Sure I think my comment probably reflects my annoyance with the fact that a league cup quarter final is no longer a big match.
that's cup football these days! i think had it been a semi-final we would have seen a marked difference
interesting that at the start of the season, we commented on how strong our squad was and we weren't quite sure of our best XI. Injuries aside, this is not the case now - we know our best XI easily. Players like tierney are looking weak now, and surman and fox have barely played compared to last season
Aside from the inclusion of Tierney ahead of Garrido, if we assume Turner wasn' 100% fit that was essentially the best squad Hughton could of played.
i agree. i was more disappointed that the system which has been so successful was tampered with. had we maintained the 4-5-1, i truly believe we'd have won the game. we could have won it regardless but that's my thought
agreed, i wasn't referring to that DM, it was more the relative merits of some of those who did play compared to those out with niggles, and those on the bench
I don't believe we could have won on the day - certainly Morison maybe should have bagged four, but Aston Villa could maybe of had 7 or 8 goals last night aswell. And to revert back to 4-4-1-1 would of means dispensing a striker for a midfielder - presumably Holt/Morison for Fox. The way the game worked out, Given was terrible unless the ball was coming at him and having two strikers to apply pressure to him brought us one goal and could conceivably brought another one or two. I think it is difficult to make the claim that an extra midfielder would have given us enough extra to overcome Villa, who you must admit aside from when trying to back-pass to Given were excellent.
i just feel a) we would have been more secure - most of villa's chances came straight through the middle of our team - exactly the same issue i spent all last season suggesting we needed five in midfield to combat; and b) the players would not have had to adjust to how they'd been playing for the past few months. we'd have played more football on the deck - two up front makes us aim too long too often. it would have made a difference, no question.
I think the nature of Villa's goals is mostly irrelevant as certainly the final two occupied because we were desperately trying to get back in the game and were hit on the counter - had we been ahead they would never have happened.
........Bassong holding the back 4 together requires the other three to be in tune with him, i can't help feeling that Barney is his own man, hence a lack of cohesion and togetherness.
If Morison had taken his chances we'd be sitting here today praying we get Bradford in the draw !!! Surely now after his very public row with CH on the pitch he'll be off now to pastures new? Last night if we were going to play two strikers HAD to have been Holt and Jackson, the Villa defence was very slow, IMO Jackson's pace would have tore them to peices.
If Villa had taken their chances, we'd be scratching our heads as to how we had conceded 8 goals at home and therefore beaten our record defeat vs Colchester United! And to be honest, I'm not sure what more pace would have done - believe it or not Morison is actually quite quick and showed fleetness of foot in his goal.
thing is, the match really could have gone either way until villa took the lead, so in that respect you are being very harsh. villa played the better over the course of the night but norwich could certainly have been 2 or 3-1 up before we let them get a real grip of the game. the three chances straight after half time were crucial. had one or two of those gone in it would have been game over and how the hell given saved that holt header at 1-1 i shall never know. it was pure luck as far as i'm concerned and they went straight up the other end and took the lead from that very chance.
well i thought as did all the people around me that CH was having a row with Morison, which carried on after he left the pitch and CH ignored Morisons attempts to speak with him ?
morison definitely indicated to the bench that he needed to come off - it took a few minutes - maybe that's what any disagreement was about...
I think it has very much been the case throughout hid Canary career. Howson is not the same as Hoolahan though, I don't think they are in the slightest bit the same. Howson can't keep the ball and think like Hoolahan, he gets rid of the ball alot quicker and doesn't handle tight space anywhere near as well. He is better than Hoolahan if he has space open in front of him to run with the ball in straight direct lines and then pass. Hoolahan will go sideways and not look to create a goal at the earliest opportunity like Howson.
Re. the change of formation, I can only assume that CH saw the chance in this cup game to experiment and to see if we could successfully use 442 at home. I think he got his answer. Whether he should have since we were only 90 minutes from a semi? Personally I'd say yes, since we would still have had to negotiate a very tough two-leg tie to even get to Wembley (perhaps against Chelsea), but I understand the people who are disappointed with the gamble.
The thought had crossed my mind and yes, he did get his answer and should he play that system again this season before we are mathematically safe, then questions need to be asked. Thinking this way however doesn't make me feel any better about losing a home quarter final game against a team that has been piss poor all season. Just as we did against Leicester in the FA Cup earlier in the year, we buggered up the formula that was bringing relative success and paid the price. As much as a two-legged semi and a potential final may be deemed as a distraction from what is more important, I see no excuse for not going balls out to try achieve exactly that, once you are in a position to do so, as we clearly were Tuesday. My disappointment on early Wednesday morning has turned in to a nice bout of anger and the more I think about it the more angry I become. Good luck to Villa but bugger me it should have been us
