Well? What do you want? Attack or defence?

[Tumbleweed 106]

The Tettey substitution didn''t help our solidity, but frankly we should have been capable of defending those goals better than we did. The space allowed to the forwards, the lack of challenge, the lack of tracking and too much ball watching at the back was horrible to see. Ruddy looked a pale shadow of a once great goalie.

AN clearly thought that as we were dominating we shouldn''t have needed a full time DM in there, and that Wes could have helped unlock them. In that 15 minutes after half time there was only one team in the game.

But yesterday was one of the limpest defensive displays I have seen in recent years from City.

We can''t defend at PL level, we saw this under Hughton and we see it under AN with largely similar personnel. Virtually every City fan called this out as the transfer window closed and AN sadly is now paying a high price for failing to sort it out. We have another 10 weeks before we can bring in additional players, until then we''ll have to hope that harder work on the training ground helps a bit. We also need a dedicated defensive coach asap, one with heaps of Pl experience.

And for what it''s worth I thought we looked too slow as well, all over the pitch, except for Olson.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

I was at the game yesterday,(and will be at Man City also, I''m enjoying watching Alex Neil''s style of football and his learning curve with the current group of players, and while we keep playing like this I will keep going to every match) while it was a bit Kamikaze from both sides, we were in that game for long periods, I think too many posters on here have probably only been to one game since Houghton''s departure (and that would have been Wembley).

I never raised any of my eyebrows yesterday, Tettey was no where as near as influential yesterday as normal, so could have taken anyone of 3 off yesterday, that score could have been anything and none there would have been surprised.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]I was at the game yesterday,(and will be at Man City also, I''m enjoying watching Alex Neil''s style of football and his learning curve with the current group of players, and while we keep playing like this I will keep going to every match) while it was a bit Kamikaze from both sides, we were in that game for long periods, I think too many posters on here have probably only been to one game since Houghton''s departure (and that would have been Wembley).

I never raised any of my eyebrows yesterday, Tettey was no where as near as influential yesterday as normal, so could have taken anyone of 3 off yesterday, that score could have been anything and none there would have been surprised.[/quote]Agree with all of that, I was at the game too.In a strange way I actually found the game extremely entertaining.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Agree Morty it was entertaining, not sure if in a "strange" way or a "sadistic" point of view, I remember watch Seb run the length of the pitch to get up and support the attack as Redmond broke, before they countered and scored the 3rd, it was surreal, thinking if Redmond makes the wrong choice here we are in trouble, we had Seb the whole of the midfield and Mbokani within 30 yards of their goal, with Olsson not far behind.

[westcoastcanary 0]

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Agree Morty it was entertaining, not sure if in a "strange" way or a "sadistic" point of view, I remember watch Seb run the length of the pitch to get up and support the attack as Redmond broke, before they countered and scored the 3rd, it was surreal, thinking if Redmond makes the wrong choice here we are in trouble, we had Seb the whole of the midfield and Mbokani within 30 yards of their goal, with Olsson not far behind.[/quote]In the words of the French general Bosquet watching the charge of the Light Brigade "C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c''est de la folie" ("It is magnificent, but it is not war: it is madness"). General Neil''s task is to win football matches, not provide great theatre. Especially when Redmond and others don''t seem to be able to distinguish between being "brave" and being stupidly foolhardy. That third Newcastle goal showed all our failings in the space of just a few seconds -- and I''m not referring to anything that the unprotected last line of defence did or didn''t do; they were simply sacrificial lambs on the altar of over-commitment.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Tetteys Jig"]I''ll take a win thanks. We are newly promoted and not in a position to expect results and good football. If we drew every remaining game 0-0 and stayed up, id rather that than do a Blackpool and score loads but go down[/quote]You don''t think we should expect good football?As someone who spent nearly 11 hours, in total, on a coach yesterday I would expect at least a wee bit of entertainment.[/quote]

I get your argument, but I''d rather have drawn 0-0 than lost 6-2 if the option was that. Result first, entertainment second.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Tetteys Jig"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Tetteys Jig"]I''ll take a win thanks. We are newly promoted and not in a position to expect results and good football. If we drew every remaining game 0-0 and stayed up, id rather that than do a Blackpool and score loads but go down[/quote]You don''t think we should expect good football?As someone who spent nearly 11 hours, in total, on a coach yesterday I would expect at least a wee bit of entertainment.[/quote]

I get your argument, but I''d rather have drawn 0-0 than lost 6-2 if the option was that. Result first, entertainment second.[/quote]Did you go to many away games during the Hughton era?

