Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Thirsty Lizard

James Maddison

Recommended Posts

[quote user="king canary"]I saw him a few times and he was always in the middle so looked it up- Tranfermarkt (not the most reliable I know) say he played almost every game as an AM.

He''s not slow though so I can see him being more than capable of playing a bit wider, especially with someone like Olsson to overlap and support. I suppose the big question in some ways is where does Brady fit in longer term?[/quote]Like I say, more than happy to admit an error when I make one, but I''d certainly agree that he''s more than comfortable in pretty much any of those attacking midfield positions IMHO.As for Brady, I think much will depend on what happens up to and including January. So far his form hasn''t been anywhere near what he displayed over the summer, his delivery has been patchy and I don''t think he''s a left back regardless (although appreciate that was out of necessity rather than choice at times). If we can''t get him showing his ability on a more consistent basis, I''d rather he moved on for a nice fee and we gave one of the younger lads the chance to impress, be this Pritchard, Maddison or one of the Murphy twins (thus possibly freeing up space on the right for Canos).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn''t meant as a dig, just saying where I got the info from. Thought it was with checking.

Re Brady- I didn''t see the Forest game but I''d imagine a team with Murphy and Brady on the wings, who both stay wider is a very different proposition to one with Canos and Pritchard in it cutting inside. It''s nice to have the different options and it is always good to have lots of good players but I am still a little baffled as to why we signed both Canos and Pritchard if we planned to hang on to Brady and get the Murphy twins involved. I could well be wrong but I wouldn''t be surprised if we see Canos going out on loan in January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they expected Brady to be leaving (for a tidy profit), along with Lafferty and Naismith, which meant that the Pritchard signing would have been more logical if that occurred, however we''d just lost out on McCormack, saw a chance to get a real quality young player in and went for it.Time will tell if it''s the right choice, but I''m confident that it will be the better signing vs McCormack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it''s quite likely someone was leaving but when it didn''t happen the best thing for Madison and us was to loan him until January. It''s like we were proactive but when it didn''t work out we were reactive.

Pritchard was an excellent signing. An exciting young player who wanted to come to Norwich. It''s testament to our ambition that he wanted to come and we paid the going rate to make that happen.

This surplus of midfield players is a myth when you consider we play 5 each game. Up front we have Jerome, Oliviera, Lafferty, Morris and Naismith in an emergency. If we had 5 such options for each midfield position that would be 25 players.

We actually have the strongest squad I can ever remember and unless we are decimated with injuries the most difficult thing will be keeping them all happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Nutty

It isn''t really a myth as yes we play 5 midfielders but you can''t exactly interchange Canos and Tettey.

We generally play three attacking midfielders- for those three positions we have Wes, Canos, Brady, Naismith, Jacob, Josh and Pritchard. This isn''t including Howson who we''ve used in more advanced positions. For the deeper roles we have Dorrans, Tettey, Mulumbu, Howson and Thompson.

I make that 7 players to go into three attacking midfield positions, 5 into the two more defensive roles and 12 in total for 5 positions. Not a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said the idea we have a surplus of midfielders was a myth. I''d disagree based on that.

I do agree with got an extremely strong squad with lots of depth in that respect though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Compared to strikers buddy. We have one position for Jerome, Olivier, Lafferty, Morris and if necessary Naismith. Five for each midfield position would be 25. Even with what we have there is no direct replacement for Tettey. I think we''re making the same point but coming at it from different directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''m not sure we are. We have a surplus of midfielders because I think most of us would be happy for any of those players to start regularly (with the probable exception of Naismith). With strikers sure we have 5 bodies but I''d say only two of them are capable of holding down a regular starting berth.

