Players clearly upset by booing.......

[a1canary 0]

Gut, it''s a bit odd to say the tactics were wrong. Houghton can''t score the goals himself and tactics can only do so much. The tactics that were used led to a hatful of chances and a clean sheet. It''s up to the players to convert those chances. If we hadn''t had a shot on goal you could question the tactics but in these circumstances I don''t see how you can question the tactics. You might say he could have played two up but it''s a touch simplistic to assume that would mean even more chances or that another striker (at the expense of a midfield that dominated and created the chances) would have resulted in a goal.

[The gut 0]

Sorry QH, for not having your level of understanding football but we can play the hand we are dealt.

I foolishly thought that playing a high standard of amateur football for twenty years, captaining every team played for, managing high standard amateurs (with a couple of ex pros too) and my coaching courses under my belt would at least allow me to have an opinion.

I agree there are good reasons why teams do not play 4 4 2. But I disagree that we needed to employ tettey to protect our back four this afternoon. I do not think that would''ve affected us keeping hold if the ball.

Only my stupid opinion, I thank you for condescending education.

[QHcanary 0]

[quote user="The gut"]Sorry QH, for not having your level of understanding football but we can play the hand we are dealt.

I foolishly thought that playing a high standard of amateur football for twenty years, captaining every team played for, managing high standard amateurs (with a couple of ex pros too) and my coaching courses under my belt would at least allow me to have an opinion.

I agree there are good reasons why teams do not play 4 4 2. But I disagree that we needed to employ tettey to protect our back four this afternoon. I do not think that would''ve affected us keeping hold if the ball.

Only my stupid opinion, I thank you for condescending education.[/quote]

Sorry if you think I''m condescending, but you make almost impossible not to be.

You clearly haven''t seen what happens to us when we play 4 in midfield. We invariably struggle to keep the ball, and leave our back 4 horribly exposed. The fact that we had 31 shots suggests that there wasn''t much need to change the system today. We were utterly dominant, and Marshall made 10 saves, apparently.

I didn''t agree with the hooper/elmander sub, but that''s my only real cause for complaint.

If that''s not enough for you (other than winning the game...we all want that), then I don''t know what is.

Hughton can''t score the goals for us.

[The gut 0]

I''m wondering if some of the words I type don''t appear on the posts that people read.

The tactic I think that was wrong today was to keep a defensive midfielder (who cannot shoot for toffees) on the pitch when another forward would have increased our chances of scoring from our undoubted dominance.

Cardiff were poor today and I feel we could have capitalised had we had additional firepower on the pitch.

Btw I am not criticising what tettey does for us normally but his services were not required today, and I think the manager should''ve made the tactical decision to address that.

[nutty nigel 7,607]

I''ve only got my NVQ in bog cleaning and my grade one in bingo calling[:''(]

 

 

[The gut 0]

So now it''s my fault that QH is condescending.

I have a view, I explain why. I don''t criticise anyone else''s point of view. I''ve done my best to have reasonable debate.

I accept that we would normally be exposed without the defensive midfielder, but not today. I accept starting with it, but not continuing with it until the 86th minute in the easiest game I''ve seen us in for sooo long.

I can handle not winning, I''m a long standing Norwich fan, not a glory hunter. I am annoyed because I felt Hughton made appalling error today to not maximise our chances of winning. In one of our easiest games I think he still thought it was more important not to lose, and employing what I think was needless caution reduced our chances of getting what we deserved today.

[QHcanary 0]

Jesus. You just don''t get it.

If we play 4 in midfield we don''t hold on to the ball anywhere near as well as we did today.

If we haven''t got the ball as much, we can''t create as manage Chances.

MOTD didn''t give a true reflection of the game, but even the BBC commentary made mention of the fact that Marshall''s goal was living a charmed life.

[The gut 0]

I am not saying that the players did not play well. I have not criticised one single player.

You couldn''t have seen us play too many games QH with 4 midfielders under hughton as he hasn''t opted for that much.

31 shots and 10 saves. Is it possible that the shooting wasn''t as good as it could''ve been? Is it possible that a striker would have improved that stat?

Is it possible that because we were playing well and Cardiff were equally poor is why we had so many chances and therefore we might have been able to keep possession even with one less in midfield?

Who knows? But I know my opinion is just as valid as yours despite your superior knowledge.

[The gut 0]

I''d challenge your superior qualifications nutty on bog cleaning.

I have no qualifications in that area but have polished bogs to a level that I think would rival if not beat a pro. I have spent many a night shining the brass to meet the highest inspection.

I know you appreciate others opinions anyway, but for the others who don''t I feel I can also have one on bogs.

