Old Boy

Fozzy isn''t as good as he thinks he is. I was rather hoping he wouldn''t sign his 1-year contract. He should be dropped, but how many managers drop the man they''ve made captain? He fades away at crucial times, and we''ve had too many midfielders that do that in recent seasons - Mulryne, Francis, Etuhu, Robinson, Safri - the list is frightening - and I was hoping Roeder would have stopped that by now. He allowed it to happen at MK, and against Cov, Col U and Spurs to some extent. I said before the MK game that Russell and Clingan should be the CM pair, and I stick by that. Russell isn''t a saint, but he''s got more about him than Fozzy.

[quote user="Matt"]Should have played Russell instead of Cling-on, he shoots outside the area, scored 2 in pre-season!![/quote]Nope - should have played Russell instead of Fozzy. Fozzy''s the weakest link now, I''m afraid. Being noisy doesn''t make you a leader, you have to lead by example.

Hux basically wasn''t interested last season (and I would argue the season before) - not motivated and just going through the motions. There was also the mystery of the hip injury (did that clear up on its own, or has he had surgery?). Whatever, Huckerby wasn''t a threat to anyone last season; he didn''t score many and didn''t create many. Roeder wasn''t having any more of that attitude and didn''t renew his contract, and I support him in that. Regarding Hoolahan, I didn''t go to the game, but listening to RN he pretty much ran the show attack-wise in the first half. He''ll be much more valuable to us than Hux has been in the last 2 or 3 seasons, even though he may not be as talented a footballer. A great signing, and I reckon if you took a poll among other CCC managers, our signings would be the envy of most.

[quote user="percyp"]YES........but at least they had a striker who scored a goal.......we didn''t......simple as![/quote]YES........but they lost, at home. simple as.Actually "simple as" is a stupid phrase in this context. It''s not simple - I''m sure Lupoli and Hoolihan and Koroma will score goals, and there''s no striker in this league who doesn''t miss a high percentage of chances. If he didn''t, he wouldn''t be in this league, he''d be in the Premership. Simple as...... You panic if you want, I''m saving mine until it''s really needed.

[quote user="Grando"]....Which seems to somewhat go against the earlier picture he paints of Carrow Road and its "positive progression". How can it be positive that the club, after releasing numerous players, with 20k season ticket holders and numerous off-the-field activities, still can''t afford to sign players from its own resources? Strange. And are we really that gullible to now be bowled over by the Board''s fishing of small change from its collective pockets that we''re supposed to wash away Cullum''s memory in a revisionist sleight of hand straight out of Solzhenitsyn''s Soviet Union?[/quote]I don''t understand that either. Presumably this "underwriting" is loans which increase further the debts which any would-be purchaser will have to clear, or the loans will be swapped for shares which increase the directors'' share of the equity. Is the implication that we have to sell to survive? With a big proportion of the first-team players being loans, that would not seem to be sustainable.

Branston''s made a key point - loans can get you promoted (Hull with Fraizer Campbell). We''d all prefer a squad made up entirely of our own talented Premiership-standard players, but nobody in this League can afford that (except maybe QPR). Whatever it takes to get us up to the Premier League,  where we can start to grow our own. On the down-side, our team could just become a finishing school for young Prem players, bringing them fitness and sharpness, but not helping us a great deal. From last year''s crop, I thought Ched was the best, but we got very little from him in the way of goals. On the other hand, we made him a better player and if we''d had him back this year we could have recouped that. But we had no control over that. We didn''t get much from Pearce, Gibbs or Henry, but if Gibbs or Pearce came back, we could get payback: again, we have no control. If you''re a manager who loves working with talented footballers I can see the temptation, but sometimes perhaps what you really need is a Gary Holt or a Craig Fleming on your books - someone who has signed up for a long tour and is prepared to give everything for the Club.

[quote user="Pboro_Canary"]As Roeder has been quite open about wanting a big striker I would think there must be an intention that there is still one on the way.  In that case, and because on the evidence of Spurs (and from reports Colchester), as the lone midget striker approach does not seem that successful my money is on us going 442 with a more direct approach away from home. Rusty is a good solid midfielder but no striker.  If we did go for one up top then I think Cureton might get the nod initially beofre a fairly rapid switch to Lupoli if the goals dont come. [/quote]Did you see Rusty in the Col U game? He looked the part. Amazing. I wouldn''t be disappointed if he was striker alongside Cureton for Coventry.

