*****Officiall Match Thread v Coventry*****

[Hairy Canary 667]

1 minute ago, Michael Wynless Jones said:

But its not exactly this is it? Because NOT ONE PERSON has said we should have brought on 5 untested kids have?  All the likes of Branston have said is why when Steipermann was clearly a spent force in this game was ONE OF THEM not worth throwing on for 10 minutes, they simply couldn't have contributed less than Marco did as a striker.

I'm not exactly sure why people aren't understanding this?

Perhaps because they disagree? If it were black and white we’d all have the same opinion.

[Mason 47 1,371]

Just now, Nuff Said said:

Can I officially say the official thread has got boring now? We seem to be largely arguing about arguing as the relevant points either side of the argument were made several pages ago.

 

In my OPINION.

Well I disagree with this because you can't guarantee Daniel Farke doesn't necessarily agree with it 

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, Nuff Said said:

Can I officially say the official thread has got boring now? We seem to be largely arguing about arguing as the relevant points either side of the argument were made several pages ago.

 

In my OPINION.

Are you new here? 

[sonyc 5,481]

1 minute ago, Nuff Said said:

Can I officially say the official thread has got boring now? We seem to be largely arguing about arguing as the relevant points either side of the argument were made several pages ago.

 

In my OPINION.

Ah, but I would have got that deal over the line🙂

(I agree by the way, we are going round in circles....now I'm off to the non football section to get more solid black and white opinions)

[Michael Wynless Jones 161]

Just now, Hairy Canary said:

Perhaps because they disagree? If it were black and white we’d all have the same opinion.

Disagree with what though? They're arguing against an opinion that no one has made, the debate seems to be going as follows?

 

Person A: Why didn't Farke bring on one of the youngsters to replace Marco who was bringing nothing to the table.

Person B: Because we can't put on a whole load of untested kids. etc etc

Person A: But that's not what I said.

Person B: You're clueless

 

And so it goes on.  Argue if you think people are wrong in saying Steipermann should have been taken off if you think he shouldn't, as that's all that seems to be what people are saying.

[Hairy Canary 667]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

But are you saying there wasn't a mistake that cost us points without knowing the players abilities?

Well no I’m not. Of course there may have been but I have no idea because I know begger all about who we had on the bench so I couldn’t say. You are doing the opposite by actually claiming there was a mistake while also knowing begger all.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,154]

13 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I'm not sure bring Zimmerman on has been the right substitution in either of our two games. we conceded goals almost immediately on both occasions. The previously fairly solid looking defence was unsettled on both occasions. Zimemrman himself was at fault for Stoke's second goal where he failed to jump or get the right side of the man he was marking.

The obvious substitution today was to bring on some fresh legs up front or instead of Vrancic when it was obvious that both were shot and neither was contributing towards the end of the game.

It was only seen as the obvious substitution because he is a "senior pro" but thats the point. Farke should have been looking at the positions that needed changing rather than solely who the player(s) available are. If you are good enough to play for Norwich City U23s then you should be good enough to manage to put a shift in and make a nuisance of yourself for 15 minutes against a Conventry side comprised mainly of players who were in league 1 last season. 

This illustrates perfectly why Farke can never win. Everybody else who is criticising Farke for his substitutions today has been saying that Stiepermann should have been replaced! You are saying that it was Vrancic. Your comments about bringing on Zimmerman are just nothing more than the most outrageous aftertiming. 

[TheGunnShow 5,904]

Fresh legs up top was probably worth a crack just to give their defence something different to think about and also more mobility to push them back. The concern I'd have is how much it took out of the tank of some of the experienced campaigners with a midweek match against Luton coming up. That said, we're always wiser in hindsight.

[Branston Pickle 3,631]

39 minutes ago, hogesar said:

You say you can't see how it could have done any harm bringing them on, I literally gave multiple examples as to what can and does happen when young players who aren't ready come on in pressure situations. 

Of course they may have risen to the occasion, worked hard, not committed silly fouls or lost concentration. But which person is best placed to make an educated guess on that? I'd say its our head coach with a proven record of integrating, playing, coaching and improving our young players. Not Barry from Sprowston who took a break from plumbing to point out where Farke went wrong.

