Canary On The Wire

He has to go. What, are we going to wait for Phelan to turn it round for us? If so he might as well manage us now. The players did not want that second half. Its over.

''Thank you for your fantastic support'' ....sorry about the fu(king diabolical team

Listen (as a certain Glaswegian often said) We can have as much ball in and around the box as we like. We can even have big blokes like Jerome and Lafferty attacking the ball in the box as much as we like. But crossing will always be an inefficient scoring method. If it wasn''t, Tony Pulis'' Stoke would have won the league. Michael Turner should be ashamed of himself for his attempt at defending the first, and Ruddy more so the second. It''s terrible! Until we remember how to defend and how to create chances consistently with focused passing in accordance with this ''Norwich Way'', we are going to remain in the Championship midtable. I don''t like to be negative, but unless Phelan sorts this out and quick, we are going to be spending at least another year in this division.

Bit optimistic listing that as a 4-4-2 OP. Lafferty and Redmond''s natural inclination to get high will make it a 4-2-4. For me that''s another unbalanced lineup. It will get goals but it will get caught. Hopefully Phelan will address this naivete in the weeks to come. I''d love to be wrong and see there''s a genius defensive shape behind it come 3pm, but I can''t help but feel we''ll have to score one more than them to cover up defensive inadequacy. Prediction: 3-3

Indicate to me where I have ''happy clapped'' and you win a ticket to see your beloved ITFC

Than our shambolic defensive performance today is the attitude of the ''fans'' I''ve seen on here who wanted Brighton to finish the job in hope Adams would get the sack. Whatever the situation, wanting your team to lose is pathetic. And it always will be.

...playing on for 40 minutes with medial ligament damage. I didn''t even know you could do that- that''s adrenaline I guess Poor bloke, as Adams said just about to establish himself in the side and that happens

Yes, we dominate the ball. But we aren''t actually very good with it. Keeping the ball in your own half for an impressive possession stat (well, actually to poke and probe for an opening) is all well and good- but the thing is that we simply work the ball into a decent crossing position for the wide men. The problem is, then, as anyone aware of strategies in football will tell you - crossing is a very inefficient goalscoring method. Whether you have an aerially dominant striker or not (though of course it will help), crossing the ball yields far fewer goals than chance creation by working the ball behind the opposition defence. As we simply work it wide and get a cross in, it seems that while teams sit off us and let us keep the ball in our half, they understandably get about us more as we advance up the pitch. We aren''t as comfortable with the ball under pressure, so we look to release a player out wide, who duly puts in a ball of varying quality, and quite unlikely to produce a goal. In order for us to turn our possessional dominance into goals, we need to work on keeping the ball under pressure in training, and off the ball movement from attacking players to pull defenders out of position allowing a pull back for a direct shot or a clear run on goal- as it is this we do not do well enough, in my view. I still believe in Adams- I just worry about his constant soundbiting about ''dominance''. It means absolutely nothing to have 60%+ possession if your players are not sharp enough on and off the ball.

Can''t find a vantage point from my nest here in York. None of the usual spots are available

Fantastic piece Parma. Explains basic principles in an easy to grasp way, and for those who wish to take more from football than ''that Lewis Grabban runs around a lot ''e do'' this is a must read.

While Adams of course has a say on our incomings and outgoings, this will not be all his decision. Watford are not a promotion rival if you ask me, and by the time Bassong gets fit it''ll be nearly January anyway. He needs game time, U21s is no good for full match fitness and he does not deserve a place in our team due to our performances disregarding his behaviour

As I have said, I do not believe stats to be the be all and end all (god knows how many times I''ve had to say that to people who seem to think I do believe that) But are people really suggesting that professional football clubs pay organisations such as Prozone to provide these statistics whether as hard data or graphically represented, just to spunk money up the wall for a laugh in what is ''at best a generalisation'' for the ''i know he''s good cos he runs around a lot'' brigade?

