One Substitution - a Lot of Lost Faith

70 minutes on the clock. 0-0 at home against a newly-promoted side facing turmoil behind the scenes after the Chief Scout was let go and replaced by an unknown work experience kid. What followed was the most bewildering substitution of Hughton's tenure so far - and there have been some mystifying ones, that's for sure. Gary Hooper had been putting himself about, working for the team, making some testing runs in behind the defence, and appearing an increasingly potent threat. When Hooper's number is read out, the only expectation can be that Hughton is swapping like-for-like with van Wolfswinkel, surely? To stick to one up top with 20 minutes to go, and for that one to be Johan Elmander, was incomprehensible. In his post-match interview, Hughton argued van Wolfswinkel was lacking fitness. Lacking the fitness to play 20 minutes of football? If a football player is incapable of lasting 20 minutes on the football pitch, and you have no intention of giving him that kind of game-time if required, you simply don't have him on the bench. A lack of fitness is by no means an excuse for such an inexplicable substitution.

Half-time had left me worrying. Norwich were playing well, had the majority of possession and saw lots of the ball in attacking positions - yet we were still being held 0-0, at home, to Cardiff. An inability to score has grown from a minor burden to a major concern resulting in regularly dropped points. Hooper, who I was actually impressed with today, was unlucky with an excellent instinctive effort from outside the box that Marshall managed to reach with his fist; Leroy Fer was unlucky when he turned a corner back towards the goal, only to be cleared at the far post; and I'm still scratching my head as to how that goalmouth scramble ended up in Marshall's grasp rather than in the back of the net. Nonetheless, it remained evident we were going to struggle to score.

There's something I can't get my head round regarding Hughton's set-up. Arsenal away and Cardiff at home are too very, very different challenges. So why have we gone out with the same formation and the same team for both occasions? The only real reason for doing so would be if we'd have managed to get a result in the Arsenal game, seeing as you 'don't change a winning team'... We had lost 4-1. I understand Hughton doesn't want to break up the midfield three, but why not play with a forward three, as the likes of Arsenal, Aston Villa and even England do - turning the 'wingers' into 'inside forwards'. This would allow a more attacking shape whilst giving Hughton the capability of accommodating any of his attacking players into any of those forward roles. I'm not going to attempt to claim I have studied tactics or tested positions in training, as I'm sure Hughton has - but what I am saying is there should without doubt be a distinctive change of set-up between the two evidently dissimilar matches, whatever that change may be.

My criticism of Snodgrass this season has been extremely open, and increasingly regular. Today started off with much of the same, marked by corners failing to bypass the first defender and a golden opportunity to score that he's scissor-kicked wide. However, once Fer had turned one of his deliveries towards the opposite corner of the goal - Snodgrass began to perform. The scot ended the half having delivered some good quality set-pieces into the area, which was good to see, and having successfully turned the left-back inside-out on a couple of occasions. As I have maintained, I would have had Snodgrass dropped over the last couple of games - simply to give him some motivation to work his way back into the side and perform to the standard we all know he can. Having said that, today I would have had him in the side - with Cardiff presenting an opportunity to perform at Carrow Road against a 'lesser' opposition, with the possibility of a confidence boost following an encouraging display. Hopefully Snodgrass can build on this in the coming games, because one thing is certain, Hughton isn't dropping him. If he ever was going to, he would have done so by now.

A further concern comes with the exclusion of Nathan Redmond. Rested following an injury, Redmond has since only been introduced from the bench, producing more effectiveness during his cameo appearances than most of those that have featured from the start. I can't understand how Redmond hasn't made his way back into the first 11. Yes, there is the argument that he's young and playing him too much could actually have a negative effect on his development - but this is a player who hasn't started the last three Premier League fixtures. It's not like he's been ever-present in the side and needing a rest and some weight off his shoulders. Pilkington drifted in and out of the game, as he often does, producing some positive spells but equally going missing at times. If you have to pick two from the three, Redmond would be the first choice for me. Hands down, on either side.

