Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lappinitup

The little ole Norwich myth

Recommended Posts

This Sky chart shows we are one of the top twenty teams over the last fifty yearshttp://www.skysports.com/football/news/11662/10291705/ultimate-league-reveals-liverpool-are-englands-top-team-followed-by-man-utd-and-arsenalOur 19th placed finish was only one place below our overall average so no surprises there.

Good to see how far the binners have fallen though. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"]This Sky chart shows we are one of the top twenty teams over the last fifty yearshttp://www.skysports.com/football/news/11662/10291705/ultimate-league-reveals-liverpool-are-englands-top-team-followed-by-man-utd-and-arsenalOur 19th placed finish was only one place below our overall average so no surprises there.

Good to see how far the binners have fallen though. [:D]

[/quote]Size in football in a vague concept, but taking all "size" factors into account, over those 50 years we are the smallest - or pehaps equal smallest with Ipswich - club of that top 18. All the others would count as larger. And of those below us you have to get down to Watford in 32nd to find one that, historically, would be probably be regarded as smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody outside of Norfolk or Suffolk is even aware of the term. It''s just a stick to beat the club with used by fans with an inferiority complex or unrealistic expectations. We didn''t sign Charlie Austin in January, guess the board is stuck in their little old Norwich mindset etc. It always draws a sigh from me when I hear it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Agree Ricky. I think its mostly projection from certain supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it stems from an post-match interview with Delia during one of our recent stints in the Premier League when she used the phrase ''Little old Norwich'' to allude to how we may be perceived by the media and others but a bunch of dimwits on here (and, no doubt in the stands as well) misunderstood and thought she was using it to describe her own perception of the Club. It seems to have stuck ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lappinitup"]This Sky chart shows we are one of the top twenty teams over the last fifty yearshttp://www.skysports.com/football/news/11662/10291705/ultimate-league-reveals-liverpool-are-englands-top-team-followed-by-man-utd-and-arsenalOur 19th placed finish was only one place below our overall average so no surprises there.

Good to see how far the binners have fallen though. [:D]

[/quote]Size in football in a vague concept, but taking all "size" factors into account, over those 50 years we are the smallest - or pehaps equal smallest with Ipswich - club of that top 18. All the others would count as larger. And of those below us you have to get down to Watford in 32nd to find one that, historically, would be probably be regarded as smaller.[/quote]

I''m a bit confused - mainly because you start off by stating that it can be quite vague and then say most of the leagues above us in that 18 could be considered ''bigger''. In what way?

I always like to see the average attendances - those to me, mean a lot more than just having a 40,000 seated stadium.

http://www.soccerstats.com/attendance.asp?league=england

15th in the premier league last season in terms of average attendances. Stoke are ahead of us marginally. All of the clubs above Stoke have 30,000+ stadiums.

Now of course, that is only one aspect of what can contribute towards the perceived size of a club. I have said our ''natural'' place in the leagues should be somewhere from 11th in the Prem to 8th in the Championship. I still stand by this.

I also stand by the only time people have ever said Norwich are ''little ol'' is when some other dafty has said we are a ''big'' club. Because ''big'' normally indicates one of the clubs that dwarfs ours.

In more recent years the term ''super club'' has been used in the press, to represent Europe''s top teams which very rarely fail to land a player other than to one of the others. And who have some of the biggest global fan-bases.

On this front it is hard to see past the likes of Man Utd and Liverpool on this front - Man City, Arsenal and Chelsea perhaps not far off.

Those are what I would call the ''big'' clubs with the likes of Everton and Spurs usually there or there abouts as well.

That said, we are definitely not small. Smaller than those teams already mentioned - I don''t think there is an argument to say otherwise.

But we are inside the top 20 in terms of home attendances. Been hunting away figure stats but struggling to find them.

So for me, if you use a scale to indicate the size of a club, it works far better. 1 - being a big club and 5 being a small club. I would place Norwich somewhere just the other-side of a 2.

I don''t think we are even a true medium sized club in the grand scheme of things. That would have to be reserved for the likes of teams who tend to attract 15-20,000 fans.

