cornish sam

[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="cornish sam"] [quote user="grefstad"]Been looking at RvW positioning in the box when waiting for crosses. Imho he is just lurking too much in the shadow of the defender(s). He needs to create a better passing angle for others to reach him. He is usually behind a defender, and rarely tries to squeeze infront, or withdraw to get a yard or two better angle for others to reach him with a pass. Watch some clips and you will see it. Amazed that this is not dealt with in attacking training sessions. Agreed it is about rythm (winger releasing the pass when RvW makes the run), but watch how often RvW is unreable when Snodgrass reaches the byline. No angles, noone to hit, because RvW is hiding behind someone[/quote]   This is the classic behaviour of someone short on confidence, he''s subconsciously scared of getting the ball and not being able to do what is exepcted of him. It happens all over the pitch, players who are short on confidence don''t want to let people down so they put themselves in positions where they won''t get tha ball, that way they can say that they''re not getting the ball instead of fu*king it up when they do. Unfortunately this isn''t really something that can be addressed in traditional training, you can bang them in all day against training opponents, come to a real world match and it all changes. The only things that would help would be him scoring a proper goal (a lucky defelction or somesuch wouldn''t really help, when you''re down it won''t help, you''ll know it was lucky and unintended so does nothing to lift your funk), or a lot of work with a sports psychologist or similar, perhaps he needs a bit of hypnotherapy to get over the problems (on a side note, has that ever been used in professional football? it could be quite a useful tool)... [/quote]   So in previous posts he''s been criticised for coming deep to get the ball and then sometimes not making runs into the box but you maintain that he doesn''t want the ball and he''s deliberately putting himself in positions where he won''t get it, could it be that he''s just playing football and you''re over analysing things?       [/quote]   The coming deep ''looking for the ball'' arguement doesn''t necessarily contradict the hiding arguement, he''s still avoiding the risk of failing to convert a chance. As I say though, the hiding tends to be a subconscious thing, the coming deep is a conscious decision, trying to get out of his rut but often trying too hard and so not being able to do anything effective and making mistakes further reducing his confidence. As I say, the solution can not be found through training alone, he needs to find his Flow again and coming deep to get the ball is not part of a striker like RVW''s Flow.   I honestly think that RVW is naturally a very good striker, for whatever reason it hasn''t worked out for him with us and he is now in a self defeating spiral, possibly kick started by trying to play through the injury. The summer break and getting away from football for a few weeks or a month may help and he comes back refreshed, then again it might not and he needs to go somewhere easier to rebuild himself mentally and make another attempt at a top league in a few years...

[quote user="grefstad"]Been looking at RvW positioning in the box when waiting for crosses. Imho he is just lurking too much in the shadow of the defender(s). He needs to create a better passing angle for others to reach him. He is usually behind a defender, and rarely tries to squeeze infront, or withdraw to get a yard or two better angle for others to reach him with a pass. Watch some clips and you will see it. Amazed that this is not dealt with in attacking training sessions. Agreed it is about rythm (winger releasing the pass when RvW makes the run), but watch how often RvW is unreable when Snodgrass reaches the byline. No angles, noone to hit, because RvW is hiding behind someone[/quote]   This is the classic behaviour of someone short on confidence, he''s subconsciously scared of getting the ball and not being able to do what is exepcted of him. It happens all over the pitch, players who are short on confidence don''t want to let people down so they put themselves in positions where they won''t get tha ball, that way they can say that they''re not getting the ball instead of fu*king it up when they do. Unfortunately this isn''t really something that can be addressed in traditional training, you can bang them in all day against training opponents, come to a real world match and it all changes. The only things that would help would be him scoring a proper goal (a lucky defelction or somesuch wouldn''t really help, when you''re down it won''t help, you''ll know it was lucky and unintended so does nothing to lift your funk), or a lot of work with a sports psychologist or similar, perhaps he needs a bit of hypnotherapy to get over the problems (on a side note, has that ever been used in professional football? it could be quite a useful tool)...

