Sixty-seven minutes into the game against Stoke, the fourth official held up his board. The number in red was 14. The number in green was eight.
It seemed to me a straight-forward, sensible substitution. But, of course, 14 is Wes. And the man who had decided on the change was Chris Hughton. So a simple replacement became imbued with all the angst and anger, all the division and derision in which our club is seeped.
To me, it was plainly desirable to get Wes off. Six days earlier he’d had 90 draining minutes at Villa Park. He ran his spheroids off but wilted and ran a lot less in the last half-hour. That had been followed by 61 minutes of international football for the Republic of Ireland on the Wednesday.
It seemed plainly evident at Carrow Road against Stoke that he would wilt again. It was equally obvious that Howson needed game-time to get closer to match-fitness.
Norwich were winning. Bringing Howson on would enable a switch to the 4-2-3-1 system which was so effective in a run of games before it was abandoned with disastrous results to accommodate Wes at Villa Park.
The substitution made such sense that I think every other credible manager in the land would have made the same switch.
But then events intervened. Seb Bassong made an unnecessary challenge and, suddenly, Stoke were level with a penalty. Then that bloke from that London overspill town in Suffolk clattered Alex Tettey and got a red card.
Norwich needed a goal. Norwich needed to break-down a ten-men Stoke team who were packing their area. Norwich needed someone who could provide penetrative passes or shimmy past a couple of bulky defenders. Norwich needed Wes. But he had gone.
And so, as despondent home fans sloped home that evening, there was much ill-considered talk about how the substitution had cost us the match. The adjectives “negative” and clueless” were casually tossed in. Later, the deeply offensive picture of Hughton as a clown reappeared on Facebook.
The story of the game was rewritten with an almost Stalinist zeal by people whose minds are made up and closed. The “outers” are so convinced of their case that every event affecting our club is seen through the prism of that conviction. Every set-back is Hughton’s fault.
I have another example. I’ve heard folk talking about the defeat at Cardiff and asking: “What on earth did he say to them at half time.” Well, I’m pretty certain he didn’t say: “Hoops, I want you to slap a loose pass across the face of our penalty area.”
Meanwhile, down at the foot of the Premier League, the other six in the bottom seven have all sacked their managers. Fulham have done it twice, for heaven’s sake!
Martin Jol had won 25.6 per cent of the available points when they got rid of him. Rene Meulensteen’s success rate was precisely identical when he got the boot after 13 games. Felix Mcgath has won 11 per cent of the points.
At West Brom, Steve Clarke was given his P45 for winning 31 per cent of the points. Pepe Mel has won 19 per cent.
At Cardiff, lovely Malky won 31 per cent. OGS has won 25.9 per cent.
Yet at Sunderland, Swansea and Palace, managerial changes have brought improvements – although I’d say that there were special circumstances concerning the men who went. Paulo Di Canio at Sunderland was barmy and had an open revolt on his hands. Michael Laudrup was disaffected at Swansea and, by some accounts, going through the motions. And Ian Holloway admitted he was overwhelmed by the task at Palace and had lost confidence in his own ability to deal with the task confronting him.
None of those three sets of exceptional circumstances apply to Hughton at Norwich.
But, let’s stick with the statistics. Seven managerial changes at six struggling clubs. Three made things better. Three made things worse. One made no difference.
So the two assumptions underpinning the beliefs of the “outers” at Norwich are shown to be wrong. The first flawed assumption is that a change would definitely help. The second is that nobody could do any worse.
Have a word with West Brom supporters, or Fulham fans.
There’s a third fallacious assumption. It is that we “should” be doing a lot better.
After watching the Stoke game from my season-ticket seat, I went around to the media suite to join the press pack to do my work for the Express. I hate working at Norwich and usually manage to avoid it, but not this time.
Darren Lewis of the Mirror and Alyson Rudd of the Times, two good friends of mine, were also covering the game – but with the more orthodox approach of sitting in the press seats for the action. When I joined them in the interviews area, they noted how gloomy I was but both, separately, said things like: “Surely you expected Norwich to struggle this season”. Alyson actually said: “I am amazed that Norwich fans have turned on the manager. Where did they expect to spend this season? In the top half?”
As ever, it is about expectations.
But is it too much to expect that Norwich supporters would think things through when a substitution is made? It was the knee-jerk response that “Hughton’s got it wrong” which was negative and clueless.
