Jump to content

Matt Morriss

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Matt Morriss

  1. On 20/05/2023 at 11:31, Branston Pickle said:

    He’s entitled to do what he wants, isn’t he?

    Edit - each to their own, I’ll watch pretty much whatever is on when I’m about, but can honestly say I’ve seen very little women’s football overall.


    BREAKING NEWS: Man isnt allowed to have his own opinion and interests. Feminists in total outrage!

    Anyone who is lambasting Webber for saying this is 100% wrong in their narrow minded thinking. I would rather utter honesty from him, than fake blowing smoke up the womens game's a**.

    I have zero interest whatsoever in the Womens game, never have and never will (unless it surpasses the quality and heights of the mens game, which is highly unlikely).

    In the same fashion I would rather listen to Sinatra, Bowie and Aretha Franklin than f**** Little Mix and Sam Smith. Why should I lie and when questioned say "Yeah I can get enough of Little Mix"...

    In a world of fake people, fake lives, fake lips and fake everything Webber's honesty is sorely appreciated.

    • Like 2

  2. 59 minutes ago, repman said:

    I think Webber is possibly one of these people who believe that manager's aren't actually important, or that their contribution to success is very small. The people who believe this will often point to wage bill tables and say that actually it's the teams with the most money who do well, this was Webber's rationale after the 19/20 season and I believe our increased wage bill compared to other PL clubs in 21/22 meant he had to sack Farke.

    It's also why I think his managerial appointments, in particular the last 2, have felt so lazy. He doesn't have any interest in going out and finding the best coach because he doesn't believe that it matters all that much. You can even look back to Farke's appointment and with hindsight question if he actually did a proper search.

    Good point, cant knock Webber at all for the Farke appointment, but he did basically just do the same thing he did at Huddersfield and raided Borussia Dortmund II. 

    He then went with Wagner again. It does look like lazy recruitment.

  3. 1 hour ago, king canary said:

    Firstly, you've surely got to understand that would be a very weird thing for him to do? If he went to the board after 10 games with 2 points and said 'folks, it turns out I've spent £60m on a bunch of dross and actually these results are the best we can expect' then I imagine they'd have binned him on the spot. 

    Secondly I'm struggling with this idea he was replacing 8 influential players. Bunedia, Skipp sure. Other than that who are we talking? Vrancic? Stipermann? 

    I'm not sure I share that but obviously can't be proven either way. We certainly didn't put up much a fight under Farke the last time we went down.

    Skipp, Buendia, Tettey, Stiepermann, Vrancic, Hernandez, Cantwell (remained but not really), Rupp (lesser extent).

    Perhaps not the full 8 were highly influential players however they were the bedrock of the first 11 for the two championship winning seasons. When you replace those players with what we did, with only Kabak having any Prem or English football experience, it was never going to work.

    The previous years the players had a full Championship winning season to gel. Farke had 7/8 new players to gel and quick. It was madness.

  4. 1 hour ago, hogesar said:

    So let's say he got lucky with Farke.

    He then got lucky with Pukki too right?

    And then we sold Pritchard. Webber confidently told Farke he had a better replacement lined up. Farke wasn't happy...

    Emi walked through the door.

    So Emi, he was lucky too?

    We needed a Centre Half to challenge for promotion. In comes Hanley and Zimmerman. Luck of the draw too?

    But what's a good defensive partnership without an experience goalkeeper. Ah, but we can't afford one. Tim Krul a lucky stab too? 

    But we had so many players to replace too. I'm guessing Vrancic with all those assists and goals, despite being derided as League One standard by some who watched him and posted on this forum......Webber rolled another dice and struck gold?

    I guess the same must apply to Stiepermann, Onel Hernandez, Trybull and Leitner.

    Those loan signings of Gibson and Skipp really hindered us the second promotion season....

    I always think if we're going to have a sensible discussion, let's not pretend the good things didn't happen. We can still acknowledge what he's got wrong since without making things up about the past.

    This is all spot on, but with the exception of Sara, Webber hasnt had a good signing since Skipp 2 years ago, and that was on loan. 

