I like the new kit....

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="JF"]Hughton had lost the players. A player said to me that Hughton was a really nice bloke and tactically sound but as an attacking player he didnt want to go to work for him[/quote]To say he had lost the players would be wrong imo. It depends on which players you talk to - and hence part of the problem.   There were undoubtedly splits and different views about Hughton within the team.    Universally liked - yes, universally respected as a manager - probably not.   There were probably at  least three different areas of possible rifts and splits in the group - maybe not serious rifts, but at least different views within the squad. We only got Redmond because of his respect for Hughton and we only got Bassong because of his connection with Hughton - and maybe one or two others as well who would be supporters of the manager.  We then had RVW and Fer, Dutch newcomers - and we had the old guard who were Lambert type players - and we had Snodgrass, who appeared as the main "character"  after Holt left - so the togetherness of the squad may well have been tested from within when things got tough.  Bassong not performing well that season may well have been a symptom of that.Players have to take some of the responsibility when things go  wrong - and as I''ve said previously they were as much to blame imo as the manager. Holt was such a unifying influence when he was here under both Lambert and Hughton - and we really missed that after he left - and all these things combined in that second season under Hughton to cause the downfall.  Yes, Hughton was the manager and took ultimate responsibility - but simplistic statements like "he lost the players" do not paint the whole picture. [/quote]You''re not trying to re-write history again, are you Lakey?Holt was a magnificent unifying force for three years before Hughton arrived. After Hughton arrived and, during the first few months of  the first Hughton season in 2012, it quickly became apparent that Holt was not a happy camper with the new approach as his goal tally dropped off significantly along with the lack of attacking intent for the team. Indeed, it was not until the final two winning games of the season where the change in intent on the field was so obviously a disregard of the players for Hughton''s methods that Holt looked like a semblance of his old self as the team scored seven times. Ironically, of course, those results helped Hughton keep his job but, nonetheless, Holt was gone before Hughton''s second season would get underway.

 Just wanted to clarify history for you. It''s one thing to distort things for yourself but I''m sure you don''t want to do the same thing to others.[/quote]

No distortion or rewriting of history from me.  Holt was a fantastic captain and player and carried himself with a lot of credit - including throughout Hughton''s first season, putting in some superb performances and still scoring goals, despite a change of way of playing from the previous manager. He was a massive influence at the club throughout his time at Norwich and if you are underestimating that, it is you that is maybe trying to rewrite history.  

[YankeeCanary 0]

More guff from you Lakey. Sweeping generalizations along with attempts to evade the points made, as well as further distortions that perhaps I''m underestimating Grant Holt. You just plain don''t know how to be honest do you, Lakey? Why don''t you try and take a page out of Grant holt''s thoughts on honesty.

 

"Striker Grant Holt has said his disappointment with the style of Norwich City manager Chris Hughton''s side influenced his departure.

The 32-year-old brought four successful seasons at Carrow Road to an end by joining Wigan this summer.

"I think everyone could see I wasn''t the person I was for the past three years," he told BBC Radio Norfolk.

"On a matchday I wasn''t enjoying the way we were playing - we were set up more defensively."

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="lharman7"]Hugely disagree on a few points NN. Hughton HAD lost

the players. In fact he had lost them very early on in the season. You could

just see in there confidence and the demeanour the way they played. Hughton had

sapped the life out of the players and to say otherwise is simply being

blind.

 

 

Nutty, i don''t quite understand why you emphasize the relegation wage drop.

Not for one minute did i think any of our players play for money or that the

money really matters. If the wage drop (money) had any bearing on the players

than i suspect we would have seen more players leave than we did instead of

staying for the championship fight. Oh and look who did leave, Fer, Snodgrass! I

believe it did matter to Bassong who took over from Hughton. If it had not have

been Adams, Bassong would not have uttered the (alleged) comment towards a

different manager. Would think especially Lennon. So no, Bassongs reaction would

not have been the same. Other than that NN i agree with you for the

rest.[/quote]

 

Chris Hughton still had the support of the players in the first team. In

fact the players built up a siege mentality and by the end were playing for

Hughton in spite of the fans. There were many spats with fans before after

and even during games that will bear this out. I''m not blind buddy. I just post

what i see and hear.

