Paul McVeigh

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Why is it Paul McVeigh has one bad game and is dropped and has to play a good 2 or 3 decent performances from the bench to be picked again, unyet holt last season was ineffective for over half a season before he was dropped??

In fact even with all the games he played Gary Holt only started in one victory for us last year - the 3-2 win over West Brom

What is the betting if we lose to Sheffield United McVeigh takes the blame and is dropped, unyet crapppers like robinson and etuhu will remain in the side with possibly a recall for Jim Brennan.

[Johnny Hill 0]

Takes a big man to bring confidence back into your game when you know that no matter how well you play, you are not guaranteed a start in the next game - Quote from worthless!!

[Northern Canary 0]

i dont think Worthy likes him. And he has been know to be VERY inconsistent. Holt always worked hard which Worthers likes

[macdougalls perm 0]

I thought Robinson was okay on Saturday (admittedly didn''t set the pitch alight), and I think calling Etuhu a crapper is completely unfounded from that game. Your  point about Mcveigh is a good one but it is a pity you have to finish your post with this biased drivel. I also think that Mcveigh is less effective in midfield than he is up front with Ashton so his competition is surely from Mckenzie, making your attempts to write off our entire midfield as crap (despite a decent showing on Saturday) a bit irrelevant I think. 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

I am real sorry but when he was picked reguarly a few years back he was a good player, not inconsistent at all in a much weaker side than we have now.

How can you get consistency from a player who has not had a run of games for almost 2 years now. - and to be honest Worthy has reguarly picked Jim Brennan ahead of him in recent times who is consistently crap.

In fact in the cov game brennan was brought on first b4 mcveigh came on and played a blinder.

[ZLF 335]

Reading iwans book shows that the manager clearly has faves and WLY is on the other list of blamee number one.

Wee Zipper plays well when our tactics do not take him out of the game eg as a striker facing an aerial delivery time after time or as a winger when route one being used...

As Ashtons side kick he has been superb.

 

OTBC  

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

your right it was a bit of biased drivel im afraid.  Outr midfield has been pretty poor all season (safri and hucks apart).  Im still unsure about Etuhu and Robinson - I guess if we can pick them up for very little they are both more useful than andy hughes..   Although both pale in comparison to a Safri - Koumas Central midfield partnership - put Robinson/Hughes/Jarrett(plymouth form) in the mix and hucks playing fairly forward and i reckon you have got the dogs Boll...ks promotion winning team

There you go robinson on a free from Sunderland and Koumas a 1.5 million investment...

Green

Louis Jean/Colin   Doherty   Shackell/Flemking/Charlton   Drury

      Koumas   Safri    Robinson

                                                Hucks

               Ashton   Mckenzie

Subc

Jarvis
Flemking/Charlton
McVeigh
Jarrett(Plymouth Style)  
Ward

[macdougalls perm 0]

Paul, I actually completely agree with you. Mcveigh is probably the most gifted and quick thinking player at the club and, to be honest, Worthington''s reluctance to pick him is my main gripe with him. I only reacted like this to your post because I don''t think that you had to ''rubbish'' our entire midfield to make what I think is a very valid point. He does need a run of games to build his consistency - in Worthington''s defence, I think that the reason that Brennan gets picked over the little man on the left is because he thinks it gives more protection to our defence (partic Drury). Although, as Saturday showed, skilful attack is very often the best form of defence. Anyway, sorry for biting your head off, Happy Christmas, lets hope there is no need for a scapegoat after the match on Boxing Day!  [:)]

[macdougalls perm 0]

and PS, quite ironically, I think your selection/proposed team looks great except I would start with WLY up front and Leon on the bench.[;)]

[BRAVEHEART 0]

Most of the posts on McVeigh i agree with i.e. ''Paul Rankin'' and ''Macdougall''s'' interesting debate, although there is one point i do disagree with in Macdougall''s post which is the 4th message the fact that you are stating that McVeigh is less effective in midfield is wrong, as McVeigh usally is better playing on the Left wing than upfront. McVeigh in my opinion would be well suited in a 4-3-3 as the left sided striker, and you can have him in a 4-3-1-2 diamond formation just behind the front two where he can link up with the midfield which is what he is best at as demonstrated against Ipswich Town. But in normal circumstances as Norwich usually play the 4-4-2 i would play him on the left wing where he will create, get around the pitch and be a pain in the backside.

