Jump to content

Canary02 IV

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Posts posted by Canary02 IV

  1. Redmond should have picked up Coleman for Everton''s second but didn''t think he did a lot wrong at Hull. He''s a great attacking threat and looks the most likely to make breakthrough''s for us. Defensively he''s naive but at 19 that''s to be expected. He''ll learn. I just hope he''s not coached out of his attacking instincts while they implement some defensive discipline.

  2. Calderwood''s c.v. as a manager is especially uninspiring. Playing Grant Holt as a right winger and running him out of Nottm Forest was proven to be especially stupid. I think there could well be a parallel between that and the fact that Holty only lasted a year under the new regime. However, only the players and staff really know what goes on at Colney. For all we know Calderwood could be preaching a more expansive style and Hughton refusing to go with it.

    Ultimately they came as a package and we have to judge them as such. Hughton fought very hard to bring Calderwood to Birmingham so any failings on Calderwood''s part fall under Hughton''s umbrella.

  3. I don''t think it''s must win for Norwich City at all. As a lot of people are quick to point out, it will only be the third game of the season.

    For Chris Hughton it does take on an increased significance. The longer he goes without providing a performance of any fluidity, the more difficult his position will become.

  4. Holt and RvW are very different players and so I agree that we shouldn''t be paying the same system but regrettably we pretty much are which is kind of my point and why it''s looking so disappointing right now. The only noticeable difference is that we can''t use Holt''s height so we''re not slinging long balls up quite as much, but all that means is RvW sees even less of the ball than Holty did, and the attacks are developing even more slowly.

    2 up front and different style''s and systems, is where I have to differ. We did that early in the season to a limited extent but post Christmas it was either Holt or Kamara as the one up front but never both, and 4-2-3-1 regardless of situation. His inability to adapt that or adapt the movement of players within the system regardless of situation is another reason that CH is questioned all the time.

  5. I also think your point about the teams we have beaten is equally telling. CH''s system is far better suited to taking on big teams and a lot of our points were picked up against the top half sides. It''s when we have to take the initiative and be progressive that we struggle. That''s already being borne out this season again.

  6. But we''ve acquired these shiny new forwards and then play the same style we had last season which gifted us 3 wins in the last 20 odd games. That style doesn''t suit RvW any more than it did Grant Holt (and probably suits him even less).

    Are we saying that to play in the same style as last season is a virtue? That we should persist with something that obviously isn''t working and say nothing just because there are only 2 games on the board this season? The style hasn''t altered at all in between campaigns despite the change of some personnel so I think it''s logical to draw comparisons that reach back to last season.

  7. I''m not downplaying RvW''s quality at all Nige. Considering how little he''s been involved he''s done superbly. Without the movement you mention he would have been involved even less and the fact that he''s scored once and been close on two more occasions are testament to his ability rather than a criticism. What I''m concerned about is that we''re not playing to his strengths. If he could get better service imagine how many goals someone as sharp as he is could get.

    In terms of being lucky to score twice, I base that on how few chances we had and the fact that Whitt''s cross to RvW was a mishit shot which fell very fortuitously.

    I can''t accept the "second game of the season" excuse though. It''s game 40 for Hughton, and he''s had three transfer windows and 2 full preseasons to adapt a playing style that has been rickety at best throughout.

  8. Howson came alive after Snoddy took over at right wing and he was able to play attacking midfield in the second half. I don''t agree with those that say he''s our answer at no 10 but as the breaking midfielder to join in with a no 10, he''s perfect. On Sat, he seemed to become the no 10 and Fer pushed back to play Jonno''s role alongside Tettey. Had CH done as you suggest and left only Tettey sitting and allowed Fer to continue joining in further up the park alongside Howson we may have had a better chance of cracking the defence. I agree that having one sitter and one breaker is key to evolving that midfield "hinge" system that successful teams play well. CH''s reticence to do this is a major reason why he''s considered negative.

  9. I think we were fortunate to score twice, although the way we defended against a territorially dominant Everton team was probably enough for us to deserve a point.

    In terms of statistics, I haven''t mentioned any, so I''m not sure what you mean. What I see is a team that progresses very slowly and therefore has to thread a perfect ball through a packed defence to give RvW the supply he would like. That''s unlikely to happen very often.

  10. But Nige, that''s not been backed up by the tactics. Even with Benno in place of Snoddy against Everton when he could have used pace on both wings and RvW to counter attack a team that was bringing the game to us, we played out slowly from the back every time. When we won the ball in midfield we didn''t use the space in behind their defence but played it sideways or back and slowly progressed up the pitch. You can add fast players to the team but if your quick players have no space to run into their pace is neutralised.

  11. The key is that we have to pass the ball more quickly. RvW and also Hooper thrive off being played in behind the defence to take the keeper on but we hold the ball in midfield for so long that the opposition are back in numbers before it''s anywhere near the striker(s). Snodgrass and Hoolahan are especially guilty of keeping the ball far too long. From Hughton''s point of view he needs to let the midfielders bomb on and join in too. Fer and Howson are both capable of breaking swiftly and decisively to join the attack if only they could be unshackled occasionally.