After a reasonably positive first half display at least, I expected Norwich to push on in the second - to build on the lengthy spells of possession we had earned. Instead, I bared witness to a dire second half of football. The game was heading for a no-score draw long before the referee blew his whistle, which was exceedingly frustrating, seeing as Cardiff had so little to offer and were there for the taking. Without question, that was two points dropped. A point was simply not good enough.

What frustrated me more than anything today, mind, was our fans. I'm not one to boo players or a manager whilst the game is still in-play unless things are exceptionally bad, so despite my despair at the substitution that saw Elmander take up his lone-striker role, I did not join in with the 'you don't know what you're doing' chants aimed at Hughton. What was worse though, in my opinion, were the section that responded with a chorus of 'who the f*** do you support?' These fans have paid their money, and bother to turn up week-in week-out. So when such a questionable event happens - they actually have a right to voice their anger in my opinion, however wrong their opinions may be. To question their loyalty, however, was farcical. Not only did it do nothing to help the actual cause they were claiming to uniquely support (the team), it also presented the impression that we as a collective were content with what was being produced on the pitch. We weren't, and we shouldn't be. If one reflection of negativity was wrong, the other was ludicrous.

I asked many in attendance before the game whether they expected Hughton would be shown the door should we lose today. The answer was a unanimous yes, myself included in that judgement. That was not to judge Hughton on the last two games. In fact, I saw Chelsea as one of our best performances this season, unlucky not to come away with a point against one of the title challengers. Arsenal blew us away once we threatened to cause a scare through Howson's strike, but there was no expectation on Norwich and Hughton in that game. That judgement is based on the series of performances so far this season that has only resulted in two 1-0 victories and 6 goals, combined with the relegation-form we produced in the second half of last season. A loss to a lacklustre Cardiff side would most probably have made Hughton's exit a foregone conclusion, giving little to defend for a manager who is undoubtedly an excellent ambassador for the football club, but whose support is diminishing with each passing game. A 0-0 draw, on the other hand, reflects a result and performance that was bad enough to increase pressure and criticism towards Hughton, but not quite enough to force action to be taken, I imagine. Unfortunately, that leaves Hughton with the less-than-easy task of taking his Norwich side to Manchester City in hope of regaining some faith. I must admit, I have very little remaining.

Two Very Different Manners of Defeat

Mourinho claims the day he goes home from a defeat happy, will be the day he is finished with football. That may be the case for a club that can afford £30 million on a substitute, but for us Norwich fans, we should be content with a performance that made a real account of ourselves against a Chelsea squad full of talent. When we lost to Tottenham a few weeks back, our fans proclaimed they didn't mind the fact we had lost, it was the manner in which we lost that was unacceptable. We offered nothing - it was as if defeat was inevitable before the game had kicked off. Today we lost by the same margin, but the difference in reception at the final whistle was clear for all to see. Rightfully so, our team were applauded off the field following a performance that deserved some reward. A performance that Hughton can be very proud of, for his team went all-out for it. 1-1 wasn't good enough. Make no mistake about it, he was after the three points.

Questions again could be asked at the start as to why Hooper was yet again left out following a string of insignificant performances from our record signing. It was debated whether there was significant reason to alter a side that had secured victory only a week earlier. Quite simply, yes, you can. A winning side is only a winning side when the individuals within that team have been effective in achieving the win. In my opinion, neither Snodgrass nor van Wolfswinkel had shown enough. Secondly, the 'winning side' had already been broken with the introduction of Bassong into a back four that had performed remarkably away at Stoke. Bassong was brought back simply because the individual benefits the team, of that there is no doubt. Therefore, what changes with the offensive players? Nothing. It would have been perfectly reasonable to drop either Snodgrass or RVW on the basis that neither had done enough to secure a start. Win or no win.

