Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
thebigfeller

There's three main problems at Norwich City

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Flying Dutchman said:

No.

Very different things.

Often not on this forum.

The whole 'oh you thought Farke might not be good when we finished 14th and couldn't score but now we're top of the league you love him so you're fickle!' argument gets made quite a bit.

I think being willing to change your mind depending on the evidence is a good thing, quite a few on here seem to disagree...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

Often not on this forum.

The whole 'oh you thought Farke might not be good when we finished 14th and couldn't score but now we're top of the league you love him so you're fickle!' argument gets made quite a bit.

I think being willing to change your mind depending on the evidence is a good thing, quite a few on here seem to disagree...

Indeed. However, if we’d sacked him when these folk thought he might not be very good, they’d never have gotten the chance to change their minds. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

Often not on this forum.

The whole 'oh you thought Farke might not be good when we finished 14th and couldn't score but now we're top of the league you love him so you're fickle!' argument gets made quite a bit.

I think being willing to change your mind depending on the evidence is a good thing, quite a few on here seem to disagree...

Mostly agree with this post but would argue you're being a bit lenient there. There were much harsher words used regarding Farke and at times a lack of appreciation of the circumstances (such as the massively reduced budget compared to prior seasons) afforded to him, Webber etc.

Just like if our poor form continues over the next few weeks along with any warranted criticism of tactics etc there will be those calling for his head with little appreciation for the fact that we're competing in the best league in the world and Farke, like all managers won't get it right all the time. 

I don't mind seeing these old threads again. It's good to see despite the original posters 3 main grievances all staying in place we still won the league last season. If anything it should serve as a beacon of hope to todays pessimists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Indeed. However, if we’d sacked him when these folk thought he might not be very good, they’d never have gotten the chance to change their minds. 

 

Yes but you can kind of apply that to any situation.

If those who thought Neil should have stayed had got their way then they'd never have had Farke to appreciate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThorpeCanary said:

Mostly agree with this post but would argue you're being a bit lenient there. There were much harsher words used regarding Farke and at times a lack of appreciation of the circumstances (such as the massively reduced budget compared to prior seasons) afforded to him, Webber etc.

Just like if our poor form continues over the next few weeks along with any warranted criticism of tactics etc there will be those calling for his head with little appreciation for the fact that we're competing in the best league in the world and Farke, like all managers won't get it right all the time. 

I don't mind seeing these old threads again. It's good to see despite the original posters 3 main grievances all staying in place we still won the league last season. If anything it should serve as a beacon of hope to todays pessimists.

I guess my PoV is that wanting Farke gone at the end of his first season wasn't an outlandish suggestion without merit or basis in real life. I don't think the same would be the case for calling for him to go at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/08/2018 at 20:25, lake district canary said:

There have been five games.

 

 

Won one, drawn one, lost two - the two lost against two of who are reckoned to be top teams this season.

 

 

Five games.

 

 

 

 

We just need a few results to settle down into the season and hopefully this grass is always greener stuff will disappear for a while. The argument will always be there about getting owners with more money, but the better way imo is to try and see beyond that and accept what is on the present - a team trying to compete in a tough league and adopting a style that will stand the test of time.

 

 

 

 

It may need changing if improvement isn''t forthcoming over the course of this season, but fundamentally the club is healthy - and there is a lot to be said for that.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that those who are dissatisfied with the ownership and running of the club do not have anything to offer to solve it - only angst and wishful thinking.

 

 

Good post that, Lakey!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

Yes but you can kind of apply that to any situation.

If those who thought Neil should have stayed had got their way then they'd never have had Farke to appreciate. 

Neil was given much more time than some were allowing Farke, and that is without taking into account the likelihood that the latter would need time to adjust to English football and get his philosophy across. If Smith and Jones have a fault it is a generally good one, of not sacking managers at the first sign of trouble. Sometimes (as with Worthy) it can mean a failure is kept on too long, but there is the upside that would-be managers know they have some time to get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, king canary said:

Often not on this forum.

The whole 'oh you thought Farke might not be good when we finished 14th and couldn't score but now we're top of the league you love him so you're fickle!' argument gets made quite a bit.

I think being willing to change your mind depending on the evidence is a good thing, quite a few on here seem to disagree...

Equally, flip flopping based on the majority view, and disappearing out of site when events don’t back up your point of view, is cowardly. I’ll give people the benefit of one change of mind, but anyone who was anti-Farke, then pro and is now anti again doesn’t merit much respect IMHO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, king canary said:

Often not on this forum.

