Parker

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

First half was abysmal. Better 2nd half and subs had the desired impact. Somehow we are 3rd but the style of play is everything Fulham and Bournemouth fans said to expect. Some big signings attacking wise are urgently needed.

[Mattster]

I'm sure I'll get s*** for it but I am not having that as going down as a win for Parker. A 30 yard thunderc*** and a fortunate loose ball from a bad headed clearance are not a success of tactics or system. Subs spoiled the game, made it scrappy and every bit of luck that could go our way, went our way.

I give credit when Parker gets it right, he didn't today IMO.

[Rileybobs]

I'm sure I'll get s*** for it but I am not having that as going down as a win for Parker.

Hilarious.

[fidelcastro]

I'm sure I'll get s*** for it but I am not having that as going down as a win for Parker. A 30 yard thunderc*** and a fortunate loose ball from a bad headed clearance are not a success of tactics or system. Subs spoiled the game, made it scrappy and every bit of luck that could go our way, went our way.

I give credit when Parker gets it right, he didn't today IMO.

And the award for most bizarre post of the week goes to...

[dougcollins]

It was a bit weird moving Anthony to LB (to my mind, a man who can't tackle) but he got most right today.

[beeholeclaret]

Just imagine if he had a full squad available. He’s got Burnley to 3rd place just before Christmas with a severely depleted squad if you consider the players we had against Luton and Cardiff in August.

[TsarBomba]

And the award for most bizarre post of the week goes to...

Bizarre indeed. We’re a work in progress. There’s a lot we’re doing right, and a lot we’re doing wrong, but there’s just no patience. Sone ‘fans’ are so entrenched that there’s no turning back. A bit of humility wouldn’t go amiss at times.

Parker deserves credit today. The first half wasn’t good enough, he said so himself. The subs were spot on, Laurent in particular.

[Mattster]

And the award for most bizarre post of the week goes to...

Why?

After the Flemming / Hannibal sub on 64 mins we had fewer shots on goal in the following 35 minutes than we did in the 19 minutes (3 minutes of which was treatment and subbing Sarmiento) prior. Those 2 shots were both goals but neither was really a proper chance we created. They were a moment of absolute quality from an individual player and lucky loose ball from a botched headed clearance.

We had luck fall our way as they missed a sitter at the death and we had Trafford's magnificence to thank for keeping it to a 1 goal deficit shortly before the subs.

I enjoyed the second half and I'm very happy with the win, but that wasn't a turnaround brought about by tactical brilliance or inspired substitutions. 99 times out of a 100, we don't win that. It was luck and a couple of individual moments of quality.

[fidelcastro]

Why?

After the Flemming / Hannibal sub on 64 mins we had fewer shots on goal in the following 35 minutes than we did in the 19 minutes (3 minutes of which was treatment and subbing Sarmiento) prior. Those 2 shots were both goals but neither was really a proper chance we created. They were a moment of absolute quality from an individual player and lucky loose ball from a botched headed clearance.

We had luck fall our way as they missed a sitter at the death and we had Trafford's magnificence to thank for keeping it to a 1 goal deficit shortly before the subs.

I enjoyed the second half and I'm very happy with the win, but that wasn't a turnaround brought about by tactical brilliance or inspired substitutions. 99 times out of a 100, we don't win that. It was luck and a couple of individual moments of quality.

Absolute drivel!

The two halves were chalk and cheese, and yes, the substitutions DID change the game.

[Devils_Advocate]

Just imagine if he had a full squad available. He’s got Burnley to 3rd place just before Christmas with a severely depleted squad if you consider the players we had against Luton and Cardiff in August.

He has a great squad even discounting the long term injuries and he has spent plenty of money bringing players in. He's brought in Worral, Humphries, Pires, Hannibal, Laurent, Anthony, Sarmiento and Flemming to add to players like Trafford, Roberts, Esteve, Brownhill, Cullen, Koleosho and Foster

Difference from 2 years ago isnt the squad the managers inherited but how they spent their money and used their loans. Kompany hardly paid big for anyone which helped him to get more players and allow a fair few to miss. The ones that didn't miss (Muric, Harwood-Bellis, Beyer, Maatsen, Cullen, Zaroury, Benson and Tella) made up the majority of the regular starting 11 (7 of those 8 would usually make our staring 11)

Results and position wise we are doing well but there needs to be a lot of improvement in the performances if this teams gonna challenge Leeds and Sheff Utd for an automatic spot which is the level we should be at.

