Apologies Due

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Has our manager recently acquired the status of being beyond criticism?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Jim.. serious question.. what was the difference between the way we approached the two Man City games?

 

 

[/quote] Nutty The previous Man City game was in December so before the period I refer to. I have also said I think our tactics against the top teams were good. That said we were aided in that December game by the sending off before which they were threatening to run riot. A more pertinent question would be what was the difference in how we approached the Man City away game compared to the home games against Fulham and Newcastle and the away games at Wigan, Stoke, QPR, Reading etc etc[/quote]

 

Jim why do you people continue to find negatives to underplay our achievements. For me Man City were aided in that game by our continued loss of Ruddy as much as we were aided by the sending off. Which was a sending off by the way! I think that you''d enjoy supporting Norwich more if you had a more positive outlook. Your point about that Man City game is far more negative than any tactics Hughton employed this season.

 

 

[/quote]

I''m not underplaying out achievements but I believe we should strive to do as well as we possibly can and I actually think that this season we could have made life easier for ourselves and yes we could possibly have done even better.

Which is more negative, being satisfied with staying up every season or actually having done faith in our players and believing that they are capable of more than just staying up and actually capable of going to most of the lesser teams in this league and taking the game to them? That''s not negative, it''s having some ambition and belief in our players and I would just like to see a bit more of it from Hughton next season.

I don''t see what is so wrong with that.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

That would be a very different thing to posters disagreeing about specific criticisms. Which do you see happening?

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Jim.. serious question.. what was the difference between the way we approached the two Man City games?

 

 

[/quote] Nutty The previous Man City game was in December so before the period I refer to. I have also said I think our tactics against the top teams were good. That said we were aided in that December game by the sending off before which they were threatening to run riot. A more pertinent question would be what was the difference in how we approached the Man City away game compared to the home games against Fulham and Newcastle and the away games at Wigan, Stoke, QPR, Reading etc etc[/quote]

 

Jim why do you people continue to find negatives to underplay our achievements. For me Man City were aided in that game by our continued loss of Ruddy as much as we were aided by the sending off. Which was a sending off by the way! I think that you''d enjoy supporting Norwich more if you had a more positive outlook. Your point about that Man City game is far more negative than any tactics Hughton employed this season.

 

 

[/quote] I''m not underplaying out achievements but I believe we should strive to do as well as we possibly can and I actually think that this season we could have made life easier for ourselves and yes we could possibly have done even better. Which is more negative, being satisfied with staying up every season or actually having done faith in our players and believing that they are capable of more than just staying up and actually capable of going to most of the lesser teams in this league and taking the game to them? That''s not negative, it''s having some ambition and belief in our players and I would just like to see a bit more of it from Hughton next season. I don''t see what is so wrong with that.[/quote]

 

Nothing is wrong with any of it Jim. But I''m amazed with your response about the Man City game and the sending off. It speaks volumes to me.

 

When I read the negative posts on here I get the distinct impression that everything was unsatisfactory except the ten game unbeaten run and the last two games of the season. I could be wrong but that''s the impression I get. Yet there were some really entertaining games outside of those periods. The Man City game is one and the two draws with Spurs.

 

The comment about lesser teams stinks of arrogance. There are no lesser teams. The bottom half of the division is much of a muchness. Hughton came top of that bottom half. It might disturb you if you realised that the fans of the rest of the bottom half club see us as a lesser team and a game from which three points should be expected.

