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

[quote user="swindoncanary"]It does get my back up when a player can''t take a simple corner. In my playing days (at a much lower level !) we had a 6''5'''' center half and for corners I could always cross the ball so he would meet it perfectly. If I could do it at my level, why can''t professionals do it ? [/quote]It is certainly puzzling me. As we all know, Snoddy was fantastic last season and I have been loathe to critiscise him because of that. This season, he has looked a bit tired but even so, and even with a dip in form, taking simple corners should not be particularly challenging. Rather than trying to attempt his previous pinpoint accuracy, he would  perhaps do better to concentrate on lifting the ball into the general area and let the forwards make the moves. I wonder if he has changed his boots - I''m being serious but clutching at straws.

[quote user="SeattleCanary"]!M.u.s.t.a.r.d_M.a.t.t.e.r.s!Lucky, yes but not lucky, lucky - or our one off the woodwork would have gone in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So its still 3-1. I''m failing to see your point that the point we gained we deserved?[/quote]I did not say we deserved it. I said we were lucky. The point I was indirectly making was that if we achieve anything at all, then the Manager is invariably judged to have been lucky. I do not buy into that argument because it suggests the Manager has no ability whatsoever - that is more than naive and, in my opinion, preposturous.  For instance, I cannot envisage CH passing the instruction to players at any time to play as though they are "on the beach". When I see the players dripping in sweat at the end of a game having put in their all ( and we have still lost ) then I might start criticising the Manager. Until I see 100% commitment from all players at all times, I don''t blame the manager. Quite a few players of late have come out in support of CH and blame themselves (as a group). Personally, I think our squad is weak compared to most and - to be fair to the players as well - we should be in 15th/16th place.

[quote user="SeattleCanary"]!M.u.s.t.a.r.d_M.a.t.t.e.r.s!-But it ended up 0-0 at full time. PARDEW OUT! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------They hit the woodwork 3 TIMES my friend!! We rode our luck, and you would be naive to think that by sitting back and inviting attack after attack from the opposition with no attacking response of our own, that we deserved that 0-0. Before they lost Ben Arfa and Remy, we wouldn''t have scored if we''d have played until midnight!Lucky lucky Hughton....[/quote]Lucky, yes but not lucky, lucky - or our one off the woodwork would have gone in.

[quote user="SeattleCanary"]Late subs when we should have already been out of the game. Like for like subs taking off two of our better players who could make something happen (Pilks & Hooper). Drab football which deservedly was booed off as we looked like a team from a league or 2 below Newcastle, and made it seem we were at their ground.I think 8 million-pound man had 8 touches in the first half, with no shots on or off target. His team selection is baffling., and he well and truly rode his luck with us getting that point. It looked like a certain 2 or 3-0 defeat to me at half time.God I hope he leaves at the end of the season regardless of where we end up. Its just f*cking dire.[/quote]But it ended up 0-0 at full time. PARDEW OUT!

[quote user="tele"]I''m really confused I lived in Norfolk until I was 18. Then lived in Leeds for several years. Then Barnsley. Then Mansfield. Now Nottingham. I know leaving Norfolk is to be frowned upon, but which team am I meant to support? Should I have switched clubs every move? Also, the proximity of the two Nottingham clubs is troubling me. The ground are only a few yards apart, and I can''t work out which is closer to where I live. Which am I meant to support? I guess if you''ve stayed in Lowestoft all your life, these things don''t need to worry you, but it''s all a bit confusing for me. [/quote]I am afraid you are beyond redemption "tele" - as we all are! I once made tea for the "A-team" in the late 50''s. Ricardo may be able to confirm if they were all Norwich-born players or not. That would still not be good enough though as I went on to watch the full team - unfortunately, dammit, those players definately were not all Norwich-born.

Does anybody meet Simple Dick''s criteria for qualifying as a "real" fan?I gave up at the "walking test" and the "stout yeoman" stage but I am hoping to lower my "plasticity quotient."  Born and raised in the fine city, I am hoping my great grandmother was born within the city walls. Fingers crossed, Ancestry..com will provised the answer. In the meantime, I suggest all fans unite in the chant:"Mama Weer All Plastic Now" - apologies to Noddy

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"]I''m finding Hughton''s style of management to be rather dull and can''t decide whether I should bother renew my season ticket next season or just become an honorary Man Utd fan and watch football on Sky. Any views or opinions on this difficult decision would be greatly appreciated.[/quote]A "real" fan (plenty of definitions on here) would find it very difficult to even consider switching to another club. My advice would be not to renew. Show a bit of altruism. There are many who would love a season ticket and can''t get one. I gather Lincoln Canary is not renewing his and so he might be able to help in your difficult decision: who knows, perhaps you have both passed through Reading at some stage and can form a mutual bond. If you are really stuck, PM "The Wiz" for a "balanced" view. If you are just a little deflated that we are only in 12th position - when we should be challenging Man City - LDC shows a fair bit of bottle in these difficult times and may inspire you. Whatever you decide I suggest you do it quickly. Sitting on the fence can be alikened to the pain inflicted from the "Judas Chair." I wouldn''t wish that on anybody. Even supporting Ipsw£ch would be preferable, wouldn''t it? I wouldn''t know if a visit to Poormn Road would be exciting though - give it a go: nothing ventured, etc.Decisions. Decisions, eh.