  12. We don''t play a counter-attacking game unfortunately, which makes RvW ill-suited to the style. We play an agonisingly slow build-up, usually through Snodgrass dribbling by himself for at least 30 seconds, allowing the defence to get back and get into position. We then try and fail to pick our way through the defence because there are too many to get past. Our best opportunities come when the full backs sling a long cross into the area bypassing some of the defence, a la Everton, and RvW tries to divert it in.

    Welcome to the gameplan for the season. If it works 36 more times and we can keep a few clean sheets we might just stay up and CH will be proclaimed by some to be a good manager again.

  13. One up front is a perfectly workable formation if the whole team is aware of their responsibilities. That is why so many teams can play it successfully and still create chances and score goals. The reason we struggle to do so is that our coaching team obviously cannot get their message across to the players as to what they need to do to make the formation work (or don''t actually know themselves).

  14. The biggest problem seems to be his stubbornness. I''ve never seen a manager so doggedly stick to a style of play that has repeatedly failed him, at the very least, away from home.

    Looking at it logically, Hughton must be happy with the points he is getting from away games and therefore does not feel he need''s to change the style of play as he does not need to change the results. If that''s the case Mr McNally needs to have a word as the results are unacceptable.

    The other option is that he and his coaches are not happy with the away results, yet are incapable of coaching the players to play a different style, in which case, Mr McNally needs to consider whether they are competent enough to lead our club.

  15. I think Ayala and Butterfield are only listed as they''re in the category of "will do until we replace them". If we can''t get another CB and no 10 we''ll take them into the season. Even if we sign someone on deadline day they could still be loaned out to the Championship until Jan when they could move permanently. The 25 isn''t finalised until Sept.

  16. I think he''d tick several boxes that we haven''t already ticked. Experienced, both internationally and in the Premier League, powerful and with a good goalscoring record. Ideal player to bring off the bench if we need to nick a late goal but can also play the lone striker role if needed. Add in the attacking mid to provide competition for Wes and maybe a CB upgrade and I think we''d get A+ for our summer work.

  17. The play always going through Snoddy was in my opinion, one of our biggest problems last season.

    Firstly, it''s predictable. The opposition know exactly how to set up when we have the ball.

    Second, he''s predictable. Good dribbler that he is, he''s exceptionally one-footed and they know sooner or later he''s going to cut inside.

    Third, whenever he gets the ball he holds it for at least 30 seconds. This slowed down the majority of our attacks and allowed defences to get back and get set up in plenty of time. It''s no coincidence that we were the only team in the Premiership over the last 5 years to not score a single goal on the break for an entire season.

    I''m not anti-Snoddy as when he does get in the position to put a cross in or deliver a through ball, he''s exceptional, but we can''t keep using him as the starting point of every attack as it hinders us more than it helps. As the OP states, we need a playmaker in the middle of the park, not out on the wing.

  18. [quote user="NWC"]I don''t think he is as good as we all wanted him to be.Saying that - he has pace, aerial threat and bags of confidence - he could change a game and give the opposition something different to think about. Also has a bit of flexibility.RVW, Hooper, Beccio, Kamara - I would take that tbh.[/quote]

    Couldn''t agree with this more.

  19. I''ll go for:

    1) Fer - A step up in quality in an influential area.

    2) Ruddy - We''ll always have to face periods of pressure.

    3) Olsson - Great player whose arrival has been overshadowed by other names but will surprise a few with how good he is.

    4) RvW - I think he might take time to settle but he''ll only need one chance to drop and he''ll be away.

    5) Bassong - Awesome defender.

    Dark horse is Wes. A new no 10 will have to get past Wes first and he''s a far bigger worry to opposition defences than most people (including some Norwich fans) give him credit for.

  20. I think the drawback with Pilks would be that you need a bit of toughness to deal with centre backs trying to push up and pick you up in the hole with your back to them. Pilks, as you rightly pointed out is great going at goal with a good long shot and ability with either peg. However, when play gets compressed and develops slowly (as CH prefers) the no 10 has to spend a lot of time playing short passes in confined areas with defenders breathing down their neck. Pilks, for all his good qualities, is no Rambo and tends to pull out of challenges rather easily. Unless CH changes his attacking policy and looks to counter attack I don''t think Pilks would be a success. (Ironically counter-attacking would suit Hooper and RvW more as well).

  21. Totally agree. I''m sick of seeing 15 mins of David Moyes mumbling behind a table portrayed as headline news. I think the 99% of people in this country who aren''t Man Utd fans would rather hear about genuine updates from "less fashionable" clubs than more mundane dross about their Asian publicity tour that may feature a luke-warm friendly along the way.
  • Create New...