[Snitterfield Yellow 8]

We were losing when the substitution was made and had a decent spell of pressure. So to my mind the decision was the right one to make. If it had worked and the equaliser had been scored there were still defensive options on the bench to settle for a draw as the game approached full time.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Well done Westcoast, there is a great deal of accuracy in that.

Redmond exposes the midfield to counters, he loses the ball at the wrong time and is unaware of others or the strategic moment of the game. The Bassong example is a fine one.

Redmond playing wide, with Whittaker behind is a liability. They are not complementary. This was repeatedly shown in the Championship.

The midfield pivot role is key to attacking as well as defending. Somebody has to play it at all times, even when going gung Ho.

Bit of panic at 3-2 when we were on top. No need to force it, we were in the ascendancy and dominating.

Lack of in game intelligence from several players. Norwich can not afford to not play Wes in important games. They cannot strategically play Wes and Redmond. Redmond cannot play right with Whittaker in behind. Redmond can do damage and not cost much from 10.

There are some attack vs defence permutations for you.

Parma

[Capt. Pants 4,202]

Given the opposition Id have had Hoolahan on from the start quite frankly.

[morty 0]

[quote user="UpperBarclay"]Given the opposition Id have had Hoolahan on from the start quite frankly.[/quote]I am assuming that after recent injury Alex didn''t want to risk him, unless he had to.

[Grant Holts Moustache 105]

Lessingham the point you make about Bassong going forward to join the attack with Olsson following is a big reason we got it so wrong. It is great to watch attacking football but it has to be done intelligently. So if Bassong is going forward we have to ensure others are covering. Same with the full backs if one goes forward you want the other to tuck in with the centre backs but often the other would be bombing on and leaving us exposed to counter attacks. This is what happened when both Leicester and Palace came to Carrow Road. Also if we are going to be play so many midfielders who want to join the attack we also need to ensure Tettey is incredibly disciplined in his positioning and he wasn''t yesterday.

[Indy 3,286]

After seeing the humighlights, we were never overrun in any of the goals, just really poor defending every time, static defence, not watching the players and not once attacking the ball to make a challenge. Utterly useless back four, just watch each goal

!

Not suprising as the same 5 keeper & back 4 weren''t good enough two seasons ago.

As for the main point, Lamberts approach would be a good standard to see. Balanced football with awareness of the game & communication around the players which is something lacking from yesterday.

[paul moy 235]

I just want AN to accept that Hoolahan is our best passer and most composed ball player and pick him to start games.

We start games with a ridiculous self-inflicted disadvantage to ourselves otherwise with players that clearly have terrible passing ability made worse by the fact that Hoolahan is not there.

Redmond''s passing was particularly poor yesterday although I commend him for a good goal.

[westcoastcanary 0]

@Parma Ham''s gone mouldy[Y]

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Dead Canary wrote;-

Lessingham the point you make about Bassong going forward to join the attack with Olsson following is a big reason we got it so wrong. It is great to watch attacking football but it has to be done intelligently. So if Bassong is going forward we have to ensure others are covering. Same with the full backs if one goes forward you want the other to tuck in with the centre backs but often the other would be bombing on and leaving us exposed to counter attacks. This is what happened when both Leicester and Palace came to Carrow Road. Also if we are going to be play so many midfielders who want to join the attack we also need to ensure Tettey is incredibly disciplined in his positioning and he wasn''t yesterday.

That was my point Dead Canary, Kamikaze, for some reason Seb seemed determined to get on the scoresheet yesterday (former club syndrome?)and nearly did ! to the point he seemed to forget he was a CB !

[Katie Borkins 1]

If we take two scenarios:

1) We are in a game at 3-2 down, our manager gambles to try and win it and ultimately we lose with a scoreline flattering the opposition

2) We are not in a game at 2-0 down, and our manager sends us out to try and not concede any more without us getting out of our own half

I would choose option 1 every time.

