Scouting Report

[tom cavendish 0]

The story of this game is of 2 teams that struggle to score goals who were heading for a 0-0 draw until Norwich manager Chris Hughton made substitutions that changed the game.Off went Redmond and Hooper who were the 2 Norwich players most likely to threaten the West Ham goal. Redmond and Hooper had been pushing forward and the threat of Redmond''s pace helped to prevent the West Ham defence from getting forward.The substitutions seemed to indicate that Hughton was looking to see out the match to gain a point rather than try to win the match. However, with Elmander coming onto the pitch and dropping deep rather than leading the forward line high up the pitch, West Ham defenders were suddenly able to go a lot further forward and Norwich dropped deeper resulting in the first goal.Hughton needs to learn that you can''t leave Premier League defenders with no-one to defend against because they will push forwards and you conceded large parts of the pitch. When we break forwards I find it annoying to see a lone striker often left well behind our wingers .I am also not keen on the wingers often switching their positions when one or both of the wingers already have the beating of their full-back. Why change when it is working?6 - Ruddy - made a fantastic save but could have done better for the goals. His quick distribution seemed a lot better than it has been.2 - Martin - could have defended a lot better and was quite ineffective going forward.7 - Yobo - I have been quite impressed with some of his positional play.6 - Bassong - should have done a lot better for the first goal. 8 - Olsson - he has to show great determination and play at the very top of his game to be good enough for the Premier League, but he is doing so.6 - Snodgrass - struggled, missed a chance to score but at least got into some good positions. He still needs to remember that when he loses the ball he should get on with the match, try to win the ball back and get in a good position to recieve a pass. I would rather that he played central in support of Hopper.8 - Tettey - did very well against the strength of the West Ham players.6 - Fer - didn''t impose himself enough and could have got forwards more.6 - Johnson - he closed spaces down quite well at times but didn''t offer much else.7 - Redmond - beat players and a few of his deliveries were good, but some bad. He also contributed some good defensive work; an area of his game that he has improved upon since the start of the season.6 - Hooper - could have scored a couple but at least he is getting into good positions to score.SUBS2 - Elmander - he was never going to be much of a goal threat, quite slow and predictable, isn''t much good at linking with the midfield nor creating chances, doesn''t attack crosses into the box. What is the point of playing a lone striker when he doesn''t even lead the line? Even when he played deep he failed to pick up runners from the West Ham central defence charging forward (because they didn''t have a striker to defend against). At least Becchio gets into the right forward positions and is a bit less predictable.6 - Pilkington - should have started on the left with Redmond on the right as had been the case against Man City.4 - RvW - his confidence and strength on the ball needs building up. If he plays then he needs to be far forward ready to recieve the ball in space on a counter-attack, not left behind play in a crowded midfield.I would put Whittaker at right-back, Pilkington left, Redmond right. Hooper as the striker with Snodgrass just behind given the freedom to raom. Tettey & Fer in the middle. I think this would place our best players in their best positions and give us a much better chance of scoring goals. If Hughton insists on Snodgrass playing on the right then play Redmond in support of Hooper.               Hooper             SnodgrassPilkington Fer Tettey RedmondOlsson Bassong Yobo Whittaker                  Ruddy

[Salopian 1]

Spot on, T.C. I agree with virtually everything you say. Unless Redmond was carrying an injury, I cannot see why he was taken off and Snodgrass remained. Redmond had been played out of position on the left, while everyone knows what he can do down the right.

Snodgrass is a committed player, but he is not the player he was last season, especially at finishing. Perhaps he has enough ability and tight clntrol to beat players slowly. If so, why not play him in the centre, as Scotland did at least once?

Martin is an enigma - very inconsistent, and I fear at this level better in the centre, although we don''t need anyone there with Yobo settling in and Bennett soon to be available, we hope. The trouble is that Whittaker can also have shockers. The rest of the back four are coming good, but we have a real problem at RB. Could it offer an opportunity for Gutierrez? He has played there, and used to be a winger.

[splutcho 173]

You don''t like Martin, we get it. 2 is ridiculous.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Martin 2?! Are you for real?

