LeJuge

[quote user="lincoln canary"]Im sorry but I''ve got to say how dissapointed i am in Morison. He looks slow lazy and for a big guy remarkably lightweight. I hope Lambert restores Holty to tomorrows line up. Any one else agree he looks like a flop in the making??[/quote]I think everybody on here knows that I have too much to say about some of my own opinions, but even I am miffed by how anybody can have such strong opinions on a player after 2 starts and 2 sub appearances. I''m undecided, but I''m prepared to wait a fair bit longer for any player to make such a jump, including some of those who were already at the club. We have paid a fair bit of money for Morison, but that''s the strikers premium. I don''t think that I will ever consider him a waste of money even if he doesn''t ''make it'' in this league, because he has done enough in the league below to recoup at least £1m if we stay up, and if we go down this year then having Holt and Morison at the club is effectively like holding a return ticket to the Premiership.I can''t say that my very early ''opinion'' - if I even have one - includes the words ''lazy'' or ''lightweight'' though. If he doesn''t turn out any better than Grant Holt then that''s not testimony to any lack of ability on behalf of Morison, but more testimony to how important Holt is to our team. Morison has looked far from lazy, and for me he was one of the shining lights against Wigan. None of our strikers have nailed their place yet, we also have Jackson to throw into the mix at some stage. I expect that by Christmas we will have two strikers who sit at #1 and #2 in the pecking order, and that those strikers will be any two out of Morison, Holt, Vaughan, Martin and Jackson. The first two will need to up their game, Vaughan will need to stay fit, Martin will need to find his shooting boots, and Jackson will need to take his chance when he gets it. We don''t need all 5 to hit top form, I''m pretty confident that at least 2 or 3 will, that doesnt take anything away from the other 2 or 3, because this is a squad game and not a team game with Lambert. If one player is sitting on the bench all season, then it means a player on the pitch is keeping him out of the team. At this stage, and I''m sure many people will agree with me here, we don''t have a striker who has made himself indispensible at this level like Holt did in the level down.

[quote user="exiled blue"]"When Celtic brought 5000 fans to Carrow Road for the testimonial of Tim Sheppard they were impeccably well behaved, sung nothing inappropriate, and frankly created one of the best atmospheres that I have ever experienced at Carrow Road." they came to manchester to play city in a pre-season "friendly" 2 years ago. they lost. they were absolute scum. the violence before and after the game was shocking.it culminated in a 5 year old lad and his family getting attacked and beaten up. the kid was hit in the head by a house brick, he spent two weeks in hospital. this came about 18 months after manchester had hosted the uefa cup final when the rangers element had rioted in the city. they can stay in the joke league in scotland and they`re welcome to them.[/quote]That has nothing to do with them being:a) catholicb) pro-IRAorc) anti-English If you need any evidence of that, then refer back to the not so recent past when pro-British, anti-Irish, Rangers FC smashed up Manchester and almost killed a copper. What that does mean is that....a) they have a hooligan elementb) some of them are scumbagsThe worst violence seen in Norwich was a game featuring your friends, Man Utd, whose fans decided to try and burn our city down. As per "they can stay in the joke league in scotland and they`re welcome to them.", I never said that I wanted them in the English league. Your stance is of course very liberal and open minded in comparison to that of the average Rangers fan, who would rather see them all hung.

[quote user="chicken"]I hate stats, or at least I hate people basing arguments purely on stats. Assists for example. It''s a two player thing and includes a lot of silly variables. For example a defender pumps it forward to clear their lines, it goes over the halfway line and a striker latches onto it and scores. So long as the stiker takes no more than two touches I believe it is classed as an assist. Equally, a player threads the ball through perfectly only for the player on the end of it to do a Torres and sky it when it would be harder to miss than score. So assists only tell part of the story. Sometimes the strikers make goals out of poor balls, sometimes good balls. It''s not a stat that really helps. I think you would have to watch games to be able to hold a better opinion on how he is influencing games.[/quote]Well it''s nice to know that you hate me, because I use stats, next time I''ll just make something up. I take your point about stats, but now that you have declared a hatred (such a strong word) I will happily rip your purely hypothetical reply apart. I dislike people who base their arguments purely on hypothetical arguments, I can''t bring myself to use the word ''hate'', because it describes only people that I consider in some way evil. For me an assist is an assist in the same way that a goal is a goal and a save is a save and a tackle is a tackle. It doesn''t matter whether a ball hits Snodgrass on the bum and McCormack volleyed into the net, Snodgrass had to be standing where he was for it to hit him on the bum. As it happens, Leeds fans seem to think that he looks fat, lazy, uninterested, and desperate to leave: http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=323&fid=14&act=1&mid=2116310205We have to ask ourselves two things:a) maybe we wouldn''t want a player like that at the club anywayorb) maybe we can save him from his misery in January for a realistic price and Lambert get him ticking.I suspect that he is making Grayson and Bates pay for pricing him out of Premier League moves against his wishes. Maybe Leeds will drop him and flog him to us for £1m, that would teach them. Robert Snodgrass played under Paul Lambert at Livingstone by the way, and with Hoolahan.

