Nathan Redmond’s been getting a bit of stick lately hasn’t he?
But then we do like to build them up before we knock them down again at Norwich. He isn’t the first and most certainly won’t be the last Canary who suffers the ire of certain supporters for his perceived in play failings. And more’s the pity.
One of the biggest drawbacks Nathan has to contend with in his professional life is the term that has been attached to him since he made his first-team debut with Birmingham City as a 16 year old in 2010.
And yes, whisper it quietly, but he’s subject to the ‘F’ word here. In fact it’s the ‘F’ word that rarely seems to be left out of any discussion about him.
He’s a flair player.
It’s not the best of descriptions that can be given to a football player admittedly. It sounds good, at least on paper. But then so does owning an Alfa Romeo. The reality is sometimes different.
Out of interest, I looked to see if there were any definitions of what a flair player was in football. One in particular took my eye:
A player who is very skilful, for example being able to dribble, go past men or do the bicycle kick. Often used to suggest that the player isn’t so reliable or won’t do boring things like defend.
Now I’ll be honest with you. I haven’t seen Nathan attempt a bicycle kick in a game yet – not that I wouldn’t put it past him. But the rest of it pretty much summed up what a flair player might be regarded as, in terms of both his positives and negatives.
Yes he is very skilful. Yes he can run on the ball and, in doing so, deceive opponents with ease. We’ve all seen him do that. He is fleet of foot and of mind, a player capable of reading the game very well and knowing, instinctively, where he needs to be, especially if it means his is the final act in an attacking move.
Witness his goals in the play-offs last season for evidence of that.
Yet it’s the second part of that description which is the more interesting one. The one that reckons that flair players aren’t “so reliable” or “won’t do boring things like defend.”
Why?
Because there, in my opinion, do you have one of the great disappointments of English football in the last four decades or so. That over-riding fear of flair players because of what they are perceived as not being able to do, rather than what they most certainly can do.
Let’s look at a couple of examples from previous years.
Graham Paddon for example. That great contradiction of the Ron Saunders side that took Norwich to promotion in 1972. Ron’s teams and players mimicked him in look, personality and playing style; disciplined, occasionally dour, defensively rigid and as organised as the sock drawer or CD collection of someone who is anally retentive.
You knew what you were getting with Ron’s Norwich. And sexy football, as it was later coined by Ruud Gullit, wasn’t on the menu.
And yet amongst all of Ron’s warriors – men of granite and steel, footballing men with names like Jim, Geoff, Ken, Doug and Clive – strode this hippy-like free spirit in the midst of it all, long blond hair blowing in the wind and shirt trailing outside of his shorts, tripping the light fantastic over the Carrow Road mud like Bambi on ice.
Saunders, the old rascal. He may have come across as a disciplinarian, a hard arsed RSM with a bite worse than his bark. But, for all that, he indulged Paddon because he knew the sort of qualities he could bring to a game, qualities that could raise a game from the mundane to the magical in an instant.
It might have been the only contribution he would make in the whole match. But you can neither build an army or a football team on foot soldiers alone. And Saunders knew it. He won a League title with Aston Villa with a team that, although better than anything he had ever managed to put together at Norwich, still mirrored the Canaries in style and application; hard working, hard running, disciplined, fit and very physical. And organised.
Yet, just as he had Paddon at Norwich, he had that flair at Villa Park as well in Gordon Cowans; a player who, to this day, is still rated by many older Villa fans as one of the best players the club has ever had. Good enough to play in Italy for Bari as well as for England for whom he won ten caps, scoring two goals in the process.
Yet he would have had his days when maybe he wasn’t so reliable or, heaven forefend, couldn’t be bothered to track back and defend as much as, say, Denis Mortimer or Des Bremner.
And that’s hardly a surprise. Hardened warriors like Mortimer and Bremner wouldn’t have wanted Cowans floating about in his own defence like a feather in the wind. He’d have been encouraged, and industrially, to get up the pitch and frequent the areas where he was more useful to them.
A class act indeed. Yet, in a playing career that lasted for two decades and saw him make nearly 700 league appearances, he still only played for England ten times.
