A Reality Check

[ricardo 7,402]

Today showed just how far we are from being a top six side.

I thought Wolves dominated from the first minute and we did extremely well to come in second today.

Midfield still not creative enough. Russell was the best of the bunch but his game is based more on energy and grit rather than creative passing.

Pattison just seems unable to play a forward pass.

Today was a reality check for all those who were thinking we would challenge for a playoff spot. Anything above 20th will do for me.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Today showed just how far we are from being a top six side.

I thought Wolves dominated from the first minute and we did extremely well to come in second today.

Midfield still not creative enough. Russell was the best of the bunch but his game is based more on energy and grit rather than creative passing.

Pattison just seems unable to play a forward pass.

Today was a reality check for all those who were thinking we would challenge for a playoff spot. Anything above 20th will do for me.

[/quote]

I like Pattison though, he gets stuck in and he''s a player who badly needs someone with quality to compliment his style of play. You''d never have to worry about him not doing his fair of the work and it''s good to have players like that in your team.

Once again I thought the first half showed why Jimmy Smith is a waste of time for us in that position. He''s supposed to make us look more solid in the middle of the park but Wolves dominated it and they played a standard 442 really. As soon as Crofty came on we had a few more options and gave them something to think about, should have started the game like that.

And unsurprisingly Shackell couldn''t handle Bothroyd.

[Pyro Pete 1,923]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Today showed just how far we are from being a top six side.

I thought Wolves dominated from the first minute and we did extremely well to come in second today.

Midfield still not creative enough. Russell was the best of the bunch but his game is based more on energy and grit rather than creative passing.

Pattison just seems unable to play a forward pass.

Today was a reality check for all those who were thinking we would challenge for a playoff spot. Anything above 20th will do for me.

[/quote]   Can''t disagree with you there. For me Wolves simply wanted it more, and worked harder throughout the match. We were poor, and only Russell and Doherty seemed up for it today.Again Roeder failed to get the balance in the team right. Clearly we needed a big man up front from the start if we were going to be playing so many long, high balls to the strikers. But you have to say that Roeder doesn''t have a lot of options. I wouldn''t want to be turning to Chris Brown or Strihavka if the first choice strikers aren''t doing the job.  If we needed a reminder of why we need to invest significantly this January, then today showed why.

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

I''m with you on this.

Frankly if we avoid relegation this year its enough for me. Low expectation I know but lets just look at how our season has panned out so far.

[Tumbleweed 106]

A few weeks ago we were 6 points adrift of the drop. Those who are/were talking of play off are as misguided as would-be protesters. Recently we have seen a massive improvement however and in the transfer window to come when I expect Roeder to make wholesale changes (not necessarily big money, just changes in personnel). To have eradicated that gap so quickly was very good indeed. We can''t expect to win every game, the top teams also have poorer days and we are not losing these games. Under PG we would have been dead and buried by now with the bottom sides all winning from time to time.

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Today showed just how far we are from being a top six side.

I thought Wolves dominated from the first minute and we did extremely well to come in second today.

Midfield still not creative enough. Russell was the best of the bunch but his game is based more on energy and grit rather than creative passing.

Pattison just seems unable to play a forward pass.

Today was a reality check for all those who were thinking we would challenge for a playoff spot. Anything above 20th will do for me.

[/quote]

Spot on Ricardo, we were almost (but not quite) as bad in the first half as the very worst under Worthy or Grant. It was embarrisingly one sided for long spells and Wolves should have run out about 4-1 winners!

The play off talk was naive and embarrasing. Even Chris Goreham before the Charlton game said ...''Norwich are now well clear of the bottom of the table''! What a complete fool that guy is sometimes. 

I''ve always said that any final position above 21st would be great after the appalling mess that Roeder inherited. We ground out a draw today and that was just about all you could say!

[kdncfc 0]

We were poor from the first minute until Dublin and Croft came on and we could easily have been 3 nil down, after that we looked a different team and really should have won although that would have been harsh on Wolves. Wolves had so much more quality than us and it just proves that we are still well short on the quality stakes to get anywhere near the top 6, hopefully well go some way to rectifying this in January.

[lucky green trainers 0]

agree - after taking the p**s outa wolves pre-match huddle, (stuff we don''t do anymore!!!) i was worried from the word go afterwards, as clearly they were up for this match and dominated the early exchanges.  2nd half - we were better, and could even have nicked it.  but draw was probably fair.  i''m enjoying going to see city play again - and i''d be happy with any position above the relegation zone -but obviously the highest possible.  dion and croft came off the subs bench and made an impact - after that the cupboard is bare, i don''t fancy any of the other league one dross.  clearly we need reinforcements to make a difference.  wud like to have tiny out there today.

