Adding fuel to the fire...............

[Ernie 0]

I know in some quarters I have got some stick for my views and thats fine I''m all for open and sensible dicussions, but todays excellent result proves how much reliance we have on the rest of the team to score goals apart from our strikers.  Lambert''s team selection today was definately using our best players available and fitting them into a system thats works eg; Crofts and Fox in the same line up when you still want to be able to play Surman and Lansbury with Hoolahan just off Holt. We have done brilliantly to be where we are now and have been most of the season but fingers crossed I hope we can still get that proven goal scorer in because I really believe that would complete Norwich as a force for promotion.  I''ll get my coat........

[Robert N. LiM 4,313]

So that presumably means we have to sign a striker who''s so good that including him means dropping one of Lansbury, Wes or Surman.

This is not meant as a dig at you - quite the reverse in fact. I''m sure all of us would like us to sign a top quality Championship striker.

But there''s no point in us signing someone unless he demonstrably improves our squad.

[Ernie 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]So that presumably means we have to sign a striker who''s so good that including him means dropping one of Lansbury, Wes or Surman. This is not meant as a dig at you - quite the reverse in fact. I''m sure all of us would like us to sign a top quality Championship striker. But there''s no point in us signing someone unless he demonstrably improves our squad.[/quote]

That''s the rub, totally agree needs to be a quality signing.  If it did happen I would keep all 3 above put crofts back in the holding roll and drop Fox to make room, harsh I know, but it would still give us so many options to change things around if it wasn''t working out.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Ernie"]I know in some quarters I have got some stick for my views and thats fine I''m all for open and sensible dicussions, but todays excellent result proves how much reliance we have on the rest of the team to score goals apart from our strikers.  [/quote]But when have teams only ever expected strikers to score the goals?  I struggle with your opinion a bit, to be honest.  The fact that our midfield contribute so many goals to the cause is something to be valued and applauded, not a mitigant to any issues with strikers scoring.Look, we could have two strikers both on 20 goals each, and if opposition teams started playing 5 at the back to keep them quiet, we''d be screwed.  The fact we can score from anywhere, and our midfield chip in with large numbers of goals, surely makes us a more difficult team to play against than it would if we had two up front who were banging them in and little else?

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Ernie"]I know in some quarters I have got some stick for my views and thats fine I''m all for open and sensible dicussions, but todays excellent result proves how much reliance we have on the rest of the team to score goals apart from our strikers.  [/quote]But when have teams only ever expected strikers to score the goals?  I struggle with your opinion a bit, to be honest.  The fact that our midfield contribute so many goals to the cause is something to be valued and applauded, not a mitigant to any issues with strikers scoring.Look, we could have two strikers both on 20 goals each, and if opposition teams started playing 5 at the back to keep them quiet, we''d be screwed.  The fact we can score from anywhere, and our midfield chip in with large numbers of goals, surely makes us a more difficult team to play against than it would if we had two up front who were banging them in and little else?

[Ernie 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Ernie"]I know in some quarters I have got some stick for my views and thats fine I''m all for open and sensible dicussions, but todays excellent result proves how much reliance we have on the rest of the team to score goals apart from our strikers.  [/quote]

But when have teams only ever expected strikers to score the goals?  I struggle with your opinion a bit, to be honest.  The fact that our midfield contribute so many goals to the cause is something to be valued and applauded, not a mitigant to any issues with strikers scoring.

Look, we could have two strikers both on 20 goals each, and if opposition teams started playing 5 at the back to keep them quiet, we''d be screwed.  The fact we can score from anywhere, and our midfield chip in with large numbers of goals, surely makes us a more difficult team to play against than it would if we had two up front who were banging them in and little else?


[/quote]

I agree I believe its an added bonus that the rest of the team is chipping in with goals which is something we have missed in the past and long may it continue, but that doesn''t change the fact we have only one striker that can score.  Without Holt what do we have left?  What if we signed another striker capable of scoring 15 goals a season, where would that leave us then?  Automatic promotion?

[chicken 0]

I have heard loads of times from different corners of the footballing spectrum, targets normally set in terms of goals scored.

It tends to go a bit like this (and these are totals, not per player):

Strikers: 40+ goals a season from your strikers

Midfield: 20+ from your midfielders.

Defence: Around 10+ goals from your defence.

That gives you around 70+ goals a season. Thats the aim.

At the moment comparatively speaking we are not that bad in terms of goals scored.

We have 54 goals.

Cardiff have 55.

QPR have 56.

Watford have 59.

Leeds have 62.

They are the only teams better than us in terms of goals scored. Obviously Leeds and Watford have worse defensive records. It''s not a matter of how many goals you score, it''s how many games you win. At times this season it has been our defence that has let us down.

Goals conceeded - 42.

Leeds have conceeded 55.

No one else in the top six has conceeded more. There are four teams outside of the top six that have conceeded less than us, and a few others that are around what we have conceeded.

So I would argue that a failure to keep clean sheets or to be more difficult to score against could be deemed the biggest problem. However I think that is sorted to some extent. Looking back at games where we have conceeded you look to the Shef Utd home game where they scored 2 goals.

Fact of the matter is that so far this season we are in the top 6 for scoring goals but not in the top 6 at keeping them out.

I think a few things have come down to that. Firstly we have practically had a brand new defence this season and it has taken a while to settle. Secondly our style of play can leave us open at times.

I would love us to have a ''proven'' goalscorer to come in but where are they? All of the players I have seen bandied around are far from proven.

People go on about Crouch and Huckerby as if that is something that could easily be replicated. The fact is it isn''t. The Huckerby''s of this world are unique, we were incredibly lucky to get Huckerby, we were then just as lucky that our love for him won him over and made him fight against his agent to stay.

It''s almost a different game again now. Back then promotion was said to be worth around £20million. With the changes to parachute payments that is up to around £40million now at least.

[milehighcanary 0]

Good point, chicken. I have to admit that I hadn''t looked at it from that end of the field.As you say, we do seem to be banging the goals in from all over the field and have scored just as many as the other top 6 teams. But as you have identified, we haven''t kept the clean sheets at the other end.I noticed QPRs gd is what, +36? And not because they''ve scored so many more, but because they don''t leak goals.Thanks for that added perspective.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

Todays formation droping the good at holding tghe ball up but overall not good enough Wilbraham for the clasy Surman and pushing Hoolahan further up front seemed to work a treat!

But a decent striker on loan could still give us an extra edge even if he has to start on the bench!

[O.T.B.C 0]

Radio 5 said today that you don''t need a striker who gets 20 goals if your midfield gets lots..

[blahblahblah 2]

QPR Taarabt 14, Mackie 9, Helguson 8, Smith 5, Gorkss 3, 5 players 2, 4 players 1SwanseaSinclair 14, Pratley 7, Dobbie 5, Beattie 4, 5 players 2, 5 players 1Norwich Holt 13, Hoolahan 9, Crofts 6, Martin 4, Jackson 4, Martin 4, Lansbury 3, Nelson 2, 4 players 1.CardiffBothroyd 15, Chopra 8, Bellamy 8, Whittingham 6, Olofinjana 5, 3 players 2, 4 players 1ForestMcGugan 11, Earnshaw 6, Blackstock 5, Tudgay 5, Chambers 3, 3 players 2, 6 players 1.LeedsBecchio 15, Gradel 12, Somma 11, Howson 7, Snodgrass 6, Johnson 5, Sam 2, 4 players 1WatfordTop ScorersGraham    Watford    16Becchio    Leeds    15Bothroyd    Cardiff    15Long    Reading    14Sinclair    Swansea    14Taarabt    QPR    14Holt    Norwich    13King    Leicester    13Gradel    Leeds    12Sharp    Doncaster    12Iwelumo    Burnley    11McGugan    Nott''m Forest    11Morison    Millwall    11Somma    Leeds    11Pitman    Bristol City    10The top scorer plays for the 12th team in the league.  50 k a week Bellamy has scored 8, and Rob Earnshaw, who has moved for over 10 million pounds worth of fees, has scored 8.  Leeds have 3 players with more than 10 goals, but find themselves in 6th because they let a lot in.  With strikers, it seems to me that you can easily spend a lot of money and get not much back.  Also seems to me that the teams in the top 6 score from all over the pitch, but the teams in the top 2 also tend to be the teams who defend best.

[chicken 0]

And there you have the problem. Do you think that Huckerby would have come just to sit on the bench? Not on your nelly.

As for holding up the ball, I think Wes can do that well enough believe it or not. At least we know we will get ball retention with him with the form he is in.

Sadly it''s going to be games like loosing to Watford on the opening day of the season or drawing with Doncaster that will be the ones we look to if we don''t quite cut it.

You look at some of our home losses, Watford, Palace, Portsmouth and even the win against Shef Untd, we had out a weakened defence. Its harsh to say that with the Portsmouth game as it was Lappin and I like Lappin.

However Nelson or Askou were starters in the other games and its not exactly a trend but it does show that we have struggled at times. Against Cardif away we had Steven Smith at left back. It hasn''t been about the quality of our first choice starting 11, at least not all season, but it has been about the ability of the back up.

Tierny got an assist today as well as being part of a defence that kept a clean sheet. You can''t ask much more than that of him.

But like I said, we appear to have sorted that situation now. Barnett was doing well but Whitbread has really made the difference for me. I wonder out of those three which will be the first choice pairing once all three are fully fit and available?

Its a matter of continiuing to score at the rate we do and continue to keep clean sheets like today. If we can do that then will be ok.

I would agree that we need a more predetory striker but I just don''t think it will happen now. Just look at Best at Newcastle, was about to be shipped out, then injuries and silly money offers were made and he hits a bit of form and no chance. Prem clubs will hang on to strikers incase they need them. Harewood is a bit of a coup but do you really know what you are going to get from him. And something must be seriously up at Blackpool for him not to be kept on there, not like they are bursting at the seams with strikers and he has been on the bench a lot for them. One injury and he was back in.

[chicken 0]

Spot on Blah.

The other thing is how many have scored consistantly over the season? Iwelumo hasn''t played a lot recently, Bothroyd had passed the 10 goal mark before christmas?

Put''s even more emphasis on the defensive side of things. But like I say, I think we are in the process of, or have sorted that out to some extent.

[blahblahblah 2]

Excellent couple of posts there chicken, what I was trying to say with the stats, but a lot better.

[Howson is now! 0]

[quote user="Ernie"]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]So that presumably means we have to sign a striker who''s so good that including him means dropping one of Lansbury, Wes or Surman. This is not meant as a dig at you - quite the reverse in fact. I''m sure all of us would like us to sign a top quality Championship striker. But there''s no point in us signing someone unless he demonstrably improves our squad.[/quote]

That''s the rub, totally agree needs to be a quality signing.  If it did happen I would keep all 3 above put crofts back in the holding roll and drop Fox to make room, harsh I know, but it would still give us so many options to change things around if it wasn''t working out.

[/quote]Why do so many of our fans want Crofts playing in the holding role? He wouldn''t have had his two goals today if he played the holding role properly. You''re taking away the best elements of his game if you ask him to play in a disciplined holding role. That''s what Fox is there for. I''d rather have Holt as the striker with Hoolahan, Lansbury, and Surman supporting than have a second striker and Crofts put at the back of the midfield being wasted.

[Bill 1,788]

"What if we signed another striker capable of scoring 15 goals a season, where would that leave us then? Automatic promotion?"

If that person replaced to bring him in was Croft or Hoolahan ?

As far as I know goals scored by ''non strikers'' still count the same.

Maybe it is that we are attacking more ''en masse'' than previously and that means, on probability alone, the goals will be spread out amongst a greater number. Maybe we are shooting far more. Crofts goal todays was an example of that.

As to the defence, that has been a bit of a let down. Accepting that Tuesday nights goal was an own goal we have now gone two games with letting the opposition score.

Is that down to Barnett being out ? Whitbread being back ? The opposition being useless ? Ruddy making a few good saves.

Or maybe a combination of all four .... which doesn''t really help the blame merchants does it ? They need certainly.

McNally out then, for letting Lambert allow Cody to go out on a season long loan and so can''t be brought back.

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

The strikers didnt score any goals today :@

BOOOO HISSS! LAMBERT OUT!

....

[O.T.B.C 0]

Opposition teams won''t know where Hooly, Holt, Croft, Lansbury, Surman and Fox will play and pop up, they would always cause problems with the interlinking and this can only cause problems for the opo defences and goals for us.

[Boyo 0]

Untill today I was really, really hoping of getting in a striker but now I''m fine without getting one in.  The midfield we played today is going to produce goals because we have three attacking players who have a licensce to get forward because there are two behind them covering (even though one of those players scored twice today).  With Hoolahan playing of Holt like this I think he can get a few more goals, 4 more perhaps, Lansbury and Surman are going to get some from the wings, Fox is bound to put in a screamer and I''m sure Crofts will bring his tally up to 10 and then lets not forget Holt can get up to 20 goals again.

 

I''m fine with our squad now, lets bring it on!!!!!

[Ernie 0]

[quote user="City1st"]"What if we signed another striker capable of scoring 15 goals a season, where would that leave us then? Automatic promotion?" If that person replaced to bring him in was Croft or Hoolahan ? As far as I know goals scored by ''non strikers'' still count the same. Maybe it is that we are attacking more ''en masse'' than previously and that means, on probability alone, the goals will be spread out amongst a greater number. Maybe we are shooting far more. Crofts goal todays was an example of that. As to the defence, that has been a bit of a let down. Accepting that Tuesday nights goal was an own goal we have now gone two games with letting the opposition score. Is that down to Barnett being out ? Whitbread being back ? The opposition being useless ? Ruddy making a few good saves. Or maybe a combination of all four .... which doesn''t really help the blame merchants does it ? They need certainly. McNally out then, for letting Lambert allow Cody to go out on a season long loan and so can''t be brought back.[/quote]

Why does signing a striker mean leaving Hoolahan or Crofts out? If we lose Holt to injury/suspension what does that leave us with up top, not alot? Personally I think Lambert and McNally have done and are doing a brilliant job, but I still maintain we need another proven goal scorer to help us over the line and if we were to sign one how many people would honestly say oh no we shouldnt have done that.

[Ernie 0]

[quote user="Boyo''"]

Untill today I was really, really hoping of getting in a striker but now I''m fine without getting one in.  The midfield we played today is going to produce goals because we have three attacking players who have a licensce to get forward because there are two behind them covering (even though one of those players scored twice today).  With Hoolahan playing of Holt like this I think he can get a few more goals, 4 more perhaps, Lansbury and Surman are going to get some from the wings, Fox is bound to put in a screamer and I''m sure Crofts will bring his tally up to 10 and then lets not forget Holt can get up to 20 goals again.

 

I''m fine with our squad now, lets bring it on!!!!!

[/quote user= "Ernie"] Believe me I really do agree with alot of what is being said, but and I hate saying this, if we continue with playing with just one striker up front which clearly we can do we are banking everything on Holt not getting injured.  Added to that if its not working in a game how are we going to change it?