Ten times.
Yet it’s still ten times more than Paddon managed. When he was at his pomp with Norwich, scoring hat-tricks at Highbury and generally beguiling anyone who saw him play, the England midfield was regularly stuffed to overflowing with space fillers like Peter Storey, or, when Paddon was with West Ham, the likes of Brian Greenhoff, Tony Towers and Paul Madeley.
Paddon, a notable and very visible member of a West Ham team that won an FA Cup and the European Cup Winners Cup, didn’t get a sniff of an England cap and, I suspect, headed off back to Norwich with that as the one overriding disappointment in his professional life.
Still, for a footballing nation that gave Carlton Palmer more caps than Matt Le Tissier, what would you expect?
Flair players were, and still are, it would seem, treated with scepticism and suspicion. And they’re easy targets, high profile individuals who stand out even if they’re having a quiet or ineffective game – indeed, paradoxically, it seems to make them stand out more.
And that is what seems to be happening in the case of Nathan Redmond.
He is, as those that have gone before him, a player who merits his selection on what he can do and the threat that he does offer. He’s a wildcard, a joker in the pack, someone you hope might just turn it on and, in doing so, turn a game.
Sometimes, indeed, more often than not, given the opportunity, he will. But he most certainly won’t do it week in, week out and on a regular basis. For one thing, if he did, then he wouldn’t be playing for us.
And, for another, hardly any player does. No matter who they are.
His detractors will suggest he shouldn’t make the starting line up at the moment. There are even those who suggest that, given the opportunity, we should seek to cash in on him.
Two things.
Firstly, if he isn’t in the starting line up, no-one is going to be more pleased about that, than the manager of the side we’re playing in that game.
And secondly, if he is the sort of player we think we should be “cashing in” on, doesn’t that suggest he is the sort of asset we should be looking to keep? It’s a contradiction – he’s worth a lot of money, we’ll get a good price for him, therefore we should sell him.
No. We should play him.
Like it or not, flair players, the Redmond’s of this world, have to be indulged. Yes, they may be frustrating. And no, they may not deliver every week.
That’s the price you have to pay. And the reason they have a very large price that a lot of clubs would be prepared to pay is for what they can do, and that’s something which few of their peers are capable of.
It’s like owning that Alfa Romeo. Sure they’re cantankerous, expensive, prone to rust and unreliable. Yet when you get it up, running and on the open road… WOW!
You wouldn’t trade it for anything.
And I wouldn’t trade Nathan Redmond either.
Same thing to happened to Mark Barham too, the boo boys let him have it once he returned from injury. Was to take the blame for what wrong.
Absolutely hear, hear!!
Well articulated Ed.
Nathan Redmond is our most gifted player and he’s young and still learning. It’s difficult for him at City because he would benefit from playing with top players. He scores great goals and I think he plays best when Whits is playing right back. We are lucky to have him so let’s get behind the lad 100%.
Good stuff, Ed.
Like Wes, Redmond seems to me a player you wouldn’t pick for every game, but he’s a unique and important option to have. I’d be astonished and disappointed if we sold him.
Yes, we have to make allowances for weaknesses in a flair player. They CAN become more mature and effective; Redders’ decision-making certainly has room for improvement. But I can’t help recalling an interview with Adam Drury:
Interviewer: Hucks never did his defending for you, did he?
AD: No, but he did my attacking for me.
Redderz finished last season superbly, had a good first quarter of this (top scorer) but has faded significantly since Alex Neil’s tactical ‘epiphany’ on Tyneside. Moral: ever since he joined us, it’s the inconsistency that drives you mad.
Age and inexperience are no longer credible excuses. He has to be further to the front of Neil’s mind on match day, play more often and deliver the goods (crosses/shots) more consistently a la Mahrez.
Maybe it’s an age thing but previous ‘flair’ players for us such as Gordon, Fox, Eadie seemed to deliver more often.
I guess Spurs fans are having/had the same debate about Andros Townsend and Aaron Lennon.
Some good follow up points here-it could only be an MFW audience, you wouldn’t get such a response on certain sites, so thankyou.
