I've mentioned this a few times of late and the more I think about it the more I think it is where our primary issues lie. It is also a tactic Hughton has stuck with from last season. Firstly I don't have any real preference of one over the other, it is just how they are utilised. I think everyone would agree to the fact we have suffered goalscoring issues under his stewardship, be it Holt, Wolfswinkel, Hoolahan, Hooper or Jackson. My issue has always been with the midfield rather than the strikers as we've never been a side (under Hughton) that creates many good chances. By good chances I mean when the striker should score. One of my criticisms of Hughton, particularly last season, less so this season has been our intention to work the ball to try and create better chances. Our tactic has always been to provide from the wing, not the centre, no through balls, no one twos in the middle and certainly very little interplay (if any with the central strikers). No movement. It has almost been robotic in the predictable nature of our play, everything comes from wide. It is far easier to create a chance from wide than the centre, but it is far harder to create a good chance from wide. By wide I mean outside of the penalty area. If you watch our games closely you will see just how little the ball is passed in the opposing box. Now to the wingers themselves and how we have been using them, I mentioned on another thread last week why Hoolahan was not finding a rhythm to his play and the fact was he had very few options. This I believe is down to the inverted wingers. Our inverted wingers like the ball early and before the penalty area as many do. Ours however will very rarely be advanced enough or attempt to make themselves available for Hoolahan to play in. They want the ball roughly level with him so his only option is side to side, the strikers have been told to stay in the area for the cross so he can't pass to them, his fellow midfielders are also behind him. In addition Hoolahan staying out of the penalty area has no benefit to an in swinging ball, particularly when his other central midfielders are all behind him. It is a flawed tactic for a player like Hoolahan. I had someone try and tell me that the tactic worked very well during our 10 match unbeaten run, playing with inverted wingers with Hoolahan and was accused of making up things to fit my thoughts. The is a problem with this come back as virtually every single goal we scored during this period was a corner or free kick, I think 2 of 13 came from open play and I don't think any of those came from a ball from the wingers themselves. The reasons we went on the unbeaten run was far more to do with the clean sheets and odd goals than the successful attacking intent of the wingers in open play. It was the defensive element of inverted wingers and lack of advancement up the pitch that worked, not the attacking intention. Apart from anything else, even if the tactic was construed as attacking gold, the sheer rarity of success tells anyone with some sense it does not work with us. And that is assuming that we did play with inverted wingers for the whole duration of that period. Anyway, another season and still the tactic is failing to deliver, why is that? With the wingers wanting the ball early the intention is for 3 options, early cross, shot or make space for the full back, all reasonable enough. This is where are problems lie because combined none of them are coming close to creating the types and quantity of chances because of our failings in the the players used and our lack of advanced movement. Early crosses, inswinging, nothing wrong with that (in moderation) except it is a much harder ball to get right because of competition with the keeper, especially in open play. How many times has the opposing keeper had to struggle competing for the ball with 3 defenders around him and one striker, he doesnât struggle enough, its to easy (West Ham is an exaple, but that was far more to do with inept goalkeeping than tactics). How many times have these crosses come in with two chances of success, a player in the middle of the goal and far post, not very often, the options are just not there. It has nothing to do with strikers, there are just not the players or the movement available to make the game difficult for the defenders. In addition, the quality into the box has been atrocious at times. Most of Snodgrassâs best crosses are from free kicks. Shooting Self explanatory, one goal from God knows how many attempts, they should be banned and just let the central players do it, they are all better at it in open play. Incidently, despite the one dimensional emphasis on the final ball into the box coming from the inverted wings, I think I'd be right in saying most of our goals have come from central midfield, I'll look into it later. Making space for the full back I think this has been the most successful aspect of the system but only when Ollson and Pilkington are together, Pilkington will at least attempt to pass outside himself and try and join in from the, wait for it, traditional outswinging cross. This is still a rarity but our most successful attacking ploy and a relationship which works quite well. The other side certainly less