[CoolClaret]

I'm sure I'll get s*** for it but I am not having that as going down as a win for Parker. A 30 yard thunderc*** and a fortunate loose ball from a bad headed clearance are not a success of tactics or system. Subs spoiled the game, made it scrappy and every bit of luck that could go our way, went our way.

I give credit when Parker gets it right, he didn't today IMO.

This is what an agenda looks like btw.

[Bordeauxclaret]

That win was because of Parker, it’s irrelevant if the change was forced on him or not.

His changes won us the game.

[Rileybobs]

Why?

After the Flemming / Hannibal sub on 64 mins we had fewer shots on goal in the following 35 minutes than we did in the 19 minutes (3 minutes of which was treatment and subbing Sarmiento) prior. Those 2 shots were both goals but neither was really a proper chance we created. They were a moment of absolute quality from an individual player and lucky loose ball from a botched headed clearance.

We had luck fall our way as they missed a sitter at the death and we had Trafford's magnificence to thank for keeping it to a 1 goal deficit shortly before the subs.

I enjoyed the second half and I'm very happy with the win, but that wasn't a turnaround brought about by tactical brilliance or inspired substitutions. 99 times out of a 100, we don't win that. It was luck and a couple of individual moments of quality.

I’ve got a pretty cool stat for you. Burnley won and Parker is Burnley’s manager.

Flemming’s goal was a worldie, but we won a free kick in a dangerous area having been camped in Norwich’s half and pressing high since the half time break. The second goal was a good move which included a bit of fortune.

On the flip side, Norwich scored from a dead ball.

[Blyclaret]

Why?

After the Flemming / Hannibal sub on 64 mins we had fewer shots on goal in the following 35 minutes than we did in the 19 minutes (3 minutes of which was treatment and subbing Sarmiento) prior. Those 2 shots were both goals but neither was really a proper chance we created. They were a moment of absolute quality from an individual player and lucky loose ball from a botched headed clearance.

We had luck fall our way as they missed a sitter at the death and we had Trafford's magnificence to thank for keeping it to a 1 goal deficit shortly before the subs.

I enjoyed the second half and I'm very happy with the win, but that wasn't a turnaround brought about by tactical brilliance or inspired substitutions. 99 times out of a 100, we don't win that. It was luck and a couple of individual moments of quality.

You are another clown looking to downgrade a fantastic win. Looking to big urself up. Just admit you are wrong.

[Hipper]

I tend to agree with Mattster and DA. Parker can be given credit when he deserves it but he can also be criticised when he fails.

Parker picked a team that was diabolical in the first fourteen minutes and not much better after that. What went wrong?

I didn't think we were much better in the second half although Laurent tried to drive us forward. It was only Flemming's wonder goal that fully energised the team and lead to the win.

Overall I found it a disappointing performance tempered by the fact that we won. That follows on from a disappointing home performance against Derby and a pretty good one with Middlesbrough.

[TsarBomba]

He has a great squad even discounting the long term injuries and he has spent plenty of money bringing players in. He's brought in Worral, Humphries, Pires, Hannibal, Laurent, Anthony, Sarmiento and Flemming to add to players like Trafford, Roberts, Esteve, Brownhill, Cullen, Koleosho and Foster

Difference from 2 years ago isnt the squad the managers inherited but how they spent their money and used their loans. Kompany hardly paid big for anyone which helped him to get more players and allow a fair few to miss. The ones that didn't miss (Muric, Harwood-Bellis, Beyer, Maatsen, Cullen, Zaroury, Benson and Tella) made up the majority of the regular starting 11 (7 of those 8 would usually make our staring 11)

Results and position wise we are doing well but there needs to be a lot of improvement in the performances if this teams gonna challenge Leeds and Sheff Utd for an automatic spot which is the level we should be at.

