The Problems Last Night

[CanaryChris 0]

Having been to Coventry and MK Dons i feel i am in a position to comment on the 2 performances, so here goes.

Against Cov we played with 2 wingers, therefore having options right across the pitch, last night Roeder started with a diamond formation with Hooly playing behind the front 2. This led to the middle of the park being too crowded and the only width coming from the full backs. In the second half we went more 4-4-2 but had Russell on the right, Crofty (love him or hate him) does give natural width, does have a bit of pace and does link well with Semmy. To then replace Hooly with Croft and put Russell on the left meant that we became lopsided on the right, rather than on the left. My point is that at no point did we play the formation that was successful against Coventry, the manager told us that he wanted a cup run so why doesn''t he actually play a formation the players are comfortable with and play players in their correct positions.

Also i think the subs where predetermined, if not why take off Hooly when we are chasing the game and why take off a striker and bring on a midfielder?

Last point is directly aimed for Glenn, please please please do not play Omozuzi at centre back ever again, he cost us the goal, his positional sense is awful and his concentration levels are poor. In fact if it hadn''t been for Shacks (who along with Clingan was our best player last night) our defeat last night could have been much worse.

Anyway back to 4-4-2 on Saturday and let''s score some goals to get this season started!!!     

[Lincs CR 0]

I don''t think Glenn had much choice but to play Omozusi there. Kennedy is not 100% match fit and Stefanovic had a slight strain after the Covo game and both were rested.

Omozusi is the only other non-CB player capable to doing a half decent job there. last night was a matter of plugging holes with what he have left, with Doc also out injured.

I have no idea about the subs used to be honest and I am in agreement with you there. Why not take Hoolahan off for Russell who could just sit in the hole too and replace Koroma with Cureton and keep the same system which at least looked like it COULD get a goal.

[anothatracksuitmanager 0]

I think pattison was the weird sub when we needed creativity and had chadwick on the bench.  I just hope that was something roeder had in his system as an idea and we found out it hasn''t worked and it wasn''t in a league game.by the way surely archibald henville would have been the logical centre back choice.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

we need at least 1 player starting who is quick and runs at defenders and somebody who we can put the ball into the box for, last night we had neither, the ball would be passed sideways for long periods and then when we get in and around the box we have nobody with any presence to give it to

[Jim Smith 2,349]

[quote user="CanaryChris"]

Having been to Coventry and MK Dons i feel i am in a position to comment on the 2 performances, so here goes.

Against Cov we played with 2 wingers, therefore having options right across the pitch, last night Roeder started with a diamond formation with Hooly playing behind the front 2. This led to the middle of the park being too crowded and the only width coming from the full backs. In the second half we went more 4-4-2 but had Russell on the right, Crofty (love him or hate him) does give natural width, does have a bit of pace and does link well with Semmy. To then replace Hooly with Croft and put Russell on the left meant that we became lopsided on the right, rather than on the left. My point is that at no point did we play the formation that was successful against Coventry, the manager told us that he wanted a cup run so why doesn''t he actually play a formation the players are comfortable with and play players in their correct positions.

Also i think the subs where predetermined, if not why take off Hooly when we are chasing the game and why take off a striker and bring on a midfielder?

Last point is directly aimed for Glenn, please please please do not play Omozuzi at centre back ever again, he cost us the goal, his positional sense is awful and his concentration levels are poor. In fact if it hadn''t been for Shacks (who along with Clingan was our best player last night) our defeat last night could have been much worse.

Anyway back to 4-4-2 on Saturday and let''s score some goals to get this season started!!!     

[/quote]

 

I agree with your comments. As I said in a previous thread the formation really did not help us and played into Mk''s hands. All they had to do was crowd the centre of defence and watch us play pretty triangles in front of them. Saturday needs to be Hooly on the left and Croft on the right with Bell taking Croft''s place when he is fit.