 

 

Bassong''s reaction was totally because of Hughton''s sacking. Hughton was

his father figure and mentor. Listen to his interviews that season.

 

 

Norwich players in the main are top professionals who buy into the club''s

community spirit and happily give back to the community. Russell Martin is the

best example of this. Again listen to the interviews. It''s not suggesting they

are mercenary to understand that a 40% wage cut is unsettling. It''s a short

career and earnings are important to them. Remember Ruddy''s spat with the fan in

the Barclay as he laid it on the line that relegation affected the players

livelihood. And even if by some miracle the players weren''t unsettled by a 40%

cut how do you reckon their wives felt? Imagine going home to your missus and

saying "I''m getting a 40% pay cut next year but I''m not bothered because |I work

for Norwich"! And then you get the agents involvement and the possibilities of

earning more elsewhere. It''s not until after the January window closes that

these unsettling distractions go away. And of course there was the words of

praise for Bradley Johnson and how he''d settled down and got on with

Championship football. The fact that he was singled out for this praise surely

must mean there was another side to the coin.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]"Why am I at odds with so many others like dear old Miggo? Probably because my perspective is different."

no $hit sherlock

Also you''ve based your main argument on the importance of Bassong and pay cuts. Need I say any more?[/quote]

 

It may help if you did say more. As it appears you''ve based your argument on nothing at all.

 

 

[mrs miggins 0]

Didn''t we have like a 7 page discussion on this very topic Nutty?

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Hence my surprise that you wanted to do it again so soon....

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

More guff from you Lakey. Sweeping generalizations along with attempts to evade the points made, as well as further distortions that perhaps I''m underestimating Grant Holt. You just plain don''t know how to be honest do you, Lakey? Why don''t you try and take a page out of Grant holt''s thoughts on honesty.

 

"Striker Grant Holt has said his disappointment with the style of Norwich City manager Chris Hughton''s side influenced his departure.The 32-year-old brought four successful seasons at Carrow Road to an end by joining Wigan this summer."I think everyone could see I wasn''t the person I was for the past three years," he told BBC Radio Norfolk."On a matchday I wasn''t enjoying the way we were playing - we were set up more defensively." [/quote]

Unfortunately for you, none of those sentences has any relevance to what I am saying - and what I was saying was to do with his influence while at the club.  My point  was that in the first season under Hughton, Holt was still a powerful and influential figure in the club - regardless of his disapointments, his views on the style of play etc etc.   Now if you really want to have a decent discussion about it - which I doubt as your usual intention appears to belittle whatever I write, regardless - then answer the point I made - was Grant Holt a big influence at CR under Lambert and then Hughton or not?   If you think he was under Lambert and wasn''t under Hughton, then the onus is on you to show that - and picking odd sentences that he has spoken does not do that. There were many matches where he worked his absolute socks off and was a fantastic captain and role model on the pitch, contributing to the 11th place at the end - and many reports of his behind the scenes work throughout the club, including right down to youth level attending their matches etc etc.  He was a big loss when he left.  Holt may not have been happy, but it did not stop him being captain of the club and leading us to 11th place - and the hole he left after he went was never adequately filled - or do you really dispute that?

[mrs miggins 0]

I think its because I''ve discussed my reasons/views/justifications (on the AN v NA thread) but haven''t been able to hear yours before. Now that I have, well I''m a bit disappointed. Bassong and wage cuts - thats your view.

[Katie Borkins 1]

Claiming that Holt was anything other than massively frustrated at being neutered by Houghton''s negative approach is to be rewriting history.

He was a shadow of his former self under Houghton and never achieved the same level of performance again.

