Two Very Different Manners of Defeat

Mourinho claims the day he goes home from a defeat happy, will be the day he is finished with football. That may be the case for a club that can afford £30 million on a substitute, but for us Norwich fans, we should be content with a performance that made a real account of ourselves against a Chelsea squad full of talent. When we lost to Tottenham a few weeks back, our fans proclaimed they didn't mind the fact we had lost, it was the manner in which we lost that was unacceptable. We offered nothing - it was as if defeat was inevitable before the game had kicked off. Today we lost by the same margin, but the difference in reception at the final whistle was clear for all to see. Rightfully so, our team were applauded off the field following a performance that deserved some reward. A performance that Hughton can be very proud of, for his team went all-out for it. 1-1 wasn't good enough. Make no mistake about it, he was after the three points.

Questions again could be asked at the start as to why Hooper was yet again left out following a string of insignificant performances from our record signing. It was debated whether there was significant reason to alter a side that had secured victory only a week earlier. Quite simply, yes, you can. A winning side is only a winning side when the individuals within that team have been effective in achieving the win. In my opinion, neither Snodgrass nor van Wolfswinkel had shown enough. Secondly, the 'winning side' had already been broken with the introduction of Bassong into a back four that had performed remarkably away at Stoke. Bassong was brought back simply because the individual benefits the team, of that there is no doubt. Therefore, what changes with the offensive players? Nothing. It would have been perfectly reasonable to drop either Snodgrass or RVW on the basis that neither had done enough to secure a start. Win or no win.

However, van Wolfswinkel deserves his praise for today. Often ineffective upfront on his own, today he caused some problems and, of course, played a pivotal role in a well-deserved goal. Ollson's fantastic cross had given the Dutchman two options. One, test the keeper - power a header at goal when a potential opportunity comes to end an ongoing goal drought. Second, nod the ball across goal for somebody else to take an easier chance, and indeed the plaudits. For a striker desperate for a goal to take the latter option is exceptional professionalism. There is no doubting RVW's first-class attitude. It's his ability to continue his scoring prowess in the English game that we all hope materialises. For today, a job very well done, and hopefully a confidence booster for a player that deserves a break. 

In Snodgrass, you have a player of whom it is becoming tiresome to criticise every week. Not because its unjust, but because I don't know how much longer he can continue to hold down his place. Once again, his effectiveness from dead ball situations was non-existent, almost every time. I'm not sure why he's continuously allocated the role of set-piece taker. Admittedly, Redmond wouldn't have been fit to start this week, but Hughton surely cannot be happy with the performances of his trusted right-winger. I was happy to see him substituted today, and I hope to see Redmond and Pilkington given the nod in the coming weeks. Pilkington started off slowly, getting knocked off the ball a few times, but really came into the game later on and deserved his goal. As for Redmond, well, his first opportunity to attack proved to be more effective than anything Snodgrass had done previous, forcing a strong save from Cech.

The midfield three of Tettey, Howson and Fer have rightfully earned considerable praise. Fer is a class act in just about everything he does. So comfortable on the ball and physical without it, we have a midfielder of real ability here. Yet again a worthy contender of man of the match. As for Howson, where has his strength come from? The seemingly lightweight midfielder proved a difficult challenge for a physically capable Chelsea side on numerous occasions. It has been a delight to see him coming out of his shell in the last few weeks alongside Fer, and long may it continue. When Fer and Howson play ahead of the more defensive Tettey, it allows both to push forward, and we have began to really see the effects. I feel sorry for Tettey today. Effectively, his under-hit back-pass has lost us the game, but prior to that incident he had put in a fantastic shift - breaking up play and supporting the back four. When he sits deep, the chances of his usually-common mistakes are limited. However, that's the downfall, Tettey always has a poor pass or a wayward header that presents a consistent burden to his game. We shouldn't point the finger at Tettey, though. He has earned his place and if he can cut out all-too-regular issues with his distribution, we have a very capable midfield trio that offers both attacking positivity and defensive support.

Olsson was man of the match for me, though. What a player he can be. First half, he was our biggest threat down the flanks. Ollson's trademark is the ability to cross whilst still on the run, a dying art in the modern game. Not only that, his crossing is excellent, as shown with our goal and many times before that. Defensively, his pace makes up for an attacking mind, as could be seen with the way he dealt with a nimble Chelsea attack whilst consistently providing an attacking threat himself. Long may Olsson's quality be allowed to flourish - I just wish it was a week earlier, back when we were facing Villa at home.

A shaky start allowed Ba to cause far too many problems in our defence, which has cost us dearly. Against top sides, you cannot afford such early lapses in concentration. It was worrying to see Bassong unusually dominated by Ba's physical presence. Joe Hart's recent criticism has also provided a potential burden on Ruddy, as talk increases of the need for a new number one for England. As Hart's current understudy, I think Ruddy has felt the pressure, leading to a few shaky moments - one in which allowed Chelsea to regain the lead. You can't look too much into Ruddy's few mistakes, especially when a couple of top class saves, most notably from Ba, have kept us in the game. As annoying as it is that Ruddy is overlooked for the national side - whilst Hart's performances continue to falter as a result of consistently overbearing criticism, I welcome the absence of such pressure in Ruddy's direction from an increasingly over-expectant nation.

Next we play Arsenal away, at the worst possible time. The main dilemma Hughton has for me is whether to go with Hooper or stick with van Wolfswinkel. RVW has arguably earnt his place, but having found goals so hard to come by, it's ultimately unlikely for him to find the net against the league's 'in form' side. In which case, do you go with Hooper, a relatively unknown-quantity at this level? He won't go for both, and rightfully so with such a difficult fixture, but for this week I can see justifications for whichever of the two he opts for. As for the performance, more of the same will do very nicely, and will give those amongst us still forcefully debating Hughton's managerial ability little room for criticism.