AN will learn, he is young and naive and this will change.  If he wasn''t, we would never have got him so let''s try to enjoy it while it lasts while offering constructive criticism.

"Attack or Defence?" is the latest rhetorical fail in a series of posts recently such as "Dorrans or Howson?"  It''s probably a phase the OP is going through.

Daddy or Chips?

Chips.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]If we take two scenarios:

1) We are in a game at 3-2 down, our manager gambles to try and win it and ultimately we lose with a scoreline flattering the opposition

2) We are not in a game at 2-0 down, and our manager sends us out to try and not concede any more without us getting out of our own half

I would choose option 1 every time.

AN will learn, he is young and naive and this will change.  If he wasn''t, we would never have got him so let''s try to enjoy it while it lasts while offering constructive criticism.

"Attack or Defence?" is the latest rhetorical fail in a series of posts recently such as "Dorrans or Howson?"  It''s probably a phase the OP is going through.

Daddy or Chips?

Chips.[/quote]

Well done for missing the point bor, purposely or otherwise.  The jibe, of course, as usual, totally unecessary. No surprise though.  

[morty 0]

Funny that lots of people in this thread missed the point, eh?I guess we all just misunderstood you.Again.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"]Funny that lots of people in this thread missed the point, eh?I guess we all just misunderstood you.Again.[/quote]

I thought you had stopped this kind of nonsense posting.  Plenty of good responses on here.  Only two posters spoiled it.  Leopards never change their spots it seems.

[morty 0]

Oh and we all know that this thread was really about trying to stir up some kind of "I told you so / be careful what you wish for Hughton thing.[:)]

[Jacko 0]

My post here is addressed to Parma Ham.

I can''t agree with a lot of what is being said by you. You say that Redmond exposes us unduly to a counter attack because he loses the ball at the ''wrong time''. But ultimately there isn''t a right time to surrender possession.

If you give the ball away with players committed upfield there''s always a risk of being hit on the break. Howson (our only viable alternative on the right) played on the right wing against Leicester, gave the ball away twice in bad areas and we were punished on both occasions. It is not something confined to Redmond and to use this as justification that he should only play as a number 10 - a position he has never played is very dubious in my opinion.

If Whittaker and Redmond weren''t complimentary in the Championship than why did Alex Neil see fit to select that combination for both legs of the playoffs against Ipswich and Middlesborough - the three most important games of the season. Indeed, Redmond ''s attacking threat was influential in ensuring Tyrone Mings was pegged back and didn''t have the licence to down the left as he had for much of that season. It gave Whittaker some very handy protection in fact.

The problem we have unfortunately is that Whittaker isn''t a Premiership fullback. It''s painfully obvious every time he plays. That''s going to be exposed even if you were to park another full back on top of him to protect him.

I also can''t agree with the idea that Wes and Redmond cannot be both played in important games. Our two best performances of the season (and only two wins) have coincided with both Wes and Redmond playing in important matches against relegation rivals. Indeed, the presence of Redmond actually assists Hoolahan who is afforded more space to play in as teams realise they cannot simply swamp Hoolahan to negate Norwich''s threat.

I have seen little evidence to suggest this season that leaving at least one of your two genuine match winners out regularly is a good idea, particularly when one of them only has 18 months left on his contract may think his future lies elsewhere if he isn''t going to get regular first team football.

[Katie Borkins 1]

"How to pass time In Cumbria":

1 Start thread on subject being covered elsewhere

2 Mention Houghton in positive context

3 Criticise other supporters

4 Say you were misunderstood

5 Return every so often to feign annoyance at still being misunderstood

[Indy 3,286]

That''s Hughton!!!

Anyhow I want all out attack with clean sheets, is that too much to expect? Ferguson managed to get transform a pretty shite Man U, well I expect nothing less of the new Fergy!

[Yellowbeagle 0]

What a stupid post. If your an attacking team that doesn''t absolve you of the responsibility to defend properly as a team. I have barely seen anyone suggest we want a defensive approach, but i also dont think it''s unreasonable to see players make committed challenges and press the ball when not in possession. On Sunday, probably for only the second time this season we didnt see that at all, was it concerning Yes, do i think AN will tolerate it No.

[ZLF 271]

I want both, and they are achievable.

