Kolin Kob

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Kolin Kob"][quote user="lake district canary"] [quote user="Kolin Kob"]i think one of our strengths last season was that we were constantly changing the way we played and were always unpredictable. that way the opposition never got used to us as a team and we threw a lot of surprises. wes allowed us to do that to a certain extent because a team with wes is so different to a team without him. that said, he doesn''t fit well into every formation. i hope chris hughton picks the team, not the player - and leaves out talented players like wes from time to time in order to keep things fresh.   my one concern about hughton is that he tends to be very loyal to particular players (i have heard!). this is completely alien to the lambert way of doing things, and i feel that we should continue the great lambert tradition of constantly mixing things up with line-up changes and cunning substitutions.[/quote]  Couldn''t disagree more.   Having the confidence in your players to play in a more settled line up will improve on what PL achieved.  He bought good players then did''t have the confidence to play them as they needed to develop a settled style of playing.  While ultimately being successful, PL did on quite afew occasions play strange line ups and formations which appeared to confuse our own team, let alone the opposition.     I''m not knocking him, he did a great job, but I do think that Hughton will show more confidence in the players and they will respond to a more settled way of playing.  [/quote]I think we''ll have to beg to differ on this one! I really think that Paul Lambert''s formation and personnel changes were a huge part of our success last season, and also the reason why we were so exciting to watch.  The players all knew they were in with a shout, and nobody ever had their name written into the team sheet which meant everyone played each game like it was their last The opposition never knew what sort of game we played and we didn''t become predictable, as teams like Blackpool and Hull did due to relying too much on one or two players playing particular roleswho could be taken out of the game There was never any sign that players were unsettled by the changes - I think the opposite; every player knew they were a valued member of a cohesive squad, and morale was kept high as there were no sulkers. If a player was dropped, they knew that it wasn''t the end of their career at the club - someone else was just getting a chance.   The one exception to the rule where the players seemed a bit baffled was the 5-4-1 formation with Morison up front. However, this was only really tried at the end of the season when we were pretty much safe, and this was a work in progress and I was glad Lambert did it as it gives us more options. As it combined with Morison''s shaky patch it did not work as well as it perhaps could do in the future.[/quote] While I appreciate your points,  I still feel that our best matches last season were more due to the attitude than formation.   When the attitude was right the games were right.  The majority of games we had the lesser of possession and/or had to come back from a goal behind.   This is not a good long term strategy and it was only the never say die attitude of the players that got us the points.     So I think that with PL the attitude was the most important factor - and you couldn''t fault him on that (except maybe Sunderland away).   When he got the tactics right as well (Swansea/tott away, Newc home) it was great to watch.    I think with Hughton it will be different and he will play a more settled line up and instill confidence through consistency of formations and line ups.    The attitude will still be good but we need to move on from last season and the constant trying to confuse the opposition.  After all the other teams know who we are now.    [/quote] See what you are saying - attitude was of course key. However, that is part of my point too! It was the positive team-based attitude of everyone in the squad that meant that we were able to change games. There were no players on the subs bench who you were concerned might be playing low on confidence (aside from Morison 2nd half of the season). You could be sure that everyone would come on with a point to prove, and the fact that every player got a game at some point meant that the team spirit (and match sharpness) was kept at a high level. I feel that if we were to start playing a fixed starting XI, we would lose some squad cohesiveness which would then mean we could be picked apart easier when, inevitably, some first choice players get injured. We never had to worrry about that too much under Lambert. While you say this is not a good long-term strategy, this is exactly the philosophy Alex Ferguson uses to choose his team and to keep his squad happy. I''m not saying we''re like Manchester United, but I think our footballing ideal has been the same. I don''t think other teams know who we are. We (fans) have watched all the games, and none of us really have much of an idea of the way in which the team is going to play each match (other than that they will play whole-heartedly), so the opposition probably have less of a clue than we do. Lambert kept the opposition guessing. I hope Hughton keeps them guessing even more.