I always think it''s important to remember the bigger picture. ''Little'' has to be the majority of League 2 who average no more than 5,500 at home games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Chip20"]I think it stems from an post-match interview with Delia during one of our recent stints in the Premier League when she used the phrase ''Little old Norwich'' to allude to how we may be perceived by the media and others but a bunch of dimwits on here (and, no doubt in the stands as well) misunderstood and thought she was using it to describe her own perception of the Club. It seems to have stuck ever since.[/quote]

Since our encounter with the premier league under Worthington with messers, Huckerby, Ashton and McKenzie.

That is how long that has been bandied around at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s a local expression, it reflects the perception of the club by a considerable number of fans who feel that their passion and commitment to the club demands a bolder and less risk averse approach by its leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lappinitup"]This Sky chart shows we are one of the top twenty teams over the last fifty yearshttp://www.skysports.com/football/news/11662/10291705/ultimate-league-reveals-liverpool-are-englands-top-team-followed-by-man-utd-and-arsenalOur 19th placed finish was only one place below our overall average so no surprises there.

Good to see how far the binners have fallen though. [:D]

[/quote]Size in football in a vague concept, but taking all "size" factors into account, over those 50 years we are the smallest - or pehaps equal smallest with Ipswich - club of that top 18. All the others would count as larger. And of those below us you have to get down to Watford in 32nd to find one that, historically, would be probably be regarded as smaller.[/quote]

I''m a bit confused - mainly because you start off by stating that it can be quite vague and then say most of the leagues above us in that 18 could be considered ''bigger''. I
n what way?

I always like to see the average attendances - those to me, mean a lot more than just having a 40,000 seated stadium.

http://www.soccerstats.com/attendance.asp?league=england

15th in the premier league last season in terms of average attendances. Stoke are ahead of us marginally. All of the clubs above Stoke have 30,000+ stadiums.

Now of course, that is only one aspect of what can contribute towards the perceived size of a club. I have said our ''natural'' place in the leagues should be somewhere from 11th in the Prem to 8th in the Championship. I still stand by this.

I also stand by the only time people have ever said Norwich are ''little ol'' is when some other dafty has said we are a ''big'' club. Because ''big'' normally indicates one of the clubs that dwarfs ours.

In more recent years the term ''super club'' has been used in the press, to represent Europe''s top teams which very rarely fail to land a player other than to one of the others. And who have some of the biggest global fan-bases.

On this front it is hard to see past the likes of Man Utd and Liverpool on this front - Man City, Arsenal and Chelsea perhaps not far off.

Those are what I would call the ''big'' clubs with the likes of Everton and Spurs usually there or there abouts as well.

That said, we are definitely not small. Smaller than those teams already mentioned - I don''t think there is an argument to say otherwise.

But we are inside the top 20 in terms of home attendances. Been hunting away figure stats but struggling to find them.

So for me, if you use a scale to indicate the size of a club, it works far better. 1 - being a big club and 5 being a small club. I would place Norwich somewhere just the other-side of a 2.

I don''t think we are even a true medium sized club in the grand scheme of things. That would have to be reserved for the likes of teams who tend to attract 15-20,000 fans.

I always think it''s important to remember the bigger picture. ''Little'' has to be the majority of League 2 who average no more than 5,500 at home games.[/quote]I am talking about a perception based on all factors over all of those 50 years, rather than just how things seem at the moment. For example, I would roughly agree on what is our natural place now (the top third of the second tier to the bottom third of the top flight) but our natural place over those five decades would be lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Load of Squit wrote the following post at 01/06/2016 8:35 PM:

"Or we could go with real definition that Chip20 supplied"

Go with what makes you feel good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be wrong but didn''t the term originate by Delia after the Fulham thrashing that relegated us.

She was, I assume, trying to put a positive slant on the situation by implying that who would have thought ''little old Norwich'' could have come so close to survival. If that is not accurate I assume Lapps, Nutty Nigel or Morty will put the record straight and leap to her defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But in reality Norwich as a city is on par with St Albans and about 40th per population, so we are punching well above our weight!

When you look at the cities in our size their football clubs are way down this list!

So we could well be looked at as little ole Norwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]But in reality Norwich as a city is on par with St Albans and about 40th per population, so we are punching well above our weight!

