Jump to content

Kanadyan Kanary

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kanadyan Kanary

  1. Houston Canary wrote the following post at 21/04/2013 7:48 AM: Your basing Prem quality on goals scored is not right. Houston - sorry I may have confused you here. I was not basing my analysis on goals scored. I took the statistics from the "who scored" website. http://www.whoscored.com/Teams/168 Anyways I like your idea of basing quality on other Prem League Teams wanting to acquire the player (also agreed by Foghorn) but again that is subjective until other teams express an interest or the player has been sold/acquired.   So based on this definition which of our current players are PL quality?
  2. I regularly read on this Board (and it’s been mentioned during Canary Call) that certain players are not Premier League quality but what does that actually mean? It’s like a generalisation that people use which is impossible to counter because it''s not backed by fact – it just seems to be a perception.  Perhaps someone can explain to me how they define ‘Premier League quality’ and exactly which of our current crop of players has it? Here’s my attempt for discussion purposes: Assuming it’s based on objective criteria I guess you could define Premier League Quality based on statistics (e.g. Who Scored).  Since there are twenty teams in the Premier League and eleven players on the field we might  assume that the standard for the Premier League is based on the top 220 players (*) in the statistics table.  There are 527 players listed and those above the 220 mark have an average score of 6.77 which means that the following Norwich City players are Premier League Quality, based on the current season:Snodgrass JohnsonRuddyWhittakerBassong  (*) This could be reduced to the top 200 players because goalkeeper stats are not easily comparative to outfield players but this could be deemed as subjective manipulation of the stats and in any case, would not affect our stats because the same 5 players would still be in the top 200.
  3. I thought he was OK - came good at the end with his little cameo in the corner and he had 3 good headers from corners but only one was on target (and we scored from the follow-up.  Overall, I just think he seems to lack sharpness/fitness compared with last season.
  4. Definite Yes for me.  He is more versatile than the other strikers we have and therefore provides us more options.  One goal in 9 games (could easily have been two if Wes hadn''t had got in the way of his header at Sunderland) is an OK return in comparison with our other strikers (Holt is 1 goal in 15 games) but generally, we haven''t been providing a decent service all season.  Today was much better.
  5. Yeah, been outplayed in the last 10 minutes and we look impotent going forward.
  6. Can''t believe some of the negative stuff I am reading on here.  We have to give it time. I thought the whole team played well but the standouts for me, as others have touched on were, Wyatt, McGeehan, Hall-Johnson, Morris and the Murphy twins.  This is all about potential and I am certain some of these guys will develop to the point of first team football but that will take time.  I think this all bodes really well for the future and that''s exactly what this is all about.   I was delighted to hear that young Wyatt has been with the club since he was 10 years old!  This is similar to Barcelona where their players are developed at an early age and have been playing together for years (Messi has been there since he was 13).  In Nov last year they fielded a side based on their academy alumni players (http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/detail/article/eleven-la-masia-graduates-on-the-pitch) and last night fielded 6 with Messi, Iniesta,  Xavi Hernandez, Pique, Alba, Fabregas & Valdes.  That''s the model we need to follow and I am pleased that we seem to be heading down that route.  Clearly it will take time for the system to bear fruit and I am not saying that the crop will be as plentiful as Barcelona but there is no doubt that they are doing well at their level and we need patience and provide nothing but support for these youngsters.
