Goals for - the real problem?

[ZLF 274]

Just having a look at Grants record so far.

Based on the last 48 games grants teams have scored just 57 goals (9 of those goals were against Tamworth and Barnet),  which drops for league games to 43 goals in 41 games.  In only ten of these  have we been able to score more than 1 goal.

It staggers me that in 75% of our league games we fail to score more than a goal.  Across as season a paltry return of just 48 goals is not good enough and is solid evidence that we are playing a defensive game under PG. 

Or an attacking game very ineffectively

 

 

 

[Canary Ben 0]

if our defence was as good as it coud be this would be brilliant, i couldnt cre less if we one by 1 goal or 10, a win is 3 points, surely thats all thta matters

 

But

 

Unfortunatly we dont have an amazing defence, soooooo.................................. Erm, ohh well im board f defending grant, he will win us the league, we will be an amazing team, come on, if we chant it loud enough it might work!!! On The Ball City!!!

[Mason 47 1,379]

I hate teams set out to defend. Or to draw. Games are meant to be won in order to succeed. I sound like I am doing a Hitler tyrade.

Tyrade over.

Well we really need to get goals, don''t we. Have we ever had a real thumping win apart from barnet or tamworth? So therefore in the league? Goals get you wins, its a winning plan: score more goals than them. 

I could be a manager, me.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Nice to see someone else can see it ZLF. Our goals against record this season is easily good enough for top six but our goals for is only good enough for bottom three. Even last night it took two dubious pens to breach our defence. I cannot see where we can possibly be a centrehalf short of a top six side as many posters have been trying to make us believe.

I''m not sure about Grant. He recognises the soft centre that was the cause of many of our really poor results under Worthington but seems to have compromised much of the attacking flair we had. Last night I thought we were really strong all over the park, defensive for sure, but with no soft centre and a very difficult side to play. Charlton had a torrid 90 mins and our performance actually did deserve a point. We can only hope that we approach more winnable games in a slightly more positive way though.

Last season I thought we began to look really good with Huckerby up front in 442. I thought he combined well with Thorne (in the one game thay played) and then with Chris Martin. I am still hopeful he could strike up a similar partnership with Strihavka. I don''t think it would work in the same way with Brown or Cureton though. We do have options with Brown, Cureton, Dublin, Huckerby, Martin and Strihavka all good quality at this level in the jobs they do.

Last night Grant chose Brown as he has for most of the season so far. Last night a draw would have been a good result and not many people were calling for him to change it until the penalties happened. But we can''t approach every game in this way, sometimes there must be a case for trying to win the game with our more attacking strikers first and then if neccessary bring on Brown to help see the game out.

Hopefully Fotheringham or maybe Jimmy Smith would put a bit more creativity and passing ability into our midfield which negate the neccessity of hitting balls up to Brown so much.

I honestly believe though that if we show the kind of bravery and commitment we did last night in future away games and can add a bit of creativity and passing in the midfield we will become hard to beat and will pick up away points.

 

[shropshire canary 0]

Some really telling stats here - and a reflection of the general frustration that I think underpins much of the general sense of doom/gloom we see on here so much - it''s all a bit dull isn''t it!  As delighted as I was to break the Palace hoodoo on Saturday it wasn''t really much of a game to get worked up abaout and that''s what defensively minded football can engender - unless you''re winning 1-0 every week that is and then league position brings it''s own excitement.

If the outlook of the management team is this defensively oriented (1-0 is what we''ll take each week) it does beg the question why really sorting out the defence hasn''t been as much of a priority as other areas this summer doesn''t it though?

[lobster catcher 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

Just having a look at Grants record so far.

Based on the last 48 games grants teams have scored just 57 goals (9 of those goals were against Tamworth and Barnet),  which drops for league games to 43 goals in 41 games.  In only ten of these  have we been able to score more than 1 goal.

It staggers me that in 75% of our league games we fail to score more than a goal.  Across as season a paltry return of just 48 goals is not good enough and is solid evidence that we are playing a defensive game under PG. 