As some of you will be aware the sportingintelligence sports sallary survey has been released for 2014 and whilst the headlines all go to Man City topping the table again with a whopping average weekly salary for their first team players of over $155k (~£93k at today''s rate) the reporting further down the table is less prevelant. Now whilst these reported figures are not strictly speaking relevant for the current season as they are based on the salaries for the 2012/3 season (for the EPL, the guardian have a decent description of where the figures come from here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/apr/15/manchester-city-best-paid-team-in-global-salary-survey-compare) and these have already been commented on/pored over by various people, FPAs included, there are still a couple of things that jump out; The relationship between 1st team wages and final position is not as strong as people state wiht only 8 teams finishing within 2 places of their position in the "salaries" table, noticable outliers being QPR who were 7th in the salary table finishing 20th and Swansea who were 18th in the Salary table finishing 9th. Our weekly salary for first team players over this period was £23621.45 (using today''s exchange rate) which was 16th in the salary table but had moved us up from the 175th best paying sporting team in 2011/2 to 141st for 12/3. this put us above; 19 NFL teams (we were below them all the year before), all of the SPL, all but 5 of La Liga, all but 6 of Serie A and all but 8 of the Bundesliga The disparity in wages has been commented on before but this brings it in to stark contrast, Man City paid twice as much per week as the 6th highest payers in the EPL (Spurs, ~£46k), however, to get to half of their weekly salary you have to go all the way down to 17th (Reading ~£23k). Even the lowest paid team in the EPL (Wigan) outpaid Celtic (just, £20,091.68 v £19992.62), it''s amazing the lure of the champions league! The SPL is even more uneven than the EPL, Celtic pay almost 30 times the amount of the lowest payers there (Ross County, ave £676.81pw, which is only ~£35k pa)   So as the title of the thread says, is this relevant? You could argue not as since these figures were produced we went on the spending spree that included RVW and Fer (who will be amongst our best paid players) as well as new contracts for other first team players, but it does show how even lowly clubs can steal the top talent from whichever league they choose. Either way, it''s a bit of a distraction and does leave you hoping that the relegation clauses are water tight...   For reference I''ve got my numbers from here: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/10709445/sportingintelligence-global-salary-survey-espn-magazine as they publish the full list, but it is in $''s not £''s so have used today''s exchange rate according to XE.com (0.59536)

[quote user="lappinitup"]Many City fans would have been delighted if Delia had sold her shares to him not so long ago. They said anyone would be better than the cook........... [/quote]   Ah, but would the cook ever get this genius for her birthday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ASPulaMixs   It needs no further comment (other than I think the youtube commentors are being even more harsh than usual)  

The teams themselves do need the loan system to be able to survive, but that''s as much to do with the whole youth academy setup, big clubs hoover up the talent leaving nothing for the smaller local clubs. You talk to the fans and most of them will have mixed feelings at best about loans, yes they mean that a club can have better players than they''d be able to buy, but the downside of this, you only have them for a few months or one year at best then they go home. They don''t necessarily buy into the club and you can get yourself into a false situation, promoted thanks to some loan stars and then unable to bridge the gap the following year (a bit like WBA with lukaku). My other team is Carlisle, I''ve lost count of the number of loan signings that have been made this year, some have been successful, others haven''t even played a game and gone back, yet all of them cost money that the club are basically just throwing away trying to tread water, they are left with no asset for the expense, but it might mean they stay in league one to fight relegation for another year!

Chicken, the current u21 setup is meant to achieve that whilst removing the results pressure, hence the overaged players being allowed to play. Granted it doesn''t really manage it as they don''t play enough or at high enough intensity, but, the pressure to stay in the premiership means that only the truly exceptional would get a chance in the first team regularly. So, the only other alternative would be have loads if youngsters out on loan, like arsenal and Chelsea or have a reserve team in the lower leagues, neither of which are particularly palatable for supporters of teams down there...

