Hughton Takes Over At Forest.

[hogesar 9,669]

2 hours ago, lharman7 said:

No it actually isn't. There are supporters who find this to be the case.

Well, two it appears. You and Lakey.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

He is a top bloke and a very competent manager. His style of play at Norwich made me pull my hair out but for the most part he did an adequate job and it was a country mile better than our last season. I am not sure how much influence he had with signings the only one that went really bad was RVW and unfortunately he was the one we had banked our future on to get the goals to keep up. He will do a solid job at Forrest, he will certainly make them more difficult to beat. Success in the short term will be getting them to mid table

[lake district canary 4,531]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Well, two it appears. You and Lakey.

No, there are more. I'm just one of the more persistent ones......it all depends on what you want to see.

My perception is that some players have the kind of egos that are more focussed on themselves sometimes, than the team. There is an excuse for young players, up to a point, but Snodgrass when he was with us was at an age where he should have grown out of that and he needed managers who played up to his ego - like Warnock at Leeds, Hughton, to an extent and Bruce did. He is talented, no doubt about that, but there is more to it than just being talented - as Todd is finding out - and like it or not, there are plenty who could see through Snodgrass and his insecurities.

People want heroes, but for me, I just want players who give it all for the team, like many of them do. Klose is one of them, shame that he is leaving, but many others too. It will be interesting to see how Todd and Emi react over the next few weeks and if they stay, how they get their focus back. Snoddy, for me did not evolve as a player and the mark of a good player is one that evolves, improves and develops. Some are more capable of that than others and it is those who get their attitude right in that way, that I want to see.

 

[hogesar 9,669]

10 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

No, there are more. I'm just one of the more persistent ones......it all depends on what you want to see.

My perception is that some players have the kind of egos that are more focussed on themselves sometimes, than the team. There is an excuse for young players, up to a point, but Snodgrass when he was with us was at an age where he should have grown out of that and he needed managers who played up to his ego - like Warnock at Leeds, Hughton, to an extent and Bruce did. He is talented, no doubt about that, but there is more to it than just being talented - as Todd is finding out - and like it or not, there are plenty who could see through Snodgrass and his insecurities.

People want heroes, but for me, I just want players who give it all for the team, like many of them do. Klose is one of them, shame that he is leaving, but many others too. It will be interesting to see how Todd and Emi react over the next few weeks and if they stay, how they get their focus back. Snoddy, for me did not evolve as a player and the mark of a good player is one that evolves, improves and develops. Some are more capable of that than others and it is those who get their attitude right in that way, that I want to see.

 

Snodgrass career to date suggests professional, experienced managers and coaches see it very differently to you.

[king canary 7,605]

20 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

it all depends on what you want to see

Yes. Fundamentally it seems to me that you didn't like him taking the pen that should have been RVW's, so what you want to see is that he was to blame for everything. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Yes. Fundamentally it seems to me that you didn't like him taking the pen that should have been RVW's, so what you want to see is that he was to blame for everything. 

That is too simplistic, I was against his transfer to us from the start and said so on here even before he arrived at Norwich.

[king canary 7,605]

38 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

That is too simplistic, I was against his transfer to us from the start and said so on here even before he arrived at Norwich.

Oh, so you judged him before he even arrived? 

You clearly really don't like him and there is not the remotest hint of you being objective about him and his performanve here. Its really just a bit weird at this point.

[lake district canary 4,531]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Oh, so you judged him before he even arrived? 

You clearly really don't like him and there is not the remotest hint of you being objective about him and his performanve here. Its really just a bit weird at this point.

Yes, I made a judgement before he arrived based on several things, particularly on what Leeds fans said about his character. As for it being a bit weird, the only reason I bring it up is often only because someone comes up with simplistic stuff about Hughton, that ignores the many things that caused that difficult season. Yes, Hughton was ultimately responsible, but the players imo didn't do him any favours - and from what I saw - and I saw every minute of every game, Snodgrass was not overall good for the team. He was at best a mixed blessing - often though, it was like watching the Snodgrass show - the ball invariably going out to him on the right, from which point the predictable happened - play slowed down, defenders got back and Snodgrass would then try and dribble his way through a packed defence. It was him or it was nothing - and often it was nothing. Eight goals, yes...... and a whole raft of opportunities to bring team mates into the game wasted.

