3 things Norwich City learned from Liverpool heartbreak

Saturday’s lunch-time kick-off saw Norwich City dramatically lose 5-4 to Liverpool in a game which is sure to be filed as a Premier League classic. Some may see a 9 goal thriller and think that the attacking prowess on show was of high quality - this couldn’t have been more from the case as Liverpool narrowly edged the battle of “who had the least worse defence”. I’m going to try and unpick from the debris that remained and identify what City may have learned from the defeat…

Our defence is not good enough

I may as well start with stating the obvious. If Norwich continue to defend with such incompetence then we will be relegated. It is as simple as that. Saturday’s game marks the 4th successive match that we have conceded 3+ and, for a side who harbours any aspirations of survival, this is unacceptable. It was not just the individual errors, namely Russell Martin’s suicidal back pass for Liverpool’s 4th, that cost us the game, more worryingly, it was the whole defensive structure of the side that was poor. There seemed to be no organisation, leadership or any sense of defending ‘as a team’.

Perhaps this was to be expected when the line-up was revealed to show the absence of Tettey, Mulumbu and the suspended O’Neil. Dorrans and Howson were played in the centre of midfield - where at least one of the aforementioned three would usually play - and it proved costly. Dorrans’ failure to track Henderson for the goal that brought Liverpool back into the game perfectly demonstrated his inability to play in the role he was given. It’s hard to blame the pair, they are both primarily attacking midfielders and were being asked to play an unfamiliar role. That Neil allowed this to happen when we had a player, Mulumbu, who has excelled in this role throughout his career, sat on the bench, baffles me. The work that Dorrans, and, to a slightly lesser extent, Howson, failed to do is exactly the sort of work that Alexander Tettey does so reliably but that equally so often goes unnoticed, and is exactly the reason why I believe that - for all of his lack of technical ability - the Norweigan is one of our most important players.

Change of plan: we don’t need more strikers

Having secured the signings of Naismith and Klose, Alex Neil admitted that the club were still hoping to sign “one or two more”. Prior to Saturday’s game, the vast majority of the rumours relating to these additions revolved around further attacking reinforcements, with Patrick Bamford in particular being linked. I can’t help but think that last week’s showing may have diverted Neil’s interests elsewhere. Firstly, in just his first 90 minutes Naismith proved that he is an absolute class above anything that we already have. His movement, first touch, link-up play and superb finish for his debut goal demonstrated perfectly why Neil coveted him so dearly. Mbokani put in a good performance once more and finally topped it with a goal, while the pair suggested that a potentially lethal partnership is in the offing. When you add Wes Hoolahan’s creativity to the mix, I think that, offensively wise, we are perfectly set for the run-in. How many times has a Premier League team scored 4 goals at home and still lost the game? You can only look at the defence. If we really are still looking to spend then it surely has to be on a player that will strengthen our defence, even if it is not necessarily a defender. Spending elsewhere would be a luxury rather than a necessity, and with survival well and truly on the line, we have no time for luxuries.

Alex Neil’s substitutions continue to be questionable

If there was one thing that City fans would question about Alex Neil’s overwhelmingly faultless tenure at the club it would most likely be in relation to his substitutions. Far too often they are either too late or ineffective and Saturday was no different. Firstly, the decision to take Naismith off was surprising. While he has just recovered from an injury and hasn’t played a full 90 minutes in many months, he was our best player and, at 4-3, when chasing a goal you want your best offensive players on the pitch - and I’m sure an extra 8 minutes wouldn’t have done too much damage. Furthermore, to expect Jerome to make an impact in just 8 minutes, when on numerous occasions he has failed to do so in 90, is a little wishful thinking. In his 20 minutes on the pitch Matt Jarvis must have touched the ball less than dozen times - I barely noticed him - and the same goes for Martin Olsson. Why no Mulumbu, or even Klose, to protect our evidently fragile defence when we were (briefly) protecting a lead? Once more, Neil’s substitutions seemed naive to me and it goes to show that he is, understandably at just 34 years of age, still a work in progress - albeit a very special one.