Thoughts on the game

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Watched the game in the pub in London and ultimately all that needs to be said is it was a great 3 points in the end and could be a very important win. On balance we had the better chances over the 90 minutes and probably just about deserved it. Having said that we didn''t half make things harder for ourselves than we needed to starting with what in my view was a very poor team selection.

Paul Lambert is a fantastic manager who is the best manager I have seen at Norwich in my supporting lifetime. He showed this once again by making that change mid way through the second half which ultimately won us the game. However in my view he does not always get his starting line ups right and this week, as with the Villa game, for me he got it wrong. You cannot play matches in the premiership with no midfielder capable of putting their foot on the ball and keeping possession. We have two of those. Wes Hoolahan and David Fox. To start without either was a very strange decision and for me nearly backfired as for the last part of the first half and the first half of the second half we could not keep possession and QPR were able to put us on the back foot. We just hoofed long balls up to nobody. The moment Holty and Wes came on and started showing for the ball the whole team looked more comfortable, found its shape and started to play. The moral of the story for me is Lambert needs to stop messing around with the team and just play our best players. That includes Wes. Some we will win, some we will lose but we play much better football and look a better team with Wes and (to a degree) Fox in the side.

Other thoughts:

1. Holty is very good off the bench.

2. Ruddy had an iffy day but we got away with it. Needs to claim crosses on the edge of his 6 yard box not keep letting them flash across.

3. R. Martin was good today.

4. Another bit of poor play from Barnett for their goal. I like him but will be interesting to see if Whitbread comes in.

5. I thought Surman was quite ineffective until Wes and Holt came on but then he came to life and looked good.

6. Pilks needs to go back to playing left wing.

7. Jackson - tries hard but not sure he''s up to it.

QPR - we made them look better than they are at times I think as our midfield balance was just wrong and we were not at full strength for most of that game. I fancy us to get something at Loftus Road.

At the end of the day though regardless of performance great result and once again great character. Something you can never fault us for.

[Mike 2]

Thought we were far superior in the first half and could of been at least two up, thought Surman and Jackson played really well first half as did De Laet so team selection was right.

They got back into it in the second half after no doubt getting a Colin bollocking! Once they scored due to another mistake by Barny and Ruddy, why didn''t he shout out for the ball to be left? I thought they''d go on and win it but the subs changed it!

We deserved to win but got to stop making silly errors.

Russell Martin my man of the match with special mention for Crofty and Morrison

[Mike 2]

Also I think Fox has been very poor this season so I don''t think he (at the moment) deserves to be picked.

Holty''s are super sub

[pliff 4]

Been a bit harsh on Andrew Crofts but today he was immense deserved 3 points and we will get better

[Drurys Testamonials 0]

Not sure why Barnett getting the blame for the goal as I felt he was clearing up after a Tierney error and Ruddy didn''t shout to say he was clearing up. That was my view.Tierney gets a lot of praise when he does things rigth but not much criticism when he makes mistakes. He has done a lot well but does make mistkaes too and these seem to get overlooked.

[cornish_canary 0]

Almost spat my tea out watching Warnock''s post match interview on MOTD. His analysis of the game..... "I thought we should have won that today, no disrepect to Norwich but I thought we were far better than them"

All unbiased views of the game today indicated Norwich controlled the game and fully deserved the 3 points.

Great result in any case!

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]. 4. Another bit of poor play from Barnett for their goal. I like him but will be interesting to see if Whitbread comes in.

 6. Pilks needs to go back to playing left wing.

7. Jackson - tries hard but not sure he''s up to it. .[/quote]

 

Firstly, I would say the finger should be pointed at Ruddy and Tierney before it''s pointed at Barnett in terms of who is to blame for the goal.

 

Secondly, I would agree that Pilks had a poor game today but he also had a poor game out last time against Arsenal. Both games he''s lacked the "energy". He''s top player though so he''ll put it right.

 

Thirdly, I have to say I thought Jackson played very well today. He was very mobile and did a great job of linking up the play all over the pitch. I think the manager will be very pleased with his performance.

[QHcanary 0]

[quote]

 

Firstly, I would say the finger should be pointed at Ruddy and Tierney before it''s pointed at Barnett in terms of who is to blame for the goal.

 

Secondly, I would agree that Pilks had a poor game today but he also had a poor game out last time against Arsenal. Both games he''s lacked the "energy". He''s top player though so he''ll put it right.

 

Thirdly, I have to say I thought Jackson played very well today. He was very mobile and did a great job of linking up the play all over the pitch. I think the manager will be very pleased with his performance.

[/quote]Tierney should have dealt with the header when the long ball came in, or left it for Ruddy.Barnett should then have dealt with the clearance properly.Surman should have pressured the QPR player who picked up the clearance (Mackie?), instead of turning the wrong way and losing his man.Tierney shouldn''t have switched off and allowed Young to get into the box unchecked. You could see it as well. His body language was very telling when he realised Young was there.The only way the goal was even partly Ruddy''s fault was if he didn''t give Tierney a shout as the long ball came in, but that''s being harsh. It should have been dealt with, and was in honesty, a comedy of bad defending errors.Jackson wasn''t good. For every nice bit of play there was a horrendous first touch that gave the ball away. He''s supposed to be a goal threat, and he didn''t manage it.

[Farkes The Herald Angels 0]

Watched the game on TV too...

Thought Ruddy was generally fine today

Agree with others about Tirney''s role in goal, but otherwise solid

Barnett worries me more the more I see him - he gets in some great headers and blocks, but also looks uncomfortable and ungainly. Makes me nervous

Surman was pretty invisible

Johnson - I didn''t know he was playing (missed the team sheets at the start) for about ten minutes

Pilks - not his best day

Morison - looked strong and busting around, but occasional loss of the kind of fine control needed when surrounded by 5 defenders at times

Jackson - poor in my opinion, other that his positional play. Got pushed off the ball way too easily and his touch was so so. Maybe it''s just confidence having only just come back into the side

Substitutions: I have rarely seen a team change so instantly as when Holt and Hoolahan came on. It was just them (although they created and scored the second goal), but the rest of the team seemed to immediately think when the subs were made ''righto, we''re going to win this now''. The whole attitude and sense of urgency changed.

All in all - great to get 3 points and not a bad display, but would not start with Jackson again, would definitely start with Hoolahan, maybe give Barnett a rest (nothing to do with goal) and maybe time to bring Holt on from the start, or go back to Bennett and Pilks, with Morison alone and Holt as a sub...but I''d personally like to see Morison and Holt start.....although next week against Man Citteh maybe not.....got to try and do something more solid in midfield....

[Aggy 754]

Are people honestly thinking that Warnock was wrong when he said they were the better team? I thought they outplayed us for most of the match to be honest.

A good, and possibly very important, win, but I didn''t think it was one of our better performances, and I thought they were much the better side in the first half. Had they managed to turn their superiority into goals, it would have been a differnet story, luckily they didn''t!

Does anyone else get the feeling that as soon as we go up, we become far too defensive and look happy to play for the result as it stands? Doesn''t work, as shown in thepast few games, we can''t defend. Ifwe''re 1 up we should be going for two up, as we certainly don''t look convincing if we''re trying to play out for a 1-0 win!

[lake district canary 0]

Aggy - Isn''t a win a win? We can get confidence from coming through a difficult fixture with three points. Building confidence is one of PL''s magic abilities. He knows how to get players performing and our defence will get better as they get these kind of results. A good result, something to build on.

With the confidence of good results like yesterday - they can be more attacking. But they have to build that confidence over the course of the season. I''m looking forward to watching the team develop as in the past two seasons with PL. They will only get better! It''s the PL way.

[smooth 114]

We changed every ares of our outfield play yesterday.

Delaet in for naughton, Crofts and Surman staritng in a four man midfield and Jacskon upfront.

For moments in the game we looked good, no doubt the best move led to Morisons strike just over the bar from 18 yards out. The second goal Morisons cross and dribble in the box was superb, great cross by Wes and if you put the ball in the box Holt will score. He has done it all season, certainly if we have wide players who will put crosses in then Holt needs to start but we try and play it through the middle a bit when Hoolahan starts.

Thought in general the system worked, agree we didn''t hold possession as well but we stretched a back four with jackson pace and Morison being pretty dominant in the midfield. They certainly came back into the game and probably Morisons miss in the first half which just went over was the turning point. If we had scored then we could have played out the game, but the longer it stayed 1-0 the pressure was on.

3 points and moving to 16 points was key and extending our lead above those in the bottom 3 and to keep over half the league below us. Forget Man City, role on Newcastle. They are really working hard and will not give us anytime on the ball, they are really working hard for each other. So we have to be very disciplined. Who knows what happens at Eastlands, I don;t expect much but by getting that 3 points we have moved closer to what we need to stay up and other teams in the bottom half are now struggling beyond those in the bottom 3 with Sunderland now looking shaky and pressure mounting on Bruce.

[BroadstairsR 2,162]

I, personally, agreed with everything single thing the O/P posted.

 

Old "Bald Eagle" himself couldn''t have assessed things better.

[Branston Pickle 3,654]

Sorry, Aggy, but IMO you are wrong that QPR outplayed us most of the match. I heard Colin''s full interview and it was, as ever, blinkered beyond belief. Yes, they looked ok and fairly composed on the ball- as all sides at this level do - but in the end created few real chances and only just shaded the possession. In truth, we had plenty of it ourselves, and created the far better chances throughout the game.

One problem we do seem to have as supporters is how we tend to beat ourselves up far too much about how we were fortunate in some way whenever we win. After the game, several friends kept going on about their non penalty in the first half - in truth, QPR players didn''t seem bothered, SWP didn''t really appeal, and Colin didn''t mention it (and said the ref had a good game) so why should it bother us at all? Fact is thatyesterdaywas a decent game, we shaded it and deserved the points.

[Bovril 219]

I agree with the OP for the majority although I though Ruddy looked solid especially near the end when the balls needed to be plucked from the air. The only moment of hesitation (the goal aside) was in the 1st half when SWP put in one of those simply undefendable balls that flashed across the goal and wide.

We know it, away fans know it, pundits know it. We probably have the worst side technically in the league and rely on the players hard-work both on and off the ball. For this reason (until we can afford to bring in technical quality) we simply have to play 4-5-1 even against the lesser sides at home.

Fox/Crofts Johnson

Bennett Hoolahan Pilkington

Morrison

With Crofts in for the ''tougher'' games to add more steel. We haven''t got enough in midfield to play only four and after today hopefully PL realises that.

If we go behind, then we can change it to 4-4-2 with Holt upfront.

[lake district canary 0]

Talk about running your own team down. Worst technically? Pilks? Tieney? Hoolahan? Poor technicall?

With confidence ALL our players are good. It''s some fans who seem to delight in persisting to have ''the cup is half empty'' attitude.

I for one am fed up with it. Get behind the team and stop moaning.

[Robert N. LiM 4,331]

Interesting post Bovril.

Don''t think I agree that we are a technically poor side, but PL left our two best technicians, Fox and Hoolahan, on the bench yesterday and the result - that we couldn''t keep the ball - was inevitable.

I''d be really interested to hear people''s thoughts on why Lambert picked that team yesterday. The only reason I can think of was that he wanted to keep the ball away from Faurlin. Any thoughts?

I think we look at our best with five in midfield and I really hope Lambert doesn''t pick another side without either Fox or Wes: it''s just asking for trouble. (To be fair to him, Fox needs to start playing a bit better, to demand his place in the team)

But the spirit and workrate of the team is simply outstanding and I thought, in the end, we had too much desire for an admittedly poor QPR team.

The really good thing is that, West Brom aside, we haven''t lost to any of the weaker sides in the league. That''s the reason we''re in the top half and should give us confidence that we can stay up in reasonable comfort.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

The genius Lambert stitched Warnock up like a kipper yesterday. Colin would have sent his his team out fully expecting to combat Hoolihan and lots of pretty Norwich passing- instead we played them at their own game sending lots of early balls for Morison and Jackson and their defence struggled. Bringing Holt and Hoolihan on and changing the formation had qpr all at sea again and lead directly to the winning goal. Both tactics worked an absolute treat, enjoy it!

