Indy_Bones

[quote user="Barclayman"]he seems to have the worst record of any professional footballer...ever. In the last 7 years he''s made no more than 4 appearances all season and scored about 2 goals in that entire time.I would say steer well clear of this one. We only need Maric and the strike force is set. Id be happy with Holt, Maric, Martin and Cody.[/quote]I''m not going to claim he''d be an excellent signing, but there are a hell of a lot of factors at play here.The guy got completely screwed over when he was younger and has struggled with this since then, particularly when clubs since just haven''t given him a proper chance to perform. In full game terms he got just 5 games in his time at Plymouth/Wrexham, including a number of games where he got less than 10 minutes on the pitch, not exactly the best scenario to perform in. We have to ask how he''d perform if given a run of games of 70 mins+ before just writing him off.It costs us nothing to have a look at the guy and see if there''s a chance of his youth potential ever resurfacing and whether his current abilities can offer us something different.I''d rather we looked at people on trial than took unnecessary gambles, as Gunn has already shown, if he doesn''t perform on trial, he''ll quickly be released, how about we wait and see what happens here?Indy.

[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]Gunn was roeders chief scout, so he has to take blame for some of the mess![/quote]Why?If Gunn suggested players and these suggestions were ignored by Roeder (as we are lead to believe happened in a few cases such as Gow) - how is that Gunn''s fault?Even if Gunn had recommended a total pile of crap, it was Roeder''s responsibility to actually take a look and make the decision based on this recommendation, and if he still went ahead and signed a poor player, that says more about his managerial ability, than Gunn''s scouting ability.The buck stops with the manager - simple as.

[quote user="supercol"]It''s Michael Theoklitos  we are supposed to be giving him a trial.[/quote]If it is, I''d be interested to see him here.Performed very well over in AUS, very solid player who doesn''t take any crap.Would probably be first choice for AUS if it weren''t for Schwarzer.Another one of Crook''s suggestions maybe?

The 2-3-5 was in active use until about 1937/38, both Italy and Austria were using it at the 1934 world cup.After this most teams had already changed to the W-M formation, and then in the early fifties we even started to see some 4-2-4 formations.Hope this helps.Indy.

[quote user="Stan Ley"]Your statistics are as meaningless as the Pink Un''s headline "Bookies backing City for promotion". At 9/4 surely the bookies are backing Norwich not to get promoted.[/quote]The point I was trying to illustrate with the stats was that during Worthington''s first 16 games, his win percentage was only slightly better than Gunn''s was, and that was with a better squad.Once Worthington had been given time to settle in, acquire a few players and build on what we had, he gave us our best results for nearly 15 years. Had we simply dismissed him at that point, we''d never have known what he could have brought to the table. Let''s face it, his previous performance at Blackpool was pretty dire, and it could certainly have been argued that he was a ''cheaper'' option at that point than other names.Inexperience does not mean Inept as some seem to believe here, look how well Ince did at Macclesfield and MK Dons, look at Grayson at Blackpool, neither of them had previous experience, so were they bad choices? Their results seem to disprove this theory. Add in the fact that some of our best managers came with little to no experience themselves, yet we played some of our finest football under them.Unfortunately recent seasons have tainted our view somewhat, and now we automatically feel that anyone who isn''t a ''big name'', is naturally going to be crap. Maybe if people looked harder at our more recent history, they''d see that this is a sweeping generalisation - not a fact.Whether or not Gunn is the fans choice, he''s now in the role and should be given time and our support to give him the best chance of performing, not personal abuse and other similar things which are being chucked in his direction at the minute...

[quote user="Gunns NO Legend"]Anybody wanting a idiot like Gunn to manage this club has not got any knowledge of football whatsoever , he got the job because he will say yes to Deliar , worst Norwich City manager of all time bar none.[/quote]I see...So his 31% win ratio isn''t better than Roeder, Hunter, Duffy, Hamilton, Megson, Deehan and Bond then? And that''s just from the last 30 years.Gunn is also clearly no idiot. Lacking in tactical nous - fair play, lacking managerial experience - absolutely, but idiot? You''re having a bubble my friend.If you just want to bash the present manager without any justification, why not take yourself off my thread and do it elsewhere. IF you can come up with good, justified and well thought out reasons for your opinion, I''ll be happy to listen, if not - do one...

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Yes it seems taking a team cut adrift at the bottom of the league and saving them from relegation does not match up to taking a team from 5th bottom and getting them relegated by a clear 5 points.[/quote]It would if you were comparing the same squads.Roeder had a squad with players like Hucks and Dublin, Gunn didn''t - and who''s fault was that? Roeder''s...

[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]Gunn was chief scout for Roeder, he had a hand in bringing most of the players he has know to carrow road![/quote]Not saying that this isn''t the case, but where''s the evidence?When Roeder was in charge we got some pretty underwhelming players coming in, when Gunn was put in Caretaker charge he seemed to bring in exactly the type of players we needed in the positions we needed - where possible.Gunn brings in Lee - Roeder got LupoliGunn brings in Shackell - Roeder sold Shackell and went for OmozusiGunn brings in Gow - Roeder didn''t feel Gow was good enough despite performing for Blackpool and then almost signing for WolvesGunn signs Mcdonald - Roeder wouldn''t even consider looking down there for playersGunn wants to give youth a chance - Roeder didn''tGunn was looking for experienced or hungry players to try to help keep us up, whereas Roeder generally went for players who didn''t give a damn.I could go on here, but it''s crystal clear that Gunn''s ideas for transfers are way above what Roeder''s were, at least in the position we were in.Just because Gunn was in charge of scouting, didn''t mean that Roeder actually listened to him that much...

Have a look at the following victories and tell me if you think they were against ''quality'' opposition:GillinghamQPR x 2WatfordStockportWolvesBased upon this seasons league table, only Wolves stand out, with QPR being underwhelming, Watford finishing not much better than we did, and Stockport and Gillingham not even in the CCC.Where''s the relevance you ask?Simple, back in 2000, these were the only wins in Worthingtons first 16 matches. A period when we had a better squad than we do now, and more finance (apparently).He also had 5 draws during this period:BarnsleyForestBlackburnCrewePalaceIf we were purely to look at these stats, we''d seen a remarkable similarity to Gunn''s first 16 games, and based on current board sentiment we''d therefore have already dismissed Worthington as another ''cheap option'', with no experience and be demanding the boards head.HOWEVER - In Worthington''s case, he was given more time and a chance to rebuilt, and was easily the most successful manager we''d had in over 5 years (since Martin O''Neill left).With this in mind, is there a particular reason why we can''t give Gunn and co a fair chance?Give them a chance to bring players in over the summer, offload a bit more of the crap, and we have a good chance of the players actually playing how they want them to, whilst giving a damn at the same time.Thoughts?

