peateabee

I agree, for the majority of this season, if not the entirety, we have been worse than the sum of our parts. Often much worse. I honestly believe that this squad, if playing well is good enough to stay up, but It''s looking like it''s going to be awfully tight at the minute, unless something finally clicks into place.

Totally agree with this thread. Does Van Wolfswinkel actually even have a proper chant yet?

I didn''t see that much of him, and don''t know if my recollection has become harsher over time, but Matty Pattinson is one that always sticks in my mind. I swear one game all he did was hit these lovely long cross field passes straight to the fifth row. Combined with the fact that I remember him as someone who was always so obviously trying his heart out it somehow made the fact that he was just technically rubbish all the more obvious. Actually it''s quite a fond memory! Always brings a smile to my face!

No. We''re not as effective as Stoke were. They were much better defensively, and were always competitive. (never got turned over 7-0, 4-0, 5-0 etc). To be honest they were probably more of a goal threat at the other end as well despite the fact that their only attacking outlet was throw-ins for almost a full season. Unfortunately i''m only partly joking.

Maybe. It seems ridiculous to suggest such a tiny thing could make such a big difference, but I really think it might have helped. Hooper certainly benefited from his ''smashed down the middle'' penalty when he first came in. It helped start off his goalscoring run which has helped him settle down.

I think it''s horses for courses with regards to formation. I don''t think there is anything wrong with playing 4-4-2 style system at home against a side like Newcastle, but it is a better formation for really going for the win, not if your looking for lots of control of the game. Cardiff away, could be played 4-4-2 if you really wanted to go for the win, but I think that could be too much of a risk in this situation, at least to start with. They have ben keeping the ball well since Solsjkaer has come in. For this one I think we should go Ruddy Martin, Bennett, Bassong, Olsson Tettey Redmond, Fer, Hoolahan/Howson, Pilkington Hooper/RVW

I would like to think we could at least have a try for Holtby, even if it was a loan move. Would be a massive long shot as I think he should end up at someone better, but worth a try none the less. If not how about for Tom Ince? Do you reckon we''ll have a go for him? He''s been mentioned a few times on this board and he''s supposedly having talks with Hull and Stoke today - neither of whom are a step up from us.

great discussion topic. I think this is one of the biggest dilemmas at the club at the moment - knowing what the best balance for the team is using the players we have got. And as you point out this usually comes down to the question of do you want one or two strikers playing. If you do want two strikers the obvious fit with the players we have got is some sort of variation on a 4-4-2 as we have seen. We have strength and depth on the wings compared to the rest of our squad, and this system uses them well. Another alternative is the increasingly popular 3-5-2 wing back system, but as others have mentioned you have to sacrifice those wide players, getting your width from wing backs instead. And whilst Olsson, Whitaker and Gutierrez could do a decent job there, I think not using Snodgrass, Pilkington, Redmond and even Murphy properly would not be using the squads full potential and we would miss out on a lot of the little ''xfactor'' that we have. I think probably the most balanced formation for us, as others have also said, is a 4-1-4-1, or variation. (You can argue about players, but for demonstration purposes something along the lines of...) Ruddy Martin Bennett Bassong Olsson Tettey Redmond Fer Hoolahan Pilkington Van Wolfswinkel This really should have enough solidity while also having plenty attacking options and avenues of creation behind a single striker that could be rotated. The downside - you end up leaving one of Hooper/Van Wolfswinkel out and by doing that arguably on the extra goalscoring potential and cutting edge that should bring. So I think there really is a dilemma when it comes to selecting a team from our current squad as it seems there isn''t exactly just one formation that suits it. I wonder if an ideal formation was held in mind as it was being created? However this problem can also provide a benefit - being that we should be able to adapt to different ways of playing, and different tactics - But this policy has it''s own troubles as well. On a side note do you know if any team has ever played/had any success with a 3-2-3-2? I imagine not - (although maybe way back when) but for example... Ruddy Martin Bennett Bassong Tettey Fer Snodgrass Hoolahan Pilkington Van Wolfswinkel Hooper In a way you could just play it as a variation on a 3-5-2, but you would keep two defensive midfielders who shield the back three and then get your width from wingers instead of wing-backs. I don''t believe i''ve ever seen it - but would be interested to know if it could ever work in reality. Bizarrely It kind of fits our squad.

[quote user="GJP"]Hooper was very good from an hour or so into the game. Before that RVW was the better of the two, by a distance.[/quote] I have to admit I saw it that way too. Hooper wasn''t involved in a lot of note in todays game, but what he did do he did simply and well.