  5. 1 hour ago, Mr Tea said:

    The one thing that would have happened had DF stayed was it would have been toxic at CR . More people would have started to blame him but by letting him go it then became clear the team wasnt up to it .

    It saddened me when the news come out but also felt relief for him.

    Much as id love to have him back i cant see it working and Webber would never let it happen anyhow .

    We move on.

    You dont know that at all and are just surmising. There is no evidence that the fans would have turned on Farke the way we did on Smith.

    To suggest things would have gone toxic second time round is pure speculation. I actually believe the Brentford win could well have been a turning point. 

    Perhaps not survival, as the new players were woefully inadequte as we all know now,  but I believe we would have improved from that first 10 games. Under Smith not only did we not improve at all, we massively regressed. 

    It took Farke 15 months in charge to get us to tick, and once he had gotten a whole new team it still took time.

    Farke got another new team when the old charge left, 8 players remember not just Skipp and Emi. And he was given 10 games to make it work. In a far tougher, more unforgiving league.

    He was given 15 months first time round. That second season 5 games in and we werent looking good. Then he changed it with the Pukki/Stiepermann swap and it was lift off. 

    But the 2nd Prem season he gets 10 games, with that first 6 run in, with the likes of Gilmour, Rashica, Tzolis and Sargent.

    I think even Pep and Klopp would have struggled.


  6. 18 hours ago, king canary said:

    Don't disagree with any of that.

    However when considering 'why did we sack Farke' you have to put yourself in Webber's shoes.

    We can look back now and say the recruitment was all wrong. However Webber had spent £60m odd on new players and he clearly believed he'd given Farke a squad with enough to compete at this level. He clearly wasn't going to throw his hands up after 5 points from 11 and say '**** it, clearly I've made a hash of it and this is the best anyone can do.'


    What Webber should have done was take his head out of his arrogant a$$ and admit that the players bought for Farke to replace 8 highly, highly influential players utterly pivotal to our success, were woefully inadequate to compete at the highest level, let alone get results against Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal. And that a knee jerk reaction and sacking Farke was not the correct decision at the time.

    Of all the things Webber has done, and lets not forget he has overseen one of the best periods in our history, relatively speaking, but sacking Farke and appointing Smith was a catastrophic error and grounds for dismissal.

    Its the stock market equivalent of a bad trade costing the firm millions and millions. Im sure a trader would be relieved of his duties in that scenario.

    Webber seems to be beyond reproach however with the current state of nepotism within the club.

    I am of the opinion that had Farke not been sacked, we may well still have gone down as I believe the squad was not capable, but we would have made more of a fight of it than we did under Smith (Southampton away anyone).

    We would have then gone into this last season with the leagues most savvy operator. 

  7. On 13/05/2023 at 22:04, Terminally Yellow said:

    Oh let's not do this argument again. Let's get it out the way, then. 

    1. Was sacked entirely justifiably, even if the sacking itself was entirely inappropriate. Doesn't make him any less of a club legend for what he did. 

    2. Issue has not come because we sacked Farke, it has come about because we didn't replace him very well. 

    3. No he shouldn't come back as Director of Football, I don't give a **** that he was DOF at some tiny club in Germany. 

    4. Best man manager/coach of individuals ever at NCFC, but absolute **** tactically and in game. 

    "1. Was sacked entirely justifiably " - based on losing his first 6 games against the likes of Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal when trying to completely revamp our playing style, after losing 8 players he just won the league with, including Buendia and Skipp, only to be replaced by two Bundesliga 2 forwards who just got Werder Bremen relegated, and Tzolis, Gilmour, PLM, Normann etc. and get them to instantly adapt to English football, let alone the Prem, and go and beat Man City. 

    Yep, totally justifiable.

    4. Best man manager/coach of individuals ever at NCFC, but absolute **** tactically and in game. - Won the league TWICE. Out tactic'd Pep Guardiola. Beat Newcastle, Leicester, shoulda beat Spurs 2-0, then beat them in the FA Cup. Yeah Farke was definitely absolute **** tactically.