Great thread - really enjoyed that.If Karl Popper taking a pop at Plato is not your bag, then this could be:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta1KfRX06kAMonty Python Philosophy Football

Looking at what we have achieved after 22 games suggests we are on course for 37 points before the final 4 games.In home games against top-half clubs we average 0.8 pointsIn home games against bottom-half clubs, we average 1.8 pointsIn away games against top-half clubs we average: zeroIn away games against bottom-half clubs we average 1.6 pointsFeeding those numbers in, one by one, over the remaining fixtures will give us 37 points with 4 games to go. That should be enough to survive and a draw or two in the final 4 games ( two games at home) should seal survival.6 points in the next 6 games and we are no track. A draw with Newcastle would also be on track.  

[quote user="lowlyfendweller"]Any news? Any similar players linked? Well let''s face it, this thread is legendary! Any excuse to involved.[/quote]There was a rumour 3 days ago that Spurs will launch a £4m bid very soon. Juve want £7/8m. How sickening would it be if they got him and he scored against us 5 games from now? How would the crowd react? More importantly, how long would this thread become then? Relief - finally invented a reason to come on here.

[quote user="Lavanche"]We are nowhere near safe, but I have had all the time gut feeling we wont relegate this season even thought I was quite sure from the start it will be hard. I have followed finnish "neutral" football forum and pick up a comment that sums up quite much how neutrals there see the bottom half relegation fight. "Itse putoamiskamppailuun. Itse olen yhäkin sillä kannalla, että Fulham, Cardiff ja West Ham tippuvat. Cardiffilla omistajien sekoilut vievät joukkueen lopulta championshipiin. Fulhamilla sitten se, että kun joukkueesta löytyy niin paljon pelaajia joita ei edes kiinnosta, kuten Berbatov. Niin pitkään kun Berbatov jatkaa lönkyttelyään joutuu Fulham puolustustilanteessa pelaamaan vajaalla joka kuormitaa muuta joukkuetta todella paljon. Berban kaltaisen pelaajan kanssa pitäisi joukkueen pitää palloa, mutta siihen eivät mökkiläisistä pysty bulgaarin lisäksi kuin ehkä Parker. West Hamin materiaali ei sen sijaan ole riittävällä tasolla ottaen huomioon että vastaavalla materiaalilla operoiva Palace on saanut kunnon draivin päälle ja Pulis saa kyllä joukkueensa taiteiltua viivan yläpuolelle. Stoke ja Hull keräävät kotiluolistaan tarvittavat pistepotit ja AV vieraista. Norwichilla on paljon käyttämätöntä potentiaalia jonka lisäksi joukkueen peli näyttää joskus oikeasti hyvältä, samaa vois sanoa Suderlandista. Näin ollen itse valitsemani kolmikon lisäksi jäljelle jää WBA joka mielestäni voi pudota." Writer is Liverpool fan who thinsk Fulham, Cardiff and West Ham are going to relegate, but more interesting part is at the end where he says that: Crystal Palace has a momentum which will keep them in a league with Pulis strict defensive act, Stoke, Hull and Aston Villa will get their needed points to keep them up (his tone is bit negative). Then he says Norwich has lot of unused potential (meaning our injuries and RvW, Fer and Redmond) and that we sometimes look good for real (compared to other teams in relegation battle) and then adds that same could be said about Sunderland (meaning time after managerial change). This seems to be consensus in finnish forums quite much and most of supporters there in Premier League section are supporters of top 8 teams.[/quote]For those who aren''t fluent in Finnish, this is the  Google Translate version:"In putoamiskamppailuun . Personally, I still exclude the view that Fulham , Cardiff and West Ham fall . Cardiff has the owners of hazing will take the team in the end Championship. Fulham then , that when the club can be found in so many players that are not even interested in , such as Berbatov . As long as Berbatov continue lönkyttelyään have to Fulham on defense to play almost a burden for other teams so much. Berban like with a player should be a team to keep the ball, but it does not summer cottagers can not Bulgaric addition, as might be Parker. West Ham material is , however, not at a sufficient level , taking into account that similar material , which operates the Palace has received a good draivin on and Pulis may be yes team taiteiltua above the line. Stoke and Hull collect kotiluolistaan ​​necessary point of pots and audio of the guests . Norwich has a lot of untapped potential in addition to which the team''s game seems to sometimes really good, the same could be said Suderlandista . Consequently, your own choice of the trio in addition to leaving the WBA which I think may fall. "That''s cleared that up.