Sounds a bit odd to even question inexperience, yet after thinking about this a lot recently, particularly in light of the latest managerial appointment it got me wondering why we no longer want to give it a chance?Think back a fair few years, and we had a number of managers who took over the ''hotseat'' despite little to no actual managerial roles previously.Ken Brown (Asst Mgr) -- Dave Stringer (Youth Coach) -- Mike Walker (Reserve Mgr) -- John Deehan (Asst Mgr) -- Gary Megson (Player/Coach)The performance of the first three managers on there can hardly be faulted, combining with our best extended period as a top flight side. Whilst both Dixie and Megson performed very poorly results wise, this has to be mitigated against the fact that Chase sold virtually every top player we had and refused to invest any significant funds in new options. Left with a threadbare squad bereft of it''s finest talent, it''s hard to see how either of them could have done much better in the role.O''Neill we all know about and would have been a great manager if we''d have given him the funds we''d promised, but even his managerial experience was limited to a single league club in Wycombe.Along comes Rioch, a manager who''s stats prove his ability at virtually every club he managed - apart from Norwich...again citing lack of investment on players as the key problem, along with more sales of talent such as BellamyHamilton was then appointed, another manager with a lot of experience (if not ability), results were still poor.Then however we appoint Worthington (asst mgr), seen very much as a cheap option at the time, but who went on to be the best manager we''d had in 5 years at that point, and statistically performing better than Stringer and Walker despite the periods they had at the top.Without going on too much further, let me summarise:Our best results have come under managers appointed with little to no managerial experience, only Martin O''Neill did any better than this, so in the last 29 years (since Ken Brown''s appointment), experienced managers have had very little to offer over less experienced options.In fact, the much maligned Peter Grant had a better record than either Rioch, Hamilton or Roeder - all of whom had excellent managerial experience.So onto the main (and final point) of this post.15-20 or so years ago, had the club done the same at the time and appointed Gunn (relatively speaking), we''d probably have been far more receptive to the appointment than we are now, yet recent poor seasons starting with Worthington''s decline seem to have skewed our opinions somewhat. Gunn has been put into a similar position that Deehan, Megson and Worthington were, with a pretty poor squad, already in a poor position, and no funds to sort the problem.Worthington''s first set of games were hardly electric, 6 wins in his first 16 official games - only 1 better than Gunn, and I do feel that Worthy had a better squad at his disposal (certainly from a commitment and attitude perspective).Don''t get me wrong, I''d have gone for another option than Team Gunn, but I think the current overreactions being shown to the appointment are pretty shocking. I wonder how many would have been as vicious had this forum been readily available when Brown, Stringer and Walker were appointed?You want to hate the board - fineYou choose to boycott matches - fair enoughBut for god''s sake, give Gunn a chance to make some signings and work out new options with Butterworth and Crook, before demanding a hanging...Indy.

[quote user="First Wizard"]Feking arrogant, self centered git..........and thats being polite! I pray this all goes tits up. F*ck off Gunn.[/quote]Arrogant and self-centered for stepping up when we were in deep shit and for trying his best despite a clearly lacking side? Why should he not accept the job when offered? He''s got some great experience behind him with Crook, Butters and Dixie, is well respected by many in the game, and seems to have a fairly decent eye for signings during his short initial tenure. HOWEVER... I can fully understand people not wanting Gunn appointed, and I also agree that I''d have probably looked at someone like Gannon before considering Gunn, but the choice has been made and it''s out of our hands. We desperately need to get back up to the CCC ASAP, and praying it goes tits up will just put us in an even worse position. Short of major changes truly outside our ability to alter, we just need to hope and pray that it works out, and give the relevant support as fans at least to begin with.

[quote user="ricky knight"]Keelan, Woods, Green all better then Gunn imo.[/quote]Maybe so Ricky (although not sure about Greeno tbh), but being fair, it''s actually something that we as a club have been strong in compared to many others.At the time, we''d have struggled to find a better keeper than Gunny from anywhere but a top class side such as Man Utd, Arsenal, Milan etc.

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Never was a legend just an average keeper who gained a lot of sympathy and has been playing on it ever since.[/quote]On his day Gunn was a top class keeper who could have played in virtually all of the top prem teams at the time (Obviously behind legends like Seaman and Schmeichel).As for the second part of your post, I''m too angry and disgusted at the comment I can''t even post a reasoned response to it.He''s only been officially appointed as manager an hour or so ago, and already the shit throwing has started with a vengeance...

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Delia et al will install whoever they want, regardless of fan/public opinion, just like they held onto Worthy too long despite opinion, just like installing Grant/Roeder despite opinion, and putting Gunn as interim manager despite opinion.Chances are that if the Board want Gunn, then that''s who we''ll get - despite opinion...[/quote]How prophetic were those very words...

