T07 0 Posted February 17, 2006 Stolen from another forum but so true.........Why do we do this first half and not second when we need the noisy endof the ground to lift the players during the closing stages. The oldargument of the sun is cobblers, it gets lower 2nd hald so is worse forGreen to have to defend it. We used to always attack the Barclay 2ndhalf and there were some incredible stats cited once concerning theadvantage of this...... Can anyone explain it?Seems like even schoolboy tactics to me would utilise this advantageinstead of handing it over to the opposition and their fans....... Butthen I guess Worthington hasn''t yet got to the schoolboy tactics page,he''s still stuck in ''work rate and work ethic'' by A Hughes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ealing Canary 0 Posted February 17, 2006 There is something in Iwan''s book saying that thre reason is due to the perceived slope of the pitch. Apparently it''s slightly downhill towards the River End. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted February 17, 2006 I totally agree, we should be attacking the noisy part of the ground in the 2nd half, as it is the opposition get to attack their Noisy part of the ground... I am sure it does not help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NimChimpskee 0 Posted February 17, 2006 I''m sure it would make a nice change from the Barclay attacking the team! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Harvey-Jones 0 Posted February 17, 2006 Maybe it''s because Norwich often don''t play well after half time and continuously give the ball back to the opposition. Also if the first half hasn''t been great then the fans are less likely to sing in the second half. There is noise at the beginning of the game when there is renewed positivity from the previous match!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cantley 0 Posted February 17, 2006 [quote user="Islington Canary"]There is something in Iwan''s book saying that thre reason is due to the perceived slope of the pitch. Apparently it''s slightly downhill towards the River End.[/quote]I thought they got rid of that when they re-did the pitch a couple of years ago? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
will c 0 Posted February 17, 2006 [quote user="T07"]Stolen from another forum but so true.........Why do we do this first half and not second when we need the noisy end of the ground to lift the players during the closing stages. The old argument of the sun is cobblers, it gets lower 2nd hald so is worse for Green to have to defend it. We used to always attack the Barclay 2nd half and there were some incredible stats cited once concerning the advantage of this...... Can anyone explain it?Seems like even schoolboy tactics to me would utilise this advantage instead of handing it over to the opposition and their fans....... But then I guess Worthington hasn''t yet got to the schoolboy tactics page, he''s still stuck in ''work rate and work ethic'' by A Hughes.[/quote]You only have to look at the Watford and Ipswich games to see how the opposition supporters helped them towards the end of the game to get the winner. It would be much harder for the opposition if they were not attacking their supporters second half, whereas City would be roared on towards the Barclay - imagine the atmosphere if we needed to get a winner towards the end of the game, it would be immense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
south stand corner terrace 0 Posted February 17, 2006 It is a tradition that has gone back years and years that we shoot towards the riverend second half, it seemed to work well under Mike Walker and also Man United and Newcastle last season Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Harvey-Jones 0 Posted February 19, 2006 [quote user="kneeelo 74"]It is a tradition that has gone back years and years that we shoot towards the riverend second half, it seemed to work well under Mike Walker and also Man United and Newcastle last season[/quote] Didn''t seem to make much difference yeaterday! There was a fair amount of noise coming out of the Barclay second half and some good banter with the Derby fans. I was sitting in ther Jarrold stand. It does frsutrate me how little noise that stand makes. Even during the pre-match ''On the Ball City'' rendition, the noise from the Jarrold is minimal! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T07 0 Posted March 2, 2006 [quote user="kneeelo 74"]It is a tradition that has gone back years andyears that we shoot towards the riverend second half, it seemed to workwell under Mike Walker and also Man United and Newcastle lastseason[/quote]Then my memory is corrupted.... When I used to satnd in the Barclayeraly 70''s and then the River End early 80''s it was def the policy(rightly so) to attack the Barclay 2nd hald. Its was one of the thingsthat pissed me off having to stand in the River End with my Mrs.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rudolph Hucker 0 Posted March 2, 2006 In the 70''s the Barclay was worth attacking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AJ 1,218 Posted March 2, 2006 [quote user="Cantley"][quote user="Islington Canary"] There is something in Iwan''s book saying that thre reason is due to the perceived slope of the pitch. Apparently it''s slightly downhill towards the River End.[/quote]I thought they got rid of that when they re-did the pitch a couple of years ago?[/quote] i thought the same thing myself? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites