Well? What do you want? Attack or defence?

[Indy 3,300]

Two things stick in my mind from Sunday:

When people go on about lack of cover from midfield, not once did they overrun out defence with more players than we had defending, each time we had more than enough players back to cover the Newcastle attack.

Second they finished really well, give the time to cross and lack of any defending granted they did put their goals away!

Ultimately I still say we are being found out how poor this back 4 is that we are reliant on holding midfielders to defend. I''m really not sure what we defend is it a zonal or man to man? It''s more like 18 yard statues.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Sports Desk Pete"]Please stay on topic and try to discuss Norwich City with less insults and a little more maturity please. You two don''t get along but don''t let that ruin threads. Many thanks.[/quote][Y] Thanks Pete. Will do, no problem as long as we both adhere to it.

[morty 0]

[:)]

[westcoastcanary 0]

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]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.[/quote]While it''s true that Howson made errors against Leicester, IMO he is certainly better equipped than Redmond to address the structural weakness that Parma identifies. Even so, he wasn''t Parma''s own preferred option to play wide right against Leicester. If I remember correctly, his suggested team paired Jarvis in front of Whittaker on the right flank because of Jarvis''s better appreciation of the defensive duties required of him and understanding of the needs of the specific moment.What I also take from Parma''s analysis is that the incessant Whittaker and Martin bashing really misses the point. Even if we were to have "upgrades" in those two positions, or play Wisdom or Martin at RB and Bennett at CB as is being suggested, the structural weakness that is the real cause of the problem will remain. The solution to that lies, not with the back 4, but ahead of it. That''s the issue we should be focussing on.

[morty 0]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]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.[/quote]While it''s true that Howson made errors against Leicester, IMO he is certainly better equipped than Redmond to address the structural weakness that Parma identifies. Even so, he wasn''t Parma''s own preferred option to play wide right against Leicester. If I remember correctly, his suggested team paired Jarvis in front of Whittaker on the right flank because of Jarvis''s better appreciation of the defensive duties required of him and understanding of the needs of the specific moment.What I also take from Parma''s analysis is that the incessant Whittaker and Martin bashing really misses the point. Even if we were to have "upgrades" in those two positions, or play Wisdom or Martin at RB and Bennett at CB as is being suggested, the structural weakness that is the real cause of the problem will remain. The solution to that lies, not with the back 4, but ahead of it. That''s the issue we should be focussing on.

[/quote]Thats not to say the defence is entirely playing its part though, is it? Yes, we all agree that defending is the responsibility of the whole team as a unit, but that doesn''t take away the fact that our defenders make basic, positional errors that could be avoided. I would have thought that if the defence didn''t have confidence in the midfield then you would see an obvious gap appear between them, as the game wears on,  the defence drops deeper.

[Jacko 0]

Again, I don''t understand that answer. I don''t understand how Matt Jarvis can be deemed to be a better option than either Howson or Redmond on that right side.

Firstly, from a defensive point of view you can start by looking at the Leicester game. Leicester (in particular Vardy) had plenty of joy on the left against Brady and Jarvis, who were often caught high up the pitch as they attempted to break Leicester down on that side.

Indeed, the penalty comes about (firstly due to a giveaway by Howson) but also because Bassong has no cover and is forced confront Vardy in wide area on the left where he didn''t want to be and Vardy drew the foul. Whether you think it was a dive or not is a debate for another thread.

You''re also totally negating Jarvis''s attacking strengths by doing that. He has barely played on the right throughout his career at Gillingham, Wolves and West Ham in that position. It is not easy for a play to switch flanks and still be effective. Just look at what happened to Snodgrass on the rare occasions we asked him to play on the left wing. He was almost totally redundant.

Ultimately, Alex Neil hit the nail on the head in his post match interview. you can''t ask players to be in two parts of the pitch at once. If you want them to go forward and create there is a possibility that they will be caught up the pitch if the ball is turned over. No matter how tactically clued up you are.

As he also alluded to, what is then required is that you must have defenders who are capable and competent enough to defend in one versus one situations when the ball is turned over. Unfortunately, Whittaker and Martin in particular were not capable of doing that for long periods of that game on Sunday.

Our best chance of winning matches will come from both Redmond and Hoolahan starting games as they are the two genuine match winners we''ve got. It seems more than a happy concidence to me that our two victories this season have come about when both were both starting the game and Redmond''s introduction nearly forced a victory at West Ham as well. I''ve seen very little from the arguments presented to me to dissuade me from that view.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]Again, I don''t understand that answer. I don''t understand how Matt Jarvis can be deemed to be a better option than either Howson or Redmond on that right side.