  7. AJ wrote the following post at 09/04/2013 11:07 AM: Re: Benno, I''m a fan of him, but two crosses doesn''t mean he played well. He played BETTER, but not as well as Snoddy would down that flank. So by playing him you''re, in essence, compromising both wings as Snoddy is much more ineffective down the left side as he can''t cut inside Actually, it was 11 crosses that he delivered on Saturday, which is a better service for the strikers, than we have seen in a number of games and after his MOTM performance I think it will create a nice selection headache for Hughton.  Since Wes has not been performing well this season, I would put snoddy in the middle behind Kamara, providing Pilks is fit; so my team would be:            Ruddy (assuming fit, he did play 90 mins on Monday)Martin Turner Bassong Garrido           Tettey JohnsonBennett       Snodgrass     Pilks              Kamara
  8. I hought he was MOTM today.  Delivered some quality balls into the box, which was the reason we scored both goals. He worked lots of space on the right and it wasn''t just the quality of his delivery but the speed at which he delivered (one touch and then the cross) which caused problems for them defensively.His stats were none too shabby either:http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/615251/Live
  9. My team;                       BunnMartin  Turner    Bassong    Garrido                     JohnsonSnodgrass      Fox      Pilkington/Murphy                  Holt   KKIMO, Fox is critical - someone to spread the ball and play the wingers in. Unfortunately he''s the only one we have and we have been missing this side of the game all season.  I would also give Murphy a chance on the left, if Pilks is not fit.  It''s all irrelevant anyway, Hughton will stick with his defensive set up and hope that we keep a clean sheet. It''s been his gameplan all season. He says that scoring isn''t ''rocket science'' but I see no evidence of a change in tactics or personnel, to rectify the lack of goals.  Sadly, I am losing hope and that''s the only thing we have, as fans. 
  10. Clearly, Hughton had similar thoughts with the formation today.  I thought it worked quite well; we looked more balanced and certainly created more chances than last week.  You could argue that Snoddy was not as effective on the left but I still feel his real strength is his set-pieces, which of course, we scored from today. 
  11. I was going to say Benno was doing OK..... but shocking free-kick there!
  12. ricardo wrote the following post at 17/03/2013 9:18 AM:  baker wrote:  Hoolahan has started 22 games and we have won 7 and lost 7 of those games. That means that we have not won a game that he has not started.  Also interesting is that we have only scored 4 goals in the 7 games that our Wesley hasn’t started.  Even more obscurely we have conceded almost twice as many goals per game when he hasn’t started (2.43 per game) than when he has (1.27 per game). As I never tire of saying, "No Wes, No Win" Which is amazing when you consider he is the 10th best player for us this season, according to these stats: http://www.whoscored.com/Teams/168 OP - Thanks for these stats which make an interesting read and I am sure took a lot of effort to put together on your part. I guess the sooner we get Whittaker back in the side the better. [^o)]
  13. Philip, you make some good points, which I do not disagree with in principle. I just feel we have looked ineffective going foward this season and have scored few goals from open play and the majority have come from set pieces.  That may be beacuse we are just too defensively minded (something which has changed from last season) but the other thing that''s changed is the consistent use of the inverted wingers.  We certainly don''t seem to get enough balls into the box to provide a decent service for the strikers and I think one of those reasons may be due to the inverted wingers.  Now you could also argue that we have lacked creativity from the centre of midfield but that''s a different issue.  People were calling for us to play 4-4-2 but in my view, the strikers were never the problem; its the service which has been poor.  We need more balls into the box and they need to be better quality and until we try something different, things are not going to change. 
  14. I agree too. I think it is worth a try.  Snoddy''s strongest aspect has been his set play delivery and the goals he has scored from free-kicks, an option that would still be available if Hughton played him on the left. He also has bundles of energy and provides good cover at the back, which would give Garrido a bit more support and may allow him to push further forward and deliver balls, which we know he can do.  We know Bennett''s best best position is on the right and Wes has been ineffective when played out wide, so I don''t think Hughton has too many options, other than to try swapping the wingers.I think it would offer us more going forward in open play because having a left footer on the right (and vice versa) is easier to defend against, not just because there is a strong possibility that he will turn inside onto his favoured foot, but also because an inswinging ball from the right  is easier to clear defensvely than an outswinging ball delivered from the by-line.  I thought that would be easier to explain. [:^)]
  15. vos wrote the following post at 10/03/2013 2:39 PM: You have to remember that we are playing against two teams with a lot of quality and are currently in fine form. So I will have to set the team out to defend for 90 minutes which will mean 10 defenders plus a striker - sorry I meant a goalkeeper !!!! Per CH Spot on!  I must admit that annoys me every single time. The post match interviews are always the same - it''s like he''s stuck in a virtual loop. I can''t help thinking that we need to be motivating our own players not praising the opposition for their quality.
  16. BW''s Cat.  I hope you are right but if this season is a guide as to how we are going to play under Hughton (and we have no other evidence to suggest otherwise) I just can''t see things changing for the better.
