Lack of guts and nous last 15-20 mins

[grefstad 0]

Try getting tickets for 4 people at the Carra....I can easily get my own ticket, as I use the Super Member feature, but it is almost impossible to get seats next to eachother, and when travelling with kids it is almost a must.

But had good time off from dour shopping, watching the game in a pub.

As for going to games, I would be interested to know how many games TC Canary has attended in another country than England. Got a feeling it is very, very few, if any at all....

[hogesar 9,671]

Actually I reckon Grefstad the idea that watching on TV is so much better from an analytical and tactical point of view holds little water as otherwise all managers would be tucked away inside and not on the touchline.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

Grefstad, I have no issue with people having a constructive moan, i have been known to have a whinge myself. My responses to you are not borne out of being a "happy clapper", it is documented on this forum that I have concerns about our plight, that all said , and back to my main area of interest and the subject of this post, i just cannot reconcile that we try any less than Bournemouth over the last 15 minutes of a game, based on Opta stats. If our stats are that bad we should be bottom of the league, below Villa, but we are not, we have a very similar record to Bournemouth. For me it is more about small margins and the fact we are not quite good enough, not a bad side but not quite good enough in the PL, as evidenced by the missed chance by Jerome and the goals we concede from set pieces and crosses.........

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 527]

I am disappointed to have not made the top three in Grefstad''s useless posters.

I must try harder, or should that be less?

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Grefstad wrote:

''''So when posting something which you believe is not happy clapping, it is automatically negative?''''

Not at all, but when you produce comparisons against our club based on single fixtures and promptly rubbish posters when they ask you to do the same for another match you inevitably bring it on yourself!

Because let''s face it, none of this Bournemouth talk would have even been considered viable for posting by you had they not won their last 2 games.

And earlier on this thread, when questioned about our 3-1 win over Bournemouth, you lambasted the questioner saying one single game doesn''t make a season...

So presumably your logic is that its not 1, but 2 games, that make a season..?

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Also, this distance covered stuff is completely ambiguous.

There must be a direct correlation between a team''s approach to a game and the relative total distance ran. All it proves is that teams run a consistently varied amount..but we already know that they also play in a consistently varied way...so how much of this variance in distance can therefore be ascertained to the way the team plays, and how much to the fitness of said team?

The truth is you can''t prove either way for sure. I''d like to think though that, given ALL premier league players receive the absolute pinnacle in training, coaching and facilities, the chances of one premier league team being significantly fitter and thus being able to run consistently further than the other must be unlikely..Or at least, certainly more unlikely than this variance in distance covered being down to the playing style of that team.

The fact that Bournemouth are a newly promoted club that have amongst the poorest training facilities in the league (no I can''t back that up with stats) surely backs up my point.

Without looking at the stats I would hazard a guess that West Brom are quite low down on the distance covered front?

[Mr Apples 1,320]

I''m just waiting for Grefstad to move on from his current obsession with running/effort/nous to utter the immortal lines "we got no cash" and analyse the effectiveness of this season''s signings...it''ll probably happen around mid-January.

Apples

[grefstad 0]

Got no time to check the running stats now, being out shopping for Xmas. You know, betting profts must be spent wisely..

I remember that Arsenal was very low on the runner table though. A bit surprising that, although possession based teams would be expected to run a bit less than sides normally chasing the ball. Still, ManC was quite high in this stat if I remember correctly.

Obviously these stats are related to the chosen style of play, but in Norwich'' case, we have both played offensive, expansive football, as well as defensive park-the-bus stuff, and we are likely still at the bottom for this stat.

Anyway, running for the sake of closing down is one thing, running on the counter (high sprint) is another, and sprinting ability (genuine pace) in the team is more and more important these days, as proven by Leicester and Palace, among others.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

In life I have found that gamblers only tell you about their wins.

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

The real problem here is that Greffy thinks he''s being taken seriously when the evidence points to the opposite.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

I wanted to bump this thread to point out Grefstad''s anti-club agenda and negative viewing of City. Trusting everyone is familiar with his ''critical view of Man Utd game'' thread.

Grefstad wrote:

''''The stupidity in this forum continues to amaze me. Did Bournemouth consolidate their "draws" at Chelsea and vs ManU? No, they smelled blood and got their rewards. ''''

You say here that Bournemouth smelt blood and got their rewards, you go on to reference Bournemouth many times over the course of the thread, clearly they are a club we should aspire to.

What you fail to point out (which you noted to all without haste for our win) is the elements of fortune with the Bournemouth wins.

Cameron Jerome fortunate that De Gea didn''t save? Tettey lucky the ball ended up inside the near post?

How about SCORING DIRECTLY FROM A CORNER for luck?! Which is what Stanislas did for Bournemouth against Man U in just the second minute. Even Josh King''s scuffed shot from the set play was fortunate. He actually admitted in the interview afterwards that he had NEVER SCORED from the tactic in training. So to say there isn''t any fortune about that goal either is a lie.

As for their goal in the Chelsea game, a corner is flapped at by Courtois who gets it badly wrong, and then the ball comes back in to Murray in an offside position for a tap-in.

Yet, Bournemouth ''smelt blood'' and pushed on for the wins?

Us, on the other hand, completely fortuitous.

You are a miserablist!

[Lessingham Canary 99]

L.E.S. Don''t let the hard facts get in the way of a wind up, and the reference to Bournemouth''s luck is dependent on what size screen you watched it on, surely?.

[Webbo118 0]

I am not sure why posters indulge this pillock grefstad. Why not simply ignore the idiot?

[Herman 9,765]

He''s educating us in the ways of football.

[hogesar 9,671]

To be fair, I may owe Grefstad an apology.

It''s only today I realised that due to my screen not being big enough, I may miss parts of the match. It may be the case that the size of my screen also proportionally represents time, and how much of a match I can see. Without Grefstad''s mahoossive screen, I think I may have been missing the last 15-20 minutes of games and therefore cannot possibly provide an opinion on it.

[grefstad 0]

Jibes on purpose, Hog. How surprising...

A big screen is always better than a small one, given you sit the same distance from the screen. But screen size has never been my point. My point is that in these day and age, TV s better for analysing or watching games than being in the stadium, due to bird perspective, replays, closeups of action, etc.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

In this day, not to mention age, there are t.v. replays and clise ups available at the stadium.

[Hairy Kenneth 0]

How often is the whole pitch on the screen when watching on tv? Very rarely so you cannot see what every player is doing, no idea of the off the ball movement, how hard players are working tracking back, what the strikers are doing when there is the transition from our attacks to defending and vice versa.

There is no substitute to being at the ground to take everything in-which is probably why Roy Hodgson tends to go to the games rather than sit in his pants watching on sky and eating large amounts of Wotsits.

[grefstad 0]

[quote user="Hairy Kenneth"]How often is the whole pitch on the screen when watching on tv? Very rarely so you cannot see what every player is doing, no idea of the off the ball movement, how hard players are working tracking back, what the strikers are doing when there is the transition from our attacks to defending and vice versa.

There is no substitute to being at the ground to take everything in-which is probably why Roy Hodgson tends to go to the games rather than sit in his pants watching on sky and eating large amounts of Wotsits.[/quote]

Thats true, Hairy. But you will, in my opinion, get a better view of the action areas on the pitch, compared to being in the stands, perhaps with the exception of having the very best seats in the ground.