Empty Mirror

The Germans have (by far) the best tournament record in European football.  And every time they reach another final the English media is agreed that they are "poor", "very very average", "not blessed with a fraction of the riches [in terms of talent] that England have" etc.    I wish England were that average.   The thing is, slanging the Germans off every time is so much easier than looking at ourselves.   I don''t pretend to know why the Germans do so well, but I do follow the German media before a major tournament and the contrast with the English media is very stark.   Before every tournament our media is full of comment from pundits declaring that our players are world class (or in some cases, players, declaring that they themselves are world class).   Before this and every tournament I have followed (which is back to the 1970s)  the German media and players are cautious, usually recknoning that they don''t have the talent of their rivals, but hopefull that the "German virtues" of hard work, organisation, and above all teamwork and putting the team before the individuals may compensate.  When we go out it was either bad luck, a bad ref, or the fault of some scapegoat - Mclaren under the umbrella, Ronaldo for "making"Rooney stamp on another player and get sent off etc etc.   But we are still invariably world class and our players heroes.  After last night''s game that got them into yet another final, there isn''t a hint of triumphalism in the German media : they are full of comment about areas where they need to improve before Sunday.  Which may be why they probably will. 

The quote from the Guardian is from the Guardian Rumours page.  All the Grauniad is saying by reporting it is that there is a rumour to this effect - which is patently true; there''s a rumour right here on this board.   And the Telegraph quote is from the Telegraph Transfer Talk.  All they''re saying is that this is being talked about.   Which again is true; we''re talking about it.  I don''t know what''s going on, but quotes from a "Rumours" or a "Talk" page don''t prove a lot.  There may be something to it; equally, somebody may have put two and two together and made five, and started a rumour, leading to fevered internet speculation.  The national press rumour pages then report (correctly) the existence of the rumour.   And the fevered speculation then takes the report of the rumour as proof that it''s true. 

Hooligan, Rigters and Betrand are among the more plausible rumours.   Speaking after the debacle of Huckerby''s departure Roeder himself dropped hints about Hooligan and Betrand.    And Rigters was reported as coming with an option to buy when he came on loan, so Roeder must be interested in him.  Equally, Ameoba and Taylor are among the less plausible rumours, unless there''s really a big cash injection.  So, GNG''s rumour sounds plausible - that could means (s)he knows something, but it could also mean that it''s just a plausible wind up / fantasy.

I think he has promise.   On loan, and at the end of the season (after the drink driving thing, oddly) he impressed.   In between, he fell away, but he''s young and may improve.  And we usually look more solid with him.  

Roeder’s achievement in avoiding relegation was considerable.      It’s easy to focus on the “thirteen match unbeaten run” and the “failure” to sustain it, but the fact is that we had a fair bit of good fortune during that run (e.g., Colchester away, Wolves at home – but don’t tell Camolodnum and We8wba!) and a fair bit of bad fortune after it (Stoke and West Brom at home, Bristol City away).  If the luck had evened out a bit the results would have been much more consistent, and there’s no denying that the team’s performances were consistently improved once Roeder came in.  Ok, so we lost at home to Stoke and WBA, and away at Bristol, but no one who was at any of these games would not say that we were hugely improved – unrecognisable even – from the shower that lost at home to Sheffield Wednesday or away at Wolves or QPR under Grant.     So, on the pitch, lots of grounds for optimism.   Taking Roeder’s time as a whole, we didn’t look like a team that is about to run away with the Championship, but nor did we look like a team that would get relegated, and given what was served up before he came, that’s a real achievement.   Off the field, and particularly since the end of the season, I’m concerned that a pattern is starting to emerge:   1.                  Roeder sacked Huckerby.   I don’t want to go over into the debate about the footballing merits again, there’s more than one view, but it was poorly handled.  And yes, Huckerby has made all the right noises in the media, but if you believe that……   2.                  Three physios left.   Two were sacked by Roeder.    One, we are told, chose to leave and was not sacked but, again, if you believe that…..   3.                  There’s no shortage of rumours about Roeder falling out with others.  The Evening news carried a headline “Roeder at Odds with Gunn” the other day, just by way of an example.   All of which could be, either (1) a necessary “new broom” coming in, and sweeping away the dead wood, or (2) a manager who is falling out with everyone and destroying morale at the club.  We can’t know, though if it was (1) (a necessary new broom sweeping away the dead wood) we’d expect to see those who were not swept away by the new broom welcoming and being invigorated by the new regime, and, in Roeder’s words, “new heroes” joining the cause.  If it was (2) (manager falling out with everyone and destroying morale at the club) we’d expect to see reluctance among those left to commit to new contracts, and reluctance among those approached to join this (not very) happy band (since football is a small world, and word gets around quick).    My concern is that, whilst it’s early days yet, the emerging pattern is more consistent with (2) (manager falling out with everyone and destroying morale at the club, reluctance among those left to commit to new contracts, and reluctance among those approached to join) than it is with (1):   1.                  Doc has been offered a new contract.  So, clearly, Roeder wants him.  Doc won’t sign.   2.                  No other club has come in for Doc.   Still he won’t sign.   He seems keener on going to the USA at what, for him, would be very young age, rather than signing.   3.                  Hooligan has apparently been here for a medical, and terms have been agreed.  It’s fairly plain that Roeder thought the acquisition was in the bag, hence his public comments, and we were in touch with him long before the Hucks sacking.   But, Hooligan won’t sign.   4.                  No new physios have arrived.  It’s inconceivable that the club sacked or allowed to leave three physios without having any replacements lined up.   But, no one has signed.  I understand that the physios are a particularly tightly knit community, and word about who is good to work for travels fast.   5.                  Even Fozzy, Roeder’s captain and the principal beneficiary of the new regime, would not sign the three year contract offered to him.  Eventually, he signed a one year contract only, which means he’ll be looking to be off it things don’t go well, which is no kind of commitment at all.   Yes, it’s early days.   I hope the next few days and weeks prove that there is no trend there.  And yes, each of these failures to get people to sign on the dotted line can, for now, and looked at in isolation, be explained away (Doc is fed up with the fans’ criticism, Hooligan’s agent is waiting for a better offer, Fozzy’s wife wants to go back to Scotland, and maybe – just maybe, though it takes some believing – we really did lose three physios without making any plans, or maybe the entire world is on holiday).   But taken together, it’s beginning to look like a worrying trend.   For the sake of our great club, I hope I’m wrong.    