[quote user="jed exodous"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="jed exodous"]Hes not making too many headlines this season so far.  I''d have took him for 2-2.5 million, but master Bates was dreaming if he ever thought he''d get 8 million, though fair do''s for standing firm if they wanted to keep him.  Hes still a good player, better than Bennet, Pilks or Surman???  too early to tell imo.  I''m sure if hes not in the prem after January, he will be next season (disclaimer, not neccessarily with us)...[/quote]I think its pretty conclusive that Snodgrass is a hundred times better than Surman, particularly when he is playing out wide.In answer to the OP, Snodgrass has set up 5 goals in 8 league games. That puts him at joint first in the assists table so far. He has only scored 1 goal, which is perhaps why he has stayed out of the limelight so far, but when you consider that Hoolahan set up 9 in 36 last year, it is pretty safe to assume that Snodgrass is still an enigma. In fact Snodgrass only set up 6 goals last year, so we can assume that he is actually more important to Leeds this year than he was last year.[/quote] A hundred times better???  Really???  I think you must have a pretty poor memory.  Surman was brilliant for us in the second half of last season.  I appreciate that Snodders is a very good player, they are slightly different in playing style, with Snodders operating on the left of a 4, and Surman more centrally on the left of a 3.  Surman is defo more lightweight, but i''d say hes got as good a touch and an excellent eye for a pass.  If i had to choose between the 2, i''d have Snodgrass over Surman, but to say hes a hundred times better is not fair... [/quote]Like I said "particularly when he is playing out wide". You stated Bennett, Pilkington and Surman, and comparing them with Robert Snodgrass who is a winger. Naturally I would only compare Surman on the left with Snodgrass on the left. Obviously a hundred times better is an exaggeration, but twice as good isn''t too much of one. Our opinions of Surman do appear to differ though, I wouldn''t say that he was brilliant for us in the second half of the season, I saw two or three outstanding performances. Other than that, I saw a player who tended to drift in and out of games, and was only really effective when we were playing possession football and had a lot of the ball.I also prefer Surman in the middle of course, but it would make little sense in that scenario to compare a winger with a wide drifting centre midfielder. I don''t like Hoolahan on the wing either.I''m not even sure that he has a good touch, he seems to need an extra second on the ball than a lot of our attacking players. He can link up well, but for me he just isn''t going to be effective in this league.I''d love to be proved wrong though.

[quote user="Jimmy Bone - Superstar"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="jed exodous"]Hes not making too many headlines this season so far.  I''d have took him for 2-2.5 million, but master Bates was dreaming if he ever thought he''d get 8 million, though fair do''s for standing firm if they wanted to keep him.  Hes still a good player, better than Bennet, Pilks or Surman???  too early to tell imo.  I''m sure if hes not in the prem after January, he will be next season (disclaimer, not neccessarily with us)...[/quote]I think its pretty conclusive that Snodgrass is a hundred times better than Surman, particularly when he is playing out wide.In answer to the OP, Snodgrass has set up 5 goals in 8 league games. That puts him at joint first in the assists table so far. He has only scored 1 goal, which is perhaps why he has stayed out of the limelight so far, but when you consider that Hoolahan set up 9 in 36 last year, it is pretty safe to assume that Snodgrass is still an enigma. In fact Snodgrass only set up 6 goals last year, so we can assume that he is actually more important to Leeds this year than he was last year.[/quote] So do you think we should have pushed the boat out to get him in the summer??[/quote]Depends on how much we offered, I''d have paid £3m max. I don''t think that we should be spending more than that on any player, unless Lambert is convinced that he can sign the next Thierry Henry. For the same reason, I wasn''t dissapointed to not sign Shane Long, I like to think that Lambert is good at signing below market value. If it is true that we offered £2.5m, then I don''t think that we should have gone much further.

