Norwood + Osborne

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


To be honest, I'm not that deflated. They looked (and are) levels above us, but we came back and created enough chances to be well in it.

I think the reaction has been a little over the top. I wouldn't think the players will get too down about losing an FA cup game to Brighton, considering the season they've already had.
 
I know Wilder said he had one eye on the Palace game but I think today he was out to prove why the likes of Norwood are no longer required. Bergen Blade pointed out how poor he was in the other thread dismantling his performance.

Osborn does what Osborn does runs around puts himself about. He performed better in the 2nd half before being replaced by Brooks.
 
Fjortoft's Aeroplane said:
Playing against Premier League opposition in the cup with the dynamo midfield of Norwood & Osborne tells me we clearly weren't too bothered about winning today. I highly doubt Wilder would start them together in a Prem league match.

Try not to get to deflated today, easier said than done though!
Click to expand...
We’re limited on squad numbers and in the midfield in particular. They’re also too small. Too lightweight, but that’s not the extent of their issues.

Norwood is just about hanging in there, but only when there is a more physical presence around him. He’s no longer able to handle the demands of the physical side as the midfield needs to be more athletic all round. In the past he’s played the role of ball player and putting in last ditch tackles to protect the centre halves. He isn’t able to do just that. Needs to be more box to box, especially when we effectively have three up top.

Osborn played the best ball I’ve seen him play through to Osula, he played some decent balls as well as some good crosses. So I’m sure he’s worked on that part of his game as well, but positionally he’s not up to this level, he’s an athletic lad and follows instruction, no doubt. However, he’s not good enough to play as long as he did.

Brighton are deceptive. They can pass and move and they’ve shown twice against us that if we let them play, they can look worlds apart. But press them and be organised out of possession, they will give the ball away. In an open game they will hurt sides like us because we don’t have the midfield to press and put the work in to maintain our positions out of possession. That’s not just about Osborn and Norwood. But when you’ve got one that isn’t up to the press and another that looks fit but lost, it puts pressure on all over the pitch.
 
Bladesman said:
I know Wilder said he had one eye on the Palace game but I think today he was out to prove why the likes of Norwood are no longer required. Bergen Blade pointed out how poor he was in the other thread dismantling his performance.

Osborn does what Osborn does runs around puts himself about. He performed better in the 2nd half before being replaced by Brooks.
Click to expand...
Jack Russel terriers run about too, dunt make em good footballers
 
SwissBlade said:
We’re limited on squad numbers and in the midfield in particular. They’re also too small. Too lightweight, but that’s not the extent of their issues.

Norwood is just about hanging in there, but only when there is a more physical presence around him. He’s no longer able to handle the demands of the physical side as the midfield needs to be more athletic all round. In the past he’s played the role of ball player and putting in last ditch tackles to protect the centre halves. He isn’t able to do just that. Needs to be more box to box, especially when we effectively have three up top.

Osborn played the best ball I’ve seen him play through to Osula, he played some decent balls as well as some good crosses. So I’m sure he’s worked on that part of his game as well, but positionally he’s not up to this level, he’s an athletic lad and follows instruction, no doubt. However, he’s not good enough to play as long as he did.

Brighton are deceptive. They can pass and move and they’ve shown twice against us that if we let them play, they can look worlds apart. But press them and be organised out of possession, they will give the ball away. In an open game they will hurt sides like us because we don’t have the midfield to press and put the work in to maintain our positions out of possession. That’s not just about Osborn and Norwood. But when you’ve got one that isn’t up to the press and another that looks fit but lost, it puts pressure on all over the pitch.
Click to expand...
You won’t see a better pass than that all year tbh.

UTB
 
Bladesman said:
I know Wilder said he had one eye on the Palace game but I think today he was out to prove why the likes of Norwood are no longer required. Bergen Blade pointed out how poor he was in the other thread dismantling his performance.

Osborn does what Osborn does runs around puts himself about. He performed better in the 2nd half before being replaced by Brooks.
Click to expand...
To who is he trying to prove they are no longer good enough? Certainty not the fans as we knew 2 years ago they arent! He picks the team and if he knows they aren't he should pick someone else. If we were throwing the towel in on the FA Cup and saving players for Palace give Slimane more minutes or throw one of kids like Sydie Peck in instead.
 
Don’t think there is any need to demean these lads or Fleck for that matter.

The truth is nothing lasts forever.

Fleck has seen three successful promotions, 3 Premier League campaigns and a loss on penalties in the playoffs.

We’ll look back and realise that is a pretty good return from 8 years as a Blade in modern times.

Norwood has, in 6.5 years seen three Premier League seasons, two promotions and a play off loss on penalties. Again, a superb return on his time with us.

Osborn, whilst never a regular, had managed three seasons of PL football, a promotion and a loss on penalties in his 5 seasons. He’ll rightly have some good memories of being in an infancied team often punching above its weight.

But just like over time, we’ll all look back fondly on our first love, you also accept that nothing lasts forever.
I’d fully expect them all to move on now with our best wishes, simply because the wage their status at the club demands now far eclipses what their contribution will be and it will be time for the Arblasters, Brooks and Davies of the squad to have their moment as we bank the wages to support a much more sustainable wage bill.

The same will likely happen to Basham and it must be a close call on Baldock and Egan too.

Hopefully Chris will be able to create his United v 2.0 with as much success. His blooding of Brooks and his mentions of Arblaster suggest he’s ready to do just that.

In addition, unlike Hecky, he’s clearly prepared to be ruthless. It looks like Wes has talked or acted his way out of consideration and as I’m sure Chris will hammer home, nobody is bigger than the club.
 
If either of these two are offered new contacts, I’ll be very disappointed.

One has been an excellent servant to the club and one of the best in my lifetime. He should be allowed to go before he becomes more of a liability and people begin to look on him badly.

Osborn reminds me of how I’d probably look if I was to get a game.
 
We should have been bothered about winning

I understand the Palace game considerations, but we could have at least brought on our best players at half time, and taken advantage of the bonus of being level. But we didn't, and fell behind again in no time

We still could have had 3 or 4 goals. A result was more possible there than the scoreline suggests. I was actually encouraged by a lot of it, again. But that midfield was never likely to put up too much resistance. In fact the entire line up was almost designed to lose, because we left out our 3 most aggressive players, and that's something we badly need against an opponent like that

As for Norwood and Osborn, both need releasing. We simply need to move on from Norwood. We have to start timing sales/departures better. For how not to, see Fleck. I'd be happy to keep Osborn, but he gets injured too much, and for his sake he shouldn't accept another season being a peripheral squad player. Brooks is a partial replacement, signing another LWB would complete the job
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom