pretty passing no end product fans seem to happy with that its all about the result.

[fozzys 0]

how many times do we here should have would have and could have footballs all about the result . dont know what norwich fans actually want theres a clear divide between fans some like pretty football and no end product . some think its all about results i know what id rather have .

[canarytom 0]

Try again in English please

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="fozzys"]how many times do we here should have would have and could have footballs all about the result . dont know what norwich fans actually want theres a clear divide between fans some like pretty football and no end product . some think its all about results i know what id rather have .[/quote]Translation"Hi,Chris again here.I know that my unique mangling of English gives me away every time I pop up with a different username,and I also know that all you regular posters realise that I''m a binner on a wind up,but school doesn''t start for a couple of weeks and its my brother''s turn with my sister,so I thought I''d put another unintelligible post up to kill some time."Clearer now?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

It''s about results.

If we aren''t winning but playing a more direct type of game a lot of us fans shout "HOOOOOOOFFF!!" in a derisory manner and then post on here about how we should get the ball down and pass it "the Norwich way". Some even say it''s not the results and that they''d put up with "mid-table mediocrity" if we were playing football.

But if we aren''t winning but playing a more patient game  a lot of us fans shout "GET IT FORWARD!!!!" and then post about how it''s ok to be playing pretty football but there''s no end product and how we need a big target man to hoof it up to.

If we are winning there are not many real complaints about the style of play.

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,237]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s about results.

If we aren''t winning but playing a more direct type of game a lot of us fans shout "HOOOOOOOFFF!!" in a derisory manner and then post on here about how we should get the ball down and pass it "the Norwich way". Some even say it''s not the results and that they''d put up with "mid-table mediocrity" if we were playing football.

But if we aren''t winning but playing a more patient game  a lot of us fans shout "GET IT FORWARD!!!!" and then post about how it''s ok to be playing pretty football but there''s no end product and how we need a big target man to hoof it up to.

If we are winning there are not many real complaints about the style of play.

 

[/quote]

Indeed, but my experience of the last 20 years is that we have sometimes been successful through playing "good" football. We have never been successful playing hoofball. Unless you fill your team with 6''6" neanderthals, you need to be able to play good stuff to succeed, so the tension between the two isn''t as great as people make out.

[bobfleck 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="fozzys"]how many times do we here should have would have and could have footballs all about the result . dont know what norwich fans actually want theres a clear divide between fans some like pretty football and no end product . some think its all about results i know what id rather have .[/quote]

Translation

"Hi,Chris again here.I know that my unique mangling of English gives me away every time I pop up with a different username,and I also know that all you regular posters realise that I''m a binner on a wind up,but school doesn''t start for a couple of weeks and its my brother''s turn with my sister,so I thought I''d put another unintelligible post up to kill some time."

Clearer now?
[/quote]

LMFAO

Priceless.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]

Indeed, but my experience of the last 20 years is that we have sometimes been successful through playing "good" football. We have never been successful playing hoofball. Unless you fill your team with 6''6" neanderthals, you need to be able to play good stuff to succeed, so the tension between the two isn''t as great as people make out.[/quote]

Yes of course you''re right Robert. Because when a team is playing well they play with confidence and pass the ball slickly to eachother whilst attacking with pace. Most professional footballers have this ability or at least most players Norwich have signed in the last 40 years do. Of course you are right, some clubs do fill their teams with 6''6" neanderthals and play the percentage game. I remember Bobby Gould pointing out the stats in favour goals being scored by getting the ball into the box as quick as possible when he was Wimbledon manager in the 80''s.

Unfortunately when confidence is low players start to get rid of the ball as quickly as possible. The players in front of them are low on confidence too and don''t give them passing options so all that''s left is the "big boot" up to the strikers whether they may be Robert Earnshaw or Iwan Roberts. Fans then believe this is a deliberate tactic by the manager and then shout "Worthy Out!! What kind of idiot would play route one with Earnshaw up front!" maybe Worthy didn''t give the players sufficient confidence, Grant certainly couldn''t have done. Or maybe the players they assembled were not brave enough when the chips were down, I guess you don''t find this out about a player ''til long after he has signed. That''s why Fotheringham made such a difference when he got fit last year, he was brave enough to continually show for the ball and we started passing again. Safri was another like him.

What I am seeing now under Roeder is players trying to be brave and pass the ball although I did notice the confidence drop after the Blackpool penalty and Marshall given no options but to hoof a couple of times. Credit to the players that they soon got back into the game by passing the ball. But this is what I believe managers are talking about when they refer to players being brave. It''s about being brave enough to want the ball when the chips are down and being brave enough to pass it.

My biggest fear is that if results don''t improve this confidence will drain away.

 

 

[walks on water 0]

When Hucks came out and bemoaned the paucity of our squad last year he made the point about not being able to control games...or words to that effect.

 

Glenn Roeder seems to have signed players who have quality & whose instincts are to play rather than punt,

 and we are now controlling periods of matches.

IF we can obtain a forward who can convert the chances we are creating (by working openings rather than the lottery of hitting it long and hoping to feed off the scraps) , a striker who has some physical presence about him and isn''t easily shoved off the ball and can bring other players into the game in the final 3rd,

THEN we may actually be equipped to win games with a variety of styles.

Not for style''s sake I might add, but to encouter different opposition with differing tic tacs...

the cliche of being asked questions of, and having many answers  ...not just one that is being frustrated/defended against .......

 

It kinda gives us more chance of beating the opposition, y''know winning !

it''s only points that mean prizes.

..but we''re getting there in my humble opinion.

 

If we get that striker.