Best will in the world, he chose to play two (2) defensive midfielders against a Stoke team who spend large tracts of the game pumping high balls and therefore bypassing the midfield. Had one of Tettey or Bradders been sacrificed for Howson, I suggest there’d not have been a single murmur of discontent as it would give us a greater prescence higher up the pitch and consequently, more chance of ‘putting the game to bed’ by scoring a second goal.
It’s Stoke City we’re talking here, not a combined Barca / Real Madrid eleven!!
Howson needed the game-time. Wes needed to come off. 4-2-3-1 isn’t defensive because it encourages the 3 to get forward. Most teams play it (v Stoke and v everyone).
Nope! Assumption is NO change will definitely NOT help. Many games spoiled and flawed by overly defensive strategy and disabling substitutions (e.g. West Ham away). More recently, we had half-time ‘consolidation’ of being 4-1 down at Villa rather than going out in second half to score, get some pride back and entertain the away fans. On the back of the Villa Park utter humiliation we had the club asking us to ‘wear our colours with pride’! Ha! You couldn’t make it up. Another season of this in the Premier or Championship? No thank you.
“Then that bloke from that London overspill town in Suffolk clattered Alex Tettey and got a red card”
Seriously, what is the point in a comment like that?
And to think, you call yourself a journalist!
It’s not just that we expected to higher up the league. It’s the fact that the clown has made around 70 substitutions this season without one managing an assist or a goal, and coupled with the poor performances (especially in attack) we expect more for the money spent on players, and by the supporters.
You must be easily pleased to be happy with so much dross in one season!
Swansea are the same size as us but there seems to be contrasting aspirations. Not by the supporters but by the two Boards!
I think your totally missing the point. People were excited to see Howson come on. He’s a great AM and could possibly have got us that illusive second goal.
The issue is that he put Howson in a defensive role! Thats why the word negative was being thrown around.
Do you think its a cleaver move to try to defend and hold onto a 1-0 lead at home in the 67th min?
That’s when we fell deeper. That’s when we conceded a corner which led to a penalty and ultimately a goal. Then suddenly we are on the back foot. 4 defenders, 3 midfielders playing in a DM role, and a lone striker starved of service.
That STILL wasnt enough though, it wasnt until Stoke went down to 10 men that he made a positive sub to bring on 2 strikers. Would he have bought on 2 strikers if it was still 11 a side and 1-1? I believe that history has taught us no, he wouldn’t.
Over and above all that, why did he start RvW over Hooper in the first place? Wes and Hooper looked like they had a great connection in the Villa game. The little one-twos, each knowing where the other was making runs, they looked like they had played together for years. So why no start with that?
I think you give NCFC fans too little credit. You assume its nothing more than “We like Wes, why did you take him off? Chris Hughton we want you out for taking our favourite player off the pitch”.
We made similar tactical substitutions in the home games with Southampton, West Ham and Palace. Why no outcry about those? Because they did the trick, consolidating a win – as Saturday’s should have done, but for Seb’s tackle.
Of course, there wasn’t much credit directed to Hughton for those victories. It clearly couldn’t have been anything to do with him.
Dear Mick,
Your analysis is often thought provoking but here you have it wrong in my view. The key point is that Chris Hughton is undoubtedly either very poor or very unlucky when it comes down to subs and game changing decisions. It is not negative outers who were angry at the substitution of Hoolahan on Saturday it was people who take a different view to you. It is my view, that you are taking an overly defensive position. It is clearly a rational and considered position that I amongst many others are taking.
Wes Hoolahan is definitely a talented player in the last third of the pitch. He has the ability to retain the ball and pass creatively, and on Saturday he was by a long way the most successful of the players at this. We were winning and beginning to play with more confidence and Wes was key to this as players were able to give him the ball in tight areas of the pitch. The manager subbed him because “he wanted more legs”. This was not needed at the time as Stoke were no threat to us and we already had two defensive midfielders. It was a defensive strategy. The fact that it backfired is neither here nor there, the point is that Chris Hughton made the wrong call. At Villa Wes was tired and began to give the ball away. Here there were no obvious signs of this. It may have come and then it would have been right to sub him but not at the time it happened. I think it is likely that this sub and the two at West Ham did lose us points. This is why I left disappointed and angry not because I am an outer.
Overall I go to support Norwich and be entertained after a long journey and to see the best player subbed when playing well is not negative hysteria but an understandable response.
There’s re-writing of history going on here but it’s not by the outers.
