Holt's absence critical in Cup exit.

[Frankly speaking 0]

http://franklyspeaking58.blogspot.com/

[JKUIL 0]

[quote user="Frankly speaking"]http://franklyspeaking58.blogspot.com/[/quote]

I couldn''t agree more with the subject of your post. The omission of Holt and Ruddy in particular, but also Naughton sent a clear message of negativity and disinterest in the game and the competition to the players who were selected to play. However, reading many of the posts on here since the defeat it seems that no one is allowed to question the decisions of "he who must be obeyed" and, no, that is not meant to suggest that I am extremely grateful for what he has already achieved for our club. However, IMHO, the the omission of Holt and Ruddy was mind-numbingly stupid and the reason given of Premier League survival even more moronic given the fact that we are already on 35 points with 39 points still available and a gap of 14 points between ourselves and 16th placed QPR. What a magnificent opportunity negligently squandered for rare cup glory and revenue.

[Indy_Bones 441]

It doesn''t matter how ''almost'' safe we are, until it''s a certainty, it''s the managers jobs to keep his focus on this - to the exclusion of all else.How many fans would care about us getting to the semi''s/final, even winning the cup - if we subsequently were relegated? You might laugh and write this off as unrealistic, but we''ve all seen in football how things can soon spiral from a couple of losses, to a huge losing streak, and we simply can''t afford to let this happen.It''s not blind faith that many fans have, but simply that some fans see the bigger picture, and whilst it could be argued that taking this stance is playing too safely and turning away a good opportunity, I''d rather not gamble when the potential prize isn''t significant enough to justify the risk.In regards to your article Frank, it''s well written and you''re right in saying we are a different side without Holt''s presence, but this in itself is somewhat worrying, as we can''t turn back into a team that needs a certain player to be on the pitch to perform and on this occasion I don''t think it was the lack of Holt playing, it was simply that we didn''t care enough about the cup to put the extra work in. Why risk first XI players when we have some massive league games coming up, just to gamble on winning a cup that''s main value is now the romance of winning it, rather than important financial gain and prestige?

[Baldyboy 0]

and if these players had got injured badly what would people say then, especially if it had been Ruddy? geez get over it its one game and there was no guarantee that we would win if we got through!! Some people on here are really starting to sound like Chelsea and man Utd fans by thinking we have a divine right to win!!! for Gods sake!!!

[SnakepitCanary 0]

I do agree with the title of the post as well as some other keys players but it''s only one cup game. Them players did deserve a rest as they have played lots of games at a high standard this season.

[Bury Yellow 2]

Agree baldyboy. I am in the minority on this board but i don''t get this FA Cup romanticism.

It is following the path of the Carling(etc)Cup. The bigger clubs are only interested if the conditions suit them.

We know it''s money ruling but we must live with it and get on board if we want to see our club progress.

I can remember watching the FA Cup final when it was the only live club game on TV. It was great then but I lost major interest over 20 years ago.

[crabbycanary 2]

I would certainly agree that we have no divine right to win any game, it has to be earned. Also the argument that Holt would have made THE difference is a tenuous one. What I would say is that if any players needed a rest then it is betwen games that can be worked on. It isn''t a fitness issue as we had no midweek games either side of this, prior to man U. It is a mental tiredness that Holt, Ruddy and Naughton were rested for, which I find inexplicable, being in the current League placing we find ourselves in. There are plenty of days either side of the Leicester game, to address this issue As I have said on another thread, I cannot believe that Holt did not look at his career/age and think of a great opportunity to play in a team that could reach the FA Cup q/finals. Those chances do not come round very often to any player 

The Cup Final/relegation package that we saw in 1985, would not have happened here this season, I would have put my mortgage on it, before Saturday.

Imo, PL made a ricket, thats all. He has certainly got 99% of things right since he has been here, but Saturday has been highlighted because of the rewards of this one game, as opposed to a League game (where occasionally, he has got tactics etc wrong this season which have cost points).

[Harry 0]

As I''ve said on another thread I honestly believe PL put out a team that should have been able to beat Leicester and progress to the next round, IMO the players let us down not PL.