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Kolin Kob"]i think one of our strengths last season was that we were constantly changing the way we played and were always unpredictable. that way the opposition never got used to us as a team and we threw a lot of surprises. wes allowed us to do that to a certain extent because a team with wes is so different to a team without him. that said, he doesn''t fit well into every formation. i hope chris hughton picks the team, not the player - and leaves out talented players like wes from time to time in order to keep things fresh.my one concern about hughton is that he tends to be very loyal to particular players (i have heard!). this is completely alien to the lambert way of doing things, and i feel that we should continue the great lambert tradition of constantly mixing things up with line-up changes and cunning substitutions.[/quote]  Couldn''t disagree more.   Having the confidence in your players to play in a more settled line up will improve on what PL achieved.  He bought good players then did''t have the confidence to play them as they needed to develop a settled style of playing.  While ultimately being successful, PL did on quite afew occasions play strange line ups and formations which appeared to confuse our own team, let alone the opposition.     I''m not knocking him, he did a great job, but I do think that Hughton will show more confidence in the players and they will respond to a more settled way of playing.    [/quote]I think we''ll have to beg to differ on this one! I really think that Paul Lambert''s formation and personnel changes were a huge part of our success last season, and also the reason why we were so exciting to watch.The players all knew they were in with a shout, and nobody ever had their name written into the team sheet which meant everyone played each game like it was their lastThe opposition never knew what sort of game we played and we didn''t become predictable, as teams like Blackpool and Hull did due to relying too much on one or two players playing particular roleswho could be taken out of the gameThere was never any sign that players were unsettled by the changes - I think the opposite; every player knew they were a valued member of a cohesive squad, and morale was kept high as there were no sulkers. If a player was dropped, they knew that it wasn''t the end of their career at the club - someone else was just getting a chance.The one exception to the rule where the players seemed a bit baffled was the 5-4-1 formation with Morison up front. However, this was only really tried at the end of the season when we were pretty much safe, and this was a work in progress and I was glad Lambert did it as it gives us more options. As it combined with Morison''s shaky patch it did not work as well as it perhaps could do in the future.

[quote user="djdalej"]He''s just a man looking after his family''s interest as we all are. Yes, he gets paid more than most of us can dream about, but thats football. If we all got the chance to double our wages, would we turn it down because we like the accolade our job gets us, No, we pay for our children and our future. So please let us offer Grant the contract he deserves. If he leaves I will be gutted, but as a father I will understand. I will thank him for what he has done and wish him good luck for the future.But life at NCFC will go on with or without him.NCFC forever!![/quote]I still love Grant Holt too. But I do not agree with you on two points1) "Looking after his family''s interest"? No - if he was looking for a pay rise of £20k a year to £25k, THAT would be looking after his family interests. Grant Holt''s family are not going to be destitute without him receiving a pay rise. I hate this concept that everyone (not just footballers) needs to be constantly looking towards getting a bigger pay packet. It''s a big problem for our society, not just football! Using family interests as a reason is just a way of using heart-string-tugging language to justify what is essentially still greed. I do not criticise Grant Holt if he wants more money, but lets not wrap this up in fluffy language as if he is doing something particularly honourable by trying to get more money. He''s not.2) Grant Holt does not automatically deserve more money just because he''s all of our favourite player. There has to be an upper limit to what we pay him - no club will just agree to whatever a player asks for, and that''s the way it should be. Grant Holt''s agent (not GH himself - we don''t know what he thinks really) said that the reason this all started was because he approached McNally for more money and McNally said that other player''s contracts needed to be sorted first. Absolutely right! There were other players whose contracts were expiring for example - OF COURSE these players should take priority when Grant Holt has a contract in place for the next 2 years anyway! Was McNally supposed to put Drury''s future on hold, for example, just because Lee Payne is whinging about wanting more money? Of course not! Lee Payne is an opportunistic little so-and-so. If he asks for too much money, McNally will of course say no. It sounds like he did ask for too much and McNally''s response that Grant Holt was "too old" was perhaps a bit brutal, but entirely true. McNally was stating the truth (pretty obvious to everyone) that Grant Holt''s value IS less because of his age. The same for every player - as they get older, their value diminishes as they are more susceptible to injury and tiredness, cannot play as many games (Grant can now, but how about in 2 years?) and has no sell-on value. Lee Payne is stupid if he can''t see that.All that said, I am completely with you when you say that life at Norwich will go on with or without Grant Holt, and the club is bigger than one player. Maybe someone should tell Lee Payne that.

[quote user="Downloads"]Agreed - Crofts, Martin and Lappin have to go.   Crofts - Just not up to Prem standard Martin - I would rather see our best Youth with potential givent he 5th spot than Martin Lappin - Just not up to Prem standard   All 3 have been amazing for us though and it would be a shame to see them move on, but purely for football reasons we needs to be looking at a higher standard if we want to maintain Prem footy. [/quote]That''s not what I was saying - you are not agreeing with me!I think Crofts and Lappin ARE up to premiership standard, and they proved that last season, on the whole. I just can''t see them getting many games if we go in for new players. All of our players were premier standard last season. As for Chris Martin, I think he has the talent to make it in the premier league BUT he will never do that if he''s not given a run in the team - and i can''t see that happening.

i think one of our strengths last season was that we were constantly changing the way we played and were always unpredictable. that way the opposition never got used to us as a team and we threw a lot of surprises. wes allowed us to do that to a certain extent because a team with wes is so different to a team without him. that said, he doesn''t fit well into every formation. i hope chris hughton picks the team, not the player - and leaves out talented players like wes from time to time in order to keep things fresh.my one concern about hughton is that he tends to be very loyal to particular players (i have heard!). this is completely alien to the lambert way of doing things, and i feel that we should continue the great lambert tradition of constantly mixing things up with line-up changes and cunning substitutions.

