Hughton maintains that Norwich were not tactically naïve Pretty standard article generally but there are two points from it that raise genuine concerns for me The real problem was that we lined up to play the first kind of football based on the excellent game against sunderland but the team was sent out to play the second kind and this just made it look a mess. Attacking football is the sort of thing that you have to be fully committed to. It's sort of like driving an F1 car, you can't go slowly and carefully because you won't heat your tires up enough to get grip and you'll crash, however scary it is you're far safer going flat out. We tried to hedge and got punished. This annoys me massively because its true and its what we did, surely he knew this before the game and that the best way to get at them would be lots of closing down and pressing them as hard as possible. Personally I think saturday was a perfect demonstration of how tactically naïve Hughton can be, for full balance though I would also say that against Sunderland the tactics were spot on.
The article clearly quotes CH as saying that he expected more energy, pace and possession to make the attacking game plan work. So I don't understand why you say they were naively sent out to sit back? Clearly CH gambled that we could impose our game play, rather than setting out to stifle theirs, as others on here have suggested was 'obviously' the thing to do. On the back of a decent win, with Swansea in poor form, and when the alternative approach has seen us come unstuck every time, it was a perfectly understandable decision. I find it completely ironic that after being forever told he's too negative, he rolls the dice a little and when it doesn't pay off, he is tactically naive for being too positive.
Totally agree, Swedish Dave! It was the players who failed, not CH. IMO, that is why they are reimbursing the Yellow Army's expenses!
"The article clearly quotes CH as saying that he expected more energy, pace and possession to make the attacking game plan work. So I don't understand why you say they were naively sent out to sit back?" When have we ever played with those traits under Hughton, they are the antithesis of what we are. We stand off when defending and stand still when attacking, we are slow in tempo and we don't retain the ball. What on earth is Hughton expecting when he's spent nearly two seasons building towards the oppostite in the name of defensive duty. He makes my blood boil, I cannot wait until he's out the door, he should be kicked out along with Allardyce and Pullis because top flight football should not be run by people who have no imagination.
Remember when he came out and said we were playing 4-3-3 in the cup against fulham with murphy and redmond as forwards, but they spent most of their time defending... Whatever approach he takes will always be defence first
The real problem was that we lined up to play the first kind of football based on the excellent game against sunderland but the team was sent out to play the second kind and this just made it look a mess. Attacking football is the sort of thing that you have to be fully committed to. It's sort of like driving an F1 car, you can't go slowly and carefully because you won't heat your tires up enough to get grip and you'll crash, however scary it is you're far safer going flat out. We tried to hedge and got punished. I think this is a great analogy. Absolutely agree with this.
