Lets get real...

[morty 0]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Huddlestone was the best player on the pitch today by some margin. He''s often criticised for being slow but we were so predictable today he didn''t even need to run for the ball!i[/quote]He won''t stay fit.If he could stay fully fit for an entire season he wouldn''t be playing for Hull.But, yeah, he was very good today.

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

I have to say I was there at the game today and I agree with LDC. I came away a little frustrated that we would pass but then fail to move for the ball. It was  all a little disjointed for me. Maybe the new lads need a little time to bed in. That was my argument at the start of the season. Bed them in slowly a couple at a time. We need seb bassong back asap he is our captain now and our rock, general at the back. bassong and ruddy form the spine of our team.people last season had a go at hughton for making late subs or not at all. I believe it was because he did not believe in his bench. he changed things a lot earlier today because its his squad now. Yes I agree the team selection was odd today. When I heard it I was expecting johnson to play on the left and redmond on the right with either howson or fer in behind ricky. As for redmond he looks a great player but I agreed with him coming off. He was struggling in the 2nd half and we need to make sure we dont burn him out. With e.bennett out we need pilks back in.Hull for me looked really poor and we lost to a poor team however one game does not form your season. We signed hooper and he has not even worn the shirt yet. Give hughton at least 10 games for crying out loud.If they had not got the pen and ricky had scored his header there would not be the over reaction on here. I believe we are in a massive transition period as we were after lambert went. We built our defensive base last season and now we are trying to work out how to mould our fers of the world into an already decent team.Get behind them and give them time. I believe hughton will get this right. Its too easy to call it negative blah blah.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Bryangunnshairline"]If they had not got the pen and ricky had scored his header there would not be the over reaction on here. [/quote]The thread''s called "Let''s get real", but you want to pretend we won 1-0?

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

ha ha yeh fair one mr chops. I just trying to say there is a thin line between winning and not winning in this league. Lets have it right it was not a pen but of course no one has a thread on that tonight because its all about hughton and his negative tactics....

[Branston Pickle 3,632]

The reality is that we lost 1-0 away to a PL side: like it or not, they are a bone fide PL side, and away games at this level don''t come with any ''gimme''s''. They were playing their first game back at this level and were always going to fight, particularly when down to ten men.

That we were yet again at the mercy of some crappy reffing doesn''t help but on the play alone, and whether we played well or not, we created enough and could and should have come away with the points which is a + when compared to some of the dire stuff last season (Wigan/Stoke).

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

spot on branston could not have put it better myself. let move on get that cup win and turn the saints over ... otbc

[Monty13 2,229]

We only lost by one goal is that a positive? We still lost and that game was one I would struggle to draw anything positive of note from, we were awful.

The reality is we were 1 man up on one of the poorest teams in the division for 70 mins and we created virtually nothing. The RVW header is literally the only clear cut chance we had in that time.

That is unacceptable, I don''t want Hughton sacked, that''s a ridiculous overreaction, but neither can you really draw positives from an abject performance as they pake into insignificance.

[Monty13 2,229]

*Pale

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--- lake district canary said: "nearly scored" "We had several chances to score"

10 of our 13 shots were from outside the penalty area...

[hogesar 9,611]

Well, regardless of any chances we had, the performance was dire. If we can''t score away from home against ten men Hull we won''t against anyone.

Maybe if Hughton didn''t line up with two defensive miss and another CM n the right we might have done more in the first half...

[......and Smith must score. 1,331]

How I wish I shared the blind optimism of LDC and his ironic '' Let''s get real '' post.This was a very poor performance. We are a better team than Hull and will finish comfortably above them at the end of the season so why is it we just don''t seem to be able to go for the jugular when the opposition are there for the taking ? OK, if we''d lost after laying siege to their goal fair enough - Hull are the '' new boys '' and up for it of course - but we just aren''t able to apply any consistent threatening pressure anymore.According to the BBC stats Hull had just the one shot on target which is fair enough playing most of the match with ten men, but we managed a total of only FOUR ourselves!!As one of the those at the KC I was expecting much much more from our re-vamped side but, as usual, I trudged away disappointed. ( The only bright note was not getting soaked yesterday as it seems it was torrential almost everywhere else ).It''s no fun going to watch NCFC play away right now. If this is to be our normal standard for 2013/14 then they might as well moth-ball the new away ticketing system as they won''t be able to give them away.I''m all for giving Chris Hughton a fair chance again this season but it seems as though we may not have learned enough lessons. If we can''t up our game against this standard of opposition then perhaps it''s time for a change in the near future.I really don''t want to go through the same sort of post-Christmas dross we went through last time. With the quality players we have in our team we shouldn''t have to either.

