Was Waghorn at the game?

[gazzathegreat 0]

Contrast the match report in the Pink Un and presumably Evening News tomorrow with these. 

The Sunday Times February 12, 2006 Hull 1 Norwich 1: Slice of ill luck denies Hull Ron Clarke at KC stadium

THE crisis for Norwich continues. The Canaries are still without a win this year and, for a team tipped for an immediate return to the Premiership, they remain closer to the relegation zone than a playoff position. The fact they got a point, courtesy of a scrambled goal in the closing minutes, does not camouflage the paucity of their performance or the fragility of their confidence. These are worrying times for manager Nigel Worthington. This latest lacklustre showing follows immediately after last week’s reverse against their fierce rivals, Ipswich. Make no mistake, Hull, a team with limited aspirations after successive promotions and just hoping to stay in the Championship, outplayed their East Anglian opponents. The victory they deserved was denied in the cruellest of circumstances. With less than three minutes to go, Colin McVeigh swung the ball into the penalty area and an almighty scramble ensued. Amid the confusion, it looked as though Robert Earnshaw may have got the final touch, but there was a heavy hint that the unfortunate Stuart Elliott could have been credited with an own goal. A mediocre first half was punctuated with a simplistic intervention for the breakthrough. At the midway point, Keith Andrews flung in a corner and there was Leon Cort to rise virtually unmarked and nod a thunderous downward header past Robert Green in the Norwich goal. It diverted attention from the mundane proceedings with Norwich relying far too much on the speed of Darren Huckerby on the left flank and Hull restricting their aggression to hopeful attempts from well outside the penalty area. John Welsh and Darryl Duffy came close with the long-range approach and at the other end Norwich, although they had plenty of possession, lacked penetration and invention and did not register a solitary goalworthy effort. At least the action and the tempo stepped up a gear after the turnaround. The frenetic second-half began with Hull goalkeeper Bo Myhill showing smart reactions to block Jonatan Johansson. The Finnish international, on loan from Charlton, had been put through by Huckerby. Soon normal service was resumed, with the hosts again threatening on the break. This time, it was the impressive Jon Parkin who slipped the Norwich defence. With plenty of time, he hesitated slightly in trying to place the ball around Green. It was enough to allow the Norwich goalkeeper to get down to his left and parry the ball away. It fell straight into the path of Duffy, who blazed well over the bar. And that was really about it until that cruel conclusion. STAR MAN: Sam Parkin (Hull) Player ratings. Hull: Myhill 6, France 7, Cort 7, Collins 6, Delaney 7, Ellison 6, Andrews 7, Welsh 6, Elliott 6, Parkin 8, Duffy 6 (Fagan 65min, 6) Norwich: Green 7, Fleming 5, Rehman 5, Doherty 5, Drury 5, Thorne 6 (McKenzie 72min, 5), Safri 6, Hughes 5, Huckerby 6, Earnshaw 6, Johansson 6 (McVeigh 72min, 5)

And also this from  the Sporting Life

Hull 1 Norwich 1

By Chris Wilson, PA Sport

Click here for full match stats

Stuart Elliott''s late own-goal salvaged Norwich a point they barely deserved at the KC Stadium.

Second best for most of the afternoon and lifeless to the point of being disinterested, Nigel Worthington''s men looked set for a fourth consecutive defeat after Leon Cort headed Hull into a 25th-minute lead.

Under-pressure Worthington would have been desperate to avoid following last Sunday''s humbling reverse at home to bitter rivals Ipswich, and his prayers were answered three minutes before full-time when Hull paid the price for digging their trenches too early.

Gary Doherty''s scuffed strike from close range hit the shin of the unfortunate Elliott to leave Hull ithout a home win in five attempts and send Worthington back to Norfolk a relieved man.

Despite being without new loan-signing Mark Noble, who suffered a training-ground injury earlier in the week, Hull were impressive from the start and created the first meaningful attempt on goal when Darryl Duffy screwed a 20-yard effort wide of the target.

Norwich rarely gave Rob Earnshaw and Peter Thorne the chance to showcase their attacking credentials but they should have at least exploited the space afforded them by Hull in midfield - a trait which was to worsen as the game progressed.

But just when it seemed the visitors would go for the jugular, Hull conjured up the opening goal five minutes before the half-hour mark.

The lively Duffy forced a corner on the right from which Andrews sent over a perfect outswinging delivery towards Cort.

Norwich somehow allowed the tallest man on the pitch to go unmarked, and the former Southend centre-back planted a fine downward header past Rob Green and into the back of the net from six yards.

The situation nearly deteriorated further for Norwich five minutes after the interval when Hull''s Jon Parkin belied his somewhat paunchy physique with a dexterous swivel and turn past Zesh Rehman.

Parkin''s 10-yard strike was parried by Green into the path of Duffy, who should have done better with the follow-up.