I as a Norwich fan have always been a fan of Paul McVeigh and really want to see him play a part in Norwich''s midfield either on the left or right wings, because looking at the supposedly right wingers available to Worthington we don''t have an out-and-out right winger at all so for now i feel that there is absolutely no reason at all why McVeigh can''t do a job there as he has played wide right quite a few times for Norwich before, and can use both feet.

McVEIGH''S THE MAN TO TAKE THE REIGN''S ON THE RIGHT WING

WORTHINGTON STICK HIM IN AND LET HIM DO THE BUSINESS

AS YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE

[macdougalls perm 0]

CB, Yeah good point about Mcv in midfield, my main reason for preferring him up front is that it allows us to play him and Hucks very effectively in the same line up without worrying about our midfield going AWOL. This gives Huckerby licence to interchange/link up with Mcveigh and Ashton whilst we can keep a steady three in midfield. The alternative is to play Huckerby up front but, as we all know, he always ends up out on the left anyway leaving Ashton isolated. I guess that I am suggesting your 4-3-1-2 but without strictly limiting either player (Mcv/Hucks) as to who is up front and who pulls out wide. I just think that this would allow us to maintain a solid team shape at the same time as allowing our two most creative players the freedom to mix it up and really get at the opposing defence. I think that this level of fluidity in attack would give most Championship defences nightmares.        

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Good point Mac - a fair few posters on this board seem to think that WLY and Hucks would get in each others way.  I really beg to differ on this point - they seem to link up incredibly well and both can play both the wide and forward position and cut inside or cross whilst on the wing

[lucky green trainers 0]

we all remember wly playing a significant part in city''s promotion and earlier seasons, usually playing left wing, until hucks arrival, then he played on the right - perhaps not as well - leading him making way for cooper.worthy used him sparingly in prem.this season. worthy reckoned our display against hull was city''s best performance in 5 years (i agree our best of the season then) . mcveigh was back for that game playing alongside deano 1st half & lisbie 2nd.  city looked the part and i reckon worthy had found his best team. mcveigh then continued up front and scored against brighton.injuries robbed our midfield and the infamous millwall ''diamond'' cooked us - no support for front 2.  then again poor midfield combo saw us lose 4 by half time against luton.  worthy replaced a quiet mcveigh with ryan jarvis, and the team did improve 2nd half.our midfield is stronger again now and supporting our attacks properly - again deano and wly pairing up front looks as good as it did against hull and also hucks links up well with both. against soton - surprise, surprise our best performance of the season.Mcveigh reckons his best position is up front, but I was not always convinced with his partnership with iwan, but I am more so with deano.In current form, wly should be penciled in to play alongside deano as first choice partnership.  unless his form dips - he''s ahead of mckenzie for me.

[macdougalls perm 0]

Hopefully they''ll have the opportunity to keep it going and stick it to Colin''s boys on Boxing Day, think that type of football is the only way to avoid constant pressure against a team like that. Have to give them something to worry about at the back. Also, I thought these two were ideal in reacting quickly and making something out of Safri''s cross field long balls on Saturday.        

[chicken 0]

I am not accusing McVeigh of being a fair whether player but he defenitely plays a lot better against the teams who play more football and scrap a lot lesss.

I am actually with Worthington on this one. He was good three seasons ago (the season we just missed out on the play-offs) and yes he did play in a far weaker team which actually probably doesn''t actually back the argument as compared to some of the players we had then all he had to do was turn up and he was instantly better.

