!M.u.s.t.a.r.d_M.a.t.t.e.r.s!

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="GenerationA47"]  But not quite ''in the same league'' as Fulham''s record against us since 1987, all leagues & cups... v City    W 11 D 4 L 0    (won 73%, lost 0%) [/quote]Bl**dy hell, A47. Is it really that bad ??!!The only thing you can say is that we''ve got to break the duck some time.[/quote] We did rather well against them in the old League Division 2 matches - hopefully not an omen!W10  D4  L5

[quote user="Hughtons P45.2"]Yes it has I now know we will go down, it was the McNicey version of Delia''s "letsbe avenue". Not heard much for a while from in a while and now he''s begging the fans to will the team on, in the vain hope it will work and he will be vindicated and then he will offer messiah2 an extension on his contract as he seems to of gone utterly mental!!! McNasty + begging= pathetic[/quote]Hughtons P45.2 + "of gone" = utterly pathetic

Thanks for the link. I thought it was an excellent interview - timely too. David McNally was, and is, the man for the job and we will do well to keep him.  Chris Hughton is fulfilling his remit and is doing OK with the resources he has and the constraints with which he has to work within and I think the Board can be trusted to make the right decisions at the right time.

NBS: I do not enter into what I consider could be interminable debates. Let the readers be the ''Barnaby Rudge'' on the statistics.On your point re. January squad strengthening, I am as perplexed as you are. I would have broken the club transfer fee (or the wage structure on a loan signing) for a striker as it, seemingly, makes financial sense to do so. That would be pure speculation on my part as I do not have the info required to make the judgement call. 

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Mustard it is not an anti Hughton thread laced with dubious statistics. The only person comparing apples and pears and proposing dubious statistics is you! Why are you desperate to compare Hughton vs Lambert? Their all time records in the championship and Premiership and their management of different clubs? How does that relate to an assessment of Hughton managing Norwich City in the Premier League? - Apples and pears! Not taking account of draws!? You obviously missed the large bit about defeat %''s then? I.E. any games NOT lost are therefore either won or drawn! You also seemed to have missed the most relevant points I.E. Hughton''s record this season! Do you think it is good? No doubt you''ll claim that I have manipulated Hughton''s stats this season to make him look bad - win% - 23%, defeat % - 50%, goal ratio 0.73.[/quote]I am not desperate to compare Hughton v Lambert. "Phil and Ted" ask for it and you didn''t supply.You start a thread, "Do results still matter to the Board? What is that all about? I thought McNally answered that without equivocation: Death before Relegation!You kick off with "worst City Managers" in the first line. You then concentrate on "defeats" in what comes across to me - and I suspect others - as an anti-Hughton thread.I balanced it with CH stats compared to Lambert''s as he is considered by many to be the "best City manager." In terms of results, there is no difference between them in win percentages and points per game. As to choice of managers, I have no agenda. They come and go - on average every 2 years or so. I neither hire them nor fire them and I have no influence in the decision.

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="M.u.s.t.a.r.d._M.a.t.t.e.r.s"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"] If you ask many a Norwich fan of the worst City managers of recent times, the same names will invariably crop up - Deehan, Megson, Hamilton, Gunn, Roeder, Grant, Rioch.   Inevitably these managers have low win %''s -   - Megson - 18.52% (not inc. 5 games as caretaker) - Deehan - 22.4% - Hughton (this season) - 23% - Hamilton - 28.6% - Gunn - 28.6% - Hughton (overall) - 29.3% - Roeder - 30.8% - Rioch - 32.3% - Grant - 34%   Where does Hughton fit into the above? Overall - - Hughton - 29.3% This season - - Hughton - 23%   Another way that results can be looked at is defeat %''s - i.e. the % of games where you do not get any points -   - Hughton (this season) - 50% - Megson - 48% (not inc. 5 games as caretaker) - Gunn - 48% - Roeder - 46% - Grant - 45% - Hamilton - 43% - Hughton (overall) - 41% - Deehan - 40% - Rioch - 34%   Hughton - overall - 41%                - this season - 50%   One has to acknowledge that Hughton''s record is in the Premier League, however, he has the most expensive Norwich squad ever assembled at his disposal.  This season it has been shown that 50% of games can be written off, if that continues, in essence we have 6 games to get enough points to stay up.   Perhaps the only thing that has so far saved Hughton is what McNally talked about when on Radio Norfolk, that when a result is needed, Hughton gets one and that just 1 win could take us up to around mid-table. So perhaps they are hoping that we will get the win against Spurs that we need?[:^)]     [/quote]As you acknowledge, you are essentially comparing apples and pears. There are only 4/5 teams in the Premier with less expensive squads. We can lose 6 games out of the remaining 12. I agree with that. It''s not impossible - 3 home wins against bottom 10 clubs, and 3 draws. [/quote]   I don''t acknowledge that I am essentially comparing apples and pears! [/quote]I saw this as yet another anti-Hughton thread laced with dubious statistics. The key point I am making is that it is ridiculous not to take account of the division and to ignore draws. To keep this simple - and I am aware that a full analysis is considerably more complicated - these are the figures for Hughton and Lambert that I have:Hughton:All Championship:       Wins 54.4%      PPM 1.93All Premier:                  Wins 27.9%      PPM 1.09Lambert:All Championship:       Wins  50.00%   PPM 1.83All Premier:                  Wins 28.4%      PPM 1.141.There is hardly a wafer between the so-called Messiah and CH - who is considered by some to be the worst.2.It is a bit harder getting results in the Premier than in the Championship - which is hardly surprising - Apples and Pears.

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]If you ask many a Norwich fan of the worst City managers of recent times, the same names will invariably crop up - Deehan, Megson, Hamilton, Gunn, Roeder, Grant, Rioch.   Inevitably these managers have low win %''s -   - Megson - 18.52% (not inc. 5 games as caretaker) - Deehan - 22.4% - Hughton (this season) - 23% - Hamilton - 28.6% - Gunn - 28.6% - Hughton (overall) - 29.3% - Roeder - 30.8% - Rioch - 32.3% - Grant - 34%   Where does Hughton fit into the above? Overall - - Hughton - 29.3% This season - - Hughton - 23%   Another way that results can be looked at is defeat %''s - i.e. the % of games where you do not get any points -   - Hughton (this season) - 50% - Megson - 48% (not inc. 5 games as caretaker) - Gunn - 48% - Roeder - 46% - Grant - 45% - Hamilton - 43% - Hughton (overall) - 41% - Deehan - 40% - Rioch - 34%   Hughton - overall - 41%                - this season - 50%   One has to acknowledge that Hughton''s record is in the Premier League, however, he has the most expensive Norwich squad ever assembled at his disposal.  This season it has been shown that 50% of games can be written off, if that continues, in essence we have 6 games to get enough points to stay up.   Perhaps the only thing that has so far saved Hughton is what McNally talked about when on Radio Norfolk, that when a result is needed, Hughton gets one and that just 1 win could take us up to around mid-table. So perhaps they are hoping that we will get the win against Spurs that we need?[:^)]     [/quote]As you acknowledge, you are essentially comparing apples and pears. There are only 4/5 teams in the Premier with less expensive squads. We can lose 6 games out of the remaining 12. I agree with that. It''s not impossible - 3 home wins against bottom 10 clubs, and 3 draws.

[quote user="Wiz"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Wiz"] We''ll be in the bottom 3 tomorrow night I think, does that answer you? [/quote] So you think West Brom are going to beat Chelsea? Because that is the only way Norwich can be in the bottom 3... [/quote]   All things are possible. [/quote]Except us being in the bottom 3 tomorrow night - mathematically not possible by my reckoning.

Simple Jack appears to have relaxed the criteria. On previous posts, everybody was "plastic" unless they met these criteria.1. Had to walk to games (clearly no fun going to way matches).2. Never leave Norwich.3. Sing loud and cheer with pride.4. Be a "stout yeoman."5. Be born within the city walls.  .. and the team had  to be composed entirely of Norwich-born (presumably within the city walls) players.

Dean:I responded a few minutes ago, but my post seems to have disappeared into the ether - probably because I tried to put one of those smileys in or "non-matching quote blocks."If I could accurately predict all the results .......................etc (enter smiley)Electronic cigarette - classic tobacco flavour (enter another smiley)

Great minds think alike Kolin!Please can you tell me how to post a table on here. Can it be formed in MS Word and then cut and pasted without all that formatting showing? [quote user="Kolin Kob"]Ha! I just made the same post as you at almost the same time.I''ll just add what I put in there:1 Chelsea 38 41 86 2 Liverpool 38 61 85 3 Arsenal 38 36 85 4 Man City 38 58 82 5 Tottenham 38 16 76 6 Man Utd 38 20 67 7 Everton 38 14 64 8 Newcastle 38 2 54 9 Southampton 38 5 53 10 Aston Villa 38 -12 43 11 Hull City 38 -11 40 12 Swansea 38 -10 39 13 Sunderland 38 -18 39 14 Norwich 38 -25 37 15 West Brom 38 -13 36 16 West Ham 38 -19 34 17 C Palace 38 -28 32 18 Stoke 38 -29 32 19 Cardiff 38 -42 32 20 Fulham 38 -46 30This will see Pulis''s Palace overtaking Stoke out of the relegation places on goal difference on the last day. Hopefully with 93rd minute Wilbraham goal.[/quote]