Charmed, I’m sure.  Belittling other posters is usually not your style and rather a shame.

Point is the bit in bold is what tired players like Stiepi and Mario do, if they can actually keep up with them at all.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Branston Pickle

[All the Germans 1,073]

Sometimes Farke gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong. However, I have full, absolute and complete trust in him. Would I have done it differently? Probably.  He is the only manager I want in charge and we're top of the league and unbeaten for ages. I'll take that thank you.

[Hairy Canary 667]

3 minutes ago, Michael Wynless Jones said:

Disagree with what though? They're arguing against an opinion that no one has made, the debate seems to be going as follows?

 

Person A: Why didn't Farke bring on one of the youngsters to replace Marco who was bringing nothing to the table.

Person B: Because we can't put on a whole load of untested kids. etc etc

Person A: But that's not what I said.

Person B: You're clueless

 

And so it goes on.  Argue if you think people are wrong in saying Steipermann should have been taken off if you think he shouldn't, as that's all that seems to be what people are saying.

Because people who are saying Marco should have been replaced know nothing about what the options on the bench could offer. I think that’s a reasonable point of view personally. Never suggested anyone shouldn’t have the opposite view, I just don’t agree with it.

[hogesar 9,606]

2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Charmed, I’m sure.  Belittling other posters is usually not your style.

Point is the bit in bold is what tired players like Stiepi and Mario do, if they can actually keep up with them at all.

It wasn't a direct comment to you, Branston. It's a general comment, you've at least given some reasons why.

I agree that tired players can do those things, but on this occassion they didnt - again we don't know if the younger players would or wouldn't have done. The only point i'm making is if we had the likes of Idah or Hugill on the bench who could do 30 minutes or whatever then i'd be completely with you. It's just hard to say we definitely should have made changes when neither of us know what level these players forced to be on the bench today are capable of.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

4 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

This illustrates perfectly why Farke can never win. Everybody else who is criticising Farke for his substitutions today has been saying that Stiepermann should have been replaced! You are saying that it was Vrancic. Your comments about bringing on Zimmerman are just nothing more than the most outrageous aftertiming. 

I'm saying Stiepermann or Vrancic needed replacing.

Zimmerman coming on clearly made more sense against Stoke given we had ten men bur on both occasions I do feel it disrupted our defence and was not necessarily the right substitution.

The obvious and sensible substitution against Stoke was to take Buendia and Pukki off as soon as we went 3-0 up. Had he done that then we'd probably have had both at our disposal today and won comfortably. 

[hogesar 9,606]

2 minutes ago, Hairy Canary said:

Because people who are saying Marco should have been replaced know nothing about what the options on the bench could offer. I think that’s a reasonable point of view personally. Never suggested anyone shouldn’t have the opposite view, I just don’t agree with it.

Exactly.

[Michael Wynless Jones 161]

7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Exactly.

But surely even knowing nothing about the options on the bench, they simply could not have offered less than a player who'd offered nothing as a striker all game, and was blowing out of his **** so hard I could have beat him in a sprint?  If we are seriously saying the alternative in the last 10 minutes was even worse, then they may as well give up their dream of professional football.  This isn't a dig at Marco either, but he is simply not a striker.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Michael Wynless Jones said:

But surely even knowing nothing about the options on the bench, they simply could not have offered less than a player who'd offered nothing as a striker all game, and was blowing out of his **** so hard I could have beat him in a sprint?  If we are seriously saying the alternative in the last 10 minutes was even worse, then they may as well give up their dream of professional football.  This isn't a dig at Marco either, but he is simply not a striker.

It seems we've gone from praising the Academy days ago at the AGM to saying that the best they have is worth than an exhausted midfielder filling in as a striker who'd had a god awful match. 

But you need to be careful, as any suggestion Farke cost us points will result in you being told you're talking garbage and stupid. They won't tell you why, just that you are. It's like debating a devout Catholic about papal infallibility.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

15 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Exactly.

