MOTD

[Yellow since 1977 0]

Ok have to say it. Lawrenson slagged the defence but missed the fact that Bassong had gone off injured. Yes turner played Ba on but he had not been on long and was still adapting.

All the old stuff, second season, it''s going to be extremely tough, blah blah.

I am now at the point where I mute during the analysis.

Please let''s get a win next week so we can shut these people up!

[ROBFLECK 132]

Even we have to admit it looks bleak though...haven''t we? I don''t like the feeling I have now ''bout things, but it''s just an opinion, so don''t start slagging me off!!! I never listen to what this guy says, so I muted it immediately...I am a through and through City fan and I always will be....but it''s difficult to see us getting results now imho

[ZLF 284]

Some of his analysis could have been pre written,  was quite lazy and he wrongly stated we have only scored 1 goal.

 

However Turner WAS awful for the goal,  the shape simply shocking and whether turner was just on the field or not is irrelevant,  its basic defending and he was wandering.  Thankfully he did improve as the game went on but the damage was already done.

 

As for not scoring - where is was he wrong?

[Aggy 766]

The Lawrenson/MOTD thing is ridiculous on here. We have yet again lost a game. We haven''t scored anywhere near enough goals (2 in 5 games ffs!!!), Hughton has supposedly tightened us up at the back, yet we still concede more than we score, and the defence was all over the place for their goal yesterday (AND whilst we had a few chances, let''s not forget that they also missed a penalty and had a couple of decent chances themselves, we could just as easily have lost by 3 as we could have got a point).

Yet when Lawrenson says those exact same things, MOTD is against us bla bla bla. Just possibly he''s correct for once? Yes he is a bit ''lazy'' and got our goals scored wrong, but he probably does that for the majority of the teams in t he division. That''s not an anti-Norwich thing, it''s just simply that he''s an ex-footballer who is asked to talk about 20 different sides a weekend.

[Tetteys Jig 831]

Lawro suprised me at first, saying we did quite well, but let it go when he said we had only 1 goal this season

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Aggy"]The Lawrenson/MOTD thing is ridiculous on here. We have yet again lost a game. We haven''t scored anywhere near enough goals (2 in 5 games ffs!!!), Hughton has supposedly tightened us up at the back, yet we still concede more than we score, and the defence was all over the place for their goal yesterday (AND whilst we had a few chances, let''s not forget that they also missed a penalty and had a couple of decent chances themselves, we could just as easily have lost by 3 as we could have got a point).

Aggy do your research mate. Lawrenson has a personal vendetta against us for spoiling the party in the last Liverpool home game in front of the old Kop which we won 1-0.

He''s hated us ever since.

Plus he''s a f£&@#* idiot....

Yet when Lawrenson says those exact same things, MOTD is against us bla bla bla. Just possibly he''s correct for once? Yes he is a bit ''lazy'' and got our goals scored wrong, but he probably does that for the majority of the teams in t he division. That''s not an anti-Norwich thing, it''s just simply that he''s an ex-footballer who is asked to talk about 20 different sides a weekend.[/quote]

[lake district canary 0]

The only way to shut Lawro up is to beat Liverpool on Saturday. 

[ROBFLECK 132]

Do you believe we''ll do that LDC?

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]Do you believe we''ll do that LDC?[/quote]

From what I have seen this season our outfield play matches anyone we''ve played against.    If we can keep the  passing neat and not give the ball away too cheaply we can give Liverpool a run for their money.    We are due a goal or two, that is for sure and we have to get that elusive win from somewhere.    We''ve got to give them a hard time on Saturday and if we do -  and win - now wouldn''t that make us all feel alot better?  

[ROBFLECK 132]

that''s true...I just can''t see us containing "hollywood-Suarez" ...remember what he did to us last season?

But I agree with your point on giving them a real run for their money!

[Lord Horn 0]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]that''s true...I just can''t see us containing "hollywood-Suarez" ...remember what he did to us last season? But I agree with your point on giving them a real run for their money![/quote]

And, of course, Liverpool will be missing their No.1 supporter from Hoveton who won''t be running onto any football pitches in the near future! [:D]

[nutty nigel 7,669]

[quote user="Lord Horn"]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]that''s true...I just can''t see us containing "hollywood-Suarez" ...remember what he did to us last season? But I agree with your point on giving them a real run for their money![/quote]

And, of course, Liverpool will be missing their No.1 supporter from Hoveton who won''t be running onto any football pitches in the near future! [:D]

[/quote]

 

It''s the burger van I feel sorry for. They sold out last year. But now fat boy is banned....

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

"Some of his analysis could have been pre written"

 

some !

 

You''ll be telling us next that Lineker reads all his lines from an autocue and Hansen is not able to remember more than one sentence without glancing down at his notes (script)

 

Unless the ''pundit'' has watched the whole game they can only be commenting upon the highlights and it is extremely unlikely that they would then be able to formulate any reasoned opinion on those brief highlight, more so as they will be skewed to however the producer wants to portray the game.

 

So yes they will have the ''benefit'' of a ''researcher'' who will have watched the whole game and will provide notes (write his script) about the game.

 

 

 

ps some might say more fool you if you expect anything different