All the Germans

I hate how commentators are overly dramatic for goalkeepers. "Great save", "Terrific Save", "Wonderful save". They were perfectly respectable but had either gone in, questions would have been asked that he didn't do enough. Every save isn't spectacular. I rate Gunn, but the first two saves were routine (first one was awful shot from that range and should have scored / made Gunn work harder).

I think it was his inability to control a ball that caused him the problem there. His first touch missed the ball completely and he almost ran over the ball. His touch is horrendous.

I'm not really interested in specific updates on what he has done (like this thread), but I actually am a little interested in the general thoughts Rangers fans have of him. I should want him to succeed and I want to want him to succeed as a Norfolk boy, but, I just can't, as he comes across to me like a bit of a pr*ck.

No. It's just the usual sensationalist b*llsh*t statement with no thought to relevance or accuracy prior to making it. You know the drill. Edit - I genuinely put the "*" in bull and left sh*t normal...

This is relatively local for me. I had planned to take my younger son (6) to his first game, but it probably finishes too late to do that now, he'll be gutted.

But you are still suggesting that someone bank rolls the club to live beyond it's means, spending more than it's income; why is that acceptable? A further question is, who would do that and was genuinely in it "for the good of the club" What does "for the good of the club" mean? Should they accept dirty money like Newcastle, would that be fine for you? How about something the Glazers did with Man Utd and borrowed against the club; is that "for the good of the club"? I am relatively certain that they would have (are going to?) sell to someone they believed could a) contribute more than they can and b) did not risk the future of the club. For that I am grateful. Do I wish they had more money and could make us more successful, yes but lets be honest, in a sensible business world, they would be considered to have performed very well, but in this instant success at all costs environment, they are attacked for essentially not being rich enough and not selling to some mythical entity that is rich enough and suitable.

The same way that Swansea did? Or Charlton? Or Stoke? Or Bolton? etc etc. You miss the valid point being made by Purple in its entirety.

Exactly. Professional footballers are so for a reason, they can play. The two factors that influences what level they play it is obviously quality - a slight increase in quality leads to an exponential value increase; Grealish is not 2.5 times as good as Buendia (I'd argue not much at all, but that's a different discussion) and the ability to do it every week as opposed to 1/2, 1/4 etc.

You cannot blame someone for not being enormously wealthy, and if you think that is reasonable, it says a lot about you. They have lived within their means, we as a society blame people and companies for excess spending that they cannot afford but expect it from football clubs... why? Football clubs should be following their lead, not the other way around.

Thank you for the passive aggressive response. I was at all of the (home) European games. Albeit as a 10 year old child. I remember all of the managers you have quoted but Mike Walker was at an entirely different time where the Premier League was in it's infancy and we had 'a chance' (and he inherited a much better side) the comparison of achievements is simply lazy and not relevant to modern times. There is no manager in the world, past or present, who could get us into the Champions League from where we were when Farke took over. On the other hand, imagine the style of play if Farke had inherited a capable Premier League squad like Walker did.

Farke is without question our best manager in recent years (and for me ever). The fact that we got rid of him, considering what he achieved, means we deserve what we get. The grass is not always greener, sometimes you should water your own grass.

I think I'm almost done with football if that is seen as a legitimate handball. People have hands, they cannot disappear. Unless they actively try to handball it (and I include making yourself bigger in that by putting your arms out, but I don't include when sliding or jumping having an arm slightly up), they should never be given. I'm watching it in a different country with non-English commentary, so I can't tell if they agree or not but it's outrageous in my opinion. On the replays I can't even be certain that it actually touched him either, let alone any intent!

Without being bothered to look into it properly, I'd wager three from some combination of the following have been in Scotland squads whilst still Norwich players together too; Martin, Whittaker, Naismith, Dorrans, Rhodes, Hanley, McLean (maybe Snodgrass).

You realise who started the thread?

Aarons decent with the ball and going forward but defensively suspect and physically small. Hanley a beast in the air but lacking any kind of footballing ability, Gibson good with the ball and passing out but so slow and suspect positioning, Giannoulis fast, good going forward, can tackle should be better than he is but switches to "useless mode" too often.

He's an awful footballer, but he has some strengths. The problem is, if you don't play to those strengths (we don't), he's next to useless. Lump it in the air, get him to battle for the ball, back into defenders and hold it up the pitch and he can do a job, but, ask him to play in tight spaces, expect anything but a simple pass or to move intelligently and you will be disappointed. He's like the striker version of Hanley. (That's a little harsh on Hanley, even I admit).

A little harsh calling him a kn0b, but clueless is not too far off.

Probably a fair comment and Gibson should get some blame. However, if Hanley had stayed in his position, the goal - in the way that it happened - would not have happened, regardless of Gibson.

Not only does Hanley go for a ball which he shouldn't, leaving a hole behind him, he manages to do an awful job of heading it. Gibson does not cover himself in glory by going to ground but he was covering the gap that Hanley created. Entirely Hanleys fault.

I assume it's almost the same formation but Sorensen dropping a bit deeper than Nunez did, with Idah on the wing and for two reasons. First is that Idah / Sorensen / McLean / Sara are the only people who provide any sort of physicality and use at set-piece other than our central defenders. If Nunez / Gibbs / Marquinhos were in instead, we are light weight. Second is that I assume we will persist with McLean dropping to get the ball. When he does this, there is only ever one forwards pass available to him - Sara - and when he is marked / we are pressed, we have to go backwards / sideways, if Sorensen is on, he may be another option to beat their press. Still, not what I expected or would have chosen, but he's done well so far and earned enough credit, so let's see how it goes.

Have a day off.

You're still wrong. Whilst I was not entirely certain about him, I didn't want him sacked in the Summer and his start to the season was somewhat promising. However, by December it was entirely clear that he should go. Therefore, it is still not hindsight; it was just a correct assessment of the situation.

I realise you nailed your colours to the mast of that sinking ship and are still finding it hard to take a step away from it, but you're wrong. It was clear that Smith was not doing it, he 100% should have gone during the World Cup break. Absolutely no question about it. This is a very fair point.

Whilst I agree with this statement generally, it isn't hindsight if you thought it at the time - and most fans did. It was only Webber (whom I still rate) stubbornness why he wasn't sacked then.

I want to see Gibbs on. He has always looked good. I guess Nunez off, he hasn't been too bad, but Sara and Kenny have been better.