Shack Attack

He looks incredibly solid and very classy. The signings of Basong and Tettey are probably the two main reasons why we are so solid this season rather than any ''negativity'' from the manager.

I''m not convinced that it was a deliberate handball by Lambert so I think you have to give the referee the benefit of the doubt there. It looked a penalty but I''ve seen us not given more obvious ones than that.

The other side of this is that we have only conceded three in the last seven. Last season everybody was moaning about our defence and our lack of clean sheets and that hs improved dramatically. It is very difficult to improve the defence of a free scoring side as we were last season without sacrificing some of that attacking intent. We simply cannot afford to buy the players who would allow us to remain as cavalier in attack as we were last season whilst also improving our defensive record.It should not come as a surprise to anyone as Lambert faced the exact same problems last season. He tried one up front and he tried three at the back in an attempt to control the game better in the midfield but each time he did we lost attacking impetus. In the end he kept going back to that ultra attacking way of playing as it was our most succesful way of playing but I think he realised that this could not sustain us indefinitely.The problem Hughton seems to have is that a lot of his attacking players are not quite firing on all cylinders. When Lambert went to one up front early last season when Holt was struggling Morison came in and performed really well and Pilkington and Bennett were on form and linking well with Wes. We retained some attacking impetus with one up front and showed that this was not a negative formation. Hughton one the other hand has to decide between a woefully short on confidence Steve Morison or Grant Holt who has not scored in his last seven games as his striker. Pilkington has been very hit and miss this season and Wes, despite having a decent season to date, isn''t quite linking up with the rest as much as you would like.I''m not entirely sure what the answer is but maybe there isn''t one and we should be happy with being unbeaten in seven. Do we really think bringing Simeon Jackson in or pairing Morison and Holt up front will improve our results? I''m not convinced and as long as we are winning at home and drawing away I think there is maybe nothing to worry about. It is when those home wins turn into draws that you should start to worry as that is a sure sign of a team in trouble.

[quote user="drurys testamonials V 15"]What''s the special prize? I might oblige if it''s worth it[/quote]The warm feeling you will get inside from knowing you have caused me a small amount of amusement.[:D]

Holt off and straight down the tunnel. First one to start a thread about a rumour they''ve heard that he and Hughton have fallen out wins a special prize.[;)]

Much better last ten minutes. Holty and Wes a lot more involved.

[quote user="lake district canary"]There is no middle way, Lambo.  If he is on a wind up, he is insulting the French, showing no respect and mimicing them - he does it all the time, it''s not just the one video.   If he is talking genuinely like that because he thinks that is the best way to talk - then he is just showing himself up to be a complete plonker.    As for his "mindless moments" it seems that his whole life is a mindless moment.      He has the worst kind of character - someone who thinks he''s big and clever but in reality is small minded and lacking in intelligence.     I  would have to question why you quite like him.  His "entertainment" value is nil in my book.   I would rather have generic rubbish from footballers, than complete egocentric w**k. [/quote]Don''t hold back will you LDC [;)]In all fairness to Barton not many English players would have gone and played in a foreign country once they were out of favour at their club. Most would have sat around and happily picked up their wages for doing bugger all. I think he deserves some credit for that. I do think he believes he is a little more intelligent than he truly is (the title of most intelligent English footballer is hardly hotly contested) but at least he makes an effort to rise above the banal.

Seems to be a little bitterness in evidence from the ''true fans'' who don''t like the fact that pretty much anyone can watch City on a Saturday afternoon now if they have an internet connection. There is a fair amount of bull$hit spoken/posted/tweeted by us Saturday Streamers but it is generally no worse than some of the nonsense you hear inside the ground. I''m sorry that you don''t get to laud it over us mere mortals anymore with your ''incisive'' reports when you get back from the game. Rest assured that we still consider you to be very important as I would hate for you to feel you have to bore your friends and family with your match reports.

