The Wire Report: Norwich City 2-2 Birmingham City

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]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.[/quote]Given that he describes himself as a "North Yorkshire plastic" I don''t think the question was entirely unreasonable?

[mrs miggins 0]

I guess not

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Only really tongue in cheek that. Made that my location when Waveney et al were big on the ''plastics'' boom. I am no plastic I assure you

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[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]At the risk of repeating myself, isn''t this the general tactical point? That when Hoolahan is playing in a 4-4-2, as on Saturday, his losing possession, which is bound to happen given the way he plays, is potentially much more damaging than when he does so playing behind a lone striker.

[ricardo 7,380]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][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]At the risk of repeating myself, isn''t this the general tactical point? That when Hoolahan is playing in a 4-4-2, as on Saturday, his losing possession, which is bound to happen given the way he plays, is potentially much more damaging than when he does so playing behind a lone striker.[/quote]

Indeed, and that is why it was patently obvious at half time that Wes had to be sacrificed when Adams went 424. It seemed the obvious move although some around me seemed surprised when he didn''t come out second half.

[Trevor Hockeys Razor Blade 0]

I''m glad this thread didn''t fully evolve into the personal bashing that seemed to happen here a lot before, as it was a very interesting read. So thanks from me for keeping it on track.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

No worries THRB - and Purple...yes it is fair to say that Wes losing the ball on the left is more damaging than if he is dispossessed in the hole. I would not dispute that. That was certainly a contributing factor in a half in which he was poor, yes, but I maintain, not a liability.

[mrs miggins 0]

Must admit, thought Wes was a bit of a liability for the last game, a bit like how RVW was for us upfront last year (except that was for a season), yet as people have pointed out we notice it more because he lost it in the middle of the park where Birmingham countered on us quickly. However, apparently he said that he was tired; not surprisingly as he''s not young anymore and has been performing in a lot of games and at a high standard (previous to the last game), so I think we can let him off.

[Roodge 0]

Have to agree with Morty on this one, I was counting, & I made it 6 times that Wes gave the ball away, mind you I didnt start till  15 mins in. This is unacceptable, & a liability imho. The difficulty with Wes is...... if he is given the space he can be very good, but if a marker gets on him straight away, then he spins round & looks for a short pass. If the opposition press the players round him then a break is often the result. Four times they were able to break into our penalty area from a mistake. This is also unacceptable & a liability. I may be unable to see many games, & so may be wrong, but Wes doesnt seem tobe able to  hit a long pass to get himself out of trouble, & get our forwards threatening, they have to come back to receive the ball. Many Wes fans on here, but I''m not one unfortunately. Still like to be proven wrong though.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Roodge"]Have to agree with Morty on this one, I was counting, & I made it 6 times that Wes gave the ball away, mind you I didnt start till  15 mins in. This is unacceptable, & a liability imho. The difficulty with Wes is...... if he is given the space he can be very good, but if a marker gets on him straight away, then he spins round & looks for a short pass. If the opposition press the players round him then a break is often the result. Four times they were able to break into our penalty area from a mistake. This is also unacceptable & a liability. I may be unable to see many games, & so may be wrong, but Wes doesnt seem tobe able to  hit a long pass to get himself out of trouble, & get our forwards threatening, they have to come back to receive the ball. Many Wes fans on here, but I''m not one unfortunately. Still like to be proven wrong though.[/quote]Cheers for that, I was sure it was more than three.

[lappinitup 629]

I love Wes!  I have no idea how many passes went astray nor how many found their target. I do know he was very poor and was very relieved when he was substituted at half time.