Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ricardo

Ricardo's report v Cardiff

Recommended Posts

A nice mild Autumn day at CR this afternoon and with the promise of three points there was a certain spring in Ricardo''s step on the stroll up to the match. With RVW still sidelined it was Garry Hooper''s chance to shine and after a low key first five minutes chances were to come thick and fast.Olssen banged one just a foot over in the 6th minute and from then on it was mostly one way traffic. Leroy Fer was soon bossing midfield and twice fed Hooper with astute balls into space. The first was only an ounce too light as the City striker had to check his run and the second was blocked by a defender. Then it was Pilks turn to feed Hooper but again the timing was inches out. City continued to dominate and Marshall in the Cardiff goal had to be constantly alert for danger by foiling Olsson and Snoddy in quick succession.The City defence was caught flat footed on 25 minutes when Ruddy had to produce something special to conjure the ball over the bar from Mutch''s close range effort but it was totally against the pattern of play however and City were soon back on the front foot. Marshall brilliantly turned Johnny Howsons low 25 yarder for a corner and then Fer volleyed what looked like a certain goal only for a Cardiff defender to hook clear right on the line. It could only be a matter of time we thought as shots and headers rained in on the Cardiff goal. A Hooper snap shot had us rising out of our seats but once more Marshall was equal to it. A rare Cardiff breakaway had our hearts in our mouths as a shot took a deflection but Ruddy who had been a virtual spectator did his job well.With half time approaching fast the game seemed to be camped inside the Cardiff half. Howson again let fly with a swirling drive but Marshall beat it away and as corner after corner pressurized the Cardiff back line these was an almighty scramble with the ball coming off a post before magnetically finding its way into the goalkeepers hands. Unbelievable, the game should have been done and dusted but somehow the half ended all square.We were all hoping for a continuation after the break but City found it difficult to regain their earlier fluency. A weak shot from Hooper and then a cross shot from the same source almost opened the visitors up with Pilks only inches from applying the finishing touches. At around the hour mark it became apparent that the game was drifting as Cardiff slowed the play at every opportunity. Surely it was time for RVW to partner Hooper up front? It didn''t happen and when the change came a further ten pointless minutes had been wasted. To my great surprise it wasn''t Ricky who appeared but Elmander and Redmond for Hooper and Pilks. What do I know, but if  you can''t bring on an extra striker against a punch drunk Cardiff then it''s never going to happen.City were still pushing but time was running away quickly. Redmond and Olsson both tested Marshall with stinging efforts but it was becoming more and more obvious that the ex City stopper wouldn''t be beaten today. It''s a funny old game and having played in goal in my younger years I know the feeling you get on days when you know nothing is going to beat beat you. It was certainly one of those days for Marshall. There was one final scramble in time added and the ball bounced about the Cardiff box without anyone getting a meaningful connection until it sat up nicely for Russell Martin just inside the box. In the context of the game I would have bet a million quid that he would mess it up and his sliced effort went horribly wide.Dear oh deary me, 60% possession, 31 shots and still no goals. Those who asked for entertaining football can have had no complaint again today but Ricardo would have settled for a dour encounter with an untidy winner.  When push comes to shove in May the entertaining football won''t matter a jot. It''s points that count and I''m sure Cardiff are overjoyed with their''s despite being totally out classed.[:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently thats the most shots at goal by any side in this league so far this season, although I think Southampton are doing there best to beat it right now. Thanks as usual Ricardo for your report, I had metioned somewhere on a previous thread that Marshall would probably have a stormer against us and when Bellars came on was half expecting him to win it for him the way our luck went today.....as thats all that was missing today that little bit of luck as that performance deserved the 3 points. As for the substitutions, I dont know why but I genuinely wasnt expecting him to put RWW next to Hooper, but see your point fully on that, although I''m guessing CH felt that Elmander was more suited for a bit of an aerial/physical battle, although RVW is certainly not bad in the air. I thought, first half particularly Snodgrass was much better today and Howson again played very well as did the majority of the side, there were a couple of slightly below performances though. I dont think I have been as frustrated as that after a match for a long time, two points dropped, now we need to win next week to make up for it, yeah right OTBC  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good report as always Ricardo, that certainly reflects the game I was at.
Extremely frustrating. I turned to my wife after about 35 minutes and said we weren''t going to put it in the net today. She reassured me that Norwich always score when she goes. Well that record went today. fortunately the other one of them not losing when she goes remained intact.
I thought Malky shut up shop with his changes at half time and I am sure will be delighted with the point. They really offered pretty much nothing in the second half. The upside of this is at least we can dominate some teams in this division to the extent that they are forced to go totally negative. The downside is that results like this can get you relegated even though the performance is good. Hopefully we can string a few results together soon. So I for one will continue to keep the faith.
OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few of my thoughts, for what it''s worth.
1) Malky Mackay made a great tactical decision at half time. His decision to remove Odemwinge and Kim and switch his formation to a 5 man midfield was one of the reasons for the drop in Norwich performance after the half. Mutch played very high on Tettey during the second half, almost man marking him at times, this meant that the simple pass into the midfield was no longer viable and lead to us either spending time passing the ball between centre backs with no obvious direction or knocking the ball long. He saw how Tettey was able to give the ball to our attacking four to create chances and responded quickly.
2) The decision to bring on Elmander was logical, and harshly treated by many fans. We had already struggle to pass to a similar level when compared to the first half, and were becoming more and more direct as time ran out. Bringing on your biggest striker, who is more likely to win those aerial balls and then bring people into play, was a good decision. It didn''t have the desired effect, but the thought process was clear.
3) The reason for the late 4-4-2 switch was due to a fear of losing the midfield battle. Cardiff had already shown an ability to use pace in behind and as the half wore on, looked to exploit gaps we left as we pushed forward. Losing the midfield battle could have lead to increased defensive frailty and a lack of creativity (we wouldn''t have controlled the ball as near as well with a two man midfield). 
Norwich performed well, very well, but didn''t win. Despite what fans say about entertainment, they want to win first and foremost. If Whittingham hadn''t made that clearance, if Marshall had had a poorer game all everyone would be talking about is the positives, a disappointing draw has us questioning the managers position. Fine margins indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malky closed down our midfield after halftime and we were clueless to make a genuine response. There is no tactical awareness in the dug out and it  will take us down. That is a match we should  have walked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Vanwink"]Malky closed down our midfield after halftime and we were clueless to make a genuine response. There is no tactical awareness in the dug out and it  will take us down. That is a match we should  have walked. [/quote]
What would you have done to solve this problem? Not having a go, I''m genuinely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Ricardo.

