Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Bradwell canary

Two up front, simple, we have no one

Recommended Posts

For all the flack CH gets about this, lets face it. This year we have not even got one striker of PL quality, let alone two.

It was so very clear that this was a huge weakness in this years squad during the close season, and again in Jan. yet nothing was done about filling that gap with any quality.

If only the same effort had been made, as it was with the goalkeeping problem, we may not now be in position we are now!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But was it really as obvious as you say, we were after all the 7th highest scorers last year, Holt was 2nd highest English scorer and touted as the solution to Englands International goalscoring problem.In contrast we conceded a shocking number of goals last year, only the relegated teams conceded more.Perhaps it was more obvious that our defence needed strengthening but our attack was more than adequate than you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it was obvious there were problems with the strikers over the Summer. Morison form had dipped. Vaughan had been injured. Jackson was not imo PL quality. The panic Kane signing also points to this. However, by January the problems were painfully obvious and not addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our best striker pre season was James Vaughan, and we let him go, Kane was no where near good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pure fantasy that playing one up front is a negative tactic anyway, most teams only play one up front including United who have strolled the league this year.

The main issue we have is we don''t commit the midfield to bomb forward and the full backs don''t overlap as much as they used to, meaning we have 1 striker in the box, Hoolahan trying to make himself available to the person on the ball and Snoddy or Bennett being isolated with no support.

Nothing wrong with the actual formation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obvious to those who closely follow  the club but obvious to someone whose involvement only commenced in June 2012, I''m not so sure. It''s funny how often those who criticise the summer "panic signing" of Harry Kane positively advocate that we should have "panic bought" in january when both targeted players failed to sign.....I''m very pleased that we kept our money instead of gambling it on a third, fourth or "anyone who''s available" signing in january as it allowed us to sign a hot prospect like RVW early and for a bargain fee. I''d be interested in hearing who you think we should have spent the money on in january bearing in mind that any such signing might well have prevented us having the ready cash to sign up RVW a few weeks later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nothing was done"? We had an almost daily report on bids for Hooper and Celtic refusals.We might have signed Graham, but he was always heading NE. We could have had somebody else if we had been prepared to pay through the nose.

 

The trouble is that by the time the season has started, clubs are unwilling to sell good strikers, except at silly prices, because they are left with a hole to fill. The same is true of the January window. CH, without bemoaning his fate, remarked that January was not a good time to do business.

 

When CH had settled in last summer, the vidoes had indicated that Holt would be as effective as last season - Holt scored 15, and Morison 10 or so. To back then up were (the once highly promising) Vaughan, the quick Jackson, and talented Martin. By the time they had returned from the pre-season games only Vaughan had impressed. By this time it was becoming too late to find a (cut-priced) established striker. All that could be done was to borrow the promising Kane.

 

Given the situations, August and January, we did make offers - at least for RvW, Hooper and Graham. Lisbon did not want to part with their striker, even at a silly price, and the other two we know about. We did trade the struggling Morison, who seems to be still strugghling, for Becchio, and we managed to sign Kamara, - the last so near then end of the window that he arrived less than match fit.

 

I am not sure who decided that we would not pay through the nose for Hopper, or the others, - whether McN, the Chairman, or CH, but it is a little unfair on them to suggest that "nothing was done". They seem at least to have tried very hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Kane was a quite sensible signing by CH. Kane played off the main striker in Spurs U21 side to great effect, basically the role Wes plays except Kane was scoring goals. Kane had also played for Spurs first team so it was obvious that he had some quality about him.

I can''t fault CH on the signing, he had done his homework, Kane was a perfect fit for the second striker/AM role and was playing for a ''better'' Club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ken"]For all the flack CH gets about this, lets face it. This year we have not even got one striker of PL quality, let alone two. It was so very clear that this was a huge weakness in this years squad during the close season, and again in Jan. yet nothing was done about filling that gap with any quality. If only the same effort had been made, as it was with the goalkeeping problem, we may not now be in position we are now!![/quote]

Isn''t it CH''s job to sign them then ?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Joanna Grey"]Harry Kane was a quite sensible signing by CH. Kane played off the main striker in Spurs U21 side to great effect, basically the role Wes plays except Kane was scoring goals. Kane had also played for Spurs first team so it was obvious that he had some quality about him.