[quote user="lappinitup"]He should be put in the stocks in the centre circle at half time on Saturday and fans allowed to pelt him with rotten eggs and tomatoes. [:@] Then he should be hung by his feet from one of the crossbars and whipped. After that, the forkers should force him to each corner flag at forkpoint where he should be made to say sorry to the fans. [:@] That ud larn him. [8o|] [8o|] [8o|] [/quote]   I know that you mean the groundsmen with their forks, but, the mental image of a load of people impishly chasing Wes around the ground with eating forks did make me smile...

Would be really interested to know who was on the list that Lambert had submitted of players to get rid of, I wonder if the much lauded Fox would have been gone then and if so whether or not there would have been as much gnashing and wailing if so.... I also like the stats someone has put together in the comments showing how often we concede with each midfielder on the pitch, Snoddy may not be providing the same attacking flair as he did last year but certainly seems to be important defensively, similarly it could be used to show how effective Tettey is at breaking up attacks before reaching the defense and why we have looked slightly suspect without him. For reference here is the post I refer to: Wes has 1 assist in the league this season (1 every 418 min) no goals, Elmander has 4 (1 every 227 min) no goals, Redmond has 3 (1 every 439 min) and 1 goal every 1317. Pilkington has 1 assist in 550 minutes but has a goal too. The big difference comes in goals conceded. We conceded more when Wes plays than almost every other midfielder/striker. Murphy 1 goal conceed every 23 min Pilkington 1 every 37 min Hoolahan 1 every 42 min Howson 1 every 48 Johnson 1 every 50 Hooper 1 every 56 Redmond 1 every 60 Fer 1 every 69 Tettey 1 every 75 Elmander 1 every 76 RVW 1 every 83 Snodgrass 1 every 90 Hoolahan is probably fighting for a place with Elmander, RVW and Hooper. There’s an argument for him being a head of RVW but when you’ve spend 8.5 mil you don’t expect him to be on the bench. Would you drop Hooper (top goal scorer) for him, no. Even Elmander has a better assist rate this season and offers more defensively. Simply Hoolahan hasn’t done enough when he has played this season. He got 33 league games under Hughton last season (the same as Lambert the year before). He has 3 assists last year (1 every 11 games). Bennett, Pilkingon & Holt all had 3, Snodgrass had 6. Even Johnson and Bassong has 2 each. Goals + assists last season (all comps) reads: Snodgrass 6 + 6 Holt 8 + 3 Pilkington 5 + 3 Hoolahan 3 + 3 Bassong 3 + 2 Bennett 1 + 3 Turner & Martin 3 + 0 Hoolahan makes us more vunerable at the back and hasn’t offered enough going forward. That’s why he’s not in the fist 11. The strangest thing is that his 1 assist this season come when he played on the wing.

[quote user="Aggy"]However, (yes, I''m bored), if you adapt it to include Villa as a bottom 11 who are all "in amongst" us and a top 9, rather than comparing top and bottom halves, we end up having taken 1.58 points per game from our relegation rivals and 0.4 from the top half. So from our remaining 6 games against relegation rivals, we''d take 9.48 points, and from the remaining 8 against top 9 opponents, we''d take 3.24 points. That only equals 12.68 points. Which is 35 (maybe 36) points. That''s only two points, but could quite feasibly be the difference between comfort and relegation this year.[/quote]   You''re that bored that you forget about two games? I''ve not looked at the fixtures but moving Villa from top half to relegation half doesn''t mean that we play one game less against both top half and relegation half, assuming your first break down of fixtures was correct then it would be 8 games against relegation rivals @1.58ppg = 12.64 + 8 games against top half @ 0.4 = 3.24 giving a grand total of 15.88 points, which would give us 38 or 39 points and still safe (probably)

Comparing the stats on the BBC to those on Squawka it would appear that if a shot is blocked then it would go as ''off target'' on the BBC. From Squawka the stats were: On Target - 4 Off Target - 10 Blocked - 11 Which looks a lot better...