Also, other than the defence, Redmond was our stand out player, deserves an 8 as he set up 3 absolute sitters for out players. He should have been raking in the fantasy league points by now as in recent games he''s stopped being so careless and put chances on a plate for teammates. RVW and Fer should have scored vs Man City, Hooper, Snodgrass and Tettey should have scored agains West Ham

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

Starting to think the whole point of these "Scouting Reports" is to slag off Martin.

[pliff 4]

Weak link in the side slow defensively needs too many touches on the ball doesn''t move it quick enough gets caught out of position and caught with the ball poor crosser of the ball other than that I like him oh and my missus thinks he is good looking should have purchased Kyle Naughton in summer too late now he is back in the Spurs side

[GJP 79]

No doubt that the OP has got it in for Martin but it is also fair to say that the right side of our defence is a weak area that is targeted by the opposition.

 

West Ham looked to attack that area. Newcastle did it over and over again. Cardiff brought Zaha on to have a go there. Jelavic''s early chance for Hull came from there. Even when we turned in that good performance against Man Utd they went there from the off, getting a couple of crosses in from the left wing very early on. Going back further than that Villa''s goal came from there.

 

I''m not saying that''s all down to Martin (Whittaker was guilty of  costing us goals at Spurs, for example) but that side of our defence is the side that the opposition tend to favour attacking.

[lappinitup 629]

"Scouting Report" LOL! [:D]Who were you "Scouting" for this time Tom? [:^)]

[TCCANARY 263]

 

Tom, was this report compiled from your observations at the match or from you TV?

 

 

[Ray 111]

Tom,

You may be intersted in the scores for the WH match given by whoscored.com, whilst I don''t necessarily agree with them I think they give a better reflection of the game than yours do.

1.Ruddy

6.2

2.Martin

6.5

23.Olsson

6.4

4.Johnson

6.7

26.Yobo

7.0

5.Bassong

7.1

7.Snodgrass

7.0

27.Tettey

6.8

11.Hooper

6.7

10.Fer

5.9

22.Redmond

6.9

And here are the scores from SKY;

Ruddy 7

Martin 6

Yobo 5

Bassong 6

Olsson 7

Tettey 6

Johnson 7

Snodgrass 7

Fer 6

Redmond 8

Hooper 6

van Wolfswinkel 6

Pilkington 5

Elmander 5

[Lets be aving you! 0]

Not seen a scoring system like this since Eurovision.

Second game running Russ has managed a 2 out of 10. Didn''t he make it onto the pitch second half, or was it more his frantic arm waving that have pi$$ed off the OP?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I think Tom Cavendish is Russell Martin''s mother-in-law...

 

 

[Lets be aving you! 0]

... or maybe Russ didn''t appreciate the dib-dibbing with his woggle.

[chicken 0]

Why is it called ''scouting report'' when you are simply rating our players.

I really struggle to agree with most of what you write. Especially when you claim to be a scout - if you are one, I hope to god you never, ever step near that role for our beautiful club!

For starters you clearly blame Bassong and Ruddy for the goals and yet give them a match rating much higher than Martin.

What a lot of people seem to forget is that Martin is often left exposed by Snoddy who isn''t always at his defensive best. I would suggest that is possibly why they target that side of the pitch - not to mention Snoddy isn''t quick and doesn''t get back as fast as the likes of Pilkington to help cover.

Olsson - you gave him an 8 but said this:

"he has to show great determination and play at the very top of his game to be good enough for the Premier League, but he is doing so."

Beware, strong words incoming. *Utter carp!* Any player at this level has to put in a shift to be good enough. It''s a basic principle of football. Also, he is not that rubbish. You make him sound like a player like Crofts who is limited in ability and makes up for it with hard work. Olsson has shown that he is more than capable at this level and still has his best years ahead of him.

"Whittaker at right-back" - no thanks, not on recent form or performances.

And also, Snoddy wouldn''t start the next game for me. The biggest mistake in starting him was that he was touch and go to make it. Why not start someone fully fit. Controversial maybe but if you are going to play one in behind the striker, bring Hoolahan back.

