Jump to content

south of the border

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Posts posted by south of the border

  1. My view for what its worth is that we have figurehead appointment as chairman in much the same way as when Stephen Fry was appointed to the board. A backward step in my opinion.

    In 2009 when the club were close to administration Alan Bowkett undertook to renegotiate the clubs loans. The rest they say is history. Debt free and in the premier league.

    Now here''s a hypothetical question. Would Mr Ed Balls have necessary business experience to do what Bowkett did for the club in 2009?

  2. A very good read & completely agree.Interesting to read the alterative point of view put forward by Purple Canary.So you are prepared to spend your hard earned money on an overpriced ticket but not to watch 2nd or 3rd rate football.Well clearly the football club has a duty to print on that ticket the following warning.''The outcome of the football match you are about to watch can not be guarenteed''Just to make sure the pruchaser fully undrestands that watching said football match contains an element of risk and the complete satisfaction of the customer is always in the balance!!OTBC

  3. RM is not helped much by Redmond when Brentford were attacking down that side.Although Whittaker got the blame by most for losing the ball just outside the Brentford pentalty area which lead to their first goal, why did Johnson continued his run beyond Whittaker right up to the Brentford 18 yard line?  As we all know possession got turned over & the back door was well & truly open....yet again!!  Why should Johnson, being a regular central midfielder, not take some of the blame for what happened during that move?How many counter attack goals have we conceded this season??  And after 27 games we are still getting caught!!  Having all of our midfielders pushed right up against a team that plays counter attack very well is madness & pays no respect to Brentford.  If anyone saw how well they played against us at their place in September will know what I mean, a good win for us in the end but 3-0 does not reflect how they played for 60 odd minutes we were lucky they did not take their chances.We probably needed our best 11 in the pitch to beat this lot but we didn''t......OTBC

  4. I was at the game yesterday but as usual all points were well covered in Ricardo''s excellent report, I always look out for them.As far as our league position is concerned looks much better than last week.  But I don''t think we should get too carried away just yet, the next home game against WBA is just as important as the one yesterday in deciding our final destiny.  However, next week agaist Swansea is another matter can we get a performance & a result next week?We seem such a jeckle & hyde team home & away I just don''t know!Something we have been unable to do this season is win consecutive games, but who knows perhaps we can string together a much need string of positive results now.  Just like RVW has to score at some point....doesn''t he!!?I agree points on the board beat games in hand.....don''t believe Jose Mourinho!OTBC

  5. All said with the benefit of hindsight!  But I''m not sure how this ''partnership'' is suppose to work, Hooper & RvW seem too similar to play them together as some said earlier more strikers does not mean more goals.  Hughton does not really have time to experiment too much with his line up but I think it would be interesting to try Redmond in a central attacking role, I like the idea of using his pace to run beyond the opposition''s back four from a more central position and to have Hooper or RvW as the player to drop in to the space created by Redmonds runs.  Not sure how we should organise the midfield but still think we need a some width so Snodgrass & Murphy??  Johnson would have to stay in central midfield.  So how about Fox in the remaining centre midfield spot for his range of passing?  Drop Fer to the bench?

  6. "Thanks a fantastic result, we finally got the bit of luck we''ve been missing.

    442 was a disaster - as you pointed out, west ham bossed the

    midfield with 60% possession up to the equaliser and but for woeful

    finishing by them the game would''ve been out of sight by half time

    Fortunately after we drew level they resorted to route 1 which

    wasted their midfield superiority and Howson produced a super strike

    from a rare foray into the attack - without a holding midfielder he

    could attack much less than normal. When they fell behind you could see

    west ham lose confidence and we were able to see out the game,

    reverting to 451 near the end which again gave Leroy the scope to get

    forward for the 3rd at the death

    So for me a great comeback inspired by the bit of luck we were

    missing against Cardiff or indeed any of our recent games. I just hope

    it doesn''t make people think 442 would be a good idea because it nearly

    gifted the game to west ham today"

    Pretty much the way I saw it CF, but thankfully we made the most of our

    good fortune last night, against a better side the game could have been

    over by half time & it nearly was had it not been for  2/3 good

    saves by Ruddy!However, in our position it really doesn''t matter how

    you get the points & the fact that we were able to turn it round in

    the 2nd half & not necessarily play that well bodes well for the

    future...I think!OTBC

  7. [quote user="snake-eyes"]

    The point about wingers is interesting Parma, but I wish I had some way of visually demonstrating why the traditional way works so well and the options it brings.


