It's Character Forming

Yes, he looked classy on Sunday.  It was noticeable that our CBs dealt with Adebayor comfortably all game, with one or two exceptions.  At the other end the Spurs CBs had a pretty torrid afternoon and were lucky not to be on yellow cards earlier in the game.   The only period we struggled was for a few mins after they brought on a second striker - took us a bit to adjust to it and they had their best chances.  But after a little bit we tightened up and they didn''t get much more, towards the end we looked much more likely to get another.

At half-time Sky showed the possession for the first half as 50/50 so to get 40/60 for the whole game means Spurs must have had 70% possession second half.  I''d be very surprised if they had that much possession but I guess we did score immediately after the break so they probably got a lot of the ball from then on (and didn''t create much with it)   I''m still amazed we only won 1-0 with all those chances towards the end; the Sky commentators made the same point.

Very amusing post by the OP.  The team play really well... obviously that''s a "bad day" for those who''ve supported the manager, and vindicates those who have criticised him.  Err... yes.   So presumably if we play rubbish in the next game, that would be a bad day for those who want Hughton out ?

Danny Mills left us because he couldn''t hold down a regular first team place when we were in the 2nd Tier.  How he ever got to play for England still amazes me.

No doubt he''s still finding it hard to play the right attacking ball but that''s inevitable at his age.   I felt he did a lot better yesterday about playing a simple square or backwards pass when there was nothing on in front of him.   And yes, defo a good performance defensively (again) from him

Good report as always I wonder what odds you''d have got on no goals conceded and 4 pts from the home games vs ManC and Spurs?

RVP ? Our transfer budget must be more than I thought...

Our best setup IMO. Spurs have been on fire recently, we stopped them cold

By not playing as well

Most managers are respectful before a game to avoid anything that the other manager can pick up and use for motivation. Mourinho gets into mind games by picking something specific and mostly it''s the other manager not the players.

Hooper is still most likely to score for us so if he''s fit he''s got to be the starter.   If Hooper isn''t available then it''s a tough call between RVW and Becchio TBH.

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="slartyblartfast"]Of course it is! If we continue to pay totally over inflated wages to players where do you think the money for this is going to come from! Increased prices across the board from merchandising to tickets to your half time cup of bovril!, and seeing as TV is the major source of revenue for the Prem when contracts for the rights are renegotiated the clubs will demand more money! This will then be recouped thru increased subscriptions![/quote] that is absolute nonsense prices can only be raised to what the market will bear, otherwise why have the TV companies and clubs not simply raised prices before ? as long as the not too bright are happy to cough up for stuff that can be had for free then there will be these levels of spent supply and demand that''s all [/quote]   I agree with City1st - slartibartfast is confusing cause and effect.  The TV deal means Man U have loads of money hence they are paying silly money to Rooney to stop him leaving. There''s no way this will force Sky to pay more for TV rights... that''s all down to the Prem teams charging as much as they can negotiate.  Personally I think Rooney''s past his best so I doubt this is a wise move - if SAF were still there I''m pretty sure he''d have gone by now.  But there you go.

I agree about Wed tho'' - when they have a man advantage they do tend to go for it a bit more, for what it''s worth !

Me too.  I find I''m wishing they would just go for it.  Most of the time they are just playing the safe pass rather than trying to create a goalscoring opportunity.  Whereas Stoke try (or tried) to wear down the other side by a physical assault, Barca try to wear them down by keeping the ball endlessly.   I much prefer the more direct yet skillful style the German sides are playing now, and hope it suceeds again this year.

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"][quote user="kick it off"][quote user="pliff"]Yes they could all get injured and we could put out a decent side to beat Stoke none of t hem would be in my starting eleven[/quote] Lol, so who plays Right Back then Mourinho? [/quote] I''d like to see Ryan Bennett given a chance there. He''s played the role before, has got pace and may be a bit less defensively incompetent than the Scots. Would help us a bit from set-pieces as well. Can''t see him making the same sort of cock ups as Martin (e.g. Cardiff away and Kenwyne Jones). [/quote]   RB is a good centre-back IMO. The only time I''ve seen him at right back was last season away at WHU when he gave away an unnecessary, if soft, penalty in the 2nd minute and looked utterly uncomfortable all game.  Strangely he''s never been tried there since....

[quote user="Dr Pillary Bones m.d"]Simpleton (straight) Jack-et Wrote "The Premiership is boring. Half a dozen at the top care only about Champions League qualification and, more importantly, the associated riches. The rest care only about 17th place and another season with snouts in the swill bucket" Spoken like a true Ip5w1ch fan S.J. You''ll never go up selling your future starlets like Jay-Emanuelle-to55er[/quote]   You''ve hit the nail on the head.

[quote user="City 2nd"]Crystal Canary wrote the following post at 2014-02-19 8:47 PM:  City 2nd wrote: Just going back to what NCFC have always been renowned for - quality, attack minded football, played with style, aggression and some motivation! I always hear this kinda stuff from fans. Every fan thinks their team was built on an attractive, attacking style of football. Has there ever been fans who''ve stated, ''our team has always been renowned for dour, boring hoofball, and that''s how we like it!'' Until now!?[/quote]   Wimbledon. Stoke.   TBH I think City have always had a reputation for playing attractive passing football, but the rest of what City 2nd says is more wishful thinking than anything else.

Funny, my translation software gave this :   "As a football manager I get asked about speculation linking me with other jobs all the time, and I give a no comment reply whether or not there''s anything in it.  So when I say no comment, you can''t read anything into it either way."

