Keith Scott 243 Posted February 27, 2016 All this valiant brave peformance guff from some of you is pathetic. The bottom line is once again we crumble when it counts. Leicester''s late goal was sadly inevitable. We cannot keep clean sheets and we are so mentally fragile it''s ridiculous. Make no mistake, we are going down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted February 27, 2016 Harsh to say the least. What did you think the score was going to be today Keith? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt. Pants 4,195 Posted February 27, 2016 I suspect the post was typed even before kick off. 1 - 0 nil defeat in the 89th minute is hardly a crumble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katie Borkins 1 Posted February 27, 2016 Do a search on Keith Scott''s contributions to this forum and find one positive post. Absolute nailed on binner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,498 Posted February 27, 2016 No, I agree, you real do need to work on that trolling ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cantiaci Canary 556 Posted February 27, 2016 Losing by a last gasp goal away at the team clear at the top is hardly ''not good enough''! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Row D Seat 7 0 Posted February 27, 2016 Had a feeling for us before today, thought we''d get a point. Alas, we come away with nothing, like most weeks. I think we''re going down but Alex Neil is still the man for our future. Hopefully we''ll bounce back within 1-3 seasons. Apart from a brief period over Christmas, we''ve consistently struggled. Unfortunately just not quite good enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldyboy 0 Posted February 27, 2016 How is a man that after 27 games still doesnt know his best team the man for our future? Cannot make a substitution to change a game, persists with one up front, constantly plays people out of position and you say hes the man? It beggars belief! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted February 27, 2016 To be fair when your name is Keith you''re not really going to have much to be positive about.Did you watch the game today Baldyboy? AN clearly likes to change his approach depending on the opposition, something most teams like us have to do because we''re never going to be a constant favourite in this league. I''m sure we had a much more settled side under him last year in the champs. Obviously he''s going to keep making changes when we''re not getting results! The tinkering was much fewer and far between when we were playing well earlier in the season, although still evident. If you haven''t seen a marked improvement in our last 2 performances and style of play then you''re frankly an idiot. He''s 34, he''s obviously going to make mistakes, if you can''t see in AN what McNally, the board, and probably 90% of the fans see in him then you''re also an idiot. Seeing his development as a manager with another club would sicken me if we were to let him go. Was really really pleased to hear McNally''s comments in that podcast, definitely worth a listen if you haven''t already!2 quick questions1. Do you actually believe 2 up front would work for us? 2. Where would you have expected us to finish in the league at the start of the season? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith Scott 243 Posted February 27, 2016 The plucky little ''ol Norwich syndrome is once again out in full force amongst many. Leicester were poor today, there for the taking, and like clockwork once again we shot ourselves in the foot. The peformance and respective league positions are irrelevant. Zero points. Same old story. Going down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted February 27, 2016 He''s also set us up well enough to go 2 goals up twice during games during this baron spell. The individual mistakes that proceeded from the players are exactly that, individual, not something that a new manager would change. We had a similar fragility under Hughton and even Lambert. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted February 27, 2016 Why do you think Leicester played poorly, Keith?I''ll ask again, what did you think the score was going to be today, Keith?keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith vvvvvvvvvvvkeith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith KEITH keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith keith Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spillay 179 Posted February 27, 2016 I have to say that I agree with Keith here and trust me I am no troll. I am hurting just like we all are right now after today, but he is right we DID shoot ourselves in the foot for the umpteenth time this season. Leicester were bang average, their first shot on target came after 70 minutes!! Yes we were game and worked hard, yes we should of got something but the reality is we didnt. Hard luck stories count for nothing at the end of the day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldyboy 0 Posted February 27, 2016 No I didnt watch the game, was too busy unfortunately. Who knows whether 2 up front would work for us as our manager refuses to try it out! 1 up front certainly isnt working for us is it? Maybe it would work for us it has for Watford and a certain team that beat us today BUT I guess we will never know as Mr Neil refuses to try it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gordon Bennett 780 Posted February 27, 2016 Disappointing that people feel the need to be critical today when we have played well away from home against the team sitting top of the league. Understandable when we have been crap but not today.And all this ''best team'' stuff is starting to wear a bit thin. A team was picked to play in a certain formation today and it came within a whisker of bearing fruit. Modern football is a squad game and about picking a side for a particular game, just like Lambert did to much success.I expect we will go down but as long as its with a fight I won''t complain. We have the smallest budget, the weakest squad and the most inexperienced (but very talented) manager so it will be no surprise if we succumb to the drop. That isn''t ''little old Norwich'', its facing facts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted February 27, 2016 Fair enough Spillay, I''m not denying it looks pretty bleak, these kind of results will be the forge of our relegation and they''re happening all too regularly at the moment. Just think criticism of Neil and the team is unfair today given that we were playing the team who are top of the table. You say Leicester were poor, on