Glutton for Punishment

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]there''s "just" 3 mid-lower table teams who are already on their holidays standing between us and the Premiership..........................we really cant blame anyone or anything if we dont do it from here!?![/quote] You can''t go around saying things like that! It just adds pressure! I''m a nervous wreck as it is.

Putting to one side the odd suggestion of dropping Hoolahan and returning to the point of the original post, in my opinion Surman is off the pace at the moment does not not gel with the team. Surman was not terrible yesterday and he played his part in a successful team performance (especially 2nd half) but he was the weakest link. Too often yesterday our attacks lost momentum when the ball was with Surman and apart from dead balls did not get a cross in. Drury was the only one putting crosses in from the left. I think that there is a lot more to come from Surman but Lappin has more to offer at the moment. It is good to see competition for this place and Surman should use that to up the tempo in training.

The word lightweight has been used a couple of times earlier in this thread and for me that is the term that summed up the first half last night. Crofts is the only one who is competitive in a tackle and it showed in a half where we were second to everything. Too often possession was lost and Watford broke forward at pace, exposing our pedestrian centre backs. As a result we defended deeper and deeper which isolated the front two even further. With no physical presence up front there was no outlet. The second half improved markedly with the midfield and defence much sharper, winning possession and breaking up attacks. Playing more to their offensive strengths Fox, Surman and Crofts got in to the game more. Fox needs to have more to his game to play at the base and is perhaps better suited to a 442 playing alongside a ball winner. Korey would be better in a diamond formation. I thought that Surman did not do enough and needs to work better with Drury and he could be replaced like-for-like with Lappin. The key to our success or otherwise this season lies with the centre backs and last nights performance is a cause for concern. Let''s hope that Whitbread can provide a solution but with his injury prone-ness and Askou not offering anything different to Nelson and Ward, I would really like to see a strong Martin Taylor type leader brought in.

From Great Yarmouth. Now living in Nantwich, Cheshire and working on my two boys (6 and 9) to follow the green and yellow. Unfortunately had to buy one Liverpool and the other a Man U kit for xmas. NCFC only make ''second'' team status currently but they are only young yet. Plenty of time to see sense....

That second half was so bad it has got be deliberate! I''m a big fan of Korey Smith but how he was not subbed tonight I don''t know. He looks like he needs a break.

[quote user="SimonOTBC"]Glutton for punishment, what exactly did lambert do wrong?![/quote] Wrong choice of substitutes and wrong choice of first replacement when Hughes had to go off. Martin is not a left midfielder. Daley is not man enough for this league.

[quote user="SimonOTBC"]Spot on. Our game plan would have worked perfectly without the injuries. We would have scored again I''m sure, and they wouldn''t have put us under so much pressure[/quote] And in an ideal world nothing would ever go wrong! The manager has an opportunity to triumph in the face of adversity on nights like tonight and Lambert didn''t. I don''t blame him for our loss as the injuries were pure bad luck but Lambert did not inspire confidence in me tonight.

Sorry to be picky but that''s some of the worst spelling I have seen. I thought Cheltenham was posh! I agree about McVeigh but Martin was hopelessly out of position. He should have been up front with Horse instead of lightweight Daley. Martin took a good goal but undid it all with an awful tackle to give away the penalty, although he should never have been in that position in the first place.

[quote user="SimonOTBC"]Mk dons were pretty average in my opinion, puncheon was decent, other than that. We simply gifted them two goals. The ref wasn''t great, but we can''t blame him. I have no doubt that had Hughes stayed on we''d have won that. We''re too weak in midfield, smith and adeyemi are ok/decent players, but without Hughes around to put his foot on the ball and use it we''re a bit poor. Gill and tudur-jones won''t help, they''re not good enough on the ball. Mcveigh was the only midfielder to show any creativity. Lambert has a lot to do, but, I''m encouraged (sadly) by how poor our opponents have been. A draw would have been fair tonight, mk dons created very little. I''m sure the moaners will come on here and say we''re useless etc. but fact is everything went against us tonight.[/quote] You were obviously watching a different game to me if you thought a draw was a fair result. We were hanging on for the last 70 minutes! I agree that not a lot went for us tonight and the three injuries really screwed us up. After the injury to Hughes you would be forgiven to think that we had gone down to 10 men. After saying that the injuries were a large part of our downfall, I was desperately disappointed with how we fell apart thereafter. Lambert certainly did not pull any master strokes and whilst he was not exactly responsible for our downfall tonight he did not help matters either. It was a pretty poor night all in all and more than anything it tells me that Lambert has a hell of a job to get us competing at the top of this league. Sorry if that''s too much of a moan for you but I believe in facing up to the realities of the task ahead rather than pretend that tonight was anything like acceptable for a Norwich City team.

