Giving up on motd.

[SwindonCanary 455]

Let''s not forget, most TV pundits are feeling a little bitter after predicting us for relegation.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="unique"]Hoolahan displayed tremendous skill in the build up to two of the goals against Sunderland, yet not a mention on MOTD. If it had been de Bruyne, Rooney, Silva etc, the pundits would have been salivating endlessly and repeating the footage ad nauseum.

They could have shown why or how Norwich are playing so well and why they are not the pushovers that all the pundits were predicting at the beginning of the season.

I don''t suppose for one moment that Norwich are the only team conceding from set pieces, I''m guessing that corners and free kicks yield a good percentage of goals scored.[/quote]

You are right.  To clear this up - I''ve looked at the stats as provided by Theoklitis and it appears that between 1/4 and a 1/3 of all goals scored are from set pieces.    According to that site, we ourselves have scored between a 1/4 and 1/3 our goals from set pieces.  We have let in one or two more than we should from there - and it will be addressed , I''m sure - but making it an issue worthy of the video they showed in preference to showing some of our good play, was poor.   We didn''t lose the match and dominated  West Ham possession . I''m sure they could have showed some video of the reasons why that was

the case, rather than drag old footage up from previous weeks.  Good to point out there is an improvement to be made, but no need to back it up the way they did.  Less fashionable clubs get precious little from the pundits and so called experts - most of whom spent most of their careers at "big" clubs - and their patronising approach to clubs that are less fashionable, is apparent nearly every week.   I wouldn''t have minded them showing the goals they did if we were losing every week and sittng rock bottom to these set piece goals - it would be slightly more relevant  - but overall, they could start highlighting some of our good play, of which there has been plenty.  That is why I was so narked watching motd.  I just won''t bother in future and will wait to see highlights elsewhere. [/quote]

Not sure how you got to those numbers mate. Did you even read the site? [;)]37 out of 182 goals in the Premier League have come from set pieces - roughly 20% or 2 in 10.5 out of 12 Norwich City goals in the Premier League have come from set pieces - roughly 40% or 4 in 10.Probably something worth talking about on a TV show - especially when 2 of those goals (West Ham & Stoke) cost us wins. An extra 4 points, and we''d be 4th.I guess some people just prefer to have smoke constantly blown up their ar$e.[/quote]

Yes, I did look. If you discount own goals and penalties (self inflicted goals - on which we are on "nil" btw) the % is near 25%.  Also,  3 of our 11 goals have come from set pieces, putting us above average in scoring from set pieces.  If we score from a set piece next week, that must surely be worth highlighting on  motd.......

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="unique"]Hoolahan displayed tremendous skill in the build up to two of the goals against Sunderland, yet not a mention on MOTD. If it had been de Bruyne, Rooney, Silva etc, the pundits would have been salivating endlessly and repeating the footage ad nauseum.

They could have shown why or how Norwich are playing so well and why they are not the pushovers that all the pundits were predicting at the beginning of the season.

I don''t suppose for one moment that Norwich are the only team conceding from set pieces, I''m guessing that corners and free kicks yield a good percentage of goals scored.[/quote]

You are right.  To clear this up - I''ve looked at the stats as provided by Theoklitis and it appears that between 1/4 and a 1/3 of all goals scored are from set pieces.    According to that site, we ourselves have scored between a 1/4 and 1/3 our goals from set pieces.  We have let in one or two more than we should from there - and it will be addressed , I''m sure - but making it an issue worthy of the video they showed in preference to showing some of our good play, was poor.   We didn''t lose the match and dominated  West Ham possession . I''m sure they could have showed some video of the reasons why that was

the case, rather than drag old footage up from previous weeks.  Good to point out there is an improvement to be made, but no need to back it up the way they did.  Less fashionable clubs get precious little from the pundits and so called experts - most of whom spent most of their careers at "big" clubs - and their patronising approach to clubs that are less fashionable, is apparent nearly every week.   I wouldn''t have minded them showing the goals they did if we were losing every week and sittng rock bottom to these set piece goals - it would be slightly more relevant  - but overall, they could start highlighting some of our good play, of which there has been plenty.  That is why I was so narked watching motd.  I just won''t bother in future and will wait to see highlights elsewhere. [/quote]

Not sure how you got to those numbers mate. Did you even read the site? [;)]37 out of 182 goals in the Premier League have come from set pieces - roughly 20% or 2 in 10.5 out of 12 Norwich City goals in the Premier League have come from set pieces - roughly 40% or 4 in 10.Probably something worth talking about on a TV show - especially when 2 of those goals (West Ham & Stoke) cost us wins. An extra 4 points, and we''d be 4th.I guess some people just prefer to have smoke constantly blown up their ar$e.[/quote]

Yes, I did look. If you discount own goals and penalties (self inflicted goals - on which we are on "nil" btw) the % is near 25%.  Also,  3 of our 11 goals have come from set pieces, putting us above average in scoring from set pieces.  If we score from a set piece next week, that must surely be worth highlighting on  motd.......