On the whole I think performances have been ok. Parker knows we need to be better at home against teams employing a low block. Unfortunately, I don’t think we have the wingers with the technical ability to break these types of teams down at the moment.

We shouldn’t be expecting to dominate sides like Norwich, who have only lost 1 game all year at home, for 60-70 minutes. We did dominate them for pretty much the entire second half and we won the game. What exactly are we expecting? To roll up and win 3-0, 4-0? Not with this team. Expectations need to be lowered for some games.

There’ll also be plenty of teams saying performances need to improve- Leeds have won 1 in 7 away from home. Sunderland only recently drew 5 on the spin.

[TPClaret]

I'm sure I'll get s*** for it but I am not having that as going down as a win for Parker. A 30 yard thunderc*** and a fortunate loose ball from a bad headed clearance are not a success of tactics or system. Subs spoiled the game, made it scrappy and every bit of luck that could go our way, went our way.

I give credit when Parker gets it right, he didn't today IMO.

So Parker said nothing at half time in the dressing room, didn’t tweak any tactics. Listen to the player interviews, they were a different team 2nd half.

[RVclaret]

It’s blatantly obvious to anyone without a weird agenda that we were far, far better second half, combined with the subs making a big difference and tweaks to the pressing helping us gain territorial advantage. It’s nice for us to finally score an absolute banger, Norwich with Borja Sainz been at them all season. It’s also fine to admit we still didn’t create enough chances and the last 2 games have taken a step back on that front.

[warksclaret]

Load of bo..ocks on this post. Why dont we just embrace the win and points at a difficult ground to come to. A team that has held Sheff Utd, Leeds and Boro here. It just happens to be 5 wins and 2 draws in 7 games or 17 points from 7 games. Anyone would think we were plummeting and we are doing it without a striker.

[TPClaret]

Exactly if we’d have beat Derby and drawn here everyone would have been happy with 4 points.

[dermotdermot]

Still needs to do something about that jacket though. Looks really uncomfortable and that stain on the right shoulder looks like it’s here to stay.

[fidelcastro]

Still needs to do something about that jacket though. Looks really uncomfortable and that stain on the right shoulder looks like it’s here to stay.

If I'd paid four grand for it, I'm sure I'd be getting plenty of wear out of it too!

[claretspice]

Excellent game management today

I can't agree with this. We managed the second half pretty well, but the logic of the team selections in the last 2 games, and arguably the last 3, completely escapes me.

Against Derby, we were likely to come up against a back 5, sitting deep and creating an onus on us to be really good on the ball, work tight spaces and most of all have players committed to the final third who like to be in the final third. In other words, behind a striker we needed someone playing off him as a second striker or number 10, as well as two wide players stretching the game. Oddly though, we dropped Koleosho and played Sarmiento off the left and added in Laurent who is basically a player who does his best work out of possession or by carrying it - he's not much of an incisive passer. Per Tony's match report, that felt negative at the time and so it proved.

Today, it was pretty obvious that Norwich would want to have plenty of the ball, are a good, neat and tidy technical team but would give us a chance if we could press effectively. In other words, it was likely to be a game which would value Laurent's ability to add a real imposing edge to our play without the ball (to press and win the ball back, and then instigate counter-attacks by carrying the ball) more than the ability of Sarmiento to help us unlock a packed defence. So it proved - in the first half our pressing was rubbish and Norwich passed through us far too easily, and the game changed when Laurent came on because of an injury to Sarmiento.

It all felt the wrong way round. You could even take that back a game further - given conditions, and the way Boro play (i.e., like Norwich) you could easily argue for us to play a 4-3-3 with Brownhill, Laurent and Cullen in the Boro and Norwich games, with the extra attacker deployed against Derby. I still don't understand why we've done the exact opposite and but for an injury today it might well have been costly. In the event, the decision to bring on Laurent changed the game to get us back some measure of control - and Parker does then deserve some credit for the creative decision to go to a back 3 and use Hannibal as a wing back.

But the logic of the set up from the start was odd and it damn near cost us. In the event 5 points from the three games is a decent return that we'd have all taken 10 days ago, and Parker can certainly take credit for the team spirit and resilience that we've shown in 2 of those 3 games.

