In that 2nd half....

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

......our psychology changed to being a bit too careful.

 

Consequently we started taking  too many touches of the ball and losing out to Sunderland''s increased tempo .......instead of moving it on crisply and simply as we did for most of the first half. to calm things down.

 

In hindsight, I think the worst offender was Hoolahan who insisted on running with the ball and looking for glory passes rather than moving it on and seeking periods of possession. Perhaps Chris would have done better to send on Howson after say 60 minutes or so with instructions to pass and move? 

 

Don''t get me wrong - a fine 1st half and an  invaluable win - but on another day Sunderland would have turned us over in that 2nd half comfortably; and we need to understand why.

 

OTBC

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

So nobody agrees or disagrees? [:''(]

 

OTBC

[lappinitup 629]

Nope!

[Steady On... 0]

You''ve got to accept that hoolahan will try risky, borderline, genius passes and not all of them will pay off. I''d take his mistake for all the genius stuff he does, I thought he was sublime most of the time yesterday.

[TIL 1010 4,776]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

......our psychology changed to being a bit too careful.

 

Consequently we started taking  too many touches of the ball and losing out to Sunderland''s increased tempo .......instead of moving it on crisply and simply as we did for most of the first half. to calm things down.

OTBC

[/quote]

So 28 consecutive touches of the ball without Sunderland once getting a look in leading to Pilkington''s goal would be regarded as too many in your book then Bly i assume ?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

......our psychology changed to being a bit too careful.

 

Consequently we started taking  too many touches of the ball and losing out to Sunderland''s increased tempo .......instead of moving it on crisply and simply as we did for most of the first half. to calm things down.

OTBC

[/quote]

So 28 consecutive touches of the ball without Sunderland once getting a look in leading to Pilkington''s goal would be regarded as too many in your book then Bly i assume ?

[/quote]

 

That was in the first half.............

 

Dear oh dear. Do try and understand what you are reading; and do keep up.

 

OTBC 

[TIL 1010 4,776]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

......our psychology changed to being a bit too careful.

 

Consequently we started taking  too many touches of the ball and losing out to Sunderland''s increased tempo .......instead of moving it on crisply and simply as we did for most of the first half. to calm things down.

OTBC

[/quote]

So 28 consecutive touches of the ball without Sunderland once getting a look in leading to Pilkington''s goal would be regarded as too many in your book then Bly i assume ?

[/quote]

 

That was in the first half.............

 

Dear oh dear. Do try and understand what you are reading; and do keep up.

 

OTBC 

[/quote]

If 28 passes was ok in the first half why are you saying we should have "moved it on crisply and simply " in the second which surely is the same thing as the 28 passes were in the first ?? Those 28 passes were swift and simple in my eyes.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

......our psychology changed to being a bit too careful.

 

Consequently we started taking  too many touches of the ball and losing out to Sunderland''s increased tempo .......instead of moving it on crisply and simply as we did for most of the first half. to calm things down.

OTBC

[/quote]

So 28 consecutive touches of the ball without Sunderland once getting a look in leading to Pilkington''s goal would be regarded as too many in your book then Bly i assume ?

[/quote]

 

That was in the first half.............

 

Dear oh dear. Do try and understand what you are reading; and do keep up.

 

OTBC 

[/quote]

If 28 passes was ok in the first half why are you saying we should have "moved it on crisply and simply " in the second which surely is the same thing as the 28 passes were in the first ?? Those 28 passes were swift and simple in my eyes.

[/quote]

 

Good grief!

 

Help............!!!!!

 

OTBC

[havemyhowsonit 0]

How about the rallying cry Martin o''neill gave to his team after the first halfs shocking performance?

That''s got more to do with it, Sunderland should have won the game 2-4 in the second half. We should have scored 3 or 4 in the first half.

I''m glad Sunderland had their shooting boots off.

Onto Swansea!

[Yobocop 1,105]

I see what your trying to say but I think it''s unfair to single out one player

We can talk about it all week fact remains we got 3 points and we didnt perhaps play as well as we could''ve

On to Swansea

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

Credit to Sunderland second half. They have many players on paper at least more expensive and better than ours they could not be as bad as they had been in the first half hour. Add to that our style is very labour intensive and we had had two tough away fixtures this week before the Sunderland game and i thnk we started to run out of steam a tad. It is often a fine line, we could have lost it in the 2nd half but all that matters inthe end we didnt

[nutty nigel 7,555]

Well done Yorkshire. At last someone recognises that there are two teams in a game of football. We are 12th in the premier league and that is great credit to every one at the club. But to expect us to be easily 12th is unrealistic to say the least.

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well done Yorkshire. At last someone recognises that there are two teams in a game of football. We are 12th in the premier league and that is great credit to every one at the club. But to expect us to be easily 12th is unrealistic to say the least.

 

[/quote]

 

Hughton is about continual improvement which is a crucial element of quality management systems in the modern world. No doubt he and his technical staff will have had a brainstorming session yesterday or today part of which will have centred on ''how could we have done even better''.

