Inspirational Hughton, or a Smokescreen Victory?

An interesting statistic popped up prior to the Stoke game - Norwich had scored the least goals and had the least attempts on goal in the entire league; yet if the league were to be decided by possession in the opponents half, we would be sixth. That more or less paints the picture of our start to the season. It's not that our overall play is too defensive, it's a distinct lack of threat in the final third that creates a worryingly limited number of chances.

The Brittania remains a tough place to pick up points, so credit where credit is due for Hughton. A fantastic first half performance saw us dictate the tempo of the game, hold on to possession, and pass it around comfortably. What it didn't provide, however, was an influx of chances. A great victory it was, resulting in a much needed three points following a set of strong results from the leagues 'lesser' sides this weekend - but a lingering sense of struggle in front of goal continues to burden Hughton.

Which is why the exclusion of Hooper on the back of a cup-brace was so questionable. A goal-scorer high on confidence and a team finding goals hard to come by appeared a perfect blend, did it not? Regardless, Hooper remained benched for ninety minutes, whilst RVW again produced minimal involvement and had all-too-regular problems with his ball control. As I reiterate from last week, the Wolf needs dropping. It's Hooper's turn for me. 

A goal however did come, through the impressive Howson - who's willingness to have a go (and usually a decent one, at that) is of great value in a side with creativity issues. Alongside Fer, the centre midfield pairing look extremely competent. Even Alex Tettey, who I've heavily criticised in the past, looked sturdy and deserved of his place in front of the back four. On the left, Pilkington was a dangerous addition to the side and looked comfortable alongside Olssen, who for me should be a regular starter following a confident display once given the opportunity to impress. 

At the back, Turner, Ryan Bennett and Russell Martin gave exceptional defensive shifts in the absence of Bassong - which was very pleasing indeed. As a collective, we've previously been known to expect almost inevitable defeat when faced with a Bassong-shaped hole in the back-line. Now it's a very different story, with both Martin and Bennett capable of stepping-up, and Turner leading by example. A clean-sheet which was rarely threatened, given the circumstances, signals a significant reduction in the reliance placed on individuals. Squad depth has improved dramatically without drastic changes to defensive personnel - credit to the coaching staff must be given for that.

With the high number of quality individual displays mentioned above, Snodgrass is the last player you would expect to under-perform - or so would have been said last season. This time round, he's had a woeful start to the campaign, which continued today. More often than not, his final ball was terrible, regularly wasting opportunities to carve out chances. Last season, we saw Snodgrass dancing round players with apparent ease, a sense of excitement when he received the ball at his feet, something very few of our players possessed. Now it's become more likely to see him fall to the floor. With (hopefully) the return of Redmond imminent, and following a positive Pilkington performance, I would like to see those two given a chance down the flanks. The modern-day winger is capable of playing from either side, with these two no exception to such a high level of expectation. Likewise with RVW, a potential spell on the sidelines could help Snodgrass find his form again. It worked with Hoolahan under Lambert, it even proved successful for Gary Doherty. Players need to know their place isn't guaranteed.

So, was that a superb Hughton-inspired three-points, or simply a smokescreen for a bleak start to the season? Regardless, a victory away at Stoke is a significant achievement that Hughton set out to produce, and secured the result. He's bought himself both time and confidence amongst the fans today, relieving pressure and giving the table (albeit insignificant this early on) a much healthier outlook. The quality on display from the vast majority of our side, alongside the commitment, desire and effort that they showed today, at very least puts an end to the talk of Hughton having 'lost the dressing room'. These players are still very much here to play for him, and that's exactly what they will do.

The next few games provide strong challenges for Hughton, and it will be interesting to see his approach. The likes of Chelsea provide an opportunity for Hughton to win a large section of the fans over, and assert his authority - he should be, and now will be, allowed to do so. I would like to see some bold decisions made during that time, mind. A few senior players dropped to the bench, with a full run of games for Gary Hooper, would be a meaningful start in my opinion. For the meantime, we can enjoy the rarity of a Norwich win away from home, which puts us level on points with Manchester United - a fact that couldn't be less relevant, seeing as United have already played Liverpool, Chelsea and Man City, but it's not often we get to mention it. European tour, anyone?

Judgement Day: the 5-Game Mark.

I said at the beginning of the season Hughton had five games before he could be judged. Today marked the fifth game, so how has he done? 5 games, 4 points, 3 goals. Good enough? Quite simply, no. It was vital we began the season strongly, with the fixture list looking particularly unkind towards the end of the campaign. Our opening set of fixtures has included three home games, one against a newly-promoted side (who were reduced to 10 men early-on), and only one 'top six' side. A very average run of games within England's elite league. Three goals is a woeful return.