[quote user="cityangel"]Reading out texts which say we need more experienced person to get us out of League 1, Gunn says its just people''s opinions and its the owners opinions who matter, they feel they can do as good a job as anyone else. Not the right thing to say Bryan.[/quote]Probably not CA, but being fair, he''s totally correct with the statement. Delia et al will install whoever they want, regardless of fan/public opinion, just like they held onto Worthy too long despite opinion, just like installing Grant/Roeder despite opinion, and putting Gunn as interim manager despite opinion. Chances are that if the Board want Gunn, then that''s who we''ll get - despite opinion...

[quote user="Babyface"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]I think the more worrying aspect is Crook and Butterworth are part of Gunn''s team, unless Gunn is totally calling the shots, shouldnt they take some blame to???[/quote]This is actually a very good point, nobody (that I know) has mentioned the lack of responsibility being laid at the feet of Crook and Butterworth.  If they have been advising Gunn then they are as much to blame as Gunn, and if they are not advising, then why not?[/quote]The reason it hasn''t been laid at their feet is because they have been very limited in what they can do. If we use another example, you hire a top horse trainer, someone with a proven record in getting the best out of horses, and you ask him to train a donkey to win the National, no matter how good he is, or how hard he works, the donkey will NEVER be good enough to win. So is it the trainers fault that he couldn''t get the donkey to perform, or the clients fault for giving him a donkey to work with and expecting miracles???The sad fact is that our squad is a shadow of it''s former self and needs a massive overhaul in the playing staff before a good coach can really start to perform.Interesting as well that following Crook''s arrival we tried a completely new attack on a corner (Red Arrows etc) and it was highly effective...We also don''t know how much of their input has been taken on board by Gunny, as some of the team/sub selections seem to infer.Don''t get me wrong, I''m not claiming that they''re world class coaches, or that it''s all Gunny''s fault, because being fair we were in an awful position when they came in, but I do think it''s too early to discount the coaching of Crook and Butterworth at this point.

If we assume Robins has been interviewed, then I''d have thought that having Crook and Butterworth as part of his coaching team would be fine by him, although Dixie would have to go.Bear in mind that Robins backroom staff at Rotherham are composed of basically ex-Rotherham players, I can''t see why he''d be averse to ex-Norwich players in ours, particularly considering their ability when playing, and the seeming regard they are held in coaching wise.

[quote user="PhatCanary"]Yeah, because we didn''t get behind the team Monday did we? [:|][/quote]Wasn''t the best atmosphere I''ve ever seen, not even close really.Being fair, with the lack of effort and ability on display in general, I can understand this to some degree.Lets be fair about this and admit that it was hardly 90 minutes of passionate noise from us was it?

I loved the ''canary droppings'' shirt, and think it would be epic if we brought it back again.I''ve still got my old one with Eadie on the back!

Totally agree that Cureton is no longer a viable option at this level.I''ve actually worked out his career stats previously and highlighted his weaknesses etc: http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/5/1568558/ShowPost.aspx#1568558http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/6/1569999/ShowPost.aspx#1569999The first link also shows Killen''s and to a lesser extent Gow''s ability assuming they are fit and playing well.This is also based on actual playing time as against just appearances, so it''s a much fairer representation of performances.Cureton HAS to be dropped, simple as.

[quote user="kdncfc"]I thought Delia had said that she would gladly stand aside if anyone else was daft enough to put their money into the club, if Cullum is telling the truth about her rebuffing him twice and not standing down unless we''re relegated surely she''s telling porkies about having the best interests of the club at heart.[/quote]Depends on what the offer is though doesn''t it?No-one in their right mind would sell the club if it was being massively undervalued.We have been lead to believe that if a sale is made, it''s on the basis of EVERYTHING being sold, all shares, existing debt removed and promise of investment on the player side. Chances are that Cullum is not willing to invest at this level (don''t blame him to be honest).On this basis, neither party would be lying, in that Delia will sell if a strong offer is made, but Cullum being the deal man he is, is likely to be offering way below this, hence the rebuffals.Difficult to comment when we simply don''t know all the facts.

