Empty Mirror

A couple of non starters keep coming up. Lambert wouldn''t come back whilst McNally is our CEO. And Eddie Howe won''t leave Bournemouth. Bournemouth are owned by a billionaire and have more money than we do, they just don''t shout about it. If it''s Phelan, which seems likely, that''s a second untried manager. High stakes for McNally, one wonders if he''d survive a second inexperienced manager proving to be, well, inexperienced.

The "scouring Europe" remark was made by McNally, not Delia. For all we know he may have told her the same.

There is no chance whatsoever of Lambert returning whilst McNally is CEO.

As last season shows, difficult to judge a squad on paper. Last season we lacked (in order of importance): 1. A leader on the pitch. 2. A midfielder who who could create chances. 3. A goalscorer. We had all of those in 2010: Holty to lead, Wes (in his prime) to create chances, and Holty to put the chances away. This Summer we have (possibly) addressed point 3 (the goalscorer). Possibly not. We''re still short of a leader on the pitch and a creative midfielder. So, no, sadly 2010 was much stronger.

As the OP says, the CEO did superbly with Lambert. Since then, my concern is that the CEO has too often become a part of the story, if not the story. The truth about Lambert''s departure has of course yet to emerge. Norwich is a small place and I have heard the Lambert camp''s side of that story story. I can''t know if their account is true, and I make no judgement about it. I''m old enough to know that there will be another side to the story. It''s clear, however, that the CEO and Lambert fell out in a big way, and that this was a factor (I put it neutrally) in Lambert''s departure. Having fallen out with Lambert, the CEO then fell out with the team captain and three times player of the season - Holty implied as much in a subsequent interview widely discussed on this site. Again, I can''t know the truth of what happened, nor would I presume to say who was in the right. But, again, it may be that the CEO and our team captain fell out, and that this was a factor in Holty''s departure. If the CEO at, say, Manchester United, had fallen out with Sir Alex Ferguson, and then with Wayne Rooney, who would leave the club? It wouldn''t have been the manager, or the top player, that''s for sure. But at little Norwich, the CEO has been able to dig in, and the manager and team captain left. I''m not saying they wouldn''t have gone anyway, I can''t know that: the point is that in each case a falling out with the CEO appears to have been a factor in their going. After Lambert''s departure, as the OP says, the CEO appointed Hughton. There have been reports on these forums about conversations with Board Members after Christmas suggesting that many wanted Hughton out earlier, and that the CEO was a strong voice in favour of keeping his man. More recently, if Charlie Wyatt is to be believed (and he appears to have good contacts at the club) we made an offer to Malky, but couldn''t see that offer through. Delia''s warm friendship with Malky is well known, and the CEO"s Radio Norfolk remarks about Malky ("I don''t know the man" were luke warm at best) so it''s likely that either the CEO failed to tie up a deal that the majority shareholder and the Board wanted (bad) or that Adams is now the CEO''s man, that he didn''t want Malky, and he saw to it that his man got the job (worse). I''m City ''till I die, and I''m hoping for good football under Adams, to see the young players brought through, and if we win promotion that would be the icing on the cake. If we do, the CEO will be hailed as a genius again, and that''s fine by me. I will join in the applause. But I suspect the mark of a good CEO is that he or she is calm, determined, a strong character, but above all that they are not noticed and that they never become a major part of the story. The ship should continue serenely on its path, and if the fans are unaware of how hard the CEO is working to achieve that, then that''s the best sign that he''s doing his job. I''m backing Adams, I''m backing the club, and I''m backing the CEO. But, Mr McNally, Sir, please let''s have the focus on our young manager and our (hopefully) young squad, and not on you. Not on your supposed genius, nor on allegations about your competence. If we''re still discussing you this time next year, then you would have failed. OTBC.

I cannot think that McNally would have made the comment about appointing within a week unless he thought he had someone (maybe more than one someone) lined up to take the job. Anything else would be stupid, and whatever one''s views of him, he doesn''t come across as that. It follows that we have been turned down (Lennon? Zola? Hoddle?). Maybe more than once. I suspect we may all need to get used to the idea that we are no longer as attractive a proposition as we may once have been and those hoping for the likes of Lennon may need to prepare for disappointment.

''What, like Lambert, you mean?" My point exactly, Yellowbeagle. Our CEO may have picked Lambert, who was strong minded and independent, but then fell out with him. Grant Holt was strong minded and independent. Judging by his subsequent interview, our CEO fell out with him. Hughton was a frightfully nice man. Our CEO picked him, and stuck by him, well past his sell by date. I shall judge the next appointments by whether our CEO has permitted the recruitment of a manager and Director of Football who are strong minded and independent (Lennon? Malky?) or whether we have a less "robust" choice.

Sherwood was too vocal and independent for Daniel Levy''s liking at Tottenham. Do you seriously think our Chief Executive would appoint someone vocal and independent as manager? Or as Director of Football?

