STILL NO 90 MIN PERFORMANCE

[Crazy Eddie 0]

There has been lots of jubilation following the binners result, and rightly so - but though the result was good, am I the only one who noticed we were outplayed after Hucks goal by 10 men?!

I almost had to be reminded which side had the man sent off. We lost our shape, we started hoofing the ball, passing badly, conceding possession...

I am worried, yes we scored, but although we dominated the first half (which is perhaps to be expected against 10) we were all over the place in the second. Against 11 men I''m not certain we would have got a result.

Sorry to bring things down, but I feel this needs adressing before the next game

[MadDan 0]

I think those blue tinted specs you were wearing need addressing.

[3pmkickoff 0]

If you think we were outplayed by Ipswich in that game then you need your eyes checked

[Making Plans 957]

[quote]I think those blue tinted specs you were wearing need addressing.[/quote]

There''s just no pleasing some people - go away

[MadDan 0]

" There''s just no pleasing some people - go away "

eh ?

[Crazy Eddie 0]

I saw it with my own eyes through no blue tint I can tell you, others that were with me agreed that we were by no means dominant in the SECOND half and we invited them on to us through slack play after scoring. It was plain to see if you were watching. I don''t believe no-one here agrees with me on this point.

I am pleased with the result but someone other than me must have seen it, against 11 (perhaps a better 11 than Ipswich) we mightn''t have got the three points. Watford would not have succumb to that second half performance.

[FilletTheFishWife . 0]

I guess Crazy and myself must have watched a different game to MadDan. I''m as pleased as anyone with the result but I doubt we''re the only two with no nails left. We dominated the first-half but the second-half was a different matter when we were under siege.

Still, woe betide anyone who rains on the parade. You would think it was heresy to suggest that Ipswich passed the half-way line.

[Crazy Eddie 0]

Thank you FilletTheFishWife (interesting name) I was beginning to think I really was crazy

[sxcanaree 0]

We would have dominated the second half as much as the first had not Ips**t played in a 3-3-3 formation whereby our, faster, forwards were constantly offside because their back line held together consistently around about 10 yards from the half way line.

Of the 10 or so off-sides in that half only one or two were dodgy - often when we were in posession Ashton and Huckerby had to be in an offside position as their defenders were so far up the pitch being on side would have meant our most forward player was in our own half and this was when we were in possession!- Perhaps with more nous we could have beaten their trap more often but without that fourth defender to stray back and with an attack minded opposition it was Ips**t who had the advantage of having only ten men not us.

Of course having Hucks and Ashton standing calling for the ball a yard behind all three defenders did contribute something but basically it was Ips**t''s tactics that killed the game after our goal - they were no more likely to score than us as they had no creativity in their attacks but their formation simply snuffed us out!

OTBC

[MadDan 0]

Back to normal service again. Invent something then argue against that.

Who claimed we were dominant ?

We were one up away from home. The losing side often attack more vigorously. We did at Watford. If some fans were biting their nails then so be it but the binners hardly created any decent chances. In fact any chances. We did. Had we put one or two of those away would you have still been biting your nails ?

Sadly though it appears we can''t report it as it was or how Radio5, the local or national press saw it without being accused of some overtly pro Norwich slant. Some might say this is a City board after all. Others might question the way this board repeatedly throws up those who feel it necessary to put the binner''s side of things.

An infestation of the suffolk pest Binus Anonimus perhaps ?

[Crazy Eddie 0]

"Sadly though it appears we can''t report it as it was or how Radio5, the local or national press saw it without being accused of some overtly pro Norwich slant. Some might say this is a City board after all. Others might question the way this board repeatedly throws up those who feel it necessary to put the binner''s side of things.

An infestation of the suffolk pest Binus Anonimus perhaps ?"

And some might call it unnecassary to accuse someone of being some sort of secret binners agent simple for having an individual opinion. I don''t base my opinions on what the press or radio tells me, I base them on what I see with my own eyes. I just prefer it that way. I wonder how many of those that are disbelieving me actually saw the game.

[Crazy Eddie 0]

[quote]We would have dominated the second half as much as the first had not Ips**t played in a 3-3-3 formation whereby our, faster, forwards were constantly offside because their back line held together cons...[/quote]

This illustrates my main grievance with our 2nd half performance perfectly. We were caught off-side so so often and totally unnecessarily. When we were a man up why oh why were we playing long ball tatics, trying to hoof it at the earliest opportunity, rather than playing the ball on the ground to feet and making our man advantage tell? And please don''t anyone say it wasn''t happening because it blatantly was. We just ended up giving the ball away time and time again, possession in 2nd half was no better than 50-50 and against 10 men we should have at least been winning the possession battle, as we were in the 1st half when they couldn''t get the ball off us.

[Northern Canary 0]

we didnt sound too bad second half. i thought we dominated first half and second was quite even. So thats not bad

[The Chameleon 0]

At the end of the day we won the game and whilst we weren''t brilliant in the second half (maybe because threw everything at them in the first and were tired) we never really looked in danger.
It kinda looked like worthy declared on one nil. A tactic I have little regard for usually, but he got away with it this time. I remember him declaring at one nil in the play off final.