[/quote]I don''t recall ''net set-peice goal differential'' being the point of the video montage you''re complaining about. Probably because that''s not really a thing. You may also like to discount which set pieces are due to quality rather than defensive errors. One or two of ours may have come from free kicks that were not able to be saved, rather than defensive errors. Can you say that from any of the 5 highlighted on MOTD?Regardless of what you think;* Danny Murphy thinks we have a problem defending set pieces.* Statistics appear to back it up.* As does a video montage.* They had the decency to point this out to us on MOTD.I have no idea why ex players pointing out areas where we can improve is such a bad thing?

[hogesar 9,671]

I think this thread is hilarious.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="hogesar"]I think this thread is hilarious.[/quote]

Maybe.  But the way less fashionable clubs are treated is something that affects all of us.  From referees who disallow perfectly good goals, the way penalties are given, etc etc - to pundits on TV who patronise clubs like us, often treating us like cannon fodder and if we somehow seem to be going counter to that, they would still rather highlight stuff that is poor - or just show plain ignorance - as in the "him" "him" "him" speech a few weeks ago.  I''ll grant you Murphy is a better pundit than most, but having stayed with motd to see our highlights, I couldn''t quite believe they had gone out of their way to show those goals against us from previous weeks rather than highlight some good things from the actual match.  Its called "Match of the Day" for a reason.   Most of the time it looks as if the pundits don''t actually watch the matches or study them closely.  Picking out the set piece issue was ok, but making it the main point of the after match report and going so far as to dig out footage to back it up was a joke - imo.  Did we lose the match?  Were we overun?  Or did we dominate possession away from home continuing a good run of away performances?    Hilarious this thread may be, but for me motd continues to be a poorly researched, lazy and amateur look at the day''s football. 

[Legend Iwan 30]

What''s lazy or amateur about raising a well-researched piece concerning our weakness against set pieces considering that''s how we lost the match? You complain about them not watching the games and then you''re provided with an informative assessment of our frailty but because it''s negative you want to grumble.

Not everyone looks through the same heavily tinted green and yellow specs as you, LDC.

And, in relation, to your reference that referees treat ''less fashionable clubs'' badly with ''the way penalties are given etc'' did you see how many goals Spurs scored against then top of the table Man City from offside positions this weekend?

[ron obvious 1,502]

God there''s some tripe on here.

Read the article posted on another thread:

https://tacticiancolumn.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/west-hams-rebrand-project-cast-envious-glances-in-the-direction-of-alex-neil-and-norwich/

to get a real assessment of what happened.

The problem is that all the pundits write the script before a ball is kicked. Commentators too; they pick up on a player or perceived team ability - whether for good or ill - & look for any example, however minute, to back their prejudice.

Some of our play, particularly for 30 minutes or so in the first half, was breathtaking. Worthy of any top six team. And it never dropped below excellent. We should have finished our chances, but that does not detract from our overall brilliance.

NONE of that was reflected in the coverage. Since they couldn''t comment on what hadn''t been seen, they had to dredge up a load of old cobblers about how awful we were at defending set pieces compared to everyone else.

A bleedin'' travesty. And some of the ''supporters on here should be damn well ashamed.

OTBC!

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="ron obvious"]God there''s some tripe on here.

Read the article posted on another thread:

https://tacticiancolumn.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/west-hams-rebrand-project-cast-envious-glances-in-the-direction-of-alex-neil-and-norwich/

to get a real assessment of what happened.

The problem is that all the pundits write the script before a ball is kicked. Commentators too; they pick up on a player or perceived team ability - whether for good or ill - & look for any example, however minute, to back their prejudice.

Some of our play, particularly for 30 minutes or so in the first half, was breathtaking. Worthy of any top six team. And it never dropped below excellent. We should have finished our chances, but that does not detract from our overall brilliance.