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

Hmmm, I find it interesting how much empahsis is placed upon the last three months of the season and so very little attention is given to our pre Christmas form. I have never bought into the Hughton is defensive mantra, Chris Hughton did what he had to do with (in my opinion) a squad that lacked real strenghth in depth, what has been suggested by some on here borders on insane, that Chris Hughton unhappy at going on a ten match unbeaten run and beating Arsenal and Man Utd in the process decided to change whatever we were doing right in that run and jepordise Premiership survival. What actually happened is that we were disrupted by a series of injuries to key players.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

Hmmm, I find it interesting how much empahsis is placed upon the last three months of the season and so very little attention is given to our pre Christmas form. I have never bought into the Hughton is defensive mantra, Chris Hughton did what he had to do with (in my opinion) a squad that lacked real strenghth in depth, what has been suggested by some on here borders on insane, that Chris Hughton unhappy at going on a ten match unbeaten run and beating Arsenal and Man Utd in the process decided to change whatever we were doing right in that run and jepordise Premiership survival. What actually happened is that we were disrupted by a series of injuries to key players.

 

[/quote]

 

That is nonsense. Not true in the slightest. Of our 10 key outfielders R Martin played 31 games, Garrido 34, Bassong 34, Turner 29, Johnson 37, Howson 30, Tettey 27, Snodgrass 37, Hoolahan 33 and Holt 34. We actually were very lucky with injuries. The only important player who was out for any serious length of time was  a goalie, Ruddy, and that hardly disrupted we way we played, and in any event we had Bunn and Camp as experienced back-up..

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

Hmmm, I find it interesting how much empahsis is placed upon the last three months of the season and so very little attention is given to our pre Christmas form. I have never bought into the Hughton is defensive mantra, Chris Hughton did what he had to do with (in my opinion) a squad that lacked real strenghth in depth, what has been suggested by some on here borders on insane, that Chris Hughton unhappy at going on a ten match unbeaten run and beating Arsenal and Man Utd in the process decided to change whatever we were doing right in that run and jepordise Premiership survival. What actually happened is that we were disrupted by a series of injuries to key players.

 

[/quote]

 

That is nonsense. Not true in the slightest. Of our 10 key outfielders R Martin played 31 games, Garrido 34, Bassong 34, Turner 29, Johnson 37, Howson 30, Tettey 27, Snodgrass 37, Hoolahan 33 and Holt 34. We actually were very lucky with injuries. The only important player who was out for any serious length of time was  a goalie, Ruddy, and that hardly disrupted we way we played, and in any event we had Bunn and Camp as experienced back-up..

[/quote]

That isn''t strictly true. Why isn''t Pilkington a key player but Tettey is? Would Surman have played? ANd presumably your appearance figures are skewed by sub apps. But on the whole injuries weren''t as bad as they could have been.

Also I think you underestimate the value of Ruddy, our one England international. Bunn and Camp are indeed experienced but you wouldn''t replace Rooney with Jamie Cureton.

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="Warren Hill"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

Hmmm, I find it interesting how much empahsis is placed upon the last three months of the season and so very little attention is given to our pre Christmas form. I have never bought into the Hughton is defensive mantra, Chris Hughton did what he had to do with (in my opinion) a squad that lacked real strenghth in depth, what has been suggested by some on here borders on insane, that Chris Hughton unhappy at going on a ten match unbeaten run and beating Arsenal and Man Utd in the process decided to change whatever we were doing right in that run and jepordise Premiership survival. What actually happened is that we were disrupted by a series of injuries to key players.

 

[/quote]

 

That is nonsense. Not true in the slightest. Of our 10 key outfielders R Martin played 31 games, Garrido 34, Bassong 34, Turner 29, Johnson 37, Howson 30, Tettey 27, Snodgrass 37, Hoolahan 33 and Holt 34. We actually were very lucky with injuries. The only important player who was out for any serious length of time was  a goalie, Ruddy, and that hardly disrupted we way we played, and in any event we had Bunn and Camp as experienced back-up..

[/quote]

That isn''t strictly true. Why isn''t Pilkington a key player but Tettey is? Would Surman have played? ANd presumably your appearance figures are skewed by sub apps. But on the whole injuries weren''t as bad as they could have been.

Also I think you underestimate the value of Ruddy, our one England international. Bunn and Camp are indeed experienced but you wouldn''t replace Rooney with Jamie Cureton.[/quote]

 

It is true, and you have proved my point. I could have included Pilkington - he played 30 times! And E Bennett played 24 times. It is possible Surman - although I am dubious - might have played a fair bit, but you have to expect at least one or two injuries. That is why you have a squad. But by normal standards we were very lucky with injuries. We did not lose one key outfielder for any serious length of time, and we did not lose one player throughout the season for whom there was not an adequate replacement. R Bennett or R Martin coming into centyral defence, for example. I agree that Ruddy is a better keeper than Bunn or Camp, but his absence was hardly a great tactical disruption. I have no axe to grind in the pro- or anti-Hughton debate, which frankly has got me all confused; I just object to arguments that fly in the face of the facts.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Warren Hill"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

Hmmm, I find it interesting how much empahsis is placed upon the last three months of the season and so very little attention is given to our pre Christmas form. I have never bought into the Hughton is defensive mantra, Chris Hughton did what he had to do with (in my opinion) a squad that lacked real strenghth in depth, what has been suggested by some on here borders on insane, that Chris Hughton unhappy at going on a ten match unbeaten run and beating Arsenal and Man Utd in the process decided to change whatever we were doing right in that run and jepordise Premiership survival. What actually happened is that we were disrupted by a series of injuries to key players.

 

[/quote]

 

That is nonsense. Not true in the slightest. Of our 10 key outfielders R Martin played 31 games, Garrido 34, Bassong 34, Turner 29, Johnson 37, Howson 30, Tettey 27, Snodgrass 37, Hoolahan 33 and Holt 34. We actually were very lucky with injuries. The only important player who was out for any serious length of time was  a goalie, Ruddy, and that hardly disrupted we way we played, and in any event we had Bunn and Camp as experienced back-up.

.

[/quote] That isn''t strictly true. Why isn''t Pilkington a key player but Tettey is? Would Surman have played? ANd presumably your appearance figures are skewed by sub apps. But on the whole injuries weren''t as bad as they could have been. Also I think you underestimate the value of Ruddy, our one England international. Bunn and Camp are indeed experienced but you wouldn''t replace Rooney with Jamie Cureton.[/quote]

 

Terrible example Warren.

ROONEY...............Cureton

 

Ruddy...............Bunn

 

[Yellow Wal 314]

Perhaps the problem has been seen. We indeed played many players for many games, and injuries were few, but the quality of the back ups shows the real problem and the reason for this.

The manager, and many supporters, myself included, seem to have had little confidence in the other members of our squad.

We played a system early on with only one up front, this was brought about because we only had one good enough!

Barnett, Butterfield, Fox, Jackson, Lappin, C Martin, Morison and Tierney were all part of the 25 man squad early on. Loss of form and competition for places was not helped by players who were not pushing hard for a start as they, simply and perhaps harshly put, are not Premiership quality.

The squad was thin, and is still thin.

It needs reinforcing, and hopefully it will be improved during the summer.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Lovin'' this thread[Y]

 

Jim''s train of thought that we played differently after our ten game run until the last two games of the season would suggest the loss of Ruddy being a big factor. Especially if like me you don''t really believe there was a conscious change in the way we set out to play.

 

 

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Terrible example Warren.

ROONEY...............Cureton

 

Ruddy...............Bunn

 

[/quote]

 

Agree, for Rooney, it should be Cody [;)]

 

Anyhow, as for Purple - whilst you may have all the statistical analysis at your fingertips, what it doesn''t show is the impact that various players have on the squad. The impact that Ruddy has in the goal area is akin to a Peter Schmeichel - he OWNS that area! The confidence that gives to the rest of the squad knowing that in going forward, JR "had their back"! Based on his 15 league appearences we accumulated 21 points - extrapolated across the season, that could have given us 53 points and an 8th place.

