ReadingCanary 0 Posted September 27, 2013 "As for Norwich, I can''t remember the last time Ricky van Wolfswinkel touched the ball. He doesn''t really get involved in the game and Norwich can''t afford to have luxury players like that. They got well beat at Tottenham a couple of weeks ago - it was only 2-0 but it could have been any score - and they had a shocker of a result at home to Aston Villa so it could be a really long season.I am surprised that Wes Hoolahan hasn''t had more of a look in because he gets on the ball and makes things happen, but he is missing out because they have gone for 4-4-2 instead of playing one up top and one in the hole.That has really backfired, if I''m being honest."DOWN WITH THE 4 4 2(even though I thought most of our games have been 4 4 1 1) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SeattleCanary 0 Posted September 27, 2013 They have been. Maybe it''s because Elmander is a striker and not a "hole" type player that it looks like 4-4-2? We lack the correct personnel to successfully pull of that formation anyway, as we have shown. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Angry 1,512 Posted September 27, 2013 Has Merson started drinking again? RVW had at least 3 chances against Villa! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted September 27, 2013 we should have scored 3 goals against villa. Although we didn''t play well, when you watch the highlights back, we did create some great chances, RVW should have scored with the near post shot after some great movement and if hooper had proper contact with the ball then it would have gone in.....but its all ifs and buts i guess, hopefully a win against stoke is coming Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,598 Posted September 27, 2013 Merson is talking crap, it just shows that he''s not seen us, and is merely going by reports/results. We''ve not been 442, and RVW actually had a reasonable game against Villa, he was much more involved than vs Saints, for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,093 Posted September 27, 2013 Merson says things for effect irrespective of the facts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ivan Easter 0 Posted September 28, 2013 Merson predictions are rather like the weather you cannot count on them, Its up to the lads to prove them wrong. Come on City 3 points tomorrow please!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hannibal II 0 Posted September 28, 2013 Well he''s right we''ve had a shocking start to the season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ivan Easter 0 Posted September 28, 2013 Tomorrow will tell because I do think that game is winnable with the team we have, however RVW needs to get on the score sheet soon otherwise Merson will be right about the luxury? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted September 28, 2013 I don''t believe Paul Merson is a good annalist, one that goes on my ''poor'' list. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sussexyellow 55 Posted September 28, 2013 [quote user="mrs miggins"]we should have scored 3 goals against villa. Although we didn''t play well, when you watch the highlights back, we did create some great chances, RVW should have scored with the near post shot after some great movement and if hooper had proper contact with the ball then it would have gone in.....but its all ifs and buts i guess, hopefully a win against stoke is coming[/quote]Precisely, although with a stat of 66% possession we must have played reasonably well.Now that the pain has diminished I would reflect that the main thing that was wrong with the Villa game was the result. Had two of the chances had gone in I think we would be reflecting on here what a strong dominant performance it was! As you say if and buts... but lets hope it is a sign of better things to come.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Juggy 0 Posted September 28, 2013 Personally I think Merson has it pretty much spot on whether he is guessing or not.Van Wolfswinkel hasn''t had many clear cut chances, hasn''t got on the ball much, and our system or line up is to blame for that. He was right that Spurs could easily have won 4-0 or 5-0.He is right that a 1-0 loss at home to Villa is a poor result, however much the ''Lambert factor'' comes into that.He is right to point out that Hoolahan hasn''t had a sniff and that he gets on the ball more than Elmander, and he is right to say that Hoolahan should perhaps be used a bit more. He is probably right to judge Elmander - RVW partnership as ineffective, even if he has missed the fact that Elmander is playing deep. He is a striker being played out of position, easy mistake to make.The only bit that he has missed is playing two wingers on the opposite sides to their strongest foot, the primary reason why we haven''t created chances for Van Wolfswinkel, because our wingers are crossing with the ball travelling towards the goalkeeper - making it far too easy for the keeper to collect.That is a bigger reason that Elmander being ineffective as a #10. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites