Mark Fotheringham....Citys Saviour

[Matt Morriss 69]

Well its friday nite, and im slightly drunk, and fancied elaborating on my worrying obsession with Mark ''Fozzy'' Fotheringham.Just posted on another thread that Fozzy has been Norwich City''s saviour, rather than Glenn Roeder, and that weve missed him all season like fat birds miss cake, and wondered what you lot think as to the what is the main reason or catalyst for City''s upturn in fortunes since Grant left.Is it Fozzy''s inclusion making us tick like Safri used to? Is it solely down to Roeder and Clark? Is it the loan signings of Pattison, Evans, Camara etc? Is it Roeders spot on tactics of ditching the kids, goin with experience in the these tough times and his tactical decision to drop Hucks or Croft and play with 3 midfielders and only 1 attacking winger?Is it simply no more Grant and his ranting, inexperienced managerial way?Is it all of the above?Answers on a......well, this post i guess.Night night...-----------------''''Lay off Hucks please, remember what this man has done for Norwich City since the day he signed on xmas day 5 yrs ago. So he''s having an average season. So has the whole team''''

[Mister Chops 7]

No question that Fotheringham in Centre Mid is better than anything else we have, but if the reason for our revival was down to him then you could argue Peter Grant was simply unlucky - and I don''t think anyone is brave enough to argue that.

 

[Thecanaryfan 0]

Call me cynical..............Its a combination of them all. Though intro of Roeder and exit of Grant is the main denominator in my view.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]

No question that Fotheringham in Centre Mid is better than anything else we have, but if the reason for our revival was down to him then you could argue Peter Grant was simply unlucky - and I don''t think anyone is brave enough to argue that.

 

[/quote]Id definitely be brave enough to argue that actually, Grant was robbed of Fozzy, Smith and a fit Hucks at the start of the season. Brellier and Strihavka turned out to be flops, you could say Grants fault but thats the gamble, we were all pleased when they signed, on paper good signings.Grant had to start with 2 defensive midfielders in Brellier and Russell and it clearly didnt work, we had no one to pass the ball. Where Grant fell short was his inability to bring in quality like Roeder has, and he was forced to play the kids like Spillane, Jarvis etc when things werent working.Dont get me wrong, Grant had to go, his inexperience was too much of a factor, but i can help but think he would have had a better time of it if he had his best players available, Fozzy, Hucks and Smith.Look at the difference Fozzy has made. Grant was unlucky, robbed of his best players, never able to field his best 11, with Fozzy i reckon we''d have been mid table and never have dropped to bottom.

[Gingerpele 0]

FOZZY FOZZY, Roeder as well :D

[Thetford Dave 0]

I can''t help but think that people are going way overboard about Mark Fotheringham ! Last season he was woeful. Now i fully accept that he got himself fit pre season, and has been much better this year,but if he''s our saviour, heaven help us. He came on against Southampton, and was widely acclaimed as having changed the match single handedly.From my memory, it was the back pass that  picked up by the keeper that changed the game.

He had a good second half against Barnsley, after an awful first half, and he was playing in the dreadful performance against Bury.

He still has work to do to convince me he''s a really good player, let alone a saviour.

 

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Thetford Dave you sum up my opinions.

I would love to see Fozzy really come through for us I think he''s an excellent Club man but he surely can be much better on the pitch.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Thetford Dave"]

I can''t help but think that people are going way overboard about Mark Fotheringham ! Last season he was woeful. Now i fully accept that he got himself fit pre season, and has been much better this year,but if he''s our saviour, heaven help us. He came on against Southampton, and was widely acclaimed as having changed the match single handedly.From my memory, it was the back pass that  picked up by the keeper that changed the game.

He had a good second half against Barnsley, after an awful first half, and he was playing in the dreadful performance against Bury.

He still has work to do to convince me he''s a really good player, let alone a saviour.

 

[/quote]Firstly can we please forget the bury game and not use it when making judgements or statements on players performance. The Barnsley game was a culmination of Fozzy''s hard work since late November. His inclusion has made a massive difference, like Safri used to, he is making us tick. Why do you say ''if he''s our saviour, heaven help us''? Presumably you

didnt watch the Coventry, Plymouth and Sheff Utd home games? Fozzy was

immense in all 3. As he has been in pretty much every other game he''s

played in, Blackpool away, Barnsley away, Palace away. Roeder rates him, Actim index rate him! Why dont you? R yes, your not involved in professional football and therefore your opinion is slightly different from the pro''s, who know what their talking about. Interesting.I posted on another thread my reasons behind why he is so good, see below, and i firmly think he is the reason why were a different team. 1. The tempo of our attacking play is much quicker with Fozzy in

midfield. His quick thinking and simple passes keeps the ball moving,

in the right direction.2. With Pattison/Russell it takes 3 or 4 passes for the ball to get wide to Hucks/Croft or forward to Cureton/Evans.3.