Or an attacking game very ineffectively

 

 

 

[/quote]Grant must think we can win games without scoring,this can be the only reason behind playing a team without a goal scorer,or prehaps he didn''t want to score as a 0-0 would do.We will be lucky to keep big dave at this rate how can you get dropped after scoring.Grant is a fool

[ricky knight 0]

to play the game Grant is looking for the team has to be fit chasing, closing down, most of city players are struggling for fitness, his new signings are mostly not up to it imo, maybe Grant should do a Ron Saunders, run them up and down mousehold, bring back the sweatbox, oh yea and bore us all sxxxless oh well at least we got promotion.

[GJP 79]

I think we can all see how Grant wants to play it, against most sides away from home he wants to play for a  point and at home he wants to grind out a win.

He''s claimed he wants to win every game, that''s rubbish. He doesn''t set out his team to win, he sets out his team to gather enough points to stay in this league and keep him in the job. 

But at the moment Norwich aren''t cut out for it, Norwich are better to chuck everything they''ve got at people because they''re just are not good enough to contain teams. Plus...trying to contain teams is boring.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Nice to see someone else can see it ZLF. Our goals against record this season is easily good enough for top six but our goals for is only good enough for bottom three. Even last night it took two dubious pens to breach our defence. I cannot see where we can possibly be a centrehalf short of a top six side as many posters have been trying to make us believe.

I''m not sure about Grant. He recognises the soft centre that was the cause of many of our really poor results under Worthington but seems to have compromised much of the attacking flair we had. Last night I thought we were really strong all over the park, defensive for sure, but with no soft centre and a very difficult side to play. Charlton had a torrid 90 mins and our performance actually did deserve a point. We can only hope that we approach more winnable games in a slightly more positive way though.

Last season I thought we began to look really good with Huckerby up front in 442. I thought he combined well with Thorne (in the one game thay played) and then with Chris Martin. I am still hopeful he could strike up a similar partnership with Strihavka. I don''t think it would work in the same way with Brown or Cureton though. We do have options with Brown, Cureton, Dublin, Huckerby, Martin and Strihavka all good quality at this level in the jobs they do.

Last night Grant chose Brown as he has for most of the season so far. Last night a draw would have been a good result and not many people were calling for him to change it until the penalties happened. But we can''t approach every game in this way, sometimes there must be a case for trying to win the game with our more attacking strikers first and then if neccessary bring on Brown to help see the game out.

Hopefully Fotheringham or maybe Jimmy Smith would put a bit more creativity and passing ability into our midfield which negate the neccessity of hitting balls up to Brown so much.

I honestly believe though that if we show the kind of bravery and commitment we did last night in future away games and can add a bit of creativity and passing in the midfield we will become hard to beat and will pick up away points.

[/quote]

Nutty, you said above:

Charlton had a torrid 90 mins and our performance actually did deserve a point.

You and Peter Grant really do deserve one another. See stats below:

Possession:  Charlton  57%   Norwich  43%

&

Charlton                                                                                                                 Norwich

STAT ATTACK
12	Shots On Target	5
9	Shots Off Target	2
8	Fouls (Conceded)	19
10	Corners	3
2	Yellow Cards	2
0	Red Cards	1

You''re both a bit touched, methinks.

I''ll give you a clue. These days teams attack together and defend together - from the front - and don''t utilise DDD (Don''t Do Defense) players except as impact players from the bench. If in defensive mode we cannot get enough quality possession, then how are we to attack effectively as a unit?

British teams can''t play with a lone striker. Period. 4-4-2 is what our players understand.

Was Grant too embarrassed to put on both Jamie and Davy Striker in the 89th minute. Is that why he put on Shacks and pushed Dion up front with disastrous consequences.

OTBC

 

 

[Northern Canary 0]

When we do things such as a 4-5-1 formation with Brown as the only striker, the goals do not look like coming. Yet Grant seems to like it.