I don''t think that Worthington has ever questioned his ability - he has infact gone down on paper on notable occasions during the past couple of seasons that he is probably one of the most gifted players in the terms of footballing ability at the club and that if he is on the pitch he is always a threat as he can score a goal from anywhere.

I think the problem is with McVeigh is that his best role is actualy playing just in behind the front man and up untill Ashton arrived we lacked the quality for him to link up with. He can play the Huckerby role down the left fine as well but the problem was McKenzie and Ashton were proving such a hit that he was unlikely to break through.

As for Holt I should think that you need to look back at your record books. When Holt started we had very few midfielders fully fit. For example it tended to be when Francis was out (cheek) or when Safri was unfit. Didn''t he also have that chest thingy last season which actualy kept him out for a while?

We didn''t get relegated last season because of Holt. If you want to find a scapegoat or two look no further than 7-8 of the players that turned up to face Fulham.

Francis, Svensson, Helveg, Jonson etc just did not turn up to play. It was really down to that game and when it came to the crunch those players did not have the passion or commitment to fight for their club. I was disgusted and to me it is no surprise that they all went in the summer. I think the fuss made about Francis has been blown up - there is no doubt he was probably worth more but he was no longer a fighter for our cause and I actually wonder if he ever was. There is no room at this club for mercinaries that will jump ship when the loot dries up.

This season for me has been not so much uppsetting as frustrating. In a way McVeigh sums it up - one player who has not shown an awful lot in the past has suddenly begun to show us what he can now do on a regular basis and the team is looking brighter. I wonder if Ashton is not the only one to have had decent one on ones with this sports psychologist.

[Mook 0]

Chicken, with all due respect, you are talking quite a lot of rubbish there. Ok, i agree completely about Holt, but .....

Svensson was always committed to Norwich, he just got fed up of being a back-up player, and so would I have. He scored important goals, was a big part of the team ethic and had a lot of quality. Jonson was committed, but just rubbish. Helveg didn''t get a proper chance which still rankles me, but never ever displayed a lack of committment.

Paul McVeigh''s best position for us was up front, or left wing. Check the record books. He played up front season 02/03 and scored a bucket load of goals til the 0-0 draw with Leicester when he was played behind the front two of Nielsen and Roberts. His form then started to drop a little, as did the form of the team as a whole, and we never recovered and eventually finished 8th.

He scored 15 or something goals that season, and a lot of those were from Left wing. He started the promotion winning season as our best player by far, and although never got on the scoresheet, did everything else pretty much single handedly until the loanees arrived. Then he became the scapegoat.

The fact he played in a worse team means nothing - when he plays now, he still shines as one of the only players at the club that can make a pass that the opposition does not expect, and has natural technique and skill.

[ZLF 335]

Look at McVeighs stats for this season over the 21 appearances he has made.

• He has started just 9 games, winning 6 drawing 1 and losing in 2 (at home to Reading where we were unlucky to lose and in the 4-2  nightmare on kenilworth road
• He has 12 sub appearances, winning 3, drawing 1 and losing 8
• Overall he has appeared in 9 of the 10 city wins (luton at home the only exception) and the only one of these that he was NOT on for more than 45 mins was the Northampton victory where he was a second half sub.
• Where he gets to play for more than a half, getting a real chance to show what he can do, his record is W 8, D1  L3.  
• Of the 3 games he has completed 90 mins he has W2 D1 L0. 
• He has had the accolade of getting a MOTM vote after coming on as a sub.

These stats show just how influential he is (and how a true ball playing footballer can be) to our side and are achieved in spite of the fact that he plays in a team that does not maximise the potential he possesses.

Inconsistent WLY?  Not this season - show me any player with a beter success rate for city when playing more than half a game...

 

OTBC

  

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Admittedly he also started the 2 nil noshow at wolves - however our midfield in both that game and the luton away were absolutely terrible.

It seems no surprise to me that he did not get into these games much, we were probably hoofing it downfield to the little man!!!!  Worthy seems to blame him for being quiet in games - well if your gonna play inept hoofing football, as we did for 20 minutes against saints at the weekend he is going to be quiet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I for one beleive worthy is not a very intelligent human being.