I was looking for something to replace the BBC match predictor, which has disappeared, and found "The Mustard Predictor" - please google it, if you wish, as the preview for this post is printing the usual garbage - despite using Firefox.(The site has nothing to do with me personally - despite the "mustard" part.)Having spent about half an hour or so on it - forecasting results for ALL fixtures - not just Norwich,  I have us finishing in 15th on 38 points and being ''on the beach'' for the final 5 games. My final table (for what its worth) is:13.      Hull                38 pts    (goal diff: -10)14.      Villa               38 pts                      -1315.      Norwich         38 pts                      -2316.      Cardiff           36 pts                      -2617.      West Ham      35 pts                      -13                    18.      Palace            35 pts                       -2319.      Fulham          35 pts                       -3620.     West Brom     33 pts                       -18My input for City was:West Ham (A)   1 pt.Spurs (H)           1 pt.Villa (A)            1 pt.Stoke (H)           3 pts.Saints                 0 ptsSunderland (H)  3 pts.Swansea (A)      1 pt.West Brom (H)   3 pts.For the final 5 games, I put in losses - for the exercise only, as I do not think we will pick up nothing. Of course, if we don''t hit those 13 points in the next 8 games, then the shortfall has to be made up from the final 5 games.A win - well overdue - at Villa would put us in 11th and put Villa in the mire - avoiding relegation by a point.Hope that is clear and typed correctly.

[quote user="ncfctilidie1080"][quote user="refjezdavies"]I get what the OP is saying, I''m just struggling to see why he felt the need to make the point or indeed what point he was making in terms of Norwich City. Just seemed like another feeble attempt to have a dig....[/quote]Sorry it doesn''t fit into what you consider a good post. It was merely highlighting the feeble attempts of people to use stats as a weapon or stick to put across a point. Whether it''s the inners using the 36 shots as a sign we should have won or the outers using the lack of possession in a game we win, i''m just saying Stats are Bull. They mean nothing. And at that point the stats from the Arsenal game came up and showed they had the majority possession yet were 4-0 down.... I suggest the only feeble thing here is your attempt to read into something that isn''t there. [/quote]It is not the stats that are the problem - its the distortion, selection, misintrepretation etc. They are often used by those having little understanding to persuade those equally in the dark. Without qualification, many stats are, as you say, Bull.I agree with you that stats on possession are pretty well meaningless in the way they are used at the moment. Possession stats in the final third could be useful, though, especially when combined with shots on goal versus goals scored - even they would not be useful by themselves unless compared with other teams.

[quote user="RodneyTrottersFC"][quote user="T"]Tilly - I just think experience shows us that fans make emotional subjective judgements rather than fully informed objective judgements. There was a lot of people on here who wanted Delia out supported by a certain organization and they called it wrong so I don''t trust the views of the "mob" on here who egg each other on against CH. If someone could give me a sensible, coherent argument that recognises the financial reality and the position of other clubs than I would be willing to be convinced but the abuse and illogical arguments confirm that CH anti''s are thinking emotionally rather than rationally.[/quote] take a look at my article I just posted and then try and convince me that getting rid isn''t worth it, no matter the cost :-) For me... I want him gone asap. I think he shouldn''t be here now! If we go down... I''m pretty sure he''ll get replaced. If we stay up and he''s still here few days after end of season, McNally and co can expect one hell of an angry letter from me ;-)[/quote]Any chance of an open letter on this forum, "RodneyTrottersFC" - so that we can all give it respectful consideration?

[quote user="djc"]We beat Man City away at end of last season, many said MC were on the beach. So, why dont we play dirty tomorrow, sling a load of sand on the pitch, perhaps a couple of deckchairs and stick it up ''em!!![/quote]Totally agree. 1500 tons should do it - no half measures; show them we mean business. A couple of palm trees in the "holes" for Wes to run around. Some samba and bossa nova over the speakers to remind them not to risk injury or they''ll miss the World Cup. RVW on the bench - don''t want him stubbing his toe!

[quote user="Houston Canary"]So it''s better to hope we win one game and continue the pattern of disappointment as we limp to relegation than to accept a beating and get a manager who plays to our strengths and has us finish on a 14 game win streak? Life must be confusing amidst those oil fumes off the coast of Africa.[/quote]Any fracking in Houston and, if so, are you drinking the water?I''ll assume "no" on both counts if you can name a manager who will not only come here but will also guarantee a 14 game win streak.

[quote user="Number 9"]I had to read that twice, ooer Exactly how popular is his member?[/quote]The full quote: "He''s a very popular member here."Don''t forget you have school tomorrow.