I know that Dickson Peters and Omotoye are both attacking players/strikers who have been in good form this season. I know that the latter scored a hat-trick against Newport (league opposition albeit not their first team) in the EFL Trophy quite recently. I watched parts of that game. 

I would assume that as 18/19 year olf professional footballers both are able to tackle, pass a ball and run around a bit. Indeed in terms of the position of striker, I'de imagine both are more experienced in playing that role that Stiepermann. 

[Michael Wynless Jones 161]

14 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

It seems we've gone from praising the Academy days ago at the AGM to saying that the best they have is worth than an exhausted midfielder filling in as a striker who'd had a god awful match. 

But you need to be careful, as any suggestion Farke cost us points will result in you being told you're talking garbage and stupid. They won't tell you why, just that you are. It's like debating a devout Catholic about papal infallibility.

I'm not even saying Farke cost us points, I just don't get the argument that one of them wasn't worth a 10 minute cameo for a player who was a spent force in this game, and actually keeping Marco on in that condition could have lumped us with yet another muscle based injury to deal with.

If we are saying these kids are nowhere near 1st team level, then Farke better put his stubborness to one side and make up with Leitner then.

[sonyc 5,481]

13 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I know that Dickson Peters and Omotoye are both attacking players/strikers who have been in good form this season. I know that the latter scored a hat-trick against Newport (league opposition albeit not their first team) in the EFL Trophy quite recently. I watched parts of that game. 

I would assume that as 18/19 year olf professional footballers both are able to tackle, pass a ball and run around a bit. Indeed in terms of the position of striker, I'de imagine both are more experienced in playing that role that Stiepermann. 

Perhaps we may play one of them in the striking role at luton next Wednesday? I hope so. 

[Block Y Seat 176 80]

When a new player comes into the club it takes time for them to acclimatise to training etc. In some ways Farke is protecting these young players who would have little time to train with senior squad and to throw them on in such circumstances could have a negative impact. Didn’t lose, still top, move on.....Farke will learn from this

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

18 minutes ago, Michael Wynless Jones said:

But surely even knowing nothing about the options on the bench, they simply could not have offered less than a player who'd offered nothing as a striker all game, and was blowing out of his **** so hard I could have beat him in a sprint?  If we are seriously saying the alternative in the last 10 minutes was even worse, then they may as well give up their dream of professional football.  This isn't a dig at Marco either, but he is simply not a striker.

I must be watching a different game. I didn't see Marco blowing out of his ares. I saw him getting less decent ball because we were defending deeper and deeper and the gap between attack sand defence was widening. So the attack drops deeper or else they are running for nothing and in doing so we give two thirds of the pitch to the opposition.

I did see maybe the quickest player on the pitch, Placheta, not brave enough to go on his own but stopping and waiting. It was just the time for a winger to hold on to the ball and drag play into the corners.

Do you honestly believe it would have been any different with Dickson Peters on?

[Il Pirata 249]

Really frustrating result. Full squad, we take three points today - but really can't grumble at one given the circumstances. Had it been a last minute goal to grab an equaliser the mood would have been much better. 

Still, that's 7 points dropped at home in games we should have won (Cov, Derby, Millwall). We did that a bit two seasons ago too. Thankfully our Away form is just as good. Hopefully Max is OK, and with a bit of luck is fit for Luton along with Rupp and Pukki plus Buendia. 

Ten unbeaten is a great return.

 

[Michael Wynless Jones 161]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

I must be watching a different game. I didn't see Marco blowing out of his ares. I saw him getting less decent ball because we were defending deeper and deeper and the gap between attack sand defence was widening. So the attack drops deeper or else they are running for nothing and in doing so we give two thirds of the pitch to the opposition.

I did see maybe the quickest player on the pitch, Placheta, not brave enough to go on his own but stopping and waiting. It was just the time for a winger to hold on to the ball and drag play into the corners.

Do you honestly believe it would have been any different with Dickson Peters on?

You certainly were watching a different game, it was clear as the nose on your face Marco was done in after about 50 minutes, and the main reason Placheta had to keep stopping and waiting as Marco was nowhere to be found in an attacking sense.

Would it have been different with one of the kids on? Don't know, never actually said it would be, my argument is countering those who seem to think it would have been dangerous to try.

