield and Millwall, and the draw against Derby, were a romantic

city break that papered over the cracks of a stagnating relationship. Or

maybe that one defeat at Reading after four good performances is an

outlier, rather than a return to reality. After the match, many fans

pointed out that Norwich had won just four times in their last 15

matches. They wielded this stat like an underage drinker buying their

first pint of cheap continental lager. But choosing 15 matches was

designed to back up their agenda rather than really search for the

truth. Why not choose the more favourable five wins in 16? Or seven wins

in 19? All three stats are equally relevant – or irrelevant – aren’t

they?Really, there are only two win ratios that count. The main

one is 10 wins in 24 – which takes into account the entire season so

far, and entire seasons are what clubs are judged on. It puts Norwich in

seventh place and, while we can all probably agree that our squad is

good enough to be higher than that, it is not disastrous. It’s ok.The

other win ratio of importance is how Norwich have done since Mike

Phelan came in. While many fans – including me – felt that Adams should

have been replaced following the defeat to Nottingham Forest in

November, the board took one final deep breath, persevered with Adams

and brought in the highly experienced Phelan as first-team coach. A new

dynamic, a new cog. So far, the signs are good. Since Phelan has

had the opportunity to directly influence how Norwich play, they have

won three, drawn two and, at Reading, suffered their first defeat. It

suggests that, in the short term at least, Adams and Phelan have

consciously coupled. It hasn’t all been perfect, though. Reading

was a return to the bad days of listless, impotent performances. There

were signs in the preceding four matches – when Norwich picked up 10 out

of a possible 12 points – that they were still a long way off being

faultless. The 1-0 win at Wigan was a gritty display against a very poor

side in which we never looked like we could kill the game off. Against

Huddersfield it took the introduction of Nathan Redmond to add some

much-needed colour to a monochrome display. The draw at Derby was

deserved, but the late nature of the equaliser disguised a second half

in which very little was created. Against Millwall much of what was good

came from Redmond – and he wouldn’t have started if Alex Tettey hadn’t

been injured. This isn’t a negative way at looking at those four

results, just an acknowledgement that the corner hadn’t been entirely

turned. Huddersfield and Millwall were poor – but how many teams in the

Championship have the ability to put five and six goals past average

sides? This is the crux of Adams’ and Phelan’s dilemma now. They’ve

clearly hit upon a style of play that they believe allows the team to

play two up front while keeping the midfield solid (no idea why they’ve

abandoned the 4-2-3-1 that worked so well at the start of the season,

but that’s another story). There is a problem, though. By becoming more

cautious in the centre, they’ve sacrificed the true strength of

Norwich’s squad – its attacking ability, and, most notably, Redmond. In

the 450 minutes Norwich have played in their last five games, Redmond

has been on the pitch for only 208 of them. Yet, in those 208 minutes,

Norwich have scored 13 of their 15 goals (while also letting in just one

of the five goals they’ve conceded). In other words, while Norwich’s

preferred four-man midfield wall of Bradley Johnson, Gary O’Neil, Alex

Tettey and Jonny Howson have been on the pitch together, they have

scored just twice and conceded four times. The solidity they appear to

provide may be an illusion. So does Adams stick or twist? Against

most sides, and this should have been the case against Reading,

starting three of Johnson – whose recent upturn in form is the most

surprising transformation since Hull was named UK City of Culture –

Howson, O’Neil and Tettey is more than firm enough for a four-man

midfield (and, really, Howson must start). It’s an effective shield but,

as King Arthur probably once said, a shield without a sword isn’t going

to get you very far.Redmond has shown against Huddersfield,

Derby and Millwall that he provides the cut and thrust that can

transform Norwich into one of the most potent attacking sides in the

division. The thought of losing him in the transfer window is

unsettling, but perhaps unavoidable. What is avoidable is Adams’

insistence on leaving him on the bench. If the manager is serious about promotion, then he needs to bring down Norwich’s four-man wall. Redmond must start. Daniel Brigham is a freelance journalist and editor. He tweets at @dan_brigham

[Jim Smith 2,610]

Thank you for saying more eloquently what i was trying to say in the Scott Sinclair thread. If Redmond wants to leave in this transfer window it will be gutting as it will (i) signify very clearly our lack of ambition to get back up and (ii) be in part down to the idiotic managerial appointment meaning we are not as high in the league as we should be and even more due to said managers idiotic recent tactics/selections resulting in Redmond warming the bench.

