When you find it impossible to score more than 1 goal in a game

[Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . . 0]

Relegation is virtual certainty. Particularly when you have a player like bassong in defence, as your CAPTAIN!

[djc 0]

Arsenal went many seasons chirning out victory results based on scoring only one.

[Guest]

Fulham, Sunderland, West Brom and Cardiff have scored more goals than us though.

[Aggy 944]

Not scoring more than 1 a game is fine, we''ve kept a fair few clean sheets and haven''t defended too badly for the most part.

The problem is that we''re not even averaging a goal a game. Nor are we even particularly close!

[Samwam27 606]

And yet all the above teams are still below us. Fulham & WBA are really struggling. Cardiff were until today. A lot depends on how Sunderland react to the cup defeat.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="djc"]Arsenal went many seasons chirning out victory results based on scoring only one.[/quote]

I think the ''boring Arsenal'' team was slightly better than ours. [:)]

[Guest]

Samwam, that''s exactly my point. We have a huge amount of clean sheets, and if we were averaging even 0.5 goals more per game we would probably be cruising in 10th.

I really hope we get the points on the board to secure survival because I genuinely believe we are on the cusp of being a solid, decent mid-table team in this division. We''re just missing a couple of quality forwards.

[morty 0]

[quote user="I.S."]Samwam, that''s exactly my point. We have a huge amount of clean sheets, and if we were averaging even 0.5 goals more per game we would probably be cruising in 10th.

I really hope we get the points on the board to secure survival because I genuinely believe we are on the cusp of being a solid, decent mid-table team in this division. We''re just missing a couple of quality forwards.[/quote][Y]

[Rogue Baboon 0]

I think we have the forwards - its the fact we cant utilise them. All season we have failed to get the best out of them except for Hoopers run of goals, we needed to get a decent midfielder in January but it never materialized.

I think we need to lose the 4411, we dont seem to have the threat of a 442/4231 or the stability of 451

[Guest]

Not necessarily centre forwards, although I don''t think someone like Hooper is in the same league as Lukaku or Benteke.

What we need is more quality wide men, and a Hoolahan improvement. :)

[morty 0]

Uh-oh, H-bomb dropped!What would be nice is a Pilkington who looks like he used to, and a fit Elliot Bennet.

[mel0 0]

[quote user="I.S."]Samwam, that''s exactly my point. We have a huge amount of clean sheets, and if we were averaging even 0.5 goals more per game we would probably be cruising in 10th.

I really hope we get the points on the board to secure survival because I genuinely believe we are on the cusp of being a solid, decent mid-table team in this division. We''re just missing a couple of quality forwards.[/quote]

We''ve used 9/10 forwards under Hughton. Every single one of them has struggled. Is the problem really with 9 separate individuals? Hooper, scored everywhere he''s ever played at every level (UCL included), Holt 17 goals the season before, RVW lethal for a top European club.

But the problem is with all of these, not the 1 constant who plays the most disgusting vile anti-football you''ll see.

[Guest]

"Disgusting vile anti-football" = you''re a massive, massive drama queen. But i''ll humour you...

Can you name the 9/10 forwards who have been previously prolific directly before Hughton started managing them please? Because I would hate to think that you are just making up utter one-sided dross to suit your obviously pre-determined opinion.

I would love to live in your world where things are so obviously black/white.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="morty"]Uh-oh, H-bomb dropped!

What would be nice is a Pilkington who looks like he used to, and a fit Elliot Bennet.
[/quote]

Absolutely.

 

Not sure we''ll ever see the best of Pilks again in a Norwich shirt, not with CH here anyway. He''s made it pretty obvious he''s standing by Redmond and Snodgrass no matter what and Pilks looks like he''s lost a bit of belief.

 

I would also like to see E Benno back in the fold.

 

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="morty"]Uh-oh, H-bomb dropped!What would be nice is a Pilkington who looks like he used to, and a fit Elliot Bennet.[/quote]

Absolutely.

 

Not sure we''ll ever see the best of Pilks again in a Norwich shirt, not with CH here anyway. He''s made it pretty obvious he''s standing by Redmond and Snodgrass no matter what and Pilks looks like he''s lost a bit of belief.