Ian (1)- Yes, Barnham was hugely gifted. I recall the home game against Coventry, a week after we won the League Cup. He was completly and utterly unplayable, it remains the best ever performance by a City player in a game I have ever witnessed.
Colin (3)- Again, yes. Nathan always seemed to stand out when Whitts was behind him-the latters fall from grace is a surprising one, I can see him leaving and heading back to Rangers in the Summer, maybe that’s already been agreed.
Stewart (4)- Great point-and nail hit on head. I dislike talk of attacking players “having to do their share of the defending”-let them prosper at what they do and let the defence focus on the defending, you can have too many players back in and around your own boz. If teams attack in numbers, you have to have the outlet which players like Nathan provides. Adam Druty hits the nail on the head-he defended, Huycks attacked. And we prospered.
With Pinto signed and Brady said by Alex Neil to be better as a LB, I can see us either going five at the back or, more probably, not worrying so much about width in the middle. Time will tell.
My worry is the fact that Redmond only has 18 months on his contract. We need to get him tied up soon.
Him and Wes are the most talented players in our squad and I think many fans should appreciate them both whilst we have them.
You’re right, we shouldn’t have built him up in the first place because he isn’t good enough for the premier league. The facts don’t lie. 22years old, 200 pro games and he can’t string solid performances together. This ‘he is young and learning’ mantra is not only self delusional, its farcical. We seem to want to believe he will be a big player, but you don’t wait around for sterlings of this world, esp not at 22 in the modern game. Future quality players are already good with at least a degree of consistency. His talent is not in denial, but talent is nothing without relatively consistent application. I have never seen such clamour around a decent player who has a good run every so often. It’s beyond odd and I will be proven right. Even Aaron Lennon and Jermaine pennant were ahead of Redmond at this stage of his career. But, as I keep getting told in this absurdly politically correct existence where you are not allowed an opposing opinion to anything deemed ‘positive’, I can’t be considered a fan because not only could I contemplate to criticise some club decisions, but our future ‘superstar’. You have proven my point exactly ed, “you wouldn’t get such a response on certain sites”. In essence, you mean one in agreement with your stance. They all deserve criticism after yesterday, but you are only going to open Redmond up to more than the average player when you build him up to he something he is not. So I would actually blame the deluded fans who make him out to be a future great than those knocking him down, because they are closer to the truth, not you.
Didn’t we get relegated in the only season Hucks and Drury played together in the Premier League? Ed whilst I respect your point of view – after all it’s a game of opinions – football has moved on since the 80’s. The simple fact is football is a team game and sometimes players have to do the things they don’t want to do for the good of the team. That includes wingers getting back and defending; question, why is it ok for Hazard last season to continually work back and help his defender (whilst going on to win PFA player of the season) but offer excuses for Redmond?
Whether he’s got flair or not, he still possesses a set of lungs and if he has that natural positional instinct that you pointed out, then why doesn’t he apply it when he can see our right back is now overloaded with 2 players?
I’m no longer buying into ‘he’s still learning’. How many mistakes does he need to make before he learns? When was the last time he beat a man on the outside and put a decent cross in? Exactly. Instead we get backwards and sideways which gives the opposing team time to get back into position and keep their shape.
I back Norwich to the hill and am 100% confident we will stay up however Redmond needs to step up ASAP because both Vadis and Naismith will be there to take his place if he doesn’t and I for one, hopes he proves me wrong.
Havent ever seen Redmond attempt a bicycle kick… but cant remember the last time he successfully took a player on either!
He made a half decent (poorly defended) assist vs Villa, but more often than not, his crossing is very poor.
He is young and therefore has much to learn, but he needs to be more positive when he gets the ball. Drive forward rather than slowing play down all the time. For a player so fast, he is o e of the main culprits of slowing down our counter attacks!
On the contrary, I love differing opinion, debate and disagreement, I’d hate football to be without it.
My reference to this site is that argument and disagreement is constructively and eloquently offered-as Toad and Benji have offered. I neither want or expect anyone to toe the Ed line-in anycase, there isn’t one!
As shown, Redders divides opinion. What would football be without it? OTBC.