[Old Boy 0]

[quote user="Pyro Pete"]Again Roeder failed to get the balance in the team right. Clearly we needed a big man up front from the start if we were going to be playing so many long, high balls to the strikers. But you have to say that Roeder doesn''t have a lot of options. I wouldn''t want to be turning to Chris Brown or Strihavka if the first choice strikers aren''t doing the job.  If we needed a reminder of why we need to invest significantly this January, then today showed why.[/quote]Once again, I have to defend the manager (whoever it happens to be at the time - Worthy, Grant and now Roeder) from this "the manager got the balance of the team wrong" nonsense. You accuse Roeder of that when Roeder has made it clear (as Worthy and Grant also did) that he wants to play passing football, through the middle, etc. How many manager changes will it take before you realise that it''s the players to blame - that they aren''t carrying out their manager''s instructions on the pitch. If he''d wanted to play Route 1 he obviously wouldn''t have selected Cureton and Evans up front, surely even you must realise this? It''s The Players, Stupid.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

I agree Ricardo.

This game told us everything about where we are today.

We work hard and get stuck in with admirable spirit; but we cannot create and our wingers have no decent delivery or final ball.

Had we won these two Christmas games we could dare to dream...as it is we know we remain in a relegation fight, and that is all.

[Hooleyfan 0]

This was a poor performance today but I have realistic expectations of more than just avoiding relegation...but probably not as high as play offs.

Curo will continue to score all season, just as long as he can work off Dion and Crofty

Left side defence and midfield is going to be our consistent weakness and I expect Roeder to work on this during the transfer window. Camara showed his level today, but I think he was pretty isolated, nothing happening left side of midfield and Hucks shows no capacity or ability to link up with him in the way he used to feed off Adam Drury. Some say that Hucks was marked out of the game, personally I think he is trying to play a one man band too often and then hides in inaccessible positions to be passed to. I thought his substitution was a nice shot across the bows by Glen. Hucks is not indispensible, but he has to take his turn in drawing play down the left side as Crofty is doing likewise on the right and we will be more successful.

[chicken 0]

Hmmm, I agree with you Ricardo.The only thing that really frustrates me is that if you look at our recent form and consider if we had started the season this way then we might be looking further up the table.By that I mean Wolves and Charlton are good solid sides - drawing with them is not such a bad thing even if we were playing in the top half of the table. The fact is we even had chances to win both games - ok so did they but to counter teams like that is a massive step in the right direction. If we keep playing like this and add some quality now that we have the strength, I will be incredibly possitive about next season.Yes I know it is a long way off but just look at the strength Roeder has brought into this side. He knows the leagues well it seems.

[ZLF 275]

[quote user="Old Boy"]Once again, I have to defend the manager (whoever it happens to be at the time - Worthy, Grant and now Roeder) from this "the manager got the balance of the team wrong" nonsense. You accuse Roeder of that when Roeder has made it clear (as Worthy and Grant also did) that he wants to play passing football, through the middle, etc. How many manager changes will it take before you realise that it''s the players to blame - that they aren''t carrying out their manager''s instructions on the pitch. If he''d wanted to play Route 1 he obviously wouldn''t have selected Cureton and Evans up front, surely even you must realise this? It''s The Players, Stupid.
[/quote]

Surely both manager and players are to blame?  Roeder may want to play passing football (I agree where - hence starting with Evans and Cureton) but it fell apart with his choices in midfield, particularly the central pairing.

Patty and Rusty are too similar in the centre both being excellent defensively with high energy harrying.  However neither offered a bean creatively or in an attacking sense, and in doing so drove the back 4 to make a long pass.  

If we are going to pass the ball one of them has to do what safri and fozzy do,  which is drop deep and demand the ball from the defence, so that they more it on through the team.  Neither did that again today,  too often showing the defence their backs so insisting on the long ball.  Likewise one of them has to support the attack,  not once did either of them make a forward run to disrupt the wolves defence, create an option for the rest of the team or support the front two.   Finally the use of the ball was poor,  partly through lack of ability to pass but also due to the chronic lack of movement in the side -  from any of the front 6.  Compare that to the attacking energy from the wolves midfield who consistently got beyond their strikers and caused us problems. 