His performance was just what i expected. Nice and solid, good work rate and some nice simple bits of composed play, but to be honest not much going forward in terms of a goal threat or creating chances. But to be fair most of our play did go down the right, so he didn''t see much of it anyway.

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"][quote user="GJP"]Was very good today. Unlucky to go off.[/quote] i thought this. Some people seem to think he was awful today. I saw a striker low on confidence meeting a team that defended well. They always seemed to get a block or header in to not give him an easy chance. The easiest one was probably the 1st half volley which i think a player high on confidence would have buried [/quote] Agree. his confidence is completely shot at the moment and it should not be underestimated how big of a deal confidence is in professional sport. Overall his link up play was really quite good today, but in and around that box he is obviously not himself - you can almost see him visibly over thinking about those thinks he would just normally do naturally. It will be a real mental battle for him at the moment, but there is still plenty of time for it to turn around. Having said that he is in a bit of danger of ''doing a torres'' if he doesn''t start to turn the corner before the end of the season. Good luck to him.

It''s true - it didn''t look like they were always playing for him earlier in the season - but if they all wanted him gone they could have just rolled over today and let it happen. But they didn''t, they dug him out a hole.

I don''t think he will go now this season. However I think things have come so far that his long term future at Norwich is still very much in jeopardy. I think the board will be on the lookout to see if any alternative candidates become available while they monitor the situation. Even if we stay up, if the right person becomes available I don''t think he is necessarily safe.

Hard to say outstanding, because they were barely troubled beyond the first 10 minutes in which they looked incredibly shaky. Having said that, overall I think they did well and comfortably dealt with Hull''s limited attack after that initial spell. Bassong looked SLIGHTLY better, Olsson OK, Bennett is still improving and glad to see him rewarded with a goal and Martin was really good again, but we mostly saw him in an attacking sense today - He does an excellent job in maintain gin our width with Snodgrass always coming inside. I think that is our best back four at the moment, but much tougher tests lie ahead where they will really earn their money as defenders.

My honest opinion of Van Wolfswinkel is that he is essentially a good player. He is by no means a complete striker - he is not going to dribble past many players and create chances for himself, pull out loads outrageous bits of skill and has fairly average pace. Individually he probably has too many deficiencies to be any sort of world beater, but it is not an individual sport, and the qualities he does should sit well within a well functioning team and probably a certain style of team as well. His qualities seem to lie in fairly decent interplay and build up, a decent touch, good movement and until he arrived here a consistently good goalscoring record and a poachers eye for goal. I see him as a step or two down from a ''Lewandoski or Van Persie style striker'' - not going to go on mazy dribbles, average pace, but good clever goalscorers etc. With all of them if you take away their goalscoring form and most of the chances that a good side would create for them their contribution to their team is massively cut and that is what we are seeing with Van Wolfswinkel. It could still go either way, but I wouldn''t write him off yet because at the moment there is almost a perfect storm of reasons at the club a why a striker in the situation of Van Wolswinkel would not be working out.

[quote user="Barossa"]The stats are there to back him up. Possession: Fulham 48% Norwich 52% Shots: Fulham 10 Norwich 14 We are just devoid of all confidence at the moment.[/quote] It''s the confidence that bothers me the most. I caught the end of the game and all of them looked completely dejected. A large part of top class sport is a confidence thing and the team looked like it was at a real low. I just hope they can raise themselves for Saturday otherwise we''re closing in on a downward spiral.

[quote user="City 2nd"]peateabee wrote the following post at 2014-01-15 2:00 AM: No he is not a flop. Why on earth are people so keen to write him off? It seems that a lot of people on here would really like than to see him fail for some unfathomable reason. He is a good player - one of our best. Any player can lose form, and particularly strikers (just look at Benteke) and it''s not surprising it''s hard for him to find it again in a team that is playing so poorly. Besides even when he is off form he is still twice the player of Elmander. We need Van Wolfswinkel - Get behind him. Lose form - what form are you talking about - 1 goal is not form FFS. The guy is a total misfit, full stop, at best a championship striker, and that is where he is heading at this moment in time.[/quote] Lose form in terms of him personally - his career - 5 months in terms of a career is a loss of personal form. Before he came to Norwich he was pretty much always ''on form'' - he had a top class goal scoring record. He has certainly not adjusted well to life in the Premier League and with the upheaval of moving clubs either it seems. But frankly even if this is a good as he is going to get - he is still our second best striker and I can''t see the point of getting on his back at the moment - it is a lose - lose situation if we do.

