The Wire Report: Norwich City 2-2 Birmingham City

[Canary On The Wire 0]

The Wire Report- Norwich City 2-2 Birmingham City

Adams and the lads really do love putting us through the wringer, don''t they. Yet another game of two halves, where a sluggish and disjointed Norwich struggled to get out of the blocks- yes, Birmingham created nothing either, and lucked into the game''s opening goal, but we too were ponderous on the ball and lacklustre off it in the first 45.

The prevalent issue was the size of the gap between our defensive (the back four and Johnson, Tettey) and offensive players- with Johnson and Tettey struggling to find the likes of Hoolahan - who looked to find getting about the pitch harder than usual (perhaps his ankle wasn''t as ready as the medical staff thought) as Wes and Grabban in particular were way too high up the pitch where usually they''d come deeper and get more involved.

Here the impact it had was that as our midfield couldn''t pass it out, they had to resort to long balls with limited success first half as they were often intercepted/tackled by the impressive David Davis in midfield for Birmingham. The Brum lads were also assisted by great hold-up play from Clayton Donaldson, who Hooiveld again struggled to cope with, as with Kenwyne Jones v Cardiff (Jos is good on the ball but a little lacking in composure in the physical battle) allowing offensive players like Demarai Gray to get high up the pitch, get on the ball and hurt us.

As far as the goals go, yes the first Birmingham goal was a deflected strike, but for me once Ruddy gets his hand to it, he must get that round the post. I''m sure John will be bitterly disappointed he hasn''t stopped that. The second, he could do nothing about- it was an impeccable hit from Gray after Hooiveld clumsily got himself lost in trying to clear the ball in the area, allowing the lay-off to Gray who curled the ball past Ruddy from the edge of the box. So, first 45, no real chances created for either side, just two errors from Ruddy and Hooiveld making Brum look far better than they were.

A response was needed and for a solid 20 minute period after the restart, it arrived. Chance creation was no longer at a premium as Jerome and Grabban piled in the shots (the former far more effectively) due to Nathan Redmond having in my view his best game yet for us.

He absolutely terrorised Gray and Grounds (the former of course himself a young winger who was quite hapless at defending, particularly against someone as good on the ball as Redmond), and young Nathan delivered- though the first goal was resultant of a phenomenal lofted through ball from the weak foot of Bradley Johnson, and Russell Martin''s cut back was beautifully tucked into the far corner of the net by Cameron Jerome, who for all the world looks far too good for this league.

Our second goal- while Redmond deserves praise for being alert enough to drop back out of the box, receive the ball and cross, his delivery this time was actually poorer than some of his others in the game, but Jerome turned a half-chance into a glorious goal, getting in front of his man at the near post to loop a flicked header over the committed Randolph and into the net.

What happened in the final half an hour was very odd, and much like our slow starts is difficult to explain- it seemed as though all our mental energy was expended in the comeback, and where we should have gone on and won we sort of eased off and lapsed, not really creating a great deal and allowing Birmingham to settle for the draw.

That we must call into question and address if we do want to win this league- we know we can come back from a deficit and score goals, but we simply cannot rely on it every week- it''s a long slog of a league and it will come unstuck if we continue to stumble bleary-eyed and shell shocked out of the blocks.

Seeing 45 minutes of Josh Murphy did however highlight how different a player to Nathan Redmond he actually is. Forgive the cliched top player comparison here- but Redmond is like Alexis Sanchez, an accelerator out of tight spaces, full of ball control and centre of gravity adjustment, scaring the life out of defenders because they know he only needs to see a speck of daylight behind them and he''s gone.

By contrast, Murphy is more like Theo Walcott- a knock it and run pace machine, with less composure on the ball, less control in tight spaces, but the kind of pace that means defenders have to stand off him and open up the space for us to play in (which nearly brought some joy in the latter stages) because if they get level with him they have no chance of catching him off the shoulder.

