I sort of get your points GE and GM, but if say Redmond and Snodgrass could switch flanks when asked to do so, I can't still fathom why CBs have an issue with doing likewise - but on a far smaller scale - they're only moving 2 or 3 yards across, not the entire pitch width!
I agree with GE and GM's response, but another key factor is when the CB is trying to clear the ball under pressure. A right-footed CB playing on the left is forced to either use his stronger foot inside the attacking player, thus increasing the chance of a mistake. This was one of the problems Franke had there, especially with only one CM in front of him. Like GE, Whittaker seemed comfortable at LB and Klose seems to manage it well enough, but I'm not at all sure our other CBs would.
I think it's different scenarios, a defender primarily has to react to unknown actions from the opposition. An attacker has this too but to a lesser extent whilst doing their defensive duties. but an attacker will see his most influence and noticeable contributions when his team are holding the ball. being on the wrong side might mean they make run slightly later, or turn the wrong way but they are likely to often have the ball either played to them or into space, both of which are more predictable having trained with their team mates, couple that with then actually having the ball. If you have the ball I would say it is tougher to operate on the wrong side but it also can have advantages. it comes down to intelligence, observation and ability in both positions but in attack there is more room for error. Redmond elicited many many groans for bad decision making and giving the ball away, that was on the right side too. but a CB by the nature of the position needs to make less mistakes as they are more likely to be punished. So not only do I think it's harder for a defender as he is predominantly reacting to the opposition but it has greater and more visible consequences when that discomfort is exposed. Fine margins in a very fast game. Bah!
All players should be able to play with both feet, however normally when wingers swap it's because of a change of tactics. So a winger with a stronger right foot when playing on the right would generally be expected to go round the outside of the full back, get to the goal line and put a cross in. Generally when a winger whose right foot is strongest plays on the left then the emphasis changes and the winger is looking to take the left back on the right, inside, normally the weaker side.
Music for JMF's ears: http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/spor...-numbers-adding-up-for-norwich-city-1-5227360 Maddison seems to be impressing all and sundry!
Thanks rick and posted on General Football Thread this morning. I imagine the 'vultures' are circling and can't believe that AN was responsible for signing him!!!!
Very true - if a little mystifying, but it was Alan Irvine who was brave / clear-sighted enough to give JM and Pritchard some form of run in the team...as opposed to taking it in turns to clean Naismith's boots under AN, we assume?
I appreciate that you don't like Naismith as a player and that view is shared by many but surely you can understand why any Manager would want to persevere with a player who had cost a fortune by way of a transfer fee and was the highest earner on the books rather than risk an experiment with youngsters. The record book might well suggest that it was the wrong decision but the same book also indicates that Naismith is a decent player and AN is a decent Manager but like many before it did not work out for them at Carrow Road.
I agree 1950. The idea that AN only played his pet players is all a bit silly IMO. Like Chris Hughton, he is a good manager. We saw that in the promotion year and we see it now in where he has Preston in the table (and where Hughton has Brighton, for that matter). Certainly both also bear a share of the blame for their unsuccessful seasons as well, but the players were also a large part of that. Blaming one player or another is hardly convincing either. Maddison got into the team because of Pritchard's injury and then made the most of his chance when he did, like Jacob did last season. Full credit to him for that as well.
But if you've got raw talent, or precocious, fearless youth in the squad who may make a difference, how are they supposed to when the roster, or pecking order is set in stone (injuries etc aside) from week to week? And I disagree that it was a 'bit silly'. Naismith had one (1) good game for us, on his debut, but was selected regardless of what he was doing and what other squad members may be able to do. How the hell is that not blatant favouritism?
Some good points raised, but how come 'talented youth players' at ManUre/Looserpool etc get a chance in the first team, when those at NCFC don't?????? I feel AN's biggest problem was that he never seemed to have a 'plan B' and despite everything that has been said, the players just didn't want to play for him. Look at the team spirit now compared to this time last season!!!! I rest my case.
I don't get it. Naismith cost circa £8.5m and played nearly every game - Pritchard cost circa £8m and got banished straight away to the naughty step?! WTF is that all about? Rick states AN 'is a good manager'. Well, to me, a 'good manager' evaluates what he wants and needs from his squad from game to game, not stick almost religiously to the same eleven who have lost the last couple and whose heads are bound to have dropped. He may be OK when he has grown up a bit, but with us he was completely myopic and one-directional. Why name and strengthen a squad when you're only going to call on 12 or 13 of them week in week out?
Nobody would suggest that Naismith has been a great success but to say he has only had one good game is wrong. I can recall a few games where he played well - a view shared by the player marks in the local and national press. I agree that promising youngsters have to be given a chance but this usually arises through injury or suspension, is restricted to two or three games and only later do they challenge for a regular place. Very few make their debut and stay in the side permanently. If my memory is correct Maddison was on loan with Coventry when Naismith signed and Pritchard had not signed for us. The following season Pritchard played and was a regular member of the match day squad and Maddison was on loan at Aberdeen until January. AN was under extreme pressure to win promotion and I stand by my view that in that situation it would be a brave, even reckless, Manager who would have dropped a player who was costing a fortune in transfer fee and wages in favour of an untried youngster who had never played a game before in the Championship. In my view it is not a question of favouritism but common sense. I agree that the main fault of AN was the lack of a Plan B and the same could have been said about Hughton. Both of them seem to have learned the error of their ways in their next jobs.
Pritchard made 20 appearances in his first season. It could be argued that he should have played more. Naismith made 32 appearances. I know figures can be deceptive but it does not suggest that one was ' teachers pet ' and the other was banished to the naughty step
Talking about AN sticking to what he believes - I understand from a PNE supporter I talk to occasionally that poor Declan Rudd is completely out in the cold and training with the Under 23 squad.
Rudd is still on the long term injury list with a thigh injury. I hope it's not a case of him being banished from the first team! http://www.skysports.com/football/preston-vs-sland/preview/374747
Why not have JM on the bench and give him 20 to 30 minutes. I went to most of the under 23 games and he was invariably the best player on the pitch!!!!! Ain't that the truth?????????