The headline for the michael bailey video report makes is clear what went wrong; it was clear on the day that the players lost discipline and energy and simply did not follow the game plan.

The intensity was not there and the brainless keegan-esque attacking from the full backs and over committed midfielders who over rely on tettey to cover their harrisses showed and arrogance ignorance and safety in their starting role that belies belief.

Ill discipline from the players (as in the brentford home defeat last season), ignoring the game plan added to the too early removal of tettey did for us in a game where points we available to us.

I hope the players take responsibility and the manager wields the axe to remove the arrogance from the players who need reminding who is boss and that they must graft with their talent to stand a chance of surviving this season; if we turn up expecting to score and win even the worst teams will punish us.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Cambridge,

How and when you lose the ball is the very essence of football. There are reasonable scenarios, team shapes and tactical positions to lose the ball.

At the highest level structural, tactical weaknesses get ruthlessly exploited. Note though that this is not a zero sum equation, it only has to be 40/60 against you at a level where fine margins matter (unlike the Championship).

It will be the case that much good is contained in the 40%. However Winaldum - not a forward - scored 4 goals coming off the back of Redmond and driving through the spaces short of, inside and beyond right full back and centre back. This is the space we expose regularly (and frequently did in the Championship, without such severe punishment) and other coaches have worked it out. They sit, wait and then overload this area. We need to address it or we will be punished time and time again.

What you can do against weaker teams with less weapons is simply not the same as the way you must play against better sides with abilities of their own.

The equation is not "what do we (say Redmond) do well"

It is "what do we do well" minus "what it costs us".

Parma

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]"How to pass time In Cumbria":

1 Start thread on subject being covered elsewhere

2 Mention Houghton in positive context

3 Criticise other supporters

4 Say you were misunderstood

5 Return every so often to feign annoyance at still being misunderstood[/quote]

More jibes.  Lovely. Btw - the similar threads to do with this subject were posted almost similtaneuousl. Now please leave me alone, then I won''t need to keep pointing out your sad attitude towards me.

[Jacko 0]

I am not convinced that''s a satisfactory answer. Howson gave the ball away twice in bad areas against Leicester and was punished on both occasions. We lost the game as a result. Ultimately, it goes to show that whoever you play there you will be vulnerable to the counter attack when you lose the ball high up the pitch.

Howson offers much less going forward than Redmond in the equation you have just offered me. I therefore do not see how playing Howson there is preferable, as using your example we''re just reducing out attacking threat further whilst still being open to a counter attack. You are weighting the equation further against yourself -to use your analogy.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I agree with those who say it should be perfectly possible to find a balance between being attacking and defending and that we have not got it yet.I also agree that on balance Neil''s attacking approach is more entertaining and more preferable to Hughton''s. At least we look like we can score against anyone which gives us a chance of winning a few games when the defence does have a good day.

However the one point where I do agree with Lakey is over the Tettey substitution. He has been accused of not knowing anything about football for his comments but I would also question the knowhow of any fan who did not raise an eyebrow at that substitution on Sunday and I do not say that with the benefit of hindsight, I said it as soon as I saw who was going off. Too many of our fans underestimate the importance of Tettey to our team and the way we play in the same way they used to do with Wes. Those two players are the absolute key players to our game and style of play. All the other midfielders are, to a degree, interchangeable and will have good and bad days but none of them are pivotal like Wes and Tetts.

Dorrans and Howson are useful players but neitheris capable of playing that sitting role, breaking up oppsotion attacks and neither of them read the game as well as Tettey. People think he''s having a bad game if he mis-places one or two passes but he still in there breaking things up, doing the ugly stuff and picking up all of the loose balls. As soon as he went off we had nobody to do that and its no coincidence that from then on we had no control over the game and they immediately broke straight through the centre of our midfield with a move I think he probably would have cut out or broken up with a foul. Playing offensive players does not always equate to having more threat just as dropping Wes does not make us more defensively sound because having the ball and controlling the midfield makes improves both elements of our game . I am a little disappointed Neil still occasionally seems to fall into the same trap as other managers and sacrifices our most important players in situations where Howson and Dorrans should be the ones who make way.

The blatantly obvious substitution to be made if he wanted Wes on was Dorrans off for Wes.