[quote user="92 vintage"]The part where it''s suggested that we totally abandon any attempts at passing football in favour of hoofball is a wonderful example of the naivity that is so prevalent, but overall quite an enjoyable read. It''s a sort of "through the eyes of a plastic" piece written for a students union newspaper. I especially liked the bit where Turner''s rating is bookended by the words ''mammoth'' and ''ace''.[/quote] 92 vintage, direct passing play is not hoofball. Thankyou for your patronising comments in veiled kindness.

I happen to know a couple of scouts employed by professional football clubs (albeit in the Conference National) who yes, obviously, go and watch games...and produce dossiers on players containing, among other documents, heat maps of average position or ball touches for the player to illustrate how the player has influenced the game and enable comparisons to the teams'' own players which are difficult to put across in detail verbally- certainly difficult to recall and compare later.

Opinions are generally subjective, but City 1st''s is evidently correct, indisputable, factual, etc. I must reiterate, statistical analysis of football does not and should not be taken as gospel. But it adds another dimension to our understanding of the game. You don''t have to embrace it, the blood and thunder Philistines have their place as much as the ''stattos''. Football is a romantic game, and the beauty of it is it can be enjoyed by all, young, old, or ''terminally dim''. Thanks for reading. :)

Thought it was pretty obvious Joanna. We showed aspects of bad and good as underlined there. But by and large we weren''t very good. Second half saved us again. Thanks to those who appreciate the report. I only report on games I have watched.

Splutcho makes a very valid point. You can have your football as simple or as complex as you like as a fan. I choose complex as I have a vested interest in performance analysis. Persons employed by Football clubs, however, rely on gathering all the data they can/ have the man-power to do, to leave no stone unturned in the quest for three points. As a fan, you don''t have to care about all that. You can call it ''vacuous'' and ''guff''. But many people do, the clubs do, and I do. Who knows how many joyous City wins a brief study of heat maps for an opposition full-back has yielded for those who only care about the romance of the game?

Stats are not worthless. There are reasons why football clubs employ statisticians and performance analysts. However, they do not form the full picture-- what I say about passing ambition I refers to the way in which he who plays short safe passes is likely to end up with superior accuracy to he who attempts long balls all afternoon. It shows an appreciation of stats'' failures and drawbacks- which is why I have used staats only in support of what I saw with my own eyes. Of course, I expect and welcome criticism- but all I ask, C1, is that you put the same thought, reason and logic into your criticisms as I do my reports. Thank you for elaborating. Re: the release ball- they know because we were so very predictable and slow to move the ball in the first 45 that the likes of Olsson and Redmond had to make obvious runs forward at which point the threat from wide sticks out like a sore thumb. Fast closing down at this point leaves the wide players isolated and too high up the pitch- something Zoko and Daniels did well for the Seasiders.

C1, I don''t see you attempting to give fans who couldn''t see the game an account of how you saw it? I apologise for ''release ball'' - meaning a pass to ''release'' a wide player to run on when play is congested in the middle - somehow troubling you but I felt it was a concise way to explain what I meant. You offer precious little of value with your online persona. ''Oh dear'' and ''meaningless guff'' are in no way constructive or go any stretch toward explaining your problem with my report. I can only assume you''re the kind of pathetic individual that is bitter about the fact that football isn''t the same as it was in 1950. Don''t mock what you don''t understand, it is the mark of a prize tool.

He certainly did have a poor first half. There was no movement in midfield. I think that is one of the issues with an otherwise successful partnership of Tettey and Johnson, they''d both rather be holding players if they could, but they have to go forward. Certainly replacing one of them with Howson etc would make us better going forward in terms of having that drive- question is what do we lose defensively by doing that?

Thanks Ricardo. Doesn''t particularly capture any of the romance, but then I wouldn''t be an analyst if I could!