  17. If you look objectively our attacking play has been poor all season (including pre-season). Even during the unbeaten run, most of our goals came from set pieces but our attacking forays during open play has been a weak part of our game, throughout this campaign.  Yes, we have changed to two strikers on occasion but that’s not the problem – the problem is the poor service they receive and we simply do not provide enough quality balls into the box during open play. Until we sort that out, we will not be an attacking threat. We make the odd tweak by changing like for like players but the tactics and the end result are the same.  Players seem to lack confidence when they cross the half-way line, there is a lack of movement off the ball, players end up passing it backwards or taking on the opposition and invariably giving away possession.   IMO we are just too defensively-minded, almost scared of moving forward during open play for fear of losing shape at the back.  Until we change that, I fear our best chance of scoring will continue to be from set pieces, where we seem less worried about our defensive shape because we have more time to recover. Having said all that, it seems that some of our supporters are happy with this style of football although I have to say I expect better. As football fans we can expect highs and lows and we live for the highs that are yet to come, however, having watched every game this season (albeit on TV), I find myself increasingly disappointed with our performances and fear that those "highs" will be few and far between with this style of football.
  18. My point was more that it doesn''t matter how many strikers we buy. If we can''t get decent delivery into them, they won''t score.
  19. Agreed.  It’s probably part of the defensive plan CH has put in place but it should be achievable because we have plenty of defenders or the two holding midfielders to provide cover when they do venture forward.  Our wingers need that support or overlap from the full backs.  We used to play that way but haven''t seen it this season. We live in hope.
  20. This is my first post and I apologise for the length.  I have followed the message board for some time but haven’t really felt the need to get anything off my chest, until now.  Everyone seems to be calling for new striking options and I can see that this will bring renewed hope but I will it really be the salvation we are hoping for?   What’s been clear from pre-season is that we were not scoring enough goals and this has continued throughout the season.  We seem to be better defensively (when Bassong plays) but we have lost the impetus going forward.  With only six league goals for our strikers, we are not creating enough chances for them to capitalise on and this has been evident whether we play 4-5-1 and even on the rare occasion we have played 4-4-2 (like today).    So why are we not creating chances for our strikers?  In my view, we are not delivering enough balls into the box during open play and I think the problem may lie with the way we play our wingers.  Interestingly, we persist on playing our wingers on the wrong side, which means they have to turn inside, thereby keeping our play narrow.   When balls are then delivered in, they will be in-swinging and these are easier to defend against because defenders can play the way they are facing.  Alternatively, our strikers need to glance the ball towards goal rather than attack the ball full on.  If we were to deliver balls from the left/right side with the left/right foot the ball will be out-swinging; easier to attack and more difficult to defend against it.    The key area for delivering balls into the box is the by line (or close to it) because there are so many options (conventional cross, hard and low across the face, float to the back post or even pull back to the edge of the box for a shooting opportunity), all of which are difficult to defend against.  I have watched every game this season and have seen little evidence that we try to work the ball into these crossing zones enough or even into shooting opportunities on the edge of the box.  That’s not to say we haven’t done it at all because Holt was given an excellent chance today when Jackson crossed from exactly the area I am talking about but generally our attacks have been narrow, because the wrong-sided winger has to turn inside.   I would like to see us play to our strengths.  Both Holt and Morrison are good in the air and rely on crosses into the box.   I genuinely believe that Holt has the ability to score lots of goals, because he proved it last season, but he (or any other striker) has to be provided the service from midfield to enable him to do so.  Jackson is a different proposition; he needs to play in a 4-4-2 so that he can clean up the scraps by playing off the bigger man.  If he plays on his own up front, we have to change our tactics by either delivering the ball hard and low so that he can use his pace to get ahead of the defender or we need to work the ball into shooting positions on the edge of the box so that he can capitalise on goalkeeper errors or defender deflections.    Now the question is; do we have the personnel to deliver the quality of service?   I haven’t seen much evidence that our wingers have the ability to take on players like traditional wingers but what each of them undoubtedly have, is the ability to deliver crosses and this has been proved with their set-piece delivery.  We therefore need to use the full backs to support them and by using crisp triangle passing with the other midfielders, work the ball into the position where the wingers or the full-backs can deliver the killer ball.   In summary, IMO until we sort the tactics out, buying a new striker may not achieve all that we are hoping for.
  • Create New...