[priceyrice 123]

[quote user="Harry"]As I''ve said on another thread I honestly believe PL put out a team that should have been able to beat Leicester and progress to the next round, IMO the players let us down not PL.[/quote]This is my last comment i will make (hopefully) on the last game as i am looking on to the next now and trying to block the last game from memory.I agree Harry, the team was very capable of beating Leicester, it was a strong lineup. However i still think Lambo made mistakes. 1st from his comments before the game and then by the squad choice which re-affirmed his lack of commitment to the cup. Holt has been on some top form recently and a player of his importance should be on the bench even if he is not starting. I can understand that Lambert wanted Wilbers and Vaughan on the bench, but there is plenty of room to keep Holt on theirt too, i don''t think we needed both Crofts and Johnson on the bench.Holt would have had an impact because of his attitude, he plays at such a high work rate which forces those around him to step up to that level as well and if they are not then Holt will make sure they do.I think it was the right call not to start Holt on sat, but his impact from the bench would have been huge, i am sure it would have lifted the team and the crowd (who really needed it). The call to put Steer in goal was tough, i just think with a untried CB partnership this season it was a tough call on a young keeper, if we had Ayala and Whitbred then by all means put Steer in.Anyways, here''s to hoping Holt stays fit and continues his fine form.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="crabbycanary"]The Cup Final/relegation package that we saw in 1985, would not have happened here this season, I would have put my mortgage on it, before Saturday.[/quote]The point again is that this is just speculation.Whether you put 10p, £250, or your mortgage on it happening, it doesn''t change the fact that until we are GUARANTEED safe, we can''t take anything for granted, even if the odds, history or anything else suggests we may be able to, and if resting a few players for a cup game helps this process then I fully support the decision.If we were already guaranteed safe mathematically (or at least on say 50 points), then fair enough I''d understand the complaints totally, but the league MUST come first, particularly with the way finances are in football.I also have to agree with Harry here, in that I don''t think PL put a bad team out, they just underperformed horribly on the day, and if those players aren''t good enough, why have over half of them played regularly for the first XI in the league and helped get us into 8th??? Simply a bad day at the office, in a game that wasn''t a priority.

[Gordon Bennett 780]

I don''t think the absences of Holt, or Ruddy, Naughton and Surman for that matter, had much bearing at all. The eleven who played should have won the game on paper but for whatever reason we didn''t perform. Lambert didn''t sound too unhappy to be out of the competition when interviewed afterwards but whether his attitude and motivation and therefore that of the players was different compared to a league game is anyone''s guess.

I think Steve Gedge has probably gone a little OTT on the subject in his EDP column today but I can understand his, everyone else''s, frustration.

[Mister Chops 7]

So, to those who keep saying "safety is paramount" - which I agree with -

given that we will never be mathematically safe by the FA Cup 3rd round

match in early January, does this mean we are giving up all hope of

ever having a successful cup run?

I don''t understand Lambert''s logic of playing strong teams against

Burnley (H, quality performance) and WBA (A, ditto) - then tanking so

badly against a below-strength Leicester side - and then saying "oh

well, it''s all about the league..."  Why wasn''t that the case in the

previous 2 games when survival was less assured as we had less league points?

[Canaries Utd 0]

Lets move on shall we...

[Ernie 0]

When Leicester saw our team sheet how much more motivation do you think they needed?  With no Ruddy, Holt, Surman or Naugton it sent out the completely wrong message, yes the team we put out should have been good enough to win but in the position we were in we really didnt need to gamble and the arguement about staying in this league just doesnt hold any water in my opinion as anybody who thinks we could still get relegated with 35 points on the board and over a 3rd of the season still to go.....................

[Indy_Bones 441]