 

Don''t forget, the only difference in our last 2 games was that JR was in goal - net result, wonderful flowing football, the outcome of having confidence that your "back door" is well protected. I''m not trying to belittle Bunn''s efforts, just pointing out the difference when the key player is in command.

 

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Warren Hill"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

Hmmm, I find it interesting how much empahsis is placed upon the last three months of the season and so very little attention is given to our pre Christmas form. I have never bought into the Hughton is defensive mantra, Chris Hughton did what he had to do with (in my opinion) a squad that lacked real strenghth in depth, what has been suggested by some on here borders on insane, that Chris Hughton unhappy at going on a ten match unbeaten run and beating Arsenal and Man Utd in the process decided to change whatever we were doing right in that run and jepordise Premiership survival. What actually happened is that we were disrupted by a series of injuries to key players.

 

[/quote]

 

That is nonsense. Not true in the slightest. Of our 10 key outfielders R Martin played 31 games, Garrido 34, Bassong 34, Turner 29, Johnson 37, Howson 30, Tettey 27, Snodgrass 37, Hoolahan 33 and Holt 34. We actually were very lucky with injuries. The only important player who was out for any serious length of time was  a goalie, Ruddy, and that hardly disrupted we way we played, and in any event we had Bunn and Camp as experienced back-up..

[/quote]

That isn''t strictly true. Why isn''t Pilkington a key player but Tettey is? Would Surman have played? ANd presumably your appearance figures are skewed by sub apps. But on the whole injuries weren''t as bad as they could have been.

Also I think you underestimate the value of Ruddy, our one England international. Bunn and Camp are indeed experienced but you wouldn''t replace Rooney with Jamie Cureton.[/quote]

 

It is true, and you have proved my point. I could have included Pilkington - he played 30 times! And E Bennett played 24 times. It is possible Surman - although I am dubious - might have played a fair bit, but you have to expect at least one or two injuries. That is why you have a squad. But by normal standards we were very lucky with injuries. We did not lose one key outfielder for any serious length of time, and we did not lose one player throughout the season for whom there was not an adequate replacement. R Bennett or R Martin coming into centyral defence, for example. I agree that Ruddy is a better keeper than Bunn or Camp, but his absence was hardly a great tactical disruption. I have no axe to grind in the pro- or anti-Hughton debate, which frankly has got me all confused; I just object to arguments that fly in the face of the facts.

[/quote]

I don''t think it is as plain as you make out because you are using sub appearances to boost the figures. Otherwise we must have been playing Rugby Union....(cue Hughton haters...)

Even if Pilkington or whoever played 30 full games, as a key outfield player that is still missing over 20% of the season.

And apologies about Cureton.....he does have experience though...

[Warren Hill 0]

Promise not to hit "quote" again....

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]ROONEY...............Cureton[/quote]What a player Rooney could have been if only he had put in the hard work Jamie Lad did. I have it on good authority he never practiced hitting a barn door or a cows arse...and he definitely couldn''t play a banjo. [;)]

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]ROONEY...............Cureton[/quote]

What a player Rooney could have been if only he had put in the hard work Jamie Lad did. I have it on good authority he never practiced hitting a barn door or a cows arse...and he definitely couldn''t play a banjo. [;)]

[/quote]

 

That''s secondary Lapp, in my opinion. The main point is that Rooney could never have trotted out with green hair because wigs are not available in that colour. [:D]

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Nutty - my reference to "lesser" sides was not meaning lesser sides than us but lesser sides in comparison with the top 6 or 7 teams in the league.