NONE of that was reflected in the coverage. Since they couldn''t comment on what hadn''t been seen, they had to dredge up a load of old cobblers about how awful we were at defending set pieces compared to everyone else.

A bleedin'' travesty. And some of the ''supporters on here should be damn well ashamed.

OTBC![/quote]

You seem to be suggesting there is some "Norwich concede from Set Pieces" agenda which would have been rolled out even if we hadn''t conceded from a set piece.

Really, Ron?

Match of the Day has to focus on the game-defining moments.  F*cking up yet again at a set piece was game defining, pretty and incisive passing football with no ultimate end product was not.

I had you down as one of the more astute posters on here but I may be rethinking that position.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]God there''s some tripe on here.

Read the article posted on another thread:

https://tacticiancolumn.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/west-hams-rebrand-project-cast-envious-glances-in-the-direction-of-alex-neil-and-norwich/

to get a real assessment of what happened.

The problem is that all the pundits write the script before a ball is kicked. Commentators too; they pick up on a player or perceived team ability - whether for good or ill - & look for any example, however minute, to back their prejudice.

Some of our play, particularly for 30 minutes or so in the first half, was breathtaking. Worthy of any top six team. And it never dropped below excellent. We should have finished our chances, but that does not detract from our overall brilliance.

NONE of that was reflected in the coverage. Since they couldn''t comment on what hadn''t been seen, they had to dredge up a load of old cobblers about how awful we were at defending set pieces compared to everyone else.

A bleedin'' travesty. And some of the ''supporters on here should be damn well ashamed.

OTBC![/quote]This would have been an excellent narrative to any analysis of our game - had we won.However we didn''t. We drew. Due to a late goal. From our defending from a set piece.The MOTD team did amazing to know that was going to happen ''before a ball is kicked''. I need to get Danny Murphy to fill out my accumulator for next week.

[ron obvious 1,502]

...The MOTD team did amazing to know that was going to happen ''before a ball is kicked'' ...

---------------------------------------------------

That''s my whole blasted point! They assumed we were going to roll over & die. Instead we played some fantastic football which we didn''t quite manage to capitalise on enough. but they didn''t go with that - because they didn''t show half our chances or most of the superb flowing football we played. That''s not what we''re supposed to do.. So they had to cook up something negative, something you could accuse most teams of.

We were nervous & knackered at the end. Ruddy misjudged one punch & it went straight to one of their best attackers. That''s football. How many corners did they have? How many succeeded???

It was nothing to do with the game. Once again, I respectfully refer you to the link posted above.

The level of anti-club feeling on this site approaches warp factor 11 sometimes. Joining with a bunch of overpaid idiots trying to find any stick to beat us with - because they''ve already written the script - we''re going straight back down - demonstrates a depth of disloyalty I find hard to comprehend.

Shame on you.

[Katie Borkins 1]

You''ve lost it.

Mental.

[ron obvious 1,502]

OK sweetie.

Love you hun.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]...The MOTD team did amazing to know that was going to happen ''before a ball is kicked'' ...

---------------------------------------------------

That''s my whole blasted point! They assumed we were going to roll over & die. Instead we played some fantastic football which we didn''t quite manage to capitalise on enough. but they didn''t go with that - because they didn''t show half our chances or most of the superb flowing football we played. That''s not what we''re supposed to do.. So they had to cook up something negative, something you could accuse most teams of.

We were nervous & knackered at the end. Ruddy misjudged one punch & it went straight to one of their best attackers. That''s football. How many corners did they have? How many succeeded???

It was nothing to do with the game. Once again, I respectfully refer you to the link posted above.

The level of anti-club feeling on this site approaches warp factor 11 sometimes. Joining with a bunch of overpaid idiots trying to find any stick to beat us with - because they''ve already written the script - we''re going straight back down - demonstrates a depth of disloyalty I find hard to comprehend.

