Rewind to the Wolves match quickly

[Steve H 0]

I only spend my weekends in Norwich and work on the south coast during during the week.

Obviously this meant that I couldn''t get to the Wolves match.

I''ve just seen the highlights on SKY, and the defending for the Wolves goal was possibily the worst I have seen for a while, and that is facing some stiff competition.

Having briefely trawled back to the meessages from the Wolves match there seems to be no mention.

I was just wondering about other peoples views, when watching it on TV a few moments ago it really made my blood boil to see the 5 or 6 City players in view strolling about like it was the pre-match kick about, Etuhu in particular.

On a different note I must say that I am pleased to see the back of Robinson, believe me he is no loss to us. Just Thorne, the Doc, MLJ to go now and maybe Hughes & Etuhu if they don''t step it up.

[Snakepit Boy 0]

To be fair, it was about the only thing we did wrong defensively all night.

But as far asYutu is concerened, he spent most of the game just wandering about.

[Canary02 0]

[quote user="Steve H"]

I only spend my weekends in Norwich and work on the south coast during during the week.

Obviously this meant that I couldn''t get to the Wolves match.

I''ve just seen the highlights on SKY, and the defending for the Wolves goal was possibily the worst I have seen for a while, and that is facing some stiff competition.

Having briefely trawled back to the meessages from the Wolves match there seems to be no mention.

I was just wondering about other peoples views, when watching it on TV a few moments ago it really made my blood boil to see the 5 or 6 City players in view strolling about like it was the pre-match kick about, Etuhu in particular.

On a different note I must say that I am pleased to see the back of Robinson, believe me he is no loss to us. Just Thorne, the Doc, MLJ to go now and maybe Hughes & Etuhu if they don''t step it up.

[/quote]

Good post Steve, I was there and I agree, we went to sleep for two minutes and rightly paid for it. It was however, only a brief interlude in what was otherwise, a really good performance. Grant is right when he says that results matter more than performances, but having seen many matches this year where we played poorly and lost, at least it''s an improvement to play well and lose (a sad state of affairs admittedly!). If we play like that again on Saturday though and finish better, we''ll win easily.

Totally agree with the final paragraph as well.

[Steve H 0]

Thanks for the replys you two.

At least it was only a glitch in that match and not the standard, the shots on and off target reflect the matter as well.

I''d agree that points are the prority and that the performance is 2nd, but at least we didn''t get hammered by them. The way things stand with the new signings, the departure of Robinson and the performance does give us some hope that the next 2 games Leeds (H) & Luton (A) could see us get up to the 40 point notch before we face Preston.

[lucky green trainers 0]

city''s defending for the goal was as bad as it looked on TV - no dion style blocks - i''d describe it as lax - hansen would say sloppy.firstly, the initial through ball, that found the evetual scorer on the wing, had the whiff of offside to me - however, he found himself in time and space and crossed - whether it took a deflection i don''t know, but an unmarked wolves player on the edge of the box received it, and had time and space to size up a shot - we failed to close him down as we should have - the rebound off the  post  fell to the original crosser of the ball - unmarked at the far post, who cooly slotted it home - unlike poor croft who when faced with a replica chance later on in the shanked it.  made me hark back to our defensive frailties in the prem - when opposing teams always seemed to enjoy the luxury of picking out unmarked players in our box, and score plenty at the far post from unmarked players, when either drury or edworthy had been sucked in.apart from that, we did ok - and deserved to winon chances created. 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]city''s defending for the goal was as bad as it looked on TV - no dion style blocks - i''d describe it as lax - hansen would say sloppy.

firstly, the initial through ball, that found the evetual scorer on the wing, had the whiff of offside to me - however, he found himself in time and space and crossed - whether it took a deflection i don''t know, but an unmarked wolves player on the edge of the box received it, and had time and space to size up a shot - we failed to close him down as we should have - the rebound off the  post  fell to the original crosser of the ball - unmarked at the far post, who cooly slotted it home - unlike poor croft who when faced with a replica chance later on in the shanked it. 

made me hark back to our defensive frailties in the prem - when opposing teams always seemed to enjoy the luxury of picking out unmarked players in our box, and score plenty at the far post from unmarked players, when either drury or edworthy had been sucked in.

apart from that, we did ok - and deserved to winon chances created.

 
[/quote]

Lax? Sloppy?

Lucky GT. More like lack of passion, lack of commitment.

Would the goal have been scored if Dion was there? Or Forbes or Stringer or Watson or Bruce or Butterworth or Linigan or Butler or..............................

OTBC

 

 

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Steve H"]

On a different note I must say that I am pleased to see the back of Robinson, believe me he is no loss to us. Just Thorne, the Doc, MLJ to go now and maybe Hughes & Etuhu if they don''t step it up.

[/quote]

While I don''t think Carl Robinson is Zizou he''s clearly a decent player. He''s played about (roughly speaking) 250-300 league games at this kind of level and he''s played for his country 35 times. I''m sure City will have better players than him but I''m also sure that we''ve had worse and that we''ll probably have worse again in the future. Not a great or spectular footballer but he''s definitely a decent footballer.

I''ll agree on Thorne but I can''t agree on the Doc. If Jason Shackell was the player we brought in and the Doc was the youth academy product then it''d be Shackell that people want rid of. Gary Doherty will always be a better defender and footballer than Shackell and if people can''t see that then they''re blind.

MLJ is just unlucky...he was one of the best fullbacks in the league when he played for Forest.

Hughes...works hard but passing is far too erratic. And Etuhu obviously has got quality but isn''t very reliable. If we get the reliability out of him then he will become a very good player for Norwich.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]city''s defending for the goal was as bad as it looked on TV - no dion style blocks - i''d describe it as lax - hansen would say sloppy.firstly, the initial through ball, that found the evetual scorer on the wing, had the whiff of offside to me - however, he found himself in time and space and crossed - whether it took a deflection i don''t know, but an unmarked wolves player on the edge of the box received it, and had time and space to size up a shot - we failed to close him down as we should have - the rebound off the  post  fell to the original crosser of the ball - unmarked at the far post, who cooly slotted it home - unlike poor croft who when faced with a replica chance later on in the shanked it.  made me hark back to our defensive frailties in the prem - when opposing teams always seemed to enjoy the luxury of picking out unmarked players in our box, and score plenty at the far post from unmarked players, when either drury or edworthy had been sucked in.apart from that, we did ok - and deserved to winon chances created. [/quote]

Lax? Sloppy?

Lucky GT. More like lack of passion, lack of commitment.

Would the goal have been scored if Dion was there? Or Forbes or Stringer or Watson or Bruce or Butterworth or Linigan or Butler or..............................

OTBC

agree BBB - it looked like they didn''t give a ............

 

 

[/quote]