Ayala was born in 1990, and so he will count towards the 25 man squad. Smith, Adeyemi, Rudd, Steer and Francomb do not count towards it though.I wouldn''t be surprised to see Crofts, Lappin and Chris Martin leaving. I know others have spoken about Ward and Barnett leaving as well, but I think they will probably stay. Ryan Bennett has shown great talent, but has also shown some youthful naivete, while Ayala hasn''t got a great record with injuries and I''m sure that will figure in decision-making. Barnett and Ward will probably want to set out to prove themselves under a new manager.For sentimental reasons, I would be sad to see any of those three leave, though I cannot see them playing much football next year. A lot will depend on who comes in though.What I am most excited about over the next year is seeing how Elliott Bennett and Anthony Pilkington develop. I think they may become really amazing players for us in the next season or two.

I would say there are only four players in the current Birmingham squad who are worth looking at if we are serious about progressing the club:Chris BurkeJordon MutchNathan RedmondCurtis Davies

The right back is playing out of positionThe other centre back left at the end of that season, to Wolves I thinkThe centre mid player was one of the few players from this squad still there when Mike Walker returned to Norwich[quote user="kevchenko13"]I don''t have the programme and can only get 8/11 of these.  Need RB, CB (not that one, I got him) and CM(6). Racking my brains and getting blasts from the past like Phillips, Butterworth, Woodthorpe, Power, Crook, Gordon but can''t crack this one! [/quote]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![:@][/quote]A good suggestion for if GOD leaves us. A natural replacement with many of the same attributes.

I think that we often have an over-egged idea of what Lambert''s reputation actually is. Of course, he is well thought of. However, I don''t think he is as well thought-of as many other managers out there who we maybe would dismiss a bit too readily.Roberto Martinez, Nigel Adkins, Sam Allardyce, Brendan Rodgers, Chris Hughton, Gus Poyet, Alan Curbishley, Roberto Di Matteo, Tony Pulis, Mark Hughes, Tony Mowbray, Brian McDermott and Owen Coyle are probably thought of as along the same calibre as Lambert - rightly or wrongly.If any of the big clubs or semi-big clubs are to look for a new manager, they are just as likely to look at any of the ones from that list as they are to go for Paul Lambert.

Give the guy a new deal! He''s a perfect Lambert-type player. Would be nice to see him get a start or two before the season is out.

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I think buying James Vaughan in summer was suppose to be the replacement for Jackson - although we always seem to be better attacking with Jackson than without him. He is good at getting into the channels and causing problems. He hasn''t had a great amount of goals this season, but he has help in creating more than a few.   I can''t see any reason for people to be getting on his back at the moment. [/quote]Paul Lambert doesn''t do "replacements". He brings players in to strengthen the squad, add new options and compete for places. I''m sure "replacing" Jackson was the last thing on Lambert''s mind when he bought James Vaughan.And quite right too.

[quote user="Time For Heroes"]He''s not good enough for this level but were so short up front atm that he''s atually pretty important for us atm.[/quote]I am sick of hearing people say that our players are "not good enough for this level". I have heard it about almost every single player in the squad this season. If that''s the case, why are we staying at this level?? Our squad for this season has clearly been good enough.

[quote user="Shaker Maker"]This isnt a thread to slate Morison, its a thread for supporters to discuss Moro''s problems and how to help him through them. I''m not having a go at our fans but I just dont think he has been getting the support that any Norwich player deserves.Had it been Holty going through this bad patch we''d all be right behind him so why not Morison?I''m trying to be constructive here so any claims about his lack of interest I''m not going to bother with, this is purely about football.I was really angry with him after yesterday but that was mainly because I always take defeats badly- as I''m sure we all do. The guy has scored 10 or so goals this season in his debut premier league season.Isnt it time we cut him some slack and get behind him?[/quote]I think a formation with one up front can work, but it''s not one to try with a player who is off-form. I''d like to see this formation again in the future when Morison is back on top form (I am sure he will get there again). It is also not a formation which we can really stick with when we''re 2-0 down!A player like Morison thrives on service from the wings, so I think it was an odd choice to play him when Pilkington''s injured and Bennett''s on the bench.Looking at the bigger picture though, I''m glad Norwich are constantly trying new formations and ways of playing the game, as it will only make us more versatile and resilient for the next campaign which is likely to be much more tricky.

