Chelsea defeat is your fault

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Baracouda"]Yes he was looking very tried, but having a cracking game. To say, they are the wrong subs..maybe someone could enlighten us what the right ones were.

Alternatively, we could have brought Garrido on, took Pilks off, moved Olsson up. Took Snoddy off but Whittaker on, and stuck Elmander on and played long ball??[/quote]

I wouldn''t be able to confidently declare that they were the "wrong subs", because to me it just looked like we had run out of steam a bit and a top class side with some top class players - some with much fresher legs - exploited that.

I don''t think they were the "wrong subs", although I do think that Hughton was stuck in two minds between really going for it and trying to hang on. Because bringing Hooper and Redmond on were very positive substitutions, but an all out attempt to win the game would perhaps have seen us bring Hooper on for Howson and play two up front? With Snodgrass perhaps switching to the left and Redmond coming on for Pilkington?

I don''t think the substitutions were to blame, or Hughton was to blame, neither were the players. Chelsea just did what they had to do to beat us, like they will many times away to mid-table teams like us. 

Chelsea fans and players should be impressed with us though because we showed them up at times, our midfielders made Lampard look old (he is old, but he really looked it today). 

[pyjamas 0]

Overall, a far more positive performance, and hopefully one which will reward us with all three points in future games.

I believe we lost the game because the players didn''t have the level of fitness required to keep the pressure on Chelsea towards the end of the game. Tired legs and sloppiness cost us the second goal.

I can see the temptation to go for the win under the circumstances, but I think it would have been more prudent to have set up more defensively for the last 5-10 minutes and held on to the draw. I know draws are dull, but it''s not only one point; you''re depriving the opposition of two points as well.

Today we saw the team pushed to their very limit. Let''s hope Hughton learns to play to our strengths for the remaining matches.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

Surely, by now, we are all smart enough to realize that teams like Chelsea are more likely to capitalize on mistakes during the last few minutes of a game because a) they have more clinical finishers than teams such as Norwich and b) they have much more experience and quality at dealing with and managing risk-taking in the closing stages of a game than we do. In summary, we should look for the opportunity to attack late in the game when at home but we need to be smart about how we go about it or the opposition will slice us open like a hot knife through butter.  

[/quote]

 

We so know how this works Yankee. It''s still fresh in the mind how we''d win games late on in League One when we could bring real quality on from the bench. There''s a part of me that thinks it would quite possibly have happened anyway because we had quite a few players both mentally and physically tired. However we weren''t chasing the game so could have left a little more cover for the corner. But I''m not going to dwell on it. There were a further two mistakes before the goal was scored and on another day we''d have got away with it.

 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

We threw too many men forward for a corner when we had a point in the bag and the final whistle was imminent. The fact that it turned out to be a lousy corner didn''t help.

 

Events then conspired against us and we were a bit unfortunate. The fact that we all sensed blood and envisaged an heroic three points against none other that Chelsea is part of the fun. The fact that we were not quite up for it cost us.

 

It was tactically naïve at that point but hardly distracts from the fact  that throughout the most part of the game our tactics were correct as confirmed by the fact that we were within a few minutes of gaining a point against a Chelsea side who were, as a matter of fact, able to introduce £70m worth of substitutions.

 

I don''t think that the Hoots will be either tearing his hair out over this one or have a tactical mind shift of any significance. His football philosophy is ingrained from year''s of experience and will not be unduly affected by the outcome of the final minutes of a game against the potential champions.

 

Factics.

 

 

   

[BOO 0]

We did go for it at the end, the subs were not overerly attacking but certainly gave a bit more flair in Redmond accompanied with a bit less solidity.

The final stages of the game saw our guys really pumped up and believing they could win the match, it was the right management decision to make the subs that could enable them to do that.

For the OP to suggest that the end game plan was CH making a decision based on fans expectations rather than his professional judgement is a little bit mischievous and IMO is not a fair reflection of the way CH thinks. Yes I do believe he wants to please the fans, but I very much doubt he would be influenced by the crowd when making important professional judgements such as this one. If he decided it was right to have a go then that was because he believed we could win the match. I think he made the right decision but I do hope that the fact that we lost the game will not lead to a more entrenched defensive mindset returning.

[the bristol nest 0]

Depressingly, I was waiting for a post like this (OP). Yesterday was a great game of football that could have gone either way. CH called it all pretty much right imo.

It was a high quality Premier League game with a few errors by the players and referee.

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

Agree with OP

We should have stuck and got the point!

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Much of what is written on this forum is one-dimensional. There is little comprehension of the game as a balance between what you want to do and the consequences of doing it.