Lets hope the team builds on this performance and can take the points from Reading. To me that would be a bigger result than the Ipswich as I fully expect Reading to finish higher than our freinds from Suffolk.

[LinkNR9 0]

Crazy and Fish - no, you''re not mistaken, we were up against it in the second half, playing against 10 men, don''t forget.

[MadDan 0]

" that we were by no means dominant in the SECOND half "

to

" We just ended up giving the ball away time and time again, possession in 2nd half was no better than 50-50 "

then

" but the second-half was a different matter when we were under siege."

So there we have it. We were by no means dominant, in fact we had no more than 50% of the possession which supposedly led us to being under siege.

Now call me an old cynic but having 50% of the possession doesn''t sound like being under siege to me.

But ''shock horror'' a team who are playing at home in front of a packed house fired up by supposedly earlier injustice seek to overturn a deficit by attacking (current form has them as the better team). How dare they ?

Mind you on this panic ridden board even this sort of routine football happening is turned into a near death experience. Cue more hair pulling and shirt rending. The end is nigh (I''ve no more nails left) they wail. We''re doomed.

Now roll on Northampton to see if this is really onset of the green (and yellow) shoots of recovery or the final act leading up to armageddon.

If it is armageddon then ......

armageddon outa here (arf arf)

[shyster 0]

[quote]There has been lots of jubilation following the binners result, and rightly so - but though the result was good, am I the only one who noticed we were outplayed after Hucks goal by 10 men?! I almost ...[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree, FastEddie, and the fact that we were unable to close shop (because we don''t have Cannavaro & Nesta in the side) let alone capitalise (the realistic option) against a mediocre outfit of 10 men for 62 minutes leaves little room for complacency where forthcoming ties are concerned -- That said, I can fully understand the nervousness of a team 2nd off bottom that hasn''t won away in 14 months -- Overall, I''m adamant that we will build on this victory & garner the results/points required to finish in the top rung of the Championship  Especially if we rid of Deano    

[Old Boy 0]

I was watching the BBC''s text commentary, and its possession stats. At half-time, it was 54% Norwich. Then I saw it drop to 50% in the ten minutes after the goal. That represents a very big change over that length of time. I can only put it down to nerves, which is understandable given the circumstances. But we do need more strength of character in these pressure situations.

[ZLF 335]

I can only rely onm the norfolk commentray and the comments of people I know who wnet and the impression from the radio was that we totally dominated the first half and created a mountain of chances without scoring.  The second half did not possess the same domination as the first with city only creating a couple of chances whereas ipswich created nothing.  At the time I heard the commentary it sounded like citywere bossing the game.

However....  whilst the commentary accurately reflected the first half my reliable eye witness accounts relveal that Ipswich had by far themore  possession in the second half and gave our midfield the run around but had no cutting edge and didnt pull a save of note from greeno  -  my challenge of whether hux added potency also weakened the midfield was confirmed as the main reason as Magilton suddenly hadmore time and space to run teh midfield in second half.

I know this is a meaningless post as I was not tehre (third rate citizen that I am becasue of that)  but is an accurate summary of 8 fans views of the game - so it seems FTFW et al are not the blue tinged traitors that they are being painted as being...

Whatever happend to being alllowed an opinion?

OTBC

[CambridgeCanary 0]

I wasn''t there so using the anti Wiz test, my views on the match have no merit.  So I''ll keep them to myself.  I have no doubt that the performance could have been improved upon simply because of where we were before the game.  It was never going to be total football.

What matters to me is not whether we ground the binners into the dust or scraped the luckiest win in history.  What matters is where we go next.  Now that the selction issues are being (belatedly) addressed, we need to build confidence.  This win will mean a lot to the players and is a great foundation to move forward.

The win is history.  Let the confidence flow, backed by encouragement from us and see how things continue to pick up.

UNITED IN OUR LOVE FOR CITY

[MadDan 0]

Blimey they are popping up this morning

"At half-time, it was 54% Norwich. Then I saw it drop to 50% in the ten minutes after the goal."

Which amounts to Ipswich having the ball for an extra 27 seconds. Pretty meaningless. It amounts to very little if you have no chances at goal.

Never mind it gets worse

" Whatever happend to being alllowed an opinion? "

Who said you were not entitled to an opinion ? No one has ever stated that you can''t state what you want within the boundaries of legality and good taste. There does seem however to be a view held by some that you can spout anything without it being challenged. Person A writes something, Person B replies pointing out what they see are innaccuracies in person A''s point, Person A gripes that he/she is not allowed an opinion.

Quite clearly there was no siege or us hanging on for dear life throughout the second half.Possibly, if Zippers read his own post, he would see the answer to his own conundrum. Maybe it was the replacing of Marney with Huckerby that let Ipswich having more possession but it was a tactical decision that paid off and never really threatened to produce a goal against us.

That''s what happens in football.