the stream I watched, the commentators praised our performance right the way though the game. I appreciate it''s only the result that really counts right now and yes, I''d rather we played rubbish and win. Just don''t see how you can justify the criticism when most of us were expecting a tonking. Part of what makes football great is the unpredictability of the result, it is the only sport where performance and subsequent result vary so vastly and frequently, the margins are incredibly fine and anything can happen. The only thing we can realistically expect from our players and manager is that they are performing well on the pitch. That obviously gives us the best CHANCE of a result. It guarantees us nothing. Hard luck stories don''t count for anything no, but doesn''t mean the players should be criticised when a good performance doesn''t result in the rewarding of points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,283 Posted February 27, 2016 Given the spending of Bournemouth and budget similar to ours is Eddie Howe a better manager?I''ve not seen that AN warrants this very talented manger tag, he''s not proven anything yet! His signings thus far haven''t improved our starting 11, Jarvis started well but he''s been injured and since pretty inept, Mbokani full of running but not really scored the goals needed, Dorrans has to be the worst player we''ve signed since Hughes, Mulumbu, well nothing to say there but big wages for no return.The rest have yet to rely prove themselves and I doubt Naismith & Klose will be here if we do go down.Yep AN has done OK but he''s not done anything to say he''s the next Fergie as some on here think he is.......we sat 7th when he took over with one of the best squads in the championship.Good young manager learning his trade which could cost us relegation, if he can manage to find a winning formula and keep this squad up then he deserves more credit IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katie Borkins 1 Posted February 27, 2016 [quote user="Baldyboy"]How is a man that after 27 games still doesnt know his best team the man for our future? Cannot make a substitution to change a game, persists with one up front, constantly plays people out of position and you say hes the man? It beggars belief![/quote]What beggars belief is your inability to see that AN will flex the strategy, the formation, and therefore the team, based on the opposition and whether we are home or away. The idea that we can pick the same team and play the same way, week in week out, is out of date. In the Championship perhaps we can, but in the PL we need to accept the fact we are one of the weakest teams and therefore be flexible to try and nullify the opposition who, more often than not, have better players who are paid more money.I am a big AN fan and I think he will be one of our best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted February 27, 2016 You should probably aim your criticism of signings at our scouting team and not Neil! Bournemouth''s budget is also clearly a lot bigger than ours!Dorrans was great at the start of the season and was an important part of our promotion last year. Not sure where that statement has sprung up from..Has anyone said he''s going to be the next Fergie? I don''t believe that but I do believe he''s capable of establishing us in the premier league, eventually... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 9,710 Posted February 27, 2016 [quote user="Baldyboy"]No I didnt watch the game, was too busy unfortunately. Who knows whether 2 up front would work for us as our manager refuses to try it out! 1 up front certainly isnt working for us is it? Maybe it would work for us it has for Watford and a certain team that beat us today BUT I guess we will never know as Mr Neil refuses to try it![/quote]FFS! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Green and Yellow 0 Posted February 27, 2016 AN is way out of his depth and is now being found out. I have a friend who lives in Glasgow. When we chat about football and AN in particular he says that AN had a reputation at Hamilton Accies of being nieve when it came to organising the defence. It was always viewed as his weak point. Who knows only a comment and opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 27, 2016 Is this the same Bournemouth who broke FFP rules last season that apparently had a similar budget to us? Give over.On another note, Baldyboy, you''re an embarrassment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,283 Posted February 27, 2016 Yes the same Bournemouth with Surman a regular, 8 players from their promotion side regular starters and with similar budget spent over the past three years to what we''ve spent! Yeh give over.Not withstanding we''ve had four out of five premiership seasons and should have built a far better squad then them, still we can all spin things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanaryOne 0 Posted February 28, 2016 Neil is massively overrated a manager like Allardyce would have kept this squad up Neil wont even go close . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted February 28, 2016 How quickly last season has been forgotten.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fiery Zac 1,066 Posted February 28, 2016 When the team was changing last season and the tactics different for each opposing team, AN was a genius with ''never-before-seen'' thoroughness and research into our opponents. Now we''re in the PL and losing some games, he''s ''out of his depth'' and too inexperienced.This thread is like so many on this board at the moment. Littered with b******* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gordon Bennett 780 Posted February 28, 2016 Ignoring the vast difference in budgets Eddie Howe has been managing for seven seasons, AN for three. Big difference in experience. I don''t doubt that AN''s inexperience has hindered us at times this season but we need to think longer term about what he can achieve here, even if we do get relegated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,283 Posted February 28, 2016 Agreed Gordon, no doubt if we go down and come back under AN his next season would be better, but my gripe is he knew how hard it was going to be and might have been well served in making sure he brought in an experienced No. 2 to help. Who knows it might have just tipped some of those games we deserved some points from in our favour.I''m not saying AN isn''t going to be a good even great manager but he''s not that good and hasn''t proved anything yet. A long way to go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