    In a nutshell it results in defenders dropping deeper and  having to defend facing their own goal.  I have said this before, but ask any defender and they will say they would rather defend facing away from the goal with the ball in front of them than facing towards their own goal and trying to clear it from there.


    It also means when the winger eventually does cut in they are not cutting in across the front of the goal area, but into the goal area causing even more problems for the defence.


    Once a fullback has no idea which way a winger is going to go he is lost and will drop off allowing time to cross, even when doubled up on.  The worst is generally a corner. 


    I appreciate the ''modern'' idea, but for me it is too predictable, less dangerous for a defence and especially with the ''overlapping fullbacks'' actually leaves you more exposed defensively if the ball is lost and open to the counter attack.


    Oh for the magnetic pitch board and coloured counters.  It is hard to convey the movement and development in words alone!





    [/quote]Agree with this^^^ but I can now see Pama''s point on this subject too.  I would conclude there must be some benefit in the wingers swapping sides during the course of the game even if it just unsettles the opposition''s full backs.I suppose ideally you would want to employ wingers in your team that are naturally two footed then they can go on the outside or inside of the full back.....Pilkington??

  8. Very good post.  I have to hold my hands up & say that I wanted Hughton to be more adventurous in his approach after the hull & spurs games.  I agree yesterday he gambled ''a la mode Lambert'' by leaving Johnson/ Tetty out & putting Howson in his place we were certainly more open through the middle, but that was the gamble.I don''t entirely agree with Parma''s comments regarding Redmond''s performance, yes he was below par but I felt Lambert singled him out for some special attention by doubling sometimes trebling up on him.I am curious to find out Parma''s view on the why managers all now seem to play wide players on their opposite sides?Yesterday I just felt that many of our attacks via Snodgrass or Redmond lost momentum by them working the ball inside to cross it with their ''good'' foot consequently the ball was delivered into an overcrowded box.  Yes they could cross using their weaker foot but most players are less inclined to do this through not wanting to risk a poor delivery.  Perhaps an old fashioned view but if wide players are played on their natural side the ball could be delivered into the box much earlier.

  9. I also agree with fog.  RVW''s movement off the ball is there for all to see unfortunately our midfield seem to lack the vision to see it & often do not release the ball ealier enough to him whether the ball is coming centrally from Fer/ Howson or from out wide Snodgrass/ Redmond.I don''t really want to join the Snodgrass witch hunt but I am more baffled sometimes with the fad of football managers wanting to play naturally right footed wide players on the left side of the pitch & visa versa.  If our wide players play on there natural side when they are one on one with the full back why can''t they can drive for the the by-line & cut the ball back behind the defenders.  Its a bit old school but surely if we are on the counter attack, it maintains the momentum of our attack (difficult to defend) the opposition defenders are still facing their own goal (more difficult to defend) & it give RVW/ Hooper/ Etc. more opporunity to find space in front of goal.What struck me yesterday is that with wide players on their opposite wings they always have to cut in to work the ball onto their natural foot to make a cross & as the OP said the ball is then coming into a crowded penalty area because the attack has been slowed down before the ball is delivered & Villa''s defence is back in shape.This is not the be all & end all of our prblems going forward but surely there is a case for our wide players to swap sides from time to time during the game, Hughtons whole philosophy seem to be working the ball to pull the opposition out of shape to create openings are we not missing a trick.OTBC

  10. Any defeat is disappointing.  But what i found frustrating today is that we sat off spurs & gave them all the time in the world when they had the ball (which was most of the time today!).  Remember Liverpool away last season?  Exactly the same!We just simply did not turn the game today into a contest, we are not necessarily going to beat the likes of spurs or liverpool etc etc by becoming just physical, but surely we need to press teams a whole lot better in midfield.  Part of the reason spurs looked so good today is how quickly they won they ball back off us we were constanted rushed when we were in possession & it forced lots mistakes & misplaced passes.  It''s not just about having £100m+ worth of talent at your disposal (but it does help!!)  Spurs never felt our presence today & thats just organisation & hard work.OTBC

