Just one more contribution to the seemingly endless debates going on around Hughton and his and the teams future. I do realise the last thing we need is yet another thread on should he stay or go, but I think there are a few aspects that haven't come out on recent posts that I felt were worth raising. I think it's an interesting point that as reported elsewhere, Norwich's style has changed this season. To be more precise its changed DURING this season with a lot of concern from the initial games that despite the new line up and the summer signings, we were still playing negative, defensive football, but then that seemed to change and even though we weren't getting the results there was a general feeling that the team were beginning to play better, more attractive football. I recall seeing in a blog recently that Hughton was seen in a heated conversation with McNally after the Hull game (in the tunnel I think?) on the subject of being overly defensive. Not much comment on this site over that particular incident so I don't know if this was true or just journos inventing a story. I do wonder though whether this has got anything to do with our current situation? To explain my thoughts a little more, Hughton gained a reputation for putting out "well organised" teams that were by nature defensive and focussed on getting players defending more whilst trying to score through limited breakouts. This led last season to some very dour performances, particularly against lower half teams who were less inclined to attack us. I'm no expert tactician, but to my mind this could go some way to explaining why our results last year were better against top teams than they often were against more cautious defensive set ups. It would appear that this was if not Hughton's natural inclination, then it was a style he felt comfortable with and proved to be reasonably succesfull, though began to create dissent both in the supporters and some parts of the team (Holt particularly is on record as not liking the new style). I wonder if the "direction" Hughton has seemingly had from the management to go a more attacking and "stylish" route is at the root of the problems we have seen recently? As evidence the spurs game where we were clearly set up to attack spurs which horribly backfired, whereas last season playing away from home the set up would have been much more defensive. Could it be that Hughton is being foced out of his comfort zone and trying to adopt a new approach from the one he is most comfortable with? is this a square peg in a round hole? if so, then there are really only a few options.... 1. To revert to a style he is more comfortable with and grind out a few results 2. To learn the new style and techniques it needs to make it work, maybe by bringing in as others have suggested an attack coach... I personally think this is a very good idea! 3. Remove him and replace him with a manager whose style and approach more closely matches the model that the Management has in mind for us. If that is the case, I don't really see Pullis as a viable option. Im absolutely not in any way shape or form an expert on football, I dont play Computer games or fantasy football so I dont think I know better than the team that runs Norwich City FC. I do trust McNally as a CEO though and I do believe he will make the right choices. I think I would be inclined to opt for option 2 as being the most likely solution to the current problems. As others have said there are few obvious candidates for option 3 and none of us would like to see option 1 again.... last season was more than enough for me.
sorry, and please GPB, don't take offence to this, but this is total bull****. hughton signed a certain type of forward in the summer BECAUSE he wanted to try and change the style. we set up at spurs to attack on the back of a very good attacking performance against saints, where we played the same way. coupled with spurs previous performance where they failed to 'click', and this attempt to play spurs in this way is easily explained. it didn't work and backfired spectacularly but had he gone to spurs and stuck eleven men behind the ball he'd have been criticised. - the guy cannot win. its quite possible that mcnally and hughton had a heated disagreement about something in the tunnel at hull, or at least it would be if mcnally wasn't up in the stands but it won't have been a request to suddenly change the style. it was always going to take time to bed new players in and develop a new style. if people think otherwise then i suggest they try managing a football team (at any level) and see how easy it is! it is quite clear that the tactics last season were two-fold. 1) hughton saw our defence as a major weakness and wanted to solidify us and 2) most of our players weren't defensively aware, so to make them defensively aware a lot of work was required, therefore to give us a platform to build on for the following season when a slightly different approach would be incorporated. whether it has been successful (the last few games would suggest it hasn't) is it up to you to decide, but there is no conspiracy, no influence from board members as to how to play the game.
Interesting comments, GPB. I'd be amazed if there was any truth in the 'tunnelgate' rumours, which only surfaced this week, despite the game taking place weeks ago. McNally doesn't strike me as a 'shoot from the hip' merchant, and any discussion about team selection, tactics etc I'm sure would have been conducted behind closed doors - if at all. But that's just guesswork on my part. In terms of coaching input, it would be nice to know what exactly Calderwood and Trollope do bring to the party. Lambert (sorry) was always quick to praise Culverhouse and Karsa and their roles within the coaching set up were transparent and there for all to see. Not so these days, unless anyone has been privy to one of the (rare) 'open' training sessions at Colney? If I were Hughton, I'd be on the look out for an extra member to add to the coaching team, who can deliver specifically in the offensive area - unless he feels the current team are doing that anyway - and if they are, they're making a bloody pig's ear of it! He doesn't have much more time to try and turn things around, that's one thing I think we do all know!
to be fair, lambert was always quick to praise culverhouse because in effect, culverhouse was running the show during the week as lambert would be away from norwich and only show up on the friday before a game! hughton is not just the manager - he is the head coach too so its a completely different role to lambert who was more like a head teacher than the actual teacher, if you see what i mean. i'd have no issue mixing up the coaching set up or adding to it if hughton wished to. i'd much rather try that than sack the manager at this stage. fresh blood, fresh ideas. it would certainly be worth trying in my opinion but it really is down to hughton as he obviously trusts these guys.
