Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bradwell canary

Hooper taken off...why?

Recommended Posts

we were chasing the game then Hooper was taken off. he was playing as well as anyone, so why take him off. Strange team selection (Whittaker midfield) followed by strange subs.

Don''t hold our much hope in the window, as what does he know about players down here as yet. so does this mean that other will have the say in transfers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was hoping that the same sub would''ve been made earlier tbh. Our play was all focussed on hoofing it long because Johnson was doing half of Whittakers job, we essentially had no midfield as Hooper was never deep enough to collect the ball or close enough to Jerome to run onto the ball. Therefore the most logical thing to do would be to make it more of a midfield battle.Personally I can see why the change was made and think it was a good one, just a shame Turner and Cuellar had to slide in at the same time to give away a penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="mrs miggins"]Was hoping that the same sub would''ve been made earlier tbh. Our play was all focussed on hoofing it long because Johnson was doing half of Whittakers job, we essentially had no midfield as Hooper was never deep enough to collect the ball or close enough to Jerome to run onto the ball. Therefore the most logical thing to do would be to make it more of a midfield battle.Personally I can see why the change was made and think it was a good one, just a shame Turner and Cuellar had to slide in at the same time to give away a penalty.[/quote]Absolutely agree, the substitution was the right one to make.  We were losing the midfield battle and bringing off a midfielder at that point wouldn''t have served us any better.At the moment we have the most poisonous set of fans and to be honest we deserve what we get, Carrow Road is a disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I called the Hooper sub a few minutes before it happened. We could not get the ball, Brentfords midfield 3 were dominating Johnson & Whittaker causing us to go long all the time. Putting ban extra body in there would have allowed us to get on the ball but as it happened we conceded a pen not long after. If anything, I was surprised that sub didn''t happen at half time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing wrong with that decision as with the replacement of Laffs at half time.

The booing was presumably borne out of frustration, cos if you were going to bring Wes on it was a reasonable replacement to make.

I was shocked at the booing to be honest, and a bit disappointed.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barclay seats 48/49 the 3rd wrote the following post at 26/01/2015 5:54 PM:

And the substitution went well didn''t it ....

No we didn''t score, so presumably your point is that all those that were booing knew it wasn''t going to work out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd"]And the substitution went well didn''t it ....[/quote]Yeah all those idiots who booed the substitution were probably the same ones calling for Hoolahan to be brought on...were you one of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooper looked pretty ordinary on Saturday - so while he didn''t stick out in a team of poor performances, the subbing made perfect sense. I do have to say that he may be a good finisher but is astoundingly slow at changing direction/turning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barclay seats 48/49 the 3rd wrote the following post at 26/01/2015 6:03 PM:

Probably predicted that we would continue to hoof the ball down the pitch ,,, which we did ,,,,, hoolahan would be ineffective ,,, which he was ,,, and we would lose ,,,, not wrong .

What subs would you have made Barclay ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only was it the right tactical call hooper had already faded - he was lively in the first half but was uninvolved from about 55 mins.

Right sub at right time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is we were weak and thin on the ground in midfield and Redmond and Lafferty/Bennett out wide were luxuries we could not afford. It appeared that Hooper had been pushed forward slightly but was receiving no support from midfield. The tactics were simply long ball down the flanks. Not against that, as a change in attack from time to time, fair enough, but not as a sole attacking approach. Hooper and Jerome had been combining quite well recently albeit the number of offsides was unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was disappointed to see Hooper go off.

He has a skilful first touch, can control the ball better than most and there are few players who can bring down a lofted or cross-field pass as well as he does.

So, if we were going to persevere with the longer ball tactic, I felt he should''ve stayed on. We stand more chance with hit-and-hope football with him and Jerome on the pitch together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose whatever subs are made there will always be some in the crowd that agree with them and some that don''t. A bit like the responses on this thread. The question is, as Norwich fans, are we now going to boo every sub that we make on the basis that some people in the crowd don''t agree with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a couple of days to think about it, we were always going to be up against it. Brentford are a tidy, compact unit with a settled side, who play neat passing football. If any of Tettey, Howson or O''Neil had been available, I think we would definitely have seen a different line-up and have been more competitive in the centre of the park. Other than playing Johnson at the base and Hoolahan (or the untried McGrandles) at the point of a diamond (which would also most likely have seen us overrun in the centre of the park), I can''t see any other natural formation or mixture of personnel that would have worked for that match. It irritates me that we sold both Pilkington and Surman and didn''t sign a naturally left-sided midfielder.I agree with many posters on this thread that Wes for Hoop was the right substitution at that time in the match, and also that Benno for Laffs at half time made sense. I can only hope that the direct tactics employed were due to an assessment of what we had available and the way that Brentford play, realising that with those personnel we were never going to win the possession battle in the centre of the park, and trying to catch them out with power (Lafferty) and pace (Redmond) on the diagonal balls, and two competent strikers to work together without being isolated.Hopefully Tettey will be ready for Saturday, and then Howson too for Blackpool, and we''ll see a change back to the kind of football that we played in the first half against Cardiff. Johnson''s distribution isn''t his strong point, and Whittaker was hopelessly lost in central midfield, so we were never going to have the solid base to win the match with attractive football. I found Saturday as horrible to watch as the next man, but we need to see how AN approaches the next few games, and how he uses the resources available to him, before we can draw any solid conclusions about his adaptability and tactical acumen.

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...