[T 190]

Ch himself has said the issue is supplying the forwards this season. Untunately, we do''t have the budget to improve the quality of the midfield as well as the forward line and that is the issue so presumably the CH critics would have rather have spent the budget on the midfield and keep with  Holt and jackson.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="T"]Ch himself has said the issue is supplying the forwards this season. Untunately, we do''t have the budget to improve the quality of the midfield as well as the forward line and that is the issue so presumably the CH critics would have rather have spent the budget on the midfield and keep with  Holt and jackson.[/quote]For the umpteenth time, Holt wanted to leave.

[Waveney Canary 0]

I was at the game hughton got it badly badly wrong after going down to ten men he should have had the Swedish grant holt and snoddy on straight away and went for it. As a regular home and away the mood of the 2500 of us at the game was very angry I don''t think he will get the time he had last year to improve the quality of the play. This is his team now no excuses for negative tactics now!

[T 190]

Was not the point I was making Mr:C. It is ot CH''s chosen team its the team he chooses with the budget available. He has overhauled the defence and attack but has not had the budget to also improve the midfield.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="T"]Ch himself has said the issue is supplying the forwards this season. Untunately, we do''t have the budget to improve the quality of the midfield as well as the forward line and that is the issue so presumably the CH critics would have rather have spent the budget on the midfield and keep with  Holt and jackson.[/quote]

 

Unless you are a member of the board or Chris Hughton you cannot possibly say that with any certainty. and the facts don''t back it up. They suggest the very opposite.According to the EDP we are still after Quagliarella, who would cost several million. And if we got Elmander instead of Toivonen then we have the nearly £5m we bid for Toivonen still available. Whether that Toivonen money is as well as the Quagliarella money or is effectively the Quagliarella money I don''t know, but all the indications are we have a fair bit left to spend. And that is without some kind of loan deal not involving a transfer fee.On another thread you lambast postes for making judgments when they don''t know the facts and turn round and do exactly that here.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

the strange thing is  that for a manager that is clearly intent on playing the 4411 system, he so far hasn''t bought anybody to play in the role behind the striker. This afterall is possibly THE most important position in the 4411 formation, its what defines it and sets it apart from 442.

Therefore surely this should have been an absolute priority in the transfer market?. Unless we do buy someone in the last week of the transfer window, from the options Ive seen so far, we''ll probably just end up playing Elmader with RVW......which would make a complete mockery of the sale of Holt as he could just aswell have performed that role, an would surely have stayed had he have known that it would have been the case?

[Damo 0]

We were poor, granted. At some stage though, Hull should be given credit for defending very well (credit might have been given already, couldn''t see it!) Let''s also note that they weren''t push overs against Chelsea either. Playing a newly promoted team this early was always going to be dangerous.

[TIL 1010 4,718]

With regard to negativity I must mention an observation I made yesterday during the first half  after Hull were down to 10 men. Twice they were awarded free kicks inside our half  in not particularly dangerous positions. They had their keeper obviously patrolling his area with Curtis Davies left in the centre circle all alone so with the free kick taker obviously also behind the ball as well why oh why did Norwich have all eleven men behind the ball to track just seven Hull players. Obviously by weight of numbers we won the ball but with no spare man to play the ball to the end result was the ball being pumped away straight to the defender patrolling the half way line. Negative,negative,negative.

Sorry LDC but that was my take on reality.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

With regard to negativity I must mention an observation I made yesterday during the first half  after Hull were down to 10 men. Twice they were awarded free kicks inside our half  in not particularly dangerous positions. They had their keeper obviously patrolling his area with Curtis Davies left in the centre circle all alone so with the free kick taker obviously also behind the ball as well why oh why did Norwich have all eleven men behind the ball to track just seven Hull players. Obviously by weight of numbers we won the ball but with no spare man to play the ball to the end result was the ball being pumped away straight to the defender patrolling the half way line. Negative,negative,negative.

Sorry LDC but that was my take on reality.

[/quote]

Arsenal did the same thing at Fulham.   Eleven men behind the ball at set pieces.  Yet they won 3-1.  The difference is they have the quality in midfield to do that and break quickly.     Our midfield has to improve and learn to do that better.    The most negative thing I saw was the poor passing.  That is surely the main concern, is it not?      People seem obsessed with the negative football idea, but it isn''t that hard to see what Hughton wants to do.   Hughton and his staff are not known for negative football at their previous clubs - why should he be trying anything different at Norwich?   