[quote user="lake district canary"]If Holt goes to Carlisle, they might get an extra person through their gates  (I went once a few years ago and swore never again) Would be good to see them rise up a division..............or two..... [/quote]   They certainly could do with the extra person, the attendance has been appaling this season, however, they couldn''t afford his wages let alone a transfer fee! Brunton Park though is a remarkable stadium, I''m disappointed with your dismissal of it. How can you not be tempted back by the East Stand which is offset to the pitch by about 30 feet due to a proposed redevelopment that never happened (away fans get the seats that look onto the neighbouring terrace) or the fact that it is the largest capacity stadium that still has terracing left in England, the toilets even have a roof these days!

And now it''s put a bloody smiley in the title! I''m going to bed...

(ignore my spelling errors, I''m tryng to post from a smartphone for the first time)

Oh, and as an aside, referencing purple/parma; I think the issue here is that contrary to popular opinion, we have changed styles this season. Last season was built on a strong 4-4-1-1 with a compressed defence and midfield affording little room for maneuver for the attacking team, hence a tight defensive record. This season Hughton has tried to get us to play a 4-2-3-1 with inverted wingers which we don''t have,(only pilks really is up to the task on his day) but because they are on their wrong side it not only means that the attack is conpomised but also they are further forward and instinctively defending the wrong way which exacerbates the defensive problems we''ve had this season so we score less and concede more, thankfully lots of those goals have come in a few matches so our situation isn''t as bad as the goal difference implies...

I think that it''s not just a case of them misjudging their ability to predict the odds but as much a belief that they are finding that progression, that ephemeral next step up the ladder towards their vision. The only club that seem to have been able to do that us Southampton, everything you read about them and their progression talks about the singular objective and project as outlined by cortese and everyone has bought into that vision and is pulling in that direction. We all derided the ruthless dismissal of Atkins at the time bit it has been proven to be an astute move and a progression towards their goal. Admittedly though they are in an almost unique position, being backed by the funds of a billionaire who isn''t going to get bored or pull out because he''s dead and his friend (cortese) is continuing his aims and the trustees know that he will just walk away as soon as they try to stop him; so here there are multiple external stimuli added to the fact that the manager was not sacked due to bad performance, more that he was just a stepping stone in the same way as NC FC may be for the likes of fer and rvw... At wba they think they are doing the same, bit actually as Ricardo points out, they have mistaken an above average period as being the new normal, much ad ridsdale did at Leeds and gaydemark at Pompey... For the teams that are suffering a slump (or return to mean or even just an expectation of instant success) there is also the element of those that are used to having total control finding out that, despite the millions they''ve thrown, they actually have none, so out of desperation they change the only thing they can, the manager...

I got more involved than intended :)

At the moment I won''t get too involved in this debate, I may later but on a larger note this is showing the truth in the danger of statistics and people trying to interpret in depth studies without actually getting past the summary and headline details. I''ve not read the detail of the report yet, but if it is a serious statistical study then they will have taken measures to counter the majority of factors that can be quantified and making rash statments such as Mustard with his "They only used teams that have been in the division for 50% of 18 years so we can''t trust it" (paraphrased). If you dig a little bit deeper and think about it then you would realise that whilst this would indeed limit the sample set in the premiership quite considerably, in a division such as the Eredivise this isn''t as much of a limitation as one would think, for example there is only 1 team definitely relegated and promoted wach season with another entering a relegation play off and the division is onyl 18 teams large, also the relative strength of the second division in Holland is pretty weak so over the last twenty seasons (I know not the same sample as the study used) there have been 16 teams in the Eredivise for 10 or more seasons, of the current membership of the divison 14 of them have been in it for 10 or more seasons (77%) so and another has been in it for 9. So to dismiss a study based on an assumption made from a limitation that they have placed (understandably so as well) is to take a false position and not give the statisticians the credit that they deserve.   On a more practical level, I do actually think that this study makes sense and I can see sense in it''s findings, the results over a long enough period will revert to a standard and any bounce will be cancelled out, the real trick is defining the period of judgement, if, as Sunderland last year, you only need a bounce to gain a couple of results in a short period then you don''t particularly care that over a sample size a season long you still have relegation form then change manager, if on the other hand you are interested in providing an improvement long term and true progression of a club then changing manager is unlikely (note, unlikely, not definitely) to provide the desired effect without other external stimulus, such as a change in financial circumstances (either an increased investment or a reduction of liabilities) or a change in the conditions around the club or other competing clubs (such as a relegation) and these changes in external stimulus should likely have an impact on the performance of the incumbant manager as much as the incoming one, the leverage they gain from it will be defined by the quality of manager...   On a personal level, I think we should stick with Hughton for this season, unless we need to paper over the cracks towards the end of it and dead cat bounce out of the relegation zone and potentially reasses in the summer and look for a Southampton style change to leverage improved conditions of being debt free and increased finances thanks to the BT deal.