Pretty much agree in general with your thoughts SF, but I''d go for this choice:MarshallDrury, Shackell, Doherty, LeijerCarney, Pattison, Clingan, CroftCort, GowWith a bench of:Rudd, Grounds, Hoolahan, Russell, Fozzy, Killen and McDonald.Before recent matches, I''d have gone with Killen over Cort, but the guy is in great form and deserves his place, but I think that together they''re a bit similar in style of play, whereas Gow is something a bit different. If Cort gets tired, we can bring Killen on, or if Gow is not performing we could give Cody a chance. Has to be Leijer given the game at right back purely because of Semi''s awful form, and I feel Drury is more than good enough when he''s got Carney in front of him. Nelson is poor whereas Rudd is a future star and on-form for the U18''s. Should we take a good lead, we can also bring Russell and or Fozzy on to be more defensive if needed.Thoughts?Indy.

[quote user="Gazza"]Forest appointed Billy Davies a proven championship manager and they have pulled away and will continue to do so, Boothroyd/Ince/ etc etc were linked and I would have loved Martinez from Swansea but the boards choice again reflects their ambition - zilch and lack of investment![/quote]And we sacked a manager who''s done better than Davies previously, not to mention that Davies was in charge of the worst Premiership side I''ve ever seen, before realising he was about to be sacked and walking instead...He''s doing well at Forest so far, but let me also ask you, would you rather have their squad or ours?

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]we needed a manager who know what it takes to survive. an experienced manager who knows football inside out.. not club heroes and a prayer to god.... times run out now.... jas :) [/quote]Jas,Did you mean to describe Glenn Roeder?The fact is that all the qualities you state you wanted in our managerial appointment were those that the previous incumbent actually had. Something that was demonstrated by him keeping us up last season.It doesn''t matter if you''re Arsene Wenger, or some random fan off the streets, you can''t polish a turd, and unfortunately there were/are too many turds here who regularly fail to impose themselves on a game, so what do you want the guy in charge to do?We''ve tried the hard line routine under Roeder - it was a dismal failure, with steadily declining performances from even half decent players, so we''ve gone to the opposite side with Gunn and his ''arm round the shoulder'' approach.The point being that regardless of who was appointed, we really needed to massively freshen up the side and bring in at least half a dozen players of a good CCC level (or better) on permanent deals, the problem is that the funds are either not there to do it, or the board are unwilling to commit them at this/any point. ANY manager who took over would be limited by the finances available, and the existing squad, something we are sadly lacking in both areas, if you ask me, we could have appointed Mourinho and we''d still not be in a much stronger position because of the limitations he''d be under. So I don''t see the Gunn appointment as a gamble as such, in fact he''s arguably one of the best choices we could have made in regards to looking to get the best out of players and instill self-confidence.Was the release of Lupoli and return of Cureton a good move? Probably not, but the truth about Lupoli''s lack of selection seems all hidden by cloak and dagger techniques with rumours from lack of commitment to dressing room arguments etc all being bandied around. As for Shax''s return, the point here is really about a lack of alternatives, we wanted Purse as first choice - Cardiff blocked the move, we then wanted Davies and that got caught in nonsensical red-tape and other delays which stopped that happening. It''s not like Shackell was our first choice, but the fact is that he''s a decent enough defender at this level and I find it amusing that when they played together previous seasons, the emphasis was put on Doherty for being the issue, but when he has a few decent games this season, suddenly it was all Shackell''s fault.I still think Gunn and co CAN turn things around, and still think it was a good appointment based on our limited resources, we just really need to get some more steel through the side and keep Cureton off the pitch...

[quote user="komakino"]Ideally, the replica kit that is sold to the public should be in two fits, slim and regular, so the larger guys don''t miss out.[/quote]No offence, but how the hell is ''regular'' fit designed for the larger man?Regular fit usually seems to me everyone apart from beanpoles/models, which means it really isn''t fitted to cater to a larger individual.Now a new fit type which takes into account manboobs, beer guts, double chins and chunky arms...