[warksclaret]

He seemed to have taken over today-briefing the subs as they went on, using the magnetic board with the subs, changing the defence round in the second half, and regularly calling players over to have a chat. It was good to see him reacting. What I also noticed was that when Jackson is talking to him during games he never responds-not sure if he is taking it in

[TPClaret]

I can't agree with this. We managed the second half pretty well, but the logic of the team selections in the last 2 games, and arguably the last 3, completely escapes me.

Against Derby, we were likely to come up against a back 5, sitting deep and creating an onus on us to be really good on the ball, work tight spaces and most of all have players committed to the final third who like to be in the final third. In other words, behind a striker we needed someone playing off him as a second striker or number 10, as well as two wide players stretching the game. Oddly though, we dropped Koleosho and played Sarmiento off the left and added in Laurent who is basically a player who does his best work out of possession or by carrying it - he's not much of an incisive passer. Per Tony's match report, that felt negative at the time and so it proved.

Today, it was pretty obvious that Norwich would want to have plenty of the ball, are a good, neat and tidy technical team but would give us a chance if we could press effectively. In other words, it was likely to be a game which would value Laurent's ability to add a real imposing edge to our play without the ball (to press and win the ball back, and then instigate counter-attacks by carrying the ball) more than the ability of Sarmiento to help us unlock a packed defence. So it proved - in the first half our pressing was rubbish and Norwich passed through us far too easily, and the game changed when Laurent came on because of an injury to Sarmiento.

It all felt the wrong way round. You could even take that back a game further - given conditions, and the way Boro play (i.e., like Norwich) you could easily argue for us to play a 4-3-3 with Brownhill, Laurent and Cullen in the Boro and Norwich games, with the extra attacker deployed against Derby. I still don't understand why we've done the exact opposite and but for an injury today it might well have been costly. In the event, the decision to bring on Laurent changed the game to get us back some measure of control - and Parker does then deserve some credit for the creative decision to go to a back 3 and use Hannibal as a wing back.

But the logic of the set up from the start was odd and it damn near cost us. In the event 5 points from the three games is a decent return that we'd have all taken 10 days ago, and Parker can certainly take credit for the team spirit and resilience that we've shown in 2 of those 3 games.

Zzzzzzzz

[claretspice]

Zzzzzzzz

Cheers for that

[quoonbeatz]

Parker picked a team that was diabolical in the first fourteen minutes and not much better after that. What went wrong?

Well there’s two teams on the pitch. They pressed us from the off and a clown show first 2 mins saw us behind. We have a young back 5 and it took the team some time to recover their composure against a side who have an excellent home record and were booted by the early goal.

We were coming back into it by half time and the second half was miles better. We deserved the win in the end.

[GetIntoEm]

Someone actually said that shouldn't go down as a parker win. Hilarious. Too many netto beers for some

[TPClaret]

Funny how Norwich fans are praising Parker for his substitutions which changed the game.

[Rick_Muller]

I’ve previously been accused of being a happy clapper and even I think the second half turnaround had large elements of luck involved. 99 times out of 100 and Flemmings effort doesn’t go in, and the ball fell kindly to Brownhill. Trafford was possessed in the second half and did brilliantly to keep them out on a few occasions. The enforced substitution of Sarmiento cannot give credit to Parker, but he can have claim to bringing on the energy of Hannibal and Flemming. Mixed bag for me, and I said it on the match thread that it feels like we’re papering over the cracks.

I think I’d be right in saying he’s not playing Flemming and Jay at the same time because he know neither can currently last 90 minutes so it’s a forced one or the other scenario. If he had further options from the bench would he choose them two players to start? I’m not sure. I think with a fully fit squad it’s Foster and Flemming up top.

All that said, he must have said the right things at half time, as the result shows. So he does deserve some credit, but it ain’t all rosey for me - I want that second half passion all game every game and more attacking flair like the second half in every game, even at the risk of conceding more. Needs to roll the dice more often IMO.

[RVclaret]

I can't agree with this. We managed the second half pretty well, but the logic of the team selections in the last 2 games, and arguably the last 3, completely escapes me.