[nutty nigel 7,607]

The Gut.. I don''t see any problem with your views. Many other people see it that way. I don''t think you see any problem with miner either. I was pulling your leg with the qualifications. I always feel disadvantaged when people have all those shiny things to back up their posts about football. One guy last week was on about what he did in "his professional life" to make out his opinion held more weight[:)]

 

In the end we all wanted to see us win.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,607]

[quote user="The gut"]I''d challenge your superior qualifications nutty on bog cleaning.

I have no qualifications in that area but have polished bogs to a level that I think would rival if not beat a pro. I have spent many a night shining the brass to meet the highest inspection.

I know you appreciate others opinions anyway, but for the others who don''t I feel I can also have one on bogs.[/quote] [:D] [Y]

 

 

 

 

[The gut 0]

QH I do get it, believe me, I do.

Today was not normal. Do you get that? Have you seen a poorer team at Carrow rd in the premier league.

What makes you think we would''ve had less of the ball today.?

If pushed I would even say that we could''ve played only 3 defence in the second half. Jesus thinks we could even have taken ruddy off and played with 3 centre forwards.

[The gut 0]

I know you don''t nutty, I never thought otherwise, hence my post. I was joining your lightheartedness.

I once spent 12 hours on one bog one night.

[QHcanary 0]

What makes me think we''d have had less of the ball?

I''ve watched us at with 4 in midfield. We struggle. It might have evened things up in terms of possession, and as such we wouldn''t have dominated as completely as we did.

You''re right in one thing though. Today wasn''t normal. How many times a season does a team in the premier league have 31 shots?

Almost never.

It''s even more rare that a dominant performance like that results in a 0-0.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the formation or the tactics.

The only mistake I think we made was bringing off hooper, but that doesn''t change the fact that we should have scored.

[The gut 0]

I did reply QH but it''s fitted in further up page, I guess cos of the clocks moving back

[Dubai Mark 0]

Thats cool admitting you boood today, and I understand the frustration, we are all frustrated, but it really will not help. As for booing because of the tactics? .......tactics that produced our best attacking stats probably for three seasons. I am guessing the biggest grip is not bringing on RVW earlier or next to Hooper, I think I would have preferred RVW on earlier, but I also think he was going for a more physical presence with Elmander to put on the end of some longer balls, and had he got on the end of something then we wouldnt be so frustrated. Im suspecting the fear factor came in a little too, as had we actually lost this one god knows what the reaction could have been, and any team that can bring Bellamy on will always stand a chance of nicking something. As for the players being frustrated, I understand that, but they need to understand the fans frustration and just how much sacrifice many make to go each week......

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I think what The Gut was trying to say was he was frustrated that he felt tactically we didn''t throw the kitchen sink at a Cardiff side who were there for the taking. Malky''d changes at half time took the sting out of our threat and the game was virtually over before we responded.

I''d have personally made the same RVW for Tettey switch he was referring to, and I''d have got him no later than 75 mins.

There''s no doubting we played well, first half particularly, but this 31 shots stat is starting to annoy me a touch. Let''s not pretend like that means we had 31 good chances. From my recollection a good 20 of those were from outside the box and were high, wide and not at all handsome. That''s not a criticism, as I said I thought we played well, but just for some balance.

[JF 694]

If Hooper was fit enough to stay on then the Tettey for RVW sub should have been made after 60 mins. I thought it was just a matter of time till Hooper found the net, made some great runs and his link up play was great. I''ve yet to see just what Elmander is bringing to the party and our threat weakened significantly when Hooper came off for him. I find myself increasingly baffled by the decisions Hughton makes, he doesnt seem to have the ability to change a match tactically of through subs that managers at this level need.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="JF"]If Hooper was fit enough to stay on then the Tettey for RVW sub should have been made after 60 mins. I thought it was just a matter of time till Hooper found the net, made some great runs and his link up play was great. I''ve yet to see just what Elmander is bringing to the party and our threat weakened significantly when Hooper came off for him. I find myself increasingly baffled by the decisions Hughton makes, he doesnt seem to have the ability to change a match tactically of through subs that managers at this level need.[/quote]

Taking Tettey off at 60 minutes is too early. He holds the team togther and allows the midfield in front to be on the front foot and therefore create chances. Look what happened at arsenal when tettey went off. For me howson is the player to leave the midfield for another forward.

[JF 694]

You can''t compare what happened against a quality Arsenal side where that sub should never have happened to a Cardiff side that we were dominating.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I''d agree that 60 minutes was a little early to make that change, but I still think it was the right one Lincoln. We were playing a toothless Cardiff at home, not Arsenal away.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

Elmander and hooper would work well together. A straight swap doesn''t make any sence and once again Hughton doesn''t do himself any favours.