I honestly can''t tell with Phelan - I really feel like I don''t have enough to go on - he could be a really good manager in the making or one of those coaches who isn''t suited to the top job. There is this nagging doubt with me that he was just hanging on the coattails of Sir Alex, and wasn''t really responsible for too much there, and when he gets elevated to a position where the buck stops with him it may be too much. But that is just complete speculation with no real basis and with his background he surely couldn''t do much worse than Hughton. If he had a really good team of people around him I would be more confident.

No he is not a flop. Why on earth are people so keen to write him off? It seems that a lot of people on here would really like than to see him fail for some unfathomable reason. He is a good player - one of our best. Any player can lose form, and particularly strikers (just look at Benteke) and it''s not surprising it''s hard for him to find it again in a team that is playing so poorly. Besides even when he is off form he is still twice the player of Elmander. We need Van Wolfswinkel - Get behind him.

I have always thought that we would stay up - and still do, but my oh my it is looking like it might be tight now and the first serious doubts are creeping in. I think the quality of our squad is definitely good enough, but that is no guarantee.

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="peateabee"][quote user="Indy_Bones"]My main concern with this signing is not so much that Gutierrez isn''t good enough per se, but it''s indicative that yet again Hughton is shying away from attacking and focusing on even more defence.His best season overall was probably close to 4 years ago, and even then he''s never been prolific from the aspect of supplying forwards with their ammunition, nor is he a consistent goalscorer either.His strengths lie in solid passing (if not spectacular levels of ability), great work rate, whilst being strong and good at helping out defensively.So when we''re in a position where our forwards are crying out for supply, do we really want a ''defensive winger'' rather than someone who can directly influence our key weakness?It really isn''t the players fault there''s a certain degree of apathy about his signing, simply that he''s not the sort of player many of us thought we needed (or indeed were looking for), and it really doesn''t address some of the main areas of concern for fans.Of course I''ll get behind the guy and hope he does a great job for us whilst on loan, but I''m just hoping that it doesn''t mean we''ve got another few months of even more defensive dross to come because of it...[/quote] I can agree with pretty much all of that[/quote] And just maybe, he can give us more defensive strength and release Howson and Fer to get forward more. It can be attacking to sign a defensive player if he can free up others. It''s no coincidence that our best performances came when Tettey plays because Howson can push up with more freedom knowing his back is covered.[/quote] Tettey is a defensive midfielder though. Gutierrez has always been a left winger. Maybe he has changed his position - he might be quite good in a Tettey role actually, but most people don''t usually look for defensive midfielder qualities in a left winger.

[quote user="Alfie54"]Seems to me at the very least a step up from playing Garrido on the wing![/quote] agree with that too

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]My main concern with this signing is not so much that Gutierrez isn''t good enough per se, but it''s indicative that yet again Hughton is shying away from attacking and focusing on even more defence.His best season overall was probably close to 4 years ago, and even then he''s never been prolific from the aspect of supplying forwards with their ammunition, nor is he a consistent goalscorer either.His strengths lie in solid passing (if not spectacular levels of ability), great work rate, whilst being strong and good at helping out defensively.So when we''re in a position where our forwards are crying out for supply, do we really want a ''defensive winger'' rather than someone who can directly influence our key weakness?It really isn''t the players fault there''s a certain degree of apathy about his signing, simply that he''s not the sort of player many of us thought we needed (or indeed were looking for), and it really doesn''t address some of the main areas of concern for fans.Of course I''ll get behind the guy and hope he does a great job for us whilst on loan, but I''m just hoping that it doesn''t mean we''ve got another few months of even more defensive dross to come because of it...[/quote] I can agree with pretty much all of that

[quote user="Ketts Rebel"]Ha Ha ...very good ! Like to know where this ''Spiderman'' tag come from though. The Toon forums seem to praise his work rate, and most think he will be good for us... Lets hope so.[/quote] ''Spiderman'' tag comes from the fact that he puts a spiderman mask on whenever he scores a goal. Don''t know if he still does, but we''ll have to be fairly lucky to see that routine as he has never been a prolific goalscorer. Lets hope we are.

Wouldn''t have signed him myself, but he is here now so I will be behind him all the way. Hope he does well, seems like a nice chap and he will almost certainly provide a great benchmark and example in training of the type or effort and intensity which we like to see in our players.