Confused

[Beauseant 0]

Unfortunately I was unable to go last night so had to tune into Radio Norfolk. From their commentary it seemed that, for much of the game, McNamee was the one bright spot in an otherwise shabby performance (until Oli''s late show) yet reading the forum this morning a few of those who went seem to be criticising him and calling for him to return to the bench. It seems that we were weak in central midfield, so surely the answer would be to make any changes there rather than removing an attacking threat? The other question is whether it''s time to rest Wes, who has done very little in recent weeks, which would allow us to retain McNamee while bringing in another midfielder?

As I said, I wasn''t there, so I''m simply posing these points as questions to those who were.

[Yellow Submarine 0]

What I felt last night was we really missed Russell. I won''t criticise Hughes, because I think he''s a quality player. But it was quite clear he was a bit rusty and off the pace last night, and he gave the ball away too easily, which darel never does.

Thought Mcnamee was a threat last night, but looks like he wants to be on the left flank more. Hoolahan was man marked our of the game last might by there number 4. Don''t know what''s best for the team really. Don''t think it can accomodate wes and ant.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

I think the problem was definitely the centre of midfield.  Neither Lappin or Hughes are the sort of players to get stuck in and tackle, let''s face it, and as a result there was very little pressure put on Southend when they had the ball.  Although neither played well at all I would like to see Hughes given another chance, because we all know he has got ability and it''s unlike him to have a really bad game, and put Smith alongside him instead of Lappin as his workrate is essential to us I feel.  I don''t think it was a total coincidence we looked better when Smith was on the field.

[AndyCanary 0]

Mcnamee was quality last night. He was everything to our game that Hoolahan is when he''s at his best.Mcnamee outclassed their defenders time and time again.Hoolahan was giving it his all last night and when he touched the ball he did well with it. Unfortunately the system wasn''t getting the best out of him. And god knows how many times I saw him raise his arms in disapointment at not getting a pass.

[Lambert is King 0]

You may have read my comments like that Beau but that wasnt what I was trying to say. I would not like Lamberts job on Saturday as yes McNamee was probably mom. However in my opinion the 442 that we tried to play was a shambles. Until Hoolahan was moved to his normal position he might as well have not been on the pitch - if he was supposed to be on the left wing I wouldnt have noticed. We were all over the place it reminded me of Colchester on the opening day difference was this time we had a goalkeeper 2 centre backs that were outstanding and R Martin covering for Doc and Nelson when we had to commit everything forward. Its fantastic getting the crosses in but if your two front men are constantly out on the wing or covering in midfield there is nobody to convert these crosses. Can you fit McNamee into the diamond - I hope so but I dont see how without leaving yourself so open. Again in my opinion what changed the game for the last 15 minutes was Hoolahan given licence to take up his normal position.

[Henry 0]

McNamee was quality last night, but the shape of the team was all over the place. Would have liked to see Wes and McNamee swap wings occasionally. Russell Martin had a good game but unfortunately Rose wasnt good enough to make up for the lack of cover in front of him. Wes And Mac can play in the same team ... i''m sure of that, but we need Drury and Russell back along with Korey in for Lappin. Someone else said that McNamee reminded them of Ruel Fox ... that was spot on.One thing i will say is that Holt and Martin didnt have great games, Wes was pretty good but unable to influence the play as much as he would like. If Norwich manage to have a collectively good game with McNamee and Wes in the side ... we are going to murder the opposition [Y]

[chicken 0]

I was hoping that they would switch flanks more than they did. McNamee was up against an 18 year old. Swapping flanks every now and then would have meant that they did the same with their full backs or that they had to keep switching who they were man marking.

[Lambert is King 0]

Hi Henry I thought in the first 15 minutes Wes and McNamee swoped wings several times however this made the shape worse. I still think McNamee does not work in the diamond and Hoolahan does not work in 442 - so it is a straight choice play the diamond and use McNamee this year as an impact player - or play 442 and leave Hoolahan out ( either way the catch 22 is leaving out the best player in the league or one of the best ). The advantages with the diamond are once we get ahead we are solid, if we go behind we can throw caution to the wind and attack with less shape. The disadvantage with 442 is our shape and the fact that if we are behind you cant really switch to a diamond. The stats last night dont really show the story as their shots 6 does not really show the last ditch tackles that had to be made. There are only 13 games left and I take the comment on board that if both Wes and McNamee play well in the same game we could destroy somebody - but are they going to do it 8 more times? McNamee being a winger will be inconsistent some days he will look a world beater others average, if he could do it every game those players are reserved for the premiership

[Henry 0]

[quote user="Lambert is King"]Hi Henry I thought in the first 15 minutes Wes and McNamee swoped wings several times however this made the shape worse. I still think McNamee does not work in the diamond and Hoolahan does not work in 442 - so it is a straight choice play the diamond and use McNamee this year as an impact player - or play 442 and leave Hoolahan out ( either way the catch 22 is leaving out the best player in the league or one of the best ). The advantages with the diamond are once we get ahead we are solid, if we go behind we can throw caution to the wind and attack with less shape. The disadvantage with 442 is our shape and the fact that if we are behind you cant really switch to a diamond. The stats last night dont really show the story as their shots 6 does not really show the last ditch tackles that had to be made. There are only 13 games left and I take the comment on board that if both Wes and McNamee play well in the same game we could destroy somebody - but are they going to do it 8 more times? McNamee being a winger will be inconsistent some days he will look a world beater others average, if he could do it every game those players are reserved for the premiership[/quote]Cant really disagree with this [Y]Lambert is really going to prove his worth until the end of the season.