    First Champ winning season our entire uplift in fortunes was based on Farkes tactical switch 5 games in to drop Rhodes, push Pukki up front and play Stiepermann in the hole. Everyone forgets this happened, but it was a distinct change that worked wonders. Not to mention the entire overhaul selling Maddison and the Murphys and going full bore on Farkeball. Which then won TWO league titles.

    A lot of his Prem subs and pre match setups were on a hiding to nothing. We were never equipped to survive in the Prem. Dennis Srbeny, Amadou, Patrick Roberts, Ondreij Duda, Josip Drmic. Nah, wasnt the players it was Farke, he was **** tactically.

    Some people shouldnt be allowed to talk about football. 

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1

  8. On 13/05/2023 at 22:13, Terminally Yellow said:

    The one who came out claiming he was happy with the signings and would have been disappointed with "just" finishing 17th. Remember that? 

    Yeah he's really going to come out and say... " Well Paddy, we've got f*** all money to spend and Webber has just got rid of 8 players who I won the league with last year, and replaced them with 2 forwards that got Werder Bremen relegated, a pretty boy who's always injured, some greek kid who looks 12, a french lanky tw** ive never heard of and Billy '1 good game ever' Gilmour. Were f***** mate"

  9. I am no fan of Dean Smith at all and agree with the OP re: Farke, but its a bit ridiculous to suggest Smith should be sacked tonight.

    We are top of the league. You dont sack a manager top of the league.

    Having said that I believe it is a false position and in no way indicates we are either moving in the right direction or Dean Smith will be a success in the Prem with Norwich.

    I believe it is a false position because the teams we have played so far have been utterly woeful, League 1 standard. The Championship has dropped in quality since Farke's last title win.

    The second we come up against a decent side in Reading we struggled. Bristol were the better team and we got away with it as we have the best 2 strikers in the League.

    Prestion werent great but were solid and organised and executed there counter attacking game plan well.

    Last 4 games have not been great. Draw with West Brom, narrowly beat a poor Blackpool side, draw with Reading and a loss to Preston.

    Next 6 games will be telling I think as its a tough run with Watford, Burnley, Stoke, Sheff Utd and QPR in the mix. 

    If we are still top then we will just have to accept this is the Dean Smith way, Farkeball is gone and its as good as its gonna get. The problem for me is that the Championship is so poor and most teams are closer to League 1 standard than Prem standard. There are only a handful of decent teams, Norwich, Reading, QPR, Watford, Burnley. Rest of the league is utter dross.

    So we may well get promoted, but this current team and the way we play, I dont see how it survives in the Prem, and I just dont see that Smith is building a Prem survival team. In my opinion we are top because for the most part we have played League 1 quality teams.  

    • Like 1

  10. 3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

    Do stop referring to me as "pal" or "mate". Nobody who spouts this utter bollox, riddled with lie after lie, just to enjoy the opportunity to call the club a "national embarrassment" would be a pal of mine. The fact that a tiny few "pundits" are desperate to keep their jobs as well-paid obnoxious gobsh-ites by spouting this pathetic bile is no excuse for repeating their utter tripe.

    'lie after lie' 😭😭😭

    Seriously mate, get a life.

    Suns shining go out and enjoy it mate.




  11. On 06/08/2022 at 05:22, horsefly said:

    Factual statements by definition can not contain inaccuracies. If you believe you had made a factual statement and it is pointed out to you that you have got your "fact" wrong the thing to do is admit your error and withdraw it.

    You have come onto an NCFC fan site and slagged the club off, making false claims, yet expect other genuine fans simply to ignore your abuse. You specifically claimed that NCFC should have followed the example of the likes of Southampton and Burnley who you claimed had "continually" replenished  their squads with £25m players. I asked you to list those players because my own (admittedly) brief research on Google revealed not a single player had been bought by those clubs at that price. What is truly "pathetic" is making up lies to attack the club you claim to support, and then having the audacity to tell other people to "get a life" when they call you out for such lies.