Our possession is vastly higher due to Fozzy''s spoiler defensive work,

this goes largely unnoticed but Fozzy''s defensive work i think is

actually better than Pattison and Russells, he may not slide 20 yards

to tackle like Pattison does but his overall percentage of contesting

50/50 balls and winning them i believe is higher than the other 2. The

Sheffield Utd game in point. He was literally involved in every 50/50

going in the centre, and came out on top more times than the

opposition. His defensive work coupled with either Patty or Rusty makes

for a stronger midfield and increased possession. This results in more

attacks for us and less for the opposition. Simple.4. The main

point his presence improves us so dramatically is his energy and

enthusiasm to win the ball back and make a pass. If you watch him Sky

Sports player cam style he is always looking for that scrap, and when

he does the spolier work and wins it back his first thought is instant,

he doesnt think about it, the ball is passed immediately, either to

Croft, Hucks, Russell or the strikers. Sometimes to the back four. And

this isnt a negative thing. Its called keeping possession. The key is

simplicity, find a yellow shirt. He doesnt have to always be making

those Riquelme/Ronaldinho defence splitting passes, the key is to keep

possession, keep the ball moving and switch play when neccessary.

Fozzy''s quick thinking and quick simple passing keeps the tempo high,

this is crucial to Norwich''s style of attacking play, pace and counter

attacking football. This is the way weve always played, from Crook,

Eadie and Foxy to Mulryne, Rivers, McVeigh and Safri, Hucks, Earnshaw

and now Fozzy, Crofty, Semmy, Hucks and Cureton etc. With the attacking

players we have, pacey wingers, full backs and strikers, we need a high

tempo of passing, and someone to orchestrate from midfield. Fozzy does

this perfectly. He makes us tick.Remember the opening day of

the season? Russell and Brellier in midfield. And indeed the games

after that. It was dire. Slow unattractive football. You cant win

football matches with 2 defensive midfielders. Fozzy''s absence was massive and in comparison his inclusion now is the reason Norwich City are winning again.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Thetford Dave"]

I can''t help but think that people are going way overboard about Mark Fotheringham ! Last season he was woeful. Now i fully accept that he got himself fit pre season, and has been much better this year,but if he''s our saviour, heaven help us. He came on against Southampton, and was widely acclaimed as having changed the match single handedly.From my memory, it was the back pass that  picked up by the keeper that changed the game.

He had a good second half against Barnsley, after an awful first half, and he was playing in the dreadful performance against Bury.

He still has work to do to convince me he''s a really good player, let alone a saviour.

[/quote]

I agree to an extent. I wouldn''t say he was "woeful" last season but I thought he only looked good enough to be a backup player.

As for the Southampton game, in my opinion he did turn it. When he came on his hunger for the game shone through, he wanted the ball and he used it really well. He gave us a bit of omph.

Since he has come into the side as a permanent fixture I think his performances have been a bit of a mixed bag. In some games he''s been a real driving force and in others he''s been pretty ineffective.

For me I think Fozzy is best at battling away in the middle of the park, wining the ball and playing it simple. However, he does sometimes hit a bit of a Hollywood ball which aren''t anywhere near finding their marks.

We still need a midfielder who can pick a pass, has that cutting edge.

[Dionysus 0]

Fotheringham blows hot and cold, though I wouldn''t ever say he is immense. Our upturn, IMO, came with the injection of new players. This gave us a bit more confidence and gave the existing players extra motivation. Although our best loan signing has now left, some of the confidence and motivation has remained. That''s not to say we are safe, by any means. Hopefully the board have learned that decent players, more often than not, cost decent money.

Incidentally, Barclayman, many of us were not happy with the signings of Brellier or Strihavka. Their previous records were not exactly sparkling.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="BarclayMan"][quote user="Mister Chops"]

No question that Fotheringham in Centre Mid is better than anything else we have, but if the reason for our revival was down to him then you could argue Peter Grant was simply unlucky - and I don''t think anyone is brave enough to argue that.

 

[/quote]

Id definitely be brave enough to argue that actually, Grant was robbed of Fozzy, Smith and a fit Hucks at the start of the season. Brellier and Strihavka turned out to be flops, you could say Grants fault but thats the gamble, we were all pleased when they signed, on paper good signings.

Grant had to start with 2 defensive midfielders in Brellier and Russell and it clearly didnt work, we had no one to pass the ball. Where Grant fell short was his inability to bring in quality like Roeder has, and he was forced to play the kids like Spillane, Jarvis etc when things werent working.

Dont get me wrong, Grant had to go, his inexperience was too much of a factor, but i can help but think he would have had a better time of it if he had his best players available, Fozzy, Hucks and Smith.

Look at the difference Fozzy has made.

Grant was unlucky, robbed of his best players, never able to field his best 11, with Fozzy i reckon we''d have been mid table and never have dropped to bottom.
[/quote]

Excellent post, Barclayman.  I don''t agree with much of what you say, but you put it fairly convincingly.

Where Roeder has succeeded and Grant has failed is in getting the team playing for each other, and in lifting the players'' spirits rather than knocking them.  Fotheringham is showing what he can do as a captain and midfielder - good thinking by Roeder here.  Grant had Shackell as captain, and he''s about as inspiring as a Milli Vanilli b-side.

Being robbed of Huckerby and Smith - well, they''ve hardly set the world alight when fully fit and playing, so Grant wasn''t really unlucky there.  Too many average (being kind) players and too little man-management skills.