Rudd Semi Doc Askou Drury WLY Hughes Smith Lappin Holt Cureton Subs: Nelson, Steer, Adeyemi, Hoolahan, McDonald, Tudur Jones, Dumic Assumes that Alnwick won''t make it. Whaley doesn''t deserve to get on the coach after his display on Monday.

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Apologies if anyone else has said something similar but just got back via the Attleborough Indian (Very very nice). Quite simply Lambert selected a team with a few players that are going to be very doubtful in Lambert''s future team. His obvious philosophy was '' If I give em enough rope they will hang themselves. So stand up Doc, Tudor Jones and Whaley for starters!!! Due for a visit to the Manager''s office shortly I wager. Oh the joy in having a proper Manager running this club at last. That''s all folks. A very good night to you all.[/quote] Agree about the nature of Lambert''s selection and hopefully we shall never see Whaley in a city shirt again. Tudur Jones is young enoug to be shipped out again but whilst the Doc did not cover himself in glory tonight he still has a role to play at this level.

[quote user="Dronny Canary"]As I''ve said somewhere else, its not just the back four at fault. We don''t defend as a team. Our midfield as also culpable. They simply don''t track back, they wonder out of shape and they don''t take responsibility for their man. Because of this our "defence" gets too exposed far too easily. This is partly because we don''t seem to have any real leaders in this area in the team to get stuck into the rest of them and sort it out. We need a "character" solid central defender and a similar player in the centre of midfield. [/quote] I have to agree with this. The defensive unit is not just the back four but the entire team. The blame for the shambolic first half defensive display can not just be conveniently placed at Doherty''s feet. The defence was horribly exposed by Whaley''s non-existence, Hoolahan''s tendency for showing off with no end product and a woefully inadequate central midfield partnership. I''m afraid that we need more than ''a character''. We need bite in midfield and most importantly some shape as a TEAM.

[quote user="rjwc22"] And we will stay in the third tier at best if we continue to sell our top players and not replace them. Obviously Clingan has not been sold yet and we might replace them, just talking from experience. I like the way Leeds have shown some ambition by denying a much more saleable asset in Beckford the chance to leave even though he only has a year left.  It is really hard to keep players when they want to leave but do not think that is the case with Clingan, think it is more the club want his wages off the books.  Just hope they tell us why he is sold. [/quote] I agree with this entirely. The dumbing down of our team continues unabated. Clingan''s replacement is already here - see OTJ who cost nothing unless we get promoted. I know who I''d rather have even if it means losing him for nothing at the end of the season. Players will stay if the club refuses to sell. NCFC is a soft touch and this is yet another sign of the desperate financial straits the club is in. This move driven by financial necessity rather than a strategic move to build a team capable of promotion. Another season of toil and turgid football becons.

Norfolk schools, Gorleston Youth, Anglian Comb, Sunday league, knackered ACL 6 years ago.

[quote user="foggo7"][quote user="Glutton for Punishment"] Surely posts such as this have the sole intention of widening the divide between fans? What are you trying to achieve Badger? Already you have attracted snide remarks such as the one above. I''m no great supporter of NCISA but surely if you do not agree with their recommendation all you need to do is ignore it. You have made your position clear about this issue umpteen times on other posts. I happen to agree with NCISA''s recommendation but I respect other fans'' choice to disagree. [/quote] I think to a point the NCISA achieve this themselves, they appear to only raise their heads to cause trouble for the club in melodramatic acts, meetings and statements, I feel it''s a shame they do not try harder to forge links with the club owners so sensible debate can take place, then we can all unite within that arena. Acts such as encouraging us to claim our rebates which obviously leaves the club with less money are not the acts of an organization that wishes to converse freely at board level. [/quote] NCISA are of course leaving themselves open to negative comments with such a bold statement but I guess they felt they had a mandate to do so from the meeting at St Andrews Hall. I''m sure that they would like to converse at board level but it takes two you know! The entrenched owners do not want to talk to anyone because they can''t take critism and can''t bear to have their decisions questioned.