[Colourful Canary 0]

At last ! Just when I''d just about had enough of reading the mostly pathetic comments on this board, some intelligent and interesting insight as to what is actually "going wrong". It''s actually encouraging to hear that the midfield against MK was "too crowded", even though we again failed to score - so often in the past when I''ve watched City away from home I have been frustrated at the decision to play two wide men leaving gaping holes in midfield and making us a soft touch. Actually, the best sides play a flexible system where personnel changes position during different phases of the game, thus keeping the opposition guessing. Why can''t we do this ? Is it because it requires an intelligent and vocal captain on the pitch ?

[Jules 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="CanaryChris"]

Having been to Coventry and MK Dons i feel i am in a position to comment on the 2 performances, so here goes.

Against Cov we played with 2 wingers, therefore having options right across the pitch, last night Roeder started with a diamond formation with Hooly playing behind the front 2. This led to the middle of the park being too crowded and the only width coming from the full backs. In the second half we went more 4-4-2 but had Russell on the right, Crofty (love him or hate him) does give natural width, does have a bit of pace and does link well with Semmy. To then replace Hooly with Croft and put Russell on the left meant that we became lopsided on the right, rather than on the left. My point is that at no point did we play the formation that was successful against Coventry, the manager told us that he wanted a cup run so why doesn''t he actually play a formation the players are comfortable with and play players in their correct positions.

Also i think the subs where predetermined, if not why take off Hooly when we are chasing the game and why take off a striker and bring on a midfielder?

Last point is directly aimed for Glenn, please please please do not play Omozuzi at centre back ever again, he cost us the goal, his positional sense is awful and his concentration levels are poor. In fact if it hadn''t been for Shacks (who along with Clingan was our best player last night) our defeat last night could have been much worse.

Anyway back to 4-4-2 on Saturday and let''s score some goals to get this season started!!!     

[/quote]

 

I agree with your comments. As I said in a previous thread the formation really did not help us and played into Mk''s hands. All they had to do was crowd the centre of defence and watch us play pretty triangles in front of them. Saturday needs to be Hooly on the left and Croft on the right with Bell taking Croft''s place when he is fit.

[/quote]I agree as well. But  we still have a problem even with Wes on the left and Crofty on the right.  That gives us width, but width to do what? One would usually expect crosses to come in from the flanks, but as it stands we don''t have anyone up front capable of getting on the end of those.  We do need that big striker asap otherwise our options are limited to Crofty and Wes coming in from the flanks and trying to convert themselves from acute angles or crossing low for Curo and Lupoli - both options which have brought blanks in the last two games.

[Gonzo 0]

Good post and spot on. Last night has finally made me sign up and add some points of my own. Sorry if it''s been covered before.

The formation was a joke yesterday and for this Roeder is too blame. Drury (first game back!) and JonO were expected to cover the full wide lengths of the pitch themselves whilst the midfield sat, with little movement in the center park. When they did have possession of the ball I was watching headless chickens running into each other (warped brain perhaps but I imagined this is what they do after the game but with wet towels). I have nothing against the players at all and saw signs of the sweet passing movement, vision and control mentioned after Coventry however I still don''t understand why we did not play 4-4-2. It was obvious after 10 minutes that we weren''t winning the midfield battle with balls passed from left back to right back to left back to right back etc etc.

Roeders subs bewildered me furthermore - slight hope of bringing Chadders/Croft on in the 2nd half with Hoolahan down the flank was dashed when Hoolahan was taken off! I don''t expect and seriously hope Roeder doesn''t play this style again.

Finally I though Shacks was outstanding and I''m sorry to say it but Roeder your heads to BIG for you!

OTBC.

 

 

[? 20]

Wes looked exhausted in the latter stages of the second half against Coventry. I''m guessing, and hoping(!) that he wasn''t up to the full 90 minutes, not with Saturday''s game coming up, which would explain the situation.

But then again, it wouldn''t be the first, nor the last, time Roeder made a strange tactical decision.

[nutty nigel 7,649]

I said this on another thread last night but it''s got buried somewhere - I am never a real fan of the diamond formation and I thought Hoolahan wasn''t so effective playing at the top of that as he was on the left on Saturday. The diamond makes us narrow and the width has to come from the fullbacks which means they have to get up and down very quickly. This didn''t happen so we didn''t get crosses into the box and were forced to try to play through their defence.