    You do realise it wasn't me that originally said we were a national embarrassment last season? You are aware of that yes? 

    Secondly at what point have I slagged the club off?

    Someone further up on this post gave his opinion that we were a national embarrassment last season.

    If you choose to pretend like last season didn't happen and we weren't a mess of a club at times then carry on pal in your delusional bubble.

    I'm also at a loss why you are disputing it, it's like last season didn't f@#£_ng happen for you. Were you asleep?

    The 7-0s and 5-0s. The bottom place finish 16 points from safety. The weekly demolish job by the media.

    We were an embarrassment in the Premier League and anyone who suggest otherwise, well I just don't know what you were watching. 

    Secondly I was merely giving an example when I said we should spend £25m on 2 players like the Southamptons of this world. Yes perhaps using Southampton as an example wasn't the right team as they've spent more like £10m-£15m on each player. If it makes you happy and you can sleep at night, pick another team slightly higher up the Prem table.

    Either way, this is my opinion, which is the point of this board. And it's my opinion that spending far more on an individual player would have been better. This is my opinion mate, it's not right or wrong and you certainly don't have any kind of authority to determine its validity.

    If you have such a sad life that your only motivation in a day is to vet everyone's post on a football messageboard for 100% accuracy then I pity you.

    I was making an example point that spending £3m here and £8m there on players is not sufficient to stay up, and the teams that do spend significantly more on individual players.

    This is a universally accepted fact of life in the Prem.

    And again you do need to get a life pal if your energy is focused on nit picking every thing someone says on here to the death just to claim some kind of personal victory and destroy the poster because the point he made wasnt 100% grammatically correct or contained slightly incorrect detail.

    It's not that big a deal mate. 

    Last season we were a shambles and the media looked upon us as such. We needed to spend £25m on players, not £5m to stay up.

    I fail to see why you have such a problem with these two opinions. 

  12. 8 hours ago, horsefly said:

    In other words, you have nothing at all to back up your claims slagging the club off. Thanks for your opinions that have nothing based in evidence, such a valuable contribution.

    BTW there is no such thing as  "factual statements that are inaccurate or incorrect" That's the very definition of something that is NOT a fact. I'm now beginning to see why you post such nonsense.

    Some people post what they believe to be factual statements, that may or may not contain inaccuracies.

    Doesn't mean you have to pathetically jump all over it. Get a bloody life pal.

    And the fact is we were slated in the media last season. I fail to see why people are disputing this.

  13. 7 hours ago, horsefly said:

    That's a bit rich given your own contributions. Perhaps you also need to be reminded that this is a public forum and if you post an opinion on here making certain claims you should expect others to post their opinions about your opinions. I'm still at a loss at what you think you achieve by posting something as obvious as saying, if we had held on to Buendia, and if Skipp had stayed, and if we had spent £25m each on two PL proven players, we might have stayed up. None of those were remotely possible, so why say it? It's of no more relevance that saying, if we had bought Messi,  and if we had bought Van Dijk we might have stayed up.

    I note you still haven't listed all those £25m players you claim Burnley and Southampton have "continually" bought over the years, providing a model which you think City should follow. Looking forward to seeing that list as I'm struggling to find those players on Google. 

    What is it with people wanting proof to backup everything thats said on here?

    Its pathetic. Were not in bloody school and every post isnt an essay on football, that must be backed up with proof and footnotes.

    This forum is the equivalent of football chat down the pub. Yet many, on this post as an example just want to dispute everything said.

    Everything said are opinions, they may include factual statements that are innacurate or incorrect. This doesnt mean you have to jump on everything little thing and throw your toys out the pram because your either butt hurt about something, dont agree or just have a strange fascination of requiring people show proof and back up of everything thing they say. 

  14. 7 hours ago, horsefly said:

    That's a bit rich given your own contributions. Perhaps you also need to be reminded that this is a public forum and if you post an opinion on here making certain claims you should expect others to post their opinions about your opinions. I'm still at a loss at what you think you achieve by posting something as obvious as saying, if we had held on to Buendia, and if Skipp had stayed, and if we had spent £25m each on two PL proven players, we might have stayed up. None of those were remotely possible, so why say it? It's of no more relevance that saying, if we had bought Messi,  and if we had bought Van Dijk we might have stayed up.