I don''t think Hull was a fair match to judge  team development.  Fer - first match (nearly scored too).  Elmander - first match.  RVW second match.  Hooper bassong not available, Snodgrass,  not fully fit.  Pilkington not ready yet.     I felt for the supporters who went to the match yesterday as it was a difficult one to watch.   But despite that the "work in progress" is just that - and with a biy more luck we might have equalised (RVW header) or got a penalty ourselves.   I know I like to see positives - but they are always there , if you want to see them. 

[Mister Chops 7]

There are positives in everything though, let''s face it.  Our 7-1 humping by Colchester was positive because it led to Lambert''s appointment, but positive consequences from a poor performance are not the same as positives from a poor performance.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--- lake district canary: Arsenal did the same thing at Fulham.   Eleven men behind the ball at set pieces. 

I doubt they were losing to 10 men at the time....

[TIL 1010 4,718]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- lake district canary: Arsenal did the same thing at Fulham.   Eleven men behind the ball at set pieces.  I doubt they were losing to 10 men at the time....[/quote]

You beat me to it Foggy and furthermore the man sent off was a striker so their attacking options from that free kick had been somewhat blunted.

Come on LDC over to you..................... [;)]

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]There are positives in everything though, let''s face it.  Our 7-1 humping by Colchester was positive because it led to Lambert''s appointment, but positive consequences from a poor performance are not the same as positives from a poor performance.[/quote]

I prefer to see positives because dwelling on negatives tends to be cumulative - one negative thought leads to another.  Its always easier  to see negatives - it takes less effort.   Imo there is more value in trying  to see the positives.   We can all see what is poor in the team - mostly its the lack of cohesion and poor passing in midfield.  I don''t think that''s down to tactics.  I think its down to the players to be up to the job.  Hence the upgrades being bought - most of which we haven''t seen that much - or the best of - yet. 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--- lake district canary:   I think its down to the players to be up to the job.

We have been in this division for two seasons finishing 12th and 11th respectively, and just forked out £25million. So there can''t be too much wrong with the players.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- lake district canary: Arsenal did the same thing at Fulham.   Eleven men behind the ball at set pieces.  I doubt they were losing to 10 men at the time....[/quote]

You beat me to it Foggy and furthermore the man sent off was a striker so their attacking options from that free kick had been somewhat blunted.

Come on LDC over to you..................... [;)]

[/quote]

Ok it may not be rocket science to leave one man forward  at Hull set pieces given the circumstances.  I feel I am making excuses now, but the team has changed and it has lost its captain from last year, Bassong wasn''t there either.  I suspect Martin was too busy  trying to defend to think about what RVW was up to.  The pressure of the occasion,whether 10 or 11 is still intense - and often 10 play better as a result of losing a man.   I don''t have all the answers,  but I do think that Hughton  wants us to improve the midfield and attack.  Why wouldn''t he? 

And for that matter, what is wrong with wanting to see the positives?

[SeattleCanary 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- lake district canary:   I think its down to the players to be up to the job.

We have been in this division for two seasons finishing 12th and 11th respectively, and just forked out £25million. So there can''t be too much wrong with the players.[/quote]

Also I''d like to add either these players were recruited by Hughton, therefore should perform for him as he brought them here. Or they were here from 2 seasons ago, where under Lambert there skill and passing was substantially better?

I''ve never been one to blame the manager, but either way, how do you spin this to stop the buck with anyone else?

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="SeattleCanary"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- lake district canary:   I think its down to the players to be up to the job. We have been in this division for two seasons finishing 12th and 11th respectively, and just forked out £25million. So there can''t be too much wrong with the players.[/quote] Also I''d like to add either these players were recruited by Hughton, therefore should perform for him as he brought them here. Or they were here from 2 seasons ago, where under Lambert there skill and passing was substantially better? I''ve never been one to blame the manager, but either way, how do you spin this to stop the buck with anyone else?[/quote]

 

You''d be amazed buddy. Old winky reckons that when we play poorly or lose its all the manager but when we play well or win it''s because players are ignoring his instructions and doing it their own way. So taking that as a lead it seems it''s ok to spin anything[;)]

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--  nutty nigel: You''d be amazed buddy. Old winky reckons that when we play poorly or lose its all the manager but when we play well or win it''s because players are ignoring his instructions and doing it their own way. So taking that as a lead it seems it''s ok to spin anything[;)]

There is no denying Chris Hughton has done a decent job at our club.  he has done wonders for the defense and almost every signing has been excellent.  He led the team to a 10 match unbeaten run.  There are just lingering doubts, and an increasing negativity in our play, I really hope when everyone is fit he turns things around and perhaps loosens his rigid cautious defensive style when we play the poor sides as it is clearly not working.

[PortlandCanary 0]

You all need to stop saying that he plays negative football. That doesn''t even make sense. He plays CONSERVATIVE football. Negative football would be trying to score goals in your own net.