Player Ratings

Ruddy 5 - Come on John, you''re better than that. A 5 is perhaps a bit harsh but he must save the first goal. It gave Birmingham a foothold they didn''t deserve. Did make a couple of good saves but my 5 rating is in protest at how much better he can and should be.

Martin 7- Good game from Russ this, got nice and high to play on the offensive and grabbed himself an assist.

Turner 7- Not really a foot wrong from Turner yet again

Hooiveld 6 - My reports seem a bit like a Jos witch hunt, which is a bit unfair, he is a good player and probably the best ball-playing CB at the club (I know Miquel can pass but haven''t seen enough of him). A few good passes but really struggled for their goal. Michael Turner gets in and clears that for me, Jos made a hash of it.

Olsson 7 - Solid defensively, didn''t get to get forward as much as he likes as Hoolahan was both out of position and a bit injured on the left, so we couldn''t create the overloads he loves to benefit from.

Redmond 9 (MOTM) - Oh Nathan. Was not negatively affected against the club in his heart, instead decided to absolutely destroy Jon Grounds (no, I''m not surprised either) and was the root of most things good about Saturday. Yes Jerome was ace, and grabbed two goals, but Redmond was the conductor at the heart of it for me, with 8 successful dribbles a stunning stat.

Tettey 6 - Maybe a little harsh on Alex, who has been SO good this season, and was solid here, but he struggled to have an impact on the game because our offensive players gave him nothing to play into for the first 45. Was better second half but not as good as he should be.

Johnson 7- Bradley scrapes into a 7 because of THAT pass, but the same issues as with Tettey, Bradley needs easy passes as his accuracy isn''t great and he wasn''t often provided with that, but when he gets it right, he really gets it right.

Hoolahan 6- As i said, he''s not able to be as influential as he can be on the left which is obvious to most of us. Solid passing game but created little- needed to be subbed when he was as he just wasn''t the Wes he was.

Jerome 9- You wouldn''t think Jerome has the mediocre Prem scoring record he does, but in this league, he is a goal machine. Great in the air, great with a pass, shoots well and causes havoc for defenders. Two brilliantly taken goals.

Grabban 6- Transparent game for Lewis who as with Hoolahan struggled to get on the ball as he was positioned way too high way too often. He didn''t have a bad game, but boy, was it unspectacular.

SUBS

Murphy 6 - Great directness, full of running, not enough end product and relies on striking lucky a bit too much. No fear though, as long as that isn''t coached out of him (which under Adams it won''t be) and there''s plenty more days to come for Josh, and his star will be shining soon. Just wasn''t quite the experienced head you need for 45 minutes when you''re two goals down.

Lafferty 6- Grabban wasn''t getting in the game so a change was needed, and Kyle has great technical ability, possibly he''s better than this league in that way. Workmanlike but didn''t pull up any trees.

[mrs miggins 0]

I like these reports thanks. (although I must say, how can you say Wes had a solid passing game?)

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Thankyou MM, 83% accuracy, but nothing creative. I use the benchmark that 80%+ is acceptable for a professional footballer, less is poor.

[mrs miggins 0]

Didn''t realise it was that high, apologies. Thanks for the report then, 100% accuracy

[Canary On The Wire 0]

No worries..

- of course, to really spark a debate, what if all of those passes were hospital passes and the receiver was dispossessed instantaneously as a result, they''d still count as completed passes....but terrible ones.

Ah, the wonder of statistics...

[Duncan Edwards 2,218]

Wes was poor yesterday and fully deserved to be subbed at the break.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

I think considering he was being played out of position (again) he wasn''t that bad, just didn''t do anything positive in an attacking sense which is obviously how we usually know him

[morty 0]

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]I think considering he was being played out of position (again) he wasn''t that bad, just didn''t do anything positive in an attacking sense which is obviously how we usually know him[/quote]Lost the ball countless times, sorry, but I can''t see how his performance could be called anything other than a stinker.

[Guest]

Was it Wes who took a throw in directly to an oppo player with no Norwich players anywhere near him as well?

