Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lake district canary

Co-incidence or strategy?

Recommended Posts

We had Bryan Gunn as manager - a Norwich man through and through, put in charge to give back a sense of  local pride and passion and positivity to the club (yes I know it didn''t work) - but this led directly to the best manager perhaps we have ever had up until then, in Lambert. Move on six years, the same thing almost - Adams, put in charge to get some local pride passion and positivity - leads on to perhaps our best manager ever (not yet, maybe, but heading that way). We could both times have replaced the previous managers who had left us on a downer, with a non-Norwich man - but the effect of every so often putting in a Norwich man in charge, has led directly to real success by the next manager.   You could argue this was desperation tactics, on the other hand you could regard it as a strategy that leads on to success. The point is that having a stream of managers - all different, from different backgrounds, different philosophies etc etc - can actually lead to years of stagnation and fresh starts, never really leading anywhere.  You could name quite a lot of clubs who are like that and who rarely get to the big time. Now Gunn may not have been successful - but the optimism he brought to pre-season in 2009 was quite apparent - and the atmosphere at the Colchester game before the match was fantastic. It went wrong spectacularly from there, but it is undeniable that it led on to instant success after he left.   It''s counter intuitive to think that Gunn and Adams had a positive effect on things, I know, but putting things in the hands of a local man actually worked.............the alternative to Gunn or Adams could have been just another outsider.........another Roeder or another Hughton..........but both times we went for the local man and both times it had the effect of kick starting a period of success.............Counter intuitive or not, its a situation that has led on to a period of sustained success - since Gunn''s pre-season rebuilding of a squad from a bunch of loanees (and lets not forget he got us Grant Holt)  we have had three promotions and including next season, four seasons in the top flight.  Almost unprecedented success for a club our size that was in pretty dire straits only six years ago.  That local focus, could actually be something that has helped us on our way.   Easy to say otherwise, but history tells us that putting in a local man actually had some kind of positive effect on the club.   Tin hat ready - and I know it''s really a question of semantics - but that is what makes football so unpredictable - if it was easy to be successful, we would be in the top flight all the time.  As it is, Gunn and Adams played an important part in our recent development - and imo, being successful as a club is a direct result of those two being put in charge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"]What a load of cobblers. [:S][/quote]If you say so, but then if we hadn''t got Gunn, we probably would have never got Lambert.  If we hadn''t put Adams in, we probably would never have got AN.  The club would have undoubtedly gone down a different route with different managers - and would we as a club be any better position than we are now?  I doubt it. Probably a lot worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhh. No.
I don''t think we (twice) put a ''Norwich'' man in charge, hoping he''d f*ck it up so we can go and get who we really wanted to in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"]Uhh. No.
I don''t think we (twice) put a ''Norwich'' man in charge, hoping he''d f*ck it up so we can go and get who we really wanted to in the first place.
[/quote]

That is not the case.  After Roeder, who would we have got?  We had a team of loanees, little or no money and could not afford any kind of named manager who would want money to spend.  And after Hughton we were as negative as you can get - and who could have got us out if that?  Lennon? Malky?  I don''t think so. And  Lambert and Neil would likely not have been available at the times we wanted anyway.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lappinitup"]What a load of cobblers. [:S][/quote]If you say so, but then if we hadn''t got Gunn, we probably would have never got Lambert.  If we hadn''t put Adams in, we probably would never have got AN.  The club would have undoubtedly gone down a different route with different managers - and would we as a club be any better position than we are now?  I doubt it. Probably a lot worse.[/quote]The position the club is in now is largely due to one man.....David McNally.Using your example, the success the club now enjoys is all down to Neil Doncaster.This is feeble, even for you Lakey. [:''(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lappinitup"]What a load of cobblers. [:S][/quote]If you say so, but then if we hadn''t got Gunn, we probably would have never got Lambert.  If we hadn''t put Adams in, we probably would never have got AN.  The club would have undoubtedly gone down a different route with different managers - and would we as a club be any better position than we are now?  I doubt it. Probably a lot worse.[/quote]The position the club is in now is largely due to one man.....David McNally.Using your example, the success the club now enjoys is all down to Neil Doncaster.This is feeble, even for you Lakey. [:''(][/quote]But lapps, isn''t that ldc''s point? That we are enjoying the success we have now because Neil Doncaster''s example of appointing home-grown Bryan Gunn inspired David McNally to appoint home-grown Neil Adams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strewth LDC even Ipswich Crazy would struggle to assemble an argument based on your premise!

