CiderkiddCanary

I work at the stadium and Elliott Bennett and David Fox both wandered into the away section of the Jarrold as I was making my way to the Barclay. Then saw Fox again when I''d finished my shift. Exciting times. [;)]

Seeing him fall over the advertisement hoardings was absolutely hilarious.

[quote user="Dicky"]if we go down (which looks very likely), then it''s not the end of the world. A season in the Champ will give us more wins, more goals, the excitement of possible promotion, the chance to do the Scum home and away, no MOTD b0llocks, more games, more youth players coming through the ranks, more refs on our side, some new grounds, friendlier away fans, less glory hunting plastics, less moaning and more optimism. It''s not all bad. We''ll still be watching the team we love and I for one will look forward to it.[/quote]I think this is a really important point. If more youth players come in to the team following relegation, and obviously help the team to do well/get promoted and improve as players themselves, then I could see relegation as a positive in the longer term. Provided that a return to the PL is achieved within the next few years of course...

I suppose all of the successful managers are too busy being successful to comment on the happenings at Norwich. So I guess we''re just left with all of the less successful and outspoken people to have their say. Says it all really. [;)]

I doubt many people expected Swansea to be able to get someone like Michael Laudrup, so how about Frank Rijkaard? Currently out of a coaching/management position after leaving his role in charge of the Saudi Arabian national team. If he''s interested in managing in the PL then a season or two at Norwich could be a great chance to improve his reputation, particularly since he''s largely been out of the European spotlight since leaving Galatasaray in 2010. Of course I''d expect most people to say "not a chance" and that it''s a silly suggestion, but Norwich are (hopefully) going to be entering their 4th consecutive season of PL football next season.. that''s on the way to the club being recognised as a stable PL side. Therefore why wouldn''t decent foreign coaches/managers want to come to Norwich and work in the PL? The club is hardly short of cash nowadays either. Having said that I think it''d also be in the long term interests of the club to promote that the club''s coaches, such as Adams and Robson, work alongside the future manager to provide continuity and give them experience that they could bring to the top job in the future. The successful Liverpool sides of the 1970''s onwards often stemmed from in-house managerial appointments.On a slightly different note I also think it could be really useful for a certain "style of play" to be implemented on the playing side of things. Bringing in a manager with experience of developing technical styles of play, such as Rijkaard, Bielsa etc, and following these broader philosophies through subsequent managerial appointments could set up a really positive short-to-medium term future on the playing side of the club.

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="T"]The standard example is tossing an unbiased coin. You may toss the coin a few times and it just comes up heads everytime but if you keep tossing the coin enough times it will come up heads 50pc of the time. Same for a football club. Most people don''t understand statistics because it is a very dry but very important subject as probability governs our lives. Where people say you can prove anything with statistics what they really mean is they don''t understand statistics because you can''t prove something with statistics if the preposition is false. Related is decision theory so for any stance because people misunderstand probability because it is not intuitive they think we should progress from last season when in reality the probability is we will be relegated. People also tend to blame one person when in reality it is more complicated and they tend to look at near and recent events rather than the long term big picture. If you don''t believe that people have a poor understanding of statistics, probability and reality then this message board statistical proves that theory.[/quote] That''s fine and dandy but for true analysis you need to factor in many more variables than you are using, if not you end with a skewed result The more variables used the truer the final picture becomes. You can''t prove a false premise but you can ,if you limit the factors to what you require then the results will skew in the direction you want to prove. At the moment you are citing wages as the main criteria therefore your results will skew in that direction. Add in, player competence, manger ability, weather factors, influence of support, injuries........and so on, then you are going to get a truer result. Then of course add in the X factor of chance/luck which you must with anything humans are involved in.(unlike machines they do not always function as predicted) You might end up with the same result or it might just be slightly different by a place or three.   [/quote]Whilst this is broadly true, adding too many variables to a statistical investigation or analysis can have just as much of a damaging and unwanted effect as not having enough variables. I think there is always a need to keep a holistic and broader view on things, whilst of course analysis certain issues in detail.I completely understand and accept the reverting back to the mean theory/hypothesis - however surely the ambition of the club should be on changing the mean? The current mean is, I''m assuming, based on the last 10 - 50 years of league positions, points, finance etc? But there''s no reason why in 50 years time we can''t all look back and see that Norwich''s mean has progressed so that the club is a stable top-division side, particularly given the wide geographical monopoly that the club holds.

It''s an interesting statistic... some people just need to take it at face value. I don''t think it gives support to those who want the manager to stay and those who want him to go. It''s just a statistic. [:)]

Confirmed to have left Swansea.

David Carney?

I agree with Barossa.StokeFulhamCardiff

What would he add to the team though? In all honesty I think this one is for the best.