[Dions Sax 0]

Grant wants us the become Scotland. He watched France v Scotland, thought it looked like a good tactic and tried to replicate it. It''s a bit like playing Championship Manager, except it''s our club he''s doing it to for real.

[Crafty Canary 495]

Dave Striker: Did i do OK boss?

Granty: Yes son, you get bit part appearances yet you have popped up with a goal.

Dave Striker: Thanks Boss, I want to really make an impact!

Granty: You have son and to reward you I''m going to stick you back on the bench and ignore you all night.

Dave Striker: Why Boss?

Granty: So you can get a good view of Browny getting nowhere near to a goal. Who needs scorers, 0-0 ''s just the job!!

[nutty nigel 7,534]

I''m quite happy to be a bit touched Bly[:|], just like I''m quite happy to view everything through my yellow and green welding goggles[8-|] I can''t believe you want to really talk about football but I''m game if you are[Y] Now obviously you don''t want to talk about anything in my post except the bit that you feel your stat attack disproves. So I am happy to go with that. What point are you trying to make with these stats and why do you think Charlton didn''t have a tough 90 mins and why do you feel we didn''t deserve a point.

 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

British teams can''t play with a lone striker. Period. 4-4-2 is what our players understand.

[/quote]

Bolton. Kevin Davies. Absolute nonsense Bly.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

British teams can''t play with a lone striker. Period. 4-4-2 is what our players understand.

[/quote]I other words British players are think as **** and can only play one way. Thus a manager should not try to play his players in a more effective formation, even if they have trained it and the match requires it.Playing Brown up front was wierd, but we played the same thing with Earnshaw last season and Brown is better for the role than Earnie was (who rarely, if ever saw the ball).I don''t think that Brown being undroppable was the cause of that formation.  Huckerby (permanently) and Lappin (played very well recently) both being undroppable at the moment, together with the need to play with a stronger central midfield than Lappin/Rusell, that meant that Grant chose this way of playing.It would with hindsight have prehaps been better to either push Hucks upfront (with whoever is his best partner) and keep the other 4 midfielders together (as a defensive 4 man midfield)  or to have played 4-5-1 with Croft on the right wing to start with.My major critism of Grants tactics in this game is not starting Brown or the formation, I can understand both.  It was not bringing on striker(s) when we went two goals down in 2 minutes or so.  Surely as we had not created much when 0-0 we would create less when losing as Charlton would be more defensive.  This is where he made his big mistake.and NN - there is a case for trying to win away games, but surely it is best to do this in games you have a chance in (bottom 2/3 of league of so) and try and draw the rest.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I''m quite happy to be a bit touched Bly[:|], just like I''m quite happy to view everything through my yellow and green welding goggles[8-|] I can''t believe you want to really talk about football but I''m game if you are[Y] Now obviously you don''t want to talk about anything in my post except the bit that you feel your stat attack disproves. So I am happy to go with that. What point are you trying to make with these stats and why do you think Charlton didn''t have a tough 90 mins and why do you feel we didn''t deserve a point.

 

[/quote]

well if we had had most of the possession and hit their woodwork 3 times, then won and scored a penalty, whilst the opposition didnt threaten, I would say it was a deserved win.  Just me you know.

We didnt deserve a point cos we lost - fairly and squarely in the 90 minutes.  Pardew pushed Mccloud on the pitch as his other strikers were having no luck and it won him the game.  We kept our 5 goals in 2 and a bit seasons Chris Brown up top and stayed toothless.

Unfortunatly scoring goals is going to be difficult when one of your strikers scores on avererage 4 a season at this level...  its going to be even harder when this lower division player is played alone up front...[8-|]

 

All of which brings me to a big point - how on earth have we ended up with Brown playing?  He looked poor in his few games last season, now he is one of the first names on the teamsheet? Iwan did the same job as Brown but scored 18 goals a season with it?  It seems obvious he is not creating much for others as our goals for tally is dismal 5 in 6 games.  How many of these was Chris Brown much involved in?