If the club had appointed Mavis the tea lady who, just like Gunn, would have made a complete balls up of the job then she to could be attributed with the Lambert resurgence?

Moreover, had Captain Canary been equipped with a strong squad and millions to spend a year ago then not only would he be setting up his webcam to film Camilla Canary getting ''busy'' this evening but would also be attributed with the Alex Neil meteoric rise and Wembley glory?

In both cases both Mavis and The Captain would''ve given the actual incumbents a run for their money although I''m not so sure the Chief Executive would''ve made her find her own way back from Yeovil.

Such treatment is reserved for only the most deserving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="lappinitup"]What a load of cobblers. [:S][/quote]If you say so, but then if we hadn''t got Gunn, we probably would have never got Lambert.  If we hadn''t put Adams in, we probably would never have got AN.  The club would have undoubtedly gone down a different route with different managers - and would we as a club be any better position than we are now?  I doubt it. Probably a lot worse.[/quote]The position the club is in now is largely due to one man.....David McNally.Using your example, the success the club now enjoys is all down to Neil Doncaster.This is feeble, even for you Lakey. [:''(][/quote]Since I have been here longer than Doncaster and McNally put together I claim that all our present success is down to my continued support through good times and bad.[Y][:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither Lambert nor Neil was available when we hired them, LDC.. They were both gainfully employed. So another spanner in your suggested works is why wouldn''t we have hired them sooner, without going through this charade of hiring the local boy to drum up warm fuzzy sentiment?

Besides, there were a lot of people on here who were not warmed with sentiment when Gunn and Adams were appointed as manager. The prevailing sentiment was relief mixed with "what took so long" when the previous managers were fired, with scattered moans of support for the exiled. There were plenty questioning the wisdom (cheapness) of hiring from within, and the ensuing groundswell of support happened because A) it was the start of a new era no matter who is hired, and B) in the case of the Colchester debacle, IT WAS OPENING DAY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot remember Norwich fans more furious with manager appointments than Gunn and Adams.

Anyone who sasy they were appointed to keep the fans happy then must think the Norwich board are completely out of touch with the club''s fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Co-incidence or strategy?"

Appears to be a question, not a statement of fact. Also appears to be a pretty accurate account of what happened when. Karma, fate? Things occurred in the order the OP states and led to where we are today.........not much to take issue with there I wouldn''t have thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I cannot remember Norwich fans more furious with manager appointments than Gunn and Adams. Anyone who sasy they were appointed to keep the fans happy then must think the Norwich board are completely out of touch with the club''s fans.[/quote]

 

Sadly there are far too many who think that''s true.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I cannot remember Norwich fans more furious with manager appointments than Gunn and Adams.

Anyone who sasy they were appointed to keep the fans happy then must think the Norwich board are completely out of touch with the club''s fans.[/quote]

I didn''t say that, if that is what you are implying.   If anything, the strategy when setting up a home grown management team is there to bring things together on the field in a way that is condusive with the ethos of the club.  My overall point is that this can be a positive thing to do, because the alternative is to constantly bring outsiders in every time there is a management change - and that is where clubs can come a cropper, losing their sense of identity so completely, they never get it back.  We lost it under Grant and Roeder - but the attempt with Gunn at least brought a sense that there was a move to bring the club back to an identity more fitting with it''s history.  The same with Adams.  They both fell short, but just maybe that bringing the club back to some kind of  home grown ethos, paved the way for the success that followed, more than if an outsider had been brought in  - and to answer Gopher - Lambert and Neil were not on the radar at the time of Gunn and Adams'' appointment.  Lambert had not yet proved himself at Colchester early 2009 and Neil was still in a promotion battle at Hamilton and would not have left that - nor indeed  had the status he had six months later.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LDC''s argument is not elegantly structured, but there is an interesting and valid premise at its core.

There are times when a club loses its soul, direction and raison d''ĂȘtre.

It is not unreasonable to identify both Gunn''s and Adams'' appointments as a (romantic, evangelical) attempt to bring a counter-balancing internal weight to a listing building.

That arguments can be constructed to justify any appointment is evident and human nature is to focus on factors that validate and already-arrived-at position.

In the case of Neil Adams there were more factors that justified the appointment than available to the outside naked eye. I believed in Neil and felt he would be a success. I also happen to think that he was, as he dealt well with - and amortised better than he is given credit for - the negative momentum from relegation.

Momentum, feeling, mental approach is so fundamentally important in football, that turning a losing side into a winning one is the Holy Grail. When it is accompanied by a complete change of environment, playing style and (typically) personnel it is a huge task that should not be taken for granted. Neil Adams has rightly been credited by Alex Neil for handing him a good hand, both in terms of dressing room morale and league position.

Within all of these factors lies some of LDC''s point. Finding your soul, your motivation, your pride in the shirt (remember few players play for the city in which they were born, so "togetherness" and mutual drive is created) can be generated by a sense of place, of belonging, of purpose, of club. An occasional internal appointment can be a necessary flagstone on the road to recovery, even if it only cauterises the wound rather than recuperating the patient.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did I just waste five minutes of my life reading this thread ? The title and the OP means I really should have known better. [:''(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ldc a really good read. I only read a line or so and I knew exactly what you were going to say.

Is it co-incidence? Both eras are so similar. We don''t know yet if AN will have the same effect as PL, only time will tell. I just hope that when AN says he wants this or that player the board goes along with him and gives him what he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="zippy23255"]Ldc a really good read. I only read a line or so and I knew exactly what you were going to say. Is it co-incidence? Both eras are so similar. We don''t know yet if AN will have the same effect as PL, only time will tell. I just hope that when AN says he wants this or that player the board goes along with him and gives him what he wants.[/quote]

 

I hope you''re wrong. There are very few football managers who "get what they want." Further, there are even fewer football managers who know what is in the overall best interest of the organization they work for. If they did, managers would have greater longevity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No they weren''t on regular radar, LDC, but that is the whole point of this silly thread: We hired old boys to return a sense of community to the club while expecting them to fail so we could smash and grab some other team''s up and coming manager.

So Lambert and Neil were on our super secret radar for this master plan to exist.

This begs the question, why doesn''t such a great strategy include replacing the really good manager with one who will at least play to the strengths already in place and in no need of altering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the appointments of both Adams and Gunn were not the unmitigated disasters some would claim.

In both cases the managers were asked to disassemble an under-performing and expensive squad and create a new cheaper, better squad, one capable of gaining promotion. Both succeeded in this mission.

Both were asked to create a level of confidence both within and outwith the squad. In this again both were successful.

Ok they couldn''t follow through and deserved the chop when it came but I certainly believe both gave their successors a far easier run than might otherwise have been the case.

now stop picking on the poster. it''s not a pleasant thing to do and its not pleasant to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get what LDC is saying but don''t think it was strategy.

The appointments were different.

However, I do think that at both times the club needed stabilizing and some pride in the shirt was needed. Both appointments did a bit of that, Adams more than Gunn I feel.

This paved the way for new managers to come in and work with squads that were almost complete and bring in a higher level of coaching and management.

Was the intention just to lay groundwork for the next guy? No, I don''t believe so. Was the stabilizing effect of a club man essential to allow the next guy to come in and be effective quickly without needing to get the spirit right first? Probably.

If we hadn''t had the two idiots that preceded the club guys we probably wouldn''t have needed to reset the foundations though. Each of those managers should have been released at the end of their first season as they each did an OK job of solidifying the position we were in at the start of their reign.

The initial turn around under Roeder was strong and the first six months under Hughton showed that the squad could stay in the PL without PL.

What happend with Roeder was hard to predict but the failure to get rid of Hughton after his second six months was a mistake many of us predicted at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with @Rhiadd

interesting observation by LDC and fascinating that those two managers followed the local Gunn and Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...