Wednesday - V - Norwich OMDT

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

Brighton: Tackles attempted 25, successful tackles 8.

 

SWFC: Tackles attempted 15, successful tackles 13.

 

Try again.

 

You seriously think that only 2 of the tackles we attempted today were unsuccessful? Perhaps these particular stats aren't that useful. We gave away at least 3 free-kicks on the edge of our own area for a start, through tackles that were unsuccessful. 

[Emerson Thome]

2 minutes ago, HIGHERSTATE said:

I think beneral bitterness of our situation is clouding some people opinions about Moore.

 

Toys have come right out now.

 

Hes been here just over 5 minutes and ive just seen one of the best 45 minutes all season.

 

Exactly. He's doing as much as he can with these players. We've matched Norwich for shots and chances in this game. But unfortunately they had Pukki and Cantwell to blast it into the top corner and we had Windass to blast it into the stand. But who else could he have picked. Brown? Marriott? Paterson? I'm not sure they would have done any better. It wasn't tactics today, it was quality in the final third.

[bubbleowl]

2 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

Brighton: Tackles attempted 25, successful tackles 8.

 

SWFC: Tackles attempted 15, successful tackles 13.

 

Try again.

So are these figures for just midfielders or the all team because I saw the defenders making last ditch challenges after Norwich players walked past our so called midfield

[Guest]

Just now, 2roland2 said:

apart from him and I will say this again, because he does it a lot letting his man skip pass him and then stop and watch him, which he did fr most of the game by the way and  apart from the passing that was one of the worst Games  I have seen from him and apart from him looking like he has given up for large parts of the match I would tend to agree. 
 

if I was constantly passing backwards and sideways to team mates I would have a decent passing accuracy. His season stats tell the story of his season. 4 assists with 2 goals. For a player of his ability Who takes almost every set piece it’s atrocious. 

 

He was poor second half, the first goal he got caught ball-watching which opened up the space for the through-ball. 

 

I don't think he had given up, frustrated, yes and possibly knackered as well but he was still running back and trying, as evidenced by the booking he got. 

If you want evidence of someone going through the motions and not really giving his all, look at Reach. Shortly after Lees was down injured he lost the ball and just turned away, too many times his shoulders went down when he lost out. 

[Guest Kagoshimaowl]

21 minutes ago, Owlsbornanbred said:

I would question the timing and choice of his subs possibly, but he just has such a poor squad to select from I'm not sure what he can do. Such poor footballing brains, lack of technical ability and pace, right across the board. Not a great combo.

Good post. Was actually talking about his substitutions not the starting team or formation 

[victorturner]

57 minutes ago, FreshOwl said:

That’s what happens when you don’t close down or press 

 

******** pathetic defending 

Two defenders go to same attacker, Uroghide slips and he really should not be playing in a game of this import. Promising but makes mistakes. Strange selection. We still not getting the best team onto the pitch.

[cain]

34 minutes ago, heppers said:

If we had played like this all season we would be mid table.

That’s a massive IF......we didn’t because we’re not good enough too

[jonnyowl]

26 minutes ago, edwinowl said:

Go on then 

Uroghide

Palmer

Reach

Harris

Widnass

Marriott

Hutchinson

[edwinowl]

20 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Reach

Marriott

Windass

Lees

Palmer

 

Not 7 but half nearly half of the team. 

 

Bannan was poor second half but Reach was shocking all game, the amount of times him and Palmer shrugged their shoulders and stood still after losing the ball was poor to see.

 

Windass' decision making is awful. To fail to hit the target when he should have played Pelupessy in sums him up.  

They were all poor. I’m a Bannan fan but he was woeful today. And he’s captain. 

[victorturner]

27 minutes ago, the_vinyl_frontier said:

2-1 loss is a pretty decent result with our useless squad and rubbish manager to be fair. 

Sad to say not a bad result but thus useless manager  is still not putting the best players on the pitch

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

I’m a big fan of both reach and bannan in terms of ability when they are on their game but I’m basing my views on the season. Both look imo this is like they don’t give a monkeys. 
 

the squad isn’t good enough to carry people going through the motions. And I agree it might be frustration for bannan ( I call it mardy ness ) but we can’t carry that poo right now. 

