westcoastcanary

Lord Eddard Stark wrote:------------------------Rudd---------------------- --Whitaker----Martin-----Bassong---Olsson-- ------------Dorrans--------Mulumbu------------ ------Redmond-----Hoolahan--------Brady---- -----------------------Jerome--------------------- If AN hasn''t learnt by now that playing both Redmond and Hoolahan is a recipe for losing games irrespective of who else he selects then we and he are goners. Redmond''s defensive value is zero and there''s no point in playing Hoolahan for anything but his creativity in advanced positions. Apart from that, why wouldn''t he want another look at Wisdom and Bennett (who played in the last cup match), and why not take the opportunity to see how Jarvis performs on the right? Hence:-----------------------Rudd----------------------- --Wisdom-----Bennett-----Bassong------Olsson-- ------------Dorrans----------Mulumbu------------ ----Jarvis-----------Hoolahan-----------Brady---- ----------------------Jerome-----------------------

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]They concede 5 goals again, and their fans applaud them off, can''t imagine some on here doing that.[/quote]On here Lessingham? You mean you can imagine the Carrow Road "faithful" doing it? How nice to think that all that boo-ing during Hughton''s time was really a form of applause ........[;)]

[quote user="lappinitup"]It''s exactly the same with free kicks. Come to think of it, why is the opposition always better than us at goal kicks and throw-ins?And don''t even get me bloody started about kick-offs, we''ve been useless at them for years. [:@][/quote]More to the point, why do some posters think ridicule is a constructive contribution to a football forum?

Not just 36 corners but 36 corners with virtually zero variation. Since we conjure up very little threat from headers direct from a corner, surely we need to be more imaginative. And since we consequently overload the penalty box in the (faint) hope of picking up second ball, we leave ourselves open to destructive counter-attack when the ball is decisively cleared to waiting opponents. We should use corners as ways of keeping possession and mounting secondary assaults.

@Iwan''s Big ToeIt is easy enough to say there were defenders available who would have been a cut above our existing ones, but who exactly? And even if you can name some, there is still the issue of whether we would have been an attractive proposition for them. Bournemouth, facing a similar problem, ended up signing Distin, of undoubtedly quality but over the hill. On Saturday Spurs put 5 past them with Distin playing.There''s absolutely no point in bemoaning real or imaginary might have beens. There are 10 games to be played between now and January 2nd and the pressing issue is what needs to be done to start winning or at least drawing games. The other teams have sussed us out, so AN has to change things, and just substituting X for Y while playing the same way is not the answer. We all seem to agree with Broadstairs about that.I do think AN made matters worse on Saturday. The Martin/Bennett combination was IMO less effective overall (i.e both offensively and defensively) than the Whittaker/Martin combination, and Albion were simply able to exploit the same space behind Redmond which has been highlighted time and again, match after match. I say the space behind Redmond, but Redmond spent most of his time elsewhere anyway (look at his heatmap), as a result of which Brunt was able to run up and down behind Maclean at will (again, look at his heatmap). No wonder Martin was exposed, and he didn''t even have the benefit of himself playing at RCB to help him out. It''s no good saying (as AN did afterwards) that crosses have to be stopped coming into the box, while not deploying sufficient resources to do it; nor is it any good saying defenders have to get their heads on balls that a confident keeper of Ruddy''s stature should be able to punch away. Ruddy leaves far too much to his defenders that he should be dealing with himself.

Forget January; the idea that we can get in that window what we couldn''t get in the summer is wishful thinking. I agree broadly with what you are saying, but the defensive frailties have been in evidence from the first game and lack of quality in the back four are far from being the principle reason. More relevant are Ruddy''s weakness behind them, and lack of awareness by too many in front of them (fuelled by too much emphasis on attacking over defending). The most worrying thing is that AN hasn''t yet shown any readiness to adjust, or even acknowledged the real problem. His response to the Newcastle defeat was IMO completely misguided and if anything made matters worse.

Ray wrote: "When will some people on here get it, if we''re going to play with full backs pushing on we need the midfield to play their part, who between all 5 of them made a grand total of 5, yes five, one each, interceptions or tackles yesterday."When will some people on here get it? I think you know the answer Ray! [:''(]

[quote user="Vanwink"]He will be judged on his results, no more no less. You can''t have a strategy based on a long term vision and ignore what happens day to day.[/quote]Well, actually you CAN as long as what happens day to day is consistent with your long term vision. But you can''t if you let your club be run by the fans, because the majority are incapable of taking the longer term view.

So the full backs have paid the price for last Sunday when, as Lawro rightly said, the entire team was "all over the place defensively". IMO Redmond is a lucky boy and, like LDC, I hope there''s some of that luck to spare this afternoon.

