Team v Chelsea

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="Kanadyan Kanary"]We''ve got nothing going forward in this half. Lots of putter patter football around the half way line and then we give the ball away too easily. Looks like set pieces might offer the best option.[/quote]

We need someone uptop to hold the ball.

I’d introduce Oliveria now.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

Cahill you pr1ck!

[Nuff Said 5,153]

Dirty Chelsea. Only way they can cope with Maddison and Pritchard is to hack them down.

[kick it off 1,952]

Worth mentioning that Jamal Lewis looks pure quality. He really is having an impressive start to his city career.

[ec-p 98]

Come on City, please hang on.

[Herman 9,802]

The BBC live write up is extremely Chelsea biased except, strangely, the additions of Pat Nevin.

[Nuff Said 5,153]

Who''d take a draw?

[Nuff Said 5,153]

Josh hoping he''s done enough to generate a bid from Newcastle?

[JF 694]

Obviously a very good result but I feel disappointed. Chelsea were there for the taking today but we just don’t have anywhere near enough going forwards and neither team looked like scoring

[6088m canary 0]

organised and worked hard. chelsea were dire though and we could have played for weeks without scoring.

[Cantiaci Canary 558]

Well done lads ... proud to be a canary.

[ec-p 98]

Very decent result, hope it increases confidence and morale.

[rock bus 854]

A good performance against the league champions..I’m satisfied with that.

Great to see people still moaning about it on here though!

[JF 694]

rock bus wrote the following post at 06/01/2018 7:33 PM:

A good performance against the league champions..I’m satisfied with that.

Great to see people still moaning about it on here though!

If that’s aimed at me for saying I feel disappointed with the draw then Farke must be moaning as well as he’s just said the same thing....

[Making Plans 936]

Thought we played reasonably ok but never looked like winning it. Likewise, never really looked like losing it. Defence looked solid and capable, Lewis was good, midfield looked ok but we desperately need a striker who is willing to run the channels and pull defences about.No shots on target despite a few promising openings.All in all, a respectable result against a low key Chelsea.Doubt the replay will be as comfortable though

[kick it off 1,952]

Happy with the result. We still lack any kind of meaningful goal threat but still created chances. Murphy could have a couple and the last kick of the game oliviera really had to cut that ball back for Jamal Lewis. Aside from the one zimmerman clearance from the line, Chelsea were reduced to long shots which were woeful for most part.

Thought Chelsea were poor but I think we played a part in that - looked solid and well organised.

Jamal Lewis, Maddison and pritch were outstanding. Maddison really will play at the highest level. Trybull and Tettey were a brick wall in front of the defence although a bit sloppy in possession, and the defence dominated everything in the air. Hard to complain at that performance, thought we showed a lot of guts and heart.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

Let’s hope Farke is sensible with team selection for the replay.

We’re unlikely to progress now, so don’t take risks.

We desperately need to rectify the striker situation. We can’t go into championship games with Murphy, Pritchard and Murphy up top.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

Sorry, Maddison.

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

Well played, as ever we looked neat and tidy up to the final third where we need ''something'' more. Tommy T looked a bit spent in the second half, was surprised to see him play the 90, but all the side put in a good shift and deserve the replay.

[Mason 47 1,389]

I understand the comments that say we need a physical presence up front, at the same time as I don''t.For the most part you could say we should have had a goal against a defence that cost around £100 million to put together, and could only resort to hacking down our front 3 to stop them.If Pritchard, Murphy and Maddison can play like that most weeks in the Championship I don''t see the need to tack a big lug on there full time.

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="Mason 47"]I understand the comments that say we need a physical presence up front, at the same time as I don''t.For the most part you could say we should have had a goal against a defence that cost around £100 million to put together, and could only resort to hacking down our front 3 to stop them.If Pritchard, Murphy and Maddison can play like that most weeks in the Championship I don''t see the need to tack a big lug on there full time.[/quote]We never had one shot on target and the simple fact is that you won''t score many goals like that

[Capt. Pants 4,263]

[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Well done lads ... proud to be a canary.[/quote]

This.

