How did Dowell play? He's never really filled me with confidence, but he could be like a new signing if he can put some performances in before the end of the season.
It's also about 'when the midfield plays well, the team does well'. It's the engine room between defence and attack with responsibilities in both those areas. The judgements involved require experience and that's where young players like Gilmour and Sørensen can struggle in the PL.
Probably his best performance in the PL, as was said above. Whether it's from the new management team or our situation being close to hopeless, our players looked less nervous, more determined and willing to play their own game and that suited Dowell whose skills on the ball allowed him to beat players and make telling passes and crosses. He was also better at tracking back. Having given up on this season I'm looking forward to seeing our players, particularly the younger ones like Dowell, Idah, Sargent, Omobamidele, Rowe and Tzolis develop their skills and team play in the Championship.
Keep the same team, if possible, for the next match. Gilmour should be recalled by Chelsea. Pukki is always up for the match and his goal was a typical Pukki goal that we saw a lot of in Championship.
Apart from Normann this could well be a potential team in the Championship. I thought we played well. Giannoulis and Normann were not on the same wavelength with a few moves, but Smith said they had worked on link-up play over the week and you could tell! Second half of the first half the ref was giving loads of free kicks to Burley. When Norwich eventually got a free kick the crowd gave a good cheer. The first 5 mins or so in the second half he was giving them all to Norwich, very weird! Enjoyed PLM goal as he managed to get it through 6 defenders and beat the keeper. No wonder it took a couple of deflections, but he didn't try to smash it when he hit it, he was trying to control it onto the target. The second was classic Pukki with a very good through ball from Normann, great control and placement from Pukki. Short corners are naff, use it to mix it up, but why we were doing so many they hardly ever work!
I didn't watch the game but on the short corners thing, I imagine it would be because Burnley would have an aerial advantage over us
Burnley's average height was 181.9cm while ours was 181.3 so not a lot in it. It would have been different if Gilmour had played instead of Dowell (180.5cm). Stats courtesy of WhoScored. So Gilmour aside, our average height isn't bad for the PL and that may have been a factor in Smith moving PLM further forward.
We don't really carry an aerial threat though, despite that height. Hanley is good at defensive headers but I wouldn't say he is great at attacking headers, similarly with Gibson. Mclean can be a threat on attacking headers, beyond that the rest are unlikely to win a meaningful header from a corner.
It isn't just a matter of players getting their head on the ball either; there's the little matter of how much control they have on the ball when they get their head on it. You say Hanley is "good" at defensive headers, but "not great" at attacking ones. I'd say he is good at getting his head on the ball in both contexts, but poor as far as control of where his headers go, again in both contexts. We've scored 4 headed goals in the league so far this season, one each from Hanley, Omobamidele, Pukki and Sargent (not all from set pieces of course).
Short corners hardly ever work - but corners don't really work in general! In the Premier League, 3% of "long" corners result in a goal (1.5% with the corner taker getting an assist). 4% of short corners result in a goal. Given our lack of aerial threat, I can certainly see the case for short corners with our squad, trying to work a better opportunity than a cross with a low success rate. I think it's interesting that the recruitment tried to bring up physicality across the squad in the summer, where I'd perhaps argue we'd have been better served by having a couple of "anomalies" in our squad, able to create mismatches we can exploit. There hasn't really been a 1on1 scenario where one of our players has a really noticeable advantage against a good number of players they come up against. I guess the comparison would be Newcastle. Dan Burn is a giant, and the target of nearly all set pieces. It doesn't matter that you know they'll aim for him, he's tall enough to win a good number regardless. But outside of Burn and Wood, they don't have a lot of aerial threats and a lot of their squad are pretty short. 12 of their squad are shorter than 6 ft, including Saint-Maximin, Fraser, Trippier, Ritchie, Almiron, Bruno, Targett, who all regularly play. Norwich also have 12 players under 6ft, but Pukki, Rashica, Aarons, Giannoulis and McLean are the only regular starters. I do wonder if we'd have been better off had we aimed to sign one giant, and let other priorities complete dictate the other signings made.
Well you would wouldn't you. Honestly Hanley could discover a cure for cancer and you'd still find a negative. You lack objectivity and your continual beating of the same drum is one of the main reasons why I barely contribute these days. Hanley has won just over 69% of his aerial battles this season https://www.premierleague.com/players/3819/Grant-Hanley/stats?co=1&se=418 Yes we all know he's not the greatest CB in the PL, but he's nowhere near as bad as you make out and he's the best we have.
The only thing I have said about Hanley is that IMO he is a good Championship CB but lacks Premier League quality. Have I ever denied that Hanley's "the best we have"? Instead of attributing opinions to me that I don't have, why not try a bit of "objectivity" yourself -- about Hanley. It's not as if I am the only person who thinks Hanley is "a good Championship CB"; it's actually a quite widespread view everywhere except on this forum. You and others should maybe try harder to understand why that is the case.
I'm not going to respond further other than to say, Yes of course, you're right, your opinion is as always the right one. There's no point entering into a discussion, as even when on occasions you are presented with facts and opinions, that should at the very least lead you to reconsider your views, you either refuse to contemplate that you might be wrong or you say that you didn't say something, that you clearly either did or more often implied, and then invite posters to spend hours trawling back through your posts to prove the point. For most of us life is too short. This post is a good example. Most people would interpret from your post that you agree that Hanley is "the best we have", but you haven't actually accepted that, what you've said is "Have I ever denied that Hanley's "the best we have"?, which is two different things. Personally I can't ever remember you saying that Hanley is "the best we have", I doubt very much that you have ever said that. Certainly from my perspective I've never formed the opinion from everything you've said about Hanley in particular and the defence in general, that you are of that opinion. You regularly accuse other posters of attributing opinions to you that you don't have, so frequently, that I would suggest that if you generally feel this is the case you should maybe consider being a bit clearer in your contributions, because between you and me you make this accusation so often that there really can only be two natural conclusions 1) posters are deliberately mis-interpreting you, or 2) your posts lack the necessary clarity to enable others to form a clear understanding of your views. The view that Hanley is "a good Championship CB" may well be quiet widespread, what information that view is based on, for most, I would suggest would be very limited. I would also think that most of those people would say, like Suffolk did that "Hanley is good at defensive headers". You say that "I'd say he is good at getting his head on the ball in both contexts, but poor as far as control of where his headers go", without knowing where he intended the ball to go, it is clearly subjective whether he has poor control.
That’s exactly it carrowcanario. It’s also remarkable how Robbie is so confident that he can speak for everyone else in the world (absent any evidence) and, not for the first time, declare everyone else’s purported view and his opinion as fact.
You are wasting your time Carrowcanario, Robbie is nothing more than a troll. He is constantly contradicting himself and has limited what people can see on his profile , to make it more difficult it to prove it. I remember him clearly selecting his preferred CB partnership, and it most definitely did not include Hanley. And I also remember him stating that Hanley had not improved as a player since he has been at Norwich., something else he also denies. Robbie likes nothing more than people arguing with him over his contradictory posts .....just don't give him the pleasure and , as a precaution, just put him on IGNORE. He will soon desist winding people up when they stop biting.