Firstly, from a defensive point of view you can start by looking at the Leicester game. Leicester (in particular Vardy) had plenty of joy on the left against Brady and Jarvis, who were often caught high up the pitch as they attempted to break Leicester down on that side.

Indeed, the penalty comes about (firstly due to a giveaway by Howson) but also because Bassong has no cover and is forced confront Vardy in wide area on the left where he didn''t want to be and Vardy drew the foul. Whether you think it was a dive or not is a debate for another thread.

You''re also totally negating Jarvis''s attacking strengths by doing that. He has barely played on the right throughout his career at Gillingham, Wolves and West Ham in that position. It is not easy for a play to switch flanks and still be effective. Just look at what happened to Snodgrass on the rare occasions we asked him to play on the left wing. He was almost totally redundant.

Ultimately, Alex Neil hit the nail on the head in his post match interview. you can''t ask players to be in two parts of the pitch at once. If you want them to go forward and create there is a possibility that they will be caught up the pitch if the ball is turned over. No matter how tactically clued up you are.

As he also alluded to, what is then required is that you must have defenders who are capable and competent enough to defend in one versus one situations when the ball is turned over. Unfortunately, Whittaker and Martin in particular were not capable of doing that for long periods of that game on Sunday.

Our best chance of winning matches will come from both Redmond and Hoolahan starting games as they are the two genuine match winners we''ve got. It seems more than a happy concidence to me that our two victories this season have come about when both were both starting the game and Redmond''s introduction nearly forced a victory at West Ham as well. I''ve seen very little from the arguments presented to me to dissuade me from that view.[/quote]

Agree entirely.

The ability to defend one on one is a good point as well. Our defenders are generally not confident/able to do it which seems to manifest itself in them dropping off and trying to rely on last minute blocks or tackles.

[OldRobert 38]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Agree entirely.

The ability to defend one on one is a good point as well. Our defenders are generally not confident/able to do it which seems to manifest itself in them dropping off and trying to rely on last minute blocks or tackles.[/quote]Hence, as has been said often enough on here, the two worst offenders, in January, Martin and Whittaker OUT, and replaced with proper PL quality CB and RB, or down the chute we go in May and rejoin the binners AGAIN.[:)]

[westcoastcanary 0]

Cambridge Yellow wrote: "Ultimately, Alex Neil hit the nail on the head in his post match

interview. you can''t ask players to be in two parts of the pitch at

once. If you want them to go forward and create there is a possibility

that they will be caught up the pitch if the ball is turned over. No

matter how tactically clued up you are.

As he also alluded to, what is then required is that you must have

defenders who are capable and competent enough to defend in one versus

one situations when the ball is turned over."I didn''t hear that interview but if that is an accurate account of his thinking then we are in trouble. Of course players can''t be in two parts of the pitch at once, but if a player vacates "his" part of the pitch then another player needs to cover for him. Over-committing means there''s no-one to do that.As for defending one-on-one, that''s last ditch stuff. You may be reduced to it by good opposition play, but to adopt a strategy which routinely exposes you to last ditch defending is, as far as I''m concerned, madness.

[Katie Borkins 1]

So do I have to stop calling Lakey a bellend now?

[Jacko 0]

So basically you are saying that our wingers can''t cross the halfway line in case they leave the fullback all alone? That is madness.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]So do I have to stop calling Lakey a bellend now?[/quote]I don''t even know if I am permitted to find this amusing. I''ll check the pinkun terms and conditions.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="."]So do I have to stop calling Lakey a bellend now?[/quote]

 

Even if that''s the case we will all still have our thoughts.. However, we can call him a tattle tail. We know that''s true because Lakey said so. [:D]

[morty 0]

Looks like with the push of a button, the decision on this has been taken out of Bor''s hands....

[hogesar 9,674]

[quote user="."]So do I have to stop calling Lakey a bellend now?[/quote]

Uhhh. It appears the answer is yes.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="."]Looks like with the push of a button, the decision on this has been taken out of Bor''s hands....[/quote]Looks like morty''s bit the dust too. [:O]

[morty 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="."]Looks like with the push of a button, the decision on this has been taken out of Bor''s hands....[/quote]Looks like morty''s bit the dust too. [:O]

[/quote]Nah[;)]

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

MMmmmmmffffff

[morty 0]

[quote user="Silent Bor"]MMmmmmmffffff

[/quote][:D]

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Looks like Lakey went crying to the headmaster to tell him he was being bullied.