However, van Wolfswinkel deserves his praise for today. Often ineffective upfront on his own, today he caused some problems and, of course, played a pivotal role in a well-deserved goal. Ollson's fantastic cross had given the Dutchman two options. One, test the keeper - power a header at goal when a potential opportunity comes to end an ongoing goal drought. Second, nod the ball across goal for somebody else to take an easier chance, and indeed the plaudits. For a striker desperate for a goal to take the latter option is exceptional professionalism. There is no doubting RVW's first-class attitude. It's his ability to continue his scoring prowess in the English game that we all hope materialises. For today, a job very well done, and hopefully a confidence booster for a player that deserves a break. 

In Snodgrass, you have a player of whom it is becoming tiresome to criticise every week. Not because its unjust, but because I don't know how much longer he can continue to hold down his place. Once again, his effectiveness from dead ball situations was non-existent, almost every time. I'm not sure why he's continuously allocated the role of set-piece taker. Admittedly, Redmond wouldn't have been fit to start this week, but Hughton surely cannot be happy with the performances of his trusted right-winger. I was happy to see him substituted today, and I hope to see Redmond and Pilkington given the nod in the coming weeks. Pilkington started off slowly, getting knocked off the ball a few times, but really came into the game later on and deserved his goal. As for Redmond, well, his first opportunity to attack proved to be more effective than anything Snodgrass had done previous, forcing a strong save from Cech.

The midfield three of Tettey, Howson and Fer have rightfully earned considerable praise. Fer is a class act in just about everything he does. So comfortable on the ball and physical without it, we have a midfielder of real ability here. Yet again a worthy contender of man of the match. As for Howson, where has his strength come from? The seemingly lightweight midfielder proved a difficult challenge for a physically capable Chelsea side on numerous occasions. It has been a delight to see him coming out of his shell in the last few weeks alongside Fer, and long may it continue. When Fer and Howson play ahead of the more defensive Tettey, it allows both to push forward, and we have began to really see the effects. I feel sorry for Tettey today. Effectively, his under-hit back-pass has lost us the game, but prior to that incident he had put in a fantastic shift - breaking up play and supporting the back four. When he sits deep, the chances of his usually-common mistakes are limited. However, that's the downfall, Tettey always has a poor pass or a wayward header that presents a consistent burden to his game. We shouldn't point the finger at Tettey, though. He has earned his place and if he can cut out all-too-regular issues with his distribution, we have a very capable midfield trio that offers both attacking positivity and defensive support.

Olsson was man of the match for me, though. What a player he can be. First half, he was our biggest threat down the flanks. Ollson's trademark is the ability to cross whilst still on the run, a dying art in the modern game. Not only that, his crossing is excellent, as shown with our goal and many times before that. Defensively, his pace makes up for an attacking mind, as could be seen with the way he dealt with a nimble Chelsea attack whilst consistently providing an attacking threat himself. Long may Olsson's quality be allowed to flourish - I just wish it was a week earlier, back when we were facing Villa at home.

A shaky start allowed Ba to cause far too many problems in our defence, which has cost us dearly. Against top sides, you cannot afford such early lapses in concentration. It was worrying to see Bassong unusually dominated by Ba's physical presence. Joe Hart's recent criticism has also provided a potential burden on Ruddy, as talk increases of the need for a new number one for England. As Hart's current understudy, I think Ruddy has felt the pressure, leading to a few shaky moments - one in which allowed Chelsea to regain the lead. You can't look too much into Ruddy's few mistakes, especially when a couple of top class saves, most notably from Ba, have kept us in the game. As annoying as it is that Ruddy is overlooked for the national side - whilst Hart's performances continue to falter as a result of consistently overbearing criticism, I welcome the absence of such pressure in Ruddy's direction from an increasingly over-expectant nation.

Next we play Arsenal away, at the worst possible time. The main dilemma Hughton has for me is whether to go with Hooper or stick with van Wolfswinkel. RVW has arguably earnt his place, but having found goals so hard to come by, it's ultimately unlikely for him to find the net against the league's 'in form' side. In which case, do you go with Hooper, a relatively unknown-quantity at this level? He won't go for both, and rightfully so with such a difficult fixture, but for this week I can see justifications for whichever of the two he opts for. As for the performance, more of the same will do very nicely, and will give those amongst us still forcefully debating Hughton's managerial ability little room for criticism.