I still thing we are a striker short- not because I think our squad needs 6 of them but because those five contain a completely untested youngster, an out of form midfielder who looked dreadful upfront against Birmingham and a player our manager so clearly doesn''t rate that he''d rather start said out of form midfielder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="king canary"]I''m not sure we are. We have a surplus of midfielders because I think most of us would be happy for any of those players to start regularly (with the probable exception of Naismith). With strikers sure we have 5 bodies but I''d say only two of them are capable of holding down a regular starting berth. I still thing we are a striker short- not because I think our squad needs 6 of them but because those five contain a completely untested youngster, an out of form midfielder who looked dreadful upfront against Birmingham and a player our manager so clearly doesn''t rate that he''d rather start said out of form midfielder.[/quote]

Exactly.  If we get 2 midfielders injured, there''s plenty of scope to cover it in the squad - say if Murphy had been injured on Saturday as well as Tettey, we''d have been able to bring in a good player in his position as cover.  Up front we normally play a single striker and Jerome has already missed a game through injury.  We may have five strikers on the books in theory, but it''s obvious the manager does not want Lafferty or Morris starting a game, and we can obviously discount Naismith from playing up front on his own, so in reality we have a first choice - Jerome - with cover in the form of Oliveira who''s not yet played a minute for us.  If they''re both unavailable for a game, we''ve got a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s obvious that the manager wanted an option he liked better than Lafferty. If he''d have got one Lafferty would surely have gone. If we''d sold Naismith or Brady Madison would probably have stayed. The actual numbers would have remained basically the same. Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said in other thread it clearly is a myth as Nutty says.

We have well balanced squad, if Oliveira will show that he was worth of buying and that really is only questionmark in our team.

4 pure attackers and Naismith is more familiar as a striker than as a CAM and thats why I never really understood why we bought him, so that makes 4/1 or 5/1

Tettey, Howson, Mulumbu, Dorrans and Thompson for two deeper roles. So 2,5/1

Hoolahan, Murphyx2, Pritchard, Canos, Naismith and Brady for 3 upper positions. That makes it 2,3/1 or 2,6/1, when Jarvis comes back and 3/1 if Howson is counted here.

LB Olsson, Brady and Whittaker 3/1

RB Pinto, Whittaker, Martin 3/1 (Thompson has also played here)

CB Klose, Martin, Bennett, Bassong, Turner 2,5/2

There is no point of arguing about it and have to remember very rare teams have more than 2 quality (their standards) pure strikers in their roster. 2+1 youngster is quite common with multi purpose players supporting if needed.

Bayern: Lewandowski, Muller and Green

Barca: Suarez, Paco

Real: Benzema, Morata, Mariano

ManC: Aguero, Ikenacho

ManU: Zlatan, Martial, Rashford

Arsenal: Giroud, Akpom, Sanogo (Welbeck) Lucas

Chelsea: Costa, Batshyai (that belgian whose name I cant pronounce), Solanke

PSG: Cavani, Jese, Augustin

You get the point. Outside of Arsenal none of top teams have more strikers than we do and in Arsenal''s case Welbeck is out until next year and Sanogo has been injured more in his time at Arsenal than being fit. Also Lucas and Welbeck have played more winger in their carreer than as a striker.

Everyone of these teams have players that can play as CF or SS as do we, but you should get the point about team structure. If they can be succesful teams with 2 main strikers, so should we.

Jerome, Oliveira, Lafferty and Naismith is at this level very good strikeforce and even though I would have wanted us to replace two latter with one new signing there is not many teams in this division who can look at their roster and say they have equal quality with us.

And you can add to that the fact that we have players like twins, Pritchard and Canos who are well known to be good finishers at this level, I think we will be just fine in goal wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can''t argue with that logic Lavanche, with the system AN plays it is unnecessary to have a load of strikers. If we had signed McCormack then we migth not have got Oliveira. I know what AN said, but to me it looks like the plan was only ever to get in one striker, unless Lafferty was allowed to leave as we''d need to replace him too. The fact that Laff''s didn''t feature when we had no other strikers available shows how little AN rates him, and therefore it is unlikely he''ll ever play ahead of Jerome and Oliviera this season. That said, like Morris as well, can probably do the job if called upon. Our system doesn''t rely on a goalscoring striker as such, our entire midfield chip in with goals.

Because we retained a lot of our players, as you''ve pointed out above, it limited what we could really invest. Pritchard appears to have been bought in case any of Olsson, Brady or Naismith left, as none did it meant we didn''t really need to do any more business.

I still fear we could have done with spending a bit more on a striker, but as long as Jerome, Oliviera and the attacking midfielders behind them do the business we won''t be complaining. Our squad is very strong and has pretty impressive depth for this league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the Wes/coaching badges question, i think Wes was on the same UEFA B/A fast track course that Robbie Keane and Kenny Cunningham were on about three years ago. Ex pros can do both at once without having to do early level and youth cert first, not sure if its the same in England, but here they can dip in and out of courses as football commitments allow. Some do it in one block after retirement, others get em done while they are still playing.