 

I would also like to see E Benno back in the fold.

 

 

[/quote]And if the choice were mine I would stick with Snoddy and Redmond too, Pilks is clearly not firing on all cylinders, and I doubt its anything to do with the manager.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

can we afford to stick with redmond at the minute?

he will be great one day, but at the minute it feels like he chooses the wrong option 95% of the time. i just wish he would beat his man on the outside & whip a ball in. instead he runs, stops, step overs, turns & on at least 2 occasions today was running diagonally out of the box after being in a decent position. if he puts the ball in, its up to the strikers to finish it - its not up to redmond to do everything himself if he doesnt think players are in the correct position

[morty 0]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]can we afford to stick with redmond at the minute?

he will be great one day, but at the minute it feels like he chooses the wrong option 95% of the time. i just wish he would beat his man on the outside & whip a ball in. instead he runs, stops, step overs, turns & on at least 2 occasions today was running diagonally out of the box after being in a decent position. if he puts the ball in, its up to the strikers to finish it - its not up to redmond to do everything himself if he doesnt think players are in the correct position[/quote]Redmond would have been used sparingly had it not been for injuries this season.Needs must though.He looked tired today, and should have been subbed on 70 or 80 minutes.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="morty"]Uh-oh, H-bomb dropped!

What would be nice is a Pilkington who looks like he used to, and a fit Elliot Bennet.
[/quote]

Absolutely.

 

Not sure we''ll ever see the best of Pilks again in a Norwich shirt, not with CH here anyway. He''s made it pretty obvious he''s standing by Redmond and Snodgrass no matter what and Pilks looks like he''s lost a bit of belief.

 

I would also like to see E Benno back in the fold.

 

 

[/quote]

And if the choice were mine I would stick with Snoddy and Redmond too, Pilks is clearly not firing on all cylinders, and I doubt its anything to do with the manager.
[/quote]

 

I think the thing is, as I''ve just said on the other thread, we''ve been playing the inverted wingers all season and people know that. And it''s not working really well for us. Pilks gives you a different option because he can go inside or outside and can put a dangerous cross in with either foot.

 

As the game progressed today and Snodgrass started to look a bit tired I''d have seen that as a good chance to get Pilks on. Give Stoke a different problem to think about.

 

Pilkington, like any player, needs games of football to show his best form. He''s not seeing a lot of action, he''s going to struggle to produce his best. Obviously his injury problems have been part of that but since he''s been back in the squad he''s been overlooked a lot. Which would be fine if we were playing really well (or even quite well) but we''re not.

 

 

[morty 0]

Maybe he''s not fully fit and back to his best yet? Just a thought?Rather than assume something else?Its all so easy to give players wee run outs when we have the luxury of being able to do so, ie winning games and being a bit more comfortable than we are. I suggest the manager is putting out the best we have right now.

[mel0 0]

[quote user="I.S."]"Disgusting vile anti-football" = you''re a massive, massive drama queen. But i''ll humour you...

Can you name the 9/10 forwards who have been previously prolific directly before Hughton started managing them please? Because I would hate to think that you are just making up utter one-sided dross to suit your obviously pre-determined opinion.

I would love to live in your world where things are so obviously black/white.[/quote]

If you''re going to be patronising rather than actually engage, then what''s the point? I''ll leave you to it. I don''t need to tell you the obvious.

[ged in the onion bag 962]

Spot on!

[GJP 79]

[quote user="morty"]Maybe he''s not fully fit and back to his best yet? Just a thought?

Rather than assume something else?

Its all so easy to give players wee run outs when we have the luxury of being able to do so, ie winning games and being a bit more comfortable than we are. I suggest the manager is putting out the best we have right now.
[/quote]

Surely if he''s on the bench it''s safe to assume he''s fit to play some part in the match? You''d agree with that, wouldn''t you?

 

All I''m saying is that I think there was an opportunity for him to come on and play a part today.

 

We brought on Elmander and funnily enough his best work came in the wide areas. I just think it could have been Pilks out there and he''d be better cut out to make something happen in those positions than Elmander - though at least the Swede gave it a go.