 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

11 hours ago, king canary said:

Your Snodgrass obsession is genuinely a bit mad.

 

9 hours ago, hogesar said:

This is just completely mental.

 

After reading through some of these replies, I'm going to have to third this.

I don't think I've ever seen someone have a more irrational dislike for a person in my life.

[lharman7 39]

15 hours ago, hogesar said:

Well, two it appears. You and Lakey.

Thats not true either is it.

Have you spoken to every single NCFC supporter then or do you just go by whats written and posted on here to judge accordingly?

Edited October 8, 2020 by lharman7

[king canary 7,605]

11 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Yes, Hughton was ultimately responsible, but the players imo didn't do him any favours

He didn't do the players any favours.

He set us up to sit deep and be solid and tough to break down- fine. But if you want to play like that you need pace out wide and a striker who can play with his back to goal and bring others into the game. Instead he played a winger with minimal pace who always likes to cut inside and strikers who were much more suited to playing on shoulder of defenders and poaching chances. The lack of any attacking threat then put his defenders under more constant pressure and they'd eventually crack.  

[lake district canary 4,531]

10 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

After reading through some of these replies, I'm going to have to third this.

I don't think I've ever seen someone have a more irrational dislike for a person in my life.

Fair enough, but it went right back to that "will he won't he" be coming to Norwich and what I gleaned from his time at Leeds. His first season he was ok, but once GH left, he became the dominant figure. I've been digging around reports in that season and in a game we won, where he scored a good free kick, I came across several reports with things like "corner hanging in the air" the ball was "stood up" to the far post......dolly drops in other words. And this -

"The Scottish international raced away with both hands cupped behind his ears in a little message to the doubters after being heavily criticised in certain quarters during previous home games".

Then there was that spat with the crowd in one game, can't remember which and of course the penalty incident, the endless runs he made that ended up with slowing him going too far with the ball, usually ending with a little tantrum. Nothing to like in any of that.

He did genuinely score some good goals and set up some good plays....but overall my perception of him was that we were a better team without him - not good enough probably, but for me every game he played became about him. 

Hughton was at fault and not good at setting teams up to attack - but at our best we were well organised and when the attackers did the business - such as that 2-0 away win at West Brom, we looked a good team and had bite in attack.......incidentally that match without Snodgrass.....

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

32 minutes ago, king canary said:

He didn't do the players any favours.

He set us up to sit deep and be solid and tough to break down- fine. But if you want to play like that you need pace out wide and a striker who can play with his back to goal and bring others into the game. Instead he played a winger with minimal pace who always likes to cut inside and strikers who were much more suited to playing on shoulder of defenders and poaching chances. The lack of any attacking threat then put his defenders under more constant pressure and they'd eventually crack.  

I agree. Eliott Bennett would have been a pacy alternative to Snodgrass had he remained fit. Quick attacks, runs from RVW or Hooper. Redmond could have done that too, but didn't have the confidence at that stage to go at it enough. As it was, by and large - like a magnet - the ball went over to that right hand side where the inevitable happened - play slowed, defences got back - and then the run into the penalty box. So yes, no effective pace either side.......but Hughton didn't have the alternatives.

[Gordon Bennett 783]

He’ll get them promoted IF left alone. Excellent manage me at this level. 

And FWIW we finished eleventh under him, it’s as black and white as that. Anything else which may or may not have happened that season is irrelevant, the table doesn’t lie. Less said about the season after the better though. 

[Well b back 3,203]

Lakeys argument about individuals and egos makes Ronaldo seem rather over rated.

[hogesar 9,669]

4 hours ago, lharman7 said:

Thats not true either is it.

Have you spoken to every single NCFC supporter then or do you just go by whats written and posted on here to judge accordingly?

No, but you can take a sample and have a pretty educated guess. It's not rocket science. Even the players who I've been lucky enough to speak with have nothing but superlatives for Snodgrass, less so for Hughton. I reckon they might know better than you and Lakey, 'eh?