[mrs miggins 0]

Lets also not forget that he was also $hit for villa as well under Lambert

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Lets also not forget that he was also $hit for villa as well under Lambert[/quote]Hughton''s fault[Y]

[Indy 3,296]

Holty was fantastic but as all players came to the end of his top class form......like it or not Hughtons was a boring manager in terms his style but Holt had lost his form and no matter who the manager had been would have done the same.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@ city-til-I-die

You could have a go at working out why I asked you that question about Koscielny rather than trying to make out I''m a complete idiot. But there again, let''s not bother.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]Claiming that Holt was anything other than massively frustrated at being neutered by Houghton''s negative approach is to be rewriting history.

He was a shadow of his former self under Houghton and never achieved the same level of performance again.[/quote]

Read this thread again and you will see no-one has said he wasn''t frustrated, I don''t think anyone could question that, merely that he was still a big influence on the club and its well being in that first Hughton season.  

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

More guff from you Lakey. Sweeping generalizations along with attempts to evade the points made, as well as further distortions that perhaps I''m underestimating Grant Holt. You just plain don''t know how to be honest do you, Lakey? Why don''t you try and take a page out of Grant holt''s thoughts on honesty.

 

"Striker Grant Holt has said his disappointment with the style of Norwich City manager Chris Hughton''s side influenced his departure.The 32-year-old brought four successful seasons at Carrow Road to an end by joining Wigan this summer."I think everyone could see I wasn''t the person I was for the past three years," he told BBC Radio Norfolk."On a matchday I wasn''t enjoying the way we were playing - we were set up more defensively." [/quote]

Unfortunately for you, none of those sentences has any relevance to what I am saying - and what I was saying was to do with his influence while at the club.  My point  was that in the first season under Hughton, Holt was still a powerful and influential figure in the club - regardless of his disapointments, his views on the style of play etc etc.   Now if you really want to have a decent discussion about it - which I doubt as your usual intention appears to belittle whatever I write, regardless - then answer the point I made - was Grant Holt a big influence at CR under Lambert and then Hughton or not?   If you think he was under Lambert and wasn''t under Hughton, then the onus is on you to show that - and picking odd sentences that he has spoken does not do that. There were many matches where he worked his absolute socks off and was a fantastic captain and role model on the pitch, contributing to the 11th place at the end - and many reports of his behind the scenes work throughout the club, including right down to youth level attending their matches etc etc.  He was a big loss when he left.  Holt may not have been happy, but it did not stop him being captain of the club and leading us to 11th place - and the hole he left after he went was never adequately filled - or do you really dispute that?

[/quote]

 

I don''t like to call a person obtuse but you certainly seem to be trying to run in a contest to win a prize in that category.

It doesn''t matter what I believe. It''s what Grant Holt believed. You attempted to wrap up in a nice little bundle in your inimitable manner that we missed Grant Holt because he was such a unifying influence under Lambert and Hughton. To the contrary, Holt stated that, under Hughton, he was not the person he had been for the three years prior, under Lambert. He wasn''t uttering an odd sentence you nincompoop. After he left the club he stated clearly that, quote ".. he was not the person he had been for the previous three years and everyone could see that." unquote. Everyone but you, apparently.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