Shame on you.[/quote]Bollocks.Their narrative was based on our defending from set pieces, because that''s how we lost 3 points from the game. When we bossed Bournemouth 2 weeks ago, the narrative  from a Norwich perspective was Wes, and how well he''s playing. 1 week ago against Liverpool, it was Martin and how amazing day. They don''t have some vendetta against us. We''ve had some decent coverage.I''ve already read the article you linked. It''s decent, but irrelevant to this argument. The author''s narrative is - a West Ham fan down on his team for not performing the way they had in previous outings. He was always going to give us kudos.I''m not being anti-club. I''m just not expecting the national media to spunk all over our team in the same way some Norwich fans do. This constant need for validation from the national media by some people is stupid. It stinks of ''little Norwich''. We''re on a great run at the moment, and things are looking great. We don''t need that confirmed by Mark F&^%ing Lawrenson for it to be true.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="ron obvious"]...The MOTD team did amazing to know that was going to happen ''before a ball is kicked'' ...

---------------------------------------------------

That''s my whole blasted point! They assumed we were going to roll over & die. Instead we played some fantastic football which we didn''t quite manage to capitalise on enough. but they didn''t go with that - because they didn''t show half our chances or most of the superb flowing football we played. That''s not what we''re supposed to do.. So they had to cook up something negative, something you could accuse most teams of.

We were nervous & knackered at the end. Ruddy misjudged one punch & it went straight to one of their best attackers. That''s football. How many corners did they have? How many succeeded???

It was nothing to do with the game. Once again, I respectfully refer you to the link posted above.

The level of anti-club feeling on this site approaches warp factor 11 sometimes. Joining with a bunch of overpaid idiots trying to find any stick to beat us with - because they''ve already written the script - we''re going straight back down - demonstrates a depth of disloyalty I find hard to comprehend.

Shame on you.[/quote]Bollocks.Their narrative was based on our defending from set pieces, because that''s how we lost 3 points from the game. When we bossed Bournemouth 2 weeks ago, the narrative  from a Norwich perspective was Wes, and how well he''s playing. 1 week ago against Liverpool, it was Martin and how amazing day. They don''t have some vendetta against us. We''ve had some decent coverage.I''ve already read the article you linked. It''s decent, but irrelevant to this argument. The author''s narrative is - a West Ham fan down on his team for not performing the way they had in previous outings. He was always going to give us kudos.I''m not being anti-club. I''m just not expecting the national media to spunk all over our team in the same way some Norwich fans do. This constant need for validation from the national media by some people is stupid. It stinks of ''little Norwich''. We''re on a great run at the moment, and things are looking great. We don''t need that confirmed by Mark F&^%ing Lawrenson for it to be true.[/quote]

Woah, hang on a minute.

It''s almost as if you''re saying that when we keep conceding goals from set-pieces, it''s reasonable for a football highlight show to focus on that recurring tendency in our game, in the light of us conceding from a set-piece and dropping 2 points, and suggesting that it may be an area in which we could improve?

F*CKING BIASED MEDIA B*STARDS

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="ron obvious"]It was nothing to do with the game. [/quote]

MotD has to pick out the parts of the game which determine the result.  That means goals, not approach play or quality of possession.

We conceded a late goal from poor defence at a set piece, and not for the first time this season.  

How can you say that the montage of previous set-piece defensive failures was not relevant or related to the fact we came away with a draw which could have been a win if we''d defended a set piece better than we did?

[unique 435]

Ruddy dropped a b*****k on a set piece. It was clear to all and sundry. It did not need emphasising, and it didn''t need a montage of previous set pieces when goals have been conceded, to underline it.

Fans from both teams extolled the high entertainment value of the game, yet this barely came across from the highlights.

Their after match summary could just have easily focused on the excellent football played by Norwich and the level of football they are producing, which has deserved a higher league placement than they currently hold.

Only they couldn''t focus on this positive side because they would have had to use footage that had been consigned to the bin, and it wouldn''t fit their pre-conceived views that ''lil''ol Norwich'' should be propping up the PL.

[ron obvious 1,502]

In a nutshell unique!

[Katie Borkins 1]

As a team, we are consistently poor at defending set pieces.

It is a reasonable thing to highlight when another failure to defend a set piece cost us the win.

Had we defended it and won, I suspect we would have seen a different analysis.

I''ll say nothing else on this thread as frankly I can''t be bothered to keep repeating myself.

[unique 435]

As a team, we are consistently producing an excellent brand of football.

It is a reasonable thing to highlight as we gave another team an unexpected fright.

Had we earned the points we have deserved, on the balance of play, we would be higher in the league than West Ham.