People weren’t happy to see the Wes for Howson switch and then re-wrote their opinions. In the words of one Michael Bailey…
“Howson on for Wes. Some home fans not really happy with that – or the linesman’s last decision. #ncfc 1-0”
No matter what side you care to settle yourself into. No matter how good an argument you put up.. Hughton has lost the majority of the fans, knowing City fans as I do after 54 years of following City, it will take: (1)survival, (2)top 4 finish next season, (3)attacking football and (4) Hughton to walk on the Yare from Carrow Bridge to Yarmouth just to win some of them back.
We know 3 of those won’t happen and the other is still unfolding
These endless debates have become as equally as boring as the football.
Surely it is not aiming too high to expect us to score more than one goal in more than a couple of home matches this season, only once since last August?
And statistics do show change can be beneficial. According to the Times on Saturday, of the 11 managers who have been sacked from the EPL with 12 or less games to go in the past decade, seven (64%)of the changes have had a positive impact on performance!
Pete Whittaker, my friend. Wes had stopped running. He had played 90 on Sun, 60 on Weds and so the cumulative result was he was knackered. That will have been the prozone feedback the coaches had, I’m pretty sure. Howson needed game-time. 4-2-3-1 is our most effective system.
If you don’t agree with any or all of that, fine. But at least accept that CH had credible reasons for making the change.
Yet people near me booed just because Wes was coming off. I don’t believe the thought any of it through.
You must have heard some of the nonsense being talked.
Dave B: my point was that they didn’t like the sub (because they hadn’t thought it through) and then, when events unfolded, they persuaded themselves it had cost us the match. That was a revision of history in my view.
What galls me is the assumption, when Wes goes off, that it must be “clueless” — without any real thought about the circumstances.
I would rather get rid of Hughton and go down than keep him and stay up. As a fan who travels from London every week, I am sick and tired of watching ultra dull anti-football.
Peter (9): you say ‘The fact that it backfired is neither here nor there, the point is that Chris Hughton made the wrong call’. Happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’d have written the same if it had finished 1-0. But past evidence suggests you’d be in a very small minority.
Similarly, the stat about Hughton’s substitutes not creating or scoring goals sounds damning at first hearing, but needs a little more scrutiny. In all the games I mentioned above, plus Stoke and others, we didn’t need more goals; we had to consolidate what we had, and usually did so. There’s one fundamental difference between Hughton’s choices and ours – he has to make them during the game, we make them with 20:20 hindsight.
Despite being a confirmed “outer”, I do not think CH is clueless nor a clown.
However, results and performances do not lie. Zero positive impact from all of his substitutions this year, a dreadful win ratio, the lack of attacking intent to kill a game off – all of these things tell me have a Manager who is not capable.
You can give me all the stats you like about other clubs fortunes not changing when they change their Manager. I don’t care about them, I care about us and we need to make a change. By common consent, we have a decent squad of players, that’s why we expect better. I refuse to believe that a different Manager wouldn’t get more out of them. And what an ill informed remark from your journo friend Alyson! Almost as bad as your’s Mick about Jon Walters.
I completely understand your sentiment Mick, but it’s not working…and whether those around you know everything or nothing about football it has to be said, the proof is in the pudding. I’m not saying the guy is clueless as he’s been in football longer than I’ve been alive, but it’s increasingly hard to argue otherwise to the average footy fan. Spouting nonsensical foolishness, and football fans, go hand in hand. The situation we find ourselves in has obviously meant you’re listening that much harder…another interesting bi-product.
A really interesting a thought-provoking article Mick. In many respects I agree with your logic. The decision to swap Hoolahan for Howson on 67 minutes was probably a fair tactical choice at the time. However, as you point-out, the Bassong challenge and the Stoke sending-off really changed the dynamics of the game and we simply didn’t have the type of player on the pitch to be able to respond to it. So in that respect, do I blame Hughton for our draw against Stoke – no of course not, we were just the victim of circumstances (again!).