So, we weren''t very good. Admit it. For a side feted to ''get on the ball and dominate teams'' according to Adams, we simply do not move the ball with a consistent enough tempo for a possession-based side. In the first half both sides closed down well enough, and Blackpool showed how poor they are at passing the ball. You see, the issue with our passing is not that it is particularly inaccurate, the only players in our side who frequently struggle to maintain decent statistical accuracy in passing are Nathan Redmond and Bradley Johnson, but then you have to look at their passing ambition, which far outweighs that of a Tettey or an O''Neil. The issue, and primary reason why we struggle so much in the first half of matches is the aforementioned tempo problems. When we move the ball out from the back and into midfield to Tettey or Johnson, it is very noticeable that we are retaining the ball and playing at a very low tempo, suited to a patient outfit that works the ball forward through the middle. That is all well and good, but strangely as soon as a wide player makes a run, our tempo dramatically increases as though we''re desperate to release them. We need to be more patient than to just keep it and punt it at Olsson when he runs. Therefore, Blackpool like many other teams noticed that if you let us have the ball, and sit off a bit, and then immediately squeeze up and press when the release ball is on, we''ll probably give it away (if Johnson doesn''t launch one for Olsson or Redmond to run on to) by quickly and inexplicably smashing it into Hoolahan''s feet and expecting him to keep it while the rest of the midfield catches up. This is why Wes is often dispossessed so far this season- his time on the ball is largely restricted by teams who anticipate they can afford to squeeze up as the direct pass is coming- this is why Joan Oriol made as many interceptions as he did (6). With this static and predictable approach to the build up (which oddly is never prevalent in the second 45 when we realise for some reason that varied play is important, I was not surprised that we failed to create much in that first half, save for a Lewis Grabban chance which ended up nearer the corner flag than the goal, and a fantastic run to beat two players from Redmond allowing him to whip in a teasing cross which Joe Lewis had to get out well to punch away. (I may have forgotten another half chance, but that''s about it) Russell Martin really struggled on the overlap, too, as the strength and pace of Francois Zoko was too much for him- so why we kept on trying to feed him when it clearly wasn''t working was beyond me. Either way, after a drab first half I wasn''t too worried as I knew we''d see a different Norwich City second half- however we were quickly pegged back by Nathan Delfouneso having been caught high allowing Ishmael Miller to produce a decent save from Ruddy, who could do nothing about the rebound. Something that made a big difference second half was the defensive contribution of Nathan Redmond who consistently worked hard to win us the ball when we lost it out wide. A brilliant combination of key passes, clever runs and defensive elbow grease, Nathan was again my star of the show, in spite of the way in which the fluctuating Blackpool press made it hard for him first half. When we did get back into it, though, it was via a real stroke of luck, as a good delivery from Nathan Redmond from a corner was diverted into the net by Blackpool defender Donervon Daniels. That seemed to wake Norwich up, who hadn''t started the second half as brightly as I had hoped, and Joe Lewis needed all his nous to deny Bradley Johnson from close range. That man Redmond could have had the goal of the season so far, had his fantastic run and one-two with Jerome yielded a shot which went anywhere than Lewis'' grasp. Unfortunate, as the man deserves a goal for all his efforts lately, he just gets better and better. The strangest thing for me is at half-time I wanted us to introduce Howson as the movement and drive through midfield was so predictable and static. It seems though that the personnel change wasn''t needed as Tettey and Johnson were a lot more urgent when we went behind and had the directness of play to match the direct runs we weren''t finding due to our low tempo in the first half. For me, we really need to abandon the patient, probing, low tempo stuff and be consistently direct as we are in these second halves. It''s just a successful approach, and can be as great to watch as intricate passing if the ball zips about in the way it can if the midfield matches the tempo of the runners. Blackpool introduced Jacob Mellis in an attempt to hold on to the draw, but so dominant were we by this stage it was always likely to be in vain, Lewis Grabban twisting and