I agree that the subs seemed pre-determined, I would have liked to have seen us go 442 with Chadwick on the right and Hoolahan on the left and either Koroma/Lupoli or Koroma/Cureton up top. But I think it was already decided how much pitch time Hoolihan, Koroma and Lupoli would get.

Although when Croft missed his sitter the frustration on the bench was plain to see I can''t help feeling winning last nights game was not a priority for Norwich City.

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,545]

Didn''t go to either game - this is a genuine question, not an attempt to disagree with earlier posters.Is it not a good idea to experiment with formations when you''re getting a new team together? From what I hear about Hoolahan, he''s nominally a left-winger, but likes to drift in where he can have more influence on the game. in theory at least, then, 4-3-1-2 is certainly worth a try.I was really impressed when Roeder first took over, that he used those three games before the international break (Ipswich, Watford, Plymouth), to look at every player in the squad. We took only one point from those three games, but after them he had seen enough to ship out most of the players who weren''t up to it. After that international break we went many games unbeaten. I thought it was a confident and gutsy decision of Roeder''s especially with the team adrift at the bottom.The current sityouayshun seems similar to me. We have a brand new team, and we need to work out the best formation. A 1st-round League Cup game sounds like just the place to experiment.None of this means I''m happy with the defeat. I would really like us to have a decent cup run before I die. But there were a lot of posters on here a week ago saying that the team would need time to gel. I wondered then how many would stick with that if we started slowly - not many it seems.I''d be really interested to hear from people who went to either or both games, who can give a considered view of what has gone well and what seems worrying.

[Noseybonk 0]

[quote]

Wes looked exhausted in the latter stages of the second half against Coventry. I''m guessing, and hoping(!) that he wasn''t up to the full 90 minutes, not with Saturday''s game coming up, which would explain the situation.

But then again, it wouldn''t be the first, nor the last, time Roeder made a strange tactical decision.

[/quote]

Can someone please explain why Pattison is our second choice left winger and not Lappin.

Surely in a game where we are crying out for some creativity, Lappin is a more logical choice than the more abrasive, battling style of Patty?

[Jules 0]

I went to both games. Despite the reverse against Cov I saw alot to be positive about. It''s been said before, but the crisp passing between Lupoli, Hoolahan and Curo and the through balls for Crofty to run on to were great to watch. We had a solid defence playing out constructively from the back, Clingan et al working productively and solidly in midfield. What was missing was a clinical finish in and around the Cov box - which was where we effectively camped out for much of the game. There were some echoes of this last night (at least at the beginning and a little spell in the second half) but the performance felt somewhat disjointed. It was as if the pack had been shuffled - which of course it had. The defence was radically changed from Cov and players like Curo and Crofty who started on Saturday were on the bench.  Something about Saturday worked nicely - though obviously we didn''t score.  I really do think that the absence of Kennedy and Stefanovic threw a spanner in the works. Omozusi was less assured and Shacks had to become the play maker from the back - which he really isn''t. Clingan had to drop deeper to pick the ball up and the combinaton of Otsemobor''s patent lack of interest/quality on the right and Wes'' being moved toward the middle of the park robbed us of the width we saw on Sat. I do hope that this will provide a big learning experience for us and that reverting to type on Sat will bring the right result.

[Robert N. LiM 4,545]

So based on those two games, Jules, how do you feel about the season ahead, with or without a target man bolted on to the current squad?

[CanaryChris 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Didn''t go to either game - this is a genuine question, not an attempt to disagree with earlier posters.

Is it not a good idea to experiment with formations when you''re getting a new team together? From what I hear about Hoolahan, he''s nominally a left-winger, but likes to drift in where he can have more influence on the game. in theory at least, then, 4-3-1-2 is certainly worth a try.

I was really impressed when Roeder first took over, that he used those three games before the international break (Ipswich, Watford, Plymouth), to look at every player in the squad. We took only one point from those three games, but after them he had seen enough to ship out most of the players who weren''t up to it. After that international break we went many games unbeaten. I thought it was a confident and gutsy decision of Roeder''s especially with the team adrift at the bottom.

