**Norwich V Burnley- Tomkinsons debut edition**

[South Sider 114]

4 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Who's Monty? 

dont pull at that thread

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

Just now, GodlyOtsemobor said:

🤯🤯🤯

?!!!

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,288]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

?!!!

He clearly hadn't been in decline until Smith took over, he was always a solid 8/9 out of 10 player and now he's a solid 5/6 

[Grumpy 122]

Well we do have Mumba still to come back

 

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,288]

Just now, Grumpy said:

Well we do have Mumba still to come back

 

..... In the summer 

[Indy 3,296]

I will reiterate, bar their final ball that first half by Burnley was outstanding, they passed with accuracy, got behind us down the wings, their final ball was ala Hernandez thank god!

Tomkins & McCullum were solid considering one back from injury and the other first appearance in a tough game.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

What Smith should say

”they set up to win and dominate possession. They did both.”

”we set up not to lose and maybe get an undeserved goal on the counter. We did neither.”

”I’ll leave by mutual consent, just let me keep my mug”

[Ken Hairy 3,769]

5 minutes ago, South Sider said:

dont pull at that thread

Genuinely don't know🤷. 

Obvious you're not Bill now though, lack of meat and two veg is clear, although I don't imagine Bill has much in that department either to be honest, 😁

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,745]

Most peoples concern when seeing the teamsheet was the defence. As it turned out they held up well.

The bigger concern therefore was given that the defence was solid, why given that it was the best front 6 we have available to us at the club, did we only create 2 chances.

That is on Smith. Play Sargent on the wing again on Saturday instead of up front with Pukki at home to Stoke and I'll be calling for his head

[Ken Hairy 3,769]

10 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

That’s unfair - he’s been declining for several seasons - his peak was well before Smith came 

Can't agree with that, however let's say for argument sake he was already on the slight decline, he's plummeted into the abyss under Smith. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Surely there were at least 8, maybe 9, players starting that game tonight that fitness allowing, we might have assumed was our best and chosen side.

So what is missing is the coaching of that team. Lets not hide it behind the players. Its the coach.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,529]

13 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Most peoples concern when seeing the teamsheet was the defence. As it turned out they held up well.

The bigger concern therefore was given that the defence was solid, why given that it was the best front 6 we have available to us at the club, did we only create 2 chances.

That is on Smith. Play Sargent on the wing again on Saturday instead of up front with Pukki at home to Stoke and I'll be calling for his head

The arguments are a bit academic really; dropping out of the top 6 is now looking more concrete than it did after the last game. 

I think we're very very close to the point where you have to forget everything, say it's a results business and call it a day. 1 point in 5 and failing to react immediately and get back into the top 6 after falling back from 2nd really is atrocious regardless of how we were doing before. If the board have credible and viable replacements in place then they need to start thinking about it. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,288]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The arguments are a bit academic really; dropping out of the top 6 is now looking more concrete than it did after the last game. 

I think we're very very close to the point where you have to forget everything, say it's a results business and call it a day. 1 point in 5 and failing to react immediately and get back into the top 6 after falling back from 2nd really is atrocious regardless of how we were doing before. If the board have credible and viable replacements in place then they need to start thinking about it. 

🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The arguments are a bit academic really; dropping out of the top 6 is now looking more concrete than it did after the last game. 

I think we're very very close to the point where you have to forget everything, say it's a results business and call it a day. 1 point in 5 and failing to react immediately and get back into the top 6 after falling back from 2nd really is atrocious regardless of how we were doing before. If the board have credible and viable replacements in place then they need to start thinking about it. 

I think once we sacked DF, we turned it 100% results. So they should, as you say, react immediately.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,745]

Dean Smith actually said after the game on Radio Norfolk tonight .."I'm not one to make excuses" !!?!

That's literally all he is !

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Worst 5 game record in the division.

