Match Day Thread Today's Games

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
DHCanary said:
Interesting to hear essentially the same arguments around Gilmour's performances as we had with Leitner (and perhaps Vrancic as a 6/8 not 10). All capable of being highly effective in a team that's on top, but struggle when they can't control the ball and need to contribute defensively.

I would have liked to see more of Leitner and Vrancic as "deep-lying playmakers" in a 4-3-3.

It'll be interesting to see if Smith feels that McLean and Normann are the right pairing to provide the platform from which Gilmour can produce.

Based purely on Sorensen's absence from the matchday 18, he's presumably not seen as an immediate solution.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure we can read too much into that starting line-up - Smith had very little time to judge players other than by video. The inclusion of Cantwell and Gilmour was almost certainly political, and good politics IMO: the onus is now on them to deliver. Hanley, too, was political in a way, as he is captain and one of the older players Smith needs to get on board. For me, this line-up was all about trying to get back squad unity.

I can't see many changes happening for the Wolves game, though, unless forced by injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DHCanary
GozoCanary said:
I'm not sure we can read too much into that starting line-up - Smith had very little time to judge players other than by video. The inclusion of Cantwell and Gilmour was almost certainly political, and good politics IMO: the onus is now on them to deliver. Hanley, too, was political in a way, as he is captain and one of the older players Smith needs to get on board. For me, this line-up was all about trying to get back squad unity.

I can't see many changes happening for the Wolves game, though, unless forced by injuries.
Click to expand...
Same team that started 2nd half, for me.
Todd looked off the pace, and not match fit.
Sargent had his best game imo
 
  • Like
Reactions: DHCanary
GozoCanary said:
The inclusion of Cantwell and Gilmour was almost certainly political ..........
Click to expand...
I don't myself see any reason to look beyond tactical considerations to explain their inclusion. It was clear from interviews DS gave even before he'd taken training on Thursday that he thought the balance was wrong and more creativity was needed. Gilmour's readiness was not an issue, given his Scotland involvement; throwing Cantwell in was, as DS later said, a gamble which didn't come off. Webber would already have explained how the two of them came to be out in the cold under DF. It's no secret that Dean Smith regards Cantwell's ability highly. Far too much was hanging on the game for "politics" to trump other considerations.
 
I would start with Cantwell again. He’s a player that can draw in the opposition and one of our few players to shine in the Premier League previously. We need him matchfit and creating space. I agree he didn’t look fit, but he did have one or two moments where he showed skill.

I also think Sargent’s skills may be best suited, at his tender age, to being impact off the bench. Much like Tzolis.
 
GozoCanary said:
I'm not sure we can read too much into that starting line-up - Smith had very little time to judge players other than by video. The inclusion of Cantwell and Gilmour was almost certainly political, and good politics IMO: the onus is now on them to deliver. Hanley, too, was political in a way, as he is captain and one of the older players Smith needs to get on board. For me, this line-up was all about trying to get back squad unity.

I can't see many changes happening for the Wolves game, though, unless forced by injuries.
Click to expand...

Squad unity ???? More of a case of Cantwell thinking he is better than he actually is He was our worst player in the first half and has it all to prove. I will not be sorry to see him leave in January as he is not the type of player we need in a relegation fight. Too lightweight and slow for the Premier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carrowcanario and Bure budgie
mike555 said:
Squad unity ???? More of a case of Cantwell thinking he is better than he actually is He was our worst player in the first half and has it all to prove. I will not be sorry to see him leave in January as he is not the type of player we need in a relegation fight. Too lightweight and slow for the Premier.
Click to expand...
It could be that Cantwell wasn't fit, one of the reasons Farke had his doing U23 matches to try and get him fit again. Hopefully he will knuckle down and try to prove doubters wrong.
 
zogean_king said:
It could be that Cantwell wasn't fit, one of the reasons Farke had his doing U23 matches to try and get him fit again. Hopefully he will knuckle down and try to prove doubters wrong.
Click to expand...
More to do with his ineffectiveness out of possession IMO. I think we'll start to see a big improvement in how and where on the pitch we press under S&S. Not sure Cantwell buys in to that being his job. If he doesn't, he'll be on his way.
 
Robbie BB said:
I don't myself see any reason to look beyond tactical considerations to explain their inclusion. It was clear from interviews DS gave even before he'd taken training on Thursday that he thought the balance was wrong and more creativity was needed. Gilmour's readiness was not an issue, given his Scotland involvement; throwing Cantwell in was, as DS later said, a gamble which didn't come off. Webber would already have explained how the two of them came to be out in the cold under DF. It's no secret that Dean Smith regards Cantwell's ability highly. Far too much was hanging on the game for "politics" to trump other considerations.
Click to expand...


I disagree, although we can never know what was in Smith's mind, of course. If it was simply addressing a lack of creativity, why not put Tzolis in for the first half? IMO playing Cantwell sent a message to fans and players alike that this was a new start, slates were wiped clean, but anyone who didn't pull his weight wouldn't get invited to the party.

I think it was Smith grasping the nettle, and if I'm right, I admire him for that. Cantwell now has nowhere to go. First, far from striding majestically back and proving all his critics wrong, he put in a performance that definitely merited being dropped for the next game. Second, another altercation with a manager - and with a different manager - will mark his card for good. There was some booing aimed at him from parts of the crowd at a couple of points in the game, which ought to send him a signal that if he doesn't knuckle down and change his attitude, he's finished at Norwich, and he should probably be preparing for a mediocre career at lower Prem level (at best).

Smith got lucky in the sense that Walcott missed that late chance and we won the game. It puts Smith in a very strong position now and he can afford not to stand any nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zogean_king and Hairy Mary Quite Canary
Todd Cantwell clearly wasn’t match fit but the only way he is going to get back to his best is to play games. Back the boy, he’s a local land, far too many people making assumptions about his attitude from hearsay.

Gilmour too was poor in the first half, and he’s just come off the back of 2 games for Scotland, he was given the chance to turn things around second half and did so. If he had been hooked at half time I doubt there would have been many complaints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zogean_king and Hairy Mary Quite Canary
I was putting the bin bags out and heard a massive roar when that went in and I live about 3 miles away from Portman Road
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back