More guff from you Lakey. Sweeping generalizations along with attempts to evade the points made, as well as further distortions that perhaps I''m underestimating Grant Holt. You just plain don''t know how to be honest do you, Lakey? Why don''t you try and take a page out of Grant holt''s thoughts on honesty."Striker Grant Holt has said his disappointment with the style of Norwich City manager Chris Hughton''s side influenced his departure.The 32-year-old brought four successful seasons at Carrow Road to an end by joining Wigan this summer."I think everyone could see I wasn''t the person I was for the past three years," he told BBC Radio Norfolk."On a matchday I wasn''t enjoying the way we were playing - we were set up more defensively." [/quote]Unfortunately for you, none of those sentences has any relevance to what I am saying - and what I was saying was to do with his influence while at the club.  My point  was that in the first season under Hughton, Holt was still a powerful and influential figure in the club - regardless of his disapointments, his views on the style of play etc etc.   Now if you really want to have a decent discussion about it - which I doubt as your usual intention appears to belittle whatever I write, regardless - then answer the point I made - was Grant Holt a big influence at CR under Lambert and then Hughton or not?   If you think he was under Lambert and wasn''t under Hughton, then the onus is on you to show that - and picking odd sentences that he has spoken does not do that. There were many matches where he worked his absolute socks off and was a fantastic captain and role model on the pitch, contributing to the 11th place at the end - and many reports of his behind the scenes work throughout the club, including right down to youth level attending their matches etc etc.  He was a big loss when he left.  Holt may not have been happy, but it did not stop him being captain of the club and leading us to 11th place - and the hole he left after he went was never adequately filled - or do you really dispute that? [/quote]

I don''t like to call a person obtuse but you certainly seem to be trying to run in a contest to win a prize in that category.It doesn''t matter what I believe. It''s what Grant Holt believed. You attempted to wrap up in a nice little bundle in your inimitable manner that we missed Grant Holt because he was such a unifying influence under Lambert and Hughton. To the contrary, Holt stated that, under Hughton, he was not the person he had been for the three years prior, under Lambert. He wasn''t uttering an odd sentence you nincompoop. After he left the club he stated clearly that, quote ".. he was not the person he had been for the previous three years and everyone could see that." unquote. Everyone but you, apparently.

[/quote]

Are you still at it?   Ok, I''ll spell it out for you.............again.  Regardless of his feelings of frustration, form, playing style - all of which are not in question - he was STILL a big influence, despite that.  That is not obtuse - it is a reflectrion of his character. Thank you and goodbye.

[morty 0]

You clearly misunderstood him Yankee[;)]

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="morty"]You clearly misunderstood him Yankee[;)]
[/quote]

 

[:D][:D]

 

[westcoastcanary 173]

@GF: "Hughton had lost the players. A player said to me that Hughton was a really nice bloke and tactically sound but as an attacking player he didnt want to go to work for him."

So despite acknowledging Hughton''s tactical soundness this player was not prepared to buy into what CH was trying to do? Not even for the sake of the club whose employee he was? Did CH lose the players at Newcastle or Birmingham? No, they were solidly behind him and played their hearts out for him and in Redmond''s and Seb''s case came to Carrow Road specifically to play under him.

I agree with Nutty; CH may have lost one or two players, but certainly not the majority of the first team regulars. What he did do was lose the fans who, like the player quoted, weren''t prepared to buy into what CH was trying to do.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="morty"]You clearly misunderstood him Yankee[;)][/quote]

[:D][:D]

[/quote]Yes indeed. Either that or he''s a bigger wind up merchant than I give him credit for.

[morty 0]

Whoooooooooooooooooooosh!

[Katie Borkins 1]

* Makes unintelligible point

* Tries to defend it

* Makes even less sense

* Gets defensive

* Gets aggressive

It''s been a while, but remind me.  Have we been here before?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]

* Makes unintelligible point

* Tries to defend it

* Makes even less sense

* Gets defensive

* Gets aggressive

It''s been a while, but remind me.  Have we been here before?

[/quote]

Yeah, poor Yankee, he tries, but does get caught up in his own bias........oh I see! You meant me.....In that case - Nope. *Made perfectly good point*Defended it honestly and openly in the face of  unedifying and demonstrably biased and unsympathetic poster*Reiterated point twice to reinforce and clarify it*Didn''t get defensive*Didn''t get aggressive........Good effort bor......not.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]

* Makes unintelligible point

* Tries to defend it

* Makes even less sense

* Gets defensive

* Gets aggressive

It''s been a while, but remind me.  Have we been here before?