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]Fox starting P Points L GF GA points% 17 25/51 4 24 26 49% Fox Sub P Points L GF GA points% 5 6/15 3 7 11 40% For not play P Points L GF GA points% 5 4/15 3 4 9 26 So starting with Fox we have only lost to manure, spurs & arsenal (4 games) while we have lost 6 when he does not start, 33% of points one without him (a point a game) while its nearly 50% of points with him on the pitch from the begining, just under 1.5 per game, 50% more[/quote]It is also worth noting that in the four league games in which David Fox has come on as a sub, the team has played better after his introduction, with the possible exception of the more recent game against West Brom, but that was partly because the game plan by that point was the close the game out.For me, David Fox would be the first name on the teamsheet, even before Holt. It''s not to say that he''s necessarily the best player; it''s just that nobody else in the squad really plays the way he plays. Russell Martin is probably my favourite player, but he is replaceable with players with similar qualities (not a criticism, more praise of our strength in depth). Even Holt is replaceable as a first choice starter (though should not be left out of the final 18 ever in my opinion).

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I blame Pete. I can''t make it work either[/quote]There''s a silent L in his name

really struggling here!missing the right-sided CB, the left-sided CM, and BOTH the strikers! Bet this will be really obvious now!

[quote user="im spartacus"]pity sean bean wasn''t younger he could play him with a  richard sharpe edge to him [/quote] Don''t be ridiculous!Grant Holt would play himself, as well as writing the script, directing, producing and doing all his own stunts.

[quote user="shefcanary"]Fernandes just tweeted about being in QPArse offices bigging up the back office staff - so seems to be doing his best to say he is in it for the long haul.  However when an owner starts hanging around the office too much, isn''t that when the trouble begins?[/quote]Some of Fernandes'' tweets have been unprofessional to say the least, and more geared to promote his own populist image than for the benefit of QPR. He tweeted about QPR playing better in one formation than another. How can that not undermine his manager?You would never find anyone in the Norwich board doing the same.

[quote user="Huckerbys Boots - Matt"] we are seriously bereft of quality strikers. .[/quote]No we are not. We just only have one outstanding one. All the others mentioned are quality players.

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]  One-time England hero  Pearce seems to be a bit of a yes-man who is so far up the FA''s collective bum that he can''t see beyond the usual predicted format. Holt would be far too risky a choice for somebody who has openly stated that he wants the job permanently. He couldn''t risk a failure.   [/quote]What evidence is there of this? I have seen none.

[quote user="blahblahblah"]To be honest, I don''t think they''ll go down.  Hughes has been in this situation too many times, he knows how to get a team to grind out results.[/quote]This is not actually true. Mark Hughes has never been in a relegation scrap before - so possibly not the best man for this task!Look at his management record:2005 Blackburn - 9 points clear of relegation places2006 Blackburn - 29 points clear of relegation places2007 Blackburn - 14 points clear of relegation places2008 Blackburn - 22 points clear of relegation places2009 Man City - 16 points clear of relegation places2010 Out of a job2011 Fulham - 10 points clear of relegation placesThis shows two things. 1 - Mark Hughes is a good manager. But also more crucially: 2 - Mark Hughes has never been in this position before, and so how suited is he to getting his team mentally prepared for this?When you factor in his playing career, this is also something he ever really experienced then either - not many relegation scraps at Man Utd, Chelsea or Barcelona. The only relegation battle he''s ever been in was 1999 with Southampton - a season in which, incidentally, he picked up the record number of yellow cards ever in a Premiership season - so maybe the pressure got to him!!I think QPR will go down.

Stuck on the left midfielder!

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]But its not the diamond that is/was wrong, it was the players selected to play it. None of what went on tonight made any sense at all[/quote]How many times this season and the last two has PL done things which have seemed to make no sense? And how many times have those things ended up playing off?This time it didn''t. We''ll get over it.

[quote user="deano"]When Johnson was released last week it made me wonder whether Lambert has signed anyone who you would say was a failure? Although Johnson''s goalscoring record wasn''t great I still think the double he got at home to Southend in League One was crucial and he always looked ok when he played, just unfortunately for him we progressed up the leagues a bit too quickly for him. Stephen Elliot didn''t do too much from what I remember, other than a pretty important goal at Huddersfield. And please don''t say John Ruddy, however good or bad you think he is (even compared to Forster) he has not been a failure.[/quote]Further than this, can it be said that under Lambert, Norwich City have ever even played a single bad game? (MK Dons aside)There have been some mediocre ones for sure, but tbh these have often been the ones we''ve got results out of!