Webbo118

[quote user="Indy"]Who really cares? In all reality, this is the new set up, Stone is gone and reasons will never be given. The owners decide the structure and who they employ, it’s the way it is, as before if you don’t like it lump it. As long as the football is as good as it can be under the financial restrictions we have and the players give their all, just enjoy the day, enjoy the football and the crack with other supporters! Stop worrying about things you have absolutely no control over. It is as it is.[/quote] You have to care because it is OUR Club.They do not own the Club; they are majority shareholders and it is right that others at least have an opinion. Most things in life we have no control over but it shouldn''t stop anyone from saying what they think. Should it?

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Purely a coincidence Webbo.[/quote] Purely a coincidence that keeps being repeated!

[quote user="4th floor"]Can someone explain how we got from McNally and Bowkett, to Jez Moxley, and to today''s situation? I can see several job titles, but I''m not sure who''s doing what. It all sound a bit like musical chairs to me.[/quote] It would appear that the majority shareholders have difficulty in maintaining relationships with "colleagues" in important positions who are working with/for them!

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="JF"]He could have agreed a deal for a permanent move back to Scotland and played for Hearts next season earning about 75% less than we’re paying him. Or he could play in Scotland next season for Hearts and continue to earn the salary we agreed to pay him. Either way he will play in Scotland for Hearts next season. If you’re the player that’s a bit of a no brainier really isn’t it?[/quote]You''re still missing the point JF, if he simply wants the money, then why not be honest about it and say: "I would love to move to Hearts permamently, but Norwich are paying me daft money and it''s better for me to rip them off for another year AND play for Hearts, than actually live up to my ''I just want to play football'' claim and take a paycut to leave now and prove it"...[/quote] In which other industry would you get paid by your employer and work for someone else? He should remain at NCFC, playing or not, and if he doesn''t like it, he knows the answer. Why are we bending over backwards to facilitate him?

[quote user="king canary"]Chicken and egg bethnal. My opinion was those shots came about because we weren''t creating any clear cut chances, not that we lacked patience. The issue for me was we often lacked the ability to change the tempo of our play to actually move defenders about. Instead when we did get someone dragged out of position we''d play another 3 passes and let them get back.[/quote] Football has always been, and still is, a relatively simple game. You win matches by scoring more goals than the opposition, not by having more possession than them!

[quote user="KeiranShikari"]Parking the KV-2 is fine for the odd game (we did it at quite a few away games last year) but we all know from experience how tiring it gets week after week.I think the best team at the World Cup so far have been Uruguay. Very organised defensively, aggressively going after the ball high up the pitch (early on at least), nothing too flash but still have the cutting edge up top. Granted it probably helps that they are spearheaded by Cavani and Suarez. [/quote] Strikers hunting in pairs. Not a lone wolf in sight.

[quote user="Jim Smith"]VAR does work if used correctly. They have not, however, yet worked out the best framework for its use and it also will not work correctly if applied ineptly (or perhaps even corruptly) as it was in the England game last night. I watched the Sweden game yesterday afternoon and VAR was used correctly to award Sweden a penalty following an intervention by the VAR. The same has happened in other games including the France game (although the pen there was a bit more 50/50). It is inexplicable that the VAR officials last night did not do the same for the 3 times Kane and Maguire were rugby tackled in the box at corners all of which were clear penalties. I hope I am wrong but it seems to me a huge coincidence that England were the victims of this. You can just tell that now there is going to be a clampdown on wrestling in the box which will see penalties given in similar situations in future games, probably with one against us in one of our remaining games. If VAR is going to work then the terms of reference need to be clear and consistent. Ironically, although the penalty given against us was soft, i think the fact it was not reversed by VAR was the correct outcome because there was contact and the matter then really becomes a subjective which means it wasn''t a clear and obvious error. The other thing that would help with VAR would be if like rugby you could hear the conversation between the officials or at least it was made available after the game so you could understand the rationale behind the decisions.[/quote] VAR does work if used correctly ??? What does used correctly mean? No-one knows. It is smothered in confusion. The communication is hopeless. People in the stadium do not know what is happening. It is not being applied consistently but at the discretion of those sitting in the little boys room. In sort, a shambles.

