CanaryOnTheWire
New Member
So here's how I see it. Norwich City FC were beaten 1-0, that's by ONE goal, by Wolves on Sunday. This Wolves side is an outfit which smashed up League One breaking records as they did so and are a robust, confident team. (If you're struggling, think Lambert's Norwich)
Now, given that
a) We need time to build confidence, match sharpness and understanding following the awful Hughton seasons. Two years of defensive football is not eradicated instantly in a month or so of pre-season.
B) After a poor, ring rusty first half, we started to move the ball well and caused a fair few problems for the Wolves backline (i think in particular of Grabban's opportunity at the angle which Bournemouth fans tell me he would have buried if fully sharp...not sure on that)
c) Yes, there were sloppy mistakes and frailties, but it'll take more than one game to know whether they are a result of player selection, strategy or simply match fitness, and for any of us, Adams included, to be clear on this.
d) You don't jump straight back into the Championship and walk it (usually). Those expecting us to demolish Wolves were always going to be gutted come Sunday evening.
e) We lost 3-2 to Watford (at HOME, not AWAY) on the opening day in 2010-11 and fans started worrying about it then, too. We finished 2nd.
Yes, there are arguments for worrying about the defensive setup (particularly in defending crosses, as Wolves threatened far before they scored), and yes, we looked rusty and sloppy and beneath the on-paper abilities of our players. But it wasn't ALL terrible. It's easy for fans to be negative and say we're going to be terrible, because football is cyclical and for every high there is a low. Call for a manager's head long enough, and eventually he'll get sacked whether he was ever any good or not.
It reminds me of the Grant Holt flow: He's an average L1 striker -> He's a brilliant L1 striker -> He's not good enough for the Championship -> He's good enough for the Championship -> God he's awesome -> He'll never cut it in the Prem -> He's quite good, really, isn't he -> WFLGH, WFLGH
I mention that as it's one of the few examples where The Negative Brigade were thwarted at every turn.
It shows that you couldn't judge Grant Holt after a short period any more than you can anything else in football, and where's the bloody fun in being miserable and negative?
I believe there were real signs of promise along with the bitter pill of defeat, and had Olsson not been sent off I think we would have got the point this mediocre typical early season encounter merited. But for Holt's sake, let's see.
Now, given that
a) We need time to build confidence, match sharpness and understanding following the awful Hughton seasons. Two years of defensive football is not eradicated instantly in a month or so of pre-season.
B) After a poor, ring rusty first half, we started to move the ball well and caused a fair few problems for the Wolves backline (i think in particular of Grabban's opportunity at the angle which Bournemouth fans tell me he would have buried if fully sharp...not sure on that)
c) Yes, there were sloppy mistakes and frailties, but it'll take more than one game to know whether they are a result of player selection, strategy or simply match fitness, and for any of us, Adams included, to be clear on this.
d) You don't jump straight back into the Championship and walk it (usually). Those expecting us to demolish Wolves were always going to be gutted come Sunday evening.
e) We lost 3-2 to Watford (at HOME, not AWAY) on the opening day in 2010-11 and fans started worrying about it then, too. We finished 2nd.
Yes, there are arguments for worrying about the defensive setup (particularly in defending crosses, as Wolves threatened far before they scored), and yes, we looked rusty and sloppy and beneath the on-paper abilities of our players. But it wasn't ALL terrible. It's easy for fans to be negative and say we're going to be terrible, because football is cyclical and for every high there is a low. Call for a manager's head long enough, and eventually he'll get sacked whether he was ever any good or not.
It reminds me of the Grant Holt flow: He's an average L1 striker -> He's a brilliant L1 striker -> He's not good enough for the Championship -> He's good enough for the Championship -> God he's awesome -> He'll never cut it in the Prem -> He's quite good, really, isn't he -> WFLGH, WFLGH
I mention that as it's one of the few examples where The Negative Brigade were thwarted at every turn.
It shows that you couldn't judge Grant Holt after a short period any more than you can anything else in football, and where's the bloody fun in being miserable and negative?
I believe there were real signs of promise along with the bitter pill of defeat, and had Olsson not been sent off I think we would have got the point this mediocre typical early season encounter merited. But for Holt's sake, let's see.