This two up top lark is not working is it.
Despite the best intentions of Team Hughton, the current iteration of 4-4-2 is just not functioning as it does on the Prozone plan. Alas we all know what happens to best made plans.
As things stand the reality compared to the theory is falling horribly short. Faced invariably with a five man midfield City currently find themselves woefully short of possession; on the rare occasion the ball is surrendered by the opposition the dearth of options available usually results in the ball being given back to them.
As my River End neighbour put it: “They [Newcastle] don’t have to do anything to get the ball back. If they’re patient enough we’ll give it to them.”
And that pretty much summed up last night’s first half. Seldom can I recall a forty-five in which City had so little of the ball and – on the rare occasions they did find themselves in possession – being so wasteful with it.
I dare not even enquire as to the successful pass percentage.
Clearly this had much to do with the extra body deployed by Newcastle in the centre of the pitch – Leroy Fer and Bradley Johnson again coming a distant second in the battle for midfield supremacy – but was exacerbated by the technical deficiencies so evident.
Newcastle shifted the ball at speed and with precision. City did so ponderously and carelessly. Newcastle were sharp and bright. City were slow and sluggish.
The result: An opening period so one-sided one half-expected to see a white towel land pitchside from the direction of the City dugout.
But, football being the daft game it is, they were somehow able – thanks to a mixture of rotten luck, rotten finishing, inspired goalkeeping and the odd crossbar – to survive the most humiliating of lessons; the shelter of the dressing room affording them respite from the Toon onslaught and the Carrow Road boos.
There’s no point pretending it was anything other than awful – Hughton admitted as much in conversation with BBC Radio Norfolk’s Chris Goreham – and the fifteen minute interval was wholly insufficient to dissect all the wrongs that had gone before.
The second period – while never reaching the extreme lows of the first – still left plenty of room for improvement, but the fact that Tim Krul ended the game in need of a shower and City themselves hit the woodwork at least provided tangible evidence of an improvement.
Further proof of what a daft game football can be came in the closing stages when Robert Snodgrass came within a whisker of actually winning it for City. From being on their knees, and one blow on the chin from being knocked out, it took a fine save from Krul to save the Toon from defeat.
In my Metro report I used the analogy of Ali in the Rumble in the Jungle, where he absorbed round upon round of punishment from George Foreman while bouncing round the ropes, only to turn the tables and win handsomely once his exhausted opponent was drained of spirit and energy.
In hindsight a better one would have been the pro-wrestling scenario of the plucky, dazed and ‘punch-drunk’ loser finding – from nowhere – the energy and strength to overcome the cocky and over-confident baddie.
Alas both analogies fail at the final hurdle because City had no intention of being so thoroughly outplayed in the first place. For all the accusations to the contrary I have no doubt Hughton had no wish to see his side being so comprehensively outplayed, nor struggle so much in the final third.
As pointed out by one informed City commentator earlier today, it’s a classic chicken and egg situation. By playing five in midfield you increase your chances of creating goalscoring opportunities, but for one striker. But play two strikers and the price you pay is a lack of numbers in the centre of the pitch, and the creativity suffers.
The simple answer of course is to have two central midfielders who can do the job of three but Yaya Toures don’t grow on trees, unless your name is Sheikh Mansour.
With Ricky still struggling to find, and stay on, his feet I have to say I’d be tempted to load the midfield and demand that two of them make it their business to get close to Gary Hooper. At least that way we give ourselves a chance of retaining possession.
The higher the level, the more important it becomes to keep the ball. It’s a mantra that even Andy Townsend tires of repeating (well, maybe not) and at the moment, despite playing at the highest level, we’re just not very good at it.
And on the subject of the technique Premier League-style, I fear some of our current number are not, and will never be, good enough.
However, one who is blessed with a sound technique, but who is struggling a little, is Fer. And while I may be a lone voice, I have a theory with regard to his current plight.
In my simplistic mind City are at their best when they’re playing on the front foot and at a quick tempo; the ball being shifted at pace. We’re not good enough to do the quick-quick-slow thing.
Fer, on the other hand, has a natural tendency – doubtless borne of his Eredivisie background – to slow things down; to do the patient thing when the British tendency is to do things in a forward direction.
And while I’m all for keeping possession (I’ve been harping on about it for months) when the ball is being shifted slowly and deliberately we have enough weak links that eventually it breaks down and the ball is still given away.
What I’m trying to say (but failing…) is that Fer’s natural game currently appears to be at odds with City’s strength and that, in itself, is causing a problem.
I’m unsure however of the solution – and would hate to imagine a City midfield without him – but in order for the side to function as the well-oiled machine we all want it to be this is one of a few circles that need to be squared. And soon.
We’re not a happy little ship at the moment and while Robert Snodgrass has made his peace with the Snake Pit the general atmosphere is getting a little too ‘Worthington’ for my liking.
As ever, it’s nothing that a few wins wouldn’t put right but quite where they’re coming from is the $64,000 question right now.
I guess we have little choice but to fasten our seat belts… this could get rocky.
Absolutely right about midfield. Though it was exacerbated by incompetence in the first half last night, the underlying problem was having two against three. Our most compelling performance this season was at Stoke, where Tettey’s presence allowed two other central midfielders (Howson & Fer) to range forward. To his credit, Hughton doesn’t moan about injuries – but they’ve destroyed his ability to put out our best set-up.
For what it’s worth, my theory about Fer is different. He’s young, and facing an amount and intensity of football way beyond what he’s had before. Hughton would have loved to give him some rest over Christmas, but just couldn’t. Fer is one of many imports who struggles in his first Prem season; I reckon he’ll star next year.
I believe you have employed euphemism in its most potent form here; effectively what you are saying is that currently City are very very poor and clearly in danger of relegation.
If we do go down (and for what it’s worth I think we will if we don’t change the manager/coaching regime)then McNally and the board will have a huge amount of humble pie to eat, which presumably will taste a little worse when mixed with all the egg they have on their faces.
We’ve been pretty awful for a year now and nothing has been done to improve basic failings.
We pass slowly and inaccurately. Snodgrass takes all set pieces regardless of form. Hughton simply cannot change a game from the line. The crossing of all our players from wide positions is consistently awful. If anybody is coaching the strikers then he should be sacked immediately.
Holt & Hoolahan are just two players whose feelings are public. Looking at the collective lack of commitment in last night’s first half I refuse to believe that there are not several others who have little or no belief in Hughton’s approach. And the treatment of Becchio has been extraordinary.
I have simply never found watching City so utterly disheartening as at the present time. I don’t care where we are in the league, I just want to see my team play with real purpose.
Completely agree about the midfield. I was thinking over city’s best performances this season and though we took only 1 point the Cardiff and Chelsea games stand out. 5 in midfield when both hooper and RVW are available. Its all pretty much the last time Fer, howson and Tettey were all fit at the same time.
With two away games and two tough home games hopefully we’ll go back to this. Johnsons suspension probably means guiterrez will have to play in the center but that’s not necessarily a bad thing
Week after week City appear to have fewer playèrs on the pitch than our opponents. Our midfield is poor without Howson. The lack of pace of Johnson and Snodgrass, wholehearted players though they are, means that City rarely turn opposing defences. I would like to see four midfielders – not necessarily two wingers – and Wes behind Hooper.
Something has to change. And it is time to adopt different tactics.
Frank watson (2). Hear, hear! Well said.
When the post is man-of-the-match you’re in trouble. Right from the start, when CH arrived, we stopped scoring. Anyone remember his first pre-season? Holt, Becchio, Hoolahan, The Wolf, how many attacking players can one manager destroy? It isn’t working and we need change now!
It would have been interesting last night – and I hope we see against Cardiff – Wes behind Hooper. That might just have the effect of linking midfield and attack, giving the midfielders a forward pass opportunity.
BTW Hughton is going nowhere now, at least until the summer. So it’s going to be really tedious if people just go on and on about that on the comments to every post for the rest of the season. We have a board that prefers to stand by their manager and give him time, rather than hire and fire. That’s how it is, so can we get on and talk about which players and tactics might improve things?
Interesting article Gary – as one of your River Enders put it – the opposition don’t have to do anything to get the ball back, if they are patient enough, than we will give it back to them. How true!
However, FW (2), AG (5) and DvD (6) seems to be under a delusion that premier league players need coaching in order to perform their basic roles! That responsibility lies with individual players and if the players are not up to the task, then it is up to the management to replace them with players who can cut the mustard.
It’s quite unrealistic to blame the manager for strikers not scoring goals! Simple scenario – striker gets the ball in front of goal and goes to shoot…….and misses. Should that be something the GK is responsible for? Maybe another player? How about the Tea Lady? Or even Delia? All of those examples are as ridiculous as blaming the manager – when he trusts players to go out onto the field and perform their duties then he has every right to expect them to stand up and be counted and to perform accordingly.
The time has come to get off the HOBNOB soapbox and recognize that sometimes it’s the players who are just not performing to the best of their abilities.
As for DvD assertion that we stopped scoring when CH arrived & he is “destroying” attacking players – is too absurd to seriously comment on, but is typical of someone who is looking for any excuse to attack the manager!
Manager has been in charge for almost two seasons. Plenty of time to develop a cohesive shape and to develop tactics around the players we had and have bought.
Yes we are in a league of 13 or 14, to finish 8th (or 7th at a push) is by far the best we could ever hope for whilst there is no salary / income cap in existance. And to be fair, we finished 11th last season. So why does our management team divide opinion so much??
I can only speak for myself, Hoots is polar opposite to Lambert, uncharismatic. This was a big mistake from the board to replace a manager with a certain style and replace with a manger with a complete opposite style…….Legacy, continuity..hmmmm.
The teams play as extension of the managers, attack or defensive. Hughton is not charismatic or exciting in anyway (Allardyce, Hughes, AVB etc) so we should not be surprised at the style of play surely.
We cross our fingers,support and hope like hell that we pick up enough points (less than 40 should be enough this year) but we won’t survive by much!
I would replace Hughton (risky yes) with a manager that instilled belief and carried on the legacy that Lambert left us, ie a charismatic, possibly young, who plays in a way that gives the fans hope of some better days, some 3-0 wins, a cup run, some glorious failure and some heroic defeats. Also a manger that believes in players abilities to make judgements throughout the game, develops leaders etc rather than stifles with 20th century League 2 tactics.
Oh dear, whilst I agree with most of the comments, when the Board do come to make a replacement please, please don’t link management ability with charisma (or celebrity!!!)
The biggest problem is regardless of the team chosen we cannot create chances. Injuries are an irrelevance as is formation.
442 the rest of the team behind the strikers are terrified of being overrun and give little or no supply to the front 2 and when they do its too slow and laboured.
We looked more solid with 5 in midfield but created nothing but pot shots and whichever striker was on the pitch watched the ball whistle over his head.
Wes in behind a lone striker is the worst of both worlds the same amount of bite in midfield as 442 and still only one player on the pitch likely to get into the box and shoot.
Leroy Fer is without doubt the only complete all round midfielder we have (Tackle, Pass, Shoot) and without another who can manage at least 2 of these to a high standard we will continue to struggle.
Get one and our fortunes could change rapidly.
For me with the current personnel the first thing I would do is forget 2 wingers Play Wes/Fer (or somebody who can create on one side with license to come inside)and one pacey winger on the other Pilks/Redmond.
I suppose Playing Gutierrez will I suppose at least allow us to batter the opposition to death in midfield and play for more 0-0 draws.
Give Snodgrass a rest. Hopefully a game or two out might bring back the player he was last season. Nobody can fault his effort but perhaps he is trying a little too hard.
@7 Stevej180
“We have a board that prefers to stand by their manager and give him time, rather than hire and fire.”
Bryan Gunn may disagree.
The issue is no longer about entertainment but about results and form. Our last 5 home games, none against the top 6, have produced just two goals and one win. Our remaining 7 home games include 4 against the top 6 and on current form (and there is no sign of performances improving) we are unlikely to get more than 4 points. Nowhere near enough to survive.
Yes Gary, just like other teams in a similar position to us, some of our players are not, individually, good enough. That is why we need a managerial team who through motivation, tactics and effective use of the squad produces more than the sum of the individual parts. We have not had this for more than 12 months now. As FW (2) says, respected players have made their views public. There will be others. Hooper, Fer and RVW will be regretting, in World Cup year, their moves here and planning what they do next.
It is disappointing that the Board had no plan B to prevent this developing. It is too late now. This Board’s achievements have been built upon one successful managerial appointment. History will show the current appointment to be a disappointment. It happens. Let’s hope the Board are now developing a plan B for the championship. Hopefully (we can still dream!) it will not be needed. But if it is, a complete rebuild will be required.
Dave B (12) – Gunny wasn’t ‘their’ manager – inherited by our current CEO and Chairman.
Capetel (8) – if the manager and coaches do not employ the system and tactics to enable those strikers to score then of course they should come in for some criticism. It is frankly ridiculous to suggest that the tea lady and manager have equal amounts of responsibility for how a striker or any other player performs. While I agree missing an open goal is usually down to the striker, they are often let down by the supply they are given or the support in the box. This is down to tactics, not just ability.
Stewart (1) – if injuries have hampered CH in his aim to put out a team that can fit our best formation, surely it is his responsibility to ensure there is sufficient back up (that he is willing to use) in each position? His treatment of Becchio, Hoolahan etc shows that he still has players in his squad that he doesn’t rate, yet has no viable alternatives, otherwise Becchio wouldn’t be on the bench week in, week out.
I’m not in the camp of fans that criticise the manager and the team every week but I am as certain that, as a principled man, CH is demonstrating a stubbornness that won’t be resolved by just leaving out players that he doesn’t rate at the expense of tactics that don’t suit the players he has selected.
Good stuff Gary. I’ve never wanted “two up”. There is a reason the rest of the Prem has discarded it. Liverpool play two up, after a fashion, but go with three defenders to compensate and ensure their midfield isn’t understaffed. Manchester City sometimes have two up, but they have such quality in all positions, their formation doesn’t matter much! Mostly everyone plays 4-2-3-1. Fulham showed at our place how effective that system is, especially against a 4-4-2.
But Hughton has always been a 4-4-2 man. By that, I mean that is the system he has always preferred at all his clubs. That’s why he bought and continues to select “wingers”.
When he goes “one up”, he favours 4-4-1-1. He had started using Wes as the one behind the one, until Wes had his head turned by our old friend, now residing in the Midlands.
In any system with one up, you need additional players to get into the box. In 4-2-3-1 it is easy enough, because the two holding players give licence to the three in front of them and, importantly, because the three are often players who are naturally more central than wide players.
With 4-4-1-1,played like us with wingers, the system relies heavily on the wingers getting into the box. When Snod is on the ball, Redmond or Pilks needs to be attacking the far stick, for instance.
That’s what we don’t do enough of, but Jonas Gutierrez does, instinctively, get into the left of the box when the ball is on the right. He might be a big help.
Some of our best performances (Stoke away, for instance) came when we played a fully committed 4-5-1 in which any of the midfield three of the five (if you follow) could get forward. That certainly helped Howson to thrive.
But what encourages me is that I have the advantage of watching at least one non-City game each week professionally and having to think analytically about what I am watching. And I can say that all the teams from 10 downwards have similar flaws — ie, problems with systems and/or personnel which seem critical to their fans.
What keeps me sanguine is that I hear fans of all those clubs bemoaning their boards etc.
And I read other clubs’ stats instead of just our own.
On the current form tables, we have the 9th best home form against clubs in the bottom half of the table. We have the 12th best away form against the bottom half.
We’re not doing anywhere nearly as badly as we think.
@14 Andy S
Oh, I agree and I wanted Gunn gone too. But a number of people keep posting the same damn Wiley study that says managers need time to improve (over 30 games for any real improvement). Gunn didn’t get that. I wonder how many people were shouting to keep him (with a near similar win %) and demand he stay for years?
Last night I watched Villa and West Brom. Both those teams showed a pace in moving from end to end. Something I haven’t seen from City all year.
TBH I don’t care which formation we play. None of the variations have proven particularly successful. I just want to see some potency. Someone running at their defense. As a club we’ve always had more success with a Holt or Hucks type player that drives forward and pulls people out of position.
I’d even try Redmond as either the out-and-out striker or just behind Hooper and telling him to centrally drive into the box. He has a remarkable talent that could be used to much better effect than his current (at best) mediocre crossing.
Dave B (17) – Good shout re Redmond playing just off Hooper. He’d certainly look to ‘do a Wes’ from that position and get on the ball and run at defenders.
Gary – How about CH let Wes ‘do a Wes’, that might work.
Ben (19) – Hhmmm… in an ideal world, but alas it appears Wes wants away (reportedly used a couple of four-letter words to describe Norwich in an ‘off the record’ comment to a reporter).
I’m compelled to dredge the Northern version of the English dictionary for an appropriate word to describe a lot of these comments – the word is ‘mithering’.
For context, Newcastle have won 6 times on the road inc. Man. U and Spurs, so a point (fortunate or not) is a damn fine point.
“We’re not a happy little ship..” – surely that’s down to a section of vocal and persistent people (no names but we know who..) constantly sowing seeds of discontent on this website and other e-sources. So Wes wants off – big deal. Look at all teams from about 6 down – they’ve all got ‘issues’ of very similar natures to ours.
The constant harping back to good times (PL) or bad (NW) is inevitable I suppose but helps no one. I seem to recall we were 17th in the 2nd tier when NW was shown the door. We’re currently 12th in the top tier! To start issuing P45s now would be disastrous.