    I note you still haven't listed all those £25m players you claim Burnley and Southampton have "continually" bought over the years, providing a model which you think City should follow. Looking forward to seeing that list as I'm struggling to find those players on Google. 

    Not really Horsefly. I posted an opinion of how things could have gone had we spent differently and kept Emi and Skipp.

    It was you that decided to reply to my opinion as if I was stating scientific fact disputing it. 

  15. 40 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

    Plenty of pundits on national platforms called us embarrassing did they not?

    I don't agree that we were, but there was a school of thought that we were, largely led by morons like Jamie O'Hara. But if Matt Morriss wishes to share an opinion that others espoused loudly last season, so be it.

    I didnt even share this opinion, I just echoed it. The OP i think used the term national embarassment.

  16. 6 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

    Once again, ‘you are’ is you’re. 

    I think calling me a w&nker probably exceeds anything I have said your way.

    Still no evidence then? Your memory is not sufficient to actually prove your point though is it? 

    Much love, 


    Oh Sweary.....

    Firstly, if you disect my comment I didnt call you a W&nker.

    I assumed that you had just let it slip that you were in actual fact Colin W&nker, which as we all know is Neil Warnock's alter ego.

    Secondly, what exactly is your issue? Are you actually trying to convince everyone that Norwich werent portrayed as anything other than a laughing stock by the sports media? You seem to be demanding proof of it and are convinced it didnt happen.

    Everyone knows it did pal, we just didnt save every website article or record every Match of the Day clip/Talksport phone in.

    Becuase, well, who the f&%k does that?

    Doesnt mean it didnt happen.

  17. 13 hours ago, chicken said:

    Not my discussion but if I may, tell me to keep out if you want. 😉

    One thing that used to bother me was people that said "everyone saw us as an embarrassment" - as in the wider footballing community. Or that the premier league saw us as such etc.

    I have less issue with our fans saying they felt embarrassed by us. I say that because largely this all kicked off with incredibly the incredibly awful talk sh!t radio with a... lets call him presenter, as no journalist would comment that blind on a subject, who said we'd spent no money.

    We then had Simon Jordon sort of weigh in with "taking the **** out of the system" comments... even though Palace under his ownership had done the same thing.

    Now, as much as I don't like and don't listen to talk sport, hence me calling them talk sh!te, one needs to consider their business model. They are essentially a radio equivalent to tabloids. They shout and scream almost anything to get attention, they'll take the hits for getting it wrong because by the point they have been told off, they've made the money from the carp they peddle. They are deliberately divisive, they want people to call in, they push buttons, they exaggerate, they throw around accusations like tickertape at a presidential parade.

    I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it again, what I found embarrassing was just how little and how quickly supposed fans of this club turned on the club itself and others who refused to make such outlandish statements or to disagree with them. The ease in which two people from one radio station were able to get under the skin and cause the sorts of meltdowns they did.

    It certainly played a heavy part in Farke's demise. Those same people carried those uninformed, hypocritical views and blamed Farke as part of the system for us not doing better. Many on here are now claiming there wasn't this loud vocal chorus, many of whom were part of it even, and are saying how it was such a bad decision to sack Farke.

    That should be what people are embarrassed about, if you ask me. 

    wasnt my discussion either and I still cant work out why certain people seem to be so upset at the suggestion that the media labelled us a national embarrassment last season.

    They did, because we were. Everytime we were mentioned on Match of the Day, Sky Sports, Talksport, the press etc. it was all about how $hite we were.

    How someone is claiming this didnt happen, and is almost personally offended at the suggestion it did, is beyond me.

    Said person also seems to conflate the above happening with people actually being affected by it personally and being upset.

  18. 13 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

    Firstly, ‘you are’ is you’re. 

    Secondly, no evidence then. Yawn 

    My name is Colin 

    This is possibly the worst comeback in the history of the internet.