As for tactics I can''t believe Hughton can be the tactically inept. Unfortunately I think he has a stubourness to do things in his own less conventional way, I won''t change till it works!

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="JF"]You can''t compare what happened against a quality Arsenal side where that sub should never have happened to a Cardiff side that we were dominating.[/quote]

That''s a little simplistic. Yes Arsenal have much more quality but the change of play was emphatic. Taking tettey off at 60 mins yesterday would have made a much less impact on the balance of the game, however almost certainly Cardiff would have had at least 1 or 2 more goal scoring opportunities.

[ricardo 7,397]

[quote user="The gut"]Ffs

Read it again.

The essence of what is being said.

I''ve expressed my thoughts as best I can, picking up on individual words rather than a sentence in which they appear is just typical of what people face on this board.

I will try in my uneducated state to be clearer ( you don''t have to have a degree in English to understand football do you???).

I think:-

Hughton is generally defensive first.

Today we did attack.

I felt we could have attacked more, and be more threatening if Hughton had sacrificed a defensive midfielder for an attacker.

I think Hughton should definitely have made that decision today. I don''t think I have seen more clearly obvious decision.

In my very most humble opinion, I felt he could''ve and should''ve changed his tactic from defence first, to attack first during the game (long before the 86th minute).

Today I find this monotonous because he always does (and i accept that) and today he still continued with it when he didn''t need to (I find that hard to accept).

Now get off your high forum horses and allow people to have an opinion, without smartarse snipes. Just posting your own opinions is sufficient. I read them without sniping.

I have played and watched enough football to have thoughts of my own.[/quote]The tactics will always be arguable when you can second guess the manager but that''s a hell of a long row back from "monotonous and safety first play".

[king canary 7,665]

I booed but like the gut it was frustration at Hughton not the players. The changes ye made just stunk of fear- rather than thinking this was a team and a game for the taking he made like for like changes as he was more afraid of losing. That sort of mentality will get us nowhere.The cold hard facts are that we''ve taken 1 point from Villa, Cardiff and Hull, three teams that will likely be in the bottom 5 or 6 come the end of the season. That just isn''t good enough.

[Badger 2,412]

Surprisingly, I think that this thread reveals what is the core of the issue of the difference of views over Hughton, particularly this season which centres around tactics. In the Snakepit today there were fans chanting 4-4-2, 4-4-2.

The logic that they follow is that this is a more attacking formation than 4231, 451, 433, 4411 (which imo is largely the same tactic, responding to the needs of the game). On the "other side" there are a group of fans, of which I am one, think that this is naive and outdated.

this is in essence the nub of the argument. In my view 4-4-2 is tactically naive in modern football and would lead to fewer rather than more chances: you can''t create a chance if you haven''t got the ball! To have this furore after such a good performance yesterday makes me wonder if people saw the same game that I did.

The danger is that the negativity that is beginning to emerge at the ground will start to damage the confidence of the players and lead to declining standards of play.

[king canary 7,665]

[quote user=" Badger"]Surprisingly, I think that this thread reveals what is the core of the issue of the difference of views over Hughton, particularly this season which centres around tactics. In the Snakepit today there were fans chanting 4-4-2, 4-4-2.

The logic that they follow is that this is a more attacking formation than 4231, 451, 433, 4411 (which imo is largely the same tactic, responding to the needs of the game). On the "other side" there are a group of fans, of which I am one, think that this is naive and outdated.

this is in essence the nub of the argument. In my view 4-4-2 is tactically naive in modern football and would lead to fewer rather than more chances: you can''t create a chance if you haven''t got the ball! To have this furore after such a good performance yesterday makes me wonder if people saw the same game that I did.

The danger is that the negativity that is beginning to emerge at the ground will start to damage the confidence of the players and lead to declining standards of play.[/quote]I totaly agree with this but sometimes you need to switch things up. Hughton has his 4-4-1-1 formation that suits our players but then can''t change things and adapt as the game goes on.

[*** 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Beefy is a legend"]Clearly 31 goal attempts isn''t enough for the gut...[/quote]

Perhaps he was watching with Wiz in the Wensum stand. Apparantly it has a restricted view.[:D]
[/quote]

 

Again, up yours.

[Surfbird 1]

Sparticus is right the crowd were not booing the players they were booing the ref for disallowing the ''goal'' in the last seconds of the game.

[king canary 7,665]

[quote user="Surfbird"]Sparticus is right the crowd were not booing the players they were booing the ref for disallowing the ''goal'' in the last seconds of the game.[/quote]I wasn''t....