Surman

[Dicky 0]

Thought he was a great addition today - created a lot of chances, with intelligent play. Good to see him back in contention.

[YellowBlood 0]

I agree, I think he''s been harshly treated by some this season but I really don''t see what the problem is, he''s got a good football brain, shows some nice touches, good at linking up the play and he''s got a good corner in him which was proved with Martins goal. Deserved his chance and did well enough to stay in the side.

[MC Fearfull 0]

Agree ^^

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

I do. Linked up well aswell with morison. Something Wes does not do in a 451. Also looked comfortable when we went to a diamond

[vos 155]

Sorry chaps but totally disagree. Basically too lightweight. Does very little defending and slow to get back. Supposedly an attacking midfielder but saw very little of this.

Dale Gordon on Canary Call said he had a good game, but I just did not see it.

Just saw game again on TV and little was seen of Johnson, Pilkington and Surman. Not quite sure how we won in view of this but the usual fighting team spirit saw us thro. Wes looked a lot better in a more forward role.

[GJP 79]

I thought he did alright. He was at his best when we switched to the diamond but before that he wasn''t doing much.

[judderman 0]

I have been one who''s given him a bit of criticism, I thought he played poorly in his previous starts in this campaign.I saw this game in the second half, and I thought for the most part he was a good influence, and he tended to get more into the game as it wore on (except for the last 10 mins when we were on the back foot). He certainly created 3/4 chances, which is a good return!

[curly_whirly_tipz 0]

I totally agree. I was impressed with Surman yesterday. Very creative player. He will definately be a great asset this season. What are we betting - Surman to score 20th Dec against Wolves? :)

[Canaries Utd 0]

Good feet, good passing ability, good when he has time on the ball, just a little lightweight for my liking. Here''s hoping he can build on this performance.

[smooth 114]

A bit like Crofts who was also brought in for some sub appearnaces etc, he has got better. It makes sense more match time the better you play.

I think Surman showed enough to be in contention, his little skill to set up Moriosn for that 18 yard shot was good. Overall he was tidy, it adds competition to the team and at least he can improve.

The same can be said for Jackson a little run in the team and he could find some form.

Positives for those players in and around the first 11.

[hogesar 9,776]

He''s going to be one of those footballers most on here are going to hate, because they don''t know football.He''s too lightweight, he doesn''t get stuck in enough, he doesn''t track back enough, he''s not fast enough...that isn''t his game. We could re-sign Andy Hughes if you want that.What he is, however, as Lambert continues to state, is a very very good footballer. Fantastic eye for a pass, enough skill to keep the ball and shrug of defenders where needs be. He isn''t going to bomb down the wing, lose the ball, run 50 yards back and put in a crunching slide tackle. What he will do, is make himself available when other players are under pressure, play neat little balls between the midfield and forwards, and try to create a little bit of space where available.

[Big Duncs Bloody Shirt 0]

Spot on Hogesar .... nail ... head ... hit ....!!!

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

I don''t agree Hogesar.

I thought Surman did really well yesterday and was a catalyst for our run late last season when he returned from injury.

However his lack of muscle and pace counts against him and means a lot of games can pass him by.

[smooth 114]

Yeah hogesar well put that is exaclty right.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

I wasn''t happy with Surman starting yesterday cause his lack of pace and strength holds him back but he done more than OK yesterday!

[Kings Man 0]

I like Surman, but thought he didn''t play well when we were defending hard, but got better when Hoolihan and Holt came on and seem to click for him that we needed to attack.

[Baldyboy 0]

he was awful til we went to the diamond then he was excellent, he has no pace so cannot play in a normal 442 it would seem!!!

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="vos"]Sorry chaps but totally disagree. Basically too lightweight. Does very little defending and slow to get back. [/quote]

I agree. We need midfield players who help with the defensive workload too.

[Divs crew! 0]

he was good today i thought very pleased with his shift .............i just wonder what game some of u watched when u say he wasn''t that good?

[vos 155]

Very nice of you Hogesar to suggest I do not know my football. I have only been going to Carrow Road for 65 years - (sound of voilins in background). Yes we all have our opinions and I accept that in some instances we become a bit bleary eyed.

In the short time he was on the field Wes was far more creative, looked for the ball all the time, and showed much more effort. I think we all acknowledge Surman is weak in his defensive work but I still have to say in my opinion he did little of note in his attacking role.