[Jacko 0]

With the exception of the ''cheeseboard'' thread, this is probably the most bizarre thread in pinkun history.

[westcoastcanary 0]

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]So basically you are saying that our wingers can''t cross the halfway line in case they leave the fullback all alone? That is madness.[/quote]No, of course I''m not saying that. I''m talking about the need for another midfield player to react defensively to what the flank players are doing. As I keep saying, our frailty is largely due to over-commitment, i.e. too many players focussed at one time only on attack and neglectful of the undefended space behind them.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]So basically you are saying that our wingers can''t cross the halfway line in case they leave the fullback all alone? That is madness.[/quote]No, of course I''m not saying that. I''m talking about the need for another midfield player to react defensively to what the flank players are doing. As I keep saying, our frailty is largely due to over-commitment, i.e. too many players focussed at one time only on attack and neglectful of the undefended space behind them.[/quote]

We had this problem last season before AN arrived.  This lack of footballing intelligence must be down to the players as much as the manager.  He brought on Wes to help be more creative up front, taking off a defensive midfielder.  This should have been a message to the other players that there was an onus on all of them to be prepared to defend more, as well as attack.   Whether they lack intelligence or no message came through for one or more of them to be a little more attentive to defensive duties, I don''t know, but between them and the manager, it was a balls up.  

[Jacko 0]

Yet you''ve suggested playing Matt Jarvis there to fulfil that role. Who against Leicester failed to show any of those attributes you are looking for - a point which you''ve overlooked in your previous reply.

I apologise if I am labouring the point and I don''t wish to sound confrontational (I''m genuinely intrigued and enjoying the debate), but I just struggle to understand how this point yourself and Parma are making about the ''structure'' of the team hangs together. It seems very abstract and vague to me without a lot of substance

Effectively, it seems to me you are both suggesting that we set up in some games with Redmond in the number 10 role with either Jarvis or Howson on the right wing and that this will somehow then give us defensively solidity against teams. Despite the fact both Howson and Jarvis have shown equal levels of defensive frailty this season as Redmond.

Redmond I don''t think actually has the skill set to play in that number 10 position. He''s barely done it for Norwich, Birmingham or England. You only have to look at what happened to Ayew on Monday night for Swansea when he was asked to move in from wide to play as a number 10. It didn''t work and some players are more suited to playing wide. I personally think Redmond is one of those.

Likewise, I don''t think Jarvis (a left winger throughout his career) or Howson (a central midfielder) have the requisite skill set to play on the right wing either. You are asking a lot of players to do things they aren''t comfortable with at Premier League level

Personally, I think if the above is what you and Parma are advocating and (it seems to be) then frankly we can just put a fork in this season and head back to the championship now.

If you''re looking for more solidity defensively you could almost adopt the Shankley approach that ''a football team is like a piano, it takes 4 people to play the damn and 7 to carry the thing around.'' With a front 3 of Redmond, Hoolahan/Howson and Jarvis/Brady operating behind the striker supported by Mulumbu and Tettey to put out the fires. That seems more logical than crowbarring players out of position.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Jarvis on the right in away games might be a good shout. More likely to be covering that whole side. Look, Redmond is a great attacking threat but he''s woefully poor at tracking back. I really can''t recall many times I''ve seen him close to the right back position to help out. It''s not a criticism, because to be fair he''s a great counter attacking tool.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

[quote user="Cambridge Yellow"]Yet you''ve suggested playing Matt Jarvis there to fulfil that role. Who against Leicester failed to show any of those attributes you are looking for - a point which you''ve overlooked in your previous reply.

I apologise if I am labouring the point and I don''t wish to sound confrontational (I''m genuinely intrigued and enjoying the debate), but I just struggle to understand how this point yourself and Parma are making about the ''structure'' of the team hangs together. It seems very abstract and vague to me without a lot of substance

Effectively, it seems to me you are both suggesting that we set up in some games with Redmond in the number 10 role with either Jarvis or Howson on the right wing and that this will somehow then give us defensively solidity against teams. Despite the fact both Howson and Jarvis have shown equal levels of defensive frailty this season as Redmond.