so, and Redmond just has no connection with anyone in the team, he needs to be loaned out for a season or change sides because he's just not ready. It's not fair on him to be playing the position, its too difficult to do well. Finally.... The goals we have scored How many of the goals we have scored have been provided by the inverted winger philosophy, not very many. Everton - Zero cross/shot from the right from a right footed Whittiker to Wolfswinkel Shot from right by whittiker Hull - Zero Next to nothing of note created, Snodgrass played a half, Redmond was subbed Bury- A whole six to look at yet still ZERO Olsson scored from a central position set up by Elmander Pilkington from a diagonal inward ball from Hoolahan with a left foot from the left. Elmander another central through ball Snodgrass from a long looping ball wide, the defender bundled over and finally a ball from the byline for Elmander with a ball played with the left foot that was designed for the right. Fer, scramble from an OUTSWINGING corner from the LEFT from snodgrass Whittiker from the right set up by Elmander Southampton ONE Hallelujah we've got one Redmond cutting in and scoring with a neat finish Tottenham ZERO Villa ZERO Watford ZERO Redmond on the right passes to Murphy to fire in Redmond from the right crosses with precision to Hooper Fer with a through ball to Hooper Stoke ZERO Long shot from Howson Chelsea ONE Cross from Ollson (left) Pilkington to score from Wolfswinkle Arsenal ONE Howson from Ollson cross Cardiff ZERO Man U Zero Man City Zero West Ham ZERO Long aimless ball which the keeper fluffed penalty Long range freekick created from a long ranged shot from the centre Fer breaking through the centre from a touch by Elmander from a long ball So, from 14 games and a vast total of 17 goals and the inverted winger style has created a staggering 3 goals, 2 came indirectly through the left back and the other was a shot. Our goals are coming from central midfield positions, that is where the focus should be. Unfortunately it just doesn't happen enough. Its not even as if the wingers are contributing to help them score its mostly off their own backs from distance. If we changed to conventional wingers I feel sure the midfield and strikers would get far more goals because they would have far more reason to interact through passing with the rest of the players both receiving because the ball is crossed into their path as opposed to away and also a diagonal option to play a winger in. I think our options and ability to create good chances to score will increase dramatically, the stream of diagonal balls from before the corner of the area is just not working. Even if you disagree with me and say that the emphasis is not placed on the wingers to create, there is still very little quality of chance being created from them. I'm still of the opinion there is a defensive element to it to prevent players regularly leaving spaces behind them.
Agree with all of this we have forwards with brilliant movements but we play like we're using a target man still, I'd like to see us try to use through balls more as this will be where our strengths lie with the movement. I've never been a fan of wing play and I've never been a fan of crosses and aerial chances either I only like to see them used when we're countering from the flanks, the number one problem is we over work the ball when it's wide by the time we loft a cross into the box it's absolutely rammed with players.
Anyone think that if we had signed Lansbury we may not be having this problem. This was one area in which he excelled but, unfortunately is probably not PL class.
You raise some good points in your OP carrabuh and agree that we really need to focus on trying to play EARLY through balls to RvW not trying to thread it through up to 8 opposition players who've got back in defence (as happened against Cardiff). One of our best opportunities in that game was when Hooper got the ball on the edge of the box, got to the bye line and put in a hard low cross, which Pilks was inches away from tapping in. The OP referred to the link up play between Olsson and Pilks - reminded me of the passing between Snoddy and Whittaker which led to our first goal at the Liberty last season.
Must agree carrabuh, playing the obviously left-footed Snodgrass on the right, and the obviously right-footed Redmond on the left, does limit the sort of crosses they can put in, and they are also tempted to cut in on their favoured foot more often than perhaps is healthy. But the few times we have seen particularly Snodgrass on the left, he´s looked completely ineffective, and very loathe even then, to try and go past his man and deliver an outswinging cross, Redmond does at least look a lot more comfortable on the right, and he has tried to put in a convential cross, when he´s out there ( f.ex in the Watford game). I think inverted wingers used in doses, can be effective, but sticking with it the whole time does make it a bit easier for the defenders. Personally, I´m a fan of old fashioned wing play, where the winger beats his defender and puts in an outswinging cross, with or without a big target man, may not be easy to score, but if the cross is good it will nearly always create a chance.
