Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
St.John Cooper

Worthy down to the bare bones......again!

Recommended Posts

So we are down to the bare bones again, I ask you all whose fault is this?  Yes there are injuries and suspensions but surley these need to be accounted for as this does happen in a season.  The fact we can hardly put a side out, well a side in my opinion capable of winning is down to one thing.  Poor management.   There has clearly been little or no stratigic planning or plans to replace injured or suspended players.  We simply have a sqaud that is to small.  Whether you are a WO or KTF or reasonable fan I would like to open the debate on why this is, who''s fault is it and what we can do to right this worrying situation?

 

I am just tired of reading that we only have 12 fit palyers etc....

 

OTBC

 

St.John

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO we certainly went into this season with far too thin a squad, and this is something I mentioned ad nauseum back in the Summer: last season it was too thin and (loan players apart) we were even down on numbers to that squad this time out (tho have since ''signed'' Rossi, and do have a couple of more ''seasoned'' youngsters).  

Not sure where the blame is, if blame is the correct term to use - clearly we have a budget and I guess you make decisions based on what you want: a bigger squad of ''lesser'' players or a smaller squad of (supposedly) ''better'' players and using the loan market to fill gaps.  Who knows which is better - the latter worked in the Championship winning side, but seems to have worked against us both last and this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here we go again!

Ii''ll just say this - which championship, even premiership side other

than the big guns, can put out a consistently winning side when there

are 10 first team players missing?

We can have an enormous squad if you want, then there''s less of the

wages pie to go round to pay the likes of hux, saf, greeno and deano.

Which will it be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="a1canary"]Here we go again!

Ii''ll just say this - which championship, even premiership side other than the big guns, can put out a consistently winning side when there are 10 first team players missing?

We can have an enormous squad if you want, then there''s less of the wages pie to go round to pay the likes of hux, saf, greeno and deano. Which will it be?

[/quote]

actually a1 we were still crap when everyone was fit at the start of the season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well spotted Paul. We must find every opportunity to correct those that will lean on excuses with great regularity, otherwise they will come to believe them as fact come the end of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yankee and Paul...SPOT ON

 

What I would like to know is where A1 thinks hes going especially as I am a fan ruining the club and now he answers with Here we go again!  Its all just excuses can''t you see that.

A1,  its a happy combination to answer your question, its forming a squad that has enough cover for these type of situations.  We should have this, what will happen if we get another 3 or 4 injuries which is possible we will not have a team at all. You answer a question with another question but the problem still remains; that you can not change, and it needs to if we are to feature in a play off place

 

OTBC

 

St.John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its clearly the Government''s fault. They fail to recognise the importance of football to the social dynamic of this modern age and its ability to generate an upswing in mood which benefits the economy as a whole. Nor do they realise the money being poured into well to do causes like Sven Goran Eriksson and Rio Ferdinand who as a result are able to push house prices up (thereby increasing the nations'' capital base) and reinvest their money into fast cars and slow women. If they did then football would be subsidised and they would ensure that clubs have a plentiful supply of players from local prisons or from community service projects to flesh out the squad and provide non stop entertainment to the baying masses who buy their pies (creating more wealth in the supply chain), strangely coloured shirts and keep the police force busy in the otherwise slow hour of teatime on Saturday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never miss an opportunity to stick the boot in do you Paul? I have

never seen a post of yours that doesn''t do so - sometimes with reason, often without.

In case you hadn''t noticed, i believe the post was about the size of

the squad and the fact (note FACT, Yankee) that it is severely depleted

at present. Yet you have to come in with "the squad''s crap anyway."

Even if that''s the case, the quality of the squad is not what we''re

talking about so, while it''s clearly very hard for you, try and keep

that partiular jack in its box.

Yankee, you''re staggering arrogance rears it hideous head again! What

exactly have i said that is ''incorrect''? It is fact that large numbers

are missing through injury. It is fact that we are missing them. It is

fact that our upturn in form and performance occured when they were in

the side. I haven''t even said whether or not i consider these

acceptable excuses for anything. Yet you infer i am making excuses and that i''m somehow making something up. 