Cureton''s strike after a southampton backpass?  NO

Cureton''s finish after good link up play from Otsemobor and Croft?  NO

Browns header to Dublin for a brilliant strike?  YES

Lappins long ranger against Cardiff?  NO

Strihavka''s finish - which he was then not aloud to build upon against Charlton by the S**t manager?  NO

 

So there you go, Chris Brown has a single assist in 5 games to his name, the only goal he had any serious involvement in, playing nearly all the minutes too and being fully fit.  Woo Bloody Hoo

He is the new Andy Hooze, not good enough but always picked.

[Buncey 1]

Blimey we had two shots on target! That must be a record!

[allways travelling 0]

[quote user="crafty canary"]

Dave Striker: Did i do OK boss?

Granty: Yes son, you get bit part appearances yet you have popped up with a goal.

Dave Striker: Thanks Boss, I want to really make an impact!

Granty: You have son and to reward you I''m going to stick you back on the bench and ignore you all night.

Dave Striker: Why Boss?

Granty: So you can get a good view of Browny getting nowhere near to a goal. Who needs scorers, 0-0 ''s just the job!!

[/quote]That is funny i like it

[nutty nigel 7,534]

CJF - Bly is the one who wanted to talk about the match stats on this thread. I was replying to ZLF''s original post about goals for being the problem. Match stats can be confusing but anything else can only be opinion. The match stats for this game showed Charlton had 57% possession against our 43% and yet the previous away game at Hull shows that we had 57% against their 43%. Now I was at both games and it''s my opinion that given the circumstances the Charlton performance was much better, that is also borne out by the reaction of the fans who applauded the team off at the end of the game far more warmly than at Hull. I stated that we gave Charlton a torrid time for 90 mins, I didn''t mean that we had them under the cosh raining shots at their goal all game. I meant we became hard to beat and got in their faces and got stuck in never letting them settle and play. You of all people should understand this as you, I believe, were one of the loudest critics of our away form previously and the "no shows" of the past.

As for the Brown debate, I stated before I left on Tuesday that my preferred front two would be Strihavka and Huckerby in a 442. But I fully understand Browns selection for this game. We have a lot of striker options at the club and I also don''t want to see the ball hit to brown game after game. But I believe that maybe the injuries in midfield dictated the option chosen at Charlton. If we don''t have the personnel to pass the ball through the midfield then at a place like Charlton lumping the ball up to a target mnan is the only other option. Hopefully Fotheringham or Smith will increase Grant''s options when fit.

 

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

CJF - Bly is the one who wanted to talk about the match stats on this thread. I was replying to ZLF''s original post about goals for being the problem. Match stats can be confusing but anything else can only be opinion. The match stats for this game showed Charlton had 57% possession against our 43% and yet the previous away game at Hull shows that we had 57% against their 43%. Now I was at both games and it''s my opinion that given the circumstances the Charlton performance was much better, that is also borne out by the reaction of the fans who applauded the team off at the end of the game far more warmly than at Hull. I stated that we gave Charlton a torrid time for 90 mins, I didn''t mean that we had them under the cosh raining shots at their goal all game. I meant we became hard to beat and got in their faces and got stuck in never letting them settle and play. You of all people should understand this as you, I believe, were one of the loudest critics of our away form previously and the "no shows" of the past.

As for the Brown debate, I stated before I left on Tuesday that my preferred front two would be Strihavka and Huckerby in a 442. But I fully understand Browns selection for this game. We have a lot of striker options at the club and I also don''t want to see the ball hit to brown game after game. But I believe that maybe the injuries in midfield dictated the option chosen at Charlton. If we don''t have the personnel to pass the ball through the midfield then at a place like Charlton lumping the ball up to a target mnan is the only other option. Hopefully Fotheringham or Smith will increase Grant''s options when fit.

 

[/quote]

I''d give up trying Nutty. I have.