Chops,I personally am not saying we should give up hope of a cup run, but simply that league survival and performance will always take priority for me, and when winning the cup is ''only'' worth a couple of million, compared to the 30-40 million that being in the league offers, only a fool would prioritise that over financial security.We simply don''t have an overall squad strong enough to cope if our ''big'' players get injured in the cup and our league form suffers. If Man Utd lose Rooney, they''ve got Berbatov or Welbeck or Hernandez or Owen etc who can come in and play at the same sort of level. If we lose the likes of Holt, then with all respect to Wilbraham etc, they aren''t the same quality and we can''t easily replace players we lose.Now, give us another season or two in the Prem, and we should have a stronger squad overall, and one that can cope with the additional games whilst giving cover if needed from injury.As for the ''logic'' you suggest, I''d argue that in reality there wasn''t much difference in quality between all 3 of the teams we put out against Burnley, WBA and Leicester, with the biggest difference being the loss of Ayala and Whitbread in defence - something PL can do nothing about as they''re injured. Rudd played against Burnley - he''s also injured, in both games Holt was taken off with 20-25 mins left to play and we played Moro instead of Crofts against Leicester. The rest of the players were pretty much involved in the other games.The difference was the formation and the desire, and Leicester played well against the diamond and our players didn''t have the same level of passion as they did in the previous games.I say again that we DID NOT field a weak side against Leicester, simply that the players didn''t perform.

[lake district canary 0]

Alot of City fans spent good money and took family etc etc. on Saturday.    But the reality is that the game was lost because the team on the pitch - who could quite easily been on the field in the premiership - given injuries, suspensions etc - should have been good enough to win.   That they didn''t is a cause for disappointment, but some of the moaning has been well over the top.

 

 

Imo it was not as professional a performance as it could have been - partly because some of the players would have been thinking they are playing for their place in the team against MU.   Hoolahan and Morison in particular would be wondering.   We saw against MK dons players that were playing as much for themselves as the team, hence the poor result.   

 

 

Like it or not this was a precursor and a preparation for the game against MU.    The manager has to get as good a performance out as possible against MU to maintain the season we''ve had at a high level.    This is understandable.   The team on Saturday was strong enough on paper to have won. 

 

 

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Ernie"]When Leicester saw our team sheet how much more motivation do you think they needed?  With no Ruddy, Holt, Surman or Naughton[/quote]Two of whom also didn''t play against either Burnley or WBA - namely Ruddy and Naughton. Surman didn''t play against WBA and Holty got subbed off in both games with 20-25 mins left to play, and in both those games we scored after Holt had been subbed off...I didn''t see anyone criticising the team selections before, but apparently in your opinion, leaving Holt and Surman out of a single game makes our team shit?Seriously - WTF are you talking about???

[grantroederdisaster 0]

Holt would have made us hell of a lot better than we were!

[Norwich or die tryin! 0]

[quote user="Ernie"]When Leicester saw our team sheet how much more motivation do you think they needed?  With no Ruddy, Holt, Surman or Naugton it sent out the completely wrong message, yes the team we put out should have been good enough to win but in the position we were in we really didnt need to gamble and the arguement about staying in this league just doesnt hold any water in my opinion as anybody who thinks we could still get relegated with 35 points on the board and over a 3rd of the season still to go.....................[/quote]I agree completely with this.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Chops,I personally am not saying we should give up hope of a cup run, but simply that league survival and performance will always take priority for me, and when winning the cup is ''only'' worth a couple of million, compared to the 30-40 million that being in the league offers, only a fool would prioritise that over financial security.We simply don''t have an overall squad strong enough to cope if our ''big'' players get injured in the cup and our league form suffers. If Man Utd lose Rooney, they''ve got Berbatov or Welbeck or Hernandez or Owen etc who can come in and play at the same sort of level. If we lose the likes of Holt, then with all respect to Wilbraham etc, they aren''t the same quality and we can''t easily replace players we lose.Now, give us another season or two in the Prem, and we should have a stronger squad overall, and one that can cope with the additional games whilst giving cover if needed from injury.As for the ''logic'' you suggest, I''d argue that in reality there wasn''t much difference in quality between all 3 of the teams we put out against Burnley, WBA and Leicester, with the biggest difference being the loss of Ayala and Whitbread in defence - something PL can do nothing about as they''re injured. Rudd played against Burnley - he''s also injured, in both games Holt was taken off with 20-25 mins left to play and we played Moro instead of Crofts against Leicester. The rest of the players were pretty much involved in the other games.The difference was the formation and the desire, and Leicester played well against the diamond and our players didn''t have the same level of passion as they did in the previous games.I say again that we DID NOT field a weak side against Leicester, simply that the players didn''t perform.[/quote]I think leaving Holt and Naughton out made our side weaker than the average - Holt as much for his talismanic/lead from the front qualities as anything else.  I don''t recall too many dispassionate performances with Holt in the starting XI - Sunderland away being the only one I can recall.I also think it''s a bit depressing that we''re basically resigning ourselves to never trying to win a tournament again - if league survival is the priority, and I understand why it is, then we know we''ll never win the league, the FA Cup or the League Cup.  Heaven forbid we quality for the Europa League under Lambert as we''ll clearly look to get eliminated as early as possible so it doesn''t affect our league position.  It''s pragmatic, but my god it lacks the romance that some - most, I say - supporters like to dream of."We are Norwich City FC.  We''ll try to finish as high up the Premier League as possible and not win anything.  Success is staying in the Premier League."I know we can''t have it both ways and God knows I''ve been wanting a businesslike influence running the club rather than the previous jolly band of amateurs, but I never realised we''d sacrifice our dreams on the altar of pragmatism.I wonder how long Paul Lambert, a proven winner and a man with a desire to win, will accept being manager at a club who daren''t win anything?