I think that this is the first time that I have agreed with anything you''ve written Stan! Put in a couple of older players to fill in to bookend the youngsters (Bunn, as an experienced keeper is a priority (and Britt has left) and RVW to inspire and add the potential game changer, partnering Carlton of course) and have at ''em

Nexus, I do agree with you to an extent about feeling angry because of perceived unfair treatment, but, the way to deal with that is not go crying to the press, it''s to confront the issue head on with the person who is treating you badly which neither Bechio or Hughton give the impression he has done. I don''t necessarilly fully blame Bechio for this either, I suspect that there is a hand of an agent/advisor in there as there will have been with his behaviour at Leeds, but there are right ways and wrong ways to go about things and this has been handled in the wrong way.   I''m not disagreeing with their patently being something wrong with the team at the moment, I just am not pretending that I know exactly what that is or what the fix is, for all we know the issue may be that Bechio is actually the issue and due to his feeling hard done by he has been undermining the management within the squad and causing these divides and what not (This is a pure far fetched theory by the way, I don''t actually believe that....but the drop in form last season did roughly coincide with is arrival, dun-dun-duuuuunnnnnn). Ultimately something needs to change, whether this be the management, some playing personel or just that they need a damned good piss up and clear the air session of mud wrestling, I don''t know.

Why are people so keen to use this as a stick to bash Hughton, why aren''t people lambasting Bechio for his unprofessional behaviour in speaking to the paper when from all of the quotes it is obvious that he hasn''t spoken to Hughton about it? Bechio also came to us with a reputation of being a bit of a disruptive presence from his time at Leeds requesting transfers and the such like, trying to get his ''dream move to the premiership'', well htat dream hasn''t worked out, he''s not been good enough, the chances he''s had might have been too limited but he has shown very little in those opportunities to push his case. Granted out other strikers haven''t erally been pulling up trees either, but, Elmander is a ecognised international forward, Van Wolfswinkle and Hooper both came with good pedigrees from the top leagues in the country they were in and are significantly younger than Bechio, who even Leeds fans say (and said at the time, and before the transfer window he left in) wasn''t good enough for the premiership. I wonder who I will believe, the management who see him in training every day and fans who watched him playing matches week in week out for a few seasons or a load of keyboard warriors who are frustrated because the team is not playing well and are clutching at the straw that is Bechio because he hasn''t been tainted by actually being involved in the matches we''ve done so badly in.   Just out of interest, what do all of you clamering for Bechio actually expect shuold he get the chance, to get the ball on the edge of our box and drive forward rounding every player on the pitch (including his team mates) before dinking one over the keeper who has bowed down to recognise his brilliance after 3 mionutes on the pitch? Or more likely, someone who is short of match practice wandering around up front not looking like he knows what he should be doing and then shanking the one chance he actually gets into the corner flag? The issue here isn''t the striker that is playing, the issue goes a lot deeper than that, Bechio is not the answer, Hughton might not be the answer (I''m still not sure about this), we need the whole team to start playing with confidence and the first thing that we need is for the players at the back to sort themselves out so we actually have a decent platform to build on and the central midfield, who have undoubted quality, feel confident enough to use it and create chances without being scared of the reprecussions should we lose the ball and the defence get exposed. We play like a team that are scared at the moment and lack leadership, I personally think that Holt going wasn''t a mistake and we have more than replaced his skill, what we haven''t replaced is his presence and that is what is needed and probably isn''t something that any manager would be able to instill if there are no players there who have it (I though Bassong might, but he seems to be back to Spurs form instead of the Newcastle form of last season).

