Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PurpleCanary

Norwich City versus Millwall match thread

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Herman "]That is what a lot of posters have been calling for. Let''s hope it works well.[/quote]Tettey is listed as having a knee injury. If so then perhaps Adams'' decision was effectively made for him.Millwall: Forde; Dunne, Shittu, Beevers, Briggs; Angel, Williams; Marquis, Martin, Gueye; Fuller.Subs: King, Wilkinson, Abdou, Upson, McDonald, Easter, Gregory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]Suspect we will miss Tettey and his speed.  With Redmond''s focus on attack, the 433 - which is what it effectively is - looks a bit pedestrian in midfield to me.

[/quote]But you argued for Redmond to be included. He was in your selection. Tettey is out injured. So  who instead would you have picked in midfield?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Shame about the injury ... I much prefer Redmond as a super sub against tired legs.[/quote]

Agreed, he''s always much more effective playing the last 30 minutes of a match than he is for the first 60. But he has been good when he''s come on and with Tetty getting injured it would have been extremely unfair on Redmond not to get in. Players outside the first 11 need to feel like they can become a regular if they perform when given a chance, that approach was a big part of our success under Lambert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]Suspect we will miss Tettey and his speed.  With Redmond''s focus on attack, the 433 - which is what it effectively is - looks a bit pedestrian in midfield to me. [/quote]But you argued for Redmond to be included. He was in your selection. Tettey is out injured. So  who instead would you have picked in midfield?[/quote] My team was -                RuddyWhittaker Martin Cuellar OllsonRedmond Tettey O''Neill Lafferty                 Hooper                 JeromeWould have to put Howson in instead of Tettey. The only difference then would be having Lafferty on instead of  Johnson on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]Suspect we will miss Tettey and his speed.  With Redmond''s focus on attack, the 433 - which is what it effectively is - looks a bit pedestrian in midfield to me. [/quote]But you argued for Redmond to be included. He was in your selection. Tettey is out injured. So  who instead would you have picked in midfield?[/quote] My team was -                RuddyWhittaker Martin Cuellar OllsonRedmond Tettey O''Neill Lafferty                 Hooper                 JeromeWould have to put Howson in instead of Tettey. The only difference then would be having Lafferty on instead of  Johnson on the left.

[/quote]You miss the point. You are complaining about the midfield he has selected, calling it pedestrian. So what midfield, without Tettey but presumably still with Redmond, would you have picked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]Suspect we will miss Tettey and his speed.  With Redmond''s focus on attack, the 433 - which is what it effectively is - looks a bit pedestrian in midfield to me. [/quote]But you argued for Redmond to be included. He was in your selection. Tettey is out injured. So  who instead would you have picked in midfield?[/quote] My team was -                RuddyWhittaker Martin Cuellar OllsonRedmond Tettey O''Neill Lafferty                 Hooper                 JeromeWould have to put Howson in instead of Tettey. The only difference then would be having Lafferty on instead of  Johnson on the left.[/quote]You miss the point. You are complaining about the midfield he has selected, calling it pedestrian. So what midfield, without Tettey but presumably still with Redmond, would you have picked?[/quote]??  What I just said.  Redmond, Howson, O''Neill and Lafferty.  Lafferety would be the man on the left, thus giving us a bit more forward thrust in midfield. If you like, a two man holding midfield with two wide players getting forwards more.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]Suspect we will miss Tettey and his speed.  With Redmond''s focus on attack, the 433 - which is what it effectively is - looks a bit pedestrian in midfield to me. [/quote]But you argued for Redmond to be included. He was in your selection. Tettey is out injured. So  who instead would you have picked in midfield?[/quote] My team was -                RuddyWhittaker Martin Cuellar OllsonRedmond Tettey O''Neill Lafferty                 Hooper                 JeromeWould have to put Howson in instead of Tettey. The only difference then would be having Lafferty on instead of  Johnson on the left.[/quote]You miss the point. You are complaining about the midfield he has selected, calling it pedestrian. So what midfield, without Tettey but presumably still with Redmond, would you have picked?[/quote]??  What I just said.  Redmond, Howson, O''Neill and Lafferty.  Lafferety would be the man on the left, thus giving us a bit more forward thrust in midfield. If you like, a two man holding midfield with two wide players getting forwards more.    