In terms of my opinion on Hughton as the manager in the medium and long term I’d have to say no. Let’s get the season over and re-evaluate. Part of me is very encouraged by the players he has brought into the club and the encouraging development of some of the clubs younger players. However, to me, the central cause of our problems this season and last has been Hughton failure to sort out our problems in the final third – for much of this time our forward players have looked devoid of creativity and inspiration. Look at the strikers during the Hughton reign – Holt, Jackson, Martin, Morrison, RVW, Hooper, Becchio and Elmander. These are all good strikers, some obviously better than others, but all capable of doing a decent job in the Premier League and all who have scored a fair few goals during their careers. However, none of them have even got close to capturing the kind of form they are capable of. Similarly, look at our creative midfield players – Hoolahan, Pilkington, Bennett, Snodgrass & Redmond, all players who on their day who could be really good at this level but for the past two seasons haven’t delivered on a consistent basis. Logically this points to the wrong tactics – players tend to be criticised for not learning, but equally I think this could be a criticism levelled at Hughton.
The logical conclusion is that the system that we play doesn’t
Yes and Lawro predicted that Norwich would be in the fourth division when they got rid of Bryan Gunn. So the predictions of hacks are hardly the most reliable indicator.
The issue of expectation, as it interacts with Chris Hughton, is that this year is pretty much the same as last, the only real difference being that the club didn’t go on a record breaking run before Christmas.
There is the same poor goal difference, the same lack of goals, the same overly direct football, the same issue with retaining possession, the same inability to get back into a game when we go a goal down and the same poor refereeing decisions in key games – which may or may not the responsibility of the manager.
Mick leans back in his chair, the missive complete, “that’s lovely Mick thanks very much”, says Delia, ” David have you seen what Mick has written, do you want any more in it about the fan’s ridiculous expectations or can we leave it now and all get off to dinner”?
I read & then reread this article & many of the other comments. Several views I share several I don’t but I feel this gives me more than 140 characters to express my views to fellow fans. I never took to Chris Hughton from the first training session I watched at carrow road. For me alarm bells rang how uninspiring each word was coming out of his mouth. Already he bored me, how was he going to excite and lift players if a short speech had sent me to sleep. However I stayed positive about staying in the premiership. Even on an unbeaten run already it was a struggle to enjoy match day. Hughton clearly was negative, defensive and a must not lose kind of guy. Well it worked another season in the prem. back to the present. I as a fan do expect progress, excitement, a cup run. I’m sick of being this nice family club. I want to go to wembely and not for a championship play off. For me it’s Hughton out at the end of the season, tactically he’s inept, his subs are a joke. Fans deserve better than just another season in the premiership as little ol’ Norwich! As for the wes substitution he looked lost a villa, didn’t have that same love or passion for the club as he did a few seasons ago. Wes produced a couple of good passes even a shot on goal but he also robbed Redmond of the descent opportunity to cross the ball. He also got caught on the ball on more than one occasion. Howson when played in his more free & natural playing position, he’s the player to excite and inspire those around. Even possibly find the wolf who is in great positions but with no one on the pitch able to play an intelligent pass to find him. So I end by saying to all journos that feel fans are deluded, try watching every Norwich game left of the season & then judge us fans for wanting more.
I normally feel like Mick makes his points well and ofter with some decent stats/facts to back them up however on this occasion I think he has simply got it wrong.
To suggest that Wes was taken off in anticipation of the fact he may start to wilt seems nonsensical to me. I agree that given another 10 minutes he may well have begun to tire but who knows? And it certainly seems strange to substitute a player who has arguably been man of the match and certainly our most effective forward player just because he might get tired. Mick has further commented that Wes had stopped running but I saw no sign of this and, in fact, am pretty certain he chased a ball back to their keeper about a minute before being hauled off.
I also find it strange that Mick is saying that it is with hindsight fans stated the sub cost us two points? Yet he is also complaining of the knee jerk boos (which I am against) at the moment Wes was taken off? Surely if people are booing at the time then they don’t agree with the decision there and then and it has nothing to do with hindsight? And the fact that we could really have done with Wes once it went 1-1 seems to suggest that in fact fans were right to be annoyed. If Howson had come on and played a blinder, helping us to an easy win, then Mick’s argument about unfair booing would hold more wait. But he didn’t. And we didn’t win.
Certainly all around me people were astonished at the decision and, as I immediately feared, we played worse for the remaining 23 minutes.
My final point is that my criticism of Hughton has nothing to do with our league position, which I agree seems about right, but all to do with the manner in which we have achieved it. I, for one, watch football because I enjoy it. I go to Carrow Road to enjoy watching football and, hopefully, to be entertained. I pay good money in this hope. Yet enjoyable and entertaining football have been sorely missing for nearly 2 seasons and it is this that I want changed.
