Norwich vs Burnley live match chat thread!!

[Downloads 35]

[quote user="Henry"]The reason we are losing is because for once ... Paul Lambert got it badly wrong today. It happens [:(]
[/quote]

 

I don''t necessarily think he did, we just don''t have any strikers that are full of confidence.

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

I had our trips to Burnley, Leeds, Swansea and Portsmouth down as defeats.

We''re still 3rd people :)

[Baldyboy 0]

we should have gone for Fryatt before he went to Hull!!

[ncfcfan 0]

Twice Lambert has changed tactics, today and away at Doncaster, we''ve lost both times. I hope Lambert has learnt from this.

[city-till-i-die 7]

[quote user="baldyboy"]we badly need a partner for Holt!!
[/quote]yep totally agree

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

Disappointing but was always gonna be a tough game. Glad we were in this together peeps.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Does Lambert sometimes experiment too much first half?  Certainly not a criticism of Lambert, but I think sometimes he does.  It''s not surprising we often perform worse and perform worse and sometimes perform badly, and struggle to score in the first half.  We can''t always rely on a stellar second half performance and with our strikers on a barren run, we have been found short today.

 

We played really well second half and had many passages of excellent play, where we should have scored another.

[Nuff Said 5,142]

You can''t win them all, we just need to learn the lessons from this one. Like the fact we were all over them before Lansbury went off for Wilbraham. Nothing against him, we were just more effective with Lansbury.

[ricardo 7,395]

Very poor defending that should have been at least a point.I don''t understand the Lansbury Wilbraham sub.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

Glad I got a slice of cake from the baker''s today to cheer me up [^]

[spencer 1970 207]

agreed. losing is painful but it hasnt happened too many times away has it.

personally I couldnt see why AW replaced Henri L? It made us lose our shape that was working well.

[Morisons Prozac 0]

[quote user="ncfcfan"]Wilbraham is dreadful, he makes Jackson look good.
[/quote]

Oh f*ck off you c*nt you obviously know nothing about football, Wilbraham has been involved in so many of our goals this year and if you were watching the game you would have seenthe brilliant ball he played for Chrissy Martin to send him through but he took an awful touch to push the ball way wide of the goal. Yes he was at fault for the goal but that''s why he is not a defender.

Now Barnett was shocking today.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="city-till-i-die"][quote user="baldyboy"]we badly need a partner for Holt!!
[/quote]yep totally agree[/quote]

 

No, not that sort of partner City Angel[;)]

[Guest]

[quote user="ricardo"]Very poor defending that should have been at least a point.I don''t understand the Lansbury Wilbraham sub.[/quote]Lansbury wasn''t influential today. I though Wilbraham did well today, put Chrissy clean through who should have done batter.

[manbearpig 0]

lambert certainly got it wrong for the first half and we definatly need a striker asap! we havent been on top of our game for 4 games now and if we dont bring someone in i can honestly see us droppin out the top 6 cos there are teams with games in hand and i fancy leicester to get in instead of us! 

[John 0]

On a different day Wilbraham would have set up 2 goals, and we''d of won the game.Unfortunately Burnley have a very tenacious defence, and Martin''s finishing, on that evidence, is looking more than questionable.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

[quote user="city-till-i-die"][quote user="baldyboy"]we badly need a partner for Holt!![/quote]yep totally agree[/quote]

 

No, not that sort of partner City Angel[;)]

[/quote]How did CA get involved in that? ^^  [*-)]

[Excited Canary 19]

Nevermind, never do well at Turf Moor. Still 3rd, and what a fucking goal by Holty!

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

At least Holty got a goal - should help him - and we made plenty of chances second half.

[LukeCampbell 0]

Got to say that Lambert didn''t get it right today, and it cost us.Tactics in the first half were wrongBringing Wilbraham on just brought them on to usReferee didn''t help either; Burnley seemed to get many of the 50/50 decisions, but Lambert is the main reason we lost.

[Baldyboy 0]

judging from whats been said on here today by various people it is soo obvious we need a striker on loan as Martin , Jackson and Wilbraham are clearly devoid of any confidence in front of goal!!!

[John 0]

[quote user="I.S."][quote user="ricardo"]Very poor defending that should have been at least a point.I don''t understand the Lansbury Wilbraham sub.[/quote]Lansbury wasn''t influential today. I though Wilbraham did well today, put Chrissy clean through who should have done batter.[/quote]Henri''s set pieces were shockingly abysmal, and i didn''t notice any key passes or game changing moments from a very ordinary performance by Lansbury.Wilbraham''s pass across the face of goal could of led to so much more, only if it were a few inches higher. I think the stats, accompanied with providing what was arguably our 2 best chances of the game, go to show what a vital role he can play.Ricardo made his mind up on Aaron a long time ago, as many others have i should imagine (as unfortunate as it may be).