I would also say that whilst it was most notable during the Jan to April/May period I have mentioned, the negative/conservative approach to certain games was evident both before (and indeed during) the unbeaten run and could be seen in our games against the mid to lower table clubs away from home throughout the season. In particular, I can recall sitting through a complete borefest at Reading in the midst of that unbeaten run where we were clearly content with a 0-0 draw from the outset. I think it was also out main undoing at West Brom where one manager went for it and was rewarded with a victory and I think to be honest we let QPR and West Ham play out draws too easily at Carrow Road right at the start of the season. I''m not saying we would have won all these games had we gone for it more, indeed one could argue we might have lost a couple but on balance, my opinion, is that we as a side were capable of taking more points off the teams in the bottom half of the table than we have done and our failure to do so this season was more to do with our approach to these games than it was to do with a lack of ability to take the game to and beat these teams. Just my opinion and something i think needs to be addressed last season. You obviously have a different view.

As for the Man City game at home i am slightly unclear what "achievement" I am looking to diminish through my comments? As I recall they were 2 up within 5 minutes and looked like they were going to give us a real hiding. We pulled a goal back somewhat out of the blue and then gave it a right good go in the second half after Nasri got sent off. I recall we played quite well and were perhaps unlucky to lose. I think our tactics that day were inevitably shaped by the fact we shipped 2 goals in the first 5 minutes which meant we had to attack more after than than we might have otherwise done. If we''d kept it tight early on I suspect we would have tried to implement the same tactics that worked so well against United and Arsenal. As I have said previously i have no issue with those tactics against the top clubs whether home or away. My gripe has always been how we have approached the games against the teams outside the top 6 or 7, especially the away games which was conservative throughout the season but especially between January and April/May.

Thats my views. Yours obviously differ. Lets just be happy we have stayed up and look forward to next season. Hopefully with some firepower added and having seen how effective the likes of Howson can be when allowed to break forward Hughton will have more confidence next season and we will see a more positive approach in general.

[Lavanche 0]

Well it seems I never get answer for my question that how did we exactly play more negative in some games than others.

Anyway as I stated earlier in this thread the only real question is that should we play similary against Reading etc than we play Man City.

The answer for the first question is that there is two teams on the field and our approach for the game is defend under the ball as a team and attack as a team, so when we play against teams who do the same and our passing that day isnt working means a dull game as always when we lose the ball from poor pass means we have to start all over as we dont want to break formation.

It is not a negative tactic and most negative game this season was our 1 - 0 win from Man United where we stood in two lines 70 mins from the game near our own box, but still we tried to attack when we got a chance as a team.

In reality there were no difference from Man City and West Brom than in Fulham and Newcastle. Only slight adjusts for the players we had and players our opponent had.

Both Howson goal''s for example could have been Johnson''s goals if he knew how to shoot on the target. Howson did exactly what Johnson had done all the season in tactic wise.

It is all about the form of our players, form of our opponent and their tactics that how we look on the field.

My friend who is huge ManU fan couldnt understand why some people accused us to be negative as ManU had very similar games throught the whole season when they had a bad day and they had a players who cost equal to our first eleven.

[crabbycanary 2]

To take this a stage further. Are people hinting that the players (and the manager?) were carping themselves when Bunn as in goal, but as soon as JR was back, they felt an almighty pressure off their shoulders, and could venture up the park?

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]Perhaps the problem has been seen. We indeed played many players for many games, and injuries were few, but the quality of the back ups shows the real problem and the reason for this.

The manager, and many supporters, myself included, seem to have had little confidence in the other members of our squad.

We played a system early on with only one up front, this was brought about because we only had one good enough!

Barnett, Butterfield, Fox, Jackson, Lappin, C Martin, Morison and Tierney were all part of the 25 man squad early on. Loss of form and competition for places was not helped by players who were not pushing hard for a start as they, simply and perhaps harshly put, are not Premiership quality.

The squad was thin, and is still thin.