Good comment Jon (20). A strong sense of logic is a good quality to have in these worrying times, and I’ve been concerned at the lack of it shown by many City fans ever since the dip in form midway through last season. Emotion can often override common sense, but I hoped, after the magnificent draw vs Citeh, we had at least seen the back of words like ‘clown’ and ‘clueless’ in this debate. I respect anyone who can make a logical argument, regardless of whether I agree or not.
All managers have good and bad qualities. I remember Chelsea fans moaning about Mourinho early this season. They wanted Rafa back!
All players have fluctuations in form. Would many of us have predicted Snod’s struggles earlier this season, or Seb’s now? Or that an injury to Turner could prove crucial?
In short, I think Hughton’s been a bit unlucky but the jury is still out. I’ve been a defender of CH up to now, because I believe our expectations in this league far exceed our financial investment. Our players are only just good enough, and that’s on a good day. Logic dictates that we are where we should be. Struggling.
We sometimes read in journalists’ writings of a so-called outers’ agenda, but what of a journalists agenda? With the exception of James Kent – who listens as well as writes – there seems to me to be a writers’ agenda to keep Hughton in place at #NCFC regardless of negative performances and results.
So let’s talk about expectations.
I will concede that all will not be rosy. In fact I fully accept the following:
– We will be clobbered by some big teams.
– Finishing in the top 8 is a near impossibility.
– Our finances may be limited and our club can face uncertain financial periods.
– The lack of depth in our squad will cause issues, foremost when we have injuries.
– We will inevitably be relegated one day.
– We are not cut-throat.
– Top talent may not join us.
– Our geographic location will always hinder us.
However, I do expect the following:
– We will be more than the sum of our parts.
– Even when we lose our football will be entertaining.
– We want to win every game.
– When we go down we will go down fighting.
– Big teams will want to poach our top talent, especially home grown.
– We will bring out the full potential of our players.
– Our manager will inspire both the crowd and the players.
– We will have a family atmosphere and a great reputation as a club, being many people’s “second team”.
– Our youth team will be strong.
The trouble is the majority of the former is true, yet the latter isn’t. If both sets of items occurred (e.g. we played the best we could, but injuries of finances scuppered us), I could accept our position. But it isn’t.
One last expectation. I would expect the President of the Supporters Trust to back the supporters.
The three cases quoted… Mel Solskaer and Magath had ZERO Premier League or even English managerial experience.
When a credible change has been made Pulis, Poyet the improvement is obvious
Sunderland will likely as not prove this on the 22nd.
The current regime is leaing us directly into the Championship and should have gone after the two humilations in Manchester…
Everyone knows the football is dreadful and boring, you then have decide if you think that’s all the fans deserve or not. Wingers who don’t/can’t cross, the slowest counter attacks in the history of football and strikers that never score and a defensive management team with the 3rd worst goals against in the league. Exciting stuff, perhaps the ground is quiet because the crowd are rapt.
The writer of the article got it spot on. The 3 relegated sides will all come from clubs who have changed managers. We will be in the premiership next year. We are never going to be able to play gung – ho attacking football at this level or if we do we will be slaughtered by any team we come up against. We are where we are and that is about our level at the moment, no better no worse but the manager is getting it right. Not all the time I grant you but enough of the time to keep us in this league which is what his employers have asked him to do
Dave B (27): some fair points as always, but your final insinuation is open to challenge. Once again, you’ve implied that ‘the supporters’ are against Hughton. On what basis? We certainly know they’re divided, and that a minority have periodically expressed unhappiness at games. But where’s the evidence that most fans are anti? All we know is the balance of comments on messageboards and a self-selecting online poll a while ago. Both are notoriously unreliable as indicators of overall opinion – as a professional opinion researcher, I know and can give you many examples.
If a properly conducted opinion poll among a representative cross-section of City supporters has been carried out, I’m very interested to see the outcome. Until then, we simply can’t make the kind of assertion in your comment.
The simple truth is you cannot predict the diffference a change may make. Lambert was a punt at the time!
Hughton is just pretty dull to watch and it is too late to change now. The club has with eyes open got us to where we are. If we stay up it will be because others are worse than we are, not that we are better than them
You have to take people with you and I suspect that Chris has lost the majority of us now..
summer time change will come, only question is in which league.?
I can’t go through every point made in these comments, but I want to stress that all my references to ‘fans’ are about the booers and those who think Hughton is ‘clueless’. I think they are the minority. There’s nobody in the game, outside our bubble who thinks Hughton is anything but knowledgeable, thoughtful and a gifted coach. For our own manager to be portrayed as a clown is despicable.