[quote user="Harry"]1p5wich - for obvious reasons Wolves - scum fans Welsh Teams - shouldn''t be in English Leagues[/quote]I don''t have any problem with them playing in the English Leagues, this goes back to before WWI, I''m not going to question people who were around before my great grandad. Throwing them out of the league now would be ludicrious.What I DO believe however is that they should be governed by the English FA. Otherwise the Welsh FA are in charge of disclipining players etc, which leaves a conflict of interest.

[quote user="Chunky Norwich"]Liverpool for so, so many reasons. Celtic because of their pro-IRA, anti-English stance yet loved by lots of English fans Leeds; a new entry and knocking Wolves down to 4th. The arrogance of the club from top to bottom is astounding [/quote]I''m pretty certain that Celtic don''t have a pro-IRA stance, that is a sweeping generalisation based on the fact that a minority of their fans air their prejudices in the stands. In fact the other half of the city have had a bigger problem with bigotry and racism over the years.Both of the old firm clubs have made a lot of progress in cleaning up the chants and introducing zero tolerance policies, labelling Celtic pro-IRA because of a few dimwitted fans is just silly, it''s a bit like calling West Ham a pro-violence club because a few thousand of their fans had a riot when they played Millwall. When Celtic brought 5000 fans to Carrow Road for the testimonial of Tim Sheppard they were impeccably well behaved, sung nothing inappropriate, and frankly created one of the best atmospheres that I have ever experienced at Carrow Road. Thankfully only a few dozen of the 12000 Norwich fans that could be bothered to turn up resorted to singing "no surrender to the IRA".With the way that Neil Lennon has been treated over the past couple of years, abuse which started purely because he was a catholic who played for Celtic whilst representing Northern Ireland, it appears that protestants are causing a lot more trouble than catholics right now. Celtic actually have a policy to sign players of any religion, whilst it wasn''t until 1989 that Rangers signed their first catholic player, and there haven''t been many since. You say that Celtic are "anti-English", yet they sign English players such as Fraser Forster, Chris Sutton, Dion Dublin.  To the contrary there have only ever been three Irish players ever to play for the Rangers first team. I can name nearly a dozen who have played for Norwich in the last few years.In terms of the attitude of the clubs themselves, I can assure you that Rangers discriminate against the Irish much more than Celtic have ever discriminated against protestants or the English. Discounting players out on loan, Celtic actually have one Irish player in their squad this year, they have three English players.

[quote user="jed exodous"]Hes not making too many headlines this season so far.  I''d have took him for 2-2.5 million, but master Bates was dreaming if he ever thought he''d get 8 million, though fair do''s for standing firm if they wanted to keep him.  Hes still a good player, better than Bennet, Pilks or Surman???  too early to tell imo.  I''m sure if hes not in the prem after January, he will be next season (disclaimer, not neccessarily with us)...[/quote]I think its pretty conclusive that Snodgrass is a hundred times better than Surman, particularly when he is playing out wide.In answer to the OP, Snodgrass has set up 5 goals in 8 league games. That puts him at joint first in the assists table so far. He has only scored 1 goal, which is perhaps why he has stayed out of the limelight so far, but when you consider that Hoolahan set up 9 in 36 last year, it is pretty safe to assume that Snodgrass is still an enigma. In fact Snodgrass only set up 6 goals last year, so we can assume that he is actually more important to Leeds this year than he was last year.

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="LeJuge"]He didn''t sign Simon Charlton as a replacement for Malky, he signed Doherty as the replacement for Malky, Simon Charlton was a 5ft 8 inches tall left back. Worthington new that Malky still had it in him, by the way:"Malky did have a couple more years left in him at that level and did very well but i''ve still no regrets in the decision i made". - dh6.co.uk[/quote] He didn''t sign Charlton as a replacement but he did replace Malky in the side in the early part of the season in the centre of defence if my memory serves me correctly. Presumably he was signed as he provided cover for both left back and centre back. As I have already explained Primus was supposed to be the replacement for Malky but when that deal fell through Charlton found himself in the team in the centre of defence. Doherty was eventually brought but made most of his early appearances as a striker I believe (he certainly played there in the away matches against Newcastle and Manchester United). We had failed to bring in a striker or a replacement for Malky and he ended having a go at both roles. Had we signed Primus as Worthington wanted I don''t think anybody would have worried about Malky being released but the replacements for him were no better. Malky lacked pace but both Charlton and Doherty had some pretty big flaws in other areas of their game. The quote from Worthington is surely just saying that he knew Malky had a couple more Championship seasons in him. I''m not sure what you think it brings to this particular argument? [/quote]I wish you realised how much gibberish you have just spouted. Charlton did not play centre back because we were miraculously short of centre backs, as a result of the Primus deal falling through. The Primus deal fell through in July, Simon Charlton signed in July, Gary Doherty signed in August, and Malky Mackay was sold in September after the transfer deadline. There was no accidental shortage of centre backs, Worthington chose to sell Mackay to West Ham and subsequently was left with Fleming, Shackell, Doherty, and the midget. That was Worthingtons choice.

