Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Aggy

    Ratings v Bournemouth

    Ratings seem about right Wacky. I’d have taken a point before the game and I have to say keeping a clean sheet has got me about as happy about a 0-0 bore draw as I’ve ever been.
  2. I don’t think it’s entirely to do with the players. Against Man City Amadou looked quality - he’s been average at best as a centre back in every other game. Is that because he just had a one off, or is it because of the system? I’ve said this elsewhere so won’t labour the point again here, but if you leave your defence exposed, you need players who can win their individual battles. I’m not sure even our first choice defenders are good enough to do that regularly in the prem - Godfrey and Aarons have been at fault for as many goals as Hanley and Amadou. Even Liverpool, before Van Dijk their way of playing left them vulnerable. They’ve had to bring in arguably the best defender in the world before they look decent defensively. But if you play compact, with a small gap between defence and midfield and your full backs fairly narrow, then it reduces the chances for your defenders to make individual errors. Now most people think that means Big Sam two banks of four, hoof ball. But as we showed against Man City, it doesn’t - our playing out from the back in that game was as good as it gets. Agree Tettey was immense against Man City, and we’ve had injuries to others such as Trybull. But again, get your two holding players to sit tighter and stay closer to the back four and then it might mitigate for missing Tettey.
  3. I don’t think Sutton is saying the injuries had no significant impact on the results. In fact, he goes as far as to suggest that because of the injuries we should have changed things in order to try and avoid such results (implying that there may not have been any need to change things had players been fit). We seem to have taken the view that as we have lots of injuries we aren’t going to defend well, so let’s just be open and try to blitz a few goals ourselves first. The Man City game though showed that (even with injuries) if you set up in a certain way you will get results. And we still played some of our best football in that game.
  4. Who has said he’s a good pundit? You said he doesn’t do various things and I provided quotes of him doing those things. My main post was about the content of the article which the earlier posts were discussing. We’ve now moved on to ignoring the content and instead saying he’s not a great pundit (despite the fact you appear to think what he has said is all true and you having not given any suggestion as to the sort of extra insightfulness you were expecting from an article about our defensive record).
  5. I’ll take that as a “yes” then...
  6. “I still live in the area and read the local paper so I've seen there has been a big thing made about the injuries Norwich have suffered in the past few weeks, and of course they have missed some of the players who have been sidelined. There have been goalkeeper issues with their top two, Tim Krul and Ralf Fahrmann, both out. At centre-half, Christoph Zimmermann, Timm Klose and Grant Hanley are long-term absentees, which has meant a defensive midfielder, Ibrahim Amadou, has filled in there rather than play in his preferred position. More recently, midfielders Kenny McLean and Todd Cantwell picked up problems over the international break. It is clearly far from ideal, but I actually look at Norwich's line-ups in recent weeks and I do not see many bit-part players.” “This is not a case of me putting the boot into Farke. Far from it. His Canaries side put in one of the greatest performances in the club's history when they beat Manchester City last month, and there is nothing wrong with them as an attacking force.” “Clearly, you have to ask whether Norwich's backline is getting enough protection now they are in the Premier League, and also whether their defenders are good enough to cope by winning their individual battles when they are left exposed? So far, it appears the answer to both questions is 'no'” “In any case, you cannot blame bad results on not having the personnel available if you still just go out and play in your usual attacking style, because surely sticking with it in those circumstances is not a sensible thing to do? If you have a weakened team, then give them more protection. I am a huge fan of expansive football but sometimes you need to try to keep your back four intact - so, tell your full-backs to sit in and play a little more pragmatically.” ”The big positive about all of this is that it is still so early, there is no need to panic yet. If I was a player in the Norwich dressing room now, I would be thinking about how we do need to tighten up, but I would also be confident we have players who can hurt Premier League sides.” “...That could affect their confidence too and, if they start to lose belief in the way Farke wants them to play, then they really are in trouble.” “My issue is that they seem to be making every game a shoot-out and with their weaknesses in defence, it has left them as sitting ducks. Their defeat by Villa was a good example of that - I was watching it and could not believe how ludicrously open they were.” So other than the context and professional opinion above, and the numerous interesting stats, what were you expecting from such an article? Or is it that he’s said a few things that are probably true so we’re just going to say he’s a bad pundit instead of acknowledging that he might be on to something, for instance when suggesting it might be a half decent idea to give your defence a bit more cover and scope to sit tight when you’ve only got half a fit defender.
  7. Largely agree with the article. In particular, the part where he says (paraphrasing), it’s all well and good blaming it on the injuries, but if you’ve got huge injuries and it’s causing you big problems playing a certain way, then change it up. You need to be thinking about giving your make shift defensive unit a bit more protection and scope to keep it tight (like we did at Man City). Let’s not forget as well - that defensive stat of conceding 2.6 a game isn’t skewed because of one drumming by a top top side like Man City or Liverpool who are just on it one day. We’ve let in 2 goals in all but one of our games. Even if we’d not conceded against Villa we’d be averaging 2 goals conceded a game. I also like the comment in the article that we are treating every game like a shoot out. That’s the one thing that worried me (only slightly admittedly) about the way we came up - in the championship the opposition attackers aren’t as good and the opposition defenders aren’t as good. So you get more chances and can afford to concede more chances. In the prem you get fewer chances and get punished more often. I’m not sure why we seem so hesitant to play like we did against Man City - yes it was more “solid” and less open than normal, but we arguably played our best football this season in that game. Some of the playing it out, the skills of Cantwell in particular breaking free and the pace on the counter - it was as good as anything else we’ve produced this season and we kept it pretty tight.
  8. Aggy