You could also add into the discussion the transformation in our performance at Hillsborough when he came on and the way Forest were able to push forward at the City Ground once they realised we had no attacking threat.

[Ray 111]

Whilst I agree, Redmond should start, I add a caveat or two.

1) Nathan himself has to be in the correct frame of mind, if his head is being turned by a possible January move then this may not help.

2) Does he see his future here, or is he continually on the phone to his agent, again indicating he may not be in the correct frame of mind.

3) He is prepared to do what wingers should do and that is to use his pace on the move, allowing us to pass into space rather than to his feet, which negates some of his natural talent. This appeared to start hapenning, particularly against Huddersfireld.

4) Further to point 3) he predominantly sticks to the touchline, stretching the oppo, gets to the byline and crosses.

If all that is in place, and the management obviously know what his state of mind is, so let them be the best judges, then yes, start him, if not then perhaps not.

[ZLF 335]

[quote user="Daniel Brigham"]

There is a problem, though. In the 450 minutes Norwich have played in their last five games, Redmond

has been on the pitch for only 208 of them. Yet, in those 208 minutes,

Norwich have scored 13 of their 15 goals (while also letting in just one

of the five goals they’ve conceded).

In other words, while Norwich’s

preferred four-man midfield wall of Bradley Johnson, Gary O’Neil, Alex

Tettey and Jonny Howson have been on the pitch together, they have

scored just twice and conceded four times.

[/quote]

Spot on - this is the crux of the issue. As Jim states add in Forest and Sheff Weds we have 6 games 3 goals scored and 6 conceded.

You could say his late introduction works because we HAVE scored when he has been added.

However that disguises the fact that we have been behind and chasing the game or put ourselves under pressure to win a game in 45 or less rather than 90 minutes.

As you may have gathered I agree with your conclusion.

As for (no idea why they’ve

abandoned the 4-2-3-1 that worked so well at the start of the season,

but that’s another story) that too is a story that needs telling, and probably part of the solution to ensure Redmond can start

[morty 0]

Good stuff Ray. Redmond is a very exciting young player, but I feel some are getting a bit fixated. He isn''t the be all and end all some are making out.

[FCC 94]

Does this mean we now have a situation where we should be more worried about our assistant manager applying for a job, rather than our manager being recruited.

If Phelan sparked the change, why keep Adams?

Frankly, little confidence in either of them.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

The abandoning of the 4-2-3-1 clearly came as a result of Jerome''s explosive early performances at Cardiff and Brentford. After the Cardiff second half (where incidentally for those who say we can''t play Redmond in a 4-4-2 we played Jerome, Grabban, Redmond and Hoolahan together and scored 4 goals without reply) Adams felt he had to play Jerome but Grabban was also still scoring so Wes was moved wide left to accommodate the two strikers. Although we got a good result at Brentford, this was actually the start of our decline because Grabban''s form declined badly when paired with Jerome yet Adams would not drop him, Wes on the left did not work very well. The other thing that happened was Howson got fit which (as it often seems to do) coincided with a downturn in form. Thats not me having a go at Howson (who I think is a good player) but its funny how this is not the first time him coming back to fitness and breaking up a settled midfield combination (in this case Johnson and Tettey who were dominant when deployed in the 4-2-3-1 and neither of whom deserved to be dropped) has seen our form dip quite badly.

By the time Adams had the balls to drop Grabban Hooper was fit and started playing rather well which again has meant he''s not been able to revert to the 4-2-3-1 and instead has been trying this awful 4 cm approach so as to enable us to play both Jerome and Hooper.

Personally i think we should be playing the 4-4-2 at home but with Redmond on one of the wings but away from home 4-2-3-1 suits us much better because it enables us to play two defensive midfielders but also with Wes and Redmond to provide creativity and threat on the counter. Maybe it will take one of our strikers picking up an injury for him to try it again although tomorrow would seem an ideal opportunity.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

[quote user="morty"]Good stuff Ray. Redmond is a very exciting young player, but I feel some are getting a bit fixated. He isn''t the be all and end all some are making out.[/quote]

Morty - I agree he has off days and end product is lacking but the point is not really just about what Redmond himself brings to the team its more about how we play and how his (or indeed any genuine pacy winger''s) presence in the side makes a difference to both our own mindset and that of the opposition and how the rest of our players play. We have an outlet. We have width. We have pace. We stretch teams, we can get in behind them or push them back and others such as Hooper (who actually links best with Wes) also seem to flourish. With a midfield 4 of O''Neill, Tettey, Johnson and Howson we do not/can not do any of these things.