A friend of mine recently completed and passed his Uefa A and he really put in some work to get it.

Which reminds me, did AN get his pro license yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If we''d sold a player and brought in another striker (someone AN feels he can use as a starter if necessary), we''d probably have let Lafferty go.  So the numbers on our books would have stayed the same, BUT the number of strikers that the manager would be willing to use in the starting lineup, if necessary, would have gone up from 2 to 3.  And that''s the number that actually matters. 

 

Having 3rd & 4th choice strikers on the books that the manager won''t use to start games, means nothing if your first & second choice striker get injured.  You''re still in deep...trouble if that happens.

 

As I''ve said, I hope AN can find a way to get Lafferty to the point where he''s a viable 3rd choice starter for us, but that''s down to things behind the scenes.  At the moment AN is clearly only willing to use him as a sub for injury time.

 

This is why we''re short of cover in the striking position and why it worries me - unlike the rest of our squad which is in good shape.  If people want to bury their head in the sand and go blah-blah-blah "five strikers on our books" blah-blah-blah, that''s their choice.  And I really hope we are lucky enough to get through until January (when hopefully we''ll bring in another striker) without both strikers being injured/suspended simultaneously, but the key word there is "lucky".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It reminds me of when we had Bryan Gunn with no real cover in the GK department.  The difference is that strikers are much more at risk of injury (hence having just two is as bad as having a single GK, in my opinion).  Wish I hadn''t thought of that, brings back some bad memories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are over exciting yourself a bit too much there Mr Forming. Which is making your reasoning rather ar se about face.You cannot just let a player go, they are not a balloon on a piece of string. Someone has to pay the remainder of his contract with City. If the right deal is not offered then he stays, which I suspect is what happened. Ergo his wages were not available for another striker (not the way you are trying to spin it).The problem would be that if he is only good enough to be "3rd & 4th choice striker" what''s the guarantee that one of the other three already here is not just as good ? Have him sat in the stands watching games may give some fans a reassuring glow but it will do little for his game, or his understanding of working with the team.Given that this nonsense that is the transfer window leads to idiotic chains and back logs we can''t know who the club wanted to sign and what happened. What we can know is that they will be doing their utmost to get us promoted, and I doubt that involves taking the slightest bit of notice of your doomladen prophecies about being ''lucky''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

 

If we''d sold a player and brought in another striker (someone AN feels he can use as a starter if necessary), we''d probably have let Lafferty go.  So the numbers on our books would have stayed the same, BUT the number of strikers that the manager would be willing to use in the starting lineup, if necessary, would have gone up from 2 to 3.  And that''s the number that actually matters. 

 

Having 3rd & 4th choice strikers on the books that the manager won''t use to start games, means nothing if your first & second choice striker get injured.  You''re still in deep...trouble if that happens.

 

As I''ve said, I hope AN can find a way to get Lafferty to the point where he''s a viable 3rd choice starter for us, but that''s down to things behind the scenes.  At the moment AN is clearly only willing to use him as a sub for injury time.

 

This is why we''re short of cover in the striking position and why it worries me - unlike the rest of our squad which is in good shape.  If people want to bury their head in the sand and go blah-blah-blah "five strikers on our books" blah-blah-blah, that''s their choice.  And I really hope we are lucky enough to get through until January (when hopefully we''ll bring in another striker) without both strikers being injured/suspended simultaneously, but the key word there is "lucky".

[/quote]
But the point wasn''t about quality, or percieved ability, it was about numbers. If we''d bought another better quality forward than Laffs then he would have gone. Or if we couldn''t have offloaded him Morris would most likely have gone on loan.The numbers would have remained the same. The balance between positions would have remained the same. That''s one of the reasons why these transfer windows are so difficult. Players leaving affect players joining and vise versa. Did I spell that right???  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my worry is about quality, and is our squad weak in any area ?  The answer is yes, at striker, because we are short of cover that''s good enough to play a starting role in the league.  Having players on the roster (Lafferty, Morris, Naismith) means yes the roster shows five attackers... but we''re still weak in that area, because AN wouldn''t want to start Lafferty or Morris in the league.  So the numbers on the roster don''t mean our squad is balanced, because some of those strikers aren''t available to start games (in the manager''s opinion) so in the real world, you have to ignore them.