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="Jimmy Smith"]It would put us on 23 points... Interesting to note that the bookies still have faith in us, we''re 6th favourites for the drop with Palace, Cardiff, Fulham, Sunderland and West Ham all worse than us. I think it''s be another situation whereby Hughton clings on for another week or two. Hoepfully we could kick on from a win, but it''s increasingly hard to believe.[/quote]eh !it is nothing to do with faiththe odds reflect the amount of money bet(laid)or do you seriously think they sit around guessing why do you think they a called bookies ? ps you can look it up, it might help you [/quote]As I understood it, Jimmy Smith was referring more to the fact that more money would appear to be going on teams other than Norwich, rather than suggesting that the odds are a reflection of the beliefs of the bookies.

I don''t agree that the signing of Gutierrez is a clear indication that Chris Hughton is definitely going to stay in the job. I don''t know this for absolute certain, but I''m fairly sure that the board would have to sign off any player transferring into the club. Therefore, as I see it, Gutierrez signing is more for the benefit of the club rather than saying that Hughton''s position is secure. Plus to those who say that getting a new manager in isn''t going to happen because they wouldn''t be able to get their own players in - well, what if the players aren''t the problem? Plus why do people seem to think that just because a new manager comes in that they want to completely overhaul the squad? The new man could be happy with the squad, maybe make a few changes but nothing drastic, and it could be that he gets the best out of the squad than the current manager. Of course if the board feel that there is nobody better out there then they should stick by the manager and see where it ends up, but a change in management doesn''t necessarily mean complete change for the playing team, at least in the short term.

[quote user="Galaxy Canary 24"]I come on here as a keen fan and season ticket holder and the name I picked is the thing being talked about, wow I thought his message board was supposed to be about Norwich City?[/quote]Don''t be so silly. [;)]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]The issue is therefore what the mean position of each club is - or should be. That fans of a particular club are unlikely to be empirical about where the mean for their club lies can be observed. The Answer to the Hughton in/out debate is therefore: d) False Ricardo et al have stated that the historical mean for Norwich is between 25th and 30th in the football pyramid. Lucrative survival - the status quo - is therefore over performing.[/quote]Whilst I accept this forms a strong part of the argument, it does seem a rather pessimistic view (i.e. that Norwich are essentially always certain to revert to somewhere between 20th and 40th place in the English footballing pyramid). My club, Yeovil Town, are currently way way way above our average. 10 years ago, when we''d just entered the Football League for the first time, not many would have believed that we''d be competing in the second tier of English football. Our average for our entire history is almost certainly below the 4th tier of English football. So whilst I accept this point I don''t believe that it is a constraint to football clubs improving. Just because Norwich''s average for the last 100 years+ is somewhere around 25th, why can''t their average for the next 25/50/100 years be higher?As an aside, I also agree with one of Purple''s points made in the OP. The context of a manager coming into a club is incredibly important in my personal opinion, with a clear example being Norwich City. Lambert was what the club needed at the time of his appointment, somebody to instill passion and belief into a squad and club that had experienced a lengthening period of decline. After Lambert had left, I believe the Norwich board made the correct decision in appointing somebody like Hughton, who strikes me as being more of a "club-builder" than Lambert appeared to be in his time at Norwich. By club-builder I am referring to the idea of somebody who can stay at a club for a lengthy period of time (think of Curbishley at Charlton, Allardyce at Bolton, SAF at Man Utd, even abroad with Lucescu at Shakhtar Donetsk or Roux at AJ Auxerre) and provide stability to the club. In Norwich''s case, barring a shock qualification to the Champions League or shock PL title, for the next few years this is likely to encompass mid-table stability whilst the club initially focuses on improving the number of quality players within the squad, be it through purchases or youth players from the academy, before later considering infrastructure improvements to the club such as stadium expansion when finances are at a very strong level.In terms of the Hughton in/out debate, what I''m trying to stay is that I think it''s best for Norwich to stick with Hughton provided that he appears to be learning from his mistakes, continues to bring good quality players to the club and that the club continually improves, or at the very least does not get worse. If Norwich were to finish 16th, 14th, 11th, 17th and 10th over the next 5 years in the PL, would that be a good or bad thing? Certainly barring the couple of relegation battles that appears to be a relatively favourable set of finishes considering the recent history of Norwich falling into the third tier of English football. Whilst stability may be really boring for some from the perspective of the club, what with the riches offered by simply being in the PL, a set of league positions similar to those for the foreseeable future would be attractive due to the stability. I am not of course saying that Norwich should not be ambitious and constantly try to improve upon their position, quite the opposite, but if Norwich were to finish somewhere around 15th or 16th this season I do not think the board would view it as a disaster. Certainly it would be unfavourable compared to the 12th and 11th placed finishes of previous seasons, but securing constant PL football has to be the aim for the club in the short to medium term. I guess in a way what I''m trying to say is that so long as Norwich aren''t in true relegation trouble (i.e. 6 points adrift with 6 games to go) then I think Hughton deserves to stay. He can provide much needed stability for the club after what has been a really topsy-turvy last decade or so. If he gets lots of things wrong or Norwich come into serious relegation trouble in a few months time, then sure I would consider a change to be a reasonable option if enacted. However as long as this doesn''t happen, I feel everybody is ultimately better off for the stability of keeping Hughton and allowing him to learn from his mistakes and become a better manager.[D]

Only person I could imagine it could be is Karim Rekik. He''s not a midfielder, but could be good cover for central defence? Presuming he can get out of his loan to PSV Eindhoven of course.