Sorry, chicken, he''s poor. He was poor on the left wing against Spurs, dire at left back against Spurs, and poor on the right against Col U, although the first 15 minuted were acceptable. I don''t buy this "out of position" stuff - Omozusi, Russell, Shackell have played out of position this pre-season but not looked out of their depth in the same way. Yesterday, Pattison visibly ran out of steam after 20 minutes, and when Omo got the ball and was looking for the run from Pattison, he''d gone missing. If his best position is inside left, then we have better options for that position. I can''t see a place for him. Whether his bulk is fat or muscle doesn''t matter - he''s just not mobile enough. Roeder supposedly likes players that "glide over the turf" - so why on earth did he buy Pattison?  I''m not going to insult the kid and he may well have personal issues, but as a footballer he''s no longer good enough for us. If he can get back to what we saw in his first game, great. But if not, ship him out.

[quote user="Danny G"][quote user="King Beef"] Did you not think to question him about the summer antics regarding a certain Mr Cullum? Sorry but if I had the chance to talk to him in person that would be the first thing I would question him on. KB [/quote] I stood next to Roger Munby at the Norwich v Gorleston game and asked him this question , he said if anyone wants to give them team £20 m just write the cheque out . More has gone on that we hear but he said Cullum talks ended on good terms [/quote]If them''s the Board''s terms - give us your money and then get lost - the Board needs shooting. I can''t believe they seriously think there''s any chance of that happening, but if they''re building their funding strategy around it, God help us.

It''s easy enough to do if you do it on credit. The problem came when he had to pay it back, and had to have a fire sale. And that was the end of Chase. There''s a lesson there, right enough.

It''s definitely work in progress.... Shackell at left back and Russell up front! Though they both did pretty well, particularly Russell. We''re short of cover for left back, centre half and striker. I''m still not convinced about Fozzy - Clingan looks better in all respects. Kennedy looked good, and he and Stefanovic should be solid. Marshall.... well, I wonder if this Hungarian is coming, because if he is that means that Marshall''s on his way and I won''t be too sorry about that. But basically, it was a scratch team yesterday, with 6 new players in. You''ve got to give them some time to gel, though there isn''t much left now.

[quote user="5-4-1"]Is Kennedy another Murray ?[/quote]No.Did you watch the game? Apart from the mistake, he looked a classy player. Murray looked out of his depth from the first time he stepped on the field.

As I said, Drury''s not fit yet, and now Bertrand''s picked up an injury, so we''ll see tomorrow what cover we''ve got at left back and how good it is.

incidentally, I like Lappin (in midfield). Found this about the game against Cardiff:The Sporting Life report describes Norwich''s go-ahead goal as the result of "a poor backpass," which "wrong-footed Turnbull." The City keeper "sliced the resulting clearance to Lappin on the left wing" and from there the Canaries'' midfielder "opened the scoring in sensational style in the 12th minute" as "his low drive nestled in the bottom corner of the goal. Lappin was at least 40 yards from goal when he let fly. I remember that....(it wasn''t 40 yards though)

Whatever he was signed as super guard (I don''t remember), he doesn''t make a very good left back....

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Old Boy"]Nope - because you''re wrong. Lappin''s not a left back (and is on his way out), and neither is Eagle. Your mistaking a left-footed player with a left-sided defender. Drury hasn''t played for a year, and isn''t fully fit now - if he was, why didn''t he play against Spurs? Bertrand took a knock, and anyway his best position is left midfield (remember Haynes running rings round him?). Sorry.....[/quote]Whilst Lappin and Eagle may not be ''dedicated'' left backs, they are more than capable of playing there. Eagle did use to play on the left wing, yet since Roeder''s arrival he''s played most of the time in the left back role.As for Drury not being fully fit, how long do you think it''s going to take him??? As for why he didn''t play against Spurs, you''d have to ask Roeder.Bertrand is one of those players who it''s difficult to tell what their best position is. Whilst defensively he may not be as strong as other options (although I felt he looked pretty solid before going off against Spurs), what he can also offer pushing up to join the attack could be vastly beneficial to us, and certainly offer more to the team overall than someone like Drury who''s primary concentration is simply on defending.[/quote]Firstly, Indy, it''s good to have a football discussion!!! I don''t agree that Lappin is an adequate left back, even as cover, though I think he''s good cover for left midfield. Eagle is even more flaky as left back cover, and not yet up to playing in the Championship at all IMO - Roeder''s given him time to develop, and hopefully he will. As for Drury, I don''t know how long it will take, but since he hasn''t played in pre-season it''s safe to assume he won''t be ready for the start of the season. There''s only one game left before the start, and Roeder''s unlikely to put anyone who hasn''t played 90 minutes in a competitive game straight into the side. So how is Drury going to get fit? We''re not in the combination any more, and the odd fixture against sides like Lynn Reserves isn''t great for building up match fitness - it could take Drury a month or more (4 or 5 CCC games, 12 or 15 potential points). This is exactly the reason we ended up with Pattison at left back - we have no cover at present. We have Bertrand and......