I just realised by the way that we didn''t release Malky Mackay, we SOLD Malky Mackay, he was under contract. Which makes the decision even more ludicrious. It''s OK you lot saying that it would have been OK if we had signed Linvoy Primus, but we didn''t, Worthington sold Mackay before signing a replacement. Debating whether Primus was better than Mackay is like selling Holt and then arguing that there are better players at other clubs who we probably don''t have any chance of signing. We also signed Simon Charlton, the 5ft 8 inch left back, before signing Mackay. In fact, Malky was sold on 10th September, after the Premier League transfer window had closed. Championship clubs were still allowed to sign players. Worthington failed to sign Primus, instead signed Gary Doherty, and then sold Mackay. Doherty in, Mackay out. It really is that simple. I don''t care about Primus, or the midget, I''m calling it as I see it. Worthington replaced Mackay with Doherty. The pace argument cannot win, so why did he do that? Mackay was a better player than Doherty, it really is that simple. This is the reaction to Doherty signing: http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/1/359264/ShowPost.aspx#359264Calls for Malky to play 6th Sept: http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/362463/ShowPost.aspxHe left on 10th Sept.

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="LeJuge"] The stats show that Mackay is better, before we went up, when we went up, and when we went down. He lead the line. [/quote] No they don''t. The stats are for teams and not individual players. There are no stats to show how we would have fared with Malky in our Premier League side. What you are doing is airing your opinion. In quite a rude way as usual. When Worthington made the decision to replace Malky I''m pretty sure he never envisinged replacing him with Simon Charlton. We spent a lot of the summer chasing Linvoy Primus who made much more sense as a replacement. Primus stayed at Portsmouth but for some reason we had no backup plan. The decision to release Malky had already been made which in my view was the right one. The mistake was not finding an adequate replacement. [/quote]He didn''t sign Simon Charlton as a replacement for Malky, he signed Doherty as the replacement for Malky, Simon Charlton was a 5ft 8 inches tall left back. Worthington new that Malky still had it in him, by the way:"Malky did have a couple more years left in him at that level and did very well but i''ve still no regrets in the decision i made". - dh6.co.uk

[quote user="smooth"]Peole forget that, the champisonhip winning season we lost to northampton in the cup and there was unrest. Worhty admitted ''he had to do something'', he did harper, crouch and hux. The Hux signing did take us to the championship. Yes we bought mckenzie and svensson after crouch left, but Hux was he catalyst. Our centre halves never missed a game through injury, I do think we needed new starters at centre half then and would not have played malky/ flem as starters. But that was a long time ago. Can''t wait to get Hux''s insights, he shot from the hip to the press once or twice. I am sure his book will too. A player that does deserve legendary status, his off-field work now is exceptional and one that I am pleased is associated with NCFC.[/quote]Yes, so he signed three attacking players and we scored more goals. But we also conceeded the least goals out of any team in the league that year. I don''t know why people talk all this rubbish I really don''t, out of 23 other teams in the league that year not a single one conceeded less goals than us. We conceeded 39 goals in 46 games, less than every other team. Last year we conceeded 58. Our 2003/04 defence was stronger than our 2010/11 defence, and then for some stupid reason we broke up the back four. Not only by releasing Mackay and signing Doherty, but also by playing Helveg at right back a fair bit and trying to find a place for Simon Charlton.Out of the three teams that got promoted we then conceeded by far the most goals in the Premier League. We conceeded more goals in the Premier League than ANY team in fact. Here are the three promoted teams and the number of goals conceeded in both seasons:Norwich                      39>77West Brom                 42>61Crystal Palace            61>62It''s all there in black and white, Worthington weakened our defence, we leaked goals all year, and releasing Mackay and signing nobody of note at the back played a huge part in that. The stats show that Mackay is better, before we went up, when we went up, and when we went down. He lead the line.

