Jump to content

westcoastcanary

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,437

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by westcoastcanary

  1. Posted

    can u sit down please wrote: "...... What can we do to change the perception? How can we attract new blood for when the majority shareholders call it time?"

    Have you considered that the "perception" is in fact correct, and that the idea that there is something the club could do to change it and make itself more attractive to a seriously wealthy investor is pie in the sky?

  2. Posted

    ruthers1 wrote: "Also, I can''t believe the number of posters who thought the reference to zonal marking was a serious observation. It was sarcasm aimed at the total lack of marking going on."

    Rubbish, your posturing was exposed and you ducked out of answering the question by resorting to "we need a quality CB". Your OP was simply starting another negative thread after all yesterday''s positives.

  3. Posted

    Would it maybe help Alex Neil and the team if ruthers1 explained to them exactly what they should be doing. As for us on here, I''d like to know how to tell whether a team is using zonal marking or not, because, having looked carefully at our set piece goals conceded, to me there seems a lot of man to man marking going on. Most of the problems have been due to the assigned marker losing concentration or being out-thought.

  4. Posted

    Spot on again Dead Canary. While we have Wes, the strategy has to be to set the team up to maximise his effectiveness, the alternative being to leave him out and look to win games without him. This same dilemma is raised looking ahead. People talk about a replacement for Wes, as in someone with the same creative talents. But we won''t find "another Wes"; what we will be looking for is a different type of creative player around whom the team can be shaped with equal effectiveness. Ideally that person needs to be found sooner rather than later, while Wes remains at his peak.

  5. Posted

    Iwan''s Big Toe wrote:

    "Completely agree with your point that defending is not a one mans show. Successful teams defend as a unit, all 10 outfielders. As such I have never once put the blame of conceding goals solely at the feet of Russell Martin, the same as I have never once attributed keeping clean sheets down to just him."

    Glad we can agree on that much at least, and I''m happy to accept that you are not one of those who apparently believe that if a goal is conceded it must be the fault, if not of Martin, at least of someone in the back four.

    "What I have constantly tried to explain is that no matter what the posters on here, the management of Norwich City, the pundits on Sky TV or the player himself claim, the fact remains that we are more solid defensively when Martin plays at right back. We concede less goals and we keep more clean sheets, it is a fact, not something that is even up for debate. That is because Martin is no more than an average center back but VERY GOOD RIGHT BACK! He has more in common with Gary Neville than he does Gary Cahill."

    Previous posters have pointed out that your use of that statistic is methodologically unsound. Put simply, you cannot attribute the difference in clean sheets to one particular factor (RM at CB v RM at RB) unless you first eliminate alternative explanations. There are many other possible contributory factors the existence of which you ignore.

    "We should have spent more effort on signing a better center back than the ones we currently have at the club so that Martin can be played in his best position."

    We don''t actually know how much priority was attached to strengthening different elements of the squad. We don''t know whether, in so far as any priority was given to signing a CB, it was simply to replace Turner, or to bring in a first choice replacement for a current first choice CB. You are clear about what you think the priorities should have been, but such evidence as we have suggests that AN saw things differently and prioritised strengthening the strike force and midfield above any rejigging of his first choice back four.

  6. Posted

    I have never read any post on here the tone of which could be correctly described as adulatory towards Russell Martin.

    I have never read any post on here which has sought to make out that Russell Martin is a "great" CB ) or a "great" RB for that matter).

    I have never read any post on here which said Russell Martin bears comparison with the best CBs to have played for NCFC.

    The tenor of the posts I''ve read in defence of Russell Martin is not that he is a better CB than he is but that he is a better CB than the criticism levelled at him gives him credit for.

    The fact is that every single one of the players in our squad could be replaced by a better player, and every aspect of our play could be better than it is. Defending is not a one man show, nor even a four man show. To attribute primary blame to Martin for the reduced number of clean sheets is quite simply ludicrous.

  7. Posted

    [quote user="Cerberus"]Weston,I suggest you actually watch the goal on you tube rather than relying upon a journalist to get his facts right. It was quite clearly our Russ who failed to clear the header. In fact, he simply failed to jump whereas the player he was marking did! Addmittedly the scorer took his chance well. Don''t believe everything you read in the press![/quote]

    Guilty as charged. Yes, it was Russ rather than Mulgrew but I don''t agree that the goal was his "mistake" or that particular blame can be attached to him. The "mistake" is the failure to deal with the knock back, rather than the header. What I object to is the constant singling out of an individual in contexts where the failure is more often than not collective, as in this case.

  8. Posted

    Indy wrote: ".......Our saving grace is a very solid midfield if they stay fit who can compete in this league, just a shame they have added pressure of having to try and score 3 goals a game to compensate our piss poor defence".

    Can someone explain to me how it is possible to see our midfield as "very solid" while at the same time complaining about "our piss poor defence"? Most of our goals conceded, including set piece goals, actually come from errors by midfielders. Our defence in open play without the ball consists of nine players, not four.

  9. Posted

    [quote user="ReadingCanary"]At fault for the goal.So so so weak. Just let the Georgian player dominate the box and play the assist

    [/quote]

    I assume you were there Reading and had the same advantageous view of the game as the football reporter for the Scotsman:

    " .........it came as little surprise when Georgia, growing in confidence and securing more sustained spells of possession, made their breakthrough seven minutes before the interval. Mchedlidze won the ball ahead of Mulgrew on the edge of the penalty area and knocked it into the path of Kazaishvili. He got past a Scott Brown challenge all too easily, showing neat footwork before drilling a low, left-foot shot beyond David Marshall."

    I guess you expect Russ Martin always to somehow singlehandedly make up for the errors of his colleagues?

  10. Posted

    DEB wrote: "However, that is no explanation for the significant differential in net squad investment in comparison to this time 4 years ago, when the club were handicapped by £27m of net debt, with an associated commitment for repayment."

    You are ignoring fundamental differences between the two summers. In the summer of 2011, our still substantial debt had been restructured two years earlier, with repayment by 2020. The further commitment to repay the debt early only applied at the end of the second season in the EPL. So the debt did not in fact impact to any significant extent on the unexpected windfall which promotion brought. That was why the club was able to make money available to strengthen the squad (though as has been pointed out, it was done partly in the January window not just in the summer).

    Until the accounts for last season are published we do not know whether the club incurred short term debt, and if so how much. What we do know is that we kept a substantial proportion of our PL squad and promotion bonuses will have significantly eroded any savings accruing from relegation clauses. We also know that there is a significant ongoing cost in funding our Academy, and that any infrastructure savings made through not having to meet EPL requirements in the Championship now have to be reversed (e.g. pitch maintenance standards etc. etc.).

  11. Posted

    [quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Westcoastcanary, IF that is the situation, then we are never going to progress. We will be the eternal West Brom of old. Little old Norwich forever x[/quote]

    The basis on which the club operates has been clearly stated several times. In simple terms, everything has to be funded from the income the club generates; nobody is putting private money in, and nobody is siphoning money out. If we want to keep increasing the amount available to spend on the team, we must either reduce spending elsewhere and/or keep growing the club income. This can be done, but it takes time, clever management and everyone pulling in the same direction. It doesn''t help to have impatient fans who appear to think there''s far more money to spend than there is.

    If you want to shortcut the process of slow, step-by-step improvement, you need to come up with an acceptable way of funding expenditure far in excess of club income. There are plenty of examples of club''s ruined by pursuing such strategies.

  12. Posted

    [quote user="Highland Canary"]I wonder if our recent transfer window has increased or decreased the likelihood of Redmond, potentially our most valuable asset, of signing a new contract?[/quote]

    Since the players and their agents will have a much sounder appreciation than moaning fans of the good business done in this window, it is far more likely to have increased than decreased the chances of Redmond agreeing a new contract.

  13. Posted

    The board have to plan for a range of medium-term scenarios, the least optimal of which is relegation at the end of this season. The experience of last year will have driven home the full implications of the situation the club will find itself in if that worst case scenario recurs. Maximising the funds available should that happen, puts the club in the best possible position to manage the situation and minimise the downside. This is what any sensible board of directors of a club in our position should be doing. I find the suspicion and cynicism on here both incredible and discreditable.

  18. Posted

    Thank goodness for a bit of sense after all the idiocy posted over the past couple of days.

    Regarding a CB, if people listened to what AN himself actually said on the subject, rather than projecting their own opinions onto him, bringing in a new first-choice CB was never the priority. Striker and wide left were the chief remaining gaps AN was keen to fill, and that''s what we''ve done.

  19. Posted

    [quote user="kick it off"][quote user="KoromaCrab"]... Robert Barnes[/quote]
    Who is right in the thick of the action down in.....Alberta, Canada...
    [/quote]

    As far as having hard information about any of this goes, Alberta is no more distant than somewhere in the North of England, or even a Norwich suburb!

  21. Posted

    Not only daft Branston but also perpetually in cloud cuckoo land. Despite the evidence to the contrary, NCFC is apparently a dream destination for any player aspiring to break into the top echelons of European football or, if having to settle temporarily for a lower tier club, is motivated purely by money (and on that account prepared to endure the travails of a newly promoted, survival-challenged, provincial EPL club with a rookie manager and relegation wage cut clause in bold on the first line of the contract).

    It will take years before this quality of player is even prepared to consider joining us, unless already over the hill and looking for one last new challenge and end-of-career pay day.

  22. Posted

    Monty I don''t think you need to worry. Can you point to any PL club who realistically would see AN as the ideal replacement for their manager? However much he is admired for what he has achieved so far with us and Hamilton, he is far too inexperienced and unproven. The spectre of Lambert''s failure at Villa will make owners additionally cautious.

  23. Posted

    @It''s Character Forming

    Yes, the OP is about whether history will look more kindly on CH''s time at Norwich. But every time CH is discussed on here people line up to rubbish him as a manager full stop, not simply as manager of NCFC over those two seasons. You yourself say that you are only commenting on his time at Carrow Road, but you then go on to refer to his time at other clubs by implying that if he was more successful elsewhere it can only be down to factors out of his control!

    I said myself earlier that many different variables account for a manager''s success or failure. If, as you appear to accept, they can contribute to a manager''s success, they can equally well contribute to his failure.

  24. Posted

    [quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Personally I can only view him on what I witnessed at NCFC, which was pretty dire football week in week out, maybe we have been spoiled in the past (don''t thinks myself) and therefor our expectations are just simply too high.....

    Or ?[/quote]

    There''s a huge difference between rubbishing CH as a manager, and rubbishing his management at Carrow Road. Very few managers have unblemished records of unbroken success at every club they''ve managed.

×
×
  • Create New...