Match Day Thread Norwich v Chelsea

Liverpool were gifted the first two goals at at Anfield (unforced own goal and a lucky deflection into Firminho's path in front of goal). Chelsea earned their goals today, as did ourselves. They're a top 6 side and will improve under Frank and they were desperate for a win today. Three points from our first three games puts us on course with two top six sides out of the way.

BT showed several examples of how we cleverly overloaded our attack to overwhelm their defenders and set up the two goals and other chances. Very clever.

Edit: When I added the final bit as an edit it somehow duplicated the post. Sorry for any confusion.

 

I'm dreaming - FIRST on MotD!!!!

 

The more I see that 1st Chelsea goal, the more pathetic it looks. Their lone striker, with that much space. No Norwich player aware he was anywhere near. How does that happen?

2nd Chelsea goal is a big error from Aarons, and lack of defending by the group surrounding Mount.

 

Even the third goal, I don't know what they are doing. It's so easy, and so much space. Really weak.

 

It's strange how every single "decision Norwich got away with" got shown. When we have those things go against us. They never make the highlights. They have made us look like a dirty team. Which is absurd.

 

I know what you’re saying but to be fair there was some dubious decisions made in the game that we benefited from in the main. Godfreys challenge on Abraham - I don’t think was a foul, Stieps challenge in the box was very light contact but clumsy and I’d have wanted it given at the other end, Godfreys “stamp” although I believe it was accidental I was suprised he wasn’t carded, the challenge on Krul was clearly a foul yet the ref gave a goal?!?

 

I CAN'T believe the ref gave the goal when Krul got flattened and then the pundits were having orgasms about how good Chelsea were, when we were millimetres away from snatching a point!!!!
Edit - sorry Suffolk, I was just typing my reply when your post came through.

 

As MOTD highlighted, Hanley is so worried about the ball in behind that he gives Abraham the space to receive the pass to feet. Then it doesn't take much to bamboozle Hanley with a little footwork, and it's not a bad finish. Hanley not mobile enough for the amount of space in behind.

Klose surely starts at CB in the cup for minutes, curious who partners him. I'm expecting it to be Godfrey to see how they get on before the West Ham game. Equally, with Tettey and Amadou needing minutes, you could start Amadou at CB to see what he can do, which also means both our current starting CBs can be rested and avoid injuries.

 

Everyone says the Stieps one was a pen. No way that was a Pen. He may have tapped him on the follow through, but nowhere near enough to bring him down, and the ball was away from the attacker! Godfrey was a accident. Krul was fouled. If we did that to their keeper, it wouldn't even be a highlight, let alone a controversy.

 

Mount bamboozled him easily for the 2nd too.

 

Hard to rate today. It's obviously a really tough side to play. And last game I said how good everyone was and still got slagged. Based on MY OPINION:

Krul: 7
Aarons: 6
Godfrey: 9
Hanley: 6
Lewis: 7
Trybull: 6
Leitner: 6
Bendia: 6
Stiepermann: 6
Cantwell: 9
Pukki: 9

 

Just watched that back, not sure if it's Hanley's fault? Looks like he's marking Abraham when Godfrey charges out to meet Mount and misses. That leaves Hanley with two Chelsea players to cover, and by the time Aarons arrives to take Abraham, Mount has stepped inside and shot. It's not a good look when we've got 3 defenders within 5 yards of each other, and all 5 yards from the striker.

 

Happened so often. Plenty of players there, but just lets the attacker drift through. Without even a nudge.

 

GH has also been at fault for quite a few goals already, this year though too.

 

Id almost knock Stiepermann, Hanley, Aarons and Buendia down to 5s. I love them all, but today (yesterday) was an off day imo. Buendia's dribble for the first and assist for the 2nd aside, he was pretty poor 2nd half. Im a big fan if his, but that's as bad as iv seen him play for us.

They all worked hard and that has to be given credit i guess?!

 

I feel he has been quite exposed a couple of times and it will be interesting to see the starting lineup for next Saturday.
Hopefully, the likes of Fährman, Roberts and Amadou will get a run out at Crawley.
If you remember back to list season, we'd a dreadful haul of points going into the first International break, we beat Boro the first game back and the rest is history!!!

https://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwi...ut-norwich-after-carrow-road-defeat-1-5697385

Edit - Just seen this - 'A year ago we lost 0-3 to Leeds. Today I was disappointed we didn’t get something against Chelsea. Funny old game football isn’t it..... '

 

That’s why I couldn’t give them a 5. But I do agree.

 

I thought Buendia was distinctly below par all game yesterday
(having set impeccable standards last season), yet:-

 

He missed a lot of pre season due to injury and appears to be playing catch up.

 

Agree with you FML. All three incidents would have been reviewed by the VAR (not just the foul on Krul), and IMO all three vindicate its use. We didn't "get away" with anything; on the contrary, we were protected from a series of injustices.
The ref's initial awarding of the goal was understandable since, from where he was, he couldn't have seen exactly what happened. It needed a side on view of the incident to show clearly that Giroud jumped into Krul in the air rather than simply going up for the ball.
The Godfrey incident raises an interesting question regarding the rule that a player can be "cited" for an offence "ex post facto" if the referee fails to see it and take action at the time. Given that we now have a VAR as well as an on-field ref, does the VAR reviewing an incident count as "taking action at the time"? I.E. supposing the referee didn't see Godfrey stand on Mount's foot but the VAR reviewed the incident and failed to alert the ref because the VAR saw nothing wrong in it, does that mean that Godfrey cannot be cited retrospectively?