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]I still maintain the problem was not replacing Malky, rather than getting rid of him. I think he would have found life in the Prem very difficult. The problem was that we shipped him out before finding a superior replacement, meaning that we had to rely on Charlton, Shackell and Doherty. I do think that Malky''s legendary status on this board has something to do with him not being humiliated by van Nistelrooy or Rooney etc. In my view Fleming was the superior centre half, yet got tons of stick from idiots during that season in the Prem (as did Gary Holt, a similarly admirable player just out of his depth at the very top level). I think Malky would have been more out of his depth than Flem, and would have received just as much (ill-deserved) abuse.[/quote]If we released every player that we have been doubtful about upon getting promotion then Grant Holt would have been released twice. Lamberts whole philosophy evolves around proving people wrong and showing him and us that they good enough. He gives you your opportunity, if you take it you stay, if you don''t then you leave. Malky signed a one year deal at West Ham, would have been no issue at all to give him a one year deal to let him have his chance. You do realise that we didn''t stay up right? And as a result got relegated with a past it Craig Fleming, whilst Malky Mackay was captaining Watford to a promotion? Fleming, Shackell, Doherty. That year we shipped 65 goals and finished 9th in the Championship. Mackay played almost every game in a season in which Watford conceeded 53 goals, finished 3rd, and won the play-off final (in which Malky played). It is as clear as day to me, Malky was still better than Doherty, Shackell, and Fleming two years after being released. I''m looking forward to reading Huckerby''s book to see what he has to say about Iwan and Malkey, in fact that is the reason that I will buy the book. I''m not interested in Roeder, I already know that he was a clueless w*nker, I want to know what the he and the other members of the squad thought about the release of Iwan and Malky and the replacements that he signed.

[quote user="Lambert is god"]"Am I the only person who thought that BG''s job offer with an agency in the North was very convenient, bearing in mind the interest in Gunn Jnr. by Man City that subsequently materialised? I''m not saying that I blame him for taking the job but I do feel rather cynical about it. " Yes, that had been exactly my point abiout Gunn Junior and BG''s job offer, Canary Bird, though you put it much better. BG''s job offer seemed to me a very convenient way of getting Angus in at Man City, while at the same time preserving face for himself after his own abject failure. It must have really irked BG that Lambert proved so successful, especially as he was initially working with the same squad as BG had available to him on the opening day versus Colchester, with markedly different results. [/quote]Given the choice, I doubt that there is a single person on this board who wouldn''t quit as the director of a regional mobile phone company in order to work as a director of a football agency located in the current hotbed of English football, a stones throw from Man Utd, Man City, and Liverpool. The idea that he should have turned down that opportunity in order to not upset Norwich fans by moving his 15 year old son is ludicrious. I don''t like Bryan Gunn all that much, I think that his world evolves around his ego, but I can''t blame him for taking an opportunity like that. Your talking about somebody who had worked in football for 30 years suddenly finding himself flogging phones, he would have been an idiot not to take the job.

[quote user="marvin the martian"]Malky was promoted with three teams, and I think all three let him go ( can''t remember about Watford ), were all three managers wrong ? [/quote]No, you are wrong. He was promoted with three teams, the first two let him go, and he then played for Watford in the Premier League, by which time he was 38 which is far too old. He then stayed there as a coach, and then as manager. It is hardly fair to compare the Norwich situation with the West Ham situation though, we had Fleming, a very young Shackell, and signed the footballing genuis Gary Doherty.West Ham had Tomas Repka, Anton Ferdinand, Elliott Ward, Calum Davenport, Darren Powell, Andy Melville, and Christian Dailly in their promotion season. They then got promoted and signed Danny Gabbidon and James Collins, two players who have been in the Premier League ever since. That''s a strawmans argument, because none of our centre backs would have been good enough to play at West Ham, the question is whether he was good enough for Norwich City in 2004/05, and with Shackell, Fleming, and Doherty, being our three centre backs, there was no doubt room for him.