Totally agree with you Carrabuh! I just wish if its how we are going to set up we would a] at least have the wingers switch a bit more to keep the defense guessing b] get our wingers practicing their crossing with their wrong foot so at least they keep the full back guessing a little bit. Might be a little far fetched though, judging by the quality so far this season with their favoured foot! Bah!
Whilst I agree in principle,I offer up this point. Huckerby.Completely ineffective on the right but a magician on the left.
What if we played Pilks on the left, Redmond on the right and Snoddy in behind the Striker (While Tettey is out). He would certainly have the work rate needed for that position, provides a goal threat, and i've seen him play a few good through balls to Martin before. Does anyone think that set up could work?
I'm not keen in ever playing players out of position. So I'm not sure I'd want snoddy behind the striker, leave alone move Howson when he's playing so well. That said his role had changed a bit with only 2 in midfield last week anyway. That lad is good! Bah!
Personally I'm not against inverted wingers in principle however I do think (as I have previously posted) that the way we play them discourages our wide men to cross the ball but rather encourages them to cut in and shoot from distance which is all well and good the one or two times a season the ball flies into the net but otherwise just breaks up our attacks and (I would imagine) frustrates the life our of our forward(s) who seem to spend a huge amount of their time on the pitch making runs notto be passed to. We have spent approx £15m on forwards this season and we are not really giving them the opportunity to shine which seems a bit strange. Shots from 25 yards out are for the show reel - setting up chances in the 6-yard box wins you games (clean sheets help too!) The two should not be mutually exclusive but I wonder what the ratio of shots from out of the box to shots in the box are for us and how this compares with the rest of the league? Where's Robbie our top statistician when I need him?
Similar to what a golf pro told me - 'drives are for show!!!!', 'putts are for dough!!!' A shot from range can quite often be saved (on the RARE occasion when it is on target!!), but keepers have less chance to make a save with an attempt from inside the box.
He has played here before for Scotland, and he also sometimes plays on the left wing for Scotland but I don't think I've seen him play on the right because Strachan seems to really like James Forrest. I think he (Snoddy) is ineffective on the left for Scotland and nearly always get subbed off. That said he has played well down the centre in international games, my only concerns in him doing this for Norwich City are: 1) With him, Redmond and Pilkington on the pitch and Elliott Bennett out there would be no cover on the bench (I wouldn't want Whittaker playing as a winger). And 2) He would be taking Howson's best position away from him. I hope to see Snoddy, Rusty and Whitts involved against the USA tomorrow! OTBC
I think this is a reasoned argument, but I am less keen to go back to traditional wingers because it's a low percentage option, and even more so without a 'target-man" type striker. It also makes it more difficult for FBs to overlap. I do agree that more movement up front would be good, and this is happening more this year with Snods and Pilks swapping sides or even doubling up at times and Howson varying his runs. I'd also like to see more through balls, particularly from Howson and Fer, but both seem to be working on this.
I'm not sure I totally hate inverted wingers, but I can see your arguments against them... I just wish the wingers had more freedom to swap wings and roam more. I think thats what hughton wanted with the 4-3-3 he has set up occasionally, against stoke being a prime example. Unfortunately I'm not sure if its the players or himself who seem to stop the fluidity of the movement. Would love to see pilks popping up on the right more often, I personally think he played his best football on the right under lambert when surman was on the left. I think he's almost there with his formations, but they seem to just fall flat from being great as they live in fear of being too fluid, it just needs pushing towards more fluidity I think at the moment, especially with the quality of player we now command.