[/quote]Ah. I assumed that was a joke response. But fair enough. One certainly wouldn''t call that midfield pedestrian. Dangerously lightweight, possibly. But not pedestrian. And given how bad Millwall seem to be perhaps we could have got away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]Suspect we will miss Tettey and his speed.  With Redmond''s focus on attack, the 433 - which is what it effectively is - looks a bit pedestrian in midfield to me. [/quote]But you argued for Redmond to be included. He was in your selection. Tettey is out injured. So  who instead would you have picked in midfield?[/quote] My team was -                RuddyWhittaker Martin Cuellar OllsonRedmond Tettey O''Neill Lafferty                 Hooper                 JeromeWould have to put Howson in instead of Tettey. The only difference then would be having Lafferty on instead of  Johnson on the left.[/quote]You miss the point. You are complaining about the midfield he has selected, calling it pedestrian. So what midfield, without Tettey but presumably still with Redmond, would you have picked?[/quote]??  What I just said.  Redmond, Howson, O''Neill and Lafferty.  Lafferety would be the man on the left, thus giving us a bit more forward thrust in midfield. If you like, a two man holding midfield with two wide players getting forwards more.   [/quote]Ah. I assumed that was a joke response. But fair enough. One certainly wouldn''t call that midfield pedestrian. Dangerously lightweight, possibly. But not pedestrian. And given how bad Millwall seem to be perhaps we could have got away with it.[/quote]

The way its going we could see Redmond off early,  Lafferty on to keep Redmond fresh for Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lake district canary"]The way its going we could see Redmond off early,  Lafferty on to keep Redmond fresh for Sunday.

[/quote]Agreed. IF we go three up. I think some game time for Lafferty would be a good idea. Possibly even up front instead of Jerome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]The way its going we could see Redmond off early,  Lafferty on to keep Redmond fresh for Sunday. [/quote]Agreed. IF we go three up. I think some game time for Lafferty would be a good idea. Possibly even up front instead of Jerome.[/quote] Yep, if......Would like to see McGrandles get some game time too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

I wonder if Ian Holloway is over his travel fatigue yet?

[/quote]I don''t think we can read anything into what looks like being a big win. Just as Huddersfield were playing with only ten men so Millwall have had to travel beyond London for this match. It really wasn''t fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is this Johnson chap - is he on loan from some Premier league team? We ought to sign him up in Jan, sounds handy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hate to see us stop when we are having so much fun but, if it ended at this score, Nutty would pull in more than a hundred pounds for the match bet, 67 of which would come from the 5-0 scoreline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another good reason for us to stop now ( rather than going for an American style two touchdown score ) is that it would prevent me from pointing out to Lakey that all teams in the Championship are looking with admiration at the free scoring Canaries. Surely that would get rid of Lakey''s "pedestrian" attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back within striking distance of the playoffs, still a lot of making up to do but hopefully we carry on a good run for a while yet. Could really do with Ipswich dropping soon though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We won 6-1. I wonder if this is the shortest match thread ever?

How I wish Millwall could have scored earlier, and maybe more than once, so I would have had something longer to read...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barring the Watford result, we haven''t gained anything despite the huge win. Picking up lost ground is much tougher at the top end of the table where teams were chasing tend to keep winning.

What''s most promising is how we dominate games and have found the scoring touch so making our way up the table seems more workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]Another good reason for us to stop now ( rather than going for an American style two touchdown score ) is that it would prevent me from pointing out to Lakey that all teams in the Championship are looking with admiration at the free scoring Canaries. Surely that would get rid of Lakey''s "pedestrian" attitude.[/quote]

The pedestrian comment was about a midfield without Tettey.  In the absence of Tettey we might have struggled against a pacy attack.  Presumably not a problem today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...