Beating Spurs proves something.

[lake district canary 4,531]

I was at the home matches Hull, ManCity and Spurs, the last of those being one of the best atmospheres I can remember. So we improve at home and beat Spurs - deservedly with a fine display - and effective substitutions.   So we move on to Stoke - a well known spoiler team - and we struggled a bit - as do quite a lot of teams against Stoke.  

My question is really directed at the people who continually start these threads where we are supposed to be boring and poor to watch.  When you see us playing as well as we did against Spurs, (if you indeed saw the match at all) does it not say to you - that things are not that bad?   The Spurs match had all the fight, grit, determination and match winning goal, as well as some other close near misses that you could wish for in a match.   Man City too was terrific.  The Hull match was three points too.  

So why can''t you take a balanced view of the whole picture and give credit where credit is due and recognise the good things as well as the bad?  Does the Spurs game - and Man City game count for nothing?   Hull, Newcastle and Stoke  were a mixed bag - but we still got 5 points from those games.   So why does it have to be so black and white in your world??  We win some we lose some we draw some. It will always be so. 

Most people recognise when things have been poor and most  recognise when things have been good.

So go on, is it really all bad?   

[can u sit down please 0]

If we produced that type of performance every 1 in 3 rather than 1 in 10 I think a lot more people would believe that CH is the man.

Unfortunately you say stoke are a spoiler team, but teams look at us like that too. They''ve scored more than us and beaten Chelsea, man united and arsenal.

It''s sad to say that good performances like spurs are a "blip" from the norm. As was the 10 game unbeaten run.

[can u sit down please 0]

Just to add, even as a staunch outer, I did give a lot of credit for that performance, but it frustrates me even more!

[Moosheep 0]

I think Lakey, it is a matter of quantity. One swallow a summer doth not make!  Ok, it is true that we have had some good performances this season, not just recently but also back at the beginning of the season too, but we have also had some very very poor performances. I personally think that the bad have outnumbered the good considerably. In my opinion a balanced view should look at how we have played over the past 29 games and not just the last 5. If you look at the way we have played this season can you really say that there has been any improvement? I personally don''t think that there has. We have been inconsistent throughout. The odd good performances in amongst the poor. Yes it is wrong to say that because we were awful against Villa (or Stoke or whoever) it is all awful, but it is equally as wrong to say that because we were good against Spurs that all is rosy. So to answer your question, yes, of course the good results count for something but equally so do the bad! Is it all bad? No it isn''t, but in my opinion it is more bad than good.Moo

[ZLF 271]

Spurs and citeh showed what we are capable of but I can only agree they are outside the norm due to inconsistency and injury. The lack of creative alternatives beyond constant inaccurate right wing crosses is frustrating.

Its no coincidence that the good run of performances came with fewest injuries, our 1st works but the back up players not good enough. The losses of tettey and now fer and the corresponding dip in quality of performance without one them show how important both are. A midfield without either on sat is worrying

[pete 318]

You need to remember however good City were Spurs were very poor.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="pete"]You need to remember however good City were Spurs were very poor.[/quote]

Or we made them look poor..........

[Tumbleweed 106]

The first half against Spurs was pretty turgid as well. The most frustrating thing for me is that confidence is so weak we don''t close out games even when we are performing well- Stoke H, West Ham A, Cardiff A (even Villa A when we were totally dominant for 25 minutes). Missed opportunities all.

These fleeting glimpses of what we can do almost damn Hughton by their existence- it is proof of what I believe many on here feel- that we are capable of doing much better ON A CONSISTENT BASIS because we see those little pieces of evidence. Yet somehow we seem fragile and unable to convert good spells into prolonged periods or full matches and are capable of imploding if something bad happens. To me this is all down to an endemic lack of confidence and belief.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Tumbleweed"]The first half against Spurs was pretty turgid as well. The most frustrating thing for me is that confidence is so weak we don''t close out games even when we are performing well- Stoke H, West Ham A, Cardiff A (even Villa A when we were totally dominant for 25 minutes). Missed opportunities all.