  11. On the strength of what I have seen so far of van Wolfswinkel this boy is quaulity & to compare him with Finidi George is pure mischief by the OP.  Perhaps the OP has not actually watched van Wolfswinkel play?The boy has had no service from our midfield who seem to have absolutely no idea on how to get the ball to him in a threating area & definately no idea on how to put a quality cross into the box!  Lumping hopeful long balls up to him is not the way it turns that pass into a 50-50 contest at best with the defender.  That clearly is not his game.I think Bale or Messi would have struggled to look good in our team today.  I can''t help wonder what Chris Hughton said to him before he signed because based on what I''ve seem so far I think that sales pitch would have got a standing ovation in the Dragon Den!!  But seriously surely we have to give the chap more than 3 games before we start writing him off?OTBC

  12. [quote user="Ken"]Having gone to the game yesterday, it very clear that our teams is lacking movement off the ball, is the main reason why our passing is so bad. Or it is passed back so often.

    If players do not continually run into open spaces,the players with the ball often has to pass backwards to find a players in a space.

    Having seen the two games Ricky has played, he is on the move all the time to find space, then points out to the player with the ball where he wants the pass to go to. As we now know he wants the same type of ball slide though for him to run onto. but as we also know that hardly ever happens. He needs what Jackson always needed a ball to run on to. Until this happens we will never see how good he will be.[/quote]Asolutely spot on thats also the way I saw it & have posted the same elsewhere I speculate whether Fox was the answer yesterday with his range of passing didn''t see that as a high risk sub given we played against 10 men of 70 mins.  If not Fox who else do we have who can deliver an incisive pass?  Apart from Hooly.

  13. [quote user="NWCoastCanary"]From my seat - which was covered in bird cr@p - my thoughts on today were:-

    No idea how we are trying to play. If we use wingers to cross in high balls we might as well have saved our money and kept Holt.

    We strengthend the squad and seemed to play Howson and Fer out of position.

    Pass and move requires midfielders moving forward - today ours didn''t.

    Hughton responded too slowly to the poor performance and in attacking Hull.

    Shocking performance with no positives that I could see.

    Hughton in or out - its up to the players he has put his faith in. After today he must be worried at the lack of effort and talent.

    The away kit didn''t help, I am sure Martin misplaced a couple of passes as both teams had black shorts. As we are only likely to change against Hull, Wolves, and Watford black shorts appears ridiculous.

    Lastly - I travel alone to the games, so thanks to the fans around me for allowing me to join in the entertaining Hughton in or out half time debate and other conversations.[/quote]After reflecting a bit on what I saw yesterday at the game I have to agree with most of your post.  Our midfield was very ponderous when in possession giving Hull midfielders time to get behind the ball, we made it really easy for them to defend.  Snoddy was so isolated when he eventually did receive the ball there were 3 Hull players around him & no support.  When the ball was eventually crossed from out wide it was cronically poor most of the time.Is it me? Or does our midfield have no clue on how to make an incisive forward pass?  Fox & Hooly anyone?  Were we going to risk getting opened up with these players on the same pitch when Hull were down to 10 men? No disrespect but they are hardly Chelsea or Man U!!  To my mind these two players were the only 2 of those available capable of delivering ''that pass'' to RvW who did make some good runs off the ball but no one seems to have the vision or passing ability to deliver the ball to him!By the way on the basis of what I have seen of RvW (Real Solciodad, Everton & now Hull) this boy is ''quality'' he has had absolute scaps to feed off so far, yesterday he had one decent cross come into the box his resulting header required a pretty good save from McGregor to keep it out. Same storey with Everton gane only 2 proper chances with 1 goal scored!So how is Chris Houghton going to utilise his talents?  Does it just depend on wing play & Snoddy winning cheap free kicks around the box?  I seriously hope not otherwise we may as well have kept hold of Holt & kept the cash!