Oh well onto Luton, one thing is for sure though, there will be a few of us not very happy if Marco is starting up front again, personally with Buendia back, I'd rather play we play Martin up top.

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I must be watching a different game. I didn't see Marco blowing out of his ares. I saw him getting less decent ball because we were defending deeper and deeper and the gap between attack sand defence was widening. So the attack drops deeper or else they are running for nothing and in doing so we give two thirds of the pitch to the opposition.

I did see maybe the quickest player on the pitch, Placheta, not brave enough to go on his own but stopping and waiting. It was just the time for a winger to hold on to the ball and drag play into the corners.

Do you honestly believe it would have been any different with Dickson Peters on?

I don't believe it would have been worse. 

Shame we didn't have a Leitner or Drmic on the payroll to call upon... 

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, Michael Wynless Jones said:

You certainly were watching a different game, it was clear as the nose on your face Marco was done in after about 50 minutes, and the main reason Placheta had to keep stopping and waiting as Marco was nowhere to be found in an attacking sense.

Would it have been different with one of the kids on? Don't know, never actually said it would be, my argument is countering those who seem to think it would have been dangerous to try.

Oh well onto Luton, one thing is for sure though, there will be a few of us not very happy if Marco is starting up front again, personally with Buendia back, I'd rather play we play Martin up top.

I'd play Delia up front over Marco based on today. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

7 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Perhaps we may play one of them in the striking role at luton next Wednesday? I hope so. 

Personally I would if Pukki is not fit because I think playing a specialist striker there will work better than what we saw today, even if that specialist is young and raw and would otherwise not have been considered ready for first team action. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,154]

36 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I know that Dickson Peters and Omotoye are both attacking players/strikers who have been in good form this season. I know that the latter scored a hat-trick against Newport (league opposition albeit not their first team) in the EFL Trophy quite recently. I watched parts of that game. 

I would assume that as 18/19 year olf professional footballers both are able to tackle, pass a ball and run around a bit. Indeed in terms of the position of striker, I'de imagine both are more experienced in playing that role that Stiepermann. 

You appear not to know that Omotoye has only just come back from injury and played 45 minutes for the U23s only yesterday afternoon. 

[sonyc 5,481]

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Personally I would if Pukki is not fit because I think playing a specialist striker there will work better than what we saw today, even if that specialist is young and raw and would otherwise not have been considered ready for first team action. 

Yeh, although they must have trained with MS up top, you felt the midfield players couldn't work out how to supply because there just wasn't a striker's movement to be seen. A good example was Placheta reaching the byline and Marco drifting backwards to receive the ball (as a midfielder would) rather than attack the near post.

Feel sorry for Farke today. His chips are down. Yet, he had one or two young players I'm sure who would have loved a 15 minute cameo, just to showcase themselves.

Ah well. Still on 2 points per game. I don't see us maintaining it but for now we have to be content. Even Bournemouth couldn't beat Rotherham.

[Branston Pickle 3,631]

Just now, Thirsty Lizard said:

You appear not to know that Omotoye has only just come back from injury and played 45 minutes for the U23s only yesterday afternoon. 

And you appear not to realise that players only played 45 mins for the u23s because they were needed for the first XI, not that it appears they had much chance of getting on

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

6 minutes ago, Michael Wynless Jones said:

You certainly were watching a different game, it was clear as the nose on your face Marco was done in after about 50 minutes, and the main reason Placheta had to keep stopping and waiting as Marco was nowhere to be found in an attacking sense.

Would it have been different with one of the kids on? Don't know, never actually said it would be, my argument is countering those who seem to think it would have been dangerous to try.

Oh well onto Luton, one thing is for sure though, there will be a few of us not very happy if Marco is starting up front again, personally with Buendia back, I'd rather play we play Martin up top.

What do you base playing Martin up front on? He isn't Stiepermann?

I haven't heard any moans about Sorenson getting booked every game and getting the run around because he isn't a full back.

Whatever our feelings, and mine used to be that Emi should play no10, the fact is we are top of the table and unbeaten in 10 with DF making the decisions using his tactics.