[Robert N. LiM 4,237]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]

Indeed, but my experience of the last 20 years is that we have sometimes been successful through playing "good" football. We have never been successful playing hoofball. Unless you fill your team with 6''6" neanderthals, you need to be able to play good stuff to succeed, so the tension between the two isn''t as great as people make out.[/quote]

Yes of course you''re right Robert. Because when a team is playing well they play with confidence and pass the ball slickly to eachother whilst attacking with pace. Most professional footballers have this ability or at least most players Norwich have signed in the last 40 years do. Of course you are right, some clubs do fill their teams with 6''6" neanderthals and play the percentage game. I remember Bobby Gould pointing out the stats in favour goals being scored by getting the ball into the box as quick as possible when he was Wimbledon manager in the 80''s.

Unfortunately when confidence is low players start to get rid of the ball as quickly as possible. The players in front of them are low on confidence too and don''t give them passing options so all that''s left is the "big boot" up to the strikers whether they may be Robert Earnshaw or Iwan Roberts. Fans then believe this is a deliberate tactic by the manager and then shout "Worthy Out!! What kind of idiot would play route one with Earnshaw up front!" maybe Worthy didn''t give the players sufficient confidence, Grant certainly couldn''t have done. Or maybe the players they assembled were not brave enough when the chips were down, I guess you don''t find this out about a player ''til long after he has signed. That''s why Fotheringham made such a difference when he got fit last year, he was brave enough to continually show for the ball and we started passing again. Safri was another like him.

What I am seeing now under Roeder is players trying to be brave and pass the ball although I did notice the confidence drop after the Blackpool penalty and Marshall given no options but to hoof a couple of times. Credit to the players that they soon got back into the game by passing the ball. But this is what I believe managers are talking about when they refer to players being brave. It''s about being brave enough to want the ball when the chips are down and being brave enough to pass it.

My biggest fear is that if results don''t improve this confidence will drain away.

 

 

[/quote]

Yes. Especially the highlighted bit. The fact that lots of people can''t see what a difference he made last year really worries me. Imagine going to a football match every fortnight for your whole life and having no idea how the game works.

I haven''t been yet this season, NN? Has Fozzy been as terrible as everyone seems to think so far this season?

Great post, NN - don''t let the trolls grind you down.

[walks on water 0]

Well, Fozzy hasn''t been quite so conspicuous because we have Sammy Clingan who is similar but appears more mobile.

Thought last season Fozzy was playing too deep, but (and i can''t remember which home game it was) came to life and added quite a bit when he had a rush of blood, bursting into the opponents box with a flourish of stepovers.

Is it just me or is he playing even deeper atm ?...Clingan is rightly taking the plaudits for a similar job pulling the strings

...only he''s doing it better IMO.

[I beat Atalanta 0]

Pretty football pleaseI can get results from the paper

[Mr Gradgrind 0]

Prefer pretty football - at least if we lose we can say at least norwich play good passing football.

Better than hoofing it and still losing.

Either way you still need a tall striker.

[walks on water 0]

[quote user="Mr Gradgrind"]

Prefer pretty football - at least if we lose we can say at least norwich play good passing football.

Better than hoofing it and still losing.

Either way you still need a tall striker.

[/quote]

I was getting ahead of myself[8-)]

Yup, if we''re gonna lose (which we''re not [;)]) do it in a way that''s slightly more palletable... don''t really want to have a crick in my neck.

As you say, which ever way it is we need a big guy!

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"][

I haven''t been yet this season, NN? Has Fozzy been as terrible as everyone seems to think so far this season?

 

[/quote]

I don''t think he has been terrible but I also have questioned the pairing of Fozzy and Clingan. As Walks On Water pointed out they seem to be similar and both appear to like to sit deep. I like to see a player like Etuhu in the middle, an athlete who can get into the box and be dangerous.

Of course the test will come when Fozzy doesn''t play. Then we will find out if the team suffers through his absence. It certainly did last season just as we suffered through Safri''s absence before that.

 

[walks on water 0]

I know he isn''t as dominating as Etuhu , at his best/when he could be bothered , I just like Rusty (and not for the NCFC/JC sentiment)

in that role. Far more dependable than Etuhu and has a never say die attitude that I just prefer ...weighs in with goals too.

Same for Saffs re Clingan/Fozzy...fantastic player on his day, but lets face it that day wasn''t often enough.

Never forget the way he dispossessed Rooney for Leon''s goal but I prefer the overall blend we have now.

Whether it has enough in-betweenie quality, only time will tell ! 

[Mr Gradgrind 0]

I think Russell has been missing from midfield.  He always tries to go forward and burst into the box.  Alternatively Chadwick.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

You know what though, and I''ve said this many times before, if you could put Russell''s attitude and commitment into Etuhu''s athletic body you would end up with one helleuva player. Too good for the Championship that''s for sure.

Chadwick is an interesting one, I don''t know what''s gone wrong there. Is it still an injury? Time will tell I guess.

 

 

[walks on water 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

You know what though, and I''ve said this many times before, if you could put Russell''s attitude and commitment into Etuhu''s athletic body you would end up with one helleuva player. Too good for the Championship that''s for sure.

Chadwick is an interesting one, I don''t know what''s gone wrong there. Is it still an injury? Time will tell I guess.

 

 

[/quote]

I really liked Chadwick when he was at ManU,  then Wet Sham, but he looks like he''s lost it ...what ever it was that he had.

Too lightweight for his position & no pace, I just wonder if the injuries have compromised him. His build looks fragile, you can see that his control and footy brain are decent enough but gets nowhere.

Sad really, he looked awesome at Portman Road, made quite an impact before the advertising hording...almost alone that day in not disgracing himself.

 

Lets face it , if he still had it Croft wouldn''t get near the first 11