[hogesar 9,669]

2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Fair enough, but it went right back to that "will he won't he" be coming to Norwich and what I gleaned from his time at Leeds. His first season he was ok, but once GH left, he became the dominant figure. I've been digging around reports in that season and in a game we won, where he scored a good free kick, I came across several reports with things like "corner hanging in the air" the ball was "stood up" to the far post......dolly drops in other words. And this -

A ball being stood up to the far post isn't a bloody 'dolly drop' its a specific delivery of cross. How is this even a criticism?!

[lharman7 39]

7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

No, but you can take a sample and have a pretty educated guess. It's not rocket science. Even the players who I've been lucky enough to speak with have nothing but superlatives for Snodgrass, less so for Hughton. I reckon they might know better than you and Lakey, 'eh?

Thats the thing though, i dont really give two hoots what the players thought of Snodgrass. Maybe he was just "one of the lads" in and outside of the club. 

I go by the football that i watched and it was awful. That was down mainly to Hughton but Snodgrass played a vital role in it too.

I played with many players that overall was average but everyone ranted and raved about them because once every blue moon they pulled something out their backside.

[lake district canary 4,531]

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

A ball being stood up to the far post isn't a bloody 'dolly drop' its a specific delivery of cross. How is this even a criticism?!

Because nearly ALL his crosses were like that. No potency in his crossing at all, very little for a striker to run on to.  So they sometimes maybe found a Norwich head and classed as chance creation, but the result of lobbed crosses is that any player who can get on the end of them, has to generate the power themselves,  making it very difficult to score from.

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

I agree. Eliott Bennett would have been a pacy alternative to Snodgrass had he remained fit. Quick attacks, runs from RVW or Hooper. Redmond could have done that too, but didn't have the confidence at that stage to go at it enough. As it was, by and large - like a magnet - the ball went over to that right hand side where the inevitable happened - play slowed, defences got back - and then the run into the penalty box. So yes, no effective pace either side.......but Hughton didn't have the alternatives.

Would you take Snodgrass back now? Available on a free transfer I believe. Maybe it would work better second time round. 

[king canary 7,605]

11 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Because nearly ALL his crosses were like that. No potency in his crossing at all, very little for a striker to run on to.  So they sometimes maybe found a Norwich head and classed as chance creation, but the result of lobbed crosses is that any player who can get on the end of them, has to generate the power themselves,  making it very difficult to score from.

We'll you've got absolutely no proof for that and the fact you clearly have it in for him massively means nothing you say about him can be considered remotely objective. 

The fact is, for years he's consistently created chances and goals in the top division two divisions and no other team seems to have been so dominated by him as we apparently were. Maybe the blame sits with a manager who didn't have any plan other than 'give it to Snodgrass.'

[lake district canary 4,531]

35 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Would you take Snodgrass back now? Available on a free transfer I believe. Maybe it would work better second time round. 

Thanks, but no thanks. 

[Indy_Bones 441]

5 hours ago, hogesar said:

A ball being stood up to the far post isn't a bloody 'dolly drop' its a specific delivery of cross. How is this even a criticism?!

It's a criticism when your primary striker thrives on low crosses, through balls and near post flicks and never gets them...

Those kind of balls were NEVER going to suit RvW, but Snoddy kept slinging in balls that were no use to him, and as 70% of our play went through Snoddy, it's not difficult to see the issue here.

Oddly enough, we're having the same argument right now about Pukki, in that we've starting slinging high crosses in which don't suit him at all, but rather than looking at the supply situation, people are saying Pukki should be dropped for Hugill instead. Pukki has gone from a 30 goal superstar to RvW mk2 in the space of half a season, but let's blame the striker instead of questioning the complete lack of supply that he thrives on...

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

23 hours ago, lake district canary said:

No, there are more. I'm just one of the more persistent ones......it all depends on what you want to see.

My perception is that some players have the kind of egos that are more focussed on themselves sometimes, than the team. There is an excuse for young players, up to a point, but Snodgrass when he was with us was at an age where he should have grown out of that and he needed managers who played up to his ego - like Warnock at Leeds, Hughton, to an extent and Bruce did. He is talented, no doubt about that, but there is more to it than just being talented - as Todd is finding out - and like it or not, there are plenty who could see through Snodgrass and his insecurities.

