WAS IT WORTH IT? 19th DECEMBER 2009

WAS IT WORTH IT?

The weather made my round trip to Carrow Road on Saturday for the Huddersfield game considerably more difficult than usual. In particular my return journey, which normally takes just over an hour, was a nightmare as I peered through a filthy windscreen (washers frozen up) and then got diverted down untreated country lanes for about 7 miles owing to an accident. Arriving home in mid-evening, sliding my car down glassy roads as the next snowfall came, I was greeted by my wife who asked ‘Was it worth it?’

And the answer? Undoubtedly. Absolutely. Most definitely.

 I had been a little worried about Huddersfield, having seen them scoring for fun every week on The Football League show. The first half at a freezing Carrow Road did little to assuage my worries, either, as the visitors, backed by an initially very noisy support, set about us in very positive fashion. City were very much second best and only a great save with his knees by Fraser Forster kept the scores level. Most City fans, I am sure, felt pleased, like me, to hear the half-time whistle bringing with it the opportunity for Paul Lambert to ‘have a word’. I reflected in the break on how much we missed Korey Smith and Jens Berthel Askou. Tom Adeyemi, in for Smith, had been somewhat outmuscled by the Huddersfield midfield and Michael Nelson had given us a few heart-stopping moments owing to his occasional discomfort in possession. One of the most characteristic aspects of Smith’s game is his closing down of opponents and that was a feature very much missing from The Canaries’ first half performance. The other particular concern was the difficulty Wes Hoolahan had found in getting into the game.

The manager made only one change at the interval, bringing on Stephen Hughes for Adeyemi but it was the influence his words in the dressing room had on every member of the side which transformed the game and saw City produce an outstanding second half display which mocked their efforts in the first forty-five minutes. Suddenly there were players closing down opponents all over the pitch, Nelson became decisive, Hughes found space and wanted the ball, Darel Russell broke down every threat from the visitors and, crucially, Hoolahan began to weave his magic. Once Simon Lappin had won a ball in the centre of the pitch, allowing Chris Martin to free the Irishman who raced on to score spectacularly from outside the box there was only ever going to be one winner. The away supporters lost their voice as quickly as we City fans found ours and what followed was as enjoyable a spell at Carrow Road as I can remember for a long time. As the cold closed in the stadium was a noisy, cheerful, confident place and watching Lee Clark on the touchline I did wonder if a little thought of ‘what might have been’ didn’t cross his mind. The whole atmosphere also made me think, not for the first time, of the extent to which relegation has rekindled my joy at watching the lads.

A 3-0 win means that City have now scored 48 league goals in 22 games, leaving Huddersfield on 45 (though they have managed only 12 away from home) and I suppose, on reflection, their fans must have been as worried about the potency of our strike force as I was about theirs. Isn’t that always the way? You always worry about your opponents, never realising how much they are worrying about you. There is a realistic chance, isn’t there, that Hoolahan, Martin and, of course, Grant Holt will all top twenty goals this season? No wonder the good times are back!

The long drive home gave me plenty of time for one or two other reflections on the game. I wondered, for example, whether Paul Lambert’s approach to opposition throw-ins in their own half is a product of his time on the Continent. The fact is that City simply allow their opponents to throw the ball in and only after the ball is in play do we resume the contest, closing down the man in possession etc. If the throw-in is in our defensive half then City do compete and make it difficult for the opposition to find a man but further up the field the throw-in is treated more as a non-competitive restart. On Saturday it was very noticeable how much Huddersfield did not adopt this approach and the extent to which they tried to disrupt our throw-ins and to steal possession at such times. The Lambert approach is definitely that favoured by many continental teams whose coaches feel that it is more sensible to set up their team’s defensive shape properly and allow the opposition to have the ball in front of them and then to deal with it, rather than to commit several players into a scrap for possession, usually strung out along the touchline, only to find that if possession is lost the team’s whole defensive shape is disrupted.

I also considered the nature of the manager’s half-time talk. His post-match interview gave little away (as usual!) as he said what is said in the dressing room remains private, but clearly the quietly-spoken Scot has it in him to fire up his boys when it matters. The whole ground yesterday could see how much more committed to the cause the City players were in the second half. And how important has the acquisition of Fraser Forster become? Another clean sheet (against a free-scoring side) is testimony to his consistency and he really does seem to have worked on his kicking; yesterday it was pretty faultless, including one awkward left-footed clearance, and infinitely superior to that of his opposite number, who regularly sliced his kicks whether from static positions or from pass-backs.

Finally, I felt Huddersfield were a bit like us in the pre-Lambert days. They started well but failed to capitalise and then once they went behind they faded fast. All that time working with Roeder is still influencing Lee Clark it seems!