[Mr Jenkins 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Indy_Bones"]Chops,I personally am not saying we should give up hope of a cup run, but simply that league survival and performance will always take priority for me, and when winning the cup is ''only'' worth a couple of million, compared to the 30-40 million that being in the league offers, only a fool would prioritise that over financial security.We simply don''t have an overall squad strong enough to cope if our ''big'' players get injured in the cup and our league form suffers. If Man Utd lose Rooney, they''ve got Berbatov or Welbeck or Hernandez or Owen etc who can come in and play at the same sort of level. If we lose the likes of Holt, then with all respect to Wilbraham etc, they aren''t the same quality and we can''t easily replace players we lose.Now, give us another season or two in the Prem, and we should have a stronger squad overall, and one that can cope with the additional games whilst giving cover if needed from injury.As for the ''logic'' you suggest, I''d argue that in reality there wasn''t much difference in quality between all 3 of the teams we put out against Burnley, WBA and Leicester, with the biggest difference being the loss of Ayala and Whitbread in defence - something PL can do nothing about as they''re injured. Rudd played against Burnley - he''s also injured, in both games Holt was taken off with 20-25 mins left to play and we played Moro instead of Crofts against Leicester. The rest of the players were pretty much involved in the other games.The difference was the formation and the desire, and Leicester played well against the diamond and our players didn''t have the same level of passion as they did in the previous games.I say again that we DID NOT field a weak side against Leicester, simply that the players didn''t perform.[/quote]I think leaving Holt and Naughton out made our side weaker than the average - Holt as much for his talismanic/lead from the front qualities as anything else.  I don''t recall too many dispassionate performances with Holt in the starting XI - Sunderland away being the only one I can recall.I also think it''s a bit depressing that we''re basically resigning ourselves to never trying to win a tournament again - if league survival is the priority, and I understand why it is, then we know we''ll never win the league, the FA Cup or the League Cup.  Heaven forbid we quality for the Europa League under Lambert as we''ll clearly look to get eliminated as early as possible so it doesn''t affect our league position.  It''s pragmatic, but my god it lacks the romance that some - most, I say - supporters like to dream of."We are Norwich City FC.  We''ll try to finish as high up the Premier League as possible and not win anything.  Success is staying in the Premier League."I know we can''t have it both ways and God knows I''ve been wanting a businesslike influence running the club rather than the previous jolly band of amateurs, but I never realised we''d sacrifice our dreams on the altar of pragmatism.I wonder how long Paul Lambert, a proven winner and a man with a desire to win, will accept being manager at a club who daren''t win anything?

[/quote]

Blimey this whole thing is still going on with the same old arguments being repeated time and time again.  You are so meladromatic Mr Chops, what makes you think we will never be interested in a cup run? You have conveniently forgotten what Lambert reminds us of every week, ie where we have come from.This is our first Prem season, we have an average squad who at the moment are doing really well in the Prem  and we dont want to risk that. If we stay up and continue to build and strengthen the squad our ambition in relation to the cup may change, but for now, this season at least, survival is our only aim. Why is that so difficult to understand?   

[Davo 0]

I don''t think leaving Ruddy out for Steer was a mistake. Ruddy hadn''t played in either of the previous FA Cup games. Steer was excellent against West Brom. The one thing Leicester did to Steer that West Brom did was block him from coming out to retrieve corners. They would of used that tactic against Ruddy and from what I saw at West Brom Steer is very good at making decisions when it comes to coming off his line and claiming the ball on crosses and corners.

Naughton had a knock from the Swansea game so Lambert possibly either didn''t think he was fully fit or didn''t want to risk aggrevating it?

As for Holt sure he would have lead from the front and helped motivate the side. However I don''t think even Lambert was expecting Morison to play so poorly as he did.

Lamber made some mistakes in the game but he can''t help it if the players can''t string three passes together consistently and that as much as any other factor was why we lost.

Davo

[Henry 0]

Rights or WrongsCould Haves and What IfsDoesn''t matter anymore. Its done and dusted. Time to move on.One thing that i am sure of however. I am a Norwich City fan. I don''t care if we play Fakenham Town, Manchester United or bloody Barcelona. I still want to win. Realistic? Of course not, but that won''t stop me from Supporting my team and always wishing for the best result for them [:)]

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Chops,I personally am not saying we should give up hope of a cup run, but simply that league survival and performance will always take priority for me, and when winning the cup is ''only'' worth a couple of million, compared to the 30-40 million that being in the league offers, only a fool would prioritise that over financial security.We simply don''t have an overall squad strong enough to cope if our ''big'' players get injured in the cup and our league form suffers. If Man Utd lose Rooney, they''ve got Berbatov or Welbeck or Hernandez or Owen etc who can come in and play at the same sort of level. If we lose the likes of Holt, then with all respect to Wilbraham etc, they aren''t the same quality and we can''t easily replace players we lose.Now, give us another season or two in the Prem, and we should have a stronger squad overall, and one that can cope with the additional games whilst giving cover if needed from injury.As for the ''logic'' you suggest, I''d argue that in reality there wasn''t much difference in quality between all 3 of the teams we put out against Burnley, WBA and Leicester, with the biggest difference being the loss of Ayala and Whitbread in defence - something PL can do nothing about as they''re injured. Rudd played against Burnley - he''s also injured, in both games Holt was taken off with 20-25 mins left to play and we played Moro instead of Crofts against Leicester. The rest of the players were pretty much involved in the other games.The difference was the formation and the desire, and Leicester played well against the diamond and our players didn''t have the same level of passion as they did in the previous games.I say again that we DID NOT field a weak side against Leicester, simply that the players didn''t perform.[/quote]

Decent points Indy. Maybe I am being unrealistic but I would like to think football should be more than just trying to hang about in the top flight for as long as possible. Of course the financial stability and long term health of the club is what matters the most. But surely getting to Wembley is the kind of moment you treasure and dream of as a fan? I can''t help but feel we let a big opportunity, with a very open draw pass us by, which wouldn''t have particularly threatened our Premiership status. It would take a pretty freakish set of result for us to be playing Championship football next season and I am an eternal pessimist!

You are absolutely right that before you blame tactics and selection you have to do the very basics right. Which we failed to do all game and there was little doubt Leicester wanted it far more than us. It should also be remembered that we just edged them out in two pretty tight league games last year. So we had no divine right to win. But whether you like it or not I think having the captain sat in the directors box must subliminally at least send out the message that the tie isnt overly important. That is something which clearly transmitted to some of the players too.  

 