[priceyrice 124]

[quote user="hogesar"]He''s going to be one of those footballers most on here are going to hate, because they don''t know football.He''s too lightweight, he doesn''t get stuck in enough, he doesn''t track back enough, he''s not fast enough...that isn''t his game. We could re-sign Andy Hughes if you want that.What he is, however, as Lambert continues to state, is a very very good footballer. Fantastic eye for a pass, enough skill to keep the ball and shrug of defenders where needs be. He isn''t going to bomb down the wing, lose the ball, run 50 yards back and put in a crunching slide tackle. What he will do, is make himself available when other players are under pressure, play neat little balls between the midfield and forwards, and try to create a little bit of space where available.[/quote]You have just shown in what you have said why he just is not good enough to be starting. He wont make those 50 yard runs, he wont make many tackles and that is a big problem. In a team like ours (overachieving with the players we have) we need 11 players who are going to give their all when we have the ball and when we dont have it, Wes has added it to his game and it has relaly benefited the team, Surman would have to imporve dramatically on that side of things to get into the starting line up on a regular basis

[vos 155]

Priceyrice - "precisely"

[lake district canary 0]

Surman is an intelligent player who can see a pass where others wouldn''t. Every player has his strengths and needs to play to those strengths.

Seems like we are quick to pick holes in players but slow to praise them. Surman (apart from against MK Dons-but the whole team were like headless chickens that night) has done nothing wrong. He is still a good player. Still learning and adapting. PL brings out the best in players so I hope he does play because that means he is on form and putting in good passes and making intelligent runs - and scoring as well, as he did last season.

[Indy 3,323]

To be honest, Bennett hasn’t been up to standard of late and to give Surman some credit he did very well, considering he’s not played in a while. Far better than Jackson did with his misplaced passes lack of pace and no idea which runs to make! Morison looked superb again.

I just hope that Vaughan isn’t as bad as we first thought, would really like to see him back in January, like signing a new striker.

[Jim Smith 2,349]

Surman is technically superb and as part of a good midfield is a great player but he is also very slow and a bit lightweight so not so useful when we don''t have a great deal of possession or are on the back foot. I personally thought he was generally ineffective for the first 70 minutes other than one or two nice touches but improved a lot once Wes and Holt came on as did Bradley Johnson. I don''t thik this was coincidence as Wes and Holt started coming short and showing for the ball and giving our midfielders options and we therefore were able to start playing our little triangles in the midfield like last season.

Jackson was bang average.

 

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="vos"]Very nice of you Hogesar to suggest I do not know my football. I have only been going to Carrow Road for 65 years - (sound of voilins in background). Yes we all have our opinions and I accept that in some instances we become a bit bleary eyed. In the short time he was on the field Wes was far more creative, looked for the ball all the time, and showed much more effort. I think we all acknowledge Surman is weak in his defensive work but I still have to say in my opinion he did little of note in his attacking role.[/quote]

I think you may have become very bleary eyed. Your views are the exact opposite of the Manager.

[Salopian 1]

Potentially I think that he couold be a very good player at this level, but he hasn''t always delivered the goods.

I don''t buy this "lightweight" tag. He will obviously come off worse in a barging contest with most defenders, but that is not his game, and Hooly is good with a chance to move but lightweight otherwise. He spots a pass well, and while not the quickest is very mobile - how often do we suddenly find him near the six yard box?

He packs a good shot, perhaps as good as anyone in the team from within the penalty area.

It may be that there is no room for both Surman and Hooly, as they are the main creative players, but Surman has a delightful touch, as we saw several times last season, and in this he stands out in the squad.

On his game, and he approached this at times on Saturday, he has the ability to win games.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]

. Your (vos) views are the exact opposite of the Manager.[/quote]

How do you know this?

Just think about how many times Surman has started this season compared to our other midfield players.

[Shack Attack 0]

I thought he was tidy if unspectacular in the first sixty minutes or so and then really came into his own once Wes and Holty came on. He needs people with good movement and passing around him to really get the best out of him and we didn''t really have too much of that until the changes were made. I also feel that he is very disciplined tactically and helps us to keep our shape defensively. He is never going to be a ball winner (which is no doubt why so many are keen to write him off as ''lightweight'') but he doesn''t leave his full back exposed. Wright-Phillips drifted out to our left a few times on Saturday but never really got a clear run at Tierney.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

That is surely the point, TFAA ?  To get the best out of a player like Surman (who certainly is a good footballer, and an excellent passer), he''ll need to have an extended run in the team. The only way to get him on the same wavelength as other midfielders etc (and  vv) is to play them together over a period of time.

 

Unfortunately, there''s the rub . With the tactics that PL favours the majority of the time, Surman simply is not going to get an extended run in the starting XI  . As others have reiterated, we are going to be the sort of side that relies on tracking back, hard tackling, box to box operations in the majority of games. That is not Andrew Surman''s forte. So, to that extent ,he is a "luxury" player . The same has been said about Wes, but in his case, he can always be relied upon to produce a match winning piece of magic. Again, not Surman''s game.

 

But, it may well be that, as the season wears on, suspensions and injuries will mean that he has a prolonged run. Then we''ll see what he''s made of .