[/quote]

Yeah, poor Yankee, he tries, but does get caught up in his own bias........oh I see! You meant me.....In that case - Nope. *Made perfectly good point*Defended it honestly and openly in the face of  unedifying and demonstrably biased and unsympathetic poster*Reiterated point twice to reinforce and clarify it*Didn''t get defensive*Didn''t get aggressive........Good effort bor......not.

[/quote]

Well, you would say that wouldn''t you.

I still have no idea of the point you were trying to make and am even less clear after reading your responses.  You seem to be saying Holt was a massive player for Norwich under both Lambert and Houghton, whereas history will show he was a shadow under Houghton and couldn''t wait to leave once the season was up.  His goalscoring, assists and the reports of those who attended the matches will tell you as much.  Was he influential?  Under Houghton the most influential players seemed to be Snodgrass and Bassong.  Maybe Holt didn''t appreciate not being top dog any more - we''ll never know.  What we do know and saw with our own eyes was he was not the player he was under Lambert.

You''re sounding a teeny bit aggressive, by the way.

Carry on.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]

* Makes unintelligible point

* Tries to defend it

* Makes even less sense

* Gets defensive

* Gets aggressive

It''s been a while, but remind me.  Have we been here before?

[/quote]Yeah, poor Yankee, he tries, but does get caught up in his own bias........oh I see! You meant me.....In that case - Nope. *Made perfectly good point*Defended it honestly and openly in the face of  unedifying and demonstrably biased and unsympathetic poster*Reiterated point twice to reinforce and clarify it*Didn''t get defensive*Didn''t get aggressive........Good effort bor......not.[/quote]

Well, you would say that wouldn''t you.

I still have no idea of the point you were trying to make and am even less clear after reading your responses.  You seem to be saying Holt was a massive player for Norwich under both Lambert and Houghton, whereas history will show he was a shadow under Houghton and couldn''t wait to leave once the season was up.  His goalscoring, assists and the reports of those who attended the matches will tell you as much.  Was he influential?  Under Houghton the most influential players seemed to be Snodgrass and Bassong.  Maybe Holt didn''t appreciate not being top dog any more - we''ll never know.  What we do know and saw with our own eyes was he was not the player he was under Lambert.

You''re sounding a teeny bit aggressive, by the way.

Carry on.

[/quote]Just for the record - this is what I initially wrote - "Holt was such a unifying influence when he was here under both Lambert

and Hughton - and we really missed that after he left".That was questioned so I answered it -"Holt was a fantastic

captain and player and carried himself with a lot of credit - including

throughout Hughton''s first season, putting in some superb performances

and still scoring goals, despite a change of way of playing from the

previous manager. He was a massive influence at the club throughout his

time at Norwich and if you are underestimating that, it is you that is

maybe trying to rewrite history."It was questioned....again.....I answered it.....again"My point  was that in the first season under Hughton, Holt was still a

powerful and influential figure in the club - regardless of his

disapointments, his views on the style of play etc etc.   Now if you

really want to have a decent discussion about it - which I doubt as your

usual intention appears to belittle whatever I write, regardless - then

answer the point I made - was Grant Holt a big influence at CR under

Lambert and then Hughton or not?   If you think he was under Lambert and

wasn''t under Hughton, then the onus is on you to show that - and

picking odd sentences that he has spoken does not do that. There were

many matches where he worked his absolute socks off and was a fantastic

captain and role model on the pitch, contributing to the 11th place at

the end - and many reports of his behind the scenes work throughout the

club, including right down to youth level attending their matches etc

etc.  He was a big loss when he left.  Holt may not have been happy, but

it did not stop him being captain of the club and leading us to 11th

place - and the hole he left after he went was never adequately filled"And again -"Regardless of his feelings of frustration, form, playing style - all of

which are not in question - he was STILL a big influence, despite that."Holt was a big character and an influential figure in the four years he was at CR and that didn''t cease just because things got difficult - and he had a big say in us reaching 11th place that fourth season, despite his - and others - difficulties and reservations about style/tactics etc. To try and argue against that is frankly ridiculous.    But if you and Yankee want to continue doing it, it''s up to you......