So, is this down to managerial mistakes? If so, where? It's very easy to sit behind a computer screen or amongst 27,000 other disappointed supporters and bemoan Hughton's tactical decisions, but on increasingly regular occasions I find myself unable to comprehend the thought process behind some of the choices made from the dugout. In the last twenty-six Premier League matches, Norwich have managed just five wins. Five. An atrocious record for any team. Answers are most certainly needed.

First, Olsson was signed first and foremost as an alternative to Garrido - a quicker option when facing teams with pace in attack - or so I presumed. Villa presented one of the most worthwhile opportunities to make use of the Swedes pace against an impressively nimble front-three, and yet a 'tactical omission' resulted in entire exclusion from the match day squad. If Olsson wasn't to be of use to Hughton in this fixture, when exactly will he be?

A major concern amongst the Norwich City faithful has been a worrying lack of goal scoring potential. Yesterday marked the first game in 27 Premier League matches that Paul Lambert's Villa managed to keep a clean sheet. At home, up against a defence that leaks goals game-by-game, and we've failed to break them down. Even when gifted a chance from the penalty spot, we've lacked conviction. Why Snodgrass insisted on taking that penalty, I do not understand. More so, why have we let him? We have our record-signing upfront, distinctly in need of a goal, and he's got the confidence to take it - you absolutely let him take it. On the other hand, we have a player who, by his standards, has had an extremely poor start to the season. Things aren't going right for Snodgrass at the minute, and so it was inevitable he would miss the spot kick. Credit to van Wolfswinkel, though, for his attitude following the penalty. No fuss, just got on with the game. A silver lining in an otherwise mediocre performance.

Serious consideration needs to be taken as to whether van Wolfswinkel needs to be dropped. Not because he's not good enough, the quality is there, but because he needs kicking in to shape. A spell on the sidelines would give Hooper a chance to shine, whilst also motivating RVW to find his form. The Dutchman is supposed to offer 'world class movement' on the attack, or so I've been assured. The only 'world class movement' on show today, however, came from Aston Villa's front-three. Agbonlahor and Weimann gave a lesson in offensive movement that revealed a worrying realisation of what we had to offer in the final third.

Then came the moment from which Hughton received a chorus of boo's that echoed around Carrow Road. The game was crying out for changes, Villa were in control, and City were struggling to threaten. Once Villa used up their second allotted substitution on the hour, Hughton went for a double change. Hooper for Elmander was probably what most of us were expecting, but Redmond? No. I've seen some attempted justifications for Hughton here, but in my opinion they hold very little weight, and it is understandable why so many fans felt it necessary to voice their confusion. On one side you have a winger on form, capable of providing a moment of magic during a seemingly uninventive display, and facing a make-shift right back in Bacuna. On the other, you have an off-form winger who is struggling with his final ball and was trying desperately to make up for a decisive penalty miss. Who do you take off? To leave the rather woeful Snograss on for ninety minutes yet remove the spark of Redmond after 60 was more than questionable. Yes, a substitution was essential. Yes, somebody has to make way. But no, the right player was not taken off.

As for the positives, well, we did set out to attack more. Of that I am in no doubt. We saw enough of the ball and retained possession well for large spells during the game - but that leaves a damning reflection on our lack of conviction. Even when we we push forward, and find ourselves in the driving seat, our creativity is remote. Our back-five did okay against a strong Villa attack, especially as Bassong was forced off through injury, and Fer and Howson answered questions on whether they can play as a centre-mid pairing. Other than that... So much for the 'positives'. If we are giving a brutally honest assessment, positives were scarce. It made for extremely worrying viewing as a City fan. 

I spent the walk home contemplating whether - following the conclusion of my 5-game restriction on managerial judgement - I had one foot in the 'Hughton out' camp, or whether I was continuing to hold on to hope that improvements will come. I conclude that lessons need to be learnt, fast, but we should stick by Hughton for now. There was a noticeable improvement in our football, a willingness to make changes is evident (regardless of what those changes may be), and these players have come to play for Hughton - stability is a factor that holds much importance in football yet is often ignored when times are bleak. Next Sunday, however, we play Stoke away. Another loss and a continued drought in front of goal would leave us on four points from six average league games, and only three goals to show for over 25 million pounds worth of talent. Such a scenario would leave it difficult for even the most faithful of Hughton supporters to make a case. For now, lets hope it doesn't come to that. Straight back to the training ground, lads.

Value for Money.

Not since Darren Huckerby have we had a player who brings such excitement with his willingness to run at the opposition with pace and skill. The thing is, he's only nineteen. What a talent Nathan Redmond is, and he showed that yesterday not only in his match-winning moment of brilliance, but in his all-round performance and every aspect of his game. Arguably at fault for Everton's second on the season's opener due to a lack of defensive duty; criticised against Hull for poor decision-making, an absence of creativity and missing an end-product;  yesterday he showed both in abundance. £3.2 million, in whatever instalments they may be, is an unbelievable bargain. I can't see us holding on to him for too many years at this rate, but the boy has immeasurable potential and to get him at such a price could well turn out to be the cause of a very tidy profit in the future - though, for now, let's hope it doesn't come to that.

