a1canary

[quote user="Clint"]Is it me or does Bassong not look at all like captain material?[/quote]No. He looks super nervous pre-game, as do some of the others but he just doesn''t seem to carry the responsibility well.Some special greetings reserved for a couple of the Hull players from CH at the end. One was Curtis Davies, who was the other?

[quote user="Fergodsake"]The style of cross was different though, we scored a lot of goals from cutbacks inside the area 2 years ago. Those tend to be high percentage in terms of goals because the chances created are often near enough tap ins. I think the problem is partially the link up between the front three and the speed at which we break. Watching Villa Liverpool I was struck by the quality of the understanding between Weimann, Benteke and Agbonlahor and the speed at which they attacked Liverpool. The reality is that there is a disconnect between the Norwich wingers and the lone striker when we go 4-5-1, this is particularly odd when we play inverted wingers as the assumption must be that we intend to let those wingers cut inside and work as if in a 4-3-3. All in all, watch Villa attack on a good day, or Southampton most days and you see a far less rigid system based on mutual understanding and shared vision, this just doesnt exist at Norwich, and im not sure that is an issue of formation tbh. Just my interpretation, I hope it doesnt come across as complete b0ll0cks.[/quote] Not at all bo((ocks. I think everyone accepts that if your players perform to the best of their ability, it doesn''t matter what the formation is. But where the formation does matter is in matching players to roles in order to get the best out of them and play to strenghts wherever possible. Under Lambert, we played to the strengths of the attacking trio - Chris Martin, Hooly and Holt in L1 and others later. He is doing the same at Villa with the three you mention but the problem he has run in to is that the rest of the team - not least the defensive players, he hasn''t been able to get right. We did ok last year because Holt and Hoolahan were still key players in the team and they did have that mutual understanding between them and this was augmented with Snods and Pilks. Our problem this season is that with Holt gone and big name signings coming in in his place and both getting injured at different times, Hoolahan falling out of favour, they just haven''t had the chance to grow as a team together. It looked like we were getting there with Howson very much stepping up to the plate and he the players around him developing that understanding. Then he gets injured and we start flapping around with the formations changing one week to the next. In hindsight, we should have gone back to building the team around Hoolahan again and i think it has been a big mistake not to bring him back in to the team after Howson got injured and play him as a central attacking midfield just as we did last year. I''ve no idea why CH didn''t do that when it''s what bought us the success that we had last year.

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"] Hull''s 3-5-2 would have seen us off on Saturday if they didn''t lose Chester to injury IMO.[/quote] Did they switch formation when Chester went off then? To what?

It seems generally understood that the downside risk of playing with two up concerns the potential of being overrun in midfield by a team playing with 5 in the middle. There were some interesting discussion about this one the radio and motd this weekend in reference to Liverpool''s game with Villa and Man City as well. They were giving big credit to Rodgers for switching to a 3 man defence to allow them to play 5 in the middle and two up after they had fallen two goals down. Up to that point they were playing 4-3-3 with Suarez Sturridge and Coutinho but as we have found ourselves in recent games, 4-3-3 is very often a misleading description of that formation as it often turns out much more like 451. The first Fulham cup game was a good example with Elmander and Murphy trying provide width and leaving the man in the middle as isolated and unsupported as ever. Hence at half time at Anfield at the weekend, Coutinho came off for Lucas and they went 352. Oh for that kind of bold and decisive change in our games! The other discussion was in reference to Man City and how Pellegrini likes to play a English style 4-4-2 and that with the talent he has at his disposal he can afford to and be a bit more open when they know they will score 3 or 4 goals every game or most games at home at least. All of which adds further puzzlement to our game at Goodison recently when Cautious Chris went with a 442 and the opposition manager suggested that this was very "brave". The other obvious recent proponent of 442 are Spurs under Sherwood and it was interesting to note how against Swansea they were indeed completely overrun in the opening phase of the game with Shelvey - i.e. Hoolahan/Howson running the show. But they didn''t capitalise and a two darts down the wing and quality crosses later, Spurs were 2-0 up. All of which is fascinating food for thought for how we might play.  Three at the back to allow for two up and a 5 man midfield is something we tried a few times under Lambert with limited if any success but it could be something we could have more success with now that we are more defensively minded anyway, with Russ and Olsson the advanced wingbacks either side of a Snoddy, Fer, Tettey centre 3. Not something i expect but if we are going to go with 442, seeing as how we aren''t Man City, is it too much of a gamble to do away from home? I don''t know the answer, and neither do we it seems, but since we do have two expensively assembled new strikers i can see why we might persevere with the Sherwood approach. Maybe it''ll come good? Thoughts?  

