Match Day Thread Carabao Cup, Southern Section, Watford v Norwich City, Tues 12th August, ko 19.45

Blimey you're the sort of bloke that wins the lottery and still complains about the cost of the ticket.

 

Blimey - if you enjoyed the second half last night you are the sort of bloke who would call a 3 day old sandwich a good meal.

 

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that this would be more entertaining. The game has unfortunately moved on

 

But has it moved on Suffolk or is it the same game but currently run by a negative mindset. I am not convinced that a team organised in the Saunders or Lambert mould would struggle in the current game. To me the game should be to outscore the opposition whereas nowadays Coaches seem to want to achieve that by negative means. Negativity has spread into the game before - remember Pulis - and that to me is where we are currently heading.

 

After winning away at WFC, we have been drawn at home to Southampton in R2

 

You do an injustice to Thorup, 1950. He constantly inveighed against the team's tendency to stop doing what had got them in front, thereby handing the initiative to the opposition. JHT's mantra was "more of the same", and the failure to listen exhibited time and again, game after game, drove him mad.

 

Strangely enough Robbie I agree with you but I threw Thorup in to try and stop a revival of previous arguments!!

 

Shame on you!

 

I'm not a fan of game management in general but that cup game was different. I was surprised that Sargent started, given his previous injury record and an important league game coming on Saturday. He and Diallo rightly came off after 60 minutes to be replaced by Makama and Schlupp. It was unfortunate that Kvistgaarden was ill and Crnac wasn't in the lineup for some reason, but we were left with an attack spearheaded by those two, who both arrived late in the preseason, and Schwartau and Marcondes who were both understandably tiring. I was surprised that Jurásek wasn't brought on then but Manning chose Gibbs instead, perhaps because of his all round skills and Jurásek came on 10 minutes later.

All this happened in a second half when Watford brought on 5 of their top players including Louza and Baah, who combined for their goal and were a threat throughout. In that context, would you really throw caution to the wind and tell the team to attack at all costs to keep us entertained?

Edit: Manning has since explained that
"Kvistgaarden came in and was down to travel but didn't feel great, so rather than sitting him on a bus for five hours, it was 'let's be sensible with it', so we left him back at the training ground." As for Cynac, he was being rested.

 

I am more concerned about the general trend over the last few years and not this one game. I don't think we attacked at all costs in the first half at Watford - we were sound defensively and attacked in numbers when we went forward. In the second half we were far more concerned about how many men we could get behind the ball and the substitutions added to that. We didn't look vulnerable defensively in the first half and I really do not see why we couldn't have gone out with the same mindset in the second half at least to start with. I have no doubt that the same thing will happen at Portsmouth on Saturday if we are leading at half-time because that is the current mindset and I don't like it or see why it is necessary.

 

There's the argument that Manning would have expected Watford to make more attacking adjustments at half time and therefore felt he needed to counteract that in the 2nd half. It's not exactly chess but I can understand coaches thinking when you're 2-0 up, it's time to secure the result.

 

But that is the attitude I am moaning about as it turns the second half into a boring war of attrition when I want to see 90 mins of proper football. The attitude of 'securing the result' eventually leads to the Pulis philosophy of protecting a 0-0 scoreline from the start and hope to get a breakaway goal. All of this ultimately leads to the discussion I have had with Rick over the years regarding what is important. To me football is an entertainment which is why I watch every match I can either live or on TV mainly involving teams to whom I have no allegiance. To others the result is all that matters and if you can reach the playoffs by trying to win home games 1-0 and draw away games 0-0 it is a great season. ! would rather see a lot of goals, attacking football and lots of effort with my team finishing mid table. Ultimately I obviously prefer the best of both worlds as with Farke, Bond, Lambert and Saunders. Using your point regarding what Manning thought at half time - if that is what he thought then more attacking options means more gaps at the back so carry on as you have been playing especially as we looked defensively sound in the first half. I watched PSG and Spurs. Spurs were 2-0 up and just fell back and wasted as much time as they could to ' secure the result ' - they lost - serves them right!! IMO if they had just carried on as they had been playing they would have won as overall they looked the better team.

 

I hear you, and frankly agree, but the scenario where Manning says carry on the same but Watford do ring changes in the 2nd half and go on to tie the scores up, Manning then gets accused of having no plan B by the hindsight experts.

 

I fully accept what you say Hairy although, as with Spurs, plan B can be a disaster as well.

 

There's no issue with aiming to "secure the result"; the issue is how best to do it. If you've held the initiative throughout the 1st half, the last thing you want to do is surrender it to the opposition at the start of the 2nd. If the opposition manage to wrest the initiative from you, well done them; but don't hand it to them!