turning past two defenders in a manner typical of his dogged attitude, and the striker lucked into a goal as the ball looped up off a defender''s outstretched leg and into the top corner. Lewis didn''t have his best game, but he was full of intent on the ball when he did have it, and showed his ability to beat a man enough that he deserved to profit from it, which ultimately he did. Josh Murphy''s first league goal, and our third of the afternoon hammered home just how much better we had been after Delfouneso''s strike woke us up. It would be possible to call us lucky Norwich had we won via an own goal and that deflection, but when Murphy picked up Jerome''s pass and ghosted past a defender as though he wasn''t there, there were definite shades of the Crawley league cup game- those who know, know it as ''vintage'' Murphy- the burst of pace, the cut inside, and the cute finish inside the far post to ram home the point (or should that be points). When we''re good, we''re very very good. But when we''re bad, we''re horrid. OTBC Player Ratings _______________ Ruddy 7 - How often do I have to say ''nothing he could do about the goal''? Brief butterfingers moment when collecting from a Turner interception, but recovered well and didn''t make a mistake after that. Martin 7 - Couple of decent interceptions and defensively solid- struggled against Zoko as he had both pace and strength. Plenty of endeavour from Russ though- got him goalside a couple of times where ability let him down. Turner 7 - Mammoth. Interesting pass to Ruddy under pressure from a forward, but he had to get there somehow as he was beaten for pace. It meant another low error game for Turner. Ace. Hooiveld 7 - The fitter he gets the better he looks- no longer shaky as first appeared, was every bit as good as Turner and maybe a bit better, and that''s saying something. Maintains good passing accuracy even though he loves a long ball. Olsson 7 - Anonymous going forward due to the aforementioned press from Blackpool, meant he had to scrap for long balls. Solid defensively though. Tettey 7 - Standard Alex, cutting passing lanes to intercept left right and centre while Johnson goes thumping in as the enforcer. Like Johnson, Tettey has to try and keep calm when teams get about us. Johnson 8- Who was it who said Tettey ''covers'' for Johnson? For me, they complement each other perfectly (apart from in an attacking sense in the first half), but Johnson is boldly creative in a way that belies his limitations, and he was rewarded with another assist here. Hoolahan 6- Play him on the left, he''s going to keep losing the ball as he just isn''t comfortable there. Might as well drop him if you''re not going to play him in the hole, Neil. Issue is of course, Murphy lacks the mentality to play whole matches consistently at this stage. Redmond 8 (MOTM) - I''ve run out of superlatives. Difficult start but grew into it, his movement and ability to dictate to a whole defence by scaring the crap out of them is different class. Didn''t even give the ball away often. Hope he scores soon, he deserves it. Jerome 8 - Workhorse. When it''s not all coming up roses Cameron puts a shift in irrespective, winning the ball back numerous times and eventually grabbing a key pass for Murphy to make it three. For a forward player, he is very comfortable and sensible on the ball, keeps moves ticking even if he doesn''t try anything sensational. Grabban 7 - When his luck''s out and the chips are down, Grabbs just keeps on going. Has struggled of late, but plugged away centrally and out wide until something finally went his way, his graft alone earning him a vital goal. Subs __________ Murphy 7 - Josh, for 45 minutes or from the start, would be exposed as lacking in a few areas and wouldn''t last in the side. At his age, though, that''s okay- and as an impact player when defenders tire and begin to sit off, the pace Josh can present is just vindictive, and the lad punished Blackpool in style to finish as he has done so many times at youth level and latterly in the Capital One Cup. In spite of what i say, though, if he produces on a regular basis like this, a Wes Hoolahan playing on the left will be easy pickings for a starting berth. Howson, O''Neil....saw it out.

No worries THRB - and Purple...yes it is fair to say that Wes losing the ball on the left is more damaging than if he is dispossessed in the hole. I would not dispute that. That was certainly a contributing factor in a half in which he was poor, yes, but I maintain, not a liability.

Only really tongue in cheek that. Made that my location when Waveney et al were big on the ''plastics'' boom. I am no plastic I assure you

I''d like to point out that within the Player Ratings section of my report I indicated I agreed with the decision to substitute Wes.