Against Derby, we were likely to come up against a back 5, sitting deep and creating an onus on us to be really good on the ball, work tight spaces and most of all have players committed to the final third who like to be in the final third. In other words, behind a striker we needed someone playing off him as a second striker or number 10, as well as two wide players stretching the game. Oddly though, we dropped Koleosho and played Sarmiento off the left and added in Laurent who is basically a player who does his best work out of possession or by carrying it - he's not much of an incisive passer. Per Tony's match report, that felt negative at the time and so it proved.

Today, it was pretty obvious that Norwich would want to have plenty of the ball, are a good, neat and tidy technical team but would give us a chance if we could press effectively. In other words, it was likely to be a game which would value Laurent's ability to add a real imposing edge to our play without the ball (to press and win the ball back, and then instigate counter-attacks by carrying the ball) more than the ability of Sarmiento to help us unlock a packed defence. So it proved - in the first half our pressing was rubbish and Norwich passed through us far too easily, and the game changed when Laurent came on because of an injury to Sarmiento.

It all felt the wrong way round. You could even take that back a game further - given conditions, and the way Boro play (i.e., like Norwich) you could easily argue for us to play a 4-3-3 with Brownhill, Laurent and Cullen in the Boro and Norwich games, with the extra attacker deployed against Derby. I still don't understand why we've done the exact opposite and but for an injury today it might well have been costly. In the event, the decision to bring on Laurent changed the game to get us back some measure of control - and Parker does then deserve some credit for the creative decision to go to a back 3 and use Hannibal as a wing back.

But the logic of the set up from the start was odd and it damn near cost us. In the event 5 points from the three games is a decent return that we'd have all taken 10 days ago, and Parker can certainly take credit for the team spirit and resilience that we've shown in 2 of those 3 games.

We set up like that away at West Brom, another tidy technical type team, and played quite well and deserved a win.

[claretspice]

We set up like that away at West Brom, another tidy technical type team, and played quite well and deserved a win.

West Brom are nowhere near as possesion based, expansive or committed to playing front deep as Norwich (or Boro for that matter).

[GetIntoEm]

I’ve previously been accused of being a happy clapper and even I think the second half turnaround had large elements of luck involved. 99 times out of 100 and Flemmings effort doesn’t go in, and the ball fell kindly to Brownhill. Trafford was possessed in the second half and did brilliantly to keep them out on a few occasions. The enforced substitution of Sarmiento cannot give credit to Parker, but he can have claim to bringing on the energy of Hannibal and Flemming. Mixed bag for me, and I said it on the match thread that it feels like we’re papering over the cracks.

I think I’d be right in saying he’s not playing Flemming and Jay at the same time because he know neither can currently last 90 minutes so it’s a forced one or the other scenario. If he had further options from the bench would he choose them two players to start? I’m not sure. I think with a fully fit squad it’s Foster and Flemming up top.

All that said, he must have said the right things at half time, as the result shows. So he does deserve some credit, but it ain’t all rosey for me - I want that second half passion all game every game and more attacking flair like the second half in every game, even at the risk of conceding more. Needs to roll the dice more often IMO.

The finish from brownhill was top class. It didn't fall kindly at all

[quoonbeatz]

Bit odd not giving the manager credit for the Sarmiento sub, does he not choose who to bring on and what to change?

[RVclaret]

West Brom are nowhere near as possesion based, expensive or committed to playing front deep as Norwich (or Boro for that matter).

Still a side that plays out and presses. Isn’t the Boro game an example which counters this view? We played with the 3 behind Rodriguez right, same as today?

I agree with the bit on midweek v Derby albeit I’m conscious playing 35 yr old Jay Rod and Koleosho (struggled last time we had a 3 game week) from the start could have influenced that.

[Rick_Muller]

Bit odd not giving the manager credit for the Sarmiento sub, does he not choose who to bring on and what to change?

Bit odd to suggest he gets credit for an injury too though don’t you think?

[TsarBomba]

Funny how Norwich fans are praising Parker for his substitutions which changed the game.

Watched a stream with (I think) Radio Norfolk, or at least Norfolk based commentators, and they were very complimentary about us second half.