I''m a big fan, but he was really poor at the weekend.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

The Wes throw in was hilarious I.S, I''d forgotten about that, spurted out of his hands like Tettey at Villa (that one''s on YouTube)

He didn''t have a very good game but he wasn''t as desperately poor as people are making out Morty.

He was dispossessed three times, which is poor by his standards, and offered little defensively, but still produced two key passes and one successful turn-over of possession. It was just bad by his high standards, but it wasn''t actually bad, just average. He is often dispossessed more when he plays on the left-wing as it is an uncomfortable position for him- much like Mesut Ozil at Arsenal it leaves Wes the wrong side for coming inside and operating centrally as they both like to.

Dreadful, for me, is a lot worse than Wes was.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]The Wes throw in was hilarious I.S, I''d forgotten about that, spurted out of his hands like Tettey at Villa (that one''s on YouTube)

He didn''t have a very good game but he wasn''t as desperately poor as people are making out Morty.

He was dispossessed three times, which is poor by his standards, and offered little defensively, but still produced two key passes and one successful turn-over of possession. It was just bad by his high standards, but it wasn''t actually bad, just average. He is often dispossessed more when he plays on the left-wing as it is an uncomfortable position for him- much like Mesut Ozil at Arsenal it leaves Wes the wrong side for coming inside and operating centrally as they both like to.

Dreadful, for me, is a lot worse than Wes was.[/quote]He was dispossessed more than three times that I remember.Well the manager must have agreed with me to take him off at half time. He could have changed the system to more comfortably accommodate Wes, but chose not to.Unless Wes is completely on his game, he is a liability.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Morty, I agree with what you say. But withdrawing Wes for Murphy was more because he was cripplingly ineffective, not because he was a liability. He was not dispossessed more than three times unless you are suggesting Opta got it wrong, in which case your stubbornness truly knows no bounds.

In what area of his game, exactly, was he a liability? He was just mediocre- to suggest he was a liability is to suggest his contributions were consistently to our detriment, which, with only 4 passes misplaced in the whole half from 23 attempted, a successful dribble, two key passes encompassing three accurate crosses...is quite frankly just wrong. He contributed little, in truth, positively and negatively.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]Morty, I agree with what you say. But withdrawing Wes for Murphy was more because he was cripplingly ineffective, not because he was a liability. He was not dispossessed more than three times unless you are suggesting Opta got it wrong, in which case your stubbornness truly knows no bounds.

In what area of his game, exactly, was he a liability? He was just mediocre- to suggest he was a liability is to suggest his contributions were consistently to our detriment, which, with only 4 passes misplaced in the whole half from 23 attempted, a successful dribble, two key passes encompassing three accurate crosses...is quite frankly just wrong. He contributed little, in truth, positively and negatively.[/quote]Yes, "cripplingly ineffective" is much better than "a liability", isn''t it?I am going with what I saw with my own eyes at the match rather than stats that can be manipulated however you like to suit whatever point you are trying to make. Maybe I am wrong, who knows, but it certainly seemed like he lost the ball quite a few times.Did you go to the game?

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Yes, I did, I wouldn''t write a report on a game I didn''t attend. Season ticket holder. North Yorkshire in bio is due to being at Uni of York.

Glad you can admit that maybe you are wrong. Maybe I am. You say you can manipulate stats to suit your argument...this is true. But there still has to be logic and reasoning applied- you seem to be manipulating something unquantifiable ''what i saw'' to suit your argument which even the most vehement hater of statistics will see as a bit futile.

I didn''t say cripplingly ineffective was better than him being a liability. Just that they are different things.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]Yes, I did, I wouldn''t write a report on a game I didn''t attend. Season ticket holder. North Yorkshire in bio is due to being at Uni of York.

Glad you can admit that maybe you are wrong. Maybe I am. You say you can manipulate stats to suit your argument...this is true. But there still has to be logic and reasoning applied- you seem to be manipulating something unquantifiable ''what i saw'' to suit your argument which even the most vehement hater of statistics will see as a bit futile.