[Bury Yellow 2]

I can''t see a thread elsewhere but am I the only one worried about Holty?

He looks as if he is carrying an injury. He has a marvellous touch and vision but he has not been his usual dynamic self having returned from suspension.

Surely Lambo is not playing him purely for nuisance value?

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]I can''t see a thread elsewhere but am I the only one worried about Holty? He looks as if he is carrying an injury. He has a marvellous touch and vision but he has not been his usual dynamic self having returned from suspension. Surely Lambo is not playing him purely for nuisance value?[/quote]

 

No you''re not. He''s looked very ordinary since his return, and it''s more than ring rust. His back problem has been well documented and apparently he needs a further op on his ankle in the summer. The problem is that he''s the one player for whom we don''t have a like for like replacement. Time to hit the loan market?

[ROBFLECK 132]

[quote user="Henry"]McNamee was quality last night, but the shape of the team was all over the place. Would have liked to see Wes and McNamee swap wings occasionally. Russell Martin had a good game but unfortunately Rose wasnt good enough to make up for the lack of cover in front of him. Wes And Mac can play in the same team ... i''m sure of that, but we need Drury and Russell back along with Korey in for Lappin. Someone else said that McNamee reminded them of Ruel Fox ... that was spot on.

One thing i will say is that Holt and Martin didnt have great games, Wes was pretty good but unable to influence the play as much as he would like. If Norwich manage to have a collectively good game with McNamee and Wes in the side ... we are going to murder the opposition [Y]
[/quote]

Totally agree with you Henry. Korey in for Lappin and Wes and Macnamee swapping wings regularly. We surely missed Drury didn''t we. Do you guys think Rose is up to it?

[Nuff Said 5,088]

We''ve already seen the answer.

Unfortunately, it''s Sammy Clingan. [:(]

[ZLF 271]

Holt has been poor - and must be close to being dropped.

Beau - for me the midfield simply did not work,  but more than that worked less than the diamond it replaced. Yes Lappin and Hughes were over-run but they were two players trying to cover the width of the pitch against 4 opponents. Yes both players had poor games,  but I do find it difficult to criticise too much when they are are faced with such odds.

McNamee did give us forward impetus and that part of his game was good.  I question two things about that whether that forward impetus outweighed the weakenesses that he and the formation obviously introduced to the rest of the team.  And secondly while he had a lot of time on the ball,  but the threat carried from that amount of time on the ball was not better than the lost possession from Lappin, Hughes or Hoolahan.  Yes his corner did give us the winner,  but lappins set pieces have also previously consistently given us goals,  hence his place in this seasons assists table.

McNamees reluctance to offer any defensive contribution last night also highlighted why he cannot be allowed the wide left role in a diamond.   It is that team player angle that meant a score for McNamees 96 mins team performance only being a 5 for me;  had I scored him on attacking play yes he may have got a 7 - but the quality really was not there for it to be more.     Replace him in the hole for Hoolahan maybe,  but not the wide left slot.

 

 

[ZLF 271]

[quote user="Nuff Said"]it''s Sammy Clingan. [:(]
[/quote]

The player last season who failed to track midfielder runners into the box and so directly lead to so many goals conceeded.

The main problem last night was the 11 players asked to perform 442,  not the 2 individuals chosen to be central midfield.

[Bury Yellow 2]

I totally agree Beau that a loan to back up Holt is a ''must have'' now.

In Lambo and McNasty I trust !!

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

Holt has been poor - and must be close to being dropped.

Beau - for me the midfield simply did not work,  but more than that worked less than the diamond it replaced. Yes Lappin and Hughes were over-run but they were two players trying to cover the width of the pitch against 4 opponents. Yes both players had poor games,  but I do find it difficult to criticise too much when they are are faced with such odds.

McNamee did give us forward impetus and that part of his game was good.  I question two things about that whether that forward impetus outweighed the weakenesses that he and the formation obviously introduced to the rest of the team.  And secondly while he had a lot of time on the ball,  but the threat carried from that amount of time on the ball was not better than the lost possession from Lappin, Hughes or Hoolahan.  Yes his corner did give us the winner,  but lappins set pieces have also previously consistently given us goals,  hence his place in this seasons assists table.

McNamees reluctance to offer any defensive contribution last night also highlighted why he cannot be allowed the wide left role in a diamond.   It is that team player angle that meant a score for McNamees 96 mins team performance only being a 5 for me;  had I scored him on attacking play yes he may have got a 7 - but the quality really was not there for it to be more.     Replace him in the hole for Hoolahan maybe,  but not the wide left slot.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Interesting comments Zipper. I was worried when I heard that Hughes and Lappin were going to be the centre pairing because neither could be described as a ball winner, and so it proved. Unfortunately in a 4-4-2 if you lose centre midfield you usually lose the game. It would be interesting to see how it would work with Korey and Rusty as the middle two . I take the point that you''ve made elsewhere about the wide players covering the fullbacks, but I think that this once again comes back to the centre of midfield, in that, if you get enough possession the opposing fullbacks don''t get forward much because they are tied up with your wide players.

However, given the personnel currently available I would have to say that  we may have to revert to the diamond. I personally would rest Wes and let McNamee have a free role, but I really think that  Lappin should be replaced.