 

You are about  being ''thankful for what we have got and stagnation''. Mercifully  most of us are about being ''thankful for what we have got and continual improvement''.

 

Your attitude on this thread breathes ''little norwich''''.

 

Thankfully in Chris Hughton we have a man who knows what its all about and will continue to execute the evident vision of Bowkett and McNally as endorsed by Delia and her hubby - continual improvement.

 

And still. One love.

 

OTBC

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,555]

I''ve not turned nasty. I''m just bored with humouring you. There''s a big difference. Now, talking about turning nasty, what made you think I hadn''t been to any away games this season like I normally do?

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,776]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Thankfully in Chris Hughton we have a man who knows what its all about and will continue to execute the evident vision of Bowkett and McNally as endorsed by Delia and her hubby - continual improvement.

[/quote]

Let me just tell you what Alan Bowkett said at the AGM which was repeated by McNally and you will have to take the word of someone who was there  to hear it as you Purists don''t do AGM''s although one of you only lives about two miles from Carrow Road......." We must remain in the Premiership for the next season.It is vital because TV revenue will increase dramatically and Chris is aware of this so no pressure" ( greeted with smiles on the top table and laughter from the floor)

Now call me old fashioned but this did not sound like someone who wanted to take the football a step further up the progression ladder but instead would be happy and thankful to be 17th or above.

[Houston Canary 0]

This game was just the opposite of a lot of our recent games, where we look shaky in the first half and take over in the 2nd. It was easier to watch as a fan since we had a lead instead of needing to come from behind or to score first in a 0 - 0 game, especially with our lack of goals but stellar defense.

 

In my opinion.

 

.

[Six Pack 94]

We are "little Norwich" due to the wealth of the other clubs in this league - not by attitude, mentality or quality of players at the club - we have darn good players !

You state continued improvement is required by Hughton & his coaching team - then in the same breathe suggest we replace Hoolahan with Howson !!! - how do you expect people to take you seriously ??? 

[Beauseant 0]

The reason for the change in the second half was that Sunderland defended higher and put more pressure on our central midfield. That created more opportunity for their fullbacks to get forward, and gave Johnson, in particular, more space. It also meant that our fbs had to sit in so were less able to link with our own wingers. It also meant that we had to hold a line on the edge of our box, not 10 yards in front of it as we did in the first half.

[djc 0]

More importantly, which seems to be overlooked we won the game. The second half performance was indeed different to the first. Was it down to us being less good second half? Or sunderland being better, perhaps given a half-time rocket from MO''N? The bit not many have mentioned is, that earlier this season when under pressure we would have collapsed and conceded goals... So credit to the team, the sunderland second half shows how we have progressed this season and gives some assurances that we will be ok this season

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Six Pack"]

We are "little Norwich" due to the wealth of the other clubs in this league - not by attitude, mentality or quality of players at the club - we have darn good players !

You state continued improvement is required by Hughton & his coaching team - then in the same breathe suggest we replace Hoolahan with Howson !!! - how do you expect people to take you seriously ??? 

[/quote]

I would expect serious people to have read that I floated the idea that maybe we should have replaced Holahan with Howson for the final 30 minutes of that particular match - and gave my reason.

 

I have never made the almost libellous suggestion that Howson should replace Hoolahan as a starter as part of the necessary continual improvement process that the club is pursuing.

 

Maybe you can be excused as you have apparently come on the thread after Pete had deleted some posts ............ making the discussion rather difficult to follow in parts!

 

Still and all. One love.

 

OTBC

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]The reason for the change in the second half was that Sunderland defended higher and put more pressure on our central midfield. That created more opportunity for their fullbacks to get forward, and gave Johnson, in particular, more space. It also meant that our fbs had to sit in so were less able to link with our own wingers. It also meant that we had to hold a line on the edge of our box, not 10 yards in front of it as we did in the first half.[/quote]

 

So Sunderland changed their tactics in the 2nd half; and we reacted.

 

What do you reckon we could have done better, if anything, to counteract their new tactics?

 

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,555]

I don''t know why Beaus bothers with a reasoned post. Apparently accepting that there are two teams every game and that both their approaches and tactics will affect the outcome is being little old Norwich. Which is the forum thickos get out of jail card. A football match is 90 minutes long. Martin O''Neill went head to head with Chris Hughton. Hughton won the first half. O''Neill won the second half. There''s nothing surprising there. However O''Neill went on his long journey home knowing the 3 points were safely tucked away in Hughton''s wallet. And we know the contents of that.

 

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="Beauseant"]The reason for the change in the second half was that Sunderland defended higher and put more pressure on our central midfield. That created more opportunity for their fullbacks to get forward, and gave Johnson, in particular, more space. It also meant that our fbs had to sit in so were less able to link with our own wingers. It also meant that we had to hold a line on the edge of our box, not 10 yards in front of it as we did in the first half.[/quote]

 

So Sunderland changed their tactics in the 2nd half; and we reacted.

 

What do you reckon we could have done better, if anything, to counteract their new tactics?