                        Rudd Whittaker -- Martin -- Bassong -- Brady                  Tettey -- Dorrans      Howson -- Hoolahan -- Jarvis                       Mbokani

It will also be intriguing when Mulumbu comes back into the side, not just a massive influence in himself but also used to playing with Mbokani for DR Congo.

Holtcanshoot wrote: "I did feel he had a penchant to drop back behind our attacking midfield 3 during the game last week which left us a bit out of shape when he was the lone striker as well as drifting out to the wings when he needed to be in the centre of the park. A few times he crossed the ball in and due to Howson''s magical ability to be in the wrong place at all times there was no one in the middle to get on the end of it."His greater range of movement creates more opportunities for our wide midfielders to attack the penalty area (as Brady and Redmond did time and again on Sunday) and, in dropping deeper, adds to the overload on the opposition midfield. Against Newcastle Mbokani had 43 touches, which is almost 50% more than Jerome averages, indicating how much more involvement Mbokani has over and above pulling the opposition defence about with running. (By full time against Leicester, coming on as a sub, he had already had half as many touches as Jerome had in the whole game.) Judging by Sunday his team mates are understandably still adapting to playing with him, but there''s no doubt he adds something exciting and different.

........ and just to complete that line of thought, I would therefore start Redmond on the bench ........

[quote user="Red Rufus"]Yes, I think Wes needs to be sacrificed so we can play 2 up top.[/quote]On the contrary, I''d like to see Wes and Mbokani together, from the start. Mbokani is clearly a great deal more than just an energetic physical presence allied to better finishing than CJ.  He is, as I see it, a cut above our other strikers, very intelligent and with a greater richness to his game. He needs intelligent players round him.

Oops! That should have been "rein" not "reign". NR is still someway off being crowned King of Carrow Road.

[quote user="rock bus"]My first thought on reading Parma''s last post is that the very simple answer is we need a right back of the quality of Drury!! I am not anti Whittaker like many of here and, indeed, I think he is very good going forward. Unfortunately, he is not defensively strong enough or maybe disciplined enough to play behind Redmond. I don''t want us to try and restrict Redmond and get him to focus on being more defensive. Instead he should enjoy the freedom Huckerby had to express himself and play to his strengths. Unless either Martin or Wisdom can become this teams "Drury" the problem wont be solved until January, which I''m worried could be too late.[/quote]Who wouldn''t love another Drury! But NB the other crucial bit in Drury''s reported comment: "we covered his [Huckerby''s] spaces". I don''t imagine any of us would say that currently (whatever may be the case in the future), the cost/benefit analysis of giving Redmond free reign is anywhere near the same as the equivalent calculation for Hucks.

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"][quote user="westcoastcanary"]Cambridge Yellow wrote: "So we''re now relying on what transfermarkt tells us. Deary me"Transfermarkt is only summarising the collective selection decisions of the various managers under whom a player has played. Not a matter of "relying" on it, just a counter-weight to summary dismissal of the suggestion that a player is actually more versatile than people allow. Do you want to poo poo transfermarkt''s summary of Brady''s positional history as well?[/quote] We know Brady can play at full back and left wing. We''ve seen him do it for Ireland, Hull and now Norwich. I''m just asking you to use some common sense rather than relying on a computer database. Jarvis is quite a similar player to Robert Snodgrass in that he loves cutting in his stronger foot to either shoot or cross. By putting him on the right flank you''re totally negating his ability to do that. There''s a reason that a host of managers have only seen fit to give Jarvis a tiny handful of games and that side. That is why.[/quote]Negating Jarvis''s ability by putting him on the right flank? You seem to have conveniently forgotten his goal against Bournemouth. He is two footed, comfortable on either wing, and his own description of himself is neutral, i.e. "a winger". As for Redmond, the option of playing him centrally behind a lone striker is obviously better known to his club and international managers than yourself. In the case of both players, there are reasons other than simply ability for their having played more often in their "usual" positions.

Cambridge Yellow wrote: "So we''re now relying on what transfermarkt tells us. Deary me"Transfermarkt is only summarising the collective selection decisions of the various managers under whom a player has played. Not a matter of "relying" on it, just a counter-weight to summary dismissal of the suggestion that a player is actually more versatile than people allow. Do you want to poo poo transfermarkt''s summary of Brady''s positional history as well?

