Suffolk, that was his first start since returning after a long injury lay-off (he's played a total of just 123 minutes of match football so far this season), so you can't expect him to be at his best in any aspect of his game. Look how much a far shorter injury lay-off has affected Núñez's level of performance in his two games since returning; we've seen hardly anything of the "real" Núñez!
My observations aren’t based on last night but his entire time here, I appreciate that the systems are different and Thorup may be able to get more from him but for me everything I said above stands true to his performances last season aswell
Or is it a point gained, had we turned up to play as we did against QPR, this team needed to show resolve after that performance to let other teams know that they couldn’t follow the bully boy tactics and steamroll us
Agree 100 % Suffolk. Barnes in my opinion adds nothing to the team. His best days are long gone. Crnac up top would have been a far better option.
I disagree about last season where Barnes worked well when he teamed with Sargent and greatly helped Josh's goal scoring. He's a second striker not a front man, as he was asked to do last night. I think JHT thought Crnac would be bullied, which to an extent he was. Nobody bullies Barnes.
I agree he can have a role as a second striker (he would be behind several other squad members for that role in my opinion) and he and Sargent did have a decent partnership but as the lone striker he didn’t work last season and I saw the same thing last night (albeit he’s not up to full fitness Robbie). I honestly think his name makes me think bully more than his play, I can’t think of a game we’ve had where I can say he dominated or bullied a defence, he comes off second best in most cases in my opinion
What sort of "resolve" does abandoning your principles show (in this case eschewing playing out from the back in the face of an energetic high press employed by an inferior team scared out of their wits by your attacking prowess? That's not demonstrating resolve; it's holding up the white flag.
It shows flexibility, that JHT isn't ignorant to something not working in certain situations, he's not ignorant to where the team falls short. Displaying that you can play both ways and in time with coaching will look to combine both forms for when the time requires, as JHT said when interviewed after the match
I don't think it's a striker's role to 'bully' a defence. Pukki never bullied a defence. For me, it's more about outwitting the defenders. Barnes was chosen to distract the defence and enable Sainz and Crnac to score. Schwartau is the eventual replacement for Barnes, but at 18 he still has a lot to learn. Barnes can help with that.
I agree it isn’t a strikers role but it is constantly spoken about as Barnes best trait but I just don’t see that from him. He works as a foil to a recognised striker like Sargent and maybe Crnac but not as the main striker in my eyes
Agree as well. His ****housery reminds me of the striker you had to mark who'd just aim to wind up the guy marking him. Great as a foil, as mentioned, but not really a Norwich player imo
Would you say Grant Holt wasn't really a Norwich player? To me Barnes is very similar. He doesn't score as many goals, but that's not really the role of a second striker. Also, like Holt, he has a good affect on other players particularly younger players.
Grant Holt was absolutely different class to Barnes. The difference I think is that we had Holt moving into his prime under an era of exciting footie with Lambert (okz he was a Gunn signing) whereas Barnes is akin to a tiring gunslinger well past his best. Holt was an unusual talisman abit like Fleck in his day for me.
Holt was 28 when he came to us and 32 when he left. One of my favourite players ever (as was Kevin Keelan in your avatar). Barnes will never do what Holty did, but he has a role to play, especially in the absence of Sargent.
JHT on Barnes: "He delivered what we wanted [at Portsmouth]. Just his presence around the group, his character and leadership was important for us because we knew it would be a fight and hard one with plenty of duels and second balls situations, fouls and stuff like that. He delivered what we expected. It was good for him and for us to have him back."
A different way of playing was indeed adopted against Portsmouth, but it had nothing to do with showing more "fight"; it was simply a different strategy for dealing with the opposition's high press. Against QPR, we persisted in trying to play out through the press; against Portsmouth we changed to playing over the press. Neither proved effective; on each occasion we managed to muster only 5 shots, and our xG was a miserable 0.3. I'm all in favour of showing "fight"; but "fight" should be shown every game; the real need is improvement in executing the game strategy, whether that is short passing through the press, as v QPR, or long passing over the press, as v Pompey. Barnes is useful in the latter case, not for his capacity for s***housery, but for his greater comfort -- compared to Crnac -- when playing back to goal.