Our back 5 were magnificent.

[STFU 0]

I may get criticised for saying this but I just don''t think that Josh is enough of a team player. Three occasions I think tonight a pass was the better option but he had a shot instead-with very poor results.

Other than that, a decent performance-very good defensively and we''ve earned the replay.

[Mason 47 1,389]

Premier League champions don''t give many chances away and tend to score a few, we found a good balance today.

A physical presence up front doesn''t deny any of those things happening, regardless. For every Grant Holt you find a Chris Brown; I feel like the attacking triumvirate we had today can challenge any Championship defence plenty.

[ec-p 98]

Nice comments from Conte, "Norwich deserve to have another game".

[Guest]

Change to the pattern and tactics so well done for that.

That it didn''t work, meaning we didn''t win, is no reason not to try something similar again.

None of our front three tonight have played that kind of role against that strength of opposition before. They are our most talented forward players and we need them near our opponents areas more often.

We haven''t carried a goal threat all season so tonight has not made that any worse.

I think Trybull and Pinto were poor tonight, most of the time anyway, whereas Lewis, Hanley and Tettey were excellent.

Not a great spectacle really and a draw seems the last result we need. We must have lost money tonight and I don''t predict a full house in the return.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Trybull and Pinto were poor tonight, most of the time anyway, whereas Lewis, Hanley and Tettey were excellent.

Not a great spectacle really and a draw seems the last result we need. We must have lost money tonight and I don''t predict a full house in the return.[/quote]

Definitely not one of Pinto''s best performances but I thought Trybull did OK. Sloppy in possession (unusually for him) but his primary job tonight was to protect the back 4 and he was very good in that respect.

Not sure how you think we lost money from a 23,000+ crowd, a televised fixture and a lucrative replay? The TV rights were worth £144,000 and if the replay is televised it''s an additional £70,000. The gate receipts for FA cup games are split 45% to each club (presumably the other 10% makes up the FA Cup prize money). 23000 x £12 (£15 for adults minus a few quid for concessions) = £276000.

So the TV rights and Ticket sales were worth approximately £300,000. 

Chelsea got 40k for their Carabao cup game against Nottingham Forest (at £25 per ticket) in September. They charge £30 a ticket for FA cup games, which is less than half of their Premier league ticket price so will attract people who can''t afford to go regularly, and they have a huge fanbase so I''d guess it will probably be close-ish to capacity, so let''s call it for 35k attendance.

35,000 x £30 = is just about a million quid, so we''ll get £450k from the replay - over £500k if it is televised or the crowd is larger.

So for the two games combined, we''ll be making around £750-800k.

Can you explain where you think we have lost money?

[Guest]

Can you explain where you think we have lost money?

Well we have to give Chelsea half the gate receipts, so we basically were left with 12000 X £15. That won''t cover anything like a weeks wages. Even adding the £67000 prize money.

OK we have the TV money which I believe is around about £144000.

So will around about £391000 cover everything? And I mean everything that it costs week to week.

I wasn''t including a replay when I said "we must have lost money tonight ".

If I am wrong with these figures then I apologise.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Can you explain where you think we have lost money?

Well we have to give Chelsea half the gate receipts, so we basically were left with 12000 X £15. That won''t cover anything like a weeks wages. Even adding the £67000 prize money.

OK we have the TV money which I believe is around about £144000.

So will around about £391000 cover everything? And I mean everything that it costs week to week.

I wasn''t including a replay when I said "we must have lost money tonight ".

If I am wrong with these figures then I apologise.[/quote]We have to pay those weekly costs anyway, regardless of whether there is a game. Yes, there are some additional costs such as appearance fees, stadium staff and policing, but those would not be too high.  Therefore, I don''t see how we have lost money on that game at all, bearing in mind the massive TV appearance fee.

[Guest]

As a point of interest, when there is talk of Naismith on £45K a week, is that based on 52 weeks or just the 45 weeks he plays etc?

There is a big difference