People want heroes, but for me, I just want players who give it all for the team, like many of them do. Klose is one of them, shame that he is leaving, but many others too. It will be interesting to see how Todd and Emi react over the next few weeks and if they stay, how they get their focus back. Snoddy, for me did not evolve as a player and the mark of a good player is one that evolves, improves and develops. Some are more capable of that than others and it is those who get their attitude right in that way, that I want to see.

But Snodgrass was quite possibly the most hardworking member of that team?

Is this chip on your shoulder entirely about that time he stole the ball from RVW?  

[lake district canary 4,531]

51 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

But Snodgrass was quite possibly the most hardworking member of that team?

Is this chip on your shoulder entirely about that time he stole the ball from RVW?  

No and I've said so on several occasions. I never wanted him from the time he was at Leeds.

 

[hogesar 9,669]

2 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

It's a criticism when your primary striker thrives on low crosses, through balls and near post flicks and never gets them...

Those kind of balls were NEVER going to suit RvW, but Snoddy kept slinging in balls that were no use to him, and as 70% of our play went through Snoddy, it's not difficult to see the issue here.

Oddly enough, we're having the same argument right now about Pukki, in that we've starting slinging high crosses in which don't suit him at all, but rather than looking at the supply situation, people are saying Pukki should be dropped for Hugill instead. Pukki has gone from a 30 goal superstar to RvW mk2 in the space of half a season, but let's blame the striker instead of questioning the complete lack of supply that he thrives on...

I'm sorry but it was pointless trying to play to RvW strengths because even when we did he was absolutely useless. He wasn't, and never will be, suited to English football of any description. Having zero pace or upper body strength makes life difficult in modern English football unless you have exceptionally good technical ability or hold up play or movement. 

Snodgrass crossing was therefore based more on giving other players an opportunity to score. And they pretty much all scored more than RvW.

[hogesar 9,669]

Also, Pukki hasn't gone even vaguely close to RvW mark 2, no idea what makes you say that.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

25 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I'm sorry but it was pointless trying to play to RvW strengths because even when we did he was absolutely useless. He wasn't, and never will be, suited to English football of any description. Having zero pace or upper body strength makes life difficult in modern English football unless you have exceptionally good technical ability or hold up play or movement. 

Snodgrass crossing was therefore based more on giving other players an opportunity to score. And they pretty much all scored more than RvW.

How often is poor old van Wolfswinkel going to be dragged up?! All of that is true, except that it wasn't just English football. He ended up as an unused sub at St-Etienne and Real Betis, in supposedly more technical leagues where he might have been expected to flourish. The sad truth is that the top-five European leagues (with the French probably the weakest of them) were a level above his ability in all respects.

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

9 hours ago, hogesar said:

I'm sorry but it was pointless trying to play to RvW strengths because even when we did he was absolutely useless.

Except we NEVER played to his strengths from day one of his arriving here.

You only had to watch the footage from the first 2 months to see he was making great runs and NOBODY was bothering to find him.

Maybe he wasn't cut out for the top level, but the fact remains that if you give a player ZERO supply and don't play to any of their strengths (however limited you may feel they are), then you're on a hiding to nothing in terms of getting returns from them.

The reason I brought up Pukki is that he's currently having the exact same problem as RvW did, we're not giving him the right kind of supply (or at all in some cases), thus his returns have dried up, and yet instead of giving him the kind of balls we did in the promotion season (you know, where he scored THIRTY goals), we're insisting on slinging high balls in and then clamouring for Hugill to play as he suits this more, and somehow this is Pukki's fault!

[lharman7 39]

2 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

Except we NEVER played to his strengths from day one of his arriving here.

You only had to watch the footage from the first 2 months to see he was making great runs and NOBODY was bothering to find him.

Maybe he wasn't cut out for the top level, but the fact remains that if you give a player ZERO supply and don't play to any of their strengths (however limited you may feel they are), then you're on a hiding to nothing in terms of getting returns from them.

The reason I brought up Pukki is that he's currently having the exact same problem as RvW did, we're not giving him the right kind of supply (or at all in some cases), thus his returns have dried up, and yet instead of giving him the kind of balls we did in the promotion season (you know, where he scored THIRTY goals), we're insisting on slinging high balls in and then clamouring for Hugill to play as he suits this more, and somehow this is Pukki's fault!

Bang on the money Indy.

I can not fathom how anyone can see this.