[Katie Borkins 1]

Nah, not having that.

You do not know how influential he was in the last season of his time at Norwich.

We can all see how his performances declined:

Norwich City
	2009–10	League One	39	24	2	3	2	3	1	0	—		44	30
	2010–11	Championship	45	21	1	0	2	2	—		—		48	23
	2011–12	Premier League	36	15	2	2	0	0	—		—		38	17
	2012–13		34	8	1	0	3	0	—		—		38	8
	Total		154	68	6	5	7	5	1	0	—		168	78

8 goals in 2012-13 compared to 15 in 2011-12.

What none of us know, unless you are privy to some club inside knowledge (clue: you''re not) is how influential he was.

To pretend you are is to be dishonest.

That''s all.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]Nah, not having that.

You do not know how influential he was in the last season of his time at Norwich.

We can all see how his performances declined:

Norwich City
	2009–10	League One	39	24	2	3	2	3	1	0	—		44	30
	2010–11	Championship	45	21	1	0	2	2	—		—		48	23
	2011–12	Premier League	36	15	2	2	0	0	—		—		38	17
	2012–13		34	8	1	0	3	0	—		—		38	8
	Total		154	68	6	5	7	5	1	0	—		168	78

8 goals in 2012-13 compared to 15 in 2011-12.

What none of us know, unless you are privy to some club inside knowledge (clue: you''re not) is how influential he was.

To pretend you are is to be dishonest.

That''s all.

[/quote]Where do I say I have inside knowledge?  Where do I say I am in the know? I don''t pretend to know. Far from it. However, is your impression that Holt was a big influence/character under Lambert but then somehow, because things got a little difficult and were different under Hughton, he sulked an no longer did his job as captain and ambassador for the club?  That is not the impression I got, with all his off field work and support for the youth team and younger players coming through and his gutsy performances on the pitch.  The man was a star the whole time he was here - and your seasons'' stats are irrelevant to that  because stats do not tell the story of his overall role at the club - nor the level and effort of his performances, regardless of goals scored. Imo, Holt was as important a figure at the club as Lambert was - and that carried on into the fourth year, despite the difficulties - and he was a crucial character in getting us up to 11th place that fourth season.  I dont really know why anyone would dispute that.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]Nah, not having that.

You do not know how influential he was in the last season of his time at Norwich.

We can all see how his performances declined:

Norwich City
	2009–10	League One	39	24	2	3	2	3	1	0	—		44	30
	2010–11	Championship	45	21	1	0	2	2	—		—		48	23
	2011–12	Premier League	36	15	2	2	0	0	—		—		38	17
	2012–13		34	8	1	0	3	0	—		—		38	8
	Total		154	68	6	5	7	5	1	0	—		168	78

8 goals in 2012-13 compared to 15 in 2011-12.

What none of us know, unless you are privy to some club inside knowledge (clue: you''re not) is how influential he was.

To pretend you are is to be dishonest.

That''s all.

[/quote]Where do I say I have inside knowledge?  Where do I say I am in the know? I don''t pretend to know. Far from it. However, is your impression that Holt was a big influence/character under Lambert but then somehow, because things got a little difficult and were different under Hughton, he sulked an no longer did his job as captain and ambassador for the club?  That is not the impression I got, with all his off field work and support for the youth team and younger players coming through and his gutsy performances on the pitch.  The man was a star the whole time he was here - and your seasons'' stats are irrelevant to that  because stats do not tell the story of his overall role at the club - nor the level and effort of his performances, regardless of goals scored. Imo, Holt was as important a figure at the club as Lambert was - and that carried on into the fourth year, despite the difficulties - and he was a crucial character in getting us up to 11th place that fourth season.  I dont really know why anyone would dispute that.