In all fairness I think the DoF role is probably fulfilled by McNally, Hughton and Chester. Most, if not all, clubs have some sort of DoF - or in other words, someone looking at the long-term development of the club. So really, just depends whether those roles are carried out by more than one person or just the one person. If Hughton turns out to be a long term appointment at Norwich and secures the club in the Premier League for the next 5 - 10 years plus, then I think the DoF role might be one that he would be interested in, simply because he strikes me as being a "club-builder". Of course very hypothetical, but unless there was a change in manager or management structure, I doubt a DoF will be or will need to be appointed in the short to medium term.

4-0 win for Norwich. Goalscorers: Hooper x 2, Bassong, Fer.

Quite a challenging group, but certainly not the end of the world. England actually have quite a good record of getting through tough groups at competitions, think of Euro 2012, World Cup 2002 etc. I predict England to win the group with 7 points, win against Uruguay and Costa Rica, draw against Italy.

I saw him at Carrow Road about 12ish when I turned up for work, and he was with the guy you mention, in training gear. So I doubt he was supposed to have been on the bench.

I''m a Yeovil Town fan (born and raised in Norwich I might add) and there''s a really well-run fan website called Ciderspace. To be fair, I don''t know of many people who would prefer to use the official Yeovil website rather than Ciderspace, though I do accept it may be slightly easier for supporters of Yeovil to follow the on-goings of the club on a more intimate level than Norwich due to the differences in size. But I think fans can still have an important role to play in the reporting of club news.In terms of football overall, I do think that the predictions suggested by previous posters in this thread regarding the demise of the game may well come true, particularly if everything becomes even more bland and there is a sudden realisation or campaign to make clubs more in touch with the grassroots. Football itself won''t of course die out in such a rapid fashion, and if there was to be another ITV Digital-esque collapse I would expect the game to recover, even if several bigger clubs are lost en-route. Alas it probably won''t come to that, but if one or both of the main paid-for broadcasters gets it wrong and there is a sudden and dramatic decline in demand, it would certainly be interesting to see how events unfolded.

Ruddy would have saved that. [;)]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="CiderkiddCanary"][quote user="First Wizard"] [quote user="Canary On The Wire"]Go on then Wiz, justify it:Here''s a tie breaker for you:Fraser Forster is a better goalkeeper than John Ruddy because:__________Didn''t think so mate.Personally I find it very difficult to judge Forster due to the poor quality of opposition he is against, and furthermore the fact that his defence will be massively superior to the strikers they face and I imagine without looking at the stats he faces fewer chances and an easier quality of chance to save than Ruddy. So I wouldn''t like to call it. But to say Forster is better than Ruddy is completely unfounded.[/quote]   Had it not been for Forster''s amazing stops for us in League 1, we''d still be stuck there. [/quote]Of course. He was fantastic in League 1 in the 09/10 season. Therefore he should now play for England. [:D][/quote]   Try reading the question again. [/quote]Sure. So Ruddy is better than Forster and/or you think has greater justification for being selected to play for England because he was really good for Norwich City in League 1 over three seasons ago. That''s how I read what you''ve said. So by that reckoning, every player that has ever been successful in League 1 (successful being determined as winning the league, I presume?) deserves an international call-up. [H]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Canary On The Wire"]Go on then Wiz, justify it:Here''s a tie breaker for you:Fraser Forster is a better goalkeeper than John Ruddy because:__________Didn''t think so mate.Personally I find it very difficult to judge Forster due to the poor quality of opposition he is against, and furthermore the fact that his defence will be massively superior to the strikers they face and I imagine without looking at the stats he faces fewer chances and an easier quality of chance to save than Ruddy. So I wouldn''t like to call it. But to say Forster is better than Ruddy is completely unfounded.[/quote]   Had it not been for Forster''s amazing stops for us in League 1, we''d still be stuck there. [/quote]Of course. He was fantastic in League 1 in the 09/10 season. Therefore he should now play for England. [:D]

Listening to 5 Live, all of the people on the show at the moment seem to think that Fraser Forster is likely to start ahead of John Ruddy for England against Chile, and then Joe Hart will come back in for the Germany game.The justification of this? Apparently because Forster has been "exceptional" in the Champions League for Celtic for the last couple of years.So approximately 12-18 matches in the Champions League is the same as being very good for the majority of 63 games in the PL for Norwich? I don''t understand the logic behind this point of view, other than maybe because Celtic''s CL games are more high profile than Norwich''s PL games. But still, personally I think Ruddy deserves another chance for England.