On a similar note, we've picked up another steal in Leroy Fer. To clear up my point from last week, Fer is by no means an attacking midfielder. A wasted talent pushed too far up the park, Fer is noticeably at his best when breaking up play, pushing forward from deep and providing a link to the attack. Amongst his many attributes, his tackling is sublime. Not only does he win the ball forcefully yet cleanly, he has this fantastic knack of curling the ball round his foot as he puts in a challenge, changing the direction of the ball completely, and regaining possession. I can't see Fer becoming anything less than an asset for us in the centre of the park. I still think there's more to come from him, though, as he gets used to English football and the players around him. I sense his attacking game will become more prominent once he gets into his stride, creating opportunities through the middle and making us far less one-dimensional as a team.

At the other end of the scale sits a long-haired Argentine striker costing fifteen million pounds, yet replicating a free transfer from the Championship struggling to make the step-up following his chance in the big-time. After the overwhelming disappointment Gaston Ramirez proved to be this time last year, who coincidentally wasn't even considered good enough to start, you'd think Southampton would have become more financially astute. It would appear not. The Saint's latest recruit was a cause for concern at the start of the game, but by the time he was subbed off, most of us had forgotten he was even playing. I would rather have five Nathan Redmond's, thank you very much. Southampton rarely threatened, distinctly lacking the quality they supposedly have at their disposal to unlock what was a superb defensive display from our entire back-line. Even without mention of our own performance, it gave me confidence to see a team like Southampton failing to cause any real danger - something that we ourselves have been concerned with. I'd rather be in our position than their's, that much is for sure - happily contemplating the money we've saved on quality additions, as opposed to staring into an empty wallet following the arrivals of two or three over-priced ego's.

Whilst we continued to fall short of a substantial attacking force in the final-third, the same cannot be said for our defensive set up. it takes a considerably solid back-four to force Norfolk's very own Cafu out of the team, yet his exclusion was completely justified. Whittaker appears to have finally put his injury problems behind him (touch wood) to become first-choice right-back. Not only has he become part of an extremely reliable defensive unit, his technique with the ball at his feet, and his willingness to make overlapping runs and create a further option down the wing, leaves defences exposed and provides a necessary threat on the attack. Ironically, he's far more like 'Cafu' than self-proclaimed centre-back Russell Martin is - but it is a great nickname, so he can keep it. In Michael Turner we have a highly reliable Premier League centre-back who evidently holds great respect amongst the squad on the pitch. Such respect gives the team confidence, and such confidence makes Turner the quality centre-back he is. Alongside Bassong, the rock in defence, they make quite simply the most talented centre-back pairing I've ever seen at the club. I criticised Garrido last week, but his contribution on Saturday was superb. He seems to have developed a strong understanding down the left with Redmond - the pair making the most passes between them than any other two players on the pitch. Olssen, not even included in the matchday squad following a strong midweek outing against Bury, is a reflection of our strength-in-depth, and certainly not Olssen's inadequacy.

The attacking side of our game, however, continues to require improvement. We absolutely cannot place too much reliance on a nineteen year-old - which is exactly what yesterday exposed. Snodgrass was again, awful. No conviction, wrong decisions, poor final-ball. However, with Snodgrass you have a player whose lack of pace needs to be made up by every last ounce of fitness he can get - without this, he's half the player we know he can be. The international break probably comes at a good time for Snodgrass, and providing he can prevent any setbacks, he should return the more creative and threatening right-winger that a fully fit Robert Snodgrass is, subsequently reducing the burden on Redmond. The international break will also provide a recovery period for Hooper, who should finally be fit again following two weeks of training. Another player who will provide attacking ammunition, another reason for optimism.

Okay, I ask for calmness whilst reading the horrendous concern I'm about to voice. A criticism that nobody dare speak of before. Ricky van Wolfswinkel. Following the first game of the season, I noted that for much of the time RVW will be a passenger, with little involvement in the game. Well, whilst that is certainly true, it is actually worryingly so. His contribution to the team is minimal at best, and I'm beginning to see that unless the Wolf gets a credible chance on goal, he will literally have no influence on the game. For a team struggling to create many clear-cut chances, it's definitely a concern. I hope once the team begins to come together, players get fit, understandings are developed and our attacking impetus improves - we'll see more of our record signing. No, of course we will, how can I even exercise the thought otherwise...

And so we go into the international break on a much-needed win, full of confidence, and with extensive reasons to be optimistic. A squad already compiled with strength-in-depth that is only likely to improve, and a league full of squads that look more prone to struggle than ourselves. The blindingly-unnecessary panic of last week has since been forgotten, I presume.