And although the debate has widened in these comments, the two points in the column are:
1) There is a knee-jerk reaction that his subs are negative and wrong. We can debate how tired Wes was, but I ask you a to consider the possibility that the manager had credible reasons for making the change he did when he did.
2) Sacking mid season is a gamble which often makes things worse. And, incidentally, the clubs who have pulled clear recently — West Ham, Hull, Stoke and Villa — all resisted fans shouts of: “We want someone else.”
OTBC
Mick, the football is terrible, unambitious and dull, Is that really our lot and if so why do you think it should be?
@31 Stewart Lewis
I agree, to my last point. Maybe 75% think Hughton should go. Maybe only 5%. But it is not the place of the position I mentioned to try and convince, but to listen.
This is made worse by the fact that vocalizing what some (maybe most) fans feel, would be counter to what pays that person’s wage. Remember, Mick told us he’d seen the list of players Lambert wanted to sell, he didn’t get that info because he was critical of the regime, but supportive.
Very well written piece, the thing that seems to annoy the fans is how lacklustre the performances have been and it always seems as if Hughton is afraid to attack the games or try and finish teams off by getting the 2nd or 3rd goal, instead his main concern is to not concede. What sort of manager would tell his team the game is over at half time (Aston Villa away 4-1 down) and just focus on damage limitation. Fans don’t mind if we lose having a real good go at the opposition but to just roll over is unacceptable.
As the song goes “never mind the danger”
I thought Wes was still seeing a lot of the ball when he got subbed but I believe his substitution had little effect on the final outcome.
What I couldn’t understand was why take RVW off and then play Bassong up front?
If you were going to play 3 at the back surely substitute a defender for a forward and leave RVW on?
Always interesting to see reaction to Mick’s pieces! By the way: if Mick really compromised journalistic integrity in order to flatter the Norwich board, as some of you suggest, he wouldn’t last five minutes on a national newspaper.
One of the reasons he’s worth reading (including in the matchday programme) is that he sees many aspects of football, and uses his columns to draw our attention to things we might not otherwise know. For instance, he talks about the community involvement of clubs, both our own and others. Yes, it’s positive reporting – but also appropriate and a worthwhile counterbalance to the stereotype of the selfish and self-centred Premiership.
Mick’s OK.
@33 Mick Dennis
“) There is a knee-jerk reaction that his subs are negative and wrong. We can debate how tired Wes was, but I ask you a to consider the possibility that the manager had credible reasons for making the change he did when he did.”
Let’s look at the evidence. Many games his subs have had an immediate negative impact on the game (West Ham). Some are mind boggling (Elmander on the wing). Some are far too late (Cardiff). None have scored. Against Stoke we looked flatter after Wes came off. Hughton is either a massively unlucky person or tactically inept. I don’t want either type of person managing our team.
Hughton has one plan, go a goal up and defend it. I don’t believe it ever crosses his mind that you could also defend a lead by extending it. I’ve never seen proof of any killer instinct. Never. It’s not right for every occasions, but not scoring more than one goal is killing us.
You state “they didn’t like the sub (because they hadn’t thought it through) and then, when events unfolded, they persuaded themselves it had cost us the match”. Well a good amount of fans didn’t like the sub at the time and they were right. As a columnist to state that all fans “hadn’t thought it through” is insulting and wrong.
Expectations are great but it’s been a tale of two Cities – home and away of late. A self-proclaimed majority see it as the worst-of-times, others – the best-of-times for the club. Hughton is cast as a footballing-Scrooge, giving a bah-humbug to style and entertainment but beware the ghosts of football managers yet to come (Mackay?Clarke?..Laudrup??). The managerial chop and change at other clubs provides a cautionary tale.
How the story will unfold is anyone’s guess.
Mick, why do you hate working at Norwich ?
““Surely you expected Norwich to struggle this season”. Alyson actually said: “I am amazed that Norwich fans have turned on the manager. Where did they expect to spend this season? In the top half?””
No, I didn’t expect us to struggle. We spent well in the summer and we’ve got a good squad. I think our squad is capable of being in the top half, but because Hughton can’t get the best out of the team we’re in a relegation battle again.
Why shouldn’t we have expected to be where Southampton are? Why are they so much better than us? How have they overtaken us? This is only their second season back in the Premier League remember and yes they’ve spent a bit, but as you say Mick, that hardly guarantees success.