It needs reinforcing, and hopefully it will be improved during the summer.[/quote]

 

That is much nearer the mark. The squad was thin, but only as thin as the squads of other similar-sized clubs in the division. There probably were players who could have done with a rest in the second half of the season. But that was nothing to do with injuries, apart from the minor point that if Surman had been fit he might have come on the left of midfield. Far from being badly hit by injuries, we were lucky to go through with so few.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

Purple - Like Nutty I do not believe we changed the way we played, if you read all of my post you will see that basically I said exactly the same as the text you highlighted in red as posted by Yellow Wall. I have seen nothing that changes my mind that injuries to key players, albeit for short periods of time (other than Ruddy) disrupted us as we do not have strenghth in depth in the squad. I would contend that when we were on our good run the starting 11 was Ruddy, Whittaker, Turner, Bassong, Garrido, Tettey, Johnson, Snodgrass, Hoolahan, Pilkington and Holt, we suffered injuries to Ruddy, Whittaker, Turner, Bassonng, Tettey, Holt and Pilks at various times to disrupt that starting 11, I am not slating the quality of their replacements, I am merely saying that if you change say your first choice CB pairing it can have a negative effect, equally if a replacement is not necessarily a like for like replacement for the injured player.  

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Nutty - my reference to "lesser" sides was not meaning lesser sides than us but lesser sides in comparison with the top 6 or 7 teams in the league. I would also say that whilst it was most notable during the Jan to April/May period I have mentioned, the negative/conservative approach to certain games was evident both before (and indeed during) the unbeaten run and could be seen in our games against the mid to lower table clubs away from home throughout the season. In particular, I can recall sitting through a complete borefest at Reading in the midst of that unbeaten run where we were clearly content with a 0-0 draw from the outset. I think it was also out main undoing at West Brom where one manager went for it and was rewarded with a victory and I think to be honest we let QPR and West Ham play out draws too easily at Carrow Road right at the start of the season. I''m not saying we would have won all these games had we gone for it more, indeed one could argue we might have lost a couple but on balance, my opinion, is that we as a side were capable of taking more points off the teams in the bottom half of the table than we have done and our failure to do so this season was more to do with our approach to these games than it was to do with a lack of ability to take the game to and beat these teams. Just my opinion and something i think needs to be addressed last season. You obviously have a different view. As for the Man City game at home i am slightly unclear what "achievement" I am looking to diminish through my comments? As I recall they were 2 up within 5 minutes and looked like they were going to give us a real hiding. We pulled a goal back somewhat out of the blue and then gave it a right good go in the second half after Nasri got sent off. I recall we played quite well and were perhaps unlucky to lose. I think our tactics that day were inevitably shaped by the fact we shipped 2 goals in the first 5 minutes which meant we had to attack more after than than we might have otherwise done. If we''d kept it tight early on I suspect we would have tried to implement the same tactics that worked so well against United and Arsenal. As I have said previously i have no issue with those tactics against the top clubs whether home or away. My gripe has always been how we have approached the games against the teams outside the top 6 or 7, especially the away games which was conservative throughout the season but especially between January and April/May. Thats my views. Yours obviously differ. Lets just be happy we have stayed up and look forward to next season. Hopefully with some firepower added and having seen how effective the likes of Howson can be when allowed to break forward Hughton will have more confidence next season and we will see a more positive approach in general.[/quote]

 

But those other lesser sides to the top six also target us for three points. I would suggest that last season every side in the premier league targeted the games against us for 3 points.  That''s the point I''m making. I think we approached every game with the same mentality but it takes two sides to make a football match and obviously the different tactics of the opposition help shape the games. Each and every point was of the same importance at the day of reckoning regardless from who it was won. But I agree, without getting all uppity about it, that we can agree to differ.

 

I can''t agree with your sentiments about the Man City game either. I''d hate to be a player trying to please their fans if they all had that attitude. How many do you think those lucky beggars would have lost by if Nasri had stayed on? And what if Bassong had got red too? However many would we have lost by then? In the end I believe we were unlucky not to get anything from the game and the telling difference was Ruddy. Not the sending off which the ref was quite correct to give. That would and probably should have been one of the results of the season.