[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Are things actually that bad? Look at the facts. 9 league wins in 42. We''ve scored more than once in 13/59 league games. We''ve failed to beat promoted sides in 80% of matches under CH. We are 8 points off where we were at this stage in 2012. I would say things are pretty bad ... As our own CEO admitted live on air this week.[/quote]If you are going to quote facts then please make them up to date and meaningful and less selective:5 points off where we were in 2012/3.Last season after 21 games: 4 points off 10th and 7 from relegation. This season after 21 games: 3 points off 10th and 2 from relegation15 league wins in 59 - 2012/3 + this season to date.I am not arguing that it is a relatively good position - far from it. There are 10 relegation candidates and we are one of them. 2 wins and we will have 26 points after 23 games - same as last season. Let''s hope we get them.

[quote user="Daniel Brigham"]Lake, my point though is that the wingers aren''t cutting inside all of the time because they feel like it. They''re cutting inside because it''s part of the gameplan. And that''s down to the manager. Same with our midfielders pushing it out wide rather than playing through the middle. It''s the gameplan, and it isn''t working - and isn''t playing into the strengths of RVW or Hooper. That''s why I feel Hughton is wasting their talents - I stand by the headline.[/quote]I always enjoy reading your posts Daniel and I, too, applaud LDC''s stoicism. The gameplan as you have described it isn''t working. I''m interested in your view as to why CH would persist in such a gameplan. I cannot believe it is down to sheer stubbornness - so there are, presumably, some defensive advantages given CH''s predisposition to a defensive philosophy. What do you think they are?

So, in extremis, the only "real" fans are those that attend every home and away fixture, cup and league, and, I guess, open training sessions and testimonials as well. Moreover, they do so from the moment of birth until they finally pop their clogs triggered by yet another dire performance. On that basis, nobody is a "real" fan - other than you, of course. I suggest you set up your own site. Try several usernames and have a chat amongst yourself  ...........oh, hang on!Simple and "YouKnowJack"

[quote user="City1st"]16 wins out of 60 if we beat Hull - seems a more representative statistic. ah yes26% win average as opposed to 21%whoopee do !that''s worse than Roeder, Grant and even Bryan Gunn !dearie me [/quote]I am not implying or supporting these numbers as being great - no whoopee do from me! It is just that on another thread today - I think in discussion with "Badger" (I can''t be bothered to look it up), you were dismissing his statistics. There, I thought you were essentially correct in pointing out the difficulties of ''isolating variables'' - it doesn''t help if you then handpick yours.

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="Kangaroo Court"]And if we beat Hull we could go up to 12th and equal on points with 10th. What would there be to protest about?[/quote]Failure to develop playersKnocked out of the cup by LutonDire and negative football9 wins out of 42 games [/quote]16 wins out of 60 if we beat Hull - seems a more representative statistic.

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"] People can mention this game or that, but there was never one result or even a set of results that made his position untenable. And last night didn''t either. No-one can seriously think Hughton would have put out that team if his job depended on it.[/quote]Exactly so Purple and that is why those that have called it that he would still be in his job after Xmas got it spot on. We had claims in October and November that he would be gone by the weekend when it was never remotely probable that this would happen. It was obvious in December that barring a catastrophic set of results he would still be in his job. Now we come to the Hull game and it''s quite possible that a different scenario will play out. With still no turn in form this could very well be the result that does for him. I am thinking along the lines of Worthy and Burnley. Nobody could survive that. However should we win then there is little or no chance of a change. Some won''t like it but barring that catastrophic event he could very well go on right through the season.Events will determine his fate and Saturday will be the first big crunch.[/quote]McNally described CH''s brief in terms of keeping out of the bottom 3. Even if we lose to Hull, we would not necessarily be in the bottom 3. It would depend, of  course, on what those below us do. That would equally apply to the following game against Newcastle.