[Newcastleclaret93]

I’ve previously been accused of being a happy clapper and even I think the second half turnaround had large elements of luck involved. 99 times out of 100 and Flemmings effort doesn’t go in, and the ball fell kindly to Brownhill. Trafford was possessed in the second half and did brilliantly to keep them out on a few occasions. The enforced substitution of Sarmiento cannot give credit to Parker, but he can have claim to bringing on the energy of Hannibal and Flemming. Mixed bag for me, and I said it on the match thread that it feels like we’re papering over the cracks.

I think I’d be right in saying he’s not playing Flemming and Jay at the same time because he know neither can currently last 90 minutes so it’s a forced one or the other scenario. If he had further options from the bench would he choose them two players to start? I’m not sure. I think with a fully fit squad it’s Foster and Flemming up top.

All that said, he must have said the right things at half time, as the result shows. So he does deserve some credit, but it ain’t all rosey for me - I want that second half passion all game every game and more attacking flair like the second half in every game, even at the risk of conceding more. Needs to roll the dice more often IMO.

I tend to agree with what you’re saying about luck at the moment.

However, I also think Parker has been incredibly unlucky with injuries. I would go as far as saying I don’t think there’s any other team in the league that has had to deal with the level of injuries we have to key players all through the season.

We are nearly 50% of the way through season and I still don’t think we have seen Parker’s starting eleven (due to injury)

[Rick_Muller]

The finish from brownhill was top class. It didn't fall kindly at all

No doubt Josh took it well, but only as a result of it falling to him in a way that he could strike it so well as he did, I.e. falling kindly to him

[Rick_Muller]

I tend to agree with what you’re saying about luck at the moment.

However, I also think Parker has been incredibly unlucky with injuries. I would go as far as saying I don’t think there’s any other team in the league that has had to deal with the level of injuries we have to key players all through the season.

We are nearly 50% of the way through season and I still don’t think we have seen Parker’s starting eleven (due to injury)

Not often I agree with you but on this you’re spot on. In fact I hope we do get to see his first choice 11 as I think it would alleviate the concerns of many.

[taio]

No doubt Josh took it well, but only as a result of it falling to him in a way that he could strike it so well as he did, I.e. falling kindly to him

It came from a poor headed clearance. And Brownhill chested it down to set himself up for his strike.

[quoonbeatz]

Bit odd to suggest he gets credit for an injury too though don’t you think?

I don’t think anyone has suggested that.

[Rick_Muller]

It came from a poor headed clearance. And Brownhill chested it down to set himself up for his strike.

Soooo from the poor headed clearance it fell kindly to him? If it was a great headed clearance he’d have been nowhere near it would he.

I swear some people look for anything to criticise in people’s opinions, and this is mine - it fell kindly to Josh AND he took it excellently well

[Rick_Muller]

I don’t think anyone has suggested that.

It was an inference from your response to me

[taio]

Soooo from the poor headed clearance it fell kindly to him? If it was a great headed clearance he’d have been nowhere near it would he.

I swear some people look for anything to criticise in people’s opinions, and this is mine - it fell kindly to Josh AND he took it excellently well

It didn't 'fall to him in a way that he could strike it so well as he did'
- he took the touch to set himself up.

[Rick_Muller]

I give up

[quoonbeatz]

It was an inference from your response to me

I inferred no such thing. I said it would be a bit odd to not give someone credit for a positive decision they made.

[GetIntoEm]

I give up

You probably should, just admit it was a good goal

[Rick_Muller]

You probably should, just admit it was a good goal

Soooo from the poor headed clearance it fell kindly to him? If it was a great headed clearance he’d have been nowhere near it would he.

I swear some people look for anything to criticise in people’s opinions, and this is mine - it fell kindly to Josh AND he took it excellently well

Was that not what I said?

[dvalley69]

I tend to agree with what you’re saying about luck at the moment.

However, I also think Parker has been incredibly unlucky with injuries. I would go as far as saying I don’t think there’s any other team in the league that has had to deal with the level of injuries we have to key players all through the season.

We are nearly 50% of the way through season and I still don’t think we have seen Parker’s starting eleven (due to injury)

Coventry (H), Stoke (A), Middlesbrough (H), Bristol City (A) - VERY LUCKY RESULTS RECENTLY..................