Why no Subs made?

[Marty 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]I don''t think that there was any need to, the game was still there for us and if we brought someone on, it would have unbalanced a good performance, he brought on Gill to sure up the midfield.[/quote]

Shows how much you know... that Leeds goal was coming for 10 to 15 mins before it arrived and nothing was done by our bench to prevent it.

[/quote]

just like our goal was coming for the previous 30 mins! the last 15 mins were very open and both teams could have scored, whilst Leeds got back into it more we still made good attacks. So one school of thought is to stick with the team that had played well for 75 mins, why risk change? we could have won that game, it''s easy in hindsight to complain because of a freak goal in the 92 minute, but I wouldn''t expect anything else from you.

[Barclay hero 0]

Smudger - like some of the others I dont usually agree with what you say but tonight''s assessment is fairly spot-on

I think the turning point was Leed''s last Sub - the lad looked sharp, was a constant threat in a way that Beckford, Snodgrass etc hadnt really achieved for the first 80 minutes. Rusty was starting to do his usual headless chicken routine and we could easily have been down to 10, thankfully he shut his trap just in time. Whether Gill was the best option - probably not but Lambert probably thought it was petering out to a 1-1 draw and it was a couple of minutes runout

Defenders were just as much to blame for the goal as the keeper - as the commentator said on Sky, you dont turn your back on a goal kick - you watch the ball go (hopefully) over your head and THEN you turn. I think there was a warning from Askou when he nearly switched off 2 minutes beforehand and it was mainly a sign that the CBs were getting tired.

That said I can understand why Lambert didnt change the defence or sub Forster - it often disrupts a side and you dont want to do that in the last 5 minutes against Beckford. Forster also made a good save a couple of minutes before the goal

All in all a gutting result and we''re probably going to have ''The Duke'' back to gloat. That said in 2 games we''ve lost under Lambert we''ve played pretty well for 80% and I think we''ll be OK at the end of the season. I think Leeds will go up this year, and it will be between us and Charlton for the other spot

[Barclay hero 0]

Marty -- nice pair of Chinchillas by the way......

[Marty 0]

[quote user="Barclay hero"]Marty -- nice pair of Chinchillas by the way......[/quote]

 

how dare you, they''re my cavies.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Marty"][quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]I don''t think that there was any need to, the game was still there for us and if we brought someone on, it would have unbalanced a good performance, he brought on Gill to sure up the midfield.[/quote]

Shows how much you know... that Leeds goal was coming for 10 to 15 mins before it arrived and nothing was done by our bench to prevent it.

[/quote]

just like our goal was coming for the previous 30 mins! the last 15 mins were very open and both teams could have scored, whilst Leeds got back into it more we still made good attacks. So one school of thought is to stick with the team that had played well for 75 mins, why risk change? we could have won that game, it''s easy in hindsight to complain because of a freak goal in the 92 minute, but I wouldn''t expect anything else from you.

[/quote]

Hardly a freak goal... Leeds had 3 or 4 clear cut chances in the last 10 to 15 mins or so... better chances than we had crated through the entire match.

If it wasn''t for Holt we looked completely toothless upfront!

[Barclay hero 0]

[quote user="Marty"]

[quote user="Barclay hero"]Marty -- nice pair of Chinchillas by the way......[/quote]

 

how dare you, they''re my cavies.

[/quote]

Lol - I can see that now. I''d make a comment about not being able to see properly cos my screen needed a wipe but decided that sounded more dodgy than a Forster goal kick....

Very cute!!!!

[Mr Grumpy 0]

I was at the game & it was very clear that the fresh legs gave Leeds the edge. We''d put so much effort into the 2nd half that the players were shot to bits & we needed subs just to compete. Said it to my mate 10 mins before the end. Problem was they''d played so well, so who to take off? We needed bite in midfield but didn''t realy have anything in reserve.

Oh, & I blame Forster for both goals.

[Baldyboy 0]

hate to agree with you smudger, but i agree cody for martin and adayemi for lappin i would have made with 15 left at least. i think lambert made an error of judgement there thats all. also, why does he never have a defender on the bench? i know w e are short but surely stephens or wiggins should be on the bench at least.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="baldyboy"]hate to agree with you smudger, but i agree cody for martin and adayemi for lappin i would have made with 15 left at least. i think lambert made an error of judgement there thats all. also, why does he never have a defender on the bench? i know w e are short but surely stephens or wiggins should be on the bench at least.[/quote]

I agree that Cody should of come on for Martin as we really needed some pace upfront at that stage.  Lappin is maybe a good call also, although I would probably of withdrawn Hoolahan, as I felt we were giving the ball away far too much at this stage and should of changed formation to a 4-4-2 if we were going to leave Russell on the pitch, as he clearly needed some help since picking up his card and getting involved in another couple of scuffles.