Can I have Dark Green? [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Didcot Canary"]I have just joined this message board after reading some on the views on the McNally post! After watching NCFC online for the umpteenth time this season (Can''t afford to travel) all i have seen is the same one paced football all season. OK they come out both halves all guns blazing but then sit back and take a battering. I am really sorry to say but i think Houghton just isn''t right for the club. Even last season it didn''t feel right. Although we stayed up and gained 1 place from the season before it was still mainly a Lambert team that did the job for us. Who thinks he should go! maybe replace him with MacKay??   [/quote]Welcome Didcot.A quick word to the wise.Only Purple is allowed to post in blue[:D][/quote]But that is NAVY rather than BLUE...[/quote]

We can all moan and curseFor better or for worseAnd often debate a silly rumourAt times this site''s the pitPacked full with loads of squitThankfully redeemed by splendid humour.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Purple - as you are normally so thorough in what you write I am rather surprised that you do appear to have missed out a crucial element in the research into appointing a new manager. The conclusion of the research was actually that ON AVERAGE!!!!!!!!!!! - there is no advantage in appointing a new manager. Or in other words, aggregated over all the changes of manager that the research looked into overall there was no gain (or loss) to teams in appointing a new manager. However an average is just that - an average! Concealed within that are any number of individual instances where a team has done better - or worse - after they have appointed a new manager. Indeed in fairly recent memory at Norwich we have two good examples of where appointing a new manager has led to a clear improvement in fortunes, namely the appointments of Nigel Worthington and Paul Lambert. The key to improvement (and it was ever thus) lies in making the right appointment. If the board is able to inject new funds into the club - over and above what went in before - for transfer fees and wages then that too will increase the chances of success. Needless to say neither of these last two points should come as much of a surprise to anybody.[/quote]TL, if you have actually read the research (unlike me!) and it is the case that this is a typical kind of average, with many examples as it were above the line, many level, and below, then that is obviously highly relevant. But all the summaries I have seen (including that in The Numbers Game) paint the picture differently - of this being pretty much an iron law (that changing the manager makes no difference) with perhaps a very few exceptions that sinmply go to prove the law.[/quote] Looking at the original Dutch research paper, I concluded that it was flawed:"The data consists of teams from the highest professional Dutch soccer league for 18 seasons in the period 1986-2004 present for at least 50% of all seasons."If we applied the same 50% rule to the PL, the research would be based on 17 clubs out of the 46 which are either in ( or have been in ) in PL.  In other words, it wouldn''t cover 29 of them - which happens to be the majority.  Surely, those 29 would be the ones to study rather than the 17 who tend to stay up and are, therefore, less likely to change their managers. On that basis, I wouldn''t draw any conclusions from the study.

I was of the view that goal difference has played very little part in the relegation battle. On checking the past tables, that is not the case and if the bottom 10 clubs continue to be as bunched up as they are now, it could prove significant at the end of the season: 1992/3 (42 games) Palace went down with 49 points - Oldham stayed up with 49. 1995/6 (38 games) Man city down with 38 points - Southampton with 38 survived. 1997/8: Bolton with 40 points - Everton with 40 stayed up. More recently: 2006/7: Sheffield went down with 38 points - Wigan stayed up with  38. 2007/8: Reading went down on 36 - Fulham with 36 stayed up. I did this a bit quickly but I think its correct.

Today''s Guardian: "Bolton''s huge losses come despite a £17.9m decrease in the club''s wage bill, which is attributed to the sale of players and the ''relegation clauses'' inserted in contracts.""Looking forward we have to recognise we are no longer a Premier League club in the Championship, but a Championship club with ambitions to play in the Premier league; a stark reality of the financial rules now imposed."

I''ve been looking at the points gained at the halfway stage - after 19 games of course, by teams which were subsequently relegated.54 teams have been relegated in the past 18 years - of those:18 teams were relegated having secured 18 or more points by halfway12 teams were relegated having secured 19 or more points by halfway10 teams ...................................................206 teams .....................................................21 or more points by halfway5 teams .....................................................222 teams .....................................................23Just the one - Blackpool - was relegated by halfway with 25 points.(36 teams had less than 18 points at the halfway stage and were subsequently relegated)We''ve got 18 points already and so the odds of staying up are already in our favour - another 3 or 4 from the next 3 games should settle the nerves. Any more than 4, and we might be discussing whether CH is the new Messiah.

39 Points would have been enough in 15 of the last 19 seasons - since the PL had 20 teams.In the other four:1996/7: 41 needed1997/8: 41 needed2002/3: 43 needed2010/11: 40 needed

I think today''s lead article in the Pink''un is well worth a read:"As Norwich City face Tony Pulis'' Crystal palace in crunch game, is ''New Manager Syndrome'' myth or reality." The key extract for me was: "Between 12 and 18 games after appointment, the points benefit of changing manager has vanished, suggesting that on average there is only a short-term gain and a longer-term negative effect of changing manager''.