 

I don''t think I''m suggesting anything too unreasonable, am I?

 

It''s far the from the conspiracy theory I get the feeling you''re trying to suggest I''m getting at.

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="morty"]Maybe he''s not fully fit and back to his best yet? Just a thought?Rather than assume something else?Its all so easy to give players wee run outs when we have the luxury of being able to do so, ie winning games and being a bit more comfortable than we are. I suggest the manager is putting out the best we have right now.[/quote]

Surely if he''s on the bench it''s safe to assume he''s fit to play some part in the match? You''d agree with that, wouldn''t you?

 

All I''m saying is that I think there was an opportunity for him to come on and play a part today.

 

We brought on Elmander and funnily enough his best work came in the wide areas. I just think it could have been Pilks out there and he''d be better cut out to make something happen in those positions than Elmander - though at least the Swede gave it a go.

 

I don''t think I''m suggesting anything too unreasonable, am I?

 

It''s far the from the conspiracy theory I get the feeling you''re trying to suggest I''m getting at.

 

[/quote]Why do you think Hughton didn''t use him today then?

[Alfie54 83]

Morty said

Why do you think Hughton didn''t use him today then?

Why did Hughton play Bassong and RVW and sub Hoolahan so early? all very hard to understand!

[morty 0]

[quote user="Alfie54"]Morty said

Why do you think Hughton didn''t use him today then?

Why did Hughton play Bassong and RVW and sub Hoolahan so early? all very hard to understand![/quote]Not really.

[Tetteys Jig 851]

If we go down, as far the players are concerned, I blame our strikers for about 75% of the reason. They have been pathetic.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="morty"]Maybe he''s not fully fit and back to his best yet? Just a thought?

Rather than assume something else?

Its all so easy to give players wee run outs when we have the luxury of being able to do so, ie winning games and being a bit more comfortable than we are. I suggest the manager is putting out the best we have right now.
[/quote]

Surely if he''s on the bench it''s safe to assume he''s fit to play some part in the match? You''d agree with that, wouldn''t you?

 

All I''m saying is that I think there was an opportunity for him to come on and play a part today.

 

We brought on Elmander and funnily enough his best work came in the wide areas. I just think it could have been Pilks out there and he''d be better cut out to make something happen in those positions than Elmander - though at least the Swede gave it a go.

 

I don''t think I''m suggesting anything too unreasonable, am I?

 

It''s far the from the conspiracy theory I get the feeling you''re trying to suggest I''m getting at.

 

[/quote]

Why do you think Hughton didn''t use him today then?
[/quote]

Hard to say.

 

You''ve said yourself that Redmond was tiring. I thought that was true of both him and Snodgrass. Surely there''s scope there to bring Pilks on.

[morty 0]

[quote user="GJP"][quote user="morty"][quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="morty"]Maybe he''s not fully fit and back to his best yet? Just a thought?Rather than assume something else?Its all so easy to give players wee run outs when we have the luxury of being able to do so, ie winning games and being a bit more comfortable than we are. I suggest the manager is putting out the best we have right now.[/quote]

Surely if he''s on the bench it''s safe to assume he''s fit to play some part in the match? You''d agree with that, wouldn''t you?

 

All I''m saying is that I think there was an opportunity for him to come on and play a part today.

 

We brought on Elmander and funnily enough his best work came in the wide areas. I just think it could have been Pilks out there and he''d be better cut out to make something happen in those positions than Elmander - though at least the Swede gave it a go.

 

I don''t think I''m suggesting anything too unreasonable, am I?

 

It''s far the from the conspiracy theory I get the feeling you''re trying to suggest I''m getting at.

 

[/quote]Why do you think Hughton didn''t use him today then?[/quote]

Hard to say.

 

You''ve said yourself that Redmond was tiring. I thought that was true of both him and Snodgrass. Surely there''s scope there to bring Pilks on.

[/quote]The answer is, I don''t know.I would like to make the assumption that either he isn''t fit enough / playing well enough, or the manager didn''t think it was tactically right.I would rather assume that, than try and manufacture anything that is less likely.