Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
thebigfeller

There's three main problems at Norwich City

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, king canary said:

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.

So have your opinions on our owners changed at all since earlier in the thread? 

I can't pretend that the football or results we saw that first season were brilliant but like all teams our size who fall out of the premier League if you don't bounce back you'll soon have to reduce expenditure and it was that for me that afforded Farke breathing room

I remember after the 1-1 at Portman road thinking that of the two teams when considering what was being developed and the age of our squad we had the brighter future of the two clubs. I could never pretend to predict what happened next though!

Share this post


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

So have your opinions on our owners changed at all since earlier in the thread? 

I can't pretend that the football or results we saw that first season were brilliant but like all teams our size who fall out of the premier League if you don't bounce back you'll soon have to reduce expenditure and it was that for me that afforded Farke breathing room

I remember after the 1-1 at Portman road thinking that of the two teams when considering what was being developed and the age of our squad we had the brighter future of the two clubs. I could never pretend to predict what happened next though!

Not hugely. I've always thought that they were good owners with good intentions but they lack the funds to consistently compete at this sort of level. I think people underestimate just how unique last season was and how difficult it will be to replicate- having your free agent striker score 30 goals and 4 young players step up and become regular first-teamers in one go isn't something you can just do every year.

My view is the owners are fine but I'd like them to be more open-minded about what happens after them- just handing the club down to their nephew doesn't sit well with me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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. 

That's the thing about statistics though isn't it - if you misuse them by looking at too small a trend or too simple a model, without qualification or a reasonable test, you inevitably end up making poor decisions.

To put it another way - there's "statistical evidence" that looking at the current season's point total and the goals conceded we should probably move Daniel on and get somebody else in. Do you also think this constitutes a reasonable opinion?

Share this post


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

That's the thing about statistics though isn't it - if you misuse them by looking at too small a trend or too simple a model, without qualification or a reasonable test, you inevitably end up making poor decisions.

To put it another way - there's "statistical evidence" that looking at the current season's point total and the goals conceded we should probably move Daniel on and get somebody else in. Do you also think this constitutes a reasonable opinion?

No, because people can see the obvious differences in the situations.

At the end of that first season Farke had taken a team that finished 8th and scored goals freely to being a team that finished 14th and had one of the lowest goals scored totals in the league. I don't think looking at that and thinking 'maybe he's not up to it' is a huge leap. 

Now, he's got a hugely successful season under his belt and is now 8 games into a season in the top division with a squad ravaged by injuries. The situation is hardly comparable. 

If you're saying 1 season is too small a sample size then fine but by that argument, we were far too hasty in getting rid of Gunn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t agree with the op.

The loyalty and togetherness of the players from last season has been rewarded. This was the right thing to do. The club certainly has a massive challenge this year and we have been very unfortunate with injuries.

Last year our rate of improvement was phenomenal at times but this year it has stalled. 

We need to see improvement in our performances and in particular improvements in how we are defensively.

This is within the capacity of the current squad and management. 

The problem is serious but not worthy of a panicked response.

We are a newly promoted side with one fit centre back. Any newly promoted side with one fit centre back would be in our position.

Keep the faith.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2019 at 10:14, king canary said:

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

That is true. All viewpoints are to some extent subjective, and that is fine provided the viewpoint is fair-minded. But in this case the OP – and I didn’t know this at the time but it seems clearly so – is not some fair-minded analyst but a polemicist.

He is vehemently – one might say virulently – anti-Smith and Jones, and pops up and posts when circumstances are such that he can plausibly attack them, and disappears when things are going well and he would look stupid to do so.

And when he can mount an attack it is not fair-minded. He doesn’t put both sides of the argument. It is all loaded one way, with no acknowledgement of the counter-arguments.

The general point, which the OP exemplified, is that data are only objective if they are used in a fair-minded way, and that includes using the data for and against a position, because there are almost always two sides to an argument, even if one side clearly is more persuasive.

PS. I would instance Jim Smith (there are others) as someone who is balanced and generally acknowleges both sides of an argument, while having a strong view towards one side or other.

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point needs to be made I think that Farke may not have joined at all had it not been for the owners reputation of giving managers a pretty generous crack of the whip. Smart people will look at a club's overall ethos before signing up and I think it's fair to say that even if individual decisions have been wrong in hindsight, that overall ethos has been excellent for some time now.

  • Like 2

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  

×