The current sityouayshun seems similar to me. We have a brand new team, and we need to work out the best formation. A 1st-round League Cup game sounds like just the place to experiment.

None of this means I''m happy with the defeat. I would really like us to have a decent cup run before I die. But there were a lot of posters on here a week ago saying that the team would need time to gel. I wondered then how many would stick with that if we started slowly - not many it seems.

I''d be really interested to hear from people who went to either or both games, who can give a considered view of what has gone well and what seems worrying.
[/quote]

Nothing against trying different formations, but when it''s clear that it isn''t working Roeder needs to be flexible and change, not neccesarily to 4-4-2 but certainly to something different. This wasn''t a pre-season friendly this was a competitive match that over 2000 of us went to watch with the promise from Roeder that he would feel his strongest team possible as he wanted us to have a cup run.

As i said before i have been to both games and after the Coventrymatch match i felt that if we had Bertie and Bell and added a decent centre forward we where in for a decent season. Lets hope last night was a case of trial and error with the formation and not a sign of things to come.

[blahblahblah 2]

Excellent original post Chris and good thread.  Nice to see some football being discussed.

[Robert N. LiM 4,545]

[quote user="CanaryChris"]

This wasn''t a pre-season friendly this was a competitive match that over 2000 of us went to watch with the promise from Roeder that he would feel his strongest team possible as he wanted us to have a cup run.

[/quote]True that.I appreciate the reply. Any more views from people who''ve seen us this season?

[Jules 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]So based on those two games, Jules, how do you feel about the season ahead, with or without a target man bolted on to the current squad?[/quote]It''s so hard to predict a whole season based on just two games. But, my gut feeling is that without a target man we will be in for another season of struggle for sure. When we consider that last season Leicester''s defence was actually not bad at all but they still got relegated because they didn''t score the task before us looms large. We have to find a way to score goals and a big target man is going to adds balance to the side, be able to hold the ball up in situations where Lupo and Curo might get muscled off the ball, and get a head on crosses coming in from the flanks. OJ isn''t offering anything different to those two either and I''ve now seen him squander several great chances. With a target man I think we will do okay (but okay could span anything from just below mid-table to knocking on the door of the play offs). And we shouldn''t forget that with a fit Bell Crofty is going to struggle to get a place so we could well get more quality coming in from the right. Time will tell. What I am concerned about though is if we as fans don''t give this fledgling team some time to gel and get to know each other. We have 10-11 new signings and they only played a handful of pre-season games together - it''s going to take a few more before we see what they are really capable of. Last night was crap but I do hope that these guys can now learn from that and go into Saturday''s game feeling positive and looking forward to playing good football.

[Jim Smith 2,349]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]So based on those two games, Jules, how do you feel about the season ahead, with or without a target man bolted on to the current squad?
[/quote]

I''m obviously not Jules but will give my response to your question anyway. Despite last night''s shambles I still remain quite optimistic but subject to the caveat that we get this goalscorer in as soon as possible and stop playing this stupid diamond formation.

The new centreback pairing is good and makes a real difference. Clingan is a good signing in the middle. If Bell is up to scratch and can replace Croft then i still think we have the makings of a good side and am encouraged by our new found resolve to pass the ball rather than hoof it. The key though is that we need to retain the width to stretch teams and not play everything in front of them like we did last night.

[Jules 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]So based on those two games, Jules, how do you feel about the season ahead, with or without a target man bolted on to the current squad?[/quote]

I''m obviously not Jules but will give my response to your question anyway. Despite last night''s shambles I still remain quite optimistic but subject to the caveat that we get this goalscorer in as soon as possible and stop playing this stupid diamond formation.

The new centreback pairing is good and makes a real difference. Clingan is a good signing in the middle. If Bell is up to scratch and can replace Croft then i still think we have the makings of a good side and am encouraged by our new found resolve to pass the ball rather than hoof it. The key though is that we need to retain the width to stretch teams and not play everything in front of them like we did last night.

[/quote]Totally agreed.