    Grammar correction, and telling us your Colin W&nker.

    As for evidence, its all in my memory from last season's media attacks at how pathetic we were. 



    • Like 1

  19. 11 hours ago, horsefly said:

    What history? If you're simply stating the blatantly obvious then of course we all know that teams that can lash out on numerous £25m+ players stand a better chance of staying up. But £25m+ players also demand £80 grand + wages, and the idea that NCFC could sustain that sort of financial outlay is pure fantasy. Also what is supposed to be the point of your idea that "we needed to have kept Emi and Skipp and added with the £25m players, to have stood a far more realistic chance of being competitive and staying up"?  You might as well have said we needed to buy Messi and Van Dijk to stand a realistic chance of staying up. Neither scenarios were remotely possible. 

    BTW which players did Burnley and Southampton "consistently" buy for £25m? 

    Christ, some people will argue with a lamp shade.

    Its just an opinion mate, you dont have to disect everything people say and try to work out the scientific validity and whether its provable or not. 

    Any 'might have been' opinion is just that, speculation and conjecture.

    I think its pretty universal to suggest had we been able to keep Buendia and Skipp, and then spent £50m on two proven quality Premier League players, that we we would have had a far better chance of survival than spunking the lot on Tzolis, Sargent and Rashica and PLM.

    • Haha 1

  20. 2 minutes ago, chicken said:

    A similar thing happened during Farke's first season. People complained about a lack of plan, that it was hard to see what we were trying to do. That he was a manager out of his depth along with several of the players brought here to play.

    I can see what Smith is trying to do in the same way I could see what Farke was trying to do.

    I don't actually think there is masses of difference, I think both would prefer us to have more possession. The key bit is that Smith doesn't want aimless posession. There is no point holding onto the ball for 55-65% possession or better, if you can't put it in the net. He wants more speed in getting the ball from the back to the front players where possible, rather than cut inside and play safe which is what we would do a fair bit under Farke.

    There are things to iron out, he has his players to bring in yet. And it still, may not work. I don't believe what he is trying to convert us to is hoofball either. In fact, I think he has said as much, and he has certainly not encouraged long balls. Pre-season saw few of them to be fair.

    Teams that are struggling and under pressure will naturally hit it long more often, it's the easiest thing to do. It's about confidence and getting the team in that zone to play rather than panic or revert to more instinctive measures rather than get it down and look to play it.

    You have better eyesight than me then as since November 21 I have failed to see any sense of progressive gameplan from Smith.

    Maybe it will change with the new players. I disagree with Farkes first season though, to me it was clear what Farke was trying to do, we just didnt have the players to execute it.

  21. 7 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

    Firstly, I don’t throw insults at everyone that disagrees with me. I have had numerous chats where no insults have been thrown. tbh if you think referring to someone as a ‘clown’ and clearly joking that their viewpoint it way off the mark by saying they must be high is hardly me accusing Nora of being a drug addict. I think you’re clearly too sensitive, so happy for you to ignore my posts in case I start saying someone could be ‘nuts’ or something really offensive 😂. I don’t have Facebook or any social media accounts as I have pointed out on here in a few threads over a couple of years, so don’t need to link my real identity. I also have a job where being anonymous is important as it involves potential safeguarding issues for me career wise, so no I won’t be using my real name. I couldn’t give a to** that you do as it doesn’t make you more virtuous or brave. I’m as much a coward as you’re a knuckle dragging moron, but your virtual equivalent of ‘let’s discuss this outside’ is pathetic and laughable. Just link as much of the ‘sports media’ you’ve got for me to look at that said ‘Norwich city are a laughing stock’. Funny things about your ‘facts’ is that they are actually just your opinion until you give me some evidence. Still not got any? Shocker 

    Just use your real name then.

    I have a career also and my firm has connections with the club as a regional partner, however this doesnt mean i have to post anonymously .

    Your just making excuses.