Solutions offered focus only on the positive benefits of any action and rarely on what the opposition would do in counterpoint. Players are often judged via a prism of predilection for what they offer, rather than what they cost in pattern of play terms.

Simplistic answers are repeated volubly as if others are blind, as if those in power are missing an obvious truth.

The negativity in this board - and sometimes in the stands - is unhelpful and unwarranted. That it appears to have had an effect is understandable, though yesterday that effect was arguably negative.

The irony of this may elude some, who are no doubt thrilled. The "mischevious" intent is this post is merely to emphasise that positivity is not necessarily positive and negative is not necessarily negative.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

So basically, Hughton let supporter pressure dictate and so set out for the win vs Chelsea rather than settle for a nice point out of them and it''s cost us a point.

I honestly believe if them last 10 minutes were played over and over again, we''d come away with more than a point on average.

He did the right thing, one or two player errors let him down. Olssons slip when a shot was on, Tetteys poor clearance, the shambles of a corner before it, and Ruddys poor attempt to save it.

We played well and hopefully we''ll learn from this harsh lesson, bottle it all up for the Cardiff game. If we win that one, I believe it''s job done for the first quarter of the season. Not spectacular, but on par. It is now as vital as the Stoke game was.

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

Tell us more about how Chris Hughton, a literal grown man, is just desperate to be loved by the fans, that was my favourite bit.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]No-one who has been reading Parma''s always interesting posts on tactics and the grown-up way to play football would think for one moment the OP was a wind-up. Whether this particular point is correct would be better judged by posters who saw the game.[/quote]

 

 

Whether this makes the OP more credible or less I don''t know, but Paddy Davitt has come up with pretty much the same argument:

This is a club and a manager who have been routinely castigated in certain quarters for caution as the default setting in the search for Premier League longevity.That desire to attain a defensive resolution at this stage of last season’s faltering campaign which was portrayed as a strength is now increasingly viewed as a handbrake to unlocking the latent forward potential of a squad embellished over the summer recess.

Yet the decisive moment owed as much to City’s desperate search to sate the appetite of a raucous Carrow Road crowd for a winner as it did to Eden Hazard’s predatory instincts or Oscar’s astute sense of opportunity. The gathering siege of the Barclay and the incessant ferocity with which Norwich poured forward threatened to overwhelm one of the best sides and one of the best managers in Europe.The gnawing realisation Norwich were unwittingly architects of their own implosion may take longer to shift. You could well reflect on individual errors from the delivery of Pilkington’s corner to Hazard’s rapier finish which the classy Belgian midfielder rifled underneath John Ruddy’s body that effectively halted City’s second half surge, but it was Norwich’s desire to strive for all three points rather than settle for one that should be the abiding legacy of this thrilling contest.That would mark a sea change in outlook, fuelled in part by a home support who conjured the type of Carrow Road atmosphere that has been noticeably absent for too long as they watched a side cast in their image actively shedding the strictures that appear to have weighed them down in the recent past.

For that you should also look to Hughton, who unleashed both Redmond and Gary Hooper in the aftermath of Pilkington’s deserved equaliser in a bid to complete a turnaround that would have brought much more than merely a second consecutive Premier League victory.

 

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

"to Hazard’s rapier finish

which the classy Belgian midfielder rifled underneath John Ruddy’s body

that effectively halted City’s second half surge,"absolute shitethere would not have been a shooting chance if Tettey had not cocked upeven the the shot was badly placed .. straight at Ruddyit was Ruddy who let the ball slip under him

ps none of the sh itemesisters have explaned the first and third goals, as in what caused them

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]Tell us more about how Chris Hughton, a literal grown man, is just desperate to be loved by the fans, that was my favourite bit.[/quote]

Supporter pressure is part and parcel of being a manager and as a collective supporter opinion, we demanded that we ''go for it'' a bit more this game.

In a strange way, i reckon Hughtons job is safer now than it was at kick off despite a defeat. Playing style seems a big deal these days. I''m personally a results over performance person but it was nice to see us go for the win. As i''ve mentioned, we gambled and lost, but i reckon we''d win more than we''d lose if we played it like that again.

What i''d like to see at some point this season is a comprehensive league win where it''s 3 or 4 - 0 or 1 and we can relax and enjoy seeing it out, try out some fancy stuff. Is that too much to ask just once?

[snake-eyes 13]

Two things Parma,

 

1. ''positivity is not necessarily positive and negative is not necessarily negative.''

 

Equally the opposite of this is also true is it not?

 

2.'' There is little comprehension of the game as a balance between what you want to do and the consequences of doing it. Solutions offered focus only on the positive benefits of any action and rarely on what the opposition would do in counterpoint''

 

The same charge could be levelled at yourself and others on this forum.  What would Chelsea have done if we had shut up shop and defended the 1-1?