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="Fiery Zac"]....In your opinion. I’ve got mine and it’s not ridiculous except, again, in your opinion.[/quote] and everybody else with eyes that aren''t blocked by St George glasses.[/quote] And I have an opinion too. Just wondering when you are next due to visit Specsavers!

[quote user="JF"]king canary wrote the following post at 18/06/2018 8:00 PM: Worked really well for the Sweden game. That particular decision was ridiculous. The red shouldn’t have needed the var it was that clear but yes it sorted it in the end. I can’t see how they, having viewed the Kane incident haven’t given it. Unless they haven’t viewed from all angles. Either way it hasn’t worked in this game[/quote] It is turning referees into cowards who are reluctant to make decisions. They are becoming like bean counting umpires in cricket.

[quote user="daly"][quote user="Nexus_Canary"]Good piece of business imho. Josh is inconsistent and frustrating as hell hes 23 so should be well past his immaturity. Time to thank him for his hard work and pocket the cash.[/quote]] If this sale goes through then this club has shown its true colours No Ambition and lower ranks of the Championship for the foreseeable future[/quote] I saw my first game in 1963 and Ron Davies was my hero. Two seasons later we sold him and we have been selling our best players ever since. That''s what we do.

[quote user="Liquidator"]There''s no way he will cancel without us paying, which is what annoyed me so much when he said he would ''play for free'' - effectively he''s just saying he''d play for someone else while Norwich pay his wages.[/quote] There is absolutely no way that should be allowed to happen. He should be working for the Club that is paying his wages.

[quote user="4-2-thefloor"][quote user="Capt. Pants"][quote user="4-2-thefloor"]If you can see what Farke is trying to do then we need to give him at least another season. He only need a few more players and to give the team a little tune up.[/quote]I''m not sure I really see what he''s trying to do to be honest. It might be suited to mid table Bundesliga, but as to getting promoted from the Championship then I don''t see with his tactics we will ever win enough games. He''s not a good fit for this league.[/quote]Farke is trying to get us to play similar to Swansea under Brendan Rogers, so all this talk of not being able to play a possession game and be promoted is wrong in my view.Trying to do it on a budget with half the team being new players is a real challenge. I appreciate some don''t like possession football and would prefer a direct game, but I''d say the dissatisfaction is more because we aren''t performing consistently than the style per se.[/quote] I have nothing at all against possession football as long as, on the odd occasion, we threaten the opposition box by passing the ball forward, getting players in the box and putting in some crosses. there is no point whatsoever in possession for the sake of possession. There has to be a reason and an end product, otherwise what''s the point. You don''t win anything by merely having more possession than the opposition.

[quote user="Yellowhammer"]Totally agree he must go before next season ,managing a reserve team in Germany is not good enough to step up to the championship apart from maddison and sometimes Gunn the rest of squad are not up to championship football. Wes and klose have been up and down . If we keep farke sell Maddison and Gunn returns to city we will be here next season mid table .the fans who were there today deserve much better[/quote] The way things are going, it will be an absolute miracle if we are mid table next season.

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Fulham put in about as many crosses as Norwich and are the 2nd highest scorers in the league. There is no correlation between teams that cross more and teams that score more. Variation in attack is important and Norwich have taken too many shots from stupid locations too often this season. Josh Murphy and Nelson being the leading culprits.[/quote] As well as putting in crosses, you have to have players in the box trying to get on the end of them. One is not enough. It is not always possible to score perfect goals which is what we seem to be trying to do.

[quote user="wcorkcanary"]If it''s a foul, in the penalty area, then it''s penalty. Except if it''s a back pass, then it''s an indirect free kick. Keepers often delay picking up the ball unless necessary due to the six seconds rule.[/quote] The six seconds rule is universally ignored. It''s as if it no longer exists!