St John, you''re clearly a sensitive chap so allow me to apologise and

take back what was only a headline to a prior post. It was designed

just as that, a headline, and did not mean nor say in the body of the

post itself, that i believe you or others are ruining our club.

On to the topic itself, your happy combination simply doesn''t exist i''m

afraid. You can have 3 or 4 players in every position if you want, but

there''s no way we would be able to afford to maintain a squad like that

AND bring in and keep the quality of players that we have had in the

last few years (saf, hux, deano, greeno). What''s more, you can''t cover

a position three or four times over with good quality players because

if they don''t get a game they''ll be off.

Is it nice where you guys live? I''ve got an alternative to ''les

reasonables'', how about the REAL WORLDERS? Because a lot of you clearly

don''t come from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="a1canary"]Never miss an opportunity to stick the boot in do you Paul? I have never seen a post of yours that doesn''t do so - sometimes with reason, often without.
In case you hadn''t noticed, i believe the post was about the size of the squad and the fact (note FACT, Yankee) that it is severely depleted at present. Yet you have to come in with "the squad''s crap anyway." Even if that''s the case, the quality of the squad is not what we''re talking about so, while it''s clearly very hard for you, try and keep that partiular jack in its box.

Yankee, you''re staggering arrogance rears it hideous head again! What exactly have i said that is ''incorrect''? It is fact that large numbers are missing through injury. It is fact that we are missing them. It is fact that our upturn in form and performance occured when they were in the side. I haven''t even said whether or not i consider these acceptable excuses for anything. Yet you infer i am making excuses and that i''m somehow making something up. 

St John, you''re clearly a sensitive chap so allow me to apologise and take back what was only a headline to a prior post. It was designed just as that, a headline, and did not mean nor say in the body of the post itself, that i believe you or others are ruining our club.

On to the topic itself, your happy combination simply doesn''t exist i''m afraid. You can have 3 or 4 players in every position if you want, but there''s no way we would be able to afford to maintain a squad like that AND bring in and keep the quality of players that we have had in the last few years (saf, hux, deano, greeno). What''s more, you can''t cover a position three or four times over with good quality players because if they don''t get a game they''ll be off.

Is it nice where you guys live? I''ve got an alternative to ''les reasonables'', how about the REAL WORLDERS? Because a lot of you clearly don''t come from there.
[/quote]

a1, i dont always put the boot in and have given worthy credit where it is due.  I also do not blame him for recent defeats with half a squad to choose from.

HOWEVER - its opnly because of some these injuries that certain player and a certain system were chosen sparking our mini revival!! If Thorne had not been taken of at Crewe, I doubt the mini revival would have happened!!  Baffling choices such as Hughes as left sided attacker when mcveigh was available have happened in that same match!! Fortunatly for us mcveigh came on for the injured thorne and hughes was replaced by huckerby!! thus forcing the 4-3-3 which was so successful 2 years ago and the last month.

These werent choices by worthy, they were forced substitutions, and resultant formation due to being 1 nil down at an appaulling crewe side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way i am looking at it is worthy has turned us into the form side of the division all but preston game which with all the injuries and suspensions it finally took its toll in this game.But everyone has to hold there hand out to him he has done a bloody marvelous job of late.suspensions and injuries have got nothing to do with worthy and while we are on this run every man woman and child should be behind him and the team.i am really starting to believe the play offs are becoming a reality and not an impossibility which it looked a few months ago.I have said all along that on our day with the full side out we dont have to be frightened of anyone and feel if we can make the play offs i really think we will them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="allways travelling"]The way i am looking at it is worthy has turned us into the form side of the division all but preston game which with all the injuries and suspensions it finally took its toll in this game.But everyone has to hold there hand out to him he has done a bloody marvelous job of late.suspensions and injuries have got nothing to do with worthy and while we are on this run every man woman and child should be behind him and the team.i am really starting to believe the play offs are becoming a reality and not an impossibility which it looked a few months ago.I have said all along that on our day with the full side out we dont have to be frightened of anyone and feel if we can make the play offs i really think we will them.  [/quote]

I agree with you here I am behind the team and just about behind worthy till the end of the season barring too many more preston showings. I do fear what is going to happen before the end of january - be it players out or players in.

If we have no right midfield by then our chances may be gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
although i find it incredably frustrating that we seem to injure all our players without playing them and our squad is too small to cope with it - there is a positive in that it forces Worthy to play the youngsters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on Yankee, "where are you?" to quote a certain lady! I want you to

explain your contribution to this post. It seems you don''t have an

answer as to why you spuriosuly suggested i was not only pedaling

excuses but made up ones at that.

If this is the case i will assume it is how it looks, i.e. a cheap and

very thinly veiled attempt to whip up opposition and garner support for

your WO cause on the basis of something i never said. I consider this

MBD or "Message Board Defamation" and will be taking it

up with the relevant authorities - the FMBA (Football Message Board

Authority) which has the power to come to your home and confiscate your

computer and tell you off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="a1canary"]Come on Yankee, "where are you?" to quote a certain lady! I want you to explain your contribution to this post. It seems you don''t have an answer as to why you spuriosuly suggested i was not only pedaling excuses but made up ones at that.
If this is the case i will assume it is how it looks, i.e. a cheap and very thinly veiled attempt to whip up opposition and garner support for your WO cause on the basis of something i never said. I consider this MBD or "Message Board Defamation" and will be taking it up with the relevant authorities - the FMBA (Football Message Board Authority) which has the power to come to your home and confiscate your computer and tell you off.[/quote]

you can excuse all you want a1, facts are a lucky injury to Peter Thorne has helped turn our season after poor performances in the previous 23 games - many of which Worthy had a full squad to pick from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A1, I just got out of bed and the first post I read is yours. No "Good morning Yankee and how are you today?". Just more bullying of a poor old senior citizen by presumably a Norwich youth. Okay, as I''m a nice person let me attempt a response for you. Here''s what you wrote:

"I''ll just say this - which championship, even premiership side other than the big guns, can put out a consistently winning side when there are 10 first team players missing?"

The above sentence invokes the obvious thoughts. We managed to win only 6 out of first 22 games and injuries were not the issue as our season got underway so the words you use of "consistently inning" were laughable as applied to Norwich but not as applied to Reading and Sheffield United. I did not say what you said was incorrect, but that I was correcting the impression you were giving in suggesting, by implication, that if we did not have the number of injuries we have presently we would be a consistently winning side. Further, when you use the term "big guns", do you regard those two teams as big guns compared to Norwich? I certainly don''t. I hope this note finds you well A1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to take issue with Paul & Yankee here.Our injury problems began in pre-season - remember the academy players we had to take on tour to make up a squad?. They weren''t just making up the numbers either, at least 2 of them were played in Holland - not by choice but through injuries.This trend continued throughout early games, with a ''full squad'' available for selection on perhaps 1, or 2, occasions. The players involved have been first choice starters (for Worthy if no-one else!) and the one continuous thread through this season has been the impossibility of fielding the same 11 starters for more than 2 games at a time (and that has only happened twice, thus far!).Other teams have had key players out (Andy Johnson), or mini crises where 6 may have been missing, but I doubt any other side in the Championship has had so many consistently unavailable - with a fair percentage proving to be long-term absentees.In a way it may prove a blessing-in-disguise, as the Board must surely own up to short-sightedness in not allowing the squad size to be boosted without transfer money being received. The Francis money arrived too late to be spent in August, the result has been the endless procession of loanees, when bodies could have been here for pre-season, getting accustomed to team-mates, already bedded in instead of still finding their feet. Will we learn the lesson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crewe: Norwich: Green ,Louis-Jean ,Shackell ,Fleming ,Drury ,Marney (Thorne ,81 ) ,Hughes ,Jarrett (Safri ,64 ) ,Huckerby ,Ashton ,McKenzie
Subs not used: Ward,Charlton,Colin,