Listening to Hughton post match, I don''t think he wanted to play Ricky at all, it sounds like he''s still carrying an injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillip,its a very difficult problem to deal with, but thats what our management team are paid  lots of money to do.If it was me I would have gone with 2 up front, certainly kept Hooper  on, risked losing a bit ofmid  field control, but put more responsibility on the full backs to get forwarred, add width and get balls into the red zone for our strikers.What we see is almost a rigid adherence to a pre planned strategy for our subs almost ingnoring what is actually happening on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"]Thanks again Ricardo.

Listening to Hughton post match, I don''t think he wanted to play Ricky at all, it sounds like he''s still carrying an injury.[/quote]In which case he shouldn''t have been on the bench at all. In any event my main gripe is that it was obvious before the hour mark that the game was drifting and Cardiff were going very defensive. If Hooper was not injured I can''t see why he was taken off. Fair enough Redmond for Pilks who was looking a bit puffed but for me when Hooper went so did most of our chances of nicking a goal.My worrying is that a few weeks ago people were crying out for attacking football and giving it a go. I warned at the time that playing well is not necessarily the same as winning points and the last 3 or 4 games have proved that in spades. There were plenty of boo''s at the end so there are a lot of people not happy with just playing well.I wonder if there are many on the Cardiff forum tonight having a go at Malky for sitting back? I rather think there are more who are overjoyed from nicking an unlikely point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed Winky. We should have played 4-4-2 imo from the start. And, notwithstanding the one up-front approach, once again, as soon as Cardiff changed shape we had no tactical response to offer whatsoever. And taking Hooper off was simply ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Agreed Winky. We should have played 4-4-2 imo from the start. And, notwithstanding the one up-front approach, once again, as soon as Cardiff changed shape we had no tactical response to offer whatsoever. And taking Hooper off was simply ridiculous.[/quote]