Hux lasted 60 mins today but was easily marked out of the game while Roeder seems happy with Smiths invisible role not up central but not right flank either - again the managers choice.  Having said tht Croft went central as often as smith but lost the ball more and was less effective defensively.

As an attacking force our midfield made itself invisible to the back four and impotent for the front 4.   The core of the problem is not croft for smith (although chadwick back for either will be a vast improvement) but fozzy in the middle.   If fozzy is not fit rusty and Patty unbalance the side - but I cant see Roeder changing it for Tuesday - can anyone else?  

The midfield do not want the ball, and that is the players ''fault'' I agree Old Boy,   but Roeder has to put out a set of players that WANT to want the ball.

Midfield for Tues for me? Fozzy in if fit,  if not Smith central with one of the ''dynamos'' 

Pattison    Russell    Smith  Croft.

Alternatively go 4-3-1-2

Patty   Russell   Spillane

           Smith

Striker 1   Striker 2

to contain an inform Palace side

[Mister Chops 7]

Agree, Ricardo.  As the ball was hoofed long for the umpteenth time, I was sitting in the Barclay getting misty-eyed about memories of what Ian Crook would have done yesterday.

[corbs 0]

This whole season is a reality check, the reality that in this ''sport'', teams go up and they go down, we are no different to any other non-premiership team. Here''s to a cup run and steady progress.

[jetstream 0]

I''d agree with most of the posts on here

The ''reality check'' was watching Jay Bothroyd - who was head and shoulders above every single one of our players in terms of quality - running rings round our midfield and defence.

I don''t like him, and I boo-ed him for his tackle on Drury in the Prem season but by the end of the game I had to admit he was a far better player than anyone else on the pitch.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Good analysis Zipper.

I think Roeder is trying to establish a style of play and he hasn''t got his choice of personnel in yet so deserves credit.

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

I certainly agree that we aren''t yet up there with the top sides in the division, but unlike others, I disagree with the main part of what Ricardo says.  It is very easy to take each game in isolation and come up with stuff like this, but if we are to take each game as a yardstick for the season then surely it applies as readily to the game against Charlton as the one against Wolves - and against Charlton we outplayed side (in particular for the first 30 mins, before they went down to ten men) who imo will finish much higher than Wolves.

My point is that doing this sort of thing does rather miss the point of a 46 game season, one in which performances will be both good and bad, and you really cannot draw any such conclusion in isolation.  The bigger picture is that we have currently lost 1 in 9, are unbeaten in 6 and yesterday showed in an under-par performance that we have what it takes to scrap for a point in a game we would surely have lost earlier in the season.  We can''t really expect to perform on 100% all the time - no one does - but a huge sign of progress for me was that we didn''t lose yesterday a game that over the last 3 seasons we would have surely lost comfortably.  The reality is that we certainly have come a long way since GR arrived, performances have improved hugely over the awful garbage we offered up at places like Wolves and QPR, but we are still in the bottom six and it will be a tough scrap to get into mid-table security.

[ricardo 7,402]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]

I certainly agree that we aren''t yet up there with the top sides in the division, but unlike others, I disagree with the main part of what Ricardo says.  It is very easy to take each game in isolation and come up with stuff like this, but if we are to take each game as a yardstick for the season then surely it applies as readily to the game against Charlton as the one against Wolves - and against Charlton we outplayed side (in particular for the first 30 mins, before they went down to ten men) who imo will finish much higher than Wolves.

My point is that doing this sort of thing does rather miss the point of a 46 game season, one in which performances will be both good and bad, and you really cannot draw any such conclusion in isolation.  The bigger picture is that we have currently lost 1 in 9, are unbeaten in 6 and yesterday showed in an under-par performance that we have what it takes to scrap for a point in a game we would surely have lost earlier in the season.  We can''t really expect to perform on 100% all the time - no one does - but a huge sign of progress for me was that we didn''t lose yesterday a game that over the last 3 seasons we would have surely lost comfortably.  The reality is that we certainly have come a long way since GR arrived, performances have improved hugely over the awful garbage we offered up at places like Wolves and QPR, but we are still in the bottom six and it will be a tough scrap to get into mid-table security.

[/quote]

I am not denying that we have come a long way under Roeder, Branston. Mr. Chops comment about Ian Crook was spot on. I too, sat there during the second half thinking how much we need a player like him. Unless the midfield can take balls from the back four and look up before delivering a forward pass to either a yellow shirt or into space then we are only left with the long ball game. I lost count of the times Pattison got the ball in the centre circle and from Doc or Shacks and just passed it back to them. The midfield is crying out for an Ian Crook type of player and we haven''t got one.

I agree that we could have snatched both Xmas games but it would have been a travesty if we had done so. Without an injection of quality in January we are still going to find surviving in this league a hard struggle.

[chicken 0]

Branston + Ricardo:If you take our unbeaten run into context I think you''ll find that the larger picture of this season will eventually be what could have been. By that I mean we have displayed we are capable of beating lesser teams away from home (Scunthorpe) and that we are able to go to difficult away matches and take a draw and a point.Although the last two games were at home and some may have expected us to win at least one of them, they were both against top 2 if not top 6 contending sides. And in stages of both games we showed that we could outplay them - although more briefly against Wolves.I don''t think there is anything wrong with mixing a bit of concern with optimism at the moment because Roeder seems quite a shrewed man. What-ever happens with "Tiny" it will all be because one man had not forgotton about him and saw that he was the ideal candidate to come in and do a job - it is off the back of this that has allerted other clubs to his availability and quality.Yes we are one or two players short - but don''t forget Fotheringham. Since he has come back into the team we have had some of that sparkle that perhaps we missed against Wolves and Charlton. Another Crook - I would happily eat my hat for that! But it would not be an easy task as he was one heck of a player.

[Buncey 1]

Wolves were one of the better teams we have played at home this season. I think what all the good teams in this league have are a strong, creative and powerful midfield. Wolves did today and so did watford when we played them. We huffed and puffed in midfield yesterday but we didn''t create anything nor impose ourselves upon them. We were very weak out wide and our only option was to put it into space for hux or cureton. I do think though that with a strong midfield you can easily strole this league. The quality of the football we have seen from us and a lot of other teams has been really poor. The fact that so many teams are battling relegation this season and the fact that palace have cruised up towards the playoffs illustrates this further.

[lucky green trainers 0]

i think both sides lacked final third penetration - just as city did the season stringer resigned - and crooky was in the midfield engine room.sure, we could probably do with a creative midfielder, alongside a ballwinner - but for me the wing play and 2 fowards must know how to create and score goals (and outa nothing sometimes).  

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]i think both sides lacked final third penetration - just as city did the season stringer resigned - and crooky was in the midfield engine room.sure, we could probably do with a creative midfielder, alongside a ballwinner - but for me the wing play and 2 fowards must know how to create and score goals (and outa nothing sometimes).  

[/quote]You are right LGT. Where are the goals going to come from. Evans has scored twice but been nowhere near since. Brown never scores and hux and croft haven''t got in positions to score. Rusty and pattison can''t chip in either. It''s not a suprise that Jamie has scored a third of our goals this season. In the recent past mcveigh and mulryne and rivers and francis used to chip in with goals when we needed them too. Now there is nobody. Against wolves we only really created 3 clear cut chances (goal, dublin''s volley, cureton through again), even with prolific scorers we are gonna struggle.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="Fellas"]
It''s not a suprise that Jamie has scored a third of our goals this season.[/quote]

Since when was six a third of 23 [;)]

Anyway,  back to the topic and I think it''s fair to say we have pretty much no quality players whatsoever - if we stay up then it''s job done for the season. We need some decent permanent signings in the transfer window and I would like to see us keep hold of Pattison and Camara - also if we could extend Evans'' loan then that would be a bonus. And of course, Taylor would be a great signing but if not then we need another centre back in.

To actually make us a good Championship team we need to buy half a team at the very least, probably more. But I fear we just simply don''t have the cash to do it. Even if  we do stay up I''m not sure if we can ever go far beyond mid-table with the funds we have, barring some major investment.

[Old Boy 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

Surely both manager and players are to blame?  Roeder may want to play passing football (I agree where - hence starting with Evans and Cureton) but it fell apart with his choices in midfield, particularly the central pairing.

[/quote]That may well be how it turned out, but what choices did he have?  Fozzy''s injured, Chadwick''s injured and Spillane was suspended. Croft is fairly pointless in a team that''s functioning OK, though he looks like a breath of fresh air when he comes into a dreadful game like Saturday''s. He could have played Russell on the right and Smith in the middle, but that doesn''t make much sense to me. I''ve seen with my own eyes both Russell and Pattison at the heart of attacking football, just as I''ve seen most of the players in the first team squad play very well at least once, so they CAN play good football. But, as usual for Norwich City, for every game where the team works well there are two when it doesn''t, and it seems that, when one or two players have a bad game, it spreads like a disease through the whole side. That seems to me more a case of weak personalities or mental laziness than poor coaching, and that''s what I think it is.