[/quote]

You pretend to know all the way through your posts, LDC! Can you really not see it?

His goalscoring stats are entirely relevant as that is the only measure we have.  Everything else is supposition, conjecture and opinion.

The facts are he was less effective under Houghton than under Lambert.

Nothing else can be proven.

IMO Holt''s influence under Houghton was far less than under Lambert and Snodgrass and Bassong were bigger influences.  Was Holt crucial to our 11th place finish?  Instrumental, yes.  Crucial?  No.

[Duncan Edwards 2,230]

With regard to Holt, it could be reasonably argued from his stats that he was a player in decline. I didn''t suggest it at the time but if he was decidedly less influential under Hughton with 8 in 34, his 3 in 26 since for other teams (including 1 in 10 for Lambert - admittedly not full "90s") is even less inspiring.

What can''t be challenged is that, along with Lambert, he was a perfect fit at the time. Given the solid success of Lamberts ethos with Grant as the focal point, the change in approach under CH, where he was less imperative, probably left him wondering a great many things.

Maybe CH had it right by trying to take the emphasis away from him? His subsequent scoring record could be interpreted that way. Equally you could argue that CH tried to fix something that wasn''t broken.

Who knows for sure?

Ultimately we were relegated in our first season without him. Some would say that says it all, but it''s really only half the story. We never replaced his goals and invested poorly in RVW, however, it''s reasonable to assume that Holty wouldn''t have scored them either looking at what he has done since.

Holt was less influential under Hughton for sure, but I''d suggest playing style was only one in a number of factors, and, even if it was deemed the most relevant at the time, perhaps it was less significant than we thought?

And the kit is growing on me.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"][quote user="lake district canary"]

Where do I say I have inside knowledge?  Where do I say I am in the know? I don''t pretend to know. Far from it. However, is your impression that Holt was a big influence/character under Lambert but then somehow, because things got a little difficult and were different under Hughton, he sulked an no longer did his job as captain and ambassador for the club?  That is not the impression I got, with all his off field work and support for the youth team and younger players coming through and his gutsy performances on the pitch.  The man was a star the whole time he was here - and your seasons'' stats are irrelevant to that  because stats do not tell the story of his overall role at the club - nor the level and effort of his performances, regardless of goals scored. Imo, Holt was as important a figure at the club as Lambert was - and that carried on into the fourth year, despite the difficulties - and he was a crucial character in getting us up to 11th place that fourth season.  I dont really know why anyone would dispute that. [/quote]

You pretend to know all the way through your posts, LDC! Can you really not see it?

His goalscoring stats are entirely relevant as that is the only measure we have.  Everything else is supposition, conjecture and opinion.

The facts are he was less effective under Houghton than under Lambert.

Nothing else can be proven.

IMO Holt''s influence under Houghton was far less than under Lambert and Snodgrass and Bassong were bigger influences.  Was Holt crucial to our 11th place finish?  Instrumental, yes.  Crucial?  No.

[/quote]The facts are that he was still captain under Hughton, he was still the leader on the pitch when playing, was still leader off the pitch when he wasn''t playing - as witnessed by many at the club who stated as such both during his time at Norwich and when he left.  Other facts - Grant Holt - 34 appearances and top scorer for the club in that successful fourth season.  Fantastic work rate and effort, constantly disproving those that said he was past it and overweight - often appearing as last ditch defender as well as attacking influence. Yes, Hughton wanted a different style of football - did he let that bother his effort and professionalism throughout that season? No it didn''t - he always gave his best - characters like him don''t know any other way.

Anyway, your continued focus on his effectiveness on the pitch are  not what I was arguing against - as you must be able to see - and although my opinions of his worth off the pitch may be less easy to quantify - his influence as a character or personality at the club would not have changed from year 3 to year 4.   Managers may change, personalities do not.  If Holt was a huge figure in the club under Lambert, he was a huge figure under Hughton too.