Well, the key is that any DoF is a person of substance from outside the club. Someone who can if necessary stand up to the Board and the CEO (who admit they made mistakes and therefore may need to be stood up to). Curbishley would fit the bill. The nightmare would be we get Neil Adams, plus an internal promotion of some member of the existing staff who currently reports to the CEO, and becomes "Director of Football". Because that, in effect, would be to put the CEO in charge of football matters. And you don''t have to be part of the "McNally out" brigade to recognise that the CEO hasn''t covered himself in glory this season (he says so himself) and if his response to that were to be to (effectively) give himself more power by putting someone from within the club, who is used to answering to him, and who has no experience of the DoF role, in charge of football then you''d have to question whether his judgement has gone.

Priceyrice, we have two seats in the Jarrold, Block L, pretty much three rows behind you. It''s fairly central and a good view. Whether the three rows nearer the pitch that you are would make a difference I don''t know, but I''d guess they''re pretty good seats, as they ought to be for the money. We''re looking to move, but only because my wife is not tall and the people who sit in front are huge.

No.

In many ways Bassong''s interview was the most chilling thing I''ve heard in terms of our prospects of survival. This was Hughton''s chosen "team captain" and he sounded crushed. No hope, no fight, and he''s bought fully into the Hughton mantra that we can''t match the opposition''s "quality" (despite the opposition being a team that started the day below us). He either couldn''t be bothered to, or wasn''t capable of, issuing even the stock captain''s rallying cry about moving on to the next game. Hughton inner or Hughton outer, no one who heard that interview could have been left in any doubt that there''s something rotten at the core of our great club at the moment.

He might be a good player, in the right team. Maybe a French or Dutch side. Maybe Swansea, or Liverpool. Maybe even in a Norwich team with a midfield playmaker. To be honest, what he might be in a different team is irrelevant. As is the debate about whether he gets service, because the manager isn''t going to change the way we play any time soon. The fact is that in Hughton''s Norwich team, with no midfield playmaker, and which has its only creativity on the wings, there is simply no point playing RvW, however much we spent on him. Today, we we might as well have played with ten men, for all he contributed.

25 shots, but only 4 on target confirms that for all our possession against an increasingly unambitious Hull side, we still haven''t begun to create clear cut chances or indeed find any real penetration. The system with two wingers and no central playmaker simply isn''t the way to get the best of either of our strikers and as CH appears to have only the one system and no tactical flexibility he has taken us as far as he can, and he needs to go, with our thanks. Whether he needs to go now, or in the Summer, is another question altogether.

I can''t understand McNally''s suggestion that CH stays as long as we''re out of the bottom 3. With our run in, we need to be well clear of the bottom 3 by the time we go into the last five games. If we''re two points above the relegation zone with five to play then, realistically, we''re going down. The whole point is that we need to be putting on the points and getting well clear of the bottom 3 now, and we''re not doing that.

Not so. If you were Delia, and were still smarting from the vitriol you encountered from the fans when your supposedly "amateur" attempts to manage our club, culminating in the appointment of a club legend with no managerial experience led to our fall to the third tier, and if you had then been praised by all and sundry for appointing a "football man" in McNally, and "allowing him to run the club", how much of a hurry would you be in to confront said "football man" over what was and remains very much his choice of manager? Especially if your own choice might be yet another club legend? Or might you just sit on your hands and let the "football man" take the blame, as he is starting to? If you were our Chief Executive, and if your falling out with our most successful manager ever (in statistical terms) had played a part (I put it no higher, and apportion no blame for said falling out) in that manager''s departure, and if you''d had your man Hughton ready to parachute in within a week of that departure, might you just be unwilling to admit now that you got it wrong, and might you - despite a reputation for previous toughness - perhaps back your man a bit too long?

Formations may matter less than whether the players are right for the way the team is trying to play. Two wingers and no natural target man won''t work whether you call it 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2. Likewise, playing one (or even two) strikers of the kind who like to play on the last defenders shoulder and run onto through balls and then not playing a creative midfielder in the old fashioned "number 10" mould, won''t work whether it''s 4-4-2 or 4-5-1.

It''s striking how many of us are discussing the same issue - and how few to us can come up with an answer. The "Hughton In / Hughton Out" debate tends to be framed in terms of how much the manager is to blame for apparently lack lustre performances, players missing chances etc for which, arguably, the players have to take responsibility. Perhaps the more fundamental criticism is the extent to which the manager has spent his transfer budget on players who can''t play together (Hooper / RVW?) or players who can''t be fitted into a formation with the existing squad?

The question is academic whilst McNally is our Chief Executive. If McNally were no longer our Chief Executive (and he, too, may move on to a "bigger" club one day) I wouldn''t see a bar to PL coming back.