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Old Boy"]We need cover at left back. I never want to see Pattison there again...[/quote]I see, so having Bertrand, Drury, Eagle and Lappin all of whom play there is not enough?[/quote]Nope - because you''re wrong. Lappin''s not a left back (and is on his way out), and neither is Eagle. Your mistaking a left-footed player with a left-sided defender. Drury hasn''t played for a year, and isn''t fully fit now - if he was, why didn''t he play against Spurs? Bertrand took a knock, and anyway his best position is left midfield (remember Haynes running rings round him?). Sorry.....

You''re right wycombe canary, and you can see that a lot of people agree with you, including me. Too many people are addicted to starting negative threads for the ego-boost (you notice that it''s not that way for positive posters), and too many people swallow any old rumour as if it''s fact (remember the £8k per week ceiling crap?). Criticising players and other Club personnel is legitimate if there are genuine grounds, but these people don''t know or care what the facts are. Hopeflly it''ll improve when the season starts - though no doubt they''ll all be on here as soon as we lose a game, saying the same tedious rubbish in 50 separate threads - if they could collect it all in one thread it would help. And I don;t think it''s fair to expect moderation to help.  Try WotB - there may not be too much about football on there, but at least you can generally understand the posts, and they''re often very witty.

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Olano"]right back is his best plase. And he is so much bether then the players we have in that positon today.[/quote]Not sure how you work that one out as he''s been a left back for the vast majority of his career, and whilst he can play on the right, his best place is undoubtedly on the left.Next you''ll be telling us that Marcus Allback is a great centre half...[/quote]We need cover at left back. I never want to see Pattison there again...

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]For what its worth I think he''s a far better player than Hughes ever was and always gives 110% not a full back though. [/quote]He''s an identical player to Hughes - runs about like a loony, usually 5 yards behind the action, minimal football skills. His standards have slipped very badly from the first game. He''s not a scapegoat for me - I''ve been criticising him since his third game! He showed he could do it in his first game, so the fact that he isn''t now is down to him. "Gives 110% at full back" - he''s never in the position that a full-back should be, that''s the problem.

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]At what point last season did you see "an explosive attacking threat from the wings" when Huckerby was playing? All I saw was an unfit winger trying manfully to live up to former glories.[/quote]Good point well made.

I love Heskey - mostly. He can be a fantastic team player (e.g. with Owen in the England side not long ago - that side looked a lot better than the "Golden Boys" who got us knocked out of the qualifiers), and a great foil for another striker. I don''t believe we''ll get him, though. OK, sometimes he does fall over a lot....

[quote user="Yellow Rider"] I think GR got some basics badly wrong. Instead of slagging off the Italian FA WHY did we play the entire game with onl;y one upfront when Renton didn''t even get on the pitch and Martin had 20 minutes!! It doesn''t matter that we are still trying to sign strikers, last night we should have used those we did have and given the youngsters a proper chance. It was a friendly so where was the flexibility and changes in tactics, formation and personnel? Sadly lacking I''m afraid. Seems GR had one plan and that was it come hell or high water!       [/quote]We couldn''t cope 5-v-5 in midfield - how do you think we''d have done with 4-v-5? As for putting on either Renton or Martin (both marginal players at best this season) instead of giving the first-team players vital pre-season football, I don''t see any merit in that at all. In any case, if you think any tactical change at all would have improved last night''s result, I think you''re deluding yourself - they had better players, from 1 to 11.

[quote user="Stevee Wonder"][quote user="Yellow Rider"] ''Tunnel vision'' from GR I''m afraid. We all know Chris Martin went off the rails badly last season but assuming he is now committed to making up for that wasted year, GR should be encouraging, cajoling, doing whatever is necessary to get the best out of him. Unfortunately though I suspect he has fallen so far out of favour that no amount of effort will get him back in GR''s good books. Contrast that with the appalling favouritism shown throughout the 90 minutes to GR''s ex Newcastle mate waddlling around on the pitch and you can see where I''m coming from! [/quote] We need to have a LB... if we took him off, then who would have played LB. He had no choice but to leave him on. [/quote]You''re right - that can be the only reason Pattison stayed on the field, though we''d have been as good with ten men. Chris Martin - well.... he bottled the two opportunities he had to do something, maybe just win a corner or have a speculative shot. To be fair, the midfield were so knackered by the time he came on, they gave him no support. But he should have just got on with it, not try to hold the ball up and wait for them to arrive. In any case I think he''s used up all his credit with GR, so he deserves all the flak he gets. He should move on, for everyone''s benefit.

Reasons for optimism: 1. We only had ten men. (and Pattison)2. Drury will be available, so we won''t see Pattison at LB.3. Bell will be available, so we won''t see Pattison in midfield.4. Rusty''s left-foot shot.5. Clingan.6. Omozusi, despite his mistake.7. Semmy''s pace.8. King Wes.9. Crofty''s never-say-die attitude.10. Curo''s well-taken goal.