    Must go

    Agree with Bill here - what is “competitive” in the prem? Finishing 14th and hoping you might get to an FA cup semi final once every few years? Great. Spending more and more on fairly average players in order to do so? Even greater. Always worrying about having one bad season, going down and then struggling with finances for the next 5-10 years (or worse) and/ or selling all your best players to avoid going bust? Of course I’d take playing in the top division (although occasions such as winning the playoff final will live much longer in my memory than Burnley away). But I would rather we are ran sensibly and responsibly in terms of finances - if we can establish in the prem doing it that way, great. If we can’t then so be it. But I’d rather we do it that way and yo-yo than risk being in the position of Bolton, Coventry, Portsmouth etc..
  9. Aggy

    Did we miss a trick here?

    Agreed - add to that this chap is 26, has (according to Wikipedia) only ever played in Switzerland and Belgium, not got an international cap - I’m not sure he’d have been our saviour. I’d guess we were looking at him as he seems to be able to play left back as well, so would give us additional cover there and in the middle, but only ever really as a squad player. As Icf says, not sure I can grumble too much about us not bringing in a fifth choice centre back when we had Amadou to fill that role “in an emergency”. Transfermarkt.co.uk also suggests he is currently out with “adductor problems - return unknown”....
  10. Aggy

    Jack Rodwell

    Admittedly I havent followed Rodwell particularly closely in recent years, but from what I have heard, I’d guess he’d want pretty high wages, would probably be a disruptive influence in the dressing room and probably wouldn’t be much use anyway.
  11. Aggy

    We've just f'cked it up.

    If you’ve got such injury problems then you have to change it. We can barely defend when everyone is fit - because we’re so open it relies on individuals being really good defensively. If you’re playing third, fourth choice players at the back then they aren’t going to be good enough defensively. Even Godfrey and Aarons have been caught out ofmposition numerous times this season. How many times was anyone caught out of position against Man City (a side who have players that can pull even the best defences in the world all over the place)? Very few. Because we set up more solidly. Your style has to evolve and adapt to circumstances. We definitely shouldn’t start hoofing it. But we can set up more solidly, play nice football from the back in a more counter attacking way. At the moment, we can’t just say “oh it will get better when everyone is fit”.
  12. Aggy

    Could AD be our AC??

    No idea of Idah is good enough or not. Wouldn’t be too difficult to accommodate a front two though - Stiepermann has been a bit wasteful and I’ve never been convinced that technically he’s good enough for the prem. Switch him out for a second striker, two wingers/attacking midfielders, two holding midfielders. I’ve said on another thread just now that I think setting up more akin to how we did against Man City could be a good idea - slightly more solid, slightly more counter attacking with 6 outfield players largely holding their position. We can still play it out nicely, but Idah might suit that style if he is quick. Pukki, Idah, Cantwell on the break, with Buendia being the link between the holding midfielders and the attack could work.
  13. Aggy


    Against Man City as well though, when we did give it away, we hadn’t been pulled all out of position. Against Villa, most of their threat was pressing us, winning it in good positions and us not being able to recover. People would no doubt have panned us if we started a home game against Villa as defensively as we did against Man City, but I think that’s probably our best hope this season - especially whilst our defence is so stretched. If we haven’t got first, second or even third choice defenders available, then we need to help the, out a bit. Sit in tighter, have a holding two in midfield staying close to the back four, play it out from the back and then focus the attacking phases on Pukki, Cantwell, Buendia and Stiepermann, with everyone else largely holding their position. If we need to bomb Aarons forward, then fine, maybe bring in Vrancic for Stipermann and have him hold slightly more, with Amadou or Tettey (or whoever else is holding) slotting in to cover the gap at right back.
  14. Aggy

    We've just f'cked it up.

    Agreed. I don’t know whether we couldn’t find the right player to bring in or couldn’t find anyone offering a good enough deal to take one of the others (most likely Hanley) off our hands. But I think we’d have needed both of those things before another centre back came in.
  15. Aggy

    We've just f'cked it up.

    Sorry who was expected to miss a substantial chunk of the season? Klose, who was in for Crawley (missed three games)? Or Zimmerman who was back for West Ham (so also missed only three league games)? That both got injured on their come back isn’t “knowing...they would miss a substantial chunk of the season”. It’s extreme bad luck. Coming into the season, we were expecting to have four fully fit centre backs within about a month. Plus Amadou as the emergency fifth choice utility man you say we haven’t got. Hardly worth spending 2.5mil plus additional wages for a fifth out and out centre back is it. Would Ajayi have gotten in before Godfrey or Zimmerman? Or Klose? Probably not, so fourth choice, third at best. Or he can play regular first team football at West Brom and stake a claim for regular prem football with them next season. Why would he come to us and be third, fourth or fifth choice? Especially as they are probably paying wages similar to what we could afford anyway. Why would we pay that much money for a third fourth or fifth choice when we were expecting to have four fit centre backs within a month and Amadou as fifth choice. As for none of our full backs being able to play centre half, presumably that’s why Amadou is here. First choice midfielder who can be that fifth choice centre back when needed. Same response to your point about going into the season with only Godfrey, Zimmerman and Hanley if Klose isn’t deemed fit enough to be relied on. Amadou is the cover. I will agree with you though that Lewis definitely shouldn’t be playing at centre back!