[quote user="Alex "]Cheers Eddie for that, I had mixed feelings about the scandal that was ''Wes-gate'' but Chris Hughton appears to have dealt with a potentially awkward situation very well. He certainly has a very calm and intelligent way about himself. Wes to start on Saturday anyone? And how do you think everyone inside Carrow Rd will respond to him if he does make an appearance?.[/quote]Using City 1st''s logic - or lack of, depending how you view it, perhaps the qestion should be, "Will the Board select Wes on Saturday?"A forgiving lot, I think the fans will give him a loud cheer - if  he does play - which will be spun on here as "Hughton Out" ammunition.

[quote user="City1st"]or maybe Hoolahan has brought to light a number of problems at the club concerning players If there is one certaint that is Hughton is a yesman, and this has all the hall marks of him being given a slap on the wrist by the board quite a bit of loss of face to be honest, just as with Becchio when he kicked off and was then on the pitch - this may be a far bigger turning point that some would imagine[/quote].. or, maybe, he hasn''t because none existsuch as?he''s not on the pitch yet - he''s in the squad

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Villa are above us and have more points. Does that make lambert better than clueless? Just saying.....[/quote]Last season Villa finished below us. Are you saying at that point that Lambert was doubly clueless - clueless clueless so to speak?Just asking..........

[quote user="Mr Apples"]Well he could hardly be any worse and may be able to get the full potential out of the squad. However its never going to happen, we''ll probably bring in Joe Kinnear as Director of Football now he''s free instead...[/quote]That''s your 4th post in 8 years and so you clearly consider your views rather than rush into print. You may have missed the link from Making Plans:http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/swansea-sacked-michael-laudrup-phoning-3112286#.UvF_f_vCCt8

[quote user="KeepTheFaith"]Decided to persevere. I am not in to name calling. Not in to turning a drama into a crisis. Not into expecting my beloved football team to suddenly compete with the big boys. I am not dissapointed with all that has gone on this season on and off the pitch. Our financial position is secure but we do have one of the weakest and cheapest squads in the league. We are competing in a group of ten clubs that some should be doing better than us and others I would like to think are not as good as us. We are in the mix with those teams on our level and I am confident we will stay up. This does not mean I am blind to the fact we can go down but I am a glass half full guy. There is a vocal minority here and in the stands who use any reason to bash Hoots. Yes, we all think we can do better but for what it is worth I do not think anybody would. None of our players would get in to a top ten team. Most of our players are championship level at best. So are we under performing ? I think not. The simple fact is that our bubble has burst and we are at a level that takes many years to improve on unless we have a sugar daddy come along. That ain''t gonna happen. It does sadden me the negative effect that having a divided support has in the stands and on how our players perform. Having high expectations is fine but there must be some realism to them. We may have the best squad we have had for many a year but it is no better than most in the bottom eleven.[/quote]Well done for persevering. I read and agree with most of your posts. There are some very good posters on here who put forward rational arguments on both sides of the divide. I ignore the wind-up merchants, trolls etc. with their multiple user names - unless they have a sense of humour. Occasionally, I get a little agitated by the constant and repetitious tripe and twisted logic but it is not a mensa gathering - thankfully.

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][OK..MM, if it makes you feel any better, I''m happy to put the record straight by substituting the word ''far'' for ''so''.Pedantry is clearly your strongpoint.[/quote]Pointing out gross misrepresentation hardly qualifies as pendantry. But, hey, I''m feeling fine - this is Crystal Canary''s fight - if he wishes to have one.

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="Crystal Canary"] Please, please let this happen! I''d have so much fun on here ;)[/quote]Tells you all you need to know about the mentality of Mr Crystal Canary, this.If perchance we do put a half decent run together and stay up, he will derive far more pleasure out of some pathetic point scoring exercise on a regional newspaper run forum than the fact that the club he (allegedly ) supports will be plying their trade in the Premier League for another season, and all that that entails.Rather sad......[/quote]What is rather sad is your apparent need to completely twist what Crystal Canary actually said by selective quoting and mis-interpretation. You may wish to re-read it. The "far more pleasure" is completely your own invention.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="T"]Fergie no doubt was an outperforming mgr but also generally had the largest budget of any club for most of his reign. No one is saying that a mgr does not have influence but all objective studies show mgr has only 10 to 15pc influence so to praise or criticise one person for a TEAM performance is just crass stupidity.[/quote]According to The Numbers Game what surveys show is:"Over the course of a single campaign [as opposed to over several years] the amount of variation in league position explained by relative wages drops from 81 per cent to 59 per cent. There is a lot more room for immediate managerial influence."I am not a statistician but since the authors don''t think any other factors apart from mangerial influence are worth mentioning that would seem to mean they regard the managerial influence over a whole season as potentially being around 40 per cent. Certainly more than just 10-15 per cent.[/quote]Here''s an abstract from a negative review of the book on Amazon: "and if you do understand stats you''ll find this book so full of holes it will make you either laugh or cry."