Neil Adams interview

[king canary 7,703]

32 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

He says he’s had four offers and turned them down to stay here

Yeah, which suggests he doesn't really want to be a manager.

[alex_ncfc 667]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

He's a good guy but as others have said just never a manager- the fact that he's never gone on to even a short stint in League One or Two suggests his heart was never in the job.

The initial appointment was weird but understandable in that we just wanted a bounce. Appointing him again in the summer fulltime was just a joke though, as though we we'd learned nothing from what happened with Gunn.

It didn't seem like a very McNally appointment to me, especially the in the summer when we gave him the full-time job. I was completely underwhelmed, as were many others. I just remember thinking that McNally would go all out to get a 'real' manager in that summer but it just had a feeling of like we couldn't be bothered to give it a go so went with the cheapest, easiest option. 

[king canary 7,703]

1 minute ago, alex_ncfc said:

It didn't seem like a very McNally appointment to me, especially the in the summer when we gave him the full-time job. I was completely underwhelmed, as were many others. I just remember thinking that McNally would go all out to get a 'real' manager in that summer but it just had a feeling of like we couldn't be bothered to give it a go so went with the cheapest, easiest option. 

The idea we scoured Europe and decided the best option was the bloke who'd just lost 4 games out of 5 in a caretaker role was always a bit of a joke.

However I can't imagine McNally was pushed into it- for whatever reason he must have thought it was a good idea.

[alex_ncfc 667]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

The idea we scoured Europe and decided the best option was the bloke who'd just lost 4 games out of 5 in a caretaker role was always a bit of a joke.

However I can't imagine McNally was pushed into it- for whatever reason he must have thought it was a good idea.

Ah yes, I forgot about that line. That made it even more ridiculous. My memory is playing up, can't quite recall who we