If anyone sees Pulis (and that ****ing stupid baseball cap ) as a viable option, McNally can stop worrying about expanding ground capacity to 35,000. 1p5wich will be getting larger crowds than us
I don't see Pulis as awful but for me he's too similar to CH so what's the point. If your looking to change to a more attack minded manager then Pulis would be your last choice, my major concern is a Stoke like situation occurring where we moan and whinge so ditch the manager then bring in someone worse.
i bet we wouldn't go down under pulis. mind you, i also bet we won't go down under hughton. depends why you want the manager out i suppose. if you think he should leave because we are in serious danger of dropping down a league then pulis would be a good bet. if you want hughton out because you aren't a fan of the football then we really are extremely limited in who we could replace him with because to be honest, looking at our squad, i think most managers will see clean sheets as the way forward, baring in mind we just got beat 7-0. if you want him out because he praises the opposition all the time you might as well **** off as far as i'm concerned. i've never heard of such a feeble reason why you don't like a manager, especially given every single manager does this.
I would say Hughton is quite substantially different to Pulis, actually. Pulis's tactics are actually very clever, proven percentage football. They work very well and you can see that explained quite well here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_ball Hughton does not play long ball, he sets up defensively ("negatively" or however you want to describe it) but it's actually a different style. We only resorted to hoofball under Hughton when under pressure (the cause of us being under presure being my main concern) and, as shown by the article, that is actually a very different thing - it is hit and hope that someone up front digs you out of trouble, not tactical long ball. Pulis's style undeniably works, it's just abysmal to watch. Hughton's style works and looks good when it is going well, but can look terrible when it's not working. That's the difference for me
I think the idea of bringing in another coach to "lend the lads a hand" with an attacking brief would be the best option for me. I also have doubts over the coaching abilities of Calderwood and Trollope and I understand Hughton's need to have loyal men behind him, they must earn their corn and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of them being influential in what goes on. As has been reported and posted on here many times Hughton is a "good manager" - that he is, and his overall management of the club and transfer dealings proove that but is he a great coach - don't know. Could he use a hand - most certainly. If there's something that could be done to improve things, the hiring of an attacking coach (where from though heaven knows) would be my preferred option rather than whoelsale change.
let's not forget though, they did help guide us to 11th in the premier league last season - our highest league finish for 20 years. they obviously aren't hopeless at their job
Couldn't agree more!! Failing that, encourage the midfield to look and see if another player is available who might be better placed to score. When Wes was 'on his game', he would often choose to pass, rather than 'go for glory' and IMO, that was one of his failings. Can't win them all.
Really don't get what's going on at your club, the baffling thing is at Newcastle Hughton was defensive the first 6 months he was there, then once he brought is his players in, in the January we played more attacking football and started steam rolling the Championship, continuing this football on in the Championship, now I hear comments about him being defensive not what I remember at Newcastle. Watched the highlights of the Man City game and afraid to say he's a dead man walking, don't expect to return with you guys later this month.
I think that's what he's trying to do now, but so far it isn't working out. He might be given the time he needs though.
this is what he has tried to do here (and is still in the process of doing). build from the back. i keep saying it and keep getting put down by some people but our fans lack patience. he needs time and i'm not totally convinced our fans are going to allow him any. one suspects that if we're losing on saturday the atmosphere will turn decidedly nasty and the lack of harmony will cause something to break
To be fair think the players have stopped playing for him, one thing that I was associate with a Hughton team is they close the opposition down, your players seemed to have stopped doing this and what was Bassong doing for one of the goals (6th one I think). Hope he does turn it round because he's good guy managing a good club who should be in the Premier League.
based on saturday it would appear so. however in our previous league game against cardiff there was no question the players were onside - likewise we battled back in the cup when two down at watford to win - plenty of commitment on show in those recent games. we could, and should have won by three or four against cardiff but the luck deserted us. i think that result knocked confidence somewhat going into the last two matches. we've just been beaten by arsenal, chelsea, manchester united and manchester city in four of our previous five games. we were never likely to get many if any points from these games but the manner of the defeats against the manchester clubs has added to the pressure. we've been slightly disappointing this season but nothing too drastic until these games. too many individual mistakes have resulted in goals against and led to missed opportunities at the other end. i think its got to the stage (wrongly in my opinion) that nothing but a victory will be enough for some of our fans on saturday - even that might not be enough in their eyes. problem is, if he does go, nobody (it seems) has the answer as to where we would go from there!
There's no doubt in my mind that the starting players have not stopped playing for Hughton. Russell Martin would not have come out and said that if he didn't mean to - there was absolutely no need. These guys are trained in speaking to the media and they know that lying now would get noticed later on so they either (a) avoid the question or (b) tell the truth. Rusty spoke in no uncertain terms. I also think it was probably a pointed message to our board too. If anything, it might be the thing that has saved Hughton's job for the meantime because I suspect that the moment McNally feels a manager has lost the dressing room, he will swoop. That was my understanding of the case with Gunn anyway. And lest we forget, we have had similar performances (Fulham away, Sunderland away under Lambert, etc., and now we just look back at them and say "that was a bad day at the office"). It's raw now, but it may be we look back at this the same way (with the addition of the word "very") My real concern is that members of the team that are not automatic starters are getting very unhappy. Eventually that will take its toll.
i don't think many people take too much notice of what the players say to be honest. they speak more as a token gesture. you never really get any insight from them, especially when things are perceived to be going wrong