Norwich finally awoke from their soporific demeanour when left-winger Darren Huckerby chipped a ball into the feet of Jonatan Johansson, whose wasteful volley trickled straight at Myhill.

Unfortunately for Norwich fans, their team''s improvement was to prove a fleeting experience as Hull shut up shot, while occasionally rising above the parapet with the odd counter-attack.

However, Norwich somehow restored parity when substitute Leon McKenzie hooked over a ball to Doherty, whose attempt at goal took a huge deflection off Elliott and into the back of the net.

Hull Myhill, France, Cort, Collins, Delaney, Ellison, Andrews,Welsh, Elliott, Parkin, Duffy (Fagan 66).

Subs Not Used: Duke, Paynter, Green, Lynch.

Booked: Collins, France.

So, who actually turned up at the game and did their job?  The Sunday Times and Sporting Life or our local reporter?  There''s always room for different interpretations of the game and opinion, but are we asking too much for an honest assessment of the match from Mr Waghorn?

[FilletTheFishWife . 0]

So that''s 5 ratings below average, 6 average and Robert Green. Well done, Nigel !

Looks like we should award Rick, 3/10 ?

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

The chances are much more likely that Waghorn was at the game and the others weren''t - reports for the nationals can easily be lifted from local reports and given their own touch.  Ron Clarke (who he, Google doesn''t seem to know!) seems to think WLY is called Colin, ffs, so I''m not completely sure why we should trust his judgement when it comes to reporting on Norwich.

The fact is that reporters often have different views on games, as do supporters - I can''t remember how many times I''ve been to a game where we''ve played poorly only to read later that we were great, or where we have played a side off the park only to read that we ourselves were outplayed.  I have long learnt that the only way to get a true perspective is to go to the game, or maybe look at match stats (though these can mislead) - you really do have to take match reports with a pinch of salt.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

Judging by these reports Gazza surely the question you should be asking is "Were Chris Wilson or Ron Clarke at the game?".   According to Clarke "Colin" McVeigh crossed the ball into the box for our goal. It would appear that Mr Clarke doesn''t even know the names of the Norwich players - or perhaps he''s just too lazy to find out!

And compare their two descriptions of our goal!

Clarke says: "Colin McVeigh swung the ball into the penalty area and an almighty scramble ensued. Amid the confusion, it looked as though Robert Earnshaw may have got the final touch, but there was a heavy hint that the unfortunate Stuart Elliott could have been credited with an own goal."

Wilson says: "Norwich somehow restored parity when substitute Leon McKenzie hooked over a ball to Doherty, whose attempt at goal took a huge deflection off Elliott and into the back of the net."

Judging by these two totally different accounts of our goal you can''t help wondering if these two fine gentleman of the press may not have spent a bit too much time in the bar - or perhaps one of them was watching from a parallel universe.

Rick Waghorn may generally take the club line (just like all local sports journalists), but at least you can trust him to get the names of the Norwich players'' right and to accurately describe what happened. Give me his reports any time.

 

 

 

[Rob Sims 0]

Is there a point to your post gazza? This just seems to be a rather bias report and i don''t even know who Colin McVeigh is. Perhaps the Times has paid a Hull fan to write this one up. No matter how bad Norwich were at least the luck goes our way for a change.

[Bird Table 0]

Colin McVeigh, who he?! But yeah, I agree with you Gazza. Waghorn''s assessment of a late scrambled own-goal equaliser against Hull as a corner turned is frankly, laughable and an insult to our intelligence.

[rocky marshall 0]

Yes, the worthy outers have now recruited fleet street hacks into their fold!

so either Colin Mc Veigh or Leon McKenzie crossed. So thats accuracy.

Also, listening to Radio Norfolk commentary, yes it was difficult but a deserved point at least with 10 or 11 men behind the ball for most of the game fro a limited Hull side playing at home showing little attacking prowess bar the odd counter attack.

One point is better than none, unless of course you want the team to lose. Which begs the questions;

1. Are you a considered a fan (fanatical) by wanting the team to lose?

2. Are you a supporter if you dont support the team?

WE (team, club, supporters/fans) were happy to be included in the TOGETHERNESS when things were going well, so by dissassociating ourselves from the current predicament, we are as quilty of quitting our responsibilities as those we believe are doing it in the team, managment, and board!

[ZLF 271]

The point is that if you read the local media you could be forgiven for thinking that the result and performances from the city boys was good.  However the sunday times piece is not alone today in stating Hull were denied a deserved 3 points by a lucky own goal.      The pieces focus on the lack of penetration from city despite having solid possession conceeded by a hull team who continued to be more incisive after taking the lead.

In those circumstances worthy is right - it is a good point but having fielded our best 11 a(nother) poor performance and a scraped point against a lowly Hull side is not aceptable.

Playoffs - you are having a laugh and a million miles off a realistic assessment of where this team is going WOrthy.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

why we ''deserved'' a point is beyond me, if you cannot create chances, and by all accounts we created precious few, you dont deserve anything...

we were lucky to be playing a team whom had lost their last 3 home games - which was plainly obvious from the way they played.