What would you say if we had gone ''Defensive'' at 1-1 and Chelsea had still won?

 

I am fully aware of the Irony, I just wonder whether you are aware that there are posters out there every bit as intelligent, open minded and positive as you![^o)]

 

Snake

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

The second Chelsea goal was, as has been pointed out, a collection of individual errors. A poor restart from Pilks, and then Tetteys clearance and Ruddy''s collapse. All technically poor and something Hughton has no control over.

 

Quite how this was affected by the substituions isnt clear to me? Are we saying that if Snodgrass was still on the pitch, or RVW, these wouldn''t have happened? I can''t follow that line.

 

At the time I thought replacing Snoddy with Redmond was risky (in fact the word I used was suicide) but then he brings a parried save from Chelsea''s  GK which , had we really have been Gung Ho, one of the 7 players in the box would have headed the ball into an empty net.

 

CH in my view took a calculated risk, and Redmond almost won us the game. Whether CH did this by listening to the Baying Crowd and going against all of his instincts is ,  I think, a little far fetched.

 

[Bill 1,788]

"What would Chelsea have done if we had shut up shop and defended the 1-1?"not much they could have done, as explained on hereonce a team decides that they want to defend the score then the other team can do little else but go through the motions and accept the resultmaybe to help the happy clappies a manager could walk onto the pitch and hold up a big card signalling his intentions, much as playing the joker in It''s a Knockoutit could even be done in such a way that the TV could slip in a few adverts whilst he is walking on and off the pitchhowever there would have to be a time limit to this as you could not have a team scoring in the first few minutes of a game and then the manager playing his defensive cardperhaps best, as some have said on here, to be allowed only in the last 5 minutes of normal time ................ which would certainly add to the customers experience as the card was seen to be brought out before the five minutes" and I can see the Norwich bench unpacking the card, as it looks like.........................."

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Supporter pressure is part and parcel of being a manager and as a collective supporter opinion, we demanded that we ''go for it'' a bit more this game. [/quote]The question is whether or not Chris Hughton, a man with decades of football experience who has previous implied that he doesn''t really care what the fans think of his style, let the fans influence his decisions.Unless Parma has psychic powers, we can''t ever know Hughton''s rationale, which makes the opening post a load of nonsense, or as I previously said, fan fiction.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

I don''t think anyone can really blame the fans for influencing todays result. Nor can anyone blame Hughton. The game was lost because of a mistake, human error if you will. There is no strategy or tactic that can influence against what Tettey did. Had he stuck the ball into Morrison''s car park I''m certain we''d be celebrating a fantastic point right now.

 

Nothing more than a bad mistake.  

 

 

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]

I don''t think anyone can really blame the fans for influencing todays result. Nor can anyone blame Hughton. The game was lost because of a mistake, human error if you will. There is no strategy or tactic that can influence against what Tettey did. Had he stuck the ball into Morrison''s car park I''m certain we''d be celebrating a fantastic point right now.

 

Nothing more than a bad mistake.  

 

 

[/quote]

*Yesterdays result.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

The end result is that Snoddy''s piss poor penalty and Pilk''s piss poor corner have cost us points meant that we are in the bottom three .............. temporarily.

Not sure about the tactics involved ... we smelt blood yesterday and went for a momentous win that was not to be.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Chelmsford Canary"]

Agree with OP

We should have stuck and got the point!

[/quote]

If Hughton had brought on defensive players (say Johnson and Whittaker on for Snodgrass and Howson) and we''d have gone and lost the game, you would be saying the complete opposite "we should have tried to win the game".

It is lose-lose for Hughton with some people. Thankfully most people on here are acknowledging the great display of passing football which had us dominating one of the leagues best teams for prolonged period and forced them to resort to punting long balls to Demba Ba because that old man Lampard couldn''t handle our fast paced passing game. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="The New Boy"]

If Hughton had brought on defensive players (say Johnson and Whittaker on for Snodgrass and Howson) and we''d have gone and lost the game, you would be saying the complete opposite "we should have tried to win the game".  It is lose-lose for Hughton with some people. Thankfully most people on here are acknowledging the great display of passing football which had us dominating one of the leagues best teams for prolonged period and forced them to resort to punting long balls to Demba Ba because that old man Lampard couldn''t handle our fast paced passing game. 

[/quote]

Hughton is going to have his detractors right enough all through his time at  Norwich. He will never be good enough for some, whatever he does. 