[quote user="marvin the martian"]Malky was released because he wasn''t good enough for the Prem, Iwans legs had gone. Malky marking Thierry Henry ? !!! Van Nistelroy ? He may have got a game against Bolton but that would have been it. I''m going to be controversial here, I don''t think Malky was any better than Docherty. The difference was that Malky had a consistent partner that complemented him, Docherty had more partners than Liz Taylor.[/quote]I think that Gary Doherty did everything possible to show in the years that followed that he wasn''t a patch on Malky Mackay, as emphasised by the fact that Mackay won promotion from The Championship in three consecutive seasons, 2003/04, 2004/05, and 2005/06. Even if he was to have proved ineffective in the Premier League he deserved his chance. Gary Doherty marking Theirry Henry ? !!! Van Nistlerooy?The fact that we lost 4-1 at home to Arsenal, and then 4-1 away to Arsenal in that season, with Henry scoring 4 goals in those two games, completely invalidates your point. Furthermore, Van Nistlerooy played a whole 23 minutes against us that season, he didn''t start in either of our games. Mackay was quality, a born leader, and he had more left in his tank than Craig Fleming, that was proven by the fact that Malky was playing in the Premier League for Watford whilst Craig Fleming was turning out for Kings Lynn. Yes Iwan was past it, but we didn''t sign anybody to replace him. We went half a season with two experienced strikers, McKenzie and Svensson. During the course of the season Ryan Jarvis played 7 games, Danny Crow played 6 games, and we even played Gary Doherty as a striker.I would rather have seen Roberts make 13 appearances than have seen Jarvis and Crow on the pitch. Iwan Roberts spent the following season playing in the Championship, whilst Jarvis now plays in League Two having flopped in League One, and Danny Crow now plays in the Conference National where he is by no stretch of the imagination prolific. Gary Doherty scored about 1 goal in every 20 games at Norwich, and you would rather have seen the likes of Doherty, Jarvis, and Crow up front that year than Iwan Roberts? Ridiculous. You seem to be comparing Mackay and Roberts with the quality of our current squad, rather than on the quality of Worthingtons Premier League squad, although even if you were comparing with Lamberts squad we could really do with a 33 year old Malky Mackay right now.

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Think that''s a bit harsh, Cluck. We had a solid side behind Hucks when we won the league. I agree that without his particular genius we would never have won the title, but Green, Drury, Mackay, Fleming, Edworthy was a pretty top-class back five for the second tier of English football. Holt and Francis were a great midfield combination, and Holt would have done much more in the Prem had he not (a) been a little too old and (b) had one of his three lungs full of blood. I think there''s more quality in our team now, but don''t think it''s right to do down that 2003 team who brought us all a lot of pleasure after so many years of disappointment.[/quote]Agreed, I think that we came up that year stronger than we did this time. It all went wrong when Worthington released two massive personalities, and then signed a bunch of mercaneries. I will never understand the decision to release Malky Mackay, he might have been the difference.We are a much better team this year then we were in our Premiership season, no doubt, but we won the Championship outright that year. The league table doesn''t lie, they were champions, we won it fair and square.Can''t forget McKenzie and Svensson too, and McVeigh still had a bit about him. Plus of course Crouch who played an important role. Both promotion teams had something in common though, they were both thin on the ground, both had a great XI but not much beyond that.Worthington deserves a lot of credit for what he did for us in his first three or four seasons, we had a play-off final, we won the league, he built a decent team with pennies, inheriting some of the worst players that I have ever seen at Carrow Road who came courtesy of Bryan Hamilton. I will just never understand why he built a squad with such great team spirit, and then released the two most influential players in that squad. Both Malky and Iwan were our natural leaders on the pitch, perhaps add Greeno to that.He stuck the pin into his own balloon, but he did blow up the balloon so it was his to pop.

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]I had a little josh on this thread but overall, and despite the steriotypical comments the debate produced some cracking posts, particularly from Le Juge (because IMO they were not sentimental or patronising) and drew opinion which, while prejudicial, need to be aired to be cleared. The damage political correctness has done to this country is to push prejudice underground and harden it. The protesters and some residents at Dale Farm are likewise taking advantage of too much liberalism which loses balance and simply invites resentment. The original thread is valid because in the 1970''s this debate was being held about black players. There was a classic scene in the ''Til Death Us Do Part'' film where Alf finds himself in the West Ham Club urinals with Clive Best whom he tells he doesn''t mind him playing for the Hammers despite being ''a darkie.'' Clive whispers in Alf''s ear to ''piss off!'' The question to people who love their football is what prejudices would they set aside if the subject was a good enough player or, in the modern game, a rich enough benefactor. This is often played out with our devoted fan owner versus a wealthy foreign owner who has no soul for the Club. It''s a good football debate. Look at the ''French'' team that won the World Cup or in other sports the current top ''English'' cricket team. Perhaps sport is just a great leveller?[/quote]Your right there. What these ultra-socialists and hardline liberals need to realise is that if they want a fair and equal society then it goes both ways. Labour screwed this country by trying to address inequality by giving some groups more rights than others, insane logic which actually results in less equality, obviously. I actually say that as a bonafide left winger. Only in my world socialism means fairness, letting people scream oppression and persecution to get away with whatever they want is not fairness, it''s called being weak and pathetic. I''m sick to death with the entire political spectrum. With the lefties and their positive discrimination, and the righties with their bias towards the super rich, the majority of the country can feel completely and utterly unrepresented. The Dale Farm issue is not one of human rights, it is one of fairness. It is the tax paying working classes, middle classes, and upper middle classes, who suffer the most as a result of all of this crap. They subsidise the super rich, and they subsidise the criminals and bone idle. Nobody subsidises the middle, they only squeeze the middle, both sides. I''m not in the slightest bit bigoted, refuse to resort to stereotypes, if I am consistant with my perception of travellers as largely ethnic groups rather than a lifestyle choice (as most of them should be), then it is deeply inappropriate to tarnish them all with the same brush. Because many people with travellers heritage are living in houses, paying tax, or in the case of Dale Farm - half of them are fully legally occupying their land.The law abiding half of Dale Farm are victims of the squatters just like the surrounding neighbours are, at least they could be in theory, if they aren''t happy about the situation. Just as occupants of legal sites nationwide are victims of the additional negative assumptions and stereotypes that will now be applied to them. I can''t help but blame Labour though. It''s difficult for me to do, because I know thats precisely what the Tories want us to do. The brash attempts of Labour to end inequality and to enforce political correctness have not only made problems worse but have also created problems that many of us didn''t even know existed. I fear that this is the reason that more people now tick ''BNP'' on their ballot papers.I thought that the Liberal Democrats might be the solution the problem, Nick Clegg was a great actor, his rhetoric was music to my ears. Cutting red tape, increasing tax thresholds, making education a right rather than a priviledge.  He subsequently committed the biggest fraud ever known in politics, he effectively stole votes, his party won''t ever get another one of mine.