The referee was poor but as a couple of people have already pointed out he was pretty even in his incompetence. There was a twenty minute period in the second half when the Everton fans were incensed by every decision he made.

Why would Spurs be getting rid of AVB?

[quote user="a1canary"]  I even wonder if this Redknapp/Ukraine nonsense is just an act to get QPR moving. Expect Hughes to be out before the weekend if that''s the case. I read that Redknapp wants to remain based on the south coast which means a London club is the only possibility for him - his reaction on MotD suggested to me he was at least potentially interested.[/quote]I must admit that the same thought crossed my mind. It just seems such a random suggestion that there must be an ulterior motive behind it. Having said that I am not convinced that Redknapp would be a great appointment for QPR. Are the underperforming ''stars'' such as Julio Cesar, Bosingwa, Cisse and Granero going to be any more likely to respect and listen to Redknapp (a man with a very modest level of managerial success despite what his mates in the media might tell us) than they are Mark Hughes? He''ll have plenty of cash to spend in the window but unless he can turn things around prior to then they are going to find themselves cut adrift.I think the reason that a  some people were/are more concerned about relegation this year is because the idea was being pushed over the summer that the Premier League was that much stronger this year. You had lost two of the poorest top flight teams I have seen for many years in Wolves and Blackburn and Bolton who had been declining for some time since their glory days under Big Sam. QPR had stayed up which many thought was a bad thing as they would surely improve if the owner kept chucking money in. Villa had poached our manager so would surely improve. The teams coming up seemed either very similar models to us and Swansea from last year (Reading and Southampton) or big spenders (West Ham). It seemed that we might face more of a struggle this season as not only had the league seemingly improved but we had also lost our manager.However twelve games in and it appears that our concerns about an overall improvement in the quality of the league were unfounded. The QPR project becomes more farcical by the game, Lamber quite possibly misjudged just how poor Villa were and Reading and Southampton share the enthusiasm that all promoted teams have but seem to lack the belief that us and Swansea had last year. Plus there might just be a couple of replacements for Blackburn and Bolton for the ''established Premier League team who will struggle'' in Sunderland and Stoke. Even at the top there seems to be a slight regression with Man City seemingly standing still, Chelsea playing without a striker, Man Utd having no midfield and Arsenal struggling post-RVP. Liverpool are in transition, Newcastle are struggling and Spurs look as if they are still coming to terms with Redknapp''s departure and the ideas of their new manager. Who has really improved since last year? Everton and West Brom. And you can make a case for us and Swansea. Other than that the Premier League does not feel (sorry for the lack of stats [;)]) any stronger than last year. We''ll be fine.

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Shack Attack"]if Zlatan Ibrahimovic had have scored his fourth goal last night at Carrow Road would you have stood and applauded him. [/quote]I would NEVER applaud a goal scored against Norwich City, let alone STAND UP and applaud it. Imagine how the players would feel if the whole ground stood up and applauded the other team after they''d just gone a goal down! Whatever next....goal music? [8o|][/quote]I''m not sure whether you''re being serious or not here but I think the idea that our players are likely to suffer an existential crisis should their supporters applaud a one off moment of genius is a little wide of the mark. I think you might be surprised just how little the players care what we think and suspect that they might realise that something special had occurred should their own fans be applauding an act from the opposition. Maybe they might even be inspired by such brilliance?[quote user="pete_norw"]Overhead kicks from any distance are a shot in the dark, and luck would have it, the ball fell in the net. [/quote]If Ibrahimovic had just scored that goal last night in isolation I might agree but he has a history of scoring goals from seemingly impossible positions which you just don''t see from other players. That is the mark of something special rather than ''luck'' as far as I am concerned. Go down to the park on a Sunday afternoon and you will occasionally see some hairy arsed chance wallop one in from thirty yards just like a pro but you won''t ever see a goal like the one he scored last night.

Following on from a discussion on this topic we had last season if Zlatan Ibrahimovic had have scored his fourth goal last night at Carrow Road would you have stood and applauded him. No right or wrong answers I''m just curious. I definitely would have.