The problem that Lambert had however and which I can understand, is that with a couple of injuries we maybe didn''t have enough quality on the bench last night for him to feel comfortable making the changes which would of benefited the team.  Until Lambert addresses the issue of the board holding back any finances to strengthen our squad then he is in danger of all his hard work being undone.  Another defeat and all of a sudden this great honeymoon period of Lambert''s is not starting to look so good at all.  I am a fan of Lambert''s and was never a fan of Roeder, but look how good Roeder''s run of results was when he first came in.

As I have pointed out very early, unless Lambert tackles those in the boardroom then he walks a tightrope of whether his career as manager of NCFC will be a success or a failure in my opinion.

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="baldyboy"]hate to agree with you smudger, but i agree cody for martin and adayemi for lappin i would have made with 15 left at least. i think lambert made an error of judgement there thats all. also, why does he never have a defender on the bench? i know w e are short but surely stephens or wiggins should be on the bench at least.[/quote]

I agree that Cody should of come on for Martin as we really needed some pace upfront at that stage.  Lappin is maybe a good call also, although I would probably of withdrawn Hoolahan, as I felt we were giving the ball away far too much at this stage and should of changed formation to a 4-4-2 if we were going to leave Russell on the pitch, as he clearly needed some help since picking up his card and getting involved in another couple of scuffles.

The problem that Lambert had however and which I can understand, is that with a couple of injuries we maybe didn''t have enough quality on the bench last night for him to feel comfortable making the changes which would of benefited the team.  Until Lambert addresses the issue of the board holding back any finances to strengthen our squad then he is in danger of all his hard work being undone.  Another defeat and all of a sudden this great honeymoon period of Lambert''s is not starting to look so good at all.  I am a fan of Lambert''s and was never a fan of Roeder, but look how good Roeder''s run of results was when he first came in.

As I have pointed out very early, unless Lambert tackles those in the boardroom then he walks a tightrope of whether his career as manager of NCFC will be a success or a failure in my opinion.

[/quote]

Smudger, you''re about two years ahead of most people on this board. Hopefully, those who count will sit up and take note of what you say.

[Lambo 0]

The only thing your wrong about here Smudge is that Wes Hoolahan DID infact have a shot on target ;)

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Lambo"]The only thing your wrong about here Smudge is that Wes Hoolahan DID infact have a shot on target ;)[/quote]

Yeah I know Lambo... I forgot all about his first half back pass when he should of smashed it in from about 12 yards out... [;)]

[Lambo 0]

Haha, it was a bloody tame effort to be fair, should have been 2-0 up between him and Rusty, although if Rusty''s had gone anywhere but the keeper he''d have scored.

[paul ncfc 0]

I think if we had someone with the quality of Gradel on the bench he would have changed it , bit surprised not to see Cody but Lambert obviously is not convinced by him.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="baldyboy"]hate to agree with you smudger, but i agree cody for martin and adayemi for lappin i would have made with 15 left at least. i think lambert made an error of judgement there thats all. also, why does he never have a defender on the bench? i know w e are short but surely stephens or wiggins should be on the bench at least.[/quote]

I agree that Cody should of come on for Martin as we really needed some pace upfront at that stage.  Lappin is maybe a good call also, although I would probably of withdrawn Hoolahan, as I felt we were giving the ball away far too much at this stage and should of changed formation to a 4-4-2 if we were going to leave Russell on the pitch, as he clearly needed some help since picking up his card and getting involved in another couple of scuffles.

The problem that Lambert had however and which I can understand, is that with a couple of injuries we maybe didn''t have enough quality on the bench last night for him to feel comfortable making the changes which would of benefited the team.  Until Lambert addresses the issue of the board holding back any finances to strengthen our squad then he is in danger of all his hard work being undone.  Another defeat and all of a sudden this great honeymoon period of Lambert''s is not starting to look so good at all.  I am a fan of Lambert''s and was never a fan of Roeder, but look how good Roeder''s run of results was when he first came in.

As I have pointed out very early, unless Lambert tackles those in the boardroom then he walks a tightrope of whether his career as manager of NCFC will be a success or a failure in my opinion.

[/quote] Smudger, you''re about two years ahead of most people on this board. Hopefully, those who count will sit up and take note of what you say.[/quote]

It is very difficult being so revolutionary and ahead of your time... [;)]

We may manage to be promoted through the play-off''s, but I believe that there are at least 3 better teams than us and that we will be very lucky indeed to win promotion unless Lambert is able to add to the squad he currently has.

[Lambo 0]

Who''re the 3 Smudge if you don''t mind me asking??

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Lambo"]Who''re the 3 Smudge if you don''t mind me asking??[/quote]

I think Leeds are going to win it... then I fancy one out of either Charlton, MK Dons or Colchester for 2nd spot with the other two being difficult sides for us to beat in the play-offs unless we stenghthen our squad.  I also see Millwall who have started to improve recently being there or thereabouts and would not be surprised to see Southend (if they can hang on to Barnard) or Southampton possibly gatecrashing the play-off party late on.