 

 

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Nutty - my reference to "lesser" sides was not meaning lesser sides than us but lesser sides in comparison with the top 6 or 7 teams in the league. I would also say that whilst it was most notable during the Jan to April/May period I have mentioned, the negative/conservative approach to certain games was evident both before (and indeed during) the unbeaten run and could be seen in our games against the mid to lower table clubs away from home throughout the season. In particular, I can recall sitting through a complete borefest at Reading in the midst of that unbeaten run where we were clearly content with a 0-0 draw from the outset. I think it was also out main undoing at West Brom where one manager went for it and was rewarded with a victory and I think to be honest we let QPR and West Ham play out draws too easily at Carrow Road right at the start of the season. I''m not saying we would have won all these games had we gone for it more, indeed one could argue we might have lost a couple but on balance, my opinion, is that we as a side were capable of taking more points off the teams in the bottom half of the table than we have done and our failure to do so this season was more to do with our approach to these games than it was to do with a lack of ability to take the game to and beat these teams. Just my opinion and something i think needs to be addressed last season. You obviously have a different view. As for the Man City game at home i am slightly unclear what "achievement" I am looking to diminish through my comments? As I recall they were 2 up within 5 minutes and looked like they were going to give us a real hiding. We pulled a goal back somewhat out of the blue and then gave it a right good go in the second half after Nasri got sent off. I recall we played quite well and were perhaps unlucky to lose. I think our tactics that day were inevitably shaped by the fact we shipped 2 goals in the first 5 minutes which meant we had to attack more after than than we might have otherwise done. If we''d kept it tight early on I suspect we would have tried to implement the same tactics that worked so well against United and Arsenal. As I have said previously i have no issue with those tactics against the top clubs whether home or away. My gripe has always been how we have approached the games against the teams outside the top 6 or 7, especially the away games which was conservative throughout the season but especially between January and April/May. Thats my views. Yours obviously differ. Lets just be happy we have stayed up and look forward to next season. Hopefully with some firepower added and having seen how effective the likes of Howson can be when allowed to break forward Hughton will have more confidence next season and we will see a more positive approach in general.[/quote]

 

But those other lesser sides to the top six also target us for three points. I would suggest that last season every side in the premier league targeted the games against us for 3 points.  That''s the point I''m making. I think we approached every game with the same mentality but it takes two sides to make a football match and obviously the different tactics of the opposition help shape the games. Each and every point was of the same importance at the day of reckoning regardless from who it was won. But I agree, without getting all uppity about it, that we can agree to differ.

 

I can''t agree with your sentiments about the Man City game either. I''d hate to be a player trying to please their fans if they all had that attitude. How many do you think those lucky beggars would have lost by if Nasri had stayed on? And what if Bassong had got red too? However many would we have lost by then? In the end I believe we were unlucky not to get anything from the game and the telling difference was Ruddy. Not the sending off which the ref was quite correct to give. That would and probably should have been one of the results of the season.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

Yes they do target us for 3 points but my point is that we don''t target them for 3 points when playing away. Too often we only seem concerned with getting 1 point and avoiding defeat. if at the end of the day you come away with a draw then its not a disaster but it should not be what we aim for from the outset. We set up the same to play Wigan, Stoke or Reading away as we do to play Man United or Chelsea.

I don;t really get your point re the Man City game. I''ve said we played well and were perhaps unlucky to lose in the end but i do believe the (correct) sending off had a bearing on things as before that i can recall them opening us up pretty regularly. no disgrace in that though they are a good side and I have said REPEATEDLY I don;t have an issue with how he sets us up for games against the top sides.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="crabbycanary"]To take this a stage further. Are people hinting that the players (and the manager?) were carping themselves when Bunn as in goal, but as soon as JR was back, they felt an almighty pressure off their shoulders, and could venture up the park?[/quote]

Not sure I would put it like Crabby but I distinctly felt that the team looked far more assured and confident in the West Brom game.Whether that was because England''s number one had returend or not, I''m not sure.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

*returned.Edit button is needed!