[quote user="Renskay"]How can people just say Chamakh would be an awful signing ? Have you actually seen him play, he is a great player that is just not used correctly or often enough by his current club and in any other team in which he had a regular role he would easily score 12+ goals a season He would be a great signing.[/quote]Rather than asking why people don''t rate him why don''t you explain how he is being used incorrectly and how he should be used to guarantee those 12+ goals a season?

He looked neat and tidy from what I saw but was hamstrung by a lack of willingness from his teammates to engage in any attempt to retain possession. Trap seemed pretty pleased with him by the sounds of his post match interview.

[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]So in what way can Cole be regarded as superior to Holt? I''m not seeing it.[/quote]Me neither. Cole has shown glimpses in the past of having what it takes to be a very decent modern number nine but those glimpses are all too rare. Whereas Holt offers more to the team in terms of both goals scored and the ability to drop deep/wide and link the play (as I said last week he should not be compared to other traditional target men, Cole included, as he offers more than that).I guess it all boils down to whether Hughton wants a more disciplined focal point for his attack and by disciplined I don''t mean in terms of attitude or temperament but positionally. I know people like to come up with various anti-Norwich conspiracies why Holt has not been picked for England but I''m becoming more and more convinced it is because Hodgson has no time for centre forwards who drift out from the centre. He is a very conservative manager who wants his players to stick to strictly defined roles. Does Hughton want the same thing? I''m not convinced but there are elements of his style which remind you of Hodgson teams not least the lack of aggressive pressing high up the pitch which was a hallmark of Lambert''s team in favour of pressing zones deeper in your own territory. Maybe he will buy a more traditional number nine and play him up front with Holt to allow him to drift whlst still retaining a fixed point of attack but this would likely mean no place for Wes which I think would be a mistake.It is an interesting dilemma for Hughton as clearly Holt is our best goalscoring option but he does cause you other problems, a problem which  Lambert identified but ultimately failed to find a solution for, by wanting to be involved in areas which a number nine maybe should not. You either do what we have to date and put up with it as the goals outweigh the other issues, get him to change his ways and run the risk of diminishing his influence or find a replacement. If you''re looking at the third option I don''t see Chamakh or Cole scoring enough goals to make that worthwhile.

I suspect Holty would have dislocated both hips if he had tried to do what Zlatan did for his fourth goal tonight.[:D]

[quote user="shefcanary"] Trapper Tony [/quote]Trap O'' Toni surely.[:D]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]  And some would have us expand the stadium to enable even more of them to attend....  [/quote] Maybe we should set aside a thousand or so seats once the ground is expanded for a neutral section like Fulham have? [:D]

[quote user="pete_norw"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Dr Crafty BSc PhD DipEM"]If the FA inquiry shows that Mr Clattenburg has no case to answer then they should throw the book at Chelsea. A 10 point deduction should be the minimum punishment for such outrageous allegations that will taint Mr Clattenburg for the rest of his career.[/quote]I''m no lover of Chelsea but what were they supposed to do? A black player reports to them that he was racially abused by a referee and after checking what other players heard he insists that he wishes to make an official complaint. They can''t very well not back him up can they? Especially after they appeared to make such a cock up of the John Terry affair.[/quote]   Sorry not defending or backing anyone But a Player with very very limited English, and claims a Geordie insulted him, How many of us English speaking fans understand what a Geordie is saying, I''ve worked with loads of Geordies over the years and never understood any of them, [/quote]But again if Mikel insisted that he had been racially abused then what choice did Chelsea have other than to back him? I''m sure that they asked him whether he could have been mistaken but if he insisted that he heard the insult clearly then they had to stand by him.

[quote user="Dr Crafty BSc PhD DipEM"]If the FA inquiry shows that Mr Clattenburg has no case to answer then they should throw the book at Chelsea. A 10 point deduction should be the minimum punishment for such outrageous allegations that will taint Mr Clattenburg for the rest of his career.[/quote]I''m no lover of Chelsea but what were they supposed to do? A black player reports to them that he was racially abused by a referee and after checking what other players heard he insists that he wishes to make an official complaint. They can''t very well not back him up can they? Especially after they appeared to make such a cock up of the John Terry affair.

Listening to Football Weekly last week they seemed to think that a large proportion of AFC Wimbledon fans wouldn''t go because they refuse to even acknowledge the existence of MK Dons.

[quote user="Gingerpele"]Mungo thinks were all posh, you think we eat lentils.[/quote]I eat lentils and I''ve never been to university. They are very good for you [:D]The problem with the EDL is that this march is supposed to be about defending freedom of speech because some bloke was banned from handing out booklets which were deemed to be hateful as they were anti Islamic. Now I don''t entirely disagree with that stance (although without reading the material I wouldn''t want to completely defend it) as I don''t see why any religion should be above criticism in a secular society. But you can be sure that the EDL wouldn''t want to march in support of a Muslim who had been banned from somewhere for handing out anti-Christian propaganda whether they were English or otherwise. Like most extreme groups, whether they be far-right or far-left, they are massive hypocrites.

[quote user="Gingerpele"]Maybe he doesn''t rate him Shack. But there is no reason to not rate him. We all watched him last season, we know how good he is. Yes we are bias, but non-Norwich supporters in the media also suggested he should have been in the England squad. One or two point blank said he''s not good enough (although based on what i''m not sure) and a couple said no because of age. And yeah he does get put in the bracket of other strikers his size, but the reality is he actually plays more like Rooney in terms of movement on and off the ball, positioning and work rate. Players like Carroll, Zamora, Welbeck even Crouch, Bent, Defoe. They are all ''traditional'' strikers who like to stay in the middle although they are different types of players, they all fit into that kind of group, and Holt isn''t really a part of that.[/quote]You are kind of agreeing with my point there maybe without realising it. When Holt wasn''t in the squad for Euro 2012 most of us moaned about the inclusion of Carroll and Welbeck and pointed out how many more goals Holt had scored than them. When he was interviewed a couple of weeks ago Holt himself picked out Carroll as his competition. But as we both know, and as you acknowledge above,  he is not really the same kind of striker so who is his competition? Wayne Rooney?I can''t remember which game it was (may have been their semi-final against Germany) but during the Euros the BBC had Vialli on for one game and he described Antonio Cassano as a ''nine and a half''. I think you could almost apply that description to Grant Holt. He has all the attributes of a traditional nine (strength, finishing, aerial ability, holds the ball up well) but he likes to drop deeper and wider into positions more regularly taken up by your number ten. He moves the ball well in those positions and at times he can link the play just as well as a pure ten like Wes. He is not a false nine in any way because he still spends plenty of time battling with the central defenders as our most advanced player but he does not stay there at all times like a Carroll, a Welbeck or even a Morison.I like ''nine and a half'' as a description for him but maybe Roy Hodgson doesn''t have room for one in his team?

[quote user="Gingerpele"] As far as i''m concerned, no excuses now. Age was the final/only one I could just about accept.[/quote]Maybe Roy Hodgson just doesn''t rate Grant Holt. Why does he need an ''excuse''?There are varying opinions on his performances on here from week to week and we are all Norwich fans. We don''t know what set of skills Hodgson wants from a centre forward (I know people will just point at his goal scoring record but there is more to it than that) but maybe he wants someone who stays more central in the manner of a more traditional striker. Holty tends to get lumped in with the likes of Carroll, Zamora and Welbeck because of his size when people compare strikers but he spends a lot more time dropping deeper and wider to help link the play than either of those three. Maybe Hodgson doesn''t want his number nine doing that?Or it could be another anti-NCFC conspiracy just like the one where we never get any praise on MOTD [:^)][;)]