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="baldyboy"]judging from whats been said on here today by various people it is soo obvious we need a striker on loan as Martin , Jackson and Wilbraham are clearly devoid of any confidence in front of goal!!![/quote]A least Martin brought the keeper into action a couple of times and was involved in some good link up play.Jackson, Oh dear, just not this grade. Tripped over a match stick more than once.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="John"][quote user="I.S."][quote user="ricardo"]Very poor defending that should have been at least a point.I don''t understand the Lansbury Wilbraham sub.[/quote]Lansbury wasn''t influential today. I though Wilbraham did well today, put Chrissy clean through who should have done batter.[/quote]Henri''s set pieces were shockingly abysmal, and i didn''t notice any key passes or game changing moments from a very ordinary performance by Lansbury.Wilbraham''s pass across the face of goal could of led to so much more, only if it were a few inches higher. I think the stats, accompanied with providing what was arguably our 2 best chances of the game, go to show what a vital role he can play.Ricardo made his mind up on Aaron a long time ago, as many others have i should imagine (as unfortunate as it may be).[/quote]

Indeed I have John.You get what you pay for

[Baldyboy 0]

judging from the you get what you paid for the strikers quote thats why they are so bad then is it Ricardo? i.e, Martin cost nothing, Wilbraham, 150k allegedly and Jackson 600k! the problems also stem from a lack of service for the strikers, although from what I gather Martin got that today and as hes soo good in everybodys opinion why did he fail to score also?

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

baldyboy - how did Martin cost nothing? Lads do not come through the Academy for free.Unless you mean no transfer fee, which is slightly different to costing nothing. Sorry to split hairs....

[John 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="John"][quote user="I.S."][quote user="ricardo"]Very poor defending that should have been at least a point.I don''t understand the Lansbury Wilbraham sub.[/quote]Lansbury wasn''t influential today. I though Wilbraham did well today, put Chrissy clean through who should have done batter.[/quote]Henri''s set pieces were shockingly abysmal, and i didn''t notice any key passes or game changing moments from a very ordinary performance by Lansbury.Wilbraham''s pass across the face of goal could of led to so much more, only if it were a few inches higher. I think the stats, accompanied with providing what was arguably our 2 best chances of the game, go to show what a vital role he can play.Ricardo made his mind up on Aaron a long time ago, as many others have i should imagine (as unfortunate as it may be).[/quote]

Indeed I have John.You get what you pay for[/quote]Now i''m afraid THIS strikes me as totally unfounded, and perhaps one of the bigger hiccups on your part in this particular debate.Try telling that to Arsenal (£8 Million - Francis Jeffers), Chelsea, (£30 Million - Shevshenko, £10 Million - Sutton), Manchester United (£28 Million - Veron), Middlesborough (£12 Million - Alves), and Liverpool (£20 Million - Keane).I think it''s safe to say we''ve got more than 200k''s worth out of Crofts, 400k out of Holt, and i here the fee''s paid for the likes of Martin, Barnett and Fox were minimal. I also doubt £250k on Tudur-Jones was well spent, and Jackson, considering the kind of criticism you and others have given him, is surely 600k well spent then? Otherwise you''d all be walking inadvertently into some kind of mega cataclysmic paradox.So much as a cursory glance at footballing history, and you''ll see that statement is patently not true, and anything said contrary to that is utterly naive by my reckoning. Many great players to have hit the centre stage haven''t come out of the academy, or been paid huge fee''s to have been acquired.

[Baldyboy 0]

thats exactly what I mean so then if we have invested so much money in him why is he so poor at the moment?also then by that NOBODY is free as you have to pay wages for everybody, some more than others and I reckon Martin is paid more than Jackson and Wilbraham too!