I didn''t say cripplingly ineffective was better than him being a liability. Just that they are different things.[/quote]You do know that this is all opinion, don''t you? And not everything is quantified in a percentage? If someone wasn''t at the game I dare say they could consult your fancy Opta stats and think Wes had a decent game.The "logic and reasoning" is that I was at the game, and in my opinion Wesley had a complete stinker, and the times he gave the ball away put us under unnecessary pressure. We saw the unfortunate flipside of him, he doesn''t have average games, its either brilliant or terrible.I mean, is that okay, as I can''t provide solid figures to back up my opinion?[;)]

[Rock The Boat 1,324]

Ricardo''s reports capture the mood of the game so well. Your reports go for the tactical angle. Put the two together and they make a nice roundup of the game. So thanks for your efforts, gents.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

How very mature.

Stats are by no means the be all and end all of footballing argument. What I saw was that Wes was ineffective, not a liability...and the stats, which show nothing ''liable'', no horrendous mistakes, no errors that led to concession of a goal, support this.

However what I do not understand is how you can chastise me for using stats to support my argument, and yet use nothing but conjecture to support yours.

''My fancy Opta stats'' I use because I like to see how far the pure statistics marry up with the opinions I formulate when watching the game, and adjust what I say if I believe the evidence provided conclusively proves me wrong. My ''fancy Opta stats'' are used extensively by football clubs, including NCFC, the world over- and I use them to support my argument because they are the only benchmark we have in a world of subjective opinions.

Thanks for attempting to patronise me by the way. I definitely prefer you on the other forum. :)

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Thanks RTB.

I would like to openly state that I do not see my reports as any more ''correct'' than anyone who has gone to the game, seen something completely different, and chosen to ignore any statistical evidence and how far it agrees or disagrees. This is simply the approach I choose, and I stand by it. I hope those of you who read it enjoyed it :)

[morty 0]

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]How very mature.

Stats are by no means the be all and end all of footballing argument. What I saw was that Wes was ineffective, not a liability...and the stats, which show nothing ''liable'', no horrendous mistakes, no errors that led to concession of a goal, support this.

However what I do not understand is how you can chastise me for using stats to support my argument, and yet use nothing but conjecture to support yours.

''My fancy Opta stats'' I use because I like to see how far the pure statistics marry up with the opinions I formulate when watching the game, and adjust what I say if I believe the evidence provided conclusively proves me wrong. My ''fancy Opta stats'' are used extensively by football clubs, including NCFC, the world over- and I use them to support my argument because they are the only benchmark we have in a world of subjective opinions.

Thanks for attempting to patronise me by the way. I definitely prefer you on the other forum. :)[/quote]What has mature got to do with anything, and why are you feeling patronised because I have a different opinion to you? Why are you on about "supporting your argument", are we having one?Sorry, and where did I chastise you?We''ll agree to disagree then that "ineffective" is totally different to "being a liability" then lol.

[mrs miggins 0]

I think it''s because you asked him if he had been to the game after he had taken the time to write about a blog about it; that''s a bit patronising imo.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Please don''t try and tell me you were asking ''You do know this is all opinion...'' and ''Is it okay if i don''t have solid figures'' as genuine questions and not at all part of some entirely unnecessary mockery?

''Did you go to the game'' seemed to cast aspersions on the integrity of my opinion just because I disagree with you.

Ineffective is different to being a liability. We''ll go with the Oxford English on this one:

ineffective

ɪnɪˈfɛktɪv/Submit

adjective

not producing any significant or desired effect.

liability

lʌɪəˈbɪlɪti/Submit

noun

a person or thing whose presence or behaviour is likely to put one at a disadvantage.

You could of course argue (where an argument is a set of reasons to support an idea, something we are both presenting here) that Wes'' ineffectiveness did make him a liability, as it put us at a disadvantage in an attacking sense.

I would agree with that.

I apologise if you weren''t attempting to patronise me Morty, but you do have previous.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Indeed MM, that is precisely how I feel.

[Guest]

I personally agree with Morty, in that I think Wes had a very poor game and gave the ball away in dangerous areas. That said, we know he is never at his best in a wide area.