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Smokebomb"][quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Indy_Bones"]Chops,I personally am not saying we should give up hope of a cup run, but simply that league survival and performance will always take priority for me, and when winning the cup is ''only'' worth a couple of million, compared to the 30-40 million that being in the league offers, only a fool would prioritise that over financial security.We simply don''t have an overall squad strong enough to cope if our ''big'' players get injured in the cup and our league form suffers. If Man Utd lose Rooney, they''ve got Berbatov or Welbeck or Hernandez or Owen etc who can come in and play at the same sort of level. If we lose the likes of Holt, then with all respect to Wilbraham etc, they aren''t the same quality and we can''t easily replace players we lose.Now, give us another season or two in the Prem, and we should have a stronger squad overall, and one that can cope with the additional games whilst giving cover if needed from injury.As for the ''logic'' you suggest, I''d argue that in reality there wasn''t much difference in quality between all 3 of the teams we put out against Burnley, WBA and Leicester, with the biggest difference being the loss of Ayala and Whitbread in defence - something PL can do nothing about as they''re injured. Rudd played against Burnley - he''s also injured, in both games Holt was taken off with 20-25 mins left to play and we played Moro instead of Crofts against Leicester. The rest of the players were pretty much involved in the other games.The difference was the formation and the desire, and Leicester played well against the diamond and our players didn''t have the same level of passion as they did in the previous games.I say again that we DID NOT field a weak side against Leicester, simply that the players didn''t perform.[/quote]I think leaving Holt and Naughton out made our side weaker than the average - Holt as much for his talismanic/lead from the front qualities as anything else.  I don''t recall too many dispassionate performances with Holt in the starting XI - Sunderland away being the only one I can recall.I also think it''s a bit depressing that we''re basically resigning ourselves to never trying to win a tournament again - if league survival is the priority, and I understand why it is, then we know we''ll never win the league, the FA Cup or the League Cup.  Heaven forbid we quality for the Europa League under Lambert as we''ll clearly look to get eliminated as early as possible so it doesn''t affect our league position.  It''s pragmatic, but my god it lacks the romance that some - most, I say - supporters like to dream of."We are Norwich City FC.  We''ll try to finish as high up the Premier League as possible and not win anything.  Success is staying in the Premier League."I know we can''t have it both ways and God knows I''ve been wanting a businesslike influence running the club rather than the previous jolly band of amateurs, but I never realised we''d sacrifice our dreams on the altar of pragmatism.I wonder how long Paul Lambert, a proven winner and a man with a desire to win, will accept being manager at a club who daren''t win anything?

[/quote]

Blimey this whole thing is still going on with the same old arguments being repeated time and time again.  You are so meladromatic Mr Chops, what makes you think we will never be interested in a cup run? You have conveniently forgotten what Lambert reminds us of every week, ie where we have come from.This is our first Prem season, we have an average squad who at the moment are doing really well in the Prem  and we dont want to risk that. If we stay up and continue to build and strengthen the squad our ambition in relation to the cup may change, but for now, this season at least, survival is our only aim. Why is that so difficult to understand?    [/quote]It''s not that difficult, it''s just logic:Staying in the Premier League is our #1 priority and will be our focus each season.We are highly unlikely to ever be "safe" in the Premier League by mid-February, so rounds 3, 4 and 5 of the FA Cup eash season will not be a priority as a minimum.  Ditto the Carling Cup each season.We are therefore highly unlikely to have a go at winning anything each season.Winning is surviving in the EPL.

[Frankly speaking 0]

Blimey, All I wanted was for a few people to read the blog!!

I didn''t want to start WW3

[CDMullins 436]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Ernie"]When Leicester saw our team sheet how much more motivation do you think they needed?  With no Ruddy, Holt, Surman or Naughton[/quote]
Two of whom also didn''t play against either Burnley or WBA - namely Ruddy and Naughton.

Surman didn''t play against WBA and Holty got subbed off in both games with 20-25 mins left to play, and in both those games we scored after Holt had been subbed off...

I didn''t see anyone criticising the team selections before, but apparently in your opinion, leaving Holt and Surman out of a single game makes our team shit?

Seriously - WTF are you talking about???
[/quote]

 

Seriously - WTF are you talking about?

 

Our side with Surman (who as started all our premier league games lately) and Holt would have been stronger, thus giving us more chance of winning.

 

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="CDMullins"]Our side with Surman (who as started all our premier league games lately) and Holt would have been stronger, thus giving us more chance of winning. [/quote]Oh FFS, when is this stupidity going to end?Since when did the omission of 2 players mean our side goes from great to shit?Yes, I don''t deny that it would have been a stronger side with both those players, but not to the level that so many on here are claiming - almost like we''ve dropped Xavi and Messi!As I said initially, Surman didn''t play against WBA and Holty got subbed in both games and we scored after he came off, and we played perfectly well despite this, so why does them not playing against Leicester cause this massive over-reaction?Forget whether or not Surman, Holt or whoever else was or wasn''t playing, it purely came down to the people that were playing, were not giving 100%, whilst using tactics that Leicester were familiar with and played well against.Now can we stop all this nonsense about Holt being God, and players like Surman being undroppable?