That''s might lot on the subject as I believe LDC''s opening post is perfectly valid, and many posters'' arguments are based on alternative agendas.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Some people don''t seem to mind it, after all the conceding goals is an issue worthy of comment, but for me, having watched the match on a stream and marvelled at how we controlled large parts of  the game, I looked forward to seeing some of that on motd.  We didn''t see much of it and it wasn''t highlighted that much by the pundits. NONE of the good play was repeated at the end apart from them showing the goals as usual - then at the end, a jarring montage of mistakes from previous weeks.  Utterly cheap and shoddy imo, given how well we had played that day. 

[Van wink 2,994]

It felt like a loss, we threw three pints away, we are poor at defending set piece, it''s a fair report.

[Katie Borkins 1]

If our game had been first, you would have got this.

MotD has to focus on key match-deciding moments in the time available.

Lovely incisive attacking play with no goal at the end won''t cut it.

When we concede from a set piece (again) it is reasonable to analyse this key weakness.

If you want praise and positivity only, join a f*cking gospel choir.

[ron obvious 1,502]

If we hadn''t been one of the ''top'' teams, you wouldn''t have got this.

We successfully defended every corner & free kick until the last. Ruddy''s ineffective punch did not reflect his, or the team''s performance.

By far the key problem was our inability to convert excellent chances. In every report I''ve seen, this is regarded as our biggest problem.

If we were one of the ''top'' teams, that''s what they would have gone with, providing a series of edited highlights of our amazing build up play; which team was it that had them purring about the number of passes leading to a goal? (last week or this, I can''t remember).

The script has been written, & they ain''t gonna change it.

Unfortunately I can''t sing, so I won''t be joining any gospel choir. I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that you are basically a nasty piece of work who uses humour as a method of bullying people. It''s a shame, because I value genuine wit as a means of examining preconceptions & prejudices. Oh well.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]If we hadn''t been one of the ''top'' teams, you wouldn''t have got this.

We successfully defended every corner & free kick until the last. Ruddy''s ineffective punch did not reflect his, or the team''s performance.

By far the key problem was our inability to convert excellent chances. In every report I''ve seen, this is regarded as our biggest problem.

If we were one of the ''top'' teams, that''s what they would have gone with, providing a series of edited highlights of our amazing build up play; which team was it that had them purring about the number of passes leading to a goal? (last week or this, I can''t remember).

The script has been written, & they ain''t gonna change it.

Unfortunately I can''t sing, so I won''t be joining any gospel choir. I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that you are basically a nasty piece of work who uses humour as a method of bullying people. It''s a shame, because I value genuine wit as a means of examining preconceptions & prejudices. Oh well.[/quote]No they wouldn''t. If we where one of the top teams and had that result, the general narrative would have been ''2 points dropped'', and then spoke about why that might have been. [1]References:[1] - MOTD2 20/9/2015 - Liverpool 1 - Norwich 1.

[hogesar 9,671]

I can''t stop laughing at the pettiness on this thread.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="hogesar"]I can''t stop laughing at the pettiness on this thread.[/quote]

It all depends on what you want to see when you switch on the TV.  I wouldn''t sit through motd if Norwich weren''t going to be shown.  As it was, I switched off after the Norwich match thinking if that is the best the BBC can do - dredge up old footage rather than highlight good points to our terrific display - I won''t bother to watch it anymore. I''ll see the highights elsewhere. Carry on laughing.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="ron obvious"]If we hadn''t been one of the ''top'' teams, you wouldn''t have got this.

We successfully defended every corner & free kick until the last. Ruddy''s ineffective punch did not reflect his, or the team''s performance.

By far the key problem was our inability to convert excellent chances. In every report I''ve seen, this is regarded as our biggest problem.

If we were one of the ''top'' teams, that''s what they would have gone with, providing a series of edited highlights of our amazing build up play; which team was it that had them purring about the number of passes leading to a goal? (last week or this, I can''t remember).

The script has been written, & they ain''t gonna change it.

Unfortunately I can''t sing, so I won''t be joining any gospel choir. I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that you are basically a nasty piece of work who uses humour as a method of bullying people. It''s a shame, because I value genuine wit as a means of examining preconceptions & prejudices. Oh well.[/quote]

An unfortunate conclusion indeed, but I think people see what they want to see.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="hogesar"]I can''t stop laughing at the pettiness on this thread.[/quote]

Can you sing, Hogesar?

[hogesar 9,671]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"][quote user="hogesar"]I can''t stop laughing at the pettiness on this thread.[/quote]

Can you sing, Hogesar?

[/quote]

Why, do you want me to sing The Trews?!