The whole 'oh you thought Farke might not be good when we finished 14th and couldn't score but now we're top of the league you love him so you're fickle!' argument gets made quite a bit.

I think being willing to change your mind depending on the evidence is a good thing, quite a few on here seem to disagree...

What's the difference between making an incorrect early judgement (presumably based on ignorance), and "changing your mind depending on the evidence"? The latter phrase implies that there was no evidence Farke was a quality coach prior to the turnaround last season and he suddenly became a magician overnight, whereas in reality his skills and philosophies have been developed over decades of football experience.

Winning the Championship in two seasons would be an achievement for any coach, but factor in the outrageous constraints he was working under in terms of finances and selling key players, and I would suggest that those who could see green shoots of recovery and were prepared to give Farke time are those that were making an evidence-based argument.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ian said:

What's the difference between making an incorrect early judgement (presumably based on ignorance), and "changing your mind depending on the evidence"? The latter phrase implies that there was no evidence Farke was a quality coach prior to the turnaround last season and he suddenly became a magician overnight, whereas in reality his skills and philosophies have been developed over decades of football experience.

Winning the Championship in two seasons would be an achievement for any coach, but factor in the outrageous constraints he was working under in terms of finances and selling key players, and I would suggest that those who could see green shoots of recovery and were prepared to give Farke time are those that were making an evidence-based argument.

Great post 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

Ian would make an excellent pundit......

Apart from the fact I have no professional football experience, or semi-pro, and only a tiny bit of local Sunday league youth team football, I wholly agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ian said:

Apart from the fact I have no professional football experience, or semi-pro, and only a tiny bit of local Sunday league youth team football, I wholly agree

You're certainly more qualified than some on this forum......

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

Ian would make an excellent pundit......

Couldnt do worse than some..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ian said:

What's the difference between making an incorrect early judgement (presumably based on ignorance), and "changing your mind depending on the evidence"? The latter phrase implies that there was no evidence Farke was a quality coach prior to the turnaround last season and he suddenly became a magician overnight, whereas in reality his skills and philosophies have been developed over decades of football experience.

Winning the Championship in two seasons would be an achievement for any coach, but factor in the outrageous constraints he was working under in terms of finances and selling key players, and I would suggest that those who could see green shoots of recovery and were prepared to give Farke time are those that were making an evidence-based argument.

It doesn't imply there was no evidence he could be a quality coach. Equally I don't think you can claim those who wanted him out after his first season were acting on 'ignorance.' 

These things are subjective not objective. At the time you could certainly make the argument that he was a young coach, learning and developing within a new league and needed time to properly establish his way of playing. Equally you could make the perfectly valid argument that in his first season we went backwards in quite a few ways and he'd turned one of the most free scoring teams in the league into a dour, turgid team that was completely reliant on a moment of magic from Madison.

As it turns out the first argument was correct. But let's not act like the second argument was without merit or evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Equally, flip flopping based on the majority view, and disappearing out of site when events don’t back up your point of view, is cowardly. I’ll give people the benefit of one change of mind, but anyone who was anti-Farke, then pro and is now anti again doesn’t merit much respect IMHO.

Oh yeah I agree on quite a lot of this- the people who only post when things are **** aren't worthy of much in the way of respect. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Neil was given much more time than some were allowing Farke, and that is without taking into account the likelihood that the latter would need time to adjust to English football and get his philosophy across. If Smith and Jones have a fault it is a generally good one, of not sacking managers at the first sign of trouble. Sometimes (as with Worthy) it can mean a failure is kept on too long, but there is the upside that would-be managers know they have some time to get it right.

The point I'm making isn't really about the owners- it is more that often the same people hammering posters for questioning Farke after his underwhelming first season are often the same folks who called people who made the (correct) call earlier on that Neil wasn't up to it and needed to be moved on 'pant wetters' etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, king canary said:

The point I'm making isn't really about the owners- it is more that often the same people hammering posters for questioning Farke after his underwhelming first season are often the same folks who called people who made the (correct) call earlier on that Neil wasn't up to it and needed to be moved on 'pant wetters' etc etc.

One man’s pant wetting is another man’s realism. There are some people who are naturally inclined to react quickly as soon as they believe a trend is visible. There are others who prefer to take a more long-term view. Only time will tell which approach is right, and even then we won’t know what will be happening in a parallel universe where a different decision was made. Based on the available evidence we probably could have got rid of Neil sooner, but if we’d abandoned Farke at the end of his first season, it clearly would have been a huge mistake. 