Perhaps we''ve been spoilt by his own high standards so far this season, but I was not at all surprised to see him substituted at half time. IMO he was not just ineffective but quite dangerous.

Great player though, but he has to be played off the strikers.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]Please don''t try and tell me you were asking ''You do know this is all opinion...'' and ''Is it okay if i don''t have solid figures'' as genuine questions and not at all part of some entirely unnecessary mockery?

''Did you go to the game'' seemed to cast aspersions on the integrity of my opinion just because I disagree with you.

Ineffective is different to being a liability. We''ll go with the Oxford English on this one:

ineffective

ɪnɪˈfɛktɪv/Submit

adjective

not producing any significant or desired effect.

liability

lʌɪəˈbɪlɪti/Submit

noun

a person or thing whose presence or behaviour is likely to put one at a disadvantage.

You could of course argue (where an argument is a set of reasons to support an idea, something we are both presenting here) that Wes'' ineffectiveness did make him a liability, as it put us at a disadvantage in an attacking sense.

I would agree with that.

I apologise if you weren''t attempting to patronise me Morty, but you do have previous.[/quote]No I wasn''t attempting to patronise you, and the question was genuine, why take offence at it? If I wanted to imply that your opinion was based purely on stats, I would have done so.You could also argue that the three times he gave the ball away backs up my opinion that he was a liability, as surely, by definition, losing possession puts the whole team under unnecessary pressure.

[Dubai Mark 0]

It''s great to get another detailed report with a different view, thanks a lot!

Now......Morty.....get''s it spot on as usual.......

"Unless Wes is completely on his game, he is a liability"

Also, it''s amazing how the views on Murphy vary so much, not just on here.....a mate of mine who went to the game,a nd who is a huge fan of Murphy I must add, thought he looked out of his depth in this and in need of a decent loan period before he becomes a regular. The thing is this is a very talented team at this level and a squad with other options, so any player coming in not being on their game "when" the rest are will not look up to it I guess.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

It would depend where he gave the ball away as to how damaging it is, I suppose. You could argue that, yes. But Redmond gave the ball away five times- so was he a liability? This is where stats do fall down- it is how dangerous the areas are in which these players are dispossessed that is the clincher in terms of their liability.

I don''t remember Wes losing the ball in such a way that gave Birmingham a serious opportunity to score. I could be wrong.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Thanks Mark. I would argue that since the Lambert era, Hoolahan''s playing style is no longer as dangerous as it was- he recycles possession phenomenally well (but not on Saturday) dropping into the midfield to help win it back and counter-attack. He also doesn''t hang on to the ball for as long as he used to though he is prone to overplaying (but boy, he really used to hog it). I don''t think it makes him tantamount to liability- just when he''s not playing well, he sticks out like a sore thumb because he tries difficult passes and moves in general.

[ricardo 7,339]

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]It would depend where he gave the ball away as to how damaging it is, I suppose. You could argue that, yes. But Redmond gave the ball away five times- so was he a liability? This is where stats do fall down- it is how dangerous the areas are in which these players are dispossessed that is the clincher in terms of their liability.

I don''t remember Wes losing the ball in such a way that gave Birmingham a serious opportunity to score. I could be wrong.[/quote]I''m afraid that you are wrong COTW. Wes lost the ball on the righthand side of the Birmingham box due to faffing around with a short corner and the subsequent breakaway should have resulted in a Birmingham penalty. Fortunately the ref waved it away even though we all thought it was blatant.IMO Wes had a real stinker on Saturday. He is one of my favourite players and makes us tick when on song but that shouldn''t hide the fact that a change was needed at halftime and Adams obviously thought the same as me and half the crowd.Wes is an all time City great IMO but he was awful on Saturday.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Yep I have to hold my hands up there Ricardo, you''re spot on. In spite of that I still feel awful is harsh.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

I''d like to point out that within the Player Ratings section of my report I indicated I agreed with the decision to substitute Wes.