[BigFish 1,987]

Ultimately the table doesn''t lie, the result of the appraoch adopted was that we finshed 11th, our best finish for decades, with a squad that may accepted was thin and this is reflected in our wage bill. The idea that we would have picked up more points if we were more gung-ho is attractive but we don''t know if we would have in fact lost more games. Probably we would.

The tactics didn''t change with the team largely set up 4-2-3-1 that is the most common formation, what chaged was on the day it worked. Where it can seem defensive is in two key areas. Firstly our front 4 give the ball away too often, including Holt who gave away more free kicks at 89 than any player in the Prem. Secondly, we lack pace and can''t gey forward fast enough.

We did have a third problem, in that we leaked goals regularly and often. Hughton choose to fix this one, successfully it proved, and without this achievement we surely would have gone down. We didn''t have the cash to fix all three in one season. Perhaps now we will see an influx of plyaers up top with pace who can hold on to the ball. The tactics won''t change, but the games will be more exciting.

[BOO 0]

I believe Ruddy''s qualities as a keeper extend beyond his shot stopping and distribution skills, if your playing at CH or FB and you have a very high level of confidence in your keeper it does enable you to play with more confidence yourself, however that alone can not explain the improved performance. Just take one area of the game, over the last 3 games we have seen a lot more attacking intent from both full backs, overlapping runs from Paella and Martin featured a lot more than in other games since Christmas, this is more than just a "Ruddy" factor, it was a shift in mindset within those players, either as a result of managerial instruction, or of their own volition, or because the way the opposition played.

Who knows?

[canarycat 27]

Very peased to note that my post has provoked some excellent and informed debate from many loyal fans who uderstand football and therefore understand what the club has achieved over the last four seasons.However, I note with interest, that there is a distinct lack of praise for the club, the manager,the players and the loyal fans, from those who were serial offenders, talking negative nonsense for the majority of the vital run in when the club needed support the most.Absolutely typical is all I can say.

[Lavanche 0]

"Just take one area of the game, over the last 3 games we have seen a lot more attacking intent from both full backs, overlapping runs from Paella and Martin featured a lot more than in other games since Christmas, this is more than just a "Ruddy" factor, it was a shift in mindset within those players, either as a result of managerial instruction, or of their own volition, or because the way the opposition played.

Who knows?"

The overlapping in current system happens when we have at least two players in the box or edge of it and our defensive middlefielder is in right position at the side we have the ball.

So if it happened more than earlier this season, which I''m not so sure about it is because we had more of these kinds of situations.

Overlapping happens very automaticaly when our formation has pushed far enough on the pitch and at our poor days we just didnt get enought these situation where players were at right places to double the wing. If overlapping happens without enought pressure on the box and without cover it normaly means quite effective counter attacks and Hughton likes to keep it solid.

Previous season we played with two strikers most of the time and diamond on the middle which ment more overlappings. Was it because it was more positive? No. It was because our middlefield was placed slightly more center and down of the pitch and there was almost always two players to receive crosses.

With wingers we have 3 players near end of the pitch and Hoolahan spot near edge of the box. That means we have less players behind the ball if we lose it from fullbacks cross and it gets behind Hoolahan. So we make overlappings now when we are properly organized to keep box pressured and same time cover the wide are behind winger and fullback by moving one middlefielder behind them.

[Orford65 0]

What the reluctant apologists also wont want to hear is that, in terms of highest position gained in the top division, our final placing of 11th. makes Hoots the fifth most successful Norwich manager behind Walker, Stringer, Brown and Bond.It should also be noted that Bond, who was widely regarded as playing football the Norwich way - whatever that is, only managed 7 wins in the 78/79 season, but avoided relegation by virtue of drawing a staggering 23 matches, the highest ever total by some margin for our club in the top flight.