I can''t see Bristol Rovers making the play-offs and so far they are the only team we have beaten in the top 6.  I think as things stand we would be lucky to finish in 5th or 6th (with that being by no means guaranteed) and that the Play-Offs would be a complete lottery.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Hate to say it but there is very little that I can disagree with from Smudger. A good reading of the game pretty well the way I saw it.

The only difference of opinion is that perhaps some of the players that were brought in during the close season could well surprise some people. Am I the only one to see improvement in other players under this regime? Fair enough I feel there are some pretty poor players who have joined us recently but I also have a sneaking feeling that one or two may make people change their opinions and turn out OK

[O.T.B.C 0]

Taking my angry and argumentive head off, I actually have looked back and we should have made some subs, I was adament last night that we could have won it, but a Cody or Adeyemi in the latter parts would have spiced things up. Still wouldn''t have stopped the freak goal, I also thought that we dropped to deep and were hoofing it up to Holt, who, in my eyes, is not the best holding the ball up with his back to the goal.

[shefcanary 2,383]

Well done Smudge - spot on throughout for once. See what can happen when you concentrate on the football on the pitch.

The diamond worked well for the first 70 minutes, but the midfield and Martin were dead on the feet by then. This was because Leeds got narow as well and crowded us out. THen Grayson played the master stroke of putting Gradel on who gave them width and an outlet. We could have got away with probably only one sub, if that player had been a wide man like Gradel and as Smudge said we moved to a 4-4-2.

I was in the Leeds Corporate Hospitality (there were at least 20 Norwich fans in there - boy did their MC enjoy that!) and after the match they gave Gradel the man of the match award. For TEN minutes on the pitch - that would have made Beckham wince - but hey it''s a squad game and perhaps last night we didn''t have a full one. But that''s one for Board bashing ey Smudge?

[Ole 0]

Totally agree with Smudger that subs should have been used.

[Lambo 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Lambo"]Who''re the 3 Smudge if you don''t mind me asking??[/quote]

I think Leeds are going to win it... then I fancy one out of either Charlton, MK Dons or Colchester for 2nd spot with the other two being difficult sides for us to beat in the play-offs unless we stenghthen our squad.  I also see Millwall who have started to improve recently being there or thereabouts and would not be surprised to see Southend (if they can hang on to Barnard) or Southampton possibly gatecrashing the play-off party late on.

I can''t see Bristol Rovers making the play-offs and so far they are the only team we have beaten in the top 6.  I think as things stand we would be lucky to finish in 5th or 6th (with that being by no means guaranteed) and that the Play-Offs would be a complete lottery.

[/quote]

 

I agree with what your saying in some ways, but I also think we''re capable of giving any of those sides a game at the same time. I don''t think we need to be afraid of any side in this division but we do definately need to bring in 3 or 4 players so we have a squad capable of challenging rather than a starting 11 capable.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Lambo"][quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Lambo"]Who''re the 3 Smudge if you don''t mind me asking??[/quote]

I think Leeds are going to win it... then I fancy one out of either Charlton, MK Dons or Colchester for 2nd spot with the other two being difficult sides for us to beat in the play-offs unless we stenghthen our squad.  I also see Millwall who have started to improve recently being there or thereabouts and would not be surprised to see Southend (if they can hang on to Barnard) or Southampton possibly gatecrashing the play-off party late on.

I can''t see Bristol Rovers making the play-offs and so far they are the only team we have beaten in the top 6.  I think as things stand we would be lucky to finish in 5th or 6th (with that being by no means guaranteed) and that the Play-Offs would be a complete lottery.

[/quote]

 

I agree with what your saying in some ways, but I also think we''re capable of giving any of those sides a game at the same time. I don''t think we need to be afraid of any side in this division but we do definately need to bring in 3 or 4 players so we have a squad capable of challenging rather than a starting 11 capable.

[/quote]

Nice to see that a few of the more clever posters pick up on this.

Our first choice 11 is certainly in with a shout of promotion and capable of beating any side in this division on their day.

It is however a long hard league season where we need to be prepared for injuries, suspensions and the like.  Instead those in the boardroom and many of our supporters seem willing to see if we can STRIKE IT LUCKY!

Have they not learnt by now that unless we have a squad which is capable of challenging for promotion that we are playiug a very risky game indeed along with a handful of other clubs?

Leeds had an injury to Becchio and bring in Vokes and Gradel on loan despite having a squad which probably has slightly more in depth than what we do.  We on the other hand can''t even manage to raise £100k to sign a young defender who is likely to go for more at the end of the season if his contract is allowed to expire.

How many times have we heard the CITY ARE UNLUCKY STORY?  We still hear some fans claiming we were unlucky to be relegated.  You make your own luck over the course of a 9 month (46 game) football season.