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]To be fair, I don''t even live in Cambridge anymore (wasn''t intelligent enough and didn''t make the cut). So a new username is required.[/quote][Y]  OK, back to the debate. Re. your comment about "crowbarring players out of position", I think a crowbar is needed when people''s ideas are set in concrete, in this case ideas about where players can play. If you look at, for example, transfermarkt, Jarvis''s main position is given as left wing, but his "side" positions (= secondary positions) include right wing. Likewise, Redmond''s main position is given as right wing, with central attacking midfield secondary. (In Jarvis''s case, the dearth of left sided players has almost certainly also been a factor in his becoming cast as a left winger.) You may argue that in both cases their "main" position is their best position, and/or that playing in their main position is in fact best from the team point of view, but in neither case does it seem to me outrageous to consider making different use of them. Just to add to that, I have never suggested playing Redmond in the 10 role. That was (as I recall) simply ONE of Parma''s suggestions about to how the cost/benefit outcome of having Redmond in the team might be improved. I have no view about Redmond in that role, but I do agree with Parma that you have to weigh the costs of his inclusion against the benefits. And, incidentally, AN clearly thinks so too since Redmond is by no means certain to start.

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]I don''t think I''m misunderstanding you at all, West Coast. I just think what you and Parma are both doing is using a vague and pseudointellectual language and dressing it up as footballing analysis to be honest.[/quote][:P]  Cambridge is full of pseudo-intellectuals. I always try to talk to the natives in their own language.

@Cambridge YellowLet me make clear that I speak only for myself; whether, or to what extent if at all, Parma would agree I''ve no idea. As far as I understand his Masterclass 9 and subsequent posts, he has mainly been gently educating the rest of us in the finer points of what AN himself is trying to do.With respect, I think you misunderstand me. I''m not primarily concerned with who plays wide right (though I do think Howson or Jarvis offer more security than Redmond). As I see it, tinkering with the personnel offers no more than marginal improvement, which I why I call our frailty "structural" (which again is not necessarily what Parma means when he uses the term). What I''m most concerned about is over-commitment of resources to attack at the expense of prudent defensive precaution. I was expecting you to come back and ask me what, in more specific terms, I would like to see. The answer is the one you and Jim have both now given, namely pairing Mulumbu and Tettey in defensive midfield.

[quote user="ron obvious"]Being even more clutchier ... Perhaps it was a good thing? If we''d got the breaks it would''ve papered over the cracks. As somebody else here pointed out, you can learn a lot more from a defeat than a victory. So rather now than later (perhaps) & i reckon SAN''s a quick learner.[/quote]How come you reckon SAN''s "a quick learner" when the same weakness manifests itself game after game and isn''t addressed?

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]So basically you are saying that our wingers can''t cross the halfway line in case they leave the fullback all alone? That is madness.[/quote]No, of course I''m not saying that. I''m talking about the need for another midfield player to react defensively to what the flank players are doing. As I keep saying, our frailty is largely due to over-commitment, i.e. too many players focussed at one time only on attack and neglectful of the undefended space behind them.

Cambridge Yellow wrote: "Ultimately, Alex Neil hit the nail on the head in his post match interview. you can''t ask players to be in two parts of the pitch at once. If you want them to go forward and create there is a possibility that they will be caught up the pitch if the ball is turned over. No matter how tactically clued up you are. As he also alluded to, what is then required is that you must have defenders who are capable and competent enough to defend in one versus one situations when the ball is turned over."I didn''t hear that interview but if that is an accurate account of his thinking then we are in trouble. Of course players can''t be in two parts of the pitch at once, but if a player vacates "his" part of the pitch then another player needs to cover for him. Over-committing means there''s no-one to do that.As for defending one-on-one, that''s last ditch stuff. You may be reduced to it by good opposition play, but to adopt a strategy which routinely exposes you to last ditch defending is, as far as I''m concerned, madness.

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]I am not convinced that''s a satisfactory answer. Howson gave the ball away twice in bad areas against Leicester and was punished on both occasions. We lost the game as a result. Ultimately, it goes to show that whoever you play there you will be vulnerable to the counter attack when you lose the ball high up the pitch. Howson offers much less going forward than Redmond in the equation you have just offered me. I therefore do not see how playing Howson there is preferable, as using your example we''re just reducing out attacking threat further whilst still being open to a counter attack. You are weighting the equation further against yourself -to use your analogy.[/quote]While it''s true that Howson made errors against Leicester, IMO he is certainly better equipped than Redmond to address the structural weakness that Parma identifies. Even so, he wasn''t Parma''s own preferred option to play wide right against Leicester. If I remember correctly, his suggested team paired Jarvis in front of Whittaker on the right flank because of Jarvis''s better appreciation of the defensive duties required of him and understanding of the needs of the specific moment.What I also take from Parma''s analysis is that the incessant Whittaker and Martin bashing really misses the point. Even if we were to have "upgrades" in those two positions, or play Wisdom or Martin at RB and Bennett at CB as is being suggested, the structural weakness that is the real cause of the problem will remain. The solution to that lies, not with the back 4, but ahead of it. That''s the issue we should be focussing on.