[quote user="Better Wizard"]Well some people said this was a stupid/bizarre thread, while others gave their opinions. I feel we finally had a thread here that caused a debate involving football and i was very interested in the responses that came out. Some of the posts were most delightful, some posts showed signs of totalitarianism ideology between some of our fans. I feel i can conclude we are all different and therefore will have different opinions, whether people are idiots or not for some of their views is only ever going to be a opinion and nothing more. Support the democratic world.[/quote]Despite being one of the people who said that the thread was stupid, I actually enjoyed the opportunity to present my opinions, it was a thread which could have gone very wrong but actually stayed fairly civil, hows that?

[quote user="Mrs Tierney"]LeJuge he was only stating his opinion, but your being a bit critical there. I''d understand if he had slated our own player or said something completely wrong but it''s supposed to be a discussion board, not a criticise board. I think Saha is quality on his day and how does he sulk around?[/quote]I was only stating mine :-)I think my point in simple terms is that if a player refuses to play a reserve game and gets dropped as a result, then you back your manager over your player. Moyes is a great manager who hasn''t achieved what he has by letting players dictate how their jobs should be done.If any Norwich player refused to play a reserve game because he felt it was beneath him, and Lambert dropped that player, I would fully support Lambert. If that player then brought the incident to the public eye instead of keeping it in house, then that would make Lambert even more furious. I would personally want any Norwich player to respond to an incident such as that by acknowledging that Lambert is the boss, apologise, and then work hard to regain my place. There are plenty of good players waiting for a chance this year at Carrow Road, perhaps the one who deserves it most is Simeon Jackson. But he is getting on with it, and waiting for his chance.No player is bigger than the club, Moyes is Everton through and through and will do what he thinks is best for the club. Look at the Everton league positions since Moyes took over (latest season first):7th8th5th5th6th11th4th17th7thBefore he took over they had finished in the top 10 for one season out of eleven. The bloke is a top manager, Saha may be a good player but he is no manager. I''m not sure what Saha was trying to achieve by taking things outside of the dressing room, but it undermines Moyes, Saha should have got on with his job. He made 2 appearances in the first 3 games off of the bench, before he refused to play in the reserves. If he isn''t willing to play reserve team football to win his place back then he doesn''t deserve his place, pretty simple stuff.Yobo and Yakubu have been playing in the Everton reserves this year, it isn''t beneath them, they play the games to keep fit and try and force a chance in the first team. I don''t think any players should be refusing to play reserve games, perhaps the only situation where I would understand it is if the game was towards the end of the season and an injury in the game could put a World Cup or another major International tournament in jeopardy.