[ron obvious 1,502]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]The genius Lambert stitched Warnock up like a kipper yesterday. Colin would have sent his his team out fully expecting to combat Hoolihan and lots of pretty Norwich passing- instead we played them at their own game sending lots of early balls for Morison and Jackson and their defence struggled. Bringing Holt and Hoolihan on and changing the formation had qpr all at sea again and lead directly to the winning goal. Both tactics worked an absolute treat, enjoy it![/quote]Do you know, I think you could be right. It was the oddest start to a Norwich performance I''ve ever seen. I''ve not seen so much of ye olde hoofeball from us before. Particularly after the goal; the sole intent seemed to be to pass it around up to the half way line, then pass it back to Ruddy, who started the whole process again, with the occasional punt upfield for Morison or Jackson to have a go at. The midfield were completely bypassed, only concentrating on recovering the ball if QPR had it.It would make sense. It must have puzzled Colin as much as me. And it worked - the way the whole team suddenly galvanised into action when Holt & Wes came on looked like a prearranged plan to me. The goal looked inevitable from the moment the subs. were made.The alternative view is that Lambert is tactically naive & got lucky. The way Grant is lucky every time he comes on & scores? Lambert''s plans aren''t going to work every time, but I reckon he''s good & getting better. The only downside is we''re not going to see scintillating football every week. But I think that''s a small price to pasy if it means survival.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

I saw the logic in the original team-selection. Morison & Jackson stretching play with their pace but there was a lack of guile in midfield and Jackson was having too come far too deep to get the ball, Hoolahan may as well have been doing that.

[Guest]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]After the game, several friends kept going on about their non penalty in the first half - in truth, QPR players didn''t seem bothered, SWP didn''t really appeal, and Colin didn''t mention it (and said the ref had a good game) so why should it bother us at all?[/quote]Just seen a replay of that incident on Goals on Sunday. It was clearly not a penalty, the ball was running straight out of play and SWP just fell over Ruddy with no contact at all. Apparently Dale Gordon was saying it was "stonewall" on the radio though, which I find strange. As you say, Colin would''ve gone ballistic if there was even a hint of them being hard done by.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

I thought QPR knocked the ball about in the middle of the park better than us but didn''t offer much at the business end where we did, so we deserved the win!

I thought Lambert had learnt his lesson from earlier on that playing your best players should come before formations and leaving out better players to use a different formation.

Although it doesn''t hurt to change things around sometimes cause no player should be guaranteed a starting place if they aren''t performing. For instance Hoolahan is one of our best players but has his games when he gets bypassed. Likewise one of best players this season, Pilkington has been quiet for the last couple of games and if being honest shouldn''t be surprised if hes dropped nextg week. I wasn''t happy about Surman starting but overall he done a more than reasonable job. Defensively we were sound yesterday apart from Barnetts error!

It was never going to be easy in the Premiership, so any win is a good one even if its ground out, which at our level most of our wins will be ground out. Our great team spirit and desire to do well will give us a great chance of staying up this season!

[GJP 79]

[quote user="QHcanary"]
Jackson wasn''t good. For every nice bit of play there was a horrendous first touch that gave the ball away. He''s supposed to be a goal threat, and he didn''t manage it.
[/quote]

Strongly disagree, I thought it was a good performance from Jackson.

 

I think, if someone puts in a lively and energetic performance like that, a performance where he was having to sacrifice being higher up the pitch in order to get involved in the game, then you cut them a bit of slack for the odd heavy touch (which were hardly as frequent as you''re suggesting).

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="QHcanary"]Jackson wasn''t good. For every nice bit of play there was a horrendous first touch that gave the ball away. He''s supposed to be a goal threat, and he didn''t manage it.[/quote]

Strongly disagree, I thought it was a good performance from Jackson.

 

I think, if someone puts in a lively and energetic performance like that, a performance where he was having to sacrifice being higher up the pitch in order to get involved in the game, then you cut them a bit of slack for the odd heavy touch (which were hardly as frequent as you''re suggesting).

[/quote]Completely agree GJP, it was him more than anyone that hassled Faulin in possession and stifled QPR''s creativity. Considering how little game time he has had as well I was thoroughly impressed with his play off Morison as well.