 

Amen to this...........and thats why he has to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Agreed Winky. We should have played 4-4-2 imo from the start. And, notwithstanding the one up-front approach, once again, as soon as Cardiff changed shape we had no tactical response to offer whatsoever. And taking Hooper off was simply ridiculous.[/quote]

 

Amen to this...........and thats why he has to go.

[/quote]Did it sound ridiculous on the radio?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"][quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Agreed Winky. We should have played 4-4-2 imo from the start. And, notwithstanding the one up-front approach, once again, as soon as Cardiff changed shape we had no tactical response to offer whatsoever. And taking Hooper off was simply ridiculous.[/quote]

 

Amen to this...........and thats why he has to go.

[/quote]Did it sound ridiculous on the radio?[/quote]Well they all booed in the Wensum stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"][quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Agreed Winky. We should have played 4-4-2 imo from the start. And, notwithstanding the one up-front approach, once again, as soon as Cardiff changed shape we had no tactical response to offer whatsoever. And taking Hooper off was simply ridiculous.[/quote]

 

Amen to this...........and thats why he has to go.

[/quote]

Did it sound ridiculous on the radio?
[/quote]

 

I watched the entire 94 minutes so don''t start with that sh*t.........and up yours Ricardo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Vanwink"]Phillip,its a very difficult problem to deal with, but thats what our management team are paid  lots of money to do.If it was me I would have gone with 2 up front, certainly kept Hooper  on, risked losing a bit ofmid  field control, but put more responsibility on the full backs to get forwarred, add width and get balls into the red zone for our strikers.What we see is almost a rigid adherence to a pre planned strategy for our subs almost ingnoring what is actually happening on the field. [/quote]
You wouldn''t have risked losing the midfield, you would''ve lost the midfield. Losing the midfield battle is tantamount to suicide. I also question your idea about the fullbacks getting forward. Our full backs were very advanced today, they constantly overlapped their wingers and looked to provide crosses. If you look at the average positioning of our full backs, you''ll see that they played very high up the pitch and attempted the second and third most amount of crosses for any player. 
Also the substitution of Hooper did make sense. Hughton tried 2 things to get around Cardiff''s agressive peressing in midfield:
1) He encouraged Howson and Fer to drop deeper, offering more support to Tettey when he recieved the ball. The issue with this was that the wingers and forward did not drop deep as well, meaning there was a huge amount of space between midfield and attack, making it harder to link up with them and create speedy passing plays.
2) When this didn''t work, he went more direct. I''m not saying we hit the ball long every attack, but there was a definite shift in tactics that meant the ball was spending less time in the midfield. If you''re going to do that, you need a striker who is good in the air, good with his back to goal and able to link the play. Elmander fits that role better than either of Hooper and Wolfswinkel, it was logical to bring him on. You could argue that he should''ve held off on the Elmander substitution until it was later in the game and then brought him on and played 4-4-2 (as he did with Wolfswinkel and Elmander with 5 mins + stoppage remaining), but that''s a different argument entirelty.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see you posting on this thread Philip and another great report Ricardo.

 

I wouldn''t have been so eager to make 2 substitutions today. I thought at half-time change nothing and a goal will come. But there comes a time where action has to be taken. However I would have replaced Pilks with Redmond 10 mins before the substitutions were made. That might have been enough to get the goal that would have won us the game. Would have left the rest alone including Hooper because we were so dominant and Redmond might just have been the spark. I''d have given that 15 minutes before I sacrificed another midfielder for a striker but then would have gone 2 up top.

 

What a player Redmond is BTW! Has an amazing talent where hecan shoot so powerfully in full flight with such little back lift. Definitely should start for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ricardo wrote the following post at 26/10/2013 7:50 PM:

ron obvious wrote:

Thanks again Ricardo. Listening to Hughton post match, I don''t think he wanted to play Ricky at all, it sounds like he''s still carrying an injury.

In which case he shouldn''t have been on the bench at all.

-----------------------------------------------

I don''t think it''s quite as cut & dried as that, Ricardo, I think he rates RvW as his best striker & wants to play him whenever possible, & I imagine that his injury is one which is exacerbated with time on the pitch - Hughton thought we were bound to score, but as time leaked away he brought Ricky on in desperation. Now that''s hardly an act of genius, but sometimes desperate acts have to be resorted to.

It does rather show Hughton''s got no faith in Becchio, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooper was looking over to the bench on more than one occasion before he was subbed. We felt he was starting to waiver a bit after a very good performance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Vanwink"]What would you have done Phillip?  [/quote]
It''s a difficult situation. In the first half, Cardiff''s 4-1-4-1 formation meant that Tettey had plenty of time on the ball, and Medel struggled to deal with the attacking play of Howson and Fer. Malky made a good decision at half time, switching to a 4-2-3-1. This meant that Medel and Gunnarsson could man-mark both Howson and Fer, whilst Mutch could push up on Tettey. Hughton made the right decision intially, asking his midfielders to drop deeper to collect the ball. This created gaps between Cardiff''s midfield and defence as the Cardiff midfielders followed their man, which we should''ve exploited more. Pilkington and Snodgrass should''ve moved into those areas, offering a good passing option in a dangerous area. Instead, they stayed wide and high, when they should''ve come deep and narrow. Whether the wingers position was a tactical decision made by Hughton or just Pilkington and Snodgrass playing their natural game, I''m not sure. Obviously, when Hughton brought on Elmander and Redmond he went more direct, IMO because of the poor movement of the wingers in moving into that space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phillip,I thought you said earlier that the full backs were using the width?I makes little differrence now however, the fact remains that what we did didnt work for us, it is a game we should have won.My belief  is that CH is not a good tactician and his management team, between them, seem unable to make changes that will deliver a positive result. It is a sad situation when you consider the improved squad at his disposal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Great to see you posting on this thread Philip and another great report Ricardo.

 

I wouldn''t have been so eager to make 2 substitutions today. I thought at half-time change nothing and a goal will come. But there comes a time where action has to be taken. However I would have replaced Pilks with Redmond 10 mins before the substitutions were made. That might have been enough to get the goal that would have won us the game. Would have left the rest alone including Hooper because we were so dominant and Redmond might just have been the spark. I''d have given that 15 minutes before I sacrificed another midfielder for a striker but then would have gone 2 up top.

 

What a player Redmond is BTW! Has an amazing talent where hecan shoot so powerfully in full flight with such little back lift. Definitely should start for me. 

[/quote]

Blimey I have had to read this twice to make sure I had in fact spotted a small dose of criticism in the post from our Nutty with regard to Hughton''s tactics and substitutions.[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]A few of my thoughts, for what it''s worth.


1) Malky Mackay made a great tactical decision at half time. His decision to remove Odemwinge and Kim and switch his formation to a 5 man midfield was one of the reasons for the drop in Norwich performance after the half. Mutch played very high on Tettey during the second half, almost man marking him at times, this meant that the simple pass into the midfield was no longer viable and lead to us either spending time passing the ball between centre backs with no obvious direction or knocking the ball long. He saw how Tettey was able to give the ball to our attacking four to create chances and responded quickly.


2) The decision to bring on Elmander was logical, and harshly treated by many fans. We had already struggle to pass to a similar level when compared to the first half, and were becoming more and more direct as time ran out. Bringing on your biggest striker, who is more likely to win those aerial balls and then bring people into play, was a good decision. It didn''t have the desired effect, but the thought process was clear.


3) The reason for the late 4-4-2 switch was due to a fear of losing the midfield battle. Cardiff had already shown an ability to use pace in behind and as the half wore on, looked to exploit gaps we left as we pushed forward. Losing the midfield battle could have lead to increased defensive frailty and a lack of creativity (we wouldn''t have controlled the ball as near as well with a two man midfield). 