I haven''t seen Sibieski enough to form a view about him.  But if we were going for the kind of players that are being talked of:  Rigters, Hoolahan, maybe Bertrand or Ched, we''d end up with a very young team.    They might need a wise old head.   Whether Sibieski could be that man, and why Hucks couldn''t be, are questions I can''t answer.

"What I am unhappy with is the way that it has been handled". Adams, Huckerby, Jarvis, the backroom staff...... I do hope there''s not a pattern emerging.   An awful lot of people seem to be unhappy with the "way things are being handled" by our esteemed Manager.   Hopefully the lack of eagerness by Fozzy and Doc to put pen to paper doesn''t mean that even those he wants to stay aren''t happy.  Having shipped out a fair proportion of the club, if he can''t keep those he wants to keep, things are goign to start looking very grim.

I doubt very much that Ameobi is the surprise; we can''t afford him. If you look at the interview in which Roeder talked of the "pleasant surprise", Roeder is talking in the context of Hucks'' departure.  He talks specifically about being after "one or two players" who can play wide on the left.   Then  he says that if he gets one player it will be a really pleasant surprise.  It''s not possible to tell from the newspaper report whether he is still talking about the "wide on the left" position or whether he has moved on.   Though he definitely says he is after "one or two" who "can play" in that position, wide on the left. One of them is presumably Hoolahan.  Roeder''s admiration for him is well documented.   And he''d be a good signing, I think.  There must be a question, though, as to whether we would get him if there''s an auction.  If he were sensible Roeder would presumably have some commitment from him in the bag before deciding to let Hucks go and then sounding off in public about the replacement he has lined up.   But there again, is he sensible?  And even if we have some commitment, we could still be "gazumped" before 1 June. That still leaves the question of who the other player is who "can play" wide on the left in Hucks'' position (but by the sound of it doesn''t always).   One possibility who fits the bill would be Ryan Bertrand.   He can play there, or at left full back.  And with Chelsea employing England''s first and second choice left back, there can''t be many opportunities for him there.   Now, sigining him rather than loaning him - that would be a pleasant surprise.  And he''d be a good investment, even if Chelsea insisted on first option on him back or a sell on. If the pleasant surprise is not Bertrand, and is a striker, Marceo Rigters is more likely.    I have a recollection that when he came on loan, there was talk of an option to buy, though I can''t find the article now.   He looked awesome in the ten minutes he played against Colchester - though on that day most of our team looked awesome (sorry, Camul) so maybe not much to judge him on.   But if he did have an option to buy, then presumably Roeder must be thinking of him to have negotiated that.

Well, if it''s the real Hucks then: Darren, you''ll always be a Norwich City legend, thanks for everything. If it is not the real Hucks then: Darren (the real one: should you read this) you''ll always be a Norwich City legend, thanks for everything.

Relegation would have been a financial disaster from which our club might have taken years to recover.  And not good for Roeder''s reputation either!   Against that background, and with only a few games left in which to avoid relegation, it must be inconceivable that any sane manager would play anything other than what he sincerely believes is his best starting line up.   Experimenting, even along the lines of giving players the manager is not sure about the "opportunity to earn yourself a new contract" would have to be unthinkable: a sane manager would put out his strongest team, to avoid relegation for the sake of his own reputation if nothing else.  Roeder''s team for the last few crucial matches included Huckerby.  If Roeder is a sane manager that would lead to the conclusion that when he picked the team for QPR he thought Huckerby was in his best eleven players.   In which case, why did Hucks not merit a place in the squad ten days later? 

I hope he stays.  Firstly, I rather rate him.   Secondly, if Fotheringham - Roeder''s captain - were to choose to go, what would that suggest about morale at the club following Huckerby''s departure?