To quote zipper :

"These stats show just how influential he is (and how a true ball playing footballer can be) to our side and are achieved in spite of the fact that he plays in a team that does not maximise the potential he possesses."

I feel you can use the same comment about Ashton, we do not play to his strengths.  Worthy always claims he does not tell the players to play long ball  UNYET I do not see him directing them to play it on the deck when they keep resorting to the long ball in games - he sits there happy as long as we are not losing yet.

LAME excuses - he should be up there giving directions for the ball to be played on the ground.

[Temp the Revelator 0]

Zipper - I really think you need to get out more!  But seriously, that makes very interesting reading.  I find McVeigh as frustrating as Huckerby can be - sometimes they just seem to lack the required focus, however there is absolutely no doubt that these two players are probably the best all round footballers at the club (with a nod in the direction of Safri).

If ever there was a case for McVeigh to be starting every game, I think you''ve just made it!

[CambridgeCanary 0]

"Helveg, Jonson etc just did not turn up to play. It was really down to that game and when it came to the crunch those players did not have the passion or commitment to fight for their club. I was disgusted and to me it is no surprise that they all went in the summer."

Did you actually see the Fulham game chicken??  It''s old ground now but these statements are in danger of becoming urban myths and really annoy me.  ZLF has done his usual exemplary analysis of much of what you said so I''ll stick to a narrow point that he did not cover (and where he and I disagree!!)

Helveg gave it his all that day and if you look at the replays of the early goals then you''ll see him pulled out of postion by mistakes elsewhere.  Whatever else anyone thinks of Fleming, he had a stinker that day and Helveg tried to compensate.  then, crucially, he was injured and missed much of the game.  It is hard to be committed from the treatment room!!

And who substituted for him?  Jonson.  A striker played out of position as a winger all season who then deputises at right back and was still trying to get things going through the second half.

Opinions vary on Helveg and Jonson.  Personally I think that they presented an opportunity for Worthy to build a Premier side and he fluffed it by sticking to his honest triers and not playing to H and Js strengths (and in H''s case criminally not playing him at all for much of the season.  If anyone really believes Eddy was a better defender then watch again the match at home against Chelsea).    but even if you are in the "they were crap camp"....at Fulham they were present and accounted for.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Sorry.  Got my posters mixed.

For Zipper in my previous post read Mook

[ZLF 335]

[quote user="Mook"]

Chicken, with all due respect, you are talking quite a lot of rubbish there. Ok, i agree completely about Holt, but .....

Svensson was always committed to Norwich, he just got fed up of being a back-up player, and so would I have. He scored important goals, was a big part of the team ethic and had a lot of quality. Jonson was committed, but just rubbish. Helveg didn''t get a proper chance which still rankles me, but never ever displayed a lack of committment.

Paul McVeigh''s best position for us was up front, or left wing. Check the record books. He played up front season 02/03 and scored a bucket load of goals til the 0-0 draw with Leicester when he was played behind the front two of Nielsen and Roberts. His form then started to drop a little, as did the form of the team as a whole, and we never recovered and eventually finished 8th.

He scored 15 or something goals that season, and a lot of those were from Left wing. He started the promotion winning season as our best player by far, and although never got on the scoresheet, did everything else pretty much single handedly until the loanees arrived. Then he became the scapegoat.

The fact he played in a worse team means nothing - when he plays now, he still shines as one of the only players at the club that can make a pass that the opposition does not expect, and has natural technique and skill.

[/quote]

Spot on as usual Mook

OTBC

[Syteanric 1]

Cambridge Canary.. i think ur being harsh on Eddie saying "if u think he was a better defender look at the chelski game" chelski are full of megastars who can make even the very best look foolish at times!

Marking Joe cole is no easy task, and Eddie did his best that day... id doubt Helveg would of had much success... im sure Eddie wasnt better than Helveg.. but to use Chelsea as an example was wrong imo

jas :)