When you look at the cities in our size their football clubs are way down this list!

So we could well be looked at as little ole Norwich.[/quote]

Norwich is considerably bigger than St Albans; around 80,000 more people live in the Norwich urban area than the St Albans/Harpenden district. Plus we''ve got a catchment area of nearly a million people if you include Waveney (the district, not the incredibly tedious Pink Un poster) with no other professional clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Ultra. St. Albans pop. 57,795. Norwich pop. 213,000. From official 2011 census. I guess if you include Harpenden then around 80k difference is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure where you''re getting your info from but the national stats has St Albans with a population of 140,000 with 69,000 urban, I picked them as they were the closest match. They have the same population close to them and London within driving distance!

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rft-table-ks101ew.xls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, though, I don''t think the myth is based on any statistical evidence (accurate or otherwise) about attendances, silverware, ground capacity, squad size and whether or not we are achieving our full potential based on those. The myth is that the senior management of the Club genuinely perceive us as Little ole Norwich (based on a mis-interpretation of the words Delia used in the interview alluded to by several above) and, therefore, have no ambition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread reminds me of my cousin, "poor little Jimmy" he was known as, whenever anyone spoke of Jimmy, it was always started with these 3 words; Poor Little Jimmy (PLJ), then a sentence that would be along the lines of,

Poor little Jimmy, the teacher is very hard on PLJ, or the other kids all think PLJ is not very clever or why does everyone always pick on PLJ. he is not that bright, our PLJ, etc etc.

Problem is after a while Jimmy started to believe all this, and it became a kop out for everything, so morale is if you hear it enough, you start to believe it, Little ole Norwich ? don''t buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Little mummy''s boy
He wasn''t very old
Though he was very small
He did what he was told

Jimmy Jimmy
Jimmy Jimmy, oh
Jimmy Jimmy
Poor little Jimmy wouldn''t let go

He''d stay awake at night
Lying in his bed
No one ever listened
To a single word he said

Jimmy Jimmy
Jimmy Jimmy, oh
Jimmy Jimmy
Poor little Jimmy wouldn''t let go

Silly boy
Silly boy
Silly boy
Such a silly boy

Jimmy Jimmy
Jimmy Jimmy, oh
Jimmy Jimmy
Poor little Jimmy wouldn''t let go

Now little Jimmy''s gone
He disappeared one day
But no one saw the ambulance
That took little Jim away

Jimmy Jimmy
Jimmy Jimmy, oh
Jimmy Jimmy
Poor little Jimmy wouldn''t let go (poor little Jimmy wouldn''t let go)

Jimmy Jimmy
Jimmy Jimmy, oh
Jimmy Jimmy
Poor little Jimmy wouldn''t let go (poor little Jimmy wouldn''t let go)

Jimmy Jimmy
Jimmy Jimmy, oh
Jimmy Jimmy
Jimmy Jimmy, oh
Jimmy Jimmy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy"]Not sure where you''re getting your info from but the national stats has St Albans with a population of 140,000 with 69,000 urban, I picked them as they were the closest match. They have the same population close to them and London within driving distance!

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rft-table-ks101ew.xls[/quote]

The 140,000 figure is for the Norwich City council boundary area only and doesnt include the suburbs like Sprowston, Hellesdon, Catton, etc which are in the Norwich built up area but fall in the Broadland or South Norfolk council areas. This Norwich urban area has a population nearing 220,000.

I guess the closest comparison to Norwich would be Northampton, fairly similar in size. We probably are overachieving football wise if they were considered to be the benchmark for settlements of that size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think it was when worthy was in charge

can you remember him saying " well we will go to man utd and enjoy the day " ( or words to that effect )

like little ole norwich on a day out didn''t deserve to be there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This always makes me laugh every time it comes up. If you take away the small minded agendas and the little old memories it was probably started by Big Fat Bob with his "rarely does a club as small as Norwich....." speech. Or maybe Geoffrey Watling before him.

 

I don''t remember us being little in Sir Arthur''s day. But then he was a Labour politician so maybe the big club days will soon return....

 

 

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...