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.

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.

False Alarm. Do Not Panic...

From what was a quite diabolical performance against an already-woeful Hull side, weakened further by a first-half dismissal, one thing is sure: 'HUGHTON OUT'... is an excessive overreaction that would bring absolutely no benefit to a squad now entirely his own. Saturday was an embarrassment, a display that made a team consisting largely of championship talent look like a tough Premier League outfit - when in reality they simply shouldn't have enough to survive. Though following a few days of reflection, alarm bells need not start ringing.

Now I have often been a regular critic of Hughton's perceived negativity - however his in-game management on Saturday showed an attempt to alter the game in ways we have been crying out for since he took over last summer. Yes, his team selection and tactics to start off were questionable at very best. Starting with four central midfielders against a team like Hull gave the impression that we had come to the KC expecting to defend a regular Hull onslaught, when we should have been looking to show just what the last two years of Premier League football had put between us. Even the consideration of playing Howson wide-right was farcical, but to actually implement it - I can't even begin to contemplate how Hughton came to such a decision. For the entire first-half, we played without a right-midfielder - for Howson, naturally, kept moving to a central position. It was left up to Whittaker to cover the entire right-side.

Thankfully, Hughton recognised his mistake (or the tone of this post would have been considerably worse, for sure). On came an actual winger in Robert Snodgrass, who was visibly lacking match-fitness, and his performance suffered accordingly. Yes, this showed starting with Snodgrass would not have been plausible, but there was no excuse for not selecting Olssen - who could have filled in on the left - with Remond moving across to the right. The next clear fault, for me, was playing Fer as an attacking midfielder. Excluding one close header, Fer was largely irrelevant first-half. Seeing little of the ball and providing limited influence, it appeared obvious Fer needed to drop deeper to get on the ball more frequently, push forward with the ball, and provide a link to the attack - which is exactly what happened once Hoolahan was introduced. Fer, consequently, became much more involved. Finally, Hughton has been widely criticised for his complete refusal to play two up-front. So when Elmander came on to provide support for RVW - little could we complain.

On a very worrying note, Alexander Tettey has become a shadow of the promising deep midfielder we signed from Rennes one year ago. His performance on Saturday was, quite frankly, appalling. His passing was wayward, his touch inconsistent, and when the ball fell kindly from van Wolfswinkel's knock-down - his shooting was hopeless. It was a relief to see him leave the field, and I seriously hope he is dropped for Southampton. With Fer more effective in a deeper role, and Howson showing glimpses of quality when he was moved into the centre - I can't see Tettey retaining his place.

The concerns that we significantly lacked creativity are certainly not false. There was no cutting edge whatsoever, and had we have played for another half an hour - I still don't think we would have found a goal. Yet, there are substantial indications that things can, and will, improve. First off, is Snodgrass. Arguably our most creative player of last season, the Scot's return to fitness should coincide with a more consistent supply of chances. Secondly, once tactical mistakes were rectified, both Fer and Howson were far more effective, with the latter unlucky not to score on a couple of occasions. Add to that the return of Pilkington and the eventual introduction of Hooper, alongside the willingness of Redmond to run at the opposition and look for openings, there are plenty of reasons to remain optimistic.

Seeing the introductions of Snodgrass, Elmander and Hoolahan on Saturday was refreshing. Not only because they were all attack-minded substitutions, or because they were brought on in plenty of time to make an impact - but more for the reflection those three have on how far we've come in the past year. This time last season, Chris Martin and Steve Morison were the only used substitutes in a 1-1 draw at home to QPR. The talent now at Hughton's disposal has improved massively, which is reflected in an increased willingness to make changes, and fully utilise a squad that he now holds far more confidence in.

The new players have been brought in by the manager, and they have joined to play for the manager. These are extremely talented players, and any rush to get rid of Hughton would have a significantly adverse effect on their development as Norwich City players. Five games should be the minimum before any consideration of Hughton's future is taken. We have a strong squad here, one that will improve, and will get results. So for now, let's just let them do their job, shall we?

Crisis Control: Check.