[quote user="Lambert is god"]Frank Worthington always attracted cries of "Gyppo". Was it because of how he looked or because he kept moving on?   It seems we were one of the few clubs he didn''t play for: Years Team Apps† (Gls)† 1966–1972 Huddersfield Town 171 (41) 1972–1977 Leicester City 210 (72) 1977–1979 Bolton Wanderers 84 (35) 1979 → Philadelphia Fury (loan) 21 (10) 1979–1982 Birmingham City 75 (29) 1980 → Mjällby AIF (loan) 12 (4) 1981 → Tampa Bay Rowdies (loan) 26 (11) 1982 Leeds United 32 (14) 1982–1983 Sunderland 19 (2) 1983–1984 Southampton 34 (4) 1984–1985 Brighton & Hove Albion 31 (7) 1985–1987 Tranmere Rovers 59 (21) 1987 Preston North End 23 (3) 1987–1988 Stockport County 19 (6) 1988 Cape Town Spurs 1988 Chorley 3 (0) 1988–1989 Stalybridge Celtic 1989 Galway United 2 (0) 1989 Weymouth 4 (1) 1989–1990 Radcliffe Borough 1990 Guiseley 2 (0) 1990–1991 Hinckley Town 1991 Cemaes Bay 1 (0) 1991–1992 Halifax Town (player-coach) 0 (0)[/quote]He knew where the goal was though!I seem to remember the snakepit chanting gypo at Danny Dichio, but I can''t find anything to support that claim, so can only assume that it was because he had long scruffy hair and was unshaven. Dichio got REALLY wound up about that, can remember him having a go at the fans and everything. Pretty certain that was against QPR, because that''s when he had long hair?

[quote user="Time For Heroes"]The worst ever manager in the history of Norwich City football club.[/quote]Bryan Hamilton has to be a close contender for that title, his signings were equally as terrible. His only good signing was Nigel Worthington, and he wasn''t a player!

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Larry David"] Indeed. While Gunn is up there with the worst managers of all time, appointing him TWICE was idiocy of the highest order. Neil Doncaster should have been forced out of the club after appointing Gunn x 2, Grant and Roeder.   [/quote] --- Er, actually Doncaster WAS forced out of the club after those appointments. Or, to be accurate, after Grant, Roeder and Gunn Mark I. He had been axed as chief executive before Gunn''s re-appointment. Hard to blame him for that one. But in any event the idea that Doncaster made those choices by himself is nonsense. If Doncaster had wanted those managers and Smith and Jones, with or without the others, had not then they wouldn''t have been appointed. It is, for example, a matter of public record that Roger Munby, for one, was all in favour of choosing Gunn in the wake of Roeder leaving. Equally, it was plain that Gunn''s re-appointment would not have happened without Smith and Jones wanting it. Ultimately, credit or blame for all managerial appointments almost always (Lambert may have been the rare exception that proves the rule) lies with those who control the votes in the boardroom. And that was never Doncaster. [/quote]"Er, actually Doncaster WAS forced out of the club after those appointments. Or, to be accurate, after Grant, Roeder and Gunn Mark I. He had been axed as chief executive before Gunn''s re-appointment. Hard to blame him for that one."Bryan Gunn was given the job permanently on 13th May 2009, Doncaster remained on 12th May 2009. We will never know how much input Doncaster had in that decision, but it was common knowledge that he was still sitting on the board and registered a director for some time after that date.[/quote] Source: Companies House Neil Doncaster''s appointment as a director was terminated on the 20th July 2009 [/quote] Thanks, I knew that he stuck around for a while. The club had to have a minimum of 4 directors on the board and that would have pushed them down to 3. The resignation of Doncaster and Mumby on 12th May, and the appointment of Gunn on 13th May, was nothing but a carefully orchastrated PR campaign to save Delia''s skin, to help boost season ticket sales, and to tempt more people into returning their season ticket rebates. Both would have been carefully planned for some time before, and Doncaster would have known before Gunn was appointed. In fact, it actually looks like a typical piece of Doncaster spin, so it wouldn''t surprise me if he played an instrumental role in the whole thing.

[quote user="paul moy"]In the long run we may have got more for McDonald by having a sell-on fee or extending his contract. That lack of foresight would be the club''s fault....not Gunns.[/quote]You really do have an obsession with Cody McDonald don''t you? I''ve seen others say it and thought to myself "oh lay off the man". But he really is pretty much all you talk about on here, don''t you have opinions on any other players? I rated Cody, was sad to see him go, and want him to do well. But each time I see you mention Cody McDonald, it makes me want Cody to achieve a little less, because I don''t think it''s good for your mental health for this obsession to continue. Cody McDonald will likely be playing League 1 football next year, that''s a hell of a long way down the footballing pyramid. I still think that Clingan and Shackell could do a job for us, but that doesn''t mean that I talk about them every single bleedin day.

[quote user="Lambert is god"]"Steve Bruce helped me out ''big time'' as a Manchester United player while doing some fundraising in Norfolk." Respect, Clucks, I''d never realised you''d turned out for the Red Devils. [/quote]Lol, I read it that way at first too.