Made a real difference first half. Gave us vision and a bit of variety. Clearly tired in the second half, and should probably have been subbed ten minutes earlier. But that''s not surprising given his lack of games. Plus, it was noticeable that Palace were worried about his first performance as they doubled up on him second half, which left space for Jonny H to run into.

Great post, Kirstall. I have a season ticket at CR, but don''t get to follow the boys in yellow away much, and Newcastle was my first trip this season. One of the joys of going away, despite the fact that results are usually less good, is being part of the Yellow Army: noisy, witty, boisterous and endlessly believing in the team. What shocked me as much as the team''s performance (and for those who didn''t go, the MotD highlights, as has been said, flattered us) was how low the mood amongst the travelling support was. I''d say that until recently the home support has been fairly evenly split between those who backed Hughton and those who wanted him out, though with a tide flowing slowly towards the "outers". By the end of the Cardiff game at home (when, ironically, I thought we played well) I''d say that the "outers" were definitely in the majority. More so by half time against West Ham! But whether on the train going up, in Newcastle before hand, on the walk to or from the ground or inside the ground, there wasn''t a City fan I spoke to who didn''t despair of our manager. Things were so bad that we ended up ironically celebrating the late string of corners as if they were goals. Fer''s header came as a surprise, and I thought there was just a second''s stunned silence before pandemonium broke out. Then we were all on our feet chanting and singing and waiting from the response from the team, which never came. But it may be worth bearing in mind that when one comes across rows - on these boards, or in the city - between the Hughton "outers" and "inners" that this year there may be a difference of perception between home supporters, who''ve seen some semi-decent performances (Everton, Southampton, Cardiff, I didn''t think Villa was bad, and the second half v Wet Spam) and away supporters who have seen what many told me are the worst away performances in a generation including complete no shows at Hull, Tottenham, Man City and for most of the game, Newcastle. As has been said above, when you lose the away support, you have a problem.

There was an interesting article in the Torygraph earlier this week, I think by Henry Winter too, about why Spurs have such trouble scoring goals. It seems they are playing 4-2-3-1. Two holding midfielders, both defensive. And in the three behind the isolated loan forward, they''re playing the wingers on the "wrong" side. Which means they always cut inside onto their stronger foot. Thus denying the team width, and meaning crosses curl in to the keeper, not away from him. And they have spent money on a continental forward, who doesn''t really want crosses being rained in. All of which sounded strangely familiar. He suggested that the lack of penetration endemic to 4-2-3-1 system (when played with wingers on the "wrong" side) was evident from the fact that only one team in the Premiership has been caught off side as little as Tottenham. Which (being caught off side) he said wasn''t positive, because what the lack of being offsides demonstrates is the lack of any attempt to penetrate, because no one is playing through balls, and no one is attempting to run beyond the last defender. So, no one gets caught offside, because no one is even trying to get behind the defence. The only other team to have been caught off side as little (and therefore trying to get in behind the last defender as little)? You''ve guessed it......

Hooper is simply too small to play alone up front in the Premier League. When Redmond or Pilks (pre his injury today) got down the line, they often didn''t even cross it any more, it''s as if they know there''s no point as Hooper won''t win the header (and they''re right). Our multi million pound strikers have scored once between them from open play in 12 games, which says it all, and that was RvW in the first game, when he headed in a mis hit shot that accidentally set him up. On several occasions we worked an opening to cross, but seemed to decide "No, better not, no point" and sent the ball back, and it ended up going all the way back to Ruddy, which produced endless cries of "Forward, bloody hell, forward!" from the chap behind me. Neither RvW or Hooper are the kind of striker who flourishes with wingers hitting crosses in. Surely 12 games has proved that. If we''re going to persevere with wingers and no midfield playmaker we need to try Elmander up front, or Becchio. Remember him? Or find another target man. If on the other hand we''re going to persevere with fast strikers who like to play on the shoulder of the last man and run in behind them, then we need to find a midfield playmaker to thread the balls through to them. There''s a chap who did that for the Republic of Ireland the other week (and, of course, Martin O''Neil can spot a midfielder) but who isn''t getting game time with his Premier League club. Perhaps we should bid for Wes Hoolahan? Or, no, wait......

Ok. Maybe we were unlucky against City. Seven times. And, clearly, unlucky against Cardiff with our 3,100 shots on goal. And against Arsenal, obviously, where the final score flattered them. As it did Chelsea, where with a bit of luck we could have drawn. And we were unlucky against Villa, where a bit of bad luck about who takes the penalty cost us the game. And against everyone else. Napoleon apparently said that he didn''t care whether his generals were any good: he just wanted to know if they were lucky. If this is all down to luck, then we have an unlucky general. And that may be reason enough for him to go.

Well, something is up with Bassong''s form. Dominant last season, often dormant this. Gossip in the city says he''s a loner. I can''t know if it''s true. Gossip says a lot of stuff. But it''s not obvious that he''s leading on the pitch. Martin, Fer, Howson all seem to do that.