An eagerly anticipated wait to see our new-look side take shape for the new season became something of a disappointment when only two new faces joined the familiar pool of players from last year. A starting 11 that on paper appeared underwhelming, weak, lacking of real quality was met with an obvious loss of optimism amongst us all. 5 players, all of whom you would expect to be starting games, and most key players at that, all noticeable absentees. With Fer banned and Bassong missing virtually the entirety of pre-season, we could have done without further injury problems - but Pilkington, Hooper and Snodgrass (out of nowhere) were ruled out leaving a rather threadbare squad that required the likes of Butterfield to be on the bench.

Which is why it would have been unfair to jump to any conclusions regarding Hughton, tactics, the squad and our chances this season on the back of the Everton game. A loss would have set off alarms that ultimately would have been unnecessary. If Everton were to be missing Jagielka, Pienaar, Fellaini, Mirallas and Jelavic (the equivalent losses in terms of importance to the squad) would they have been able to pull off a result? Possibly not. The fact that Hughton and the team he put out gave an extremely strong Everton side a tough contest is a testament to his management and deserves real credit. We didn't look impressive, nor did we look dangerous, but we certainly didn't deserve to lose. With hopefully more additions to come, it gives me great confidence in our squad depth and our ability to deal with considerable injury setbacks during the season ahead.

However the main talking point from the game, and rightfully so, is the frightening talent of Ross Barkley. Only thrown into the side because of an injury to Darron Gibson, the under-21 international has everything. Pace, strength, confidence and technical ability, Barkley has an abundance of potential. The best player on the pitch yesterday, I fail to understand how Tom Cleverley can be rated higher than Everton's new boy-wonder. Admittedly, Cleverley has played more games, but if Barkley can keep up performances of yesterday's standard - he'll be knocking on Hodgson's door just in time for the World Cup.

As one youngster grabbed the headlines, his England under-21 international team-mate Nathan Redmond looked a class above the rest of our midfield - and he's only 19. Quick feet, passing ability and unafraid to run at the opposition - Redmond is only going to get better. At £2.5 (possibly rising to £3.2) million, he's an absolute steal. His performance was recognised with the Man of the Match award, though I would argue Steven Whittaker deserved that accolade - just. A fantastic goal, an assist, a regular threat pushing forward from right-back and a comfortable defensive display. When we signed Whittaker a Celtic fan told me he wouldn't cut it in the Prem. Sorry mate, but you were wrong. If he can steer clear from injuries, Whittaker is a class act.

Howson, on the other hand, is one of the most frustrating footballers I've ever seen. Undoubtedly has ability, but the quality we saw against West Brom and Man City at the end of last season is far too irregular. Constantly finding himself in good positions to push forward and attack - Howson lacked the decisiveness to make anything count, and was wasteful in possession. The same goes for Hoolahan, nothing went right for Wes first half. The problem is Wes is a great option but only when he's exactly that - an option. He can't be the only player capable of playing 'in the hole' week in, week out. He needs to be used in the games he can shine in, and not those where he will just be a passenger.

Back to the positives, though, and Elliot Bennett appears to have worked on his strength over the summer. He looks far less lightweight than the Elliot Bennett of the last two years. Bradley Johnson continues to be criticised for his lack of quality on the ball, but off it he's exactly what we need in the centre of the park. Our fans are too quick to overlook what the inclusion of brute force in midfield brings to a Premiership side. More of the same for me please, Bradley. As for Russell Martin, not since Malky Mackay has a player put his body on the line for the club in such a literal sense. How many times have we been rescued from a goal line clearance, or last minute block, from our club captain? Outstanding commitment. Between him, Whittaker, and another strong performance (particularly second half) from Garrido - Hughton has a real selection dilemma in defence with the imminent return of Bassong.

Finally, the importance of 'The Wolf's' first goal in English football cannot be understated. Questions would be asked had he have gone a few games with no return, but our record signing has immediately answered them all. A fantastic header - I get the feeling that should RVW be presented with chances, he will tuck them away. Some games he may appear somewhat passive when service is restricted, but rest assured he'll be making the right movements, opening up space and getting himself into dangerous positions.

Overall, plenty of positives can be taken from yesterday's Desmond. Not much can be said for our team's quality however until we see our strongest-XI taking place. Only then would it be fair to judge. Let's hope for at very least a triple return from the five absentees in time for Hull away next weekend.