[Daniel Brigham 0]

Hi RayAgree their should always be caveats with Redmond. But, even if his head is being turned by the transfer window, the evidence of the last few games suggests that it isn''t adversely influencing his game. Being left out of the starting XI at Reading after his performance against Millwall may well have had a negative impact on him (and the team) however...

[morty 0]

I don''t disagree Ray, apologies if my answers are short, hate typing on my phone.

But should we sacrifice things at all costs just so Redmond gets a game? For me, no. I went to the last two games, and he was okay, but not first on the teamsheet material.

I agree with your points ''re formations, still not sure about Wes and Redmond in the same team, right now, though.

[morty 0]

I disagree Daniel, last few games he hasn''t looked right. And he is one of those players that can look utterly anonymous in that situation.

[ZLF 335]

I thought Redmond did well against Millwall, when he started, and against Huddersfield, when he changed the game.

However I agree that he was not at his eyecatching best against either Derby or reading (although hard to specifically criticise him for the reading game when he was one of 14 poor players and only the fans turned up )

[Daniel Brigham 0]

Morty, are you saying Redmond didn''t look right against Huddersfield and Millwall?

[Yellow Wal 315]

Jim Smith wrote the following post at 02/01/2015 3:53 PM:

The abandoning of the 4-2-3-1 clearly came as a result of Jerome''s explosive early performances at Cardiff and Brentford. After the Cardiff second half (where incidentally for those who say we can''t play Redmond in a 4-4-2 we played Jerome, Grabban, Redmond and Hoolahan together and scored 4 goals without reply) Adams felt he had to play Jerome but Grabban was also still scoring so Wes was moved wide left to accommodate the two strikers. Although we got a good result at Brentford, this was actually the start of our decline because Grabban''s form declined badly when paired with Jerome yet Adams would not drop him, Wes on the left did not work very well. The other thing that happened was Howson got fit which (as it often seems to do) coincided with a downturn in form. Thats not me having a go at Howson (who I think is a good player) but its funny how this is not the first time him coming back to fitness and breaking up a settled midfield combination (in this case Johnson and Tettey who were dominant when deployed in the 4-2-3-1 and neither of whom deserved to be dropped) has seen our form dip quite badly.

By the time Adams had the balls to drop Grabban Hooper was fit and started playing rather well which again has meant he''s not been able to revert to the 4-2-3-1 and instead has been trying this awful 4 cm approach so as to enable us to play both Jerome and Hooper.

Personally i think we should be playing the 4-4-2 at home but with Redmond on one of the wings but away from home 4-2-3-1 suits us much better because it enables us to play two defensive midfielders but also with Wes and Redmond to provide creativity and threat on the counter. Maybe it will take one of our strikers picking up an injury for him to try it again although tomorrow would seem an ideal opportunity.

There''s an awful lot of sense here Jim.

As I see the problem we have a ropey back four coupled with a half decent six midfield/attacking 2-3-1 or a half decent 4-2.

The biggest problem is that our better players do not compliment each other. To get a line up which includes Redmond, Hoolahan, Hooper and Howson and plays well as a unit is virtually impossible.

For all of Jerome''s good work his goals made the manager''s mind up to change from a successful 4-2-3-1. Added to that was the attempt to change the system and accommodate Wes wide left.

I cannot remember how many different systems we have played this season. I just wish the manager could make his mind up what was his favoured formation and brought players in to suit it.

He must start picking the best team, which may not include all the best players.

[morty 0]

No Daniel, that''s not what I said, is it?

[Daniel Brigham 0]

To be fair, Morty, you did say "the last few games he hasn''t looked right". And the last few surely include Huddersfield and Millwall?

[Tetteys Jig 851]

The thing is, having the mere prescence of Redmond on the pitch makes teams sit another 10 yards back just in case Redmond gets the ball and can use his pace. Similar to a guy was saying about Huckerby being our best defensive signing indirectly in recent times. Redmond has that same effect.

Even on his off days, teams loathe to give him the space, because they know that even if they let their guard down even once, he can hurt you. None of the the midfielders can say that bar maybe Hoolahan for other reasons.

I completely agree he should be starting at all times until we find another pacy player that can do what he does and more (score more goals from the wing).