Indeed, we are one injury away from a serious crisis in defence

Also, did anyone else find his comments yesterday rather intriguing? "It''s just speculation but I think they won, so I''m delighted for Chris. I think he''ll be safe for another while. "He''s doing a good job and keeping them out of the bottom three." They won so he''s safe for now... Meantime i''ll be here! Also the comment about the bottom 3 sounds like a direct response to McNally''s interview midweek where he raised the point about staying out of the bottom 3. Might be nothing but he sounds interested to me!

Dont be so sure about RvW''s future! I hope he stays and comes good I really do but he won''t put up with another season like this and will return to Europe almost certainly if things dont improve for him.Sometimes players need dropping, if only for a game or two. He looks too frustrated to me, needs a short time out. Becchio meantime deserves a proper chance, couple of full games.

[quote user="alex_ncfc"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="yellowandgreenmachine"]Jas the Barclay ring piece. Yet another worthless thread from this moron.[/quote]Responses like that from newbie posters are infinitely more worthless. Grow up or find somewhere else to post.[/quote] He''s got a point though.   There are some astoundingly arrogant pr*cks who post on this forum. Little wonder why so many posters have deserted the place. [/quote]Sorry Alex, what ''point'' does he have by just making a playground insult and then saying the post is worthless when plenty have responded to it already? It''s not the greatest post ever but whose is? What''s really pointless is making responses like the one he did. At least contribute. Or say nothing.

The difference though from past seasons - and the worry - is that all the current bottom 3 are on the same number of points. Most seasons by this point you''re only looking at two places because someone is as good as gone by now.  That isn''t the case this year so in effect there is an "extra" place to avoid.

Not remotely scandalous to start Becchio with Hoops. RvW is really searching for form now, snatching at shots, rushing. I do think he''ll come good but how much time do you give him before you let someone else in?The real scandal is how much time RvW is being given vs how much time Becchio has been given.

We''re def on the look out for a CB if reports are to be believed. Whether we''ll get one is another matter. Heitinger wd be ok I guess, although I remember Holty used to terrorise him! Not especially cultured so only a slight upgrade on a Turner or an inform Bass. I''d like to see a place made for Neil Adams on the staff. Think he could help our forward players/wingers a lot.

[quote user="yellowandgreenmachine"]Jas the Barclay ring piece. Yet another worthless thread from this moron.[/quote]Responses like that from newbie posters are infinitely more worthless. Grow up or find somewhere else to post.

Thanks and welcome Jonas. Very interested in Geordie/Brum fans view of CH. Was the general consensus at St James'' Park that he was an overly cautious manager whose numer 1 priority in games was solidity before attacking flair?

I''m not expecting 4-0 certainly. I was confident we''d beat WHU after the Etihad mauling and that we''d beat Palace after losing at Newcastle. But this one feels different and harder to call. I''m concerned some of the players have lost their appetite to fight for the team and the club and when that happens we''re in big trouble. I hope they prove me wrong.

I''m certainly not absolving CH from blame for the situation we''re in. As I say, we need the players to perform but equally the manager''s role is to give the players the confidence, freedom and belief to perform well as a unit. This is where CH has failed.