Norwich performed well, very well, but didn''t win. Despite what fans say about entertainment, they want to win first and foremost. If Whittingham hadn''t made that clearance, if Marshall had had a poorer game all everyone would be talking about is the positives, a disappointing draw has us questioning the managers position. Fine margins indeed.



[/quote]

 

As you seem willing to actually debate the game Phillip, without some kind of agenda,  I wonder what your take on what I said in another thread earlier which was

"It seemed to me that we had Hooper advanced , but the number 10 role (I hate that phrase but there you are) was fluid; Fer, Pilks and Howson all found them selves behind the striker when we had the ball. It''s hard to be too critical because of the number of shots (I wont say chances) the system generated, but time and time again the ball is played into a player with his back to the opps goal. Rarely are passes "slid in" beside the forward player and this is where the "one behind the striker" player should come into his own. Or play a wall pass with the striker.

I still think we play too much football in neutral areas and when you combine that with a desire not to be out of postion if we lose possession it still makes forward play slow and predictable. We play 90% of our football in front of their defence and even in front of their midfield , rarely to do we get in behind"

 

This playing in front of them was of course excerbated but Malky''s change and it was this aspect that we just dont seem to be able to break down. Passes forward to higher players just didn''t happen and instead we looked to continually switch play which as I said made us too predicatable.   

 

As you say we then went direct , which looked a little bit desperate I thought.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Vanwink"]Phillip,I thought you said earlier that the full backs were using the width?
[/quote]
They were. I said the Wingers needed to go narrower and deeper so they could exploit the space between the oppositions midfield and defence. The full backs could provide a wide option when they advanced. The wingers in the first half were much more proactive in their movement, Snodgrass was moving into central areas regularly and Pilkington would come deep to collect the ball. This didn''t happen in the second half, when it should''ve happened more. Again, I don''t know if this was a tactical decision by Hughton or the players just not being as proactive..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Graham Paddon''s Beard:
I can see what you mean. I do remember a few balls played in behind their defence though. Fer, I think, attempted at least twice and Pilkington tried a couple of chipped balls over the top. We probably need to do it more to get the best out of Hooper and Wolfswinkel though. Personally, I feel that Howson and Snodgrass need to step up their game in this area. I thought both played well yesterday, but neither attempted any penetrating passes. There was one instance in the first half where Howson had the ball and was advancing up the pitch, he had plenty of time to play a through pass to either Pilkington or Hooper but delayed too long and had a shot instead (which glossed over the fact that he made the wrong decision). Snodgrass is just as culpable, he has this ability to appear in pockets of space but seems reluctant to play the pass in behind. As I said, both Fer and Pilkington seemed more than willing to do this, so I believe it''s an issue of Howson''s and Snodgrass''s individual decsion making then a tactical decision on the part of Hughton. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Great to see you posting on this thread Philip and another great report Ricardo.

 

I wouldn''t have been so eager to make 2 substitutions today. I thought at half-time change nothing and a goal will come. But there comes a time where action has to be taken. However I would have replaced Pilks with Redmond 10 mins before the substitutions were made. That might have been enough to get the goal that would have won us the game. Would have left the rest alone including Hooper because we were so dominant and Redmond might just have been the spark. I''d have given that 15 minutes before I sacrificed another midfielder for a striker but then would have gone 2 up top.

 

What a player Redmond is BTW! Has an amazing talent where hecan shoot so powerfully in full flight with such little back lift. Definitely should start for me. 

[/quote]

Blimey I have had to read this twice to make sure I had in fact spotted a small dose of criticism in the post from our Nutty with regard to Hughton''s tactics and substitutions.[;)]

[/quote]

 

Well I nearly always make comments about such things on this thread. I think it''s too simplistic to assume that by replacing defensive players with attacking ones we''d go on to win the game. My criticism of Hughton was the double substitution when we were clearly on top in the game. I don''t think we needed wholesale changes we just needed a goal. I would have made that one change 10 mins earlier and given it 15 mins. If we then scored the personnel on the pitch would have been more likely to see the game out. What do you think about that?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...