 

How do you think Bannan played first half today? Why have you singled him out? Reach was abysmal today and sadly has been for some time, you can clearly see a difference in effort and attitude between him and Bannan. 

[benni8]

16 minutes ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

A half decent performance all in all. Considering.

 

Shame we don't put in similar against the teams we're actually likely to be able to get something from.

 

 

 

 

First half was positive. But we reverted to rabbit in headlights again in the second. Yes it was Norwich, but Luton or Rotherham aren't Norwich and similar happened there.

 

We generally don't put that type of performance in against poorer teams because they don't attack and leave the spaces that better teams do.

 

They mostly sit there and say "go on then" - and we don't have the ability to unlock them, so we huff and puff, until anxiety sets in and we fold.

 

Just a sad state of affairs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[edwinowl]

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

How do you think Bannan played first half today? Why have you singled him out? Reach was abysmal today and sadly has been for some time, you can clearly see a difference in effort and attitude between him and Bannan. 

No one is questioning his attitude. 
Like I said they were all poor. 
 

[victorturner]

7 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

I’m a big fan of both reach and bannan in terms of ability when they are on their game but I’m basing my views on the season. Both look imo this is like they don’t give a monkeys. 
 

the squad isn’t good enough to carry people going through the motions. And I agree it might be frustration for bannan ( I call it mardy ness ) but we can’t carry that poo right now. 

Reach has no speed and his passing is sloppy.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, edwinowl said:

No one is questioning his attitude. 
Like I said they were all poor. 
 

 

 

Really?

 

6 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

I explained why in a previous post. Most of this squad are poor quality, most have zero backbone. I have focused on Both reach and bannan. Reach because he has the quality and looks like he’s given up. And secondly bannan for the same reason but he’s captain. If he’s given up then we are fizzed. 
I thought he was poor first half too by his standards. he just looks to me like he’s had enough. And as I said earlier right now we can’t carry that 

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

I explained why in a previous post. Most of this squad are poor quality, most have zero backbone. I have focused on Both reach and bannan. Reach because he has the quality and looks like he’s given up. And secondly bannan for the same reason but he’s captain. If he’s given up then we are fizzed. 
I thought he was poor first half too by his standards. he just looks to me like he’s had enough. And as I said earlier right now we can’t carry that 

 

I disagree on him giving up. I think he is frustrated, sometimes at himself, much time at others around him and the general situation. For a captain of the club, that's not great, I never thought he would make a good captain, unfortunately, there aren't many candidates in that respect.  

 

He contributed well to a very positive first half today but was poor second half.

 

For me there is a significant visible difference when comparing the attitude and general all round contribution of him and Reach though. 

[edwinowl]

4 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

 

Really?

 

 

Why don’t you pop off to the Bannan thread if you want this debate. I’ve said my bit. 
 

[sherlyegg]

Reach wasn't interested at all..especially 2nd half.

Bit harsh...but true..

We have a good number of fair weather players but just a couple of battlers..we need 11 battlers...we are down..pure and simple cos not many want to fight..

[jonnyowl]

19 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

How do you think Bannan played first half today? Why have you singled him out? Reach was abysmal today and sadly has been for some time, you can clearly see a difference in effort and attitude between him and Bannan. 

Some people have got in for Bannan and can't see the real problem.

 

For too long we've relied on him as our only creative spark and when he had players like Fletcher, Foriesteri, Hooper, Wallace, Lee players in his wavelength it makes everyone look better. But now he's struggling to create chances, but when you surround him with players that are not good enough or have  no football intellectual what is he supposed to do?

 

The problem isn't that Bannan isn't good enough, its that he's too good for the players around him.

Edited March 14, 2021 by jonnyowl

[Brian]

There's no shame in losing against a superior team who are in first place and on the back of seven consecutive wins.  Given what we were up against, it was a respectable performance, too. I think the Luton game was the final nail so it wasn't even very hard to take in that sense either, personally speaking.

It's the cumulative effect of all the awful statistics and trends that continues to wear me down at this stage. Seven defeats-in-a-row, more lost points from a winning position, still yet to get a single point from a losing position, second-best in the second half once again, another team to have done the double over us this season, another goal conceded in the last fifteen minutes ... it just goes on and on.