[sgncfc 1,225]

I suspect this might be an unpopular opinion, but I thought we did OK and were once again let down by our senior players. We comfortably had the best chance (again) which Pukki missed (again) and Hanley gives away a pen in a position when there was plenty of cover. Add those to previous game losing errors by Gibson, Krul and Hanley (again), and Pukki (again).

However - positives were good games for Tomkinson and McCallum. I thought Sara, Hayden and Nunez all played OK and once we stepped higher against a tiring Burnley we really should have won it.

For all those out there who can't see a plan, I completely disagree. Now that we have got the midfield Smith wants out there they need games to gel.

The biggest negative for me is that Aarons has gone so far backwards he is now not worth his place. Every team is targeting him and creating chances.

I'm not sure any of the problems are down to the manager. It's the same as last season - our players don't perform to their level once they get out there. You can't legislate for what Hanley and Pukki did tonight. It's another game we should have won. Burnley were impressive going forward, but they had no idea in the box and wouldn't have scored in 3 games against us.

[repman 635]

1 minute ago, sgncfc said:

I suspect this might be an unpopular opinion, but I thought we did OK and were once again let down by our senior players. We comfortably had the best chance (again) which Pukki missed (again) and Hanley gives away a pen in a position when there was plenty of cover. Add those to previous game losing errors by Gibson, Krul and Hanley (again), and Pukki (again).

However - positives were good games for Tomkinson and McCallum. I thought Sara, Hayden and Nunez all played OK and once we stepped higher against a tiring Burnley we really should have won it.

For all those out there who can't see a plan, I completely disagree. Now that we have got the midfield Smith wants out there they need games to gel.

The biggest negative for me is that Aarons has gone so far backwards he is now not worth his place. Every team is targeting him and creating chances.

I'm not sure any of the problems are down to the manager. It's the same as last season - our players don't perform to their level once they get out there. You can't legislate for what Hanley and Pukki did tonight. It's another game we should have won. Burnley were impressive going forward, but they had no idea in the box and wouldn't have scored in 3 games against us.

I wouldn't disagree with Hanley letting us down defensively tonight but...

No player in football takes 100% of their chances, in fact the average is 15% of shots lead to goals. Creating 1 chance a game and then saying we have been let down is ridiculous. If the plan is to simply create one chance every game then that will not lead to us winning many football games. We've won 40% of our games so far this year anyway.

At the end of the day you hire a manager to coach the team to a greater sum of its parts, constantly blaming individuals suggests that maybe you don't have a good enough plan of how to win as a team.

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

1 hour ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

He clearly hadn't been in decline until Smith took over, he was always a solid 8/9 out of 10 player and now he's a solid 5/6 

That’s just rubbish.

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,288]

2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

That’s just rubbish.

Uh huh.... Ok Pumpkin. 

[nutty nigel 7,526]

So Tomkinson?

Being as the thread was in his honour, fact checking not so sure about that, but the Mail does worse headlines.

In front of Gibson now?

He'll be here longer than Smith at least...

[AJ 1,218]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So Tomkinson?

Being as the thread was in his honour, fact checking not so sure about that, but the Mail does worse headlines.

In front of Gibson now?

He'll be here longer than Smith at least...

For what it's worth I thought young Tomkinson did well, at least he did better than Hanley!

I'd say he's ahead of Gibson for now. 

I thought Sam did OK at LB as well but looked a bit tired in the second half. 

Hopefully the knock to Max is nothing serious as we're looking very light at the back

[sonyc 5,508]

5 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So Tomkinson?

Being as the thread was in his honour, fact checking not so sure about that, but the Mail does worse headlines.

In front of Gibson now?

He'll be here longer than Smith at least...

Just back from the game but I thought he did okay. He was tough once on their winger which the crowd didn't like but I thought it was not only fair but showed he wasn't to be bullied. Most anybody though is an improvement for me on Gibson (nor am I a Hanley fan especially). 

Sam M was also okay. Max had a hard night but gave 100% as he always does. The Burnley left winger, Zaroury was a real threat.