    If you knew me personally you would know im far from the sensitive type, i just get sick of everytime i come on here we see keyboard warriors like you, posting anonymously, spouting abuse at people who disagree. You seem to also have made more out of my suggestion. It wasnt a virtual 'lets step outside', and i dont see whats laughable or pathetic about it. Your just saying that to distance yourself even further from actually doing it, along with your 'safeguarding issues cause of your career' crap. 

    Its a valid suggestion to try to get the anonymous and cowardly children on here that act big and tough and hurl abuse, to act like adults and just have conversation and debate about NCFC. I have always said dont say things on the internet that you wouldnt have the balls to say to someones face (cue the ' i would say everything ive said to your face cause im hard' reply).

    I also dont understand why you so vehemently are attacking people who said we were a laughing stock and an embarassment last season.

    We were, and it was a running theme in the sports media. I dont know where your getting it from that it wasnt the case.

    And also why you seem to be taking it so seriously and are battling people who say that we were and demanding 'proof'.

  22. 2 minutes ago, chicken said:

    I mean, that statement can be true whilst also saying that Smith isn't a long ball merchant can be true.

    More long balls than in Farke's time wouldn't be a hard total to beat would it? Though I will say one thing, in the Bournemouth cup game last season, under Farke, I felt it was notable that Gunn had certainly been told to mix it up. That with Sargent as the striker, he was a good out ball should Bournemouth push up.

    It worked a treat because they'd push up, we'd hit it long, they'd sit back, we'd play it out. Honestly, I think Farke wanted us to be able to be both, so we could switch it up.

    Back to your point though, Smith may not fear playing those sorts of balls, but that's different to making them the focus to our style of play, which they're not. He has criticised our creativity with Pukki saying after the Cardiff game, for example, we need to find balls into Pukki's feet more often. 

    I feel like though, the longball stuff was more last resort in the absence of any prior game plan. That seems to be a growing theme under Smith. Lack of game plan.

    I may be wrong, as im not a professional footballer, but when several players start resorting to hoof balls its down to a lack of plan.

    We never saw it under Farke, we stuck to Farkeball right to the last minute. Look at the Forest 3-3. 97th minute and Farkeball gets the equaliser. 

    Farkeball to the death.

    Against Cardiff we were punting after 40 mins! Because there was no other plan in the players minds. Farkeball has been well and truly coached out of them. This is why at times we look clueless attack wise and lack an identity and an obvious tactical plan on how to formulate goal scoring chances.

    Without a plan the players are just resorting to punting towards goal.

  23. 8 hours ago, essex canary said:

    In a strategic sense that doesn't make the Club a national embarrassment. Consider for example how we have got on over the last 13 years relative to Charlton Athletic?

    What was embarrassing about that day was self-funding gone mad in preventing some would be supporters attending to save £40,000.

    Im not sure why this is being debated. The sports media last season, whether you take it seriously, to heart, or dont give 2 shiny $****s, had labelled us an embarrassment.

    And they were probably right, we were abysmal at times. 

  24. 6 hours ago, horsefly said:

    Any grounds for your confidence that two £25m players "would have done the trick? Man U spent £90m on Pogba, £70m on Maguire, but then it is true they managed to avoid relegation.

    The idea we should have kept Emi has long since been blown out of the water by the fact he had already stated he wouldn't play for us again. Skipp was not for sale, and even if he had been he would have been beyond our price range and almost certainly tempted elsewhere anyway. Unlike you (or indeed any of us fans) the club has to deal with the realities it faces.

    I think it would have served us better than spreading £50m thinly like we did.

    We arent competing with Man U. We're trying to stay up. History shows filling your team with £7m players is far more unlikely to result in survival next to the team that buys £25m players. Pretty obvious one that one id say. We did it once or twice, but the teams that remained in the Prem, your Southamptons and Burnleys, have consistently bought players in the £25m mould rather than £5m-£10m like we do.

    Also you seem to have misunderstood what I said. I didnt say we should have kept Emi and Skipp. I said we needed to have kept Emi and Skipp and added with the £25m players, to have stood a far more realistic chance of being competitive and staying up. 


  • Create New...