Drama Queens

[unique 434]

With two of the best three players in The PL - Suarez and Bale - earning a reputation for diving, and proving it doesn''t prevent adulation from fans and media alike, I suppose it shouldn''t matter that two of our own could have the finger pointed at them.

However, the antics of Holt and Snodgrass is starting to wear a bit thin. They are probably two of the most passionate players in the team, but the '' win at all costs'' behaviour does not sit well with a club like Norwich.

There have been times when we have probably been many football supporters'' second favourite team - hard to imagine that is the case with our current outfit.

Holt and Snodgrass''s ability to fall to the ground when an opponent so much as breathes on them (as Warnock described Holt on Sunday) is clearly not going unnoticed. Writing in a national newspaper, Graham Poll pointed out....

"The incident which caused such consternation was caused not by Clattenburg but by Norwich striker Grant Holt diving to simulate a foul and it is in the direction of the Norwich player that any anger should be directed.

The former tyre fitter used to have something of a strong man reputation when helping Norwich climb from League One but he now seems to have fitted quickly in to the ways of the Premier League."

There is no doubt that they have earned a few free-kicks that have led to goals this season. But more often now, than ever before, and possibly in part to the ardours of many months into the season, they go down, then whinge and whine when the decision doesn''t go their way. In Holt''s case, spend the next 10 or 15 seconds getting to his feet/dusting himself down/protesting as the game passes him by.

Their shenanigans have produced just one penalty all season. I would much rather see both players trying harder to stay on their feet, waiting for the genuine foul, and spend a lot less time making out the whole world is against them when the referee doesn''t rule in their favour.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

All clubs do it now. And lets be honest, Holt was clearly tugged back in the first half and had a definite penalty turned down. If referees and their assistants are not brave enough to give the decision for a real foul, then why not go down easily.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I have never had a problem with players going down easily - defenders shouldn''t be waving legs around in an attempt to force an attacking player into a mistake.

 

I dislike players falling over imaginary legs though, which I don''t think I have ever seen Holt or Snodgrass do.

 

Maybe Norwich should be like the teams from back in the day which refused to take penalties as it was deemed ''un-gentlemanly'' (not that it would make much difference).

[AJ 1,218]

The reality is if Holt was playing for the opposing team you''d hate him. He''s very clever and cunning - but we''ve scored from so many set pieces him and Snoddy have won we can''t really complain too much.

If it gains an advantage, so be it. But as Bethnal says, falling over with no contact and rolling around theatrically after a slight tap is not how Football is supposed to be.

Likewise, you shouldn''t HAVE to go to ground to win a penalty. If it''s a foul, it''s a foul whether you go to ground or not. Football is being ruined because there seems to be some unwritten law you can''t get a penalty unless you plunge to the ground like you''ve been sniped and do a triple forward roll. It''s a disgrace.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Holt really can''t win here.  If he stayed on his feet when he was pushed inside the penalty area, people would say he''s "naive", if he falls over, they say he "went down too easily".

 

The problem is you''ll be very lucky to get a pen awarded, even for a fairly clear foul, if you don''t fall over.  Also, the reality is that big teams, especially playing at home, are given penalties by refs much more often that City are.  Should we really give ManU, Liverpool etc an even bigger advantage by not playing on the same terms as they do ?  It''s up to the refs to sort it out, not us.

 

Looking at the replays, I think the penalties given for Holt and Suarez were very similar - in both cases there is a clear push in the back, and the player goes down "easily", and a penalty is correctly given.  For Southampton, the person to blame was the defender for pushing a striker in the box who was going away from goal with no real threat.

 

Back in L1 I watched Holt playing a robust style against CBs who were equally good at dishing it out.  If he played the same way in the Prem  frankly he''d get sent off every other game.  I wish people wouldn''t give flak to one of our players who has just intelligently adapted to the way the game is played in the Prem.  If you don''t like it, make a general complaint about it, don''t have a go at Holt.

[Orford65 0]

[quote user="unique"]With two of the best three players in The PL - Suarez and Bale - earning a reputation for diving, and proving it doesn''t prevent adulation from fans and media alike, I suppose it shouldn''t matter that two of our own could have the finger pointed at them.

However, the antics of Holt and Snodgrass is starting to wear a bit thin. They are probably two of the most passionate players in the team, but the '' win at all costs'' behaviour does not sit well with a club like Norwich.

There have been times when we have probably been many football supporters'' second favourite team - hard to imagine that is the case with our current outfit.

Holt and Snodgrass''s ability to fall to the ground when an opponent so much as breathes on them (as Warnock described Holt on Sunday) is clearly not going unnoticed. Writing in a national newspaper, Graham Poll pointed out....

"The incident which caused such consternation was caused not by Clattenburg but by Norwich striker Grant Holt diving to simulate a foul and it is in the direction of the Norwich player that any anger should be directed.

The former tyre fitter used to have something of a strong man reputation when helping Norwich climb from League One but he now seems to have fitted quickly in to the ways of the Premier League."

There is no doubt that they have earned a few free-kicks that have led to goals this season. But more often now, than ever before, and possibly in part to the ardours of many months into the season, they go down, then whinge and whine when the decision doesn''t go their way. In Holt''s case, spend the next 10 or 15 seconds getting to his feet/dusting himself down/protesting as the game passes him by.

Their shenanigans have produced just one penalty all season. I would much rather see both players trying harder to stay on their feet, waiting for the genuine foul, and spend a lot less time making out the whole world is against them when the referee doesn''t rule in their favour.[/quote]So Poll, that brilliant referee who cannot quite make up his mind whether it''s two yellows or three that equate to a red and was presumably not even at the match, is certain that Holt dived after receiving a push in the back.The guy was a useless Ref and makes an even worse pundit.

[unique 434]

Unfortunately, neither of them are regularly going down where it matters - in the penalty box.

Holt seems to drop like a ton of bricks in areas of the pitch that don''t really matter. You can argue that it helps to relieve the defence, but on the other hand it allows the opposition to organise their defence.

Some supporters have made the comparison between ourselves and Stoke - I''m sure if you compared the ways that both teams scored the majority of their goals it would be very similar.

It would be nice, now and again, to see Norwich score some goals from free-flowing football. The only tactic that seems to be involved is to win a free-kick or corner and put trust in a good delivery(that''s becoming rarer) and score from the set-piece. As we have scored more than one goal in a match on only six occasions, I would suggest the tactic is flawed.

Does anybody know how many Norwich goals have actually been scored from open play this season?

[ricky knight 0]

It works both ways defenders nowadays cheat like hell on corners, holding, grabbing shirts, blocking, refs do nout, when in fact he could give a pen every corner if he had the bottle, so if a striker buys a pen, good luck i say. Would not be many complaints had Holt buried it and we sat on 35 points.

[Aggy 752]

Personally, unique, I''d take Holt "winning" us a penalty in the last minute of a game that could potentially earn us 3 points over being other fans'' second team every day of the week.

I have seen Snodgrass go over an imaginary leg once or twice this season. I don''t particularly like to see it in the game at all. However, whilst it''s going on at the large majority of the clubs I am more than happy for us to try and get the same advantage from cheating as other clubs do.

As for Holt, I don''t think I have ever seen him go over an imaginary leg. Poll is talking drivel. Holt certainly doesn''t dive. There is contact, he is entitled to go down (although I dislike that phrase and it should be a case of being fouled rather than ''entitled'' to go down, but sadly that no longer is the case). If Clattenburg felt it was just a tangle of legs or Holt sticking his leg out behind him to make contact, then he need not give a penalty. If he felt there was contact on Holt, then he does give a penalty. Simple.