[Bill 1,788]

"What if we signed another striker capable of scoring 15 goals a season, where would that leave us then?

followed by

"Why does signing a striker mean leaving Hoolahan or Crofts out? If we lose Holt to injury/suspension what does that leave us with up top "

Well, if Hollt is not injured when does this wonder boy score his goals ?

The fairly easy reply to the stupidity that lies behind this idiot bleat is in the words "striker capable of scoring 15 goals a season". Capable, but not guaranteed.

unfortunately some of the more simpler folk seem to think that signing players is much like buying a tin of cuprinol. just take it off the shelf and it will do what it says on the tin.

Perhaps someone witha bit of patience could take the time to explain to them that maybe the way we are pl;aying is geared towards getting most of the midfield forward, encouraging players to have a ''strike''. Maybe ask them to explain what the holding midfielder Crofts was doing in the box for the first, just outside the box when setting up Holt''s shot into the side netting and when getting his second.

Or maybe give them a couple of 50ps so they can go down the local arcade and play table football, where the players do at least stay in their correct places.

[Smudger 0]

Blimey, it seems like the penny has finally dropped with some people?  Sort out the balance between creativity, goal threat and the defensive nature of our midfield and you probably have a winning mix.  We already have a squad as strong as anybody in this league and without spending silly money we are unlikely to improve on the strikers we have here.  Martin and Jackson (considering neither has had an extended run of games) have doine just as well as most strikers in this league.  A goals record should always be looked at alongside the number of minutes spent on the pitch and plenty of teams in this division would enjoy taking both players off our hands in my opinion.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

[quote user="Ernie"]

[quote user="City1st"]"What if we signed another striker capable of scoring 15 goals a season, where would that leave us then? Automatic promotion?" If that person replaced to bring him in was Croft or Hoolahan ? As far as I know goals scored by ''non strikers'' still count the same. Maybe it is that we are attacking more ''en masse'' than previously and that means, on probability alone, the goals will be spread out amongst a greater number. Maybe we are shooting far more. Crofts goal todays was an example of that. As to the defence, that has been a bit of a let down. Accepting that Tuesday nights goal was an own goal we have now gone two games with letting the opposition score. Is that down to Barnett being out ? Whitbread being back ? The opposition being useless ? Ruddy making a few good saves. Or maybe a combination of all four .... which doesn''t really help the blame merchants does it ? They need certainly. McNally out then, for letting Lambert allow Cody to go out on a season long loan and so can''t be brought back.[/quote]

Why does signing a striker mean leaving Hoolahan or Crofts out? If we lose Holt to injury/suspension what does that leave us with up top, not alot? Personally I think Lambert and McNally have done and are doing a brilliant job, but I still maintain we need another proven goal scorer to help us over the line and if we were to sign one how many people would honestly say oh no we shouldnt have done that.

[/quote]

 

I do agree with Ernie that it would do no harm to get a quality striker as Holt''s backup should he get injured/suspended. Having said that, watching todays game, i certainly wouldn''t be overly bothered if we don ''t get one as it''s clear we have ''strikers'' all over the pitch, and players that can come in and do the job.

The way Lambert''s got us playing reminds me of, dare i say it, Germany''s style at last years World Cup - the way we break and how the midfielders become strikers - Stands to reason given his training in Germany, and it shows.

Really looking forward to the rest of the season. OTBC

[alysha 0]

It''s only worth us getting another striker if he can make a real difference, if this player is not out there for the amount of money we are willing to spend, we may aswell stick with what we have got; but some people on here do make me laugh...for months people have been saying we need another striker, now all of a sudden we beat a team who people who went to the match have said they were the worst team they have seen all season, with two of thier main defenders being injured in first half, yet because we won one game against this very poor side with this new formation, we no longer need another striker. Don''t get me wrong a win is a win, and I''m over the moan with it; but for some people to claim that all our little worries over parts of our team are over, just because we beat a team who ''is the worst side'' some people have seen this season because we had a new formation is odd. Just as we needed to be realistic after Tuesday, we need to realistic now.