The telegraph report:

Nigel Worthington says he has not given up home of Norwich reaching the play-offs after Stuart Elliott''s late own-goal salvaged Norwich a point they barely deserved. "We''ll chase every point and never give up," he said. Lifeless Norwich fell behind in the 25th minute to Leon Cort''s header from Keith Andrew''s perfectly-taken corner. But three minutes from time Gary Doherty''s shot took a huge deflection off Elliott to secure a draw.

what on earth the something solid rick foghorn was talking about is i have no idea

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

The point is that if you read the local media you could be forgiven for thinking that the result and performances from the city boys was good.  However the sunday times piece is not alone today in stating Hull were denied a deserved 3 points by a lucky own goal.      The pieces focus on the lack of penetration from city despite having solid possession conceeded by a hull team who continued to be more incisive after taking the lead.

In those circumstances worthy is right - it is a good point but having fielded our best 11 a(nother) poor performance and a scraped point against a lowly Hull side is not aceptable.

Playoffs - you are having a laugh and a million miles off a realistic assessment of where this team is going WOrthy.

[/quote]

Interesting you should say this - I mentioned earlier the media is able to paint whatever it wants about a game, taking little note of what actually happened. If you read the Hull manager''s post-match comments, he was happy with a point.  He said:

"I''m delighted with a point. We had a nervous start but did well in the first half and scored a good set-piece. Norwich didn''t create a great deal and things didn''t change after half-time; I thought we were going to hold on but I would have taken a point if it had been offered to me before the game."

So is the media right and Hull''s manager wrong?  Probably neither, it completely depends on where you are coming from. 

I''ve no doubt that a completely on-song Norwich would beat Hull, but we know we aren''t on-song, so a point was a reasonable return from the game.  To be perfectly honest the rest of it doesn''t really make any difference - in years to come we won''t give two hoots, it''ll just be another 1-1 draw. 

I do note with interest your comment that the media says Hull almost got their deserved 3pts but for our lucky goal.  To me this applies rather well for how we lost last week - we lost to a goal that should never have stood.  I''ve no doubt the "Worthy Out"ers won''t allow this argument to go both ways, but we deserved a point last week as the Binners were incapable of scoring legally, but we got nothing; maybe we deserved nothing yesterday but at least we drew with a legitimate goal.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

The point is that if you read the local media you could be forgiven for thinking that the result and performances from the city boys was good.  However the sunday times piece is not alone today in stating Hull were denied a deserved 3 points by a lucky own goal.      The pieces focus on the lack of penetration from city despite having solid possession conceeded by a hull team who continued to be more incisive after taking the lead.

In those circumstances worthy is right - it is a good point but having fielded our best 11 a(nother) poor performance and a scraped point against a lowly Hull side is not aceptable.

Playoffs - you are having a laugh and a million miles off a realistic assessment of where this team is going WOrthy.

[/quote]

Interesting you should say this - I mentioned earlier the media is able to paint whatever it wants about a game, taking little note of what actually happened. If you read the Hull manager''s post-match comments, he was happy with a point.  He said:

"I''m delighted with a point. We had a nervous start but did well in the first half and scored a good set-piece. Norwich didn''t create a great deal and things didn''t change after half-time; I thought we were going to hold on but I would have taken a point if it had been offered to me before the game."

So is the media right and Hull''s manager wrong?  Probably neither, it completely depends on where you are coming from. 

I''ve no doubt that a completely on-song Norwich would beat Hull, but we know we aren''t on-song, so a point was a reasonable return from the game.  To be perfectly honest the rest of it doesn''t really make any difference - in years to come we won''t give two hoots, it''ll just be another 1-1 draw. 

I do note with interest your comment that the media says Hull almost got their deserved 3pts but for our lucky goal.  To me this applies rather well for how we lost last week - we lost to a goal that should never have stood.  I''ve no doubt the "Worthy Out"ers won''t allow this argument to go both ways, but we deserved a point last week as the Binners were incapable of scoring legally, but we got nothing; maybe we deserved nothing yesterday but at least we drew with a legitimate goal.

[/quote]

but ipswich were creating chance after chance, we created nothing against a side WORSE than ipswich... whom HAD LOST 3 AT HOME ON THE TROT. bit like us eh....... 2 points from 18... play offs here we come

[ZLF 271]

Its not about the results Branson but about the performances.  I cheered when the OG went in but based on the quality of our performances against both Hull and Ipswich we deserved no points from those two games - to get one is a bonus whether the goal is flucky or not. Taylor confirms that basically City created nothing and that Hull went into the game hoping for a point, evidenced by them retreating and conceeding space when they went ahead - foolish in hind sight. 

Worthy & Waghorn however paint a picture that we deserved 3 points and a draw was the least our efforts warranted.  

It is always good to gain a point when you underperform - but dont paint it up as something it was not.