Anyway, looking at that site what it actually gives are % risks of relegation which it says (based on magical statistical analysis which it doesn''t reveal as far as I can see ) are as follows : Fulham - 72.3% Cardiff - 66.4% City - 41.9% Sunderland - 32.5% Palace - 30.6% WBA - 17.8% Stoke - 12.3% Hull - 11.5% & then others at around or below 5% such as WHU, Villa etc So paradoxically it says City have a better than 50/50 chance of surviving, while at the same time being the 3rd most likely team for the drop. For me I think it overstates our risk which I''d put at more like 20% based on gut reaction - worrying still though.  Compared to last season when around this time a lot of people were predicting us for the drop and I estimated our risk at about the 5% level.  Time will tell but it''s going to be a worrying few months, there''s no doubt.

The way I look at it is whether the manager is getting us to do better than you''d expect, looking at the squad.   Looking back, under Lambert, he got the squad to over-perform in all 3 seasons.  If you compare our squad to Leeds when we were in L1, it was not as good but we still beat them for the title (you''ve only got to look at the fact that 3 players from that Leeds team are now regularly playing for us in the Prem, compared to none of the players from our own team that year).  And if you look back at our team from our first Prem season under Lambert, most of those players have now left and are in the Championship, yet Lambert got them to perform together to a level that gave us a comfortable mid-table position all season.  This has set fans'' expectations at an unrealistic level.   Having left us, Lambert has gone to a stronger squad at Villa but has not done well - Villa have under-performed, compared to what you''d expect, since he has been there, given the squad they have (e.g. Benteke was one of the top scorers in the league last season despite playing in a team close to the relegation zone).  Which shows you how difficult it is. Hughton continued to get the squad to over-perform last year, although not as much as Lambert had the season before.  This season IMO we have been about where you''d expect us to be, given our squad relative to our competitors.  Which obviously is disappointing for us as fans, and especially given the glory years just before.   For me the problem remains a lack of viable managerial candidates who are likely to do better than Hughton, and plenty who are likely to do worse.  Which is why I''m still dubious about changing the manager, especially doing it in a hurry.  

It''s fair to mention the money paid to PL managers as a sign they are important.  But a lot more is paid in player wages.    Recently there has been a bit of a re-balancing with coaches like Mourinho able to command salaries comparable with top players.  But I think most clubs still pay more to their top striker in wages by himself than they do to their manager.    If it was really true that the manager is more imporant than the players, you''d see clubs paying a large chunk of their wage budget to the manager alone, which never happens.  If you look at the money it shows their real priority is the players'' wages which is what they view as more important.   Also our level of transfer spending last summer is a red herring because there is little link between transfer spending and performance on the pitch, also of course we are competing mainly with Prem teams who have built up their teams over a longer period and one summer of spending doesn''t overcome that.

Well each to their own on what''s laughable...   What I find laughable is that after watching a game on Tuesday, where we created plenty of good goal scoring chances and players like Hooper and Snoddy had some bad misses, then West Ham scored from a goalkeeping blunder on a cross after having a minimal threat all game, and there are so many on here who say this is all not the fault of the players who made those mistakes but the fault of the manager instead.   In the real world I think a manager in any organization has an important influence on performance... but the people actually doing the job make or break it in the end.  Football is no different, especially because games come down to a few key moments.   But like you say, it''s all about opinions. 

Similar to the OP, after watching the match last night my view was that we failed to win because of a failure to take some really good chances which we had through the game, turned into a defeat by a bad mistake on a cross by Ruddy. So I blame the players more than the manager.   On reflection I agree the substitutions were poor.  I''m not convinced it affected the result though, because West Ham still weren''t getting much going forward, it was a case of one cross being poorly defended and that can happen in any game.   The question for me is who you would bring in to replace him.  I see on this board umpteen threads calling for Hughton to go right now but not many suggestions for who to bring in.  On this thread, most posters haven''t even had the courage to make a suggestion.  One has put forward Warnock - well, at least he''s put forward a name, even if I think it would be someone who''d make things worse, but each to his own opinion.  Now I''m sure plenty of people will say "we should have sacked him ages ago when so-and-so was still available".   Although I''m not convinced by the appointments other teams have made so far this season, and in any case, short of a time machine we''re stuck where we are now and have to make the best of it.   So of course I''m still very worried as you''d expect when we''re just 2 points above relegation.  But I''m still not convinced by the idea of changing our manager when no serious candidates are being suggested.

[quote user="Levi Stubbs"]Hooper, RVW and Becchio all had terrific scoring records at their previous clubs but since arriving at Norwich under Hughton and co.?( Elmander didn''t btw). Holt had a terrific scoring rate at Norwich (until Hughton arrived). Just a coincidence I should think..yes that''s definitley what it is [;)] If its all down to the ''Team'' why do we even have a manager? The club could save 10''s of thousands of £££ a week by doing away with the role and let the ''team'' sort it''s own sh1t out... [/quote]   If you look at how much clubs pay in wages to their managers... compared to how much they pay in wages to their players.  That gives a good indication of the (lack of) importance of the manager.   Hooper was on fire a while back but has lost form, although I think most of us agree he''s the striker most likely to score for us regardless.  It is still a big surprise that neither he nor Snoddy were able to take any of the great chances they had last night, far better than the chances West Ham had.  If Ruddy had stayed on his line, he''d have made a comfortable save and it would have been 0-0 and we''d still be rueing the fact that we didn''t get 3 points.  But bizarrely plenty of people still think all of this was the manager''s fault.

If Hooper etc miss clear chances... You should be blaming them!