However, imo, Hughton took the decision, based on the game and how it was panning out, that we could win it and put on substitutes accordingly.  Not because of fans, not because of anything other than that we were matching Chelsea and the three points were what we needed from a home game. We lost, but we could have won.  Snodgrass was contributing very little by the time he was taken off and Redmond is a potential match winner.   A loss, but things will have been learned from it and a good performance   overall.

[BOO 0]

However, imo, Hughton took the decision, based on the game and how it was panning out, that we could win it and put on substitutes accordingly. Not because of fans, not because of anything other than that we were matching Chelsea and the three points were what we needed from a home game. We lost, but we could have won. Snodgrass was contributing very little by the time he was taken off and Redmond is a potential match winner. A loss, but things will have been learned from it and a good performance overall.

^^^^^^^

This.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="The New Boy"]

If Hughton had brought on defensive players (say Johnson and Whittaker on for Snodgrass and Howson) and we''d have gone and lost the game, you would be saying the complete opposite "we should have tried to win the game".  It is lose-lose for Hughton with some people. Thankfully most people on here are acknowledging the great display of passing football which had us dominating one of the leagues best teams for prolonged period and forced them to resort to punting long balls to Demba Ba because that old man Lampard couldn''t handle our fast paced passing game. 

[/quote]

Hughton is going to have his detractors right enough all through his time at  Norwich. He will never be good enough for some, whatever he does. 

However, imo, Hughton took the decision, based on the game and how it was panning out, that we could win it and put on substitutes accordingly.  Not because of fans, not because of anything other than that we were matching Chelsea and the three points were what we needed from a home game. We lost, but we could have won.  Snodgrass was contributing very little by the time he was taken off and Redmond is a potential match winner.   A loss, but things will have been learned from it and a good performance   overall.

[/quote]

 

I didn''t see the match, but it doesn''t appear that Hughton used his substitutions to be more defensive or more attacking. The changes looked to be entirely neutral - a winger on for a winger and a striker for a striker.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

Purple Canary wrote: I didn''t see the match, but it doesn''t appear that Hughton used his substitutions to be more defensive or more attacking. The changes looked to be entirely neutral - a winger on for a winger and a striker for a striker.

 

As you didn''t see the game PC, you should know that although Redmond replaced Snodgrass, Redders actually went in goal and Ruddy played the last 15 minutes at left half. Similarly, dont let the swap between Hooper and RVW fool you. Hooper came on and immediately swapped shirts with Bassong - who then went on to deliver a reasonable turn of lighthearted gags and juggling, followed by a near perfect rendition of Chaz and Dave songs. Call that neutral if you like.  

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

Purple Canary wrote: I didn''t see the match, but it doesn''t appear that Hughton used his substitutions to be more defensive or more attacking. The changes looked to be entirely neutral - a winger on for a winger and a striker for a striker.

 

As you didn''t see the game PC, you should know that although Redmond replaced Snodgrass, Redders actually went in goal and Ruddy played the last 15 minutes at left half. Similarly, dont let the swap between Hooper and RVW fool you. Hooper came on and immediately swapped shirts with Bassong - who then went on to deliver a reasonable turn of lighthearted gags and juggling, followed by a near perfect rendition of Chaz and Dave songs. Call that neutral if you like.  

[/quote]You missed out the bit where the lead singer of Boney M scored the third goal.[:D]

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

Purple Canary wrote: I didn''t see the match, but it doesn''t appear that Hughton used his substitutions to be more defensive or more attacking. The changes looked to be entirely neutral - a winger on for a winger and a striker for a striker.

 

As you didn''t see the game PC, you should know that although Redmond replaced Snodgrass, Redders actually went in goal and Ruddy played the last 15 minutes at left half. Similarly, dont let the swap between Hooper and RVW fool you. Hooper came on and immediately swapped shirts with Bassong - who then went on to deliver a reasonable turn of lighthearted gags and juggling, followed by a near perfect rendition of Chaz and Dave songs. Call that neutral if you like.  

[/quote]

You missed out the bit where the lead singer of Boney M scored the third goal.[:D]
[/quote]

 

Damn I missed that bit. Although I did think that Leo Sayer playing at the back for Chelsea had a decent turn of pace on him [;)]

[snake-eyes 13]

I thought he was that judge off the VOICE?

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Chaz and Dave, Boney M, Leo Sayer and the VOICE.........

[H]

 

[^o)]

 

Did I mention Tilly missed the last 20 mins of a game last season to see the Stylistics...

 

[:^)]

 

 

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Chaz and Dave, Boney M, Leo Sayer and the VOICE.........

[H]

 

[^o)]

 

Did I mention Tilly missed the last 20 mins of a game last season to see the Stylistics...

 

[:^)]

Part time Supporter[:D]

 

 

[/quote]