Palace: Norwich: Green ,Colin ,Shackell ,Fleming ,Drury (Charlton ,45 ) ,Marney ,Safri (Jarrett ,78 ) ,Hughes ,Huckerby ,Ashton ,McKenzie (Thorne ,79 )
Subs not used: Ward,McVeigh,

Soton: Norwich: Green ,Colin (Thorne ,75 ) ,Fleming ,Shackell ,Charlton (McKenzie ,70 ) ,Marney ,Safri ,Hughes (Jarrett ,27 ) ,Brennan ,Ashton ,Huckerby
Subs not used Ward,Doherty,

Leeds: Norwich: Green ,Colin (Doherty ,79 ) ,Fleming ,Shackell ,Brennan ,Marney ,Safri ,Charlton (McVeigh ,87 ) ,Huckerby ,McKenzie ,Ashton
Subs not used: Ward,Jarrett,Henderson,

Stoke: Norwich: Green ,Colin ,Fleming ,Shackell ,Charlton ,Brennan ,Marney ,Safri ,McKenzie (McVeigh ,60 ) ,Ashton (Doherty ,86 ) ,Huckerby (sent off 52)
Subs not used Drury,Jarrett,Ward,

None of these sides are bad teams and all include regular first teamers, and players signed in the summer. there are a couple of injuries but nothing major.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don''t mind you taking issue with me Barman but suggest that you do it versus the facts. The teams that started the season, as Paul points out had no difficulty on paper. Injuries were not the issue. We fielded strength but did not get the performances or results. As a result, the tone was set as we played three home games, scoring a total of three goals and yielding three points out of nine in three home games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul, this is marvellous, you have perfectly highlighted the problem, right there, thankyou so much!

Allow me to enlighten you (injuries were a part of the issue i''m afraid

YC), look at those teams, in defence particularly, from one game to the

next. Not once were we able to put out the same side, not once.

Look a little closer and you will see that not only is the team

different every time, but both the defence AND the midfield has

different personnel in it in EVERY game you list.

Then, we have a run of games were the team is settled and NW is able to

name an unchanged side and hey presto, we start consistently winning. Not so laughable really YC.

Now you can argue about the ability of some of our

fringe players and the ability of the manager to get them playing and

the fact that he signed them blah blah, but we''re talking about

injuries here and the effect they have had, haven''t had, ought to have had

or ought not to have had, on the squad. Glad that''s clear!

Thankyou for repeating my words to me YC, allow me to return the favour:

"We must... correct those that will lean on excuses with great regularity... before they believe them to be fact."

That sentence clearly implicates me, not ''the impression'' that you

refer to above. However, if this is what you meant, fair enough. But as

outlined above, 5 wins on the trot that come about the moment we are

able to field a settled

side, as Paul has so aptly and ably shown us, seems like more than an

"impression" of consistency to me. Finally, ref ''big buns'', read my

words carefully and you''ll see i was talking about premiership big

guns. These are the ones who can cope with injury crises although there

is plenty of evidence to suggest that both arsenal and man u have

struggled this season when they have had injuries (henry, ashley cole,

heinze). And no, unfortunately i don''t think we can compare to these.

Not just yet anyway. (It is annoying isn''t it, being patronised!?)

p.s. I am well YC thanks, i hope you are too over there. Alas that i

was a Canary Yoof but i fear many would take issue with a thirty year-old

making claim to such a title.

Hope you didn''t take that previous post personally, (ref bullying!) it

was meant as toungue in cheek as i hope the last sentance shows!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A1, this is getting boring and you really must get more sleep at night. Perhaps that will allow you to not only read what others write but also what you write. You challenge me by saying "I clearly iimplicated you....". I did not just implicate you, I specifically referred to you as conveying an impression that we would quote, "be a consistently winning side if we did not have 10 first team players missing". Then you go on in your last note to say "injuries were part of the issue I''m afraid YC". If you read my note properly I clearly referred to the three games at the beginning of the season which everyone surely can agree got our season off on the wrong foot as we failed to win one of the first three games we played ( all at home ) with ostensibly a strong team on paper. It contained Huckerby, Ashton and McKenzie up front and the newly acquired players in back along with Worthy''s chosen carryovers. The players Worthy had put in place to begin the season were available. Even if one player goes down how many teams do you think go through several games fielding exactly the same team? Injuries or performance issues will affect almost every team to make at least one change from week to week. Of course we have had a lot of injuries lately but....and this is the big BUT, it was one of those injuries that forced Worthy to play McVeigh which was key to us getting a string of positive results. It was not due to having a full, healthy squad available again.