In the end, results come down to performance level as much as formations. We know we can win games playing 451, 4411 and in a diamond and probably 442 as well if the players turn up and perform. So even if Hull know how we''ll play, if Redmond and Snodgrass put decent balls in, if Hooper and Rv get on the end of them, if Fer and Johnno establish some control in midfield and if the defence is solid... we will win, however much homework they have done.

Jelavic, Long, Graham, RvW, Elmander sounds like a list of the most out of form Premier League strikers ever. Barely enough PL goals between them to count on one hand. At least we have Hooper. I''m not too worried about them on Saturday. If we come out like we did against WBA last year the game will sort itself out.

[quote user="splutcho"]I would suggest that realistically there are no managers currently available that would help us in any way, and frankly I''d rather stick than just give the job to someone for the sake of change.[/quote] Absolutely fair enough then. But sometimes, change for the sake of change is exactly what has to happen when no change results in a total breakdown between fans and club and cheering of opposition goals and so on. We know all about that, and if change for the sake of change is the only thing that will stop it, then that''s what has to be done. I don''t like it any more than the next person but i think we''ll be just about in that place if we lose to Hull and there is still no change.

As most people on this thread have pointed out, every manager bar 2 in this league has been sacked. That''s largely irrelevant. Let''s suppose our long term target is in a job currently. If so, we''re not going to get them in a hurry. And we need to be in a hurry.  We can''t leave the new man to be forced to have to garner points from our last four games. Ergo, if we''re going to make a change, we need to do it quickly and almost certainly it needs to be someone who can start immediately. That''s where the ''not in a job'' bit comes in. If whoever this is isn''t a longer term replacement, they would likely be an interim to the end of the season.   So on that basis, of available managers who could start quickly (or if you must, could prized out of their current employment immediately) who would you suggest?

[quote user="splutcho"]I wouldn''t consider him good enough to replace Hughton. You seem to have just taken to naming people out of work.[/quote] Yes, there is a logical reason for doing that. Can you think what it might be?

It''s probably not the best we can come up with, but if it''s just to the end of the season initially, it could be the most expedient way of: a) lifting the gloom, and as a consequence, b) injecting some positivity in to the club c) giving the players some confidence d) removing doubts around departures in the window as players will need to concentrate on impressing the new man e) and thus refocusing minds on football and not the incessant sideshow of will he won''t be sacked, will he won''t x player leave f) take the pressure off the board and give some time to explore long-term managerial opportunities (think Rafa Benitez spell at Chelsea)

[quote user="lowlyfendweller"]Like for like really.[/quote] It is like for like. Only it''s not, because his name is Steve Clarke, not Chris Hughton. I don''t mean that obnoxiously, it''s just that i fear we are fast approaching the point where even if CH could save us, his mere presence as NCFC manager is too toxic for the club to be able dig itself out of the rut it is in. This is exaclty what happened with NW.

It''s a question Ricardo. And a hypothetical proposal. Clearly your answer is no. In response to your question, i might say "why do people only look at what a manager hasn''t achieved rather than what he has achieved?" Alan Pardew was sacked by West Ham and Charlton and couldn''t get Southampton out of League 1 but i''m sure some people would take him here now.

If we''re going to change, we need to do it quickly in order to remove uncertainty and start off with a clean slate as soon as possible and wash away all the negativity and diharmony that is enveloping the club. We could achieve this almost overnight if we removed CH and replaced him with Steve Clarke until the end of the season. If we did that, there''d probably be no need to instal an interim (sorry Neil Adams, would like to see him given a couple of games on an interim basis) and all this unpleasantness would be over, for now at least!

The other possibility that people who want us to lose aren''t thinking about, is that we could win and Hughton will still be sacked. I think he''s done for - it''s just a question of when. The board are a pragmatic lot and won''t want to sack just before a game. Or at least will want a window in which to do it. And it just so happens there''s ten days between Hull and Newcastle. I think he ma well be gone after Hull, win, lose or draw. Meantime, let''s concentrate on getting the win, not wishing a defeat.