Oh well a few hours I will never get back. Mrs S decided to take up the spare ticket so at least I had someone to moan to😐.

We deserved nothing but could have nicked an equaliser.

Burnley were confident and outplayed us virtually the whole 90. They look a team destined for the top 2. Yet they did struggle to make any really great chances. What they did do was attack with purpose, close spaces very effectively and press high. We had no answer. Coaching? I think so.

We look a jaded team actually but to be really fair then Todd also put in a lot of effort and I always love Onel. He is 100% effort and gave us something. Just to leave that thought to try and end on a positive. 

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

I thought Tomkinson looked ok - didn’t seem out of place, anyway, so perhaps Smith’s judgement was good; Sam was pretty good considering he’s barely trained.

I do have concerns for the weekend - if Max has concussion does he not have to miss a spell? is Byram due back, if not I’m not sure who we have.

[nutty nigel 7,526]

13 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Just back from the game but I thought he did okay. He was tough once on their winger which the crowd didn't like but I thought it was not only fair but showed he wasn't to be bullied. Most anybody though is an improvement for me on Gibson (nor am I a Hanley fan especially). 

Sam M was also okay. Max had a hard night but gave 100% as he always does. The Burnley left winger, Zaroury was a real threat.

Oh well a few hours I will never get back. Mrs S decided to take up the spare ticket so at least I had someone to moan to😐.

We deserved nothing but could have nicked an equaliser.

Burnley were confident and outplayed us virtually the whole 90. They look a team destined for the top 2. Yet they did struggle to make any really great chances. What they did do was attack with purpose, close spaces very effectively and press high. We had no answer. Coaching? I think so.

We look a jaded team actually but to be really fair then Todd also put in a lot of effort and I always love Onel. He is 100% effort and gave us something. Just to leave that thought to try and end on a positive. 

Thanks @sonyc 

From what I've seen of Tomkinson he'd be more of an uncompromising defender where as Omobamidele is more of an uncompromising defenders partner. If that makes sense. So if all four were fit it would be Hanley or Tomkinson - Gibson or Omobamidele.

I know they're young but oldies will remember Dave Watson was just 20 when he came in.

[Google Bot 3,260]

2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I thought Tomkinson looked ok - didn’t seem out of place, anyway, so perhaps Smith’s judgement was good

I think even a monkey could judge that if banana 2 and 3 aren't on the shelf they should pop banana 4 in their mouth.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

6 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

I keep hearing this, but how is it? 
 

There’s no Buendia, Skipp or even Vrancic (who could change games) and other players like Hanley, Pukki and Aarons are stale, and not the same players. 
 

How is this squad anywhere close to our last championship one, or even top 6?

Because there is decent cover in every position, as shown by the fact that we put together a winning run despite the injuries and loss of form we have had. I am pressed for time, but being able to replace Krul with Gunn is just one example of a top-six squad. The squad is not the problem. There is a strong argument that the ideal starting eleven is not as good as two years ago, and so not a top-two eleven, but that is a different question.

Edited October 26, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[KeiranShikari 1,410]

I can't believe Deano said that he's not one to make excuses in his post match press. Most managers do and he does it more than most managers. 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

7 hours ago, Herman said:

Innit though?!

Tru dat , Fam.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,271]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Because there is decent cover in every position, as shown by the fact that we put together a winning run despite the injuries and loss of form we have had. I am pressed for time, but being able to replace Krul with Gunn is just one example of a top-six squad. The squad is not the problem. There is a strong argument that the ideal starting eleven is not as good as two years ago, and so not a top-two eleven, but that is a different question.

Krul is passed it and error prone. Gunn OK, but lacks presence and it shows defensively. I don’t think that’s the best example, tbh! 

Sorry, I’m not trying to jump on you here, but the squad is unbalanced and ‘cover’ questionable.

The fact we’re still relying on players deemed surplus two years ago (Hernandez, Hugill) is telling.