In summary, anyone who uses injuries as an excuse as to how we performed during the first half of the season is deluding themselves and that, my friend, is the point I made at the outset.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You''re right this is boring, and besides, we are at cross purposes. In light of the original poster talking about the manager mentioning our injuries, I asked what team could put out a "consistenly winning side when there are 10 first team players missing." I didn''t mean that we were a team that had managed to do that (although i see you could read it like that), but that no team aside from the premiership big guns could do that (which is also how it could be read). So, a misunderstanding, my apologies. 

What i was later saying was that we have shown an element of consistency when we have had a settled team with our stronger players in the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting set of stats a couple of years ago [ you got to

trust me on this one because I can''t remember where I saw it] but the

most succesful teams Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barca

etc  all had one thing in common in that they all only used 22-24

players during the entire season, lesser clubs used 30s even 40s.

 Obviously the better clubs have better quality players and less

need to have such a high quantity of average players on their books but

what it also shows is that however good your first 11, you still need

around 22 - 24 recognised first team players to get you through a

season - ooooops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It''s clearly a balance sell ashton and or green and or huckerby and or Safri and or whoever and you can build more depth.

But as the last post stated you need quality.  We are a relatively small club and can''t afford to be bringing 1st team players into the fray when our preferred 1st team player gets injured or suspended and that''s the same with all clubs outside the top few.

If you aren''t one of the lucky clubs,  football is more about good fortune and good management than money and that''s what makes it fun.  It must be far to easy to be like Chelsea when you know all you can do is win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, a1. Once again using the facts to demolish a WO onslaught. We didn''t play well early season, no-one claims we did, but a sizeable part (though only part) of the problem was down to injuries preventing a settled line-up. The players themselves said that, but were howled down by the WO''s who don''t accept any mitigation. But it''s a fact - a settled team plays better, consistently. And I remember starting a thread questioning the pre-season training, because we were getting a spate of hamstring problems including, crucially, Safri.

Having so many first-choice players injured or suspended must make a difference. It''s obvious and not even worth arguing. And saying "just buy some more" shows the level of argument some of these people are used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Old Boy"]

Well done, a1. Once again using the facts to demolish a WO onslaught. We didn''t play well early season, no-one claims we did, but a sizeable part (though only part) of the problem was down to injuries preventing a settled line-up. The players themselves said that, but were howled down by the WO''s who don''t accept any mitigation. But it''s a fact - a settled team plays better, consistently. And I remember starting a thread questioning the pre-season training, because we were getting a spate of hamstring problems including, crucially, Safri.

Having so many first-choice players injured or suspended must make a difference. It''s obvious and not even worth arguing. And saying "just buy some more" shows the level of argument some of these people are used to.

[/quote]

Shoot down what?? so we didnt play the same team those first five games - thats why you have a squad!! Some managers are always changing the side....  All the players playing were first teamers and we didnt get a win in that lot!!!  I am sorry old boy but 23 goals from 23 games, as it was,  from a team containing the likes of Darren Huckerby and Dean Ashton in every match was a disgrace.... 

To be honest oldboy if you cant see the terrible football that has been on offer this season (apart from maybe 2 matches recently), the endless appauling tactical decisions.  The manager getting lucky with an injury to peter thorne.  AND worse of all a manager whom NEVER seems to learns from his mistakes. 

I used to be a Worthy fan, but am now beginning to feel that yes a certain person got us promoted - it wasnt worthy, it was Darren Huckerby.....

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...