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

We did what we needed to do and ensured that close range chances were minimised (noty much could have been done about the rebound). Sunderland didn''t just change tactics, they upped their game overall (Sessegnon and Fletcher might as well have not been there in the first half) and we had to hang on a bit. When you look at their side, with the likes of Larsson, Fletcher, Johnson, McLean, Cuellar etc, they''re pretty decent but are clearly having a bad trot. There''s no shame in being hard pressed by them. Fans tend to think that their team is better than it''s league position when they''re near the bottom, but automatically assume than any opponenents who are below them should be cannon fodder, but that''s simply not true.

In direct answer to your question, we could have protected the ball better and sharpened our passing (this has been a recurring theme recently) which would have taken some of the pressure off the back four.

[nutty nigel 7,555]

The point about Fletcher just shows how the best coaches can still profit from their own bad luck. While Fletcher was on the field Sunderland were predictable and one dimensional. Hughton had done his homework and Fletcher was anonymous. However the enforced change with Fletcher being replaced by the lesser Wickham actually worked in Sunderlands favour. The changed their approach and Sessegnon started to be more influential. I''m sure how we reacted to this was the knowledge that we had a lead to defend and the fact that there were no goals in the second half is all credit to us.

 

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

The point about Fletcher just shows how the best coaches can still profit from their own bad luck. While Fletcher was on the field Sunderland were predictable and one dimensional. Hughton had done his homework and Fletcher was anonymous. However the enforced change with Fletcher being replaced by the lesser Wickham actually worked in Sunderlands favour. The changed their approach and Sessegnon started to be more influential. I''m sure how we reacted to this was the knowledge that we had a lead to defend and the fact that there were no goals in the second half is all credit to us.

 

 

[/quote]

 

That''s an excellent point about Fletcher Nutty. There''s no doubt that Wickham caused us more problems and I suspect that O''Neill also put a rocket up Sessegnon''s arse.

[Duncan Edwards 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

The point about Fletcher just shows how the best coaches can still profit from their own bad luck. While Fletcher was on the field Sunderland were predictable and one dimensional. Hughton had done his homework and Fletcher was anonymous. However the enforced change with Fletcher being replaced by the lesser Wickham actually worked in Sunderlands favour. The changed their approach and Sessegnon started to be more influential. I''m sure how we reacted to this was the knowledge that we had a lead to defend and the fact that there were no goals in the second half is all credit to us.

 

 

[/quote]

 

That''s an excellent point about Fletcher Nutty. There''s no doubt that Wickham caused us more problems and I suspect that O''Neill also put a rocket up Sessegnon''s arse.

[/quote]

 

Good point indeed, not to mention that Bassong was carrying a knock for the last 35-40 minutes. If he''d been 100% I don''t think Wickham would have had the success, certainly aerially, that he did.

 

All that said, we held onto our lead and bagged the points. That''s the important thing.

 

 

[Six Pack 94]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Six Pack"]

We are "little Norwich" due to the wealth of the other clubs in this league - not by attitude, mentality or quality of players at the club - we have darn good players !

You state continued improvement is required by Hughton & his coaching team - then in the same breathe suggest we replace Hoolahan with Howson !!! - how do you expect people to take you seriously ??? 

[/quote]

I would expect serious people to have read that I floated the idea that maybe we should have replaced Holahan with Howson for the final 30 minutes of that particular match - and gave my reason.

 

I have never made the almost libellous suggestion that Howson should replace Hoolahan as a starter as part of the necessary continual improvement process that the club is pursuing.

 

Maybe you can be excused as you have apparently come on the thread after Pete had deleted some posts ............ making the discussion rather difficult to follow in parts!

 

Still and all. One love.

 

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

My apologies for sounding blunt & unclear with my response Bly. I do understand you were fishing for solutions to counter the Sunderland onslaught in the 2nd half. Please understand that in my opinion we should never replace Hoolahan with Howson period ! not starting a game or during a game - especially with the score so tight. It does not matter if he is tired after playing so many games in a short period of time. Every minute Hoolahan is off the pitch is a minute lost by our team in terms of opportunity. He is the lynchpin of our attack - not only with his passing, dribbling & movement but also the other players play a lot better with him in the team. Howson played some good games for us at the tail end of last season, he equally played some bad ones. Close examination will show the good ones were when Hoolahan was in the team with him (with the exception of Spurs away). The premiership has changed from last season - we have gone 8 games unbeaten and still have not shaken off the pack at the bottom. The bottom teams are winning just as we do. It''s relentless - so we can''t afford to take off our most important offensive player. If Sunderland had equalise on Sunday - with Hoolahan still on the pitch we have every chance of getting the lead back. Howson is our backup central midfielder - in my opinion a distance behind Tettey & BJ and if we were to lose either of those 2 or Hoolahan - something will give !  People need to realise that we haven''t really got the depth in the central midfield positions. Fox is a passing midfielder & Elliott Bennett can also "cut it" but is best out wide.

I believe Hughton did respond on Sunday by bringing E Bennett on early (77 min is early in Hughton''s terms). That change could happen as early as half time but Hoolahan off - NO - not for me