Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Derby Canary

Next Season

Recommended Posts

Looking back on where we finished in DF''s first full season here, its amazing really how, even after 46 games in what is a long gruelling season.we were not all that far in reality at being either in the top 6 or bottom 6. Another 5 wins would have seeing us edging into the play offs, another 5 defeats would have seen us edging into the bottom 6.
Never mind the style of play, goals scored or conceded, the positive City fans will hope and believe DF  can find us another 5 wins from his team over last season, while the negative City fans will be looking at the prospect of 5 more defeats. Such is the fine margins between good and bad, success and failure, even after a nine month season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More of the same - at best, which will (unbelievably) still satisfy enough fans to keep the pressure off Delia and Projekt Nicht Fördern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]
Broadstairs, you''ve named two interesting examples of how things can go wrong, despite the best intentions, and how a club like ours is at the mercy of even one mistake, while richer clubs can buy their way out of trouble.What gets forgotten about that van Wolfswinkel summer is that we also wanted to sign Toivonen. He turned us down and we ended up with Elmander, who had been a good player but by then was definitely past his best. Toivonen, by contrast, is still playing for Sweden and scoring some goals. I have always thought that if we''d got Toivonen, who could play as an attacking midfielder or up front, that would have made up for the uselessness of van Wolfswinkel, and we would have survived.
[/quote]
The EDP has an interview with Ewen Chester, who was chief scout at the time:“Toivonen, we had his agent in the building but couldn’t reach a

financial agreement. I spent a lot of time watching him at PSV and it

looked like it would happen. If we’d got him and Ricky? Hindsight is a

wonderful thing."
He is duty-bound still to defend van Wolfswinkel, of course, but probably right about Toivonen. If he is still scoring goals in the World Cup I think he would have been just what he needed five years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Purple

I think Chester pretty much nails the Ricky issue when he mentions we weren''t having much possession. If RvW was ever going to thrive it would have been in a team dominating the ball and creating chances for him which just isn''t how Hughton set up the team. I don''t think Toivonen changes that much.

I''d be really interested to know how much Hughton was involved in transfers because so many of them seemed totally wrong for his style of play. Really his system needed a strong forward who could play with his back to goal and hold the ball up for midfield runners (ironically Holt ticked all those boxes) but we signed Hooper and Ricky both of whom are relatively lightweight and prefer playing in the penalty area.

Equally if you''re going to be a team that defends deeper and tries to stay solid before going on the counter a not that quick winger with a desire to cut inside on each and every occasion (Snodgrass) is not what you want.

I''d love to know if Hughton was looking at these players thinking ''I can make them work in my system'' or if Chester and McNally were telling him they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]@Purple

I think Chester pretty much nails the Ricky issue when he mentions we weren''t having much possession. If RvW was ever going to thrive it would have been in a team dominating the ball and creating chances for him which just isn''t how Hughton set up the team. I don''t think Toivonen changes that much.

I''d be really interested to know how much Hughton was involved in transfers because so many of them seemed totally wrong for his style of play. Really his system needed a strong forward who could play with his back to goal and hold the ball up for midfield runners (ironically Holt ticked all those boxes) but we signed Hooper and Ricky both of whom are relatively lightweight and prefer playing in the penalty area.

Equally if you''re going to be a team that defends deeper and tries to stay solid before going on the counter a not that quick winger with a desire to cut inside on each and every occasion (Snodgrass) is not what you want.