But surely, since we have played with inverted wingers in all our games so far, albeit with occasional spells of "orthodox" wing play during a game (e.g. from Redmond on the right against Watford), ALL our goals have come through "playing with inverted wingers". What carrabuh seems to mean is that not many goals have been scored by the wingers themselves venturing inside -- only one in fact, Redmond against Southampton. But the "inverted winger style" is not just about the wingers cutting inside to score. It is about the total effect of having the wingers play that way, including e.g. the different problems posed for the opposition defence. As carrabuh himself mentions, two of our goals have come from Olsson crosses from wide, which he attributes "indirectly" to the inverted winger style, by which I presume he means that Olsson's space and freedom from any defensive challenge was created for him by the winger forsaking the touchline and drawing the defender(s) with him. Exactly so. But then why view ONLY those two goals as "indirectly" due to playing with inverted wingers? Why not also take into account the "indirect" contribution of the inverted wingers to the other goals we have scored? Playing with inverted wingers is not simply about the wingers (and "indirectly" the full backs), it is about creating a whole different pattern of attacking/defensive play compared to the pattern you get with "orthodox" wing play. What I think carrabuh is actually saying is that, at the moment, we aren't playing the inverted winger system very well. I agree with him about that. He is also saying that we would play the alternative system (orthodox wing play) better. Maybe we would, but it's by no means obvious. But anyway, why assume that we will continue to play our current system as poorly as we have so far? IMO there is every likelihood that we will see improvement as the season progresses, particularly if we get a win or two and confidence is restored. The other point to bear in mind is that playing inverted wingers doesn't mean you can't vary your tactics and sometimes indulge in more orthodox wing play, or even play orthodox one flank and inverted the other. The more variety the better. Playing with that sort of fluidity and freedom is easier though when you are confident and things are going well; nervousness makes it much harder.
Absolutely bang on the money mate Why not mention that until Saturday 100% of our goals this season had been from open play? This is a drastic improvement on last year where I'm sure the majority - if not vast majority - were from corners or free kicks. Why not mention that? Why not mention that the goal scoring blight is affecting most of the teams in the league and not just us? Half the clubs are averaging less than a goal a game - including Spurs with their big money signings. Why has he not mentioned any of this, it is relevant. This is easily the lowest scoring premiership season I can remember by some distance, everyone apart from the big boys are playing one up front, loading the midfield and designing their success around being strong defensively. It's not as if we're the only ones struggling for goals, regardless of what Carrabuh would have you believe. Why not mention the changes we have created that have been blocked or saved, like when Marshall had his blinder against us in the Cardiff game, or Guzan against Villa? And I don't really get his breakdown of all our goals from this season either. He mentions several goals set up from central positions whilst trying to argue we don't score any. I'm confused. How was Howson's goal against Arsenal from a "cross"? And how was the cross we won the penalty from on Saturday a "long aimless ball"? But then why let the facts get in the way of a good bit of propaganda eh? Yes there are parts of his post that I do agree with, but I can't honestly believe so many people are hoovering up every word as gospel, I really can't. And as for someone saying we are playing as though we are using a target man - really??? I must be missing something because I can't remember a single long ball on Saturday, despite having Elmander as a big lump up there who can mix it about, I might have thought that the OP would have been happy with that at least. Of course I didn't really think that by the way, I don't think he'll ever be happy as long as Hootun is in charge.
That is well said Robbie, particularly about the importance of confidence encouraging players to be more adventurous. Part of the problem has been injuries like those to RvW and Hooper which have held up their adjustment to the PL. The loss of Tettey has made Howson and Fer play more conservatively, but as the new players settle in, we should see more adventurous tactics.
When working properly we should see inverted wingers supported by full backs who can put in a conventional cross, meaning the defence have to watch for both crosses. the issue is that shoddy is very one fitted meaning he is easier to take out of the game you see him constantly shown onto his right foot and he's very reticent to play a cross with that foot. if early on in the game he tries to whip a few crosses in with his right foot it will mean the lull back will have to stand off him a touch as they don't know which way he's going to play. I'd like to see more of Whitaker as i feel him and shoddy play well together down that right hand side.