I can''t fault CH on the signing, he had done his homework, Kane was a perfect fit for the second striker/AM role and was playing for a ''better'' Club.[/quote]

But he wasn''t very good dear boy!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
many go on about vaughan.

our ''supposed to be'' saving grace for the season, until evil ol'' hughton let him go.

and yet he has been injured for a long spell this season and accumulated a massive 9 goals in the championship this season.

even for a poor team, 9 goals is dreadful in the championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VanWiz said; "But he wasn''t very good dear boy!! "

We know that now, I was just stating that the signing was not a mistake on CH''s part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m sorry but if a manager brings in a player who is a success he gets the credit, if he brings in a dud then that is his fault. That''s the way it always works. Or do we have to make special allowances for Mr H in this regard as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Vanwink"]I''m sorry but if a manager brings in a player who is a success he gets the credit, if he brings in a dud then that is his fault. That''s the way it always works. Or do we have to make special allowances for Mr H in this regard as well?[/quote]

 

Still not a positive "pro Norwich" post from you!

 

Now, let''s just take a hypothetical question and say that CH got RVP on loan for the season (very hypothetical I know, but bear with me) - and he then went on a goalless run (as he currently is) - would that justify your comment "if he brings in a dud then that is his fault"?

 

So he was led to believe that GH & SM, after a season''s experience in the PL, could step up to the plate and emulate their contribution from last season. He then went and got a very promising young star on loan as a standby. He got injured - therefore, because he didn''t have much game time, according to some, he was a "dud".

 

Acknowledging the frailties up front CH and the board were apparently "pushing the boat out" in trying to get a decent striker in. Some of the reported figures for Hooper were eye wateringly ridiculous. However, neither Celtic nor Lisbon were prepared to sell their strikers - no matter how far we pushed them. As for Danny Graham - £5m - if we had "ambition" we would have broken the bank for him. Hasn''t scored a goal for Sunderland yet! Can you imagine the fallout if we had overspent for him, and he didn''t score a goal here??

 

As I''ve said before, from some peoples perspectives, CH is damned if he does and damned if he doesn''t!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made many pro norwich posts. But I say what I think, I don''t think Hughton has done a good job, and while many wish to excuse his weaknesses, I think it is far more healthy to be honest.

And in answer to your question, yes the manager carries the can for a dud and takes the credit for a success.it has always been thus.

What makes you think it should be different for Hughton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with that statement, but every manager makes a dud signing, luckily ours was just a loan signing so no big deal.

In my opinion Hughton has been fantastic in the transfer window, I genuinely believe he is building something here, whilst I agree we have been boring to watch at times this year, his previous record suggests that he is an attacking manager and in the summer I am certain we''ll have a new lot of attacking players arrive to mix in with our cracking defence.

Whilst your opinion has to respected VanWink, I hope you''ll be the first to hold your hand up next season and admit you were wrong about Hughton if he changes things around

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We must be careful how we define what constitutes a dud striker because if we keep it simplistic and measure them by goals scored then Holt, Morison, Vaughan and Jackson can all be considered duds this season but who to blame huh??? Vantinkle points at Hughton for bringing in Kane but the real problem lies quite obviously not with kane but the dud performances and returns of the strikers he inherited from whom based on previous form we all might have expected a combined return of some 20-30 prem goals but who have in fact provided a paltry eight or so.It''s easy to single out CH for criticism over the Kane signing but far more difficult to accept Kane was far from being the only dud striker this year.

{ In his defence CH has dropped the four "dud" strikers from the starting lineup and shipped those he could out the club, the unshippable one has been dropped to the bench so he clearly recognises there is an issue with the quality of our strikers }.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis if he changes things round I will be the first to admit I was wrong don''t you worry.I want to see us holding our own and to enjoy watching footy at CR and away. That''s all!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×