RobbieBB all your posts read like you are PR Guru Max Clifford in your defense of Chris Hughton, you seem to have taken on the mantle of spinning all the glaringly obvious failings of our manager and somehow ridicule anyone that doesn`t believe that our manager is up to the job. Lambert did it loads of times for us, if we were getting pumped by 60 mins then change personnel and formation to try and salvage a point or 3, Hughton`s statement that he didn`t want to make changes at 2 1 before 88 mins because he didn`t want to concede a 3rd is mental and warrants one of these..
Agreed the first one was pure class - not so sure re the second one though, had PL not commited so much of his team to attack, then there would have been cover in defence.
Yes, and the vast majority of times when this was successful was against Mickey Mouse League One and Championship defences - how many times did it happen in the top flight?
I can't believe some people think making a change on 88 minutes when you are loosing away from home 2-1 is correct. Complete nuts.
The point is Lambert didn`t just accept defeats and would actively try to reverse the teams fortune if his plan A was not working as he had first hoped, for most of our away games we concede and just accept that we are going to lose so any replacements tend to be to limit the scoreline. I like to see fresh players come on and try to change the game, mentally at 88 mins we have all nearly given up and all it takes is an opposition player to drop and feign injury and the seconds tick away with very little excitement or threat.
What did you say when we brought Wes on for Tettey with 15 minutes to go when 2-1 down away at Arsenal last month? Did you think that was "nuts" at the time as well?
For a player coming on as a substitute for 10 minutes is barely enough time to get up to the speed of the match and all your team mates are tired out at that point. Not to mention the other team is trying to time waste and disrupt play as much as possible which would prevent the player from playing to their full potential.
What like OGS coming on for Man utd with 10 minutes to go when they won the european cup in 1999. Ferguson was clearly an idiot, there was no chance to get a goal!
Point 1: we were NOT "getting pumped" at SJP; on the contrary, at the time when you are saying Hughton should have changed things and brought on substitutes we were actually on top and the team most likely to score -- as indeed we did in the 80th minute. Point 2: you mention only part of Hughton's explanation; how about giving us the full version?
I watched it too, SN and do tend to agree with you. I'm not overly in the 'out' camp, (I waver, a bit like vietnamcanary and several others) and I know we've been overly affected by injuries - especially to wide players, but most 'sparks' in or around the opposition box just die out or get snuffed out. We desperately need either Hooper or RvW to be completely fit and for other players to pick them out. A couple of goals from both / either would lift the mood immensely. I don't have too many Opta / Squawka stats - but I know somebody will be here in a little while to inform me what is factually incorrect about what I've just said. If he wants me I'll be in the pub
Nor did Palace at Hull -- until they scored. We came close to scoring several times before Fer's goal (and I'm not even including Redmond's wild shot); i.e. Pilkington's header, which was inches wide of the far post, Bennett's attempt which was blocked on the line, Hooper's stabbed shot just wide, and Fer's first header which he put over. Whatever, my point about the substitutions remains valid: our best chance of equalising following Fer's goal was to keep things as they were, not change things there and then. CH rightly changed things only when that best chance strategy ran out of steam eight or so minutes later.
As always, people tend to see what they want to see. I can understand Hughton's reluctance to change, given what happened against Arsenal when Wes came on. Newcastle were still threatening on the break and if they scored it would have been game over. Yes, Lambert likes to gamble, but in my memory it didn't work as many times as people claim, especially in the PL. I thought Elmander was a good substitution and gave Newcastle new problems as they tired. I certainly wouldn't have replaced Redmond with Murphy any earlier as it is still early days for Josh.
You don't know that at all, in fact the only thing we do know for certain is that keeping it as it was definitely wasn't the best way to go forward because it didn't work. How many times have we got last minute winners and equalisers under Hughton? Everton seem to be the only team I can think of where we have saved games at the end. It is just another piece of evidence that keeps building against Hughton, it just goes on and on.
Not sure if mentioned elsewhere, but Hughton has confirmed that Pilks and Snoddy are both out for several weeks, with RvW likely to be back in contention for the Swansea game.
The fact that "it didn't work", i.e. we didn't get an equaliser, doesn't at all mean "we know for certain ...it definitely wasn't the best way to go forward". It proves nothing of the sort. Just another piece of false logic and misrepresentation used in an attempt to further your agenda.
Summary - Snoddy - a few weeks RvW – Swansea Pilks – beginning of Jan Tettey – End of Jan Benno – End of Feb Bunn – late Dec Full details here - http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/..._extent_of_norwich_city_injury_list_1_3041691 All in all, it's quite worrying and certainly won't help our case for survival. Still, it will probably 'add fuel to the fire' for chippy, carrabuh and the rest of the 'Hughton out' brigade!!!!