I''d love to know if Hughton was looking at these players thinking ''I can make them work in my system'' or if Chester and McNally were telling him they would.[/quote]
I have said quite enough about van Wolfswinkel. In short, I simply think he was just not very good, no matter what the system. As to Toivonen, I think he certainly would have made a difference, and possibly the difference, because he could have played on his own up front. Exactly what you are saying we needed. Something that neither Hooper nor van Wolfswinkel could indeed ever do, and something Elmander was no longer capable of doing. Your post is an argument for Toivonen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe but the meaning I took from Chesters interview was that he thinks Toivonen could have bought more out of Ricky yet if we had signed him I think Hughton would have used him playing in more of a number 10 role (as he does for Sweden at times).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Maybe but the meaning I took from Chesters interview was that he thinks Toivonen could have bought more out of Ricky yet if we had signed him I think Hughton would have used him playing in more of a number 10 role (as he does for Sweden at times).[/quote]
But Chester will say anything to try to justify what was probably the most costly - in several senses - signing in the club''s history. As it happens I agree that Toivonen, in his prime at 26, would have been more use to vanWolfswinkel than a clearly past his best Elmander, but then only to the limited extent that there was any more to be brought out of van Wolfswinkel. The point, which you made, is that we crucially lacked a Holt-figure, and Toivonen could have been that. It doesn''t matter if Hughton had envisaged Toivonen as an attacking midfielder, which is a role he has played. As the season progressed, once Hughton realised the realities and limitations of some players, then Toivonen could - almost certainly would - have been played up front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether people think RvW would have still failed or not, I do find it interesting that now there appear to more posters that seem to be coming round to the fact that he was horribly misplayed by Hughton and that this clearly had an impact on both the player AND on our season, yet when I said this sometime back I was constantly being told it was simply that RvW was a terrible player and a good striker scores in any system...
Funny how things change over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may have looked for that answer Indy, rather than it actually existing!

To clarify, I still maintain RvW was, and is, a bang average striker at best. And for a comparison, I think there are probably 10 better strikers in the championship (i.e the second tier of English football) than him without having to really think about it. Which suggests he was never going to be good enough at the level we needed him to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]It''s possible to think he was both awfully used by Hughton and also not a very good player.[/quote]
It''s also possible to think that the players around him were not good enough either. At times we could hardly hold on to the ball, let alone create chances or if we did hold on to the ball, inevitably it was through Snodgrass who delighted in holding onto the ball regardless of what was around him. The whole team was cack collectively and couldn''t cope with the pressure of that season.  Even if he was just a good finisher and nothing else - which he is - RVW would have scored more had the team around him been up to the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For fucks sake man, you''re a broken record.

It is amazing that you somehow have created a narrative that the manager who signed most of these players and the big money center forward who scored one goal all season are somehow not to blame for the utter failure of that season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You''re entitled to your own opinion etc. etc. but given that I reckon 99% of us would have Snodgrass back today like a shot (feel free to tell me I''m wrong), it is in this case clearly wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]Snodgrass who delighted in holding onto the ball regardless of what was around him.[/quote]
For goodness sake Lakey.
In all the years I''ve followed City, I can''t remember one single player being vilified so much by one single fan....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Nuff Said"]You''re entitled to your own opinion etc. etc. but given that I reckon 99% of us would have Snodgrass back today like a shot (feel free to tell me I''m wrong), it is in this case clearly wrong![/quote]

No, no, no, never. If Snodgrass ever came back to Norwich I''d give up supporting. The guy is an absolute t&sser. He broke our team, despite the goals he occasionally turned out. Never a team player as has been proven with his subsequent clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="shefcanary"][quote user="Nuff Said"]You''re entitled to your own opinion etc. etc. but given that I reckon 99% of us would have Snodgrass back today like a shot (feel free to tell me I''m wrong), it is in this case clearly wrong![/quote]
No, no, no, never. If Snodgrass ever came back to Norwich I''d give up supporting. The guy is an absolute t&sser. He broke our team, despite the goals he occasionally turned out. Never a team player as has been proven with his subsequent clubs.[/quote]
99% is pushing it Nuff.  The Hughton season after Holt left was difficult in every way and one of the main factors - imo - was that Holt leadership on the pitch being missing and the attempts of Snodgrass to take his place and be seen as the main man.  He achieved that - and we were relegated. If you want to be the leader on the pitch you had better be able to live up to that, but not at the expense of the team as a whole.
Farke seems to get players onside quite well and if there are some still here that can''t buy into what is happening, they will be gone and the sooner the better.   Togetherness will be the key to success next season and there is no time for insecure ego trippers to try and dominate what happens on the field.  It''s a team game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"]
[quote user="lake district canary"]Snodgrass who delighted in holding onto the ball regardless of what was around him.[/quote]
For goodness sake Lakey.
In all the years I''ve followed City, I can''t remember one single player being vilified so much by one single fan....
[/quote]
I wonder if Lakey realises it is 4 years to the day today that Snodgrass left Norwich and signed for Hull ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Nuff Said"]Wow! All these years, I didn''t realise I should be blaming Snodgrass for our relegation.;-)[/quote]
0-0 against Villa, Norwich get a penalty, miss it through a player wrongly demanding to take it, lose the three points as a result.....relegated by three points. 

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...