 

I think a parallel is how our brains work (at least as far as I understand it, I’m no psychologist). The amygdala controls the immediate ‘fight or flight’ response and our frontal lobe comes into action when we make more complex decisions that need longer to consider. The amygdala says “we’ve lost to Burnley, Palace and then 5-1 to Villa, something must change now!”. The frontal lobe says “hang on, let’s see how this plays out once we have some  of the injured players out and consider it then”.

 

As an aside, Neil is now doing a reasonable job with limited resources at Preston. Maybe with enough time he would have done the same for us. We’ll never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agreed Neil's time was up a couple of months before we actually parted but hes pretty much proven himself as a good manager. Maybe after a clear out of certain players he'd have been able to progress with us again. Who knows.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

It doesn't imply there was no evidence he could be a quality coach. Equally I don't think you can claim those who wanted him out after his first season were acting on 'ignorance.' 

These things are subjective not objective. At the time you could certainly make the argument that he was a young coach, learning and developing within a new league and needed time to properly establish his way of playing. Equally you could make the perfectly valid argument that in his first season we went backwards in quite a few ways and he'd turned one of the most free scoring teams in the league into a dour, turgid team that was completely reliant on a moment of magic from Madison.

As it turns out the first argument was correct. But let's not act like the second argument was without merit or evidence.

I agree that those wanting Farke out was pretty much a subjective opinion, and more than respect peoples' opinions to hold and share that view. However, the fact you point out yourself it was far more subjective than objective is massively at odds with the fact you suggest it was an evidence-based argument that had merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ian said:

I agree that those wanting Farke out was pretty much a subjective opinion, and more than respect peoples' opinions to hold and share that view. However, the fact you point out yourself it was far more subjective than objective is massively at odds with the fact you suggest it was an evidence-based argument that had merit.

Equally, those wanting to keep Farke were subjective, not objective. It was a subjective argument with enough objective data to back it up somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, king canary said:

Yes but you can kind of apply that to any situation.

If those who thought Neil should have stayed had got their way then they'd never have had Farke to appreciate. 

I'm not sure that there were many who thought Neil should stay by the end - including the owners! It doesn't mean that we were wrong to back him when the first signs of trouble started - just as we were right to back Farke, when he had his difficulties and under-achieved in the first year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Badger said:

I'm not sure that there were many who thought Neil should stay by the end - including the owners!

Exactly- they changed their mind based on what they saw on the pitch. Apparently this is 'fickle' when it is the other way round though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, king canary said:

Exactly- they changed their mind based on what they saw on the pitch. Apparently this is 'fickle' when it is the other way round though...

Well I suppose the argument is when does it become fickle? It's not when it's the other way round, presumably it's when the majority decide they can't see a positive way forwards.

The case with Farke is different because of the huge amount of factors outside his control alongside the nature of his appointment as a foreign head coach - I felt everyone realised this was a project that would take some time and was widely discussed as such at the beginning. It was clear people had made their mind up within 6 months when they failed to acknowledge how much better we started to play particularly at home in the latter parts of his first season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, king canary said:

Exactly- they changed their mind based on what they saw on the pitch. Apparently this is 'fickle' when it is the other way round though...

It is not "fickle" to change your mind based on evidence. It is the frequency and speed of change which is the determinant. One is fickle if one changes one's mind frequently and with haste. This, of course, begs the question of what is a "reasonable time" to give a manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Badger said:

It is not "fickle" to change your mind based on evidence. It is the frequency and speed of change which is the determinant. One is fickle if one changes one's mind frequently and with haste. This, of course, begs the question of what is a "reasonable time" to give a manager.

Also depends what you define as evidence. It is very easy to, shall we say lower your standards when it confirms your own opinions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ian said:

Also depends what you define as evidence. It is very easy to, shall we say lower your standards when it confirms your own opinions...

If you're still talking about Farke's first season then there certainly wasn't a shortage of statistical evidence to base a negative opinion on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Badger said:

It is not "fickle" to change your mind based on evidence. It is the frequency and speed of change which is the determinant. One is fickle if one changes one's mind frequently and with haste. This, of course, begs the question of what is a "reasonable time" to give a manager.

Yes- the old forum legend First Wizard was well known for his ability to completely change his opinion of a manager/player/owners based off two or three games. 

Equally, I've got very little time for people who dig in and refuse to change their opinion because they can't admit to having been wrong in the first place.

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...