[Ray 111]

Chicken,

You said;

What a lot of people seem to forget is that Martin is often left exposed by Snoddy who isn''t always at his defensive best. I would suggest that is possibly why they target that side of the pitch - not to mention Snoddy isn''t quick and doesn''t get back as fast as the likes of Pilkington to help cover.

Tom said;

Snodgrass - struggled, missed a chance to score but at least got into some good positions. He still needs to remember that when he loses the ball he should get on with the match, try to win the ball back and get in a good position to recieve a pass. I would rather that he played central in support of Hopper.

So it seems he is agreeing with your point but wants to crucify RM for Snoddy''s failings!!

[GJP 79]

I don''t think Snodgrass is great at covering his fullback, infact I think his supposed high work rate is a bit of a myth. I think he gives it a good go when it comes to attacking but I think he''s often quite casual with his attitude towards defending.

 

Every so often he''ll do an eye-catching slide tackle but if you watch him quite a lot of the time he''s just sort of jogging back with no real determination to disrupt the opposition.

 

And for me that is a big part of what causes us to be weak on the right side - which I was mentioning earlier.

[chicken 0]

And quite a few times when RM is making an overlapping run and the pass is poor, Snodgrass doesn''t burst a lung trying to help cover. That''s why I think we were more solid with Redmond and Pilkington.

I wouldn''t have said that of Snodgrass last season, he appeared to cover much better then.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

C''mon Tom , tell us who you are/were scouting for, no one will know because no one reads this message board.....or just give us a cryptic clue, that would be fun. Also think you are v harsh on Martin, he aint a worldbeater ,but a 2???

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="wcorkcanary"]C''mon Tom , tell us who you are/were scouting for, no one will know because no one reads this message board.....or just give us a cryptic clue, that would be fun.[/quote]Sorry can''t say but I will give you a bit more info. When I first

started I used to get given scouting reports written by other scouts so

that I could see the format they used. I would be sent forms to complete

and sheets with outlines of the pitch to draw some diagrams on (to

indicate where players go for various set-positions etc.). There were

only small spaces available to write a sentence or so on each player.I

was told that my reports were the best (I used to attach lots of

additional info too) but having seen how bad other peoples scouting

reports were it probably didn''t mean much. Fans would be amazed at how

bad the reports were that I was given. I noticed that some scouts used

to send info that was clearly wrong. I felt a bit sorry for some managers.Of course now

that every top level match is recorded and analysed to the nth degree it

is a lot easier for managers. However when drawn to play against lower

level clubs in cup competitions then it is back to the older methods of

scouting. The same applies to scouting for potential signings.

[ron obvious 1,498]

Tom, could you please justify awarding RM a rating of 2?

Now I do like him, but am well aware he struggles to make it as a Prem player. But I''ve never seen him turn in a really bad performance, & he certainly wasn''t our worst on Tuesday.

If you are going to award him 2, & are being consistent, then I don''t see how you can award anyone else more than 4.

[Ray 111]

Tom,

You said;

"I was told that my reports were the best (I used to attach lots of additional info too) but having seen how bad other peoples scouting reports were it probably didn''t mean much."

Based on the fact you gave two of our players 2 against WH and RM a 2 in you last two ''reports'' I think what you said above is about right.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

tom I have been with some scouts div 1 championship and premiership games and he doesn''t write ratings down like that I will give you teams also that they have worked for  Rotherham ,Oldham ,yeovil, ipswich ,wigan and wba I have sat with him ( free tickets ) to watch when Norwich played them or if I just went with him these are football people that understand football very interesting but he didn''t point score far more about weaknesses and strengths than ratings

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]tom I have been with some scouts div 1 championship and premiership games and he doesn''t write ratings down like that I will give you teams also that they have worked for  Rotherham ,Oldham ,yeovil, ipswich ,wigan and wba I have sat with him ( free tickets ) to watch when Norwich played them or if I just went with him these are football people that understand football very interesting but he didn''t point score far more about weaknesses and strengths than ratings[/quote]Yes, that is right and it was the same for me. The scouting forms I used have a space for the squad number, name, position, and comments on each player, but not a rating out of 10.