I believe the difference is down to the respective managers. One knows how to get the best out of his team, the other is Hughton.
The switch of Wes for Howson was the right move, but made far too quickly after the goal.
Time after time this season the team has fallen apart immediately after scoring the few goals we have. The change should of come after play had had a chance to settle down again.
Also, it should of been a straight switch, with Howson playing in Wes’ role. How he keeps getting played as a defensive mid and seemingly Johnson of all people encouraged to get forward I’ll never understand.
Is it right to asume mick that you agree with all the other fans that wes is our most creative player within our squad. Just wondered if you are going to defend hughton on the fact he hasn’t deemed him good enough for a place in our starting eleven till recently when its blattenly obvious that we are more of a threat with him in the team.
Ben P (42): interesting comparison with Soton. Yes, they’re admirable in several ways and seem to have made an inspired appointment with Pochettino. But I think you underestimate the financial question. You say we spent well in the summer, but Southampton seriously out-spent us. RvW was a mega signing for us, but they spent twice as much on Dani Osvaldo (remember him?) and 1.5 times as much on Wanayama. God knows how much they pay them. That’s real spending, as against our average spend.
By the way, credit to them for keeping Lallana all these years. He always looked the part; surprised no-one bought him when Soton were out of the Prem.
Graham H (43), it’s not “should of”, it’s “should have” or “should’ve”. And ctid (44), it’s not “blattenly”, it’s “blatantly”!
Thank you Mick for your sensible view of that substitution. I love watching Wes play but had been hoping for him to be replaced by Howson for several minutes before that evenually happened. Wes was becoming less and less effective and was very obviously trying to dredge up some last bits of energy. Booing, and the rude ignorance of some so called fans spoils my match day experience much more than any perceived playing style. This ridiculously distorted league and its billionaires will regularly put us in a relgation scrap and relegation scraps are never pretty.
@45 Stewart Lewis
Southampton are a great benchmark for us.
Yes Southampton spent more (which I’ll look at later) we hear a lot about how our wage bill is 19th/20th in the league. The trouble is it’s a self fulfilling prophecy. You can only be the bottom spender in the league for so many seasons before you’re kicked out of it.
While, yes, it’s great we’ve managed to be debt free, I can’t help but think there’s some short sightedness to our management. What’s going to be more expensive, an extra 10m on players, or relegation? Lower wage bill we may have, but without TV revenues the accounts take a much bigger hit.
TBH I don’t think our spending alone is really the issue but how we’ve spent and how we’ve utilized our purchases.
When you look at Benteke and RVW they both cost the same, but one is clearly more built for their role than the other. We could buy five RVWs and still have scoring issues. Then look at Becchio, we either invested poorly or are misusing our assets. Why did we spend a penny on Elmander at all, he’s never been prolific.
You look at Southampton and the difference between the two clubs is so clear it drives home our weakness. Goals. Not spending.
They have three players whose combined goals amount to more than our entire team combined. This includes a player who costs ~Hooper+RVW , but also Lambert, who cost 1/8th of RVW, and a player who has come up from their youth squad, free.
Big buy, lower league bargain, and new boy, and they’re all putting them away. Southampton has nearly doubled our goals and are safe.
If we could utilize the players we have there’s no doubt in my mind that we could be near safety now.
Do you stand by this piece, written on this very site?
https://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2009/01/06/for-me-replacing-glenn-now-with-any-tom-dick-or-paul-would-be-insane/
It sounds like you would never sack a manager. I appreciate your loyalty, but…….
Dave (48): it’s both goals AND spending, surely. In 2009 we paid around £400k for Grant Holt, while Soton spent double that on Rickie Lambert. The pattern continues to this day. By the way, would you have us clear our debts as Soton did, by going into administration and screwing their local suppliers?
Yes, I wish we’d bought Benteke rather than RvW. Most Prem sides wish they’d bought Benteke. Another by the way: Becchio (‘we invested poorly’, you say) wasn’t an investment at all. We were desperate to get rid of Steve Morison and swapped them; apparently Becchio is a better club man, even if he’s not playing.
I doubt we brought in Elmander to score goals – we expected him to help RvW and Hooper do it. As many (including Mick and I) have openly acknowledged, that area has been a big disappointment this year.
Cheers
Ah, my position on Roeder:
When I wrote that column, I feared that, as had happened when we sacked Worthy and appointed Grant, things would get worse and not better if we sacked a manager mid-season. I knew some of the candidates at the time of the Roeder appointment had proved disasters elsewhere.
So backed the incumbent.
I wouldn’t have sacked Roeder when we did. He’d kept us up the previous season, against the odds. But we sacked him and went down to League One.
When Roeder was sacked, I spoke to people at the club. His comment to a fan at the AGM had been a straw too many. So I understood and did not, subsequently, oppose the sacking.
I express opinions publicly, in print and in broadcasts, every week of the year. Like everyone else, I get some wrong and have some opinions altered by events.
On Hughton, I think that if he stays and keeps us up (for the second year) with our resources, he will have achieved something remarkable. And I think, fervently, that sacking him could easily make things worse.
But this column made two points: the substitution was sensible (as an illustration that the manager is not clueless – a ridiculous accusation); sacking is a reckless gamble.
Agree on that point. If he’d been bringing on Whittaker for Hoolahan it’d be right to boo, but a pretty much like for like swap made sense in that situation. But I would say Hughton gets so much wrong that you can understand why fans don’t trust him.
(46) – I’m sure the two people are grateful for your free proofreading service but what do you think about the football debate?
Lesson from history: We play the Saints on Saturday, 15th March – known in the Roman calendar as the ‘Ides of March’. Julius Caeser was warned to beware that date and sure enough got stabbed in the back. Seems to me that the ‘Hughton plotters’ are gathering for a similar if metaphorical strike. But will Brutus (McNally?) wield the dagger?
Even great and powerful men can be brought down by the mob, so I fear Hughton (who has done a fine job and with great dignity) ultimately stands little chance with this trial by twitter/online sites.
@50 Stewart Lewis.
I disagree. The difference is goals. You can compare like-for-like priced players between us and Southampton and you’ll find the Saint’s have outperformed. You can compare much cheaper Saint’s players to our expensive ones, and they too have outperformed us. There is no correlation between the cost of our team’s players and the player’s success. None.
The only common denominator for us is the team they are in (or if you like the manager they play under). We have had proven goal scorers, be it Holt (first PL season), RVW, and Hooper, ranging from 400k to 8.5m and all of them have lost the ability to score under CH. Ironically, there is a direct inverse correlation between cost and goals in this instance.
There is no evidence that CH could be given another 20m to spend on improving the strikeforce and actually achieving more goals. Which is why we should drop him in the summer, if not as soon as possible. He doesn’t have what it takes to put our resources to use and never will.
One correction – Morrison was not a straight swap, but involved us giving Leeds a fee. If we cared about our bank a/c then it would have been cheaper to release Morrison (who had at least played and scored), than do an exchange inc. money and continue to pay a wage for someone who hasn’t started this season.
Richard Dawson 46, Apologies for spelling a word wrong.No offence intended…
Dave (54): we could trade further points about spending, but we’re now moving from facts to speculation and opinion. I admire the certainty with which you state opinions, but I’m more comfortable with facts. Two of them: the player was Morison (one ‘r’), and I know we technically paid something in the Becchio trade but it was peanuts.
Morison was a disruptive influence at the club and his removal (even though he’d played and scored) was important. Becchio was less well researched than most of our signings, hence a higher risk and one that might have paid off but hasn’t.
Don’t remember Wes playing anything other than sideways balls all the way through the Stoke game. Yet again, RVW standing in the gap between two defenders waiting for the through ball which never came.
It doesn’t matter about the substitutions – if we can’t get any kind of attacking plan together we can bring on Delia’s mum and still play the same.
Dave B – you clearly have no idea what a Supporters Trust is for. It’s not there to represent the rabid views of fans, however much you feel your view on what’s happening on the pitch is what everyone else feels. Trust me, when the club start dallying with dodgy potential owners you’ll know exactly what the Supporters Trust is there for, and you’ll learn to appreciate it. Just ask Portsmouth fans.
Oh Richard (46), this world wasn’t made for someone as wonderful as you.
You certainly provoked a response Mick and as an exjourno that’s what it is all about. Passionate opinions. Long live the wonder of football.
Good luck at Southampton and if Steve is there say hello, OTBC
Pete
“Bringing Howson on would enable a switch to the 4-2-3-1 system”
I can only conclude you did not watch the game. Howson was brought on, and we switched to a 4-1-4-1 system. With an isolated striker, 2 more orthodox central midfielders and Tettey in front of the back 4. The same formation we started with against Southampton yesterday.