[Tetteys Jig 851]

[quote user="Daniel Brigham"]To be fair, Morty, you did say "the last few games he hasn''t looked right". And the last few surely include Huddersfield and Millwall?[/quote]

The Derby game summed up a typical off day for Redmond. He wasn''t particularly great but our tempo magically upped when he was introduced. We got derby on the rock with Redmonds constant threat evident even when the ball was nowhere near him and opened them up. Nobody else brings that urgency to our play.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

None of our players is consistently good enough to be guaranteed a start.

Redmond is a quality player who is quite inconsistent and has many aspects of his game to improve, I think Adams has been helping him develop his game during his tenure.

This frenzy that seems to be developing around the need to start Redmond in every game shows a hugely simplistic thought process.

[morty 0]

Agreed Jenkins.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

The really frustrating thing about Redmond is his lack of goals. All this defensive stuff is a bit of a red herring for me. This lack of goals has gone on for a season and a half now. Last season the excuse was Hughton''s tactics. This season, although we''re the third highest scorers in the league, it carries on. People blame his end product but I don''t agree with that. He has missed a few when he''s had the ball but he has six assists to show. He doesn''t get into the box enough, isn''t brave enough, when other people have the ball. Bradley Johnson scored a tap in against Millwall. Would Redmond get in a position to do that? Bradley Johnson only has one assist but he has scored seven. That''s the sort of return we should expect from Redmond. I really rate the guy but am beginning to wonder if the goals, or the confidence to score the goals, will ever come.

 

 

[Daniel Brigham 0]

If believing that your best players should start the majority of games is a hugely simplistic thought process, then I''m very happy being a simpleton.

[Tetteys Jig 851]

As I alluded to, perhaps it isn''t "Redmond" that should be starting the games, namely "someone with pace and trickery in abundence who can push the opposition defence back a peg or two."

The problem is that only Redmond fits that description and Josh Murphy is still learning.

[Yellow Wal 315]

Yes Daniel, that is a hugely simplistic view.

The manager''s job is to pick the best team.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

The managers job is to meet the goal set for him by his employer YW

[Daniel Brigham 0]

Yellow Wall. The best team invariably includes the best players. This isn''t a Jimmy Greaves/Alf Ramsey situation. Norwich, recently, have played better when Redmond is on the pitch - second half vs Huddersfield and Derby and the whole 90 minutes against Millwall. He wasn''t the only factor in Norwich''s improved fortunes in those matches, but he was a catalyst.

[Horse Renoir 1]

I was sick to the back teeth of a flat 4-4-2 with two out and out strikers after about the second time Hughton tried it. I do not want to see it again all year, none of our strikers are good enough to justify it and we''ve never looked as good as a team than when we employed some kind of 5 man midfield. It does NOT make you more attacking or more likely to score in any way unless we stuck to hoofball and bypassed the midfield.

Redmond must start I agree and we need Howson or Wes operating between the oppositions midfield and defence again to add some dynamism and inventiveness to our play. We have a technical advantage over most in this league, let''s use it! We don''t graft enough to play at the oppositions level as they usually out work us.

We were great at the start of the year with this Neil! Please stop trying to appease Canary Callers and play our creative midfielders! I''d rather a team with no strikers as long as it had someone like Redmond in it than something like 3 forwards and no one to supply them!

[Move Klose 303]

Does anyone else think Redmond would be sitting on the bench for any other championship team. Because i dont. To think this 4 midfielders is working aswell is madness. Only worked when we played the one team that was on a worse run than us. Hes arguabmy the best player in this league but we somehow cant find a way of getting him into our underperforming side.

[mrs miggins 0]

I don''t think people are saying that Redmond MUST LITERALLY START EVERY GAME, but I do think most are surprised that he hasn''t featured more considering how good he is and his huge influence on the team, especially considering how poor we''ve been without him in it, including the flat four centre midfielders which I just can''t help but *facepalm*

[Yellow Wal 315]

Daniel Brigham wrote the following post at 02/01/2015 6:48 PM:

Yellow Wall. The best team invariably includes the best players. This isn''t a Jimmy Greaves/Alf Ramsey situation. Norwich, recently, have played better when Redmond is on the pitch - second half vs Huddersfield and Derby and the whole 90 minutes against Millwall. He wasn''t the only factor in Norwich''s improved fortunes in those matches, but he was a catalyst.

Daniel, I certainly have no problem seeing Redmond start, in fact I felt it very negative and foolish not to play him.

However I also feel Norwich would find it difficult to play Redmond and the other ''better'' players in the same team without compromising the team''s balance, but much depends upon who is regarded by you as the ''better'' players and how many you would like to consider.

Here''s another debating point: Who would you consider to be the best five players?