How his experiences as a player have influenced his approach to management? Such as managers that he has tried to emulate, his defensive priorities etc..  

[quote user="Vanwink"]That''s a reasonable argument Cornish, but we do see Forster in CL games! If the general view however, as you suggest, is that he is playing against lower quality teams on a regular basis, I have to agree. You must then question why he is in the squad at all?[/quote]   We see Forster in maybe 4 matches per season against top quality oppostion, and in those games he''s busier than a stripper at a bunga bunga party. The main sign of the top top keepers is not just being able to make the outstanding saves, but, being able to make those saves after long periods of doing nothing, for example Joe Hart''s save last night (shortly before the goal), he''d not had a save to make for 30+ minutes and then pulled one out of the top drawer. I know that this kind of undermines the arguement for not putting Ruddy in as he''s not exactly had a solid defence in front of him this season, but it is the kind of thing that you wouldn''t be able to tell from Forster''s matches, especially considering some of the people who do watch him in the drossish Premiership say that he does regularly make mistakes against the likes of Caley Thistle because he hasn''t had anything to do for most of the match then fluffs his only call to action. If your questioning on why he is in the squad is about Ruddy, the friendlies aren''t really that much about the actual match, they are as much about getting the team to spend time together, work together and get to know each other, it''s the same reason as youth players go on pre-season tours. It''s all about getting used to the people you may be playing alongside and getting to know them and the environment so that if you are called upon then you won''t be overawed by it all, the fact you have a mtach at the end of it to try out the things that you''ve been practising is a bonus...

Perhaps, and I know that you will have to bear with me about this one as it would mean that there was no anti-Norwich conspiracy at play here, because the England goalkeeping coach works with Ruddy day in day out he knows exactly what he can do, Fraser Forster on the other hand they see intermittently and has very little opportunity to play against good quality opposition and so is a bit of a mystery and they wanted to see how he coped in the international arena. The fact that Forster was selected for the Chile match doesn''t necessarily mean that he is ahead of Ruddy, it just means that they wanted to see what he could do and from my perspective it wasn''t that much, he had mediocre to poor ditribution and as some other posters have pointed out looked a little bit slow and laboured at times. I fully expect that if JR has a reasonable second half of the season and stays healthy he will be on the plane to Brazil.

[quote user="ron obvious"]We will have taken the download option. We will have no physical existence. All our experiences will be virtual, & NCFC will be anything any particular person wants it to be.. "All shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of things shall be well"[/quote]   So for half of the people on the board we''ll be flirting with relegation to the celestial conference whilst on the 328th manager of the season then...

[quote user="TCCANARY"]Come up with a viable plan to increase the capacity of the City Stand whilst still maintaining the current attendances ensuring that those who currently sit in the City Stand have perect views of the action. Make it easier to browse and purchase items in the club shop on a match day. Ensure that all supporters have acces to free WIFI at Carrow Rd. Write Grant Holt a letter of apology. Make a statue of Paul Lambert out of Midget Gems. Become taller. Start every press conference by biting the head off of an effergy of the manager of the next opponents, spitting in the hole and declaring death to anyone remotely connected with that club. Immediately substitue any player that miss-places a pass, fails to dribble pass the entire opposition or looks dis-interested. Tie a piece of cotton to the door handle on the home dressing room thats long enough to cope with any journey that he takes away from Carrow Rd so that he never loses it. Save a child from a burning building. [/quote]   I personally am not a Hughton outer, I think that there are very promising signs and ultimately we are only 3 points off the top half (not "nestled in the relegation zone" as some put it, as though we are making a cosy little bed for ourselves down there), but the injuries that we''ve currently got has me thinking that his time is limited unfortunately...   However, I had to post purely to comend TC for his response