These fleeting glimpses of what we can do almost damn Hughton by their existence- it is proof of what I believe many on here feel- that we are capable of doing much better ON A CONSISTENT BASIS because we see those little pieces of evidence. Yet somehow we seem fragile and unable to convert good spells into prolonged periods or full matches and are capable of imploding if something bad happens. To me this is all down to an endemic lack of confidence and belief.[/quote]A few points.Bottom half of the table teams (that we are) are inconsistent. Thats why they are in the bottom half of the table.Endemic lack of confidence and belief, or the quality of squad available on out budget?

[Tumbleweed 106]

Thx Morty. I think the former (ie the league position and inconsistency) is for us partly as a consequence of the second (ie the confidence). Or put another way, if we had that confidence and were able to close out just a couple of those results we would be in a healthier position. We know we can do it, it just hasn''t been consummated very often. I haven''t seen any other teams except playing us, but my feeling is that some have more confidence but perhaps poorer teams.

The quality of our squad is of course relevant. Hughton has brought in some good players and I think we compare favourably on paper to many of our rivals notwithstanding the budget. I think the bigger issue is the injuries- you don''t query that but the loss of key people (especially in midfield) at various points has not helped. That in itself may have contributed to the fragile confidence.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Tumbleweed"]Thx Morty. I think the former (ie the league position and inconsistency) is for us partly as a consequence of the second (ie the confidence). Or put another way, if we had that confidence and were able to close out just a couple of those results we would be in a healthier position. We know we can do it, it just hasn''t been consummated very often. I haven''t seen any other teams except playing us, but my feeling is that some have more confidence but perhaps poorer teams.

The quality of our squad is of course relevant. Hughton has brought in some good players and I think we compare favourably on paper to many of our rivals notwithstanding the budget. I think the bigger issue is the injuries- you don''t query that but the loss of key people (especially in midfield) at various points has not helped. That in itself may have contributed to the fragile confidence.[/quote]I have talked of the injuries a lot actually, but it is easily brushed aside with such "points" as "Well thats why we have a squad" and "All sides have to put up with injuries"The quality of our squad means that we have to ride our luck and keep as many as fit as possible.I wish I could be bothered to compile a list, but we have pretty much had at least 2 of our most influential players out at any given time.A prime example being "Yay, Howson is fit, now we have a few options, oh, boo, Fer is injured, and Tettey is crocked (though I thing he is going to be okay)"

[Tumbleweed 106]

I think many may underestimate the effect it has had. It would be interesting to find out haw many times we have had all of Johnson, Fer, Tettey and Howson available. This is where the budget becomes more noticeable, our first team may be a lower mid Prem team, but the wider squad perhaps not.

It is no surprise that the times I have felt more comfortable about things is when we have had that midfield trio of Tettey, Fer and Johnson playing.

Having said that with Redmond, Murphy, Snodgrass, Pilkington, Hoolahan, Bennett and Guteirrez all available then on paper it should still be capable of being a decent midfield with perhaps a slight tendency towards too many wingers rather than holders/workhorses.

[Waveney Canary 0]

It proves that one swallow does not make a summer that is all.

No matter how much the arch apologists dress up one isolated good performance we are bang in trouble and it is down to hughton and his tactics

[hogesar 9,611]

What also doesn''t help is inbetween beating spurs at home and playing stoke at home, we had the little situation of getting hammered by Aston Villa - zapping confidence and belief out of players and fans.

We can talk about consistency night and day - we won''t be consistent over the entire season - not positively, anyway. But our inability to go un-beaten for even 3 or 4 games has left us this season.

So all beating Spurs shows is that we can perform well on our day, but the management / players aren''t making `our day` happen often enough.

[Houston Canary 0]

This thread proves LDC is out of ideas. Yyyyaaaaaaawwwwn.

[Waveney Canary 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]This thread proves LDC is out of ideas. Yyyyaaaaaaawwwwn.[/quote]

I try not to agree with plastics but on this occasion I can''t argue

[Katie Borkins 1]

Reckon that while we''re talking results, what does losing to Fulham, Aston Villa (x2) and Cardiff prove?

[shefcanary 2,377]

Hmm, given that Spuds defending is worse than Bassong''s on a good day tonight, all it proves is very little and Sherwood is not the manager for us!