 

We only have two strikers that can start games for us in the league, and that''s the number that worries me, because strikers suffer a lot of injuries/suspensions.


The difference with midfield, there we are blessed with plenty of quality players, so as we saw with Tettey - I''m a big fan of Tettey, but he was out injured on Saturday, and Dorrans/Howson showed they are quality players who were able to step up and deliver a top performance in his absence.  The same applies all over midfield which is great.  We even have cover for Wes (untested I accept) which hasn''t been true in the past.

 

So if people think all''s ok at the striking end because we have five names there on the roster, I think they''re simply missing the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lafferty has started a cup game and constantly plays as a starting striker at international level. He is able to start if that is needed.

Naismith also has started as a striker in league and also has played that position in his national team.

I really struggle to see the problem in depth there. Only problem I see with our striker situation is that we dont know yet if Oliveira fits the team. If he is going to be equally good with Jerome, we have no problem at this slot. If he is a flop, Jerome is carrying too much weight in his shoulders. Our third, fourth and fifth options are more than up to task at this level.

I would be more happy if we had managed to sell Lafferty and Naismith and get a 20-24 year old second or third choise striker to get a developing element in our quite old strikeforce.

Still as said our depth is not a problem. If we lose both Jerome and Oliveira we have ok options at this level. Naismith was poor in one game as a striker, but I remember quite many games where Hooper and Grabban were poor for us, but that doesn''t mean they can''t do the job if asked. Laffs has attitude problem, but still at the end I am quite sure AN will let him lose if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

Well my worry is about quality, and is our squad weak in any area ?  The answer is yes, at striker, because we are short of cover that''s good enough to play a starting role in the league.  Having players on the roster (Lafferty, Morris, Naismith) means yes the roster shows five attackers... but we''re still weak in that area, because AN wouldn''t want to start Lafferty or Morris in the league.  So the numbers on the roster don''t mean our squad is balanced, because some of those strikers aren''t available to start games (in the manager''s opinion) so in the real world, you have to ignore them.

 

We only have two strikers that can start games for us in the league, and that''s the number that worries me, because strikers suffer a lot of injuries/suspensions.

The difference with midfield, there we are blessed with plenty of quality players, so as we saw with Tettey - I''m a big fan of Tettey, but he was out injured on Saturday, and Dorrans/Howson showed they are quality players who were able to step up and deliver a top performance in his absence.  The same applies all over midfield which is great.  We even have cover for Wes (untested I accept) which hasn''t been true in the past.

 

So if people think all''s ok at the striking end because we have five names there on the roster, I think they''re simply missing the point.

[/quote]
Not arguing with you buddy. We always want better quality and Lafferty is obviously not one the manager has chosen to use. However you''ve changed the point for some reason. My point, that was picked up on, was about numbers. I think it''s still valid as is your point about quality of those numbers.
[quote user="nutty nigel"]I think it''s quite likely someone was leaving but when it didn''t happen the best thing for Madison and us was to loan him until January. It''s like we were proactive but when it didn''t work out we were reactive. Pritchard was an excellent signing. An exciting young player who wanted to come to Norwich. It''s testament to our ambition that he wanted to come and we paid the going rate to make that happen. This surplus of midfield players is a myth when you consider we play 5 each game. Up front we have Jerome, Oliviera, Lafferty, Morris and Naismith in an emergency. If we had 5 such options for each midfield position that would be 25 players. We actually have the strongest squad I can ever remember and unless we are decimated with injuries the most difficult thing will be keeping them all happy.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough NN, I''m worried about depth of the squad at the striker position and you were talking about something different , no problem.

The issue with people who say Lafferty is cover is that AN won''t play him in the league as a stater. The time when Jerome was out, AN played Naismith on his own up front and we got stuffed. So can I just reiterate this is why it worries me, if others want to be blase about that result and convince themselves everything''s fine, that''s up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naismith should be able to make an impact in the champs as a lone striker. The fact he didn''t could have more to do with whatever the problem is with him in general at the moment. Let''s face it Naismith is currently not fulfilling his potential in any position. I''m forever hopeful.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×