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="John"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="John"][quote user="I.S."][quote user="ricardo"]Very poor defending that should have been at least a point.I don''t understand the Lansbury Wilbraham sub.[/quote]Lansbury wasn''t influential today. I though Wilbraham did well today, put Chrissy clean through who should have done batter.[/quote]Henri''s set pieces were shockingly abysmal, and i didn''t notice any key passes or game changing moments from a very ordinary performance by Lansbury.Wilbraham''s pass across the face of goal could of led to so much more, only if it were a few inches higher. I think the stats, accompanied with providing what was arguably our 2 best chances of the game, go to show what a vital role he can play.Ricardo made his mind up on Aaron a long time ago, as many others have i should imagine (as unfortunate as it may be).[/quote]

Indeed I have John.You get what you pay for[/quote]Now i''m afraid THIS strikes me as totally unfounded, and perhaps one of the bigger hiccups on your part in this particular debate.Try telling that to Arsenal (£8 Million - Francis Jeffers), Chelsea, (£30 Million - Shevshenko, £10 Million - Sutton), Manchester United (£28 Million - Veron), Middlesborough (£12 Million - Alves), and Liverpool (£20 Million - Keane).I think it''s safe to say we''ve got more than 200k''s worth out of Crofts, 400k out of Holt, and i here the fee''s paid for the likes of Martin, Barnett and Fox were minimal. I also doubt £250k on Tudur-Jones was well spent, and Jackson, considering the kind of criticism you and others have given him, is surely 600k well spent then? Otherwise you''d all be walking inadvertently into some kind of mega cataclysmic paradox.So much as a cursory glance at footballing history, and you''ll see that statement is patently not true, and anything said contrary to that is utterly naive by my reckoning. Many great players to have hit the centre stage haven''t come out of the academy, or been paid huge fee''s to have been acquired.[/quote]So what cheapo 31 yr olds have ever been a revelation in the higher leagues. Willers is not going to turn into a world beater no matter how much you may want him too. At 31 he is totally exposed, he''s a third tier striker and thats the long and short of it.As for Jackson, £600k would have been a decent price if he had shown any sign of performing at this level. We took the chance and he just didn''t make the step up did he? It was worth a gamble but it didn''t pay off.

[John 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="John"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="John"][quote user="I.S."][quote user="ricardo"]Very poor defending that should have been at least a point.I don''t understand the Lansbury Wilbraham sub.[/quote]Lansbury wasn''t influential today. I though Wilbraham did well today, put Chrissy clean through who should have done batter.[/quote]Henri''s set pieces were shockingly abysmal, and i didn''t notice any key passes or game changing moments from a very ordinary performance by Lansbury.Wilbraham''s pass across the face of goal could of led to so much more, only if it were a few inches higher. I think the stats, accompanied with providing what was arguably our 2 best chances of the game, go to show what a vital role he can play.Ricardo made his mind up on Aaron a long time ago, as many others have i should imagine (as unfortunate as it may be).[/quote]

Indeed I have John.You get what you pay for[/quote]Now i''m afraid THIS strikes me as totally unfounded, and perhaps one of the bigger hiccups on your part in this particular debate.Try telling that to Arsenal (£8 Million - Francis Jeffers), Chelsea, (£30 Million - Shevshenko, £10 Million - Sutton), Manchester United (£28 Million - Veron), Middlesborough (£12 Million - Alves), and Liverpool (£20 Million - Keane).I think it''s safe to say we''ve got more than 200k''s worth out of Crofts, 400k out of Holt, and i here the fee''s paid for the likes of Martin, Barnett and Fox were minimal. I also doubt £250k on Tudur-Jones was well spent, and Jackson, considering the kind of criticism you and others have given him, is surely 600k well spent then? Otherwise you''d all be walking inadvertently into some kind of mega cataclysmic paradox.So much as a cursory glance at footballing history, and you''ll see that statement is patently not true, and anything said contrary to that is utterly naive by my reckoning. Many great players to have hit the centre stage haven''t come out of the academy, or been paid huge fee''s to have been acquired.[/quote]So what cheapo 31 yr olds have ever been a revelation in the higher leagues. Willers is not going to turn into a world beater no matter how much you may want him too. At 31 he is totally exposed, he''s a third tier striker and thats the long and short of it.As for Jackson, £600k would have been a decent price if he had shown any sign of performing at this level. We took the chance and he just didn''t make the step up did he? It was worth a gamble but it didn''t pay off.[/quote]Never said Wilbraham was a world beater. Not by any stretch of the imagination mate.Iwelumo and Scotland were near enough 31, having been bought on the cheap. Their records after that in this League speak for themselves. If football is a team game, stats do also suggest Wilbraham has been a success of sorts in the short time he''s been on the pitch. And he''s been unlucky that all too many of the chances he''s set-up have been fluffed by a strike force severely lacking in confidence.As for Jackson, all i can say is football fans are so earnest to pass judgement. I''m just thankful they have no bearing on the judgement of the better professionals in the game (and i''m sincerely hoping Lambert is one of them).