  14. Very good post by RH.Chris Hughton I think this season took one look at our squad & said ''not good enough'' & then dreamed up his plan to keep us in the league which I have to admit I think he will achieve.....just!  However, what I saw today were city players who simply have no confidence in their ability & don''t believe they can win the game because they have a manager who does not believe in them!I sit in the Jarrold & I can hear CH constantly barking orders at the players like a sargeant major, I''m not saying I want a manager who just stands there impassively but I agree with RH''s op he needs to be more selective.  He clearly does not trust his ''troops''!  It just seems that our players have had all the creativity & confidence sucked out of them.  There were times today when we could hardly string 2 passes together particularly in the 1st half.Maybe I''m desperately clinging on to memories of the ''old days'' where our team went out with team spirit, confidence & belief they could beat anybody!  But yes I know those days are gone....ho hum!Bradley Johnson seemed to be the only midfielder who got close enough the swansea midfield to make a challenge today.  Worked his socks off.As for Grant Holt what can I say...the boy is not a happy bunny! He''s a shaddow of the player I''ve watched over the past 3 years.  Very lucky to stay on the pitch after that challenge on Chico bearing in mind that he & Mr Oliver has some history!But I guess its a game of opinions & I do want our team to succeed I really do but I find it frustrating to watch us play now because it seems all the good things we did over the past 3 seasons have been discarded which is a shame because these are the things that got us into the premier league & kept us there even with a dodgy defence!Rant over! OTBC

  15. I would like to see Fox in because he can provide the passing distribution from central midfield that we have been missing.  Bring Tettey on after 60/70 minutes because Fox will probably run out of steam due to lack of games.  Pilks might also be an option off the bench if fit don''t see Hughton starting him after injury.  Holt shades it over KK because he has scored several goals against Swansea in the past & he would be a real pain, they hate him!!  KK option for Holt off the bench.                    Bunn

    Martin  Turner  Bassong  Garrido

                   Fox  Johnson

    Whitaker                        Snodgrass 



  16. With the benefit of hindsight I think there was too much space between our denfence & midfield which gave  Suárez & their wide players far too much space to move into ''between the lines'' & the midfield did not/could not press the ball effectively, (we may have needed an extra body in midfield to match up to Liverpool''s five) but we needed to be far more aggressive in midfield & not sit off like our midfielders did for most of the time on saturday.  Its a high risk policy to play a high defensive line because you open yourself up to the ball being played in behind but it starves the likes of Gerrard & Allen time on the ball to feed their wide men or S uárez.As far as I can recall this is pretty much the way Lambert set us up to beat Brenden Rodger''s Swansea (same system as Liverpool''s) twice last season & David Moyes repeated when Everton also beat Swansea, although we conseaded 2 goals in the away game, as I said it is risky, but it seemed to work well enough for us to win the game.I think I would like to have seen a five man midfield (4-2-3-1) with Fox + Johnson or Tettey then Snodgrass + Hoolahan + Surman with Holt as the lone striker, main reason is that it gets Holt, Hoolahan & Fox on the pitch at the same time & it puts Hoolahan in his best position.However, against Chelsea I would be tempted to have Pilkington + Elliot Bennett if both are fit in for Snodgrass + Surman gives us width & a bit more pace in the wide areas, I also think Elliot Bennett is a better option defensively than Snodgrass which would give Russell Martin more cover.Hopefully Bassong will also be fit for the Chelsea game!!OTBC

  17. Didn''t the club put out  a statement when Villa made the approach for Lambert which basically said they had refused permission for Lambert to speak to them about the vacancy?If there had been a falling out then why on the face of it would McNally try to keep him at Norwich?However, thinking back to the speech Lambert made after the Villa game at the end of last season that did sound to me like ''...its been a great 3 years, thanks & goodbye''???  Maybe I''m reading to much into that but he pretty much said the same in his speech after Drury''s testermonial.I think Lambert & Cully did an incedible job here, shame it ended how it did & when it did, I think Norwich & Lambert were a good ''fit'' & had he have stayed I think he could have emulated what David Moyes has done at Everton, but now we will never know!!OTBC
  • Create New...