Redmond I don''t think actually has the skill set to play in that number 10 position. He''s barely done it for Norwich, Birmingham or England. You only have to look at what happened to Ayew on Monday night for Swansea when he was asked to move in from wide to play as a number 10. It didn''t work and some players are more suited to playing wide. I personally think Redmond is one of those.

Likewise, I don''t think Jarvis (a left winger throughout his career) or Howson (a central midfielder) have the requisite skill set to play on the right wing either. You are asking a lot of players to do things they aren''t comfortable with at Premier League level

Personally, I think if the above is what you and Parma are advocating and (it seems to be) then frankly we can just put a fork in this season and head back to the championship now.

If you''re looking for more solidity defensively you could almost adopt the Shankley approach that ''a football team is like a piano, it takes 4 people to play the damn and 7 to carry the thing around.'' With a front 3 of Redmond, Hoolahan/Howson and Jarvis/Brady operating behind the striker supported by Mulumbu and Tettey to put out the fires. That seems more logical than crowbarring players out of position.[/quote]

This is what I think we need. I am confident that Mulumbu and Tettey as a combination would have the nous and athletic ability to sit in and cover our full backs when they go forward thus leaving us not so exposed. Tettey can;t cover both full backs on his own as he is currently often asked to do.

A trio of Jarvis, Wes and Redmond (with Howson and Dorrans able to come in for any of them) behind Jerome or Mbok gives us plenty of pace and creativity so we would still have enough to threaten teams but neither Dorrans or Howson is currently showing enough discipline/inclination to drop back and cover when others are attacking. Howson I think probably has the athletic ability to do it. Dorrans I don;t think does as was shown by the way their player ghosted past him to set up their fourth on Sunday. Tettey would have tackled or fouled that player. Dorrans could not keep up with him.

[westcoastcanary 0]

@Cambridge YellowLet me make clear that I speak only for myself; whether, or to what extent if at all, Parma would agree I''ve no idea. As far as I understand his Masterclass 9 and subsequent posts, he has mainly been gently educating the rest of us in the finer points of what AN himself is trying to do.With respect, I think you misunderstand me. I''m not primarily concerned with who plays wide right (though I do think Howson or Jarvis offer more security than Redmond). As I see it, tinkering with the personnel offers no more than marginal improvement, which I why I call our frailty "structural" (which again is not necessarily what Parma means when he uses the term). What I''m most concerned about is over-commitment of resources to attack at the expense of prudent defensive precaution. I was expecting you to come back and ask me what, in more specific terms, I would like to see. The answer is the one you and Jim have both now given, namely pairing Mulumbu and Tettey in defensive midfield.

[morty 0]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@Cambridge YellowLet me make clear that I speak only for myself; whether, or to what extent if at all, Parma would agree I''ve no idea. As far as I understand his Masterclass 9 and subsequent posts, he has mainly been gently educating the rest of us in the finer points of what AN himself is trying to do.With respect, I think you misunderstand me. I''m not primarily concerned with who plays wide right (though I do think Howson or Jarvis offer more security than Redmond). As I see it, tinkering with the personnel offers no more than marginal improvement, which I why I call our frailty "structural" (which again is not necessarily what Parma means when he uses the term). What I''m most concerned about is over-commitment of resources to attack at the expense of prudent defensive precaution. I was expecting you to come back and ask me what, in more specific terms, I would like to see. The answer is the one you and Jim have both now given, namely pairing Mulumbu and Tettey in defensive midfield.[/quote]Two DM''s?At home?Have we got in the Delorean and transported ourselves back to the Chris Hughton era?[;)]

[Jacko 0]

I agree with all of that Jim.

My only comment would be also to not forget Brady in that front 4, who I think has been excellent so far this season. As you say, Mulumbu and Tettey could provide the cover needed and give that front 4 a base/foundation to play from. Particularly, away from home and could help to prevent another Newcastle from occurring.

Like you say, I''d also be happy to see Howson sitting alongside either Mulumbu or Tettey in a game against lesser opposition if we felt we needed to be more expansive in our play - particularly in a home match with the dreaded ''must win'' tag.

I think that''s the right balance for going about things in this division. I just can''t buy into the idea being mooted on here that we need to jettison at least one of our best attacking weapons who are capable of winning us games and replace them with players who would be playing out of position (i.e. Jarvis on the right or Redmond in the number 10 role).

[Jacko 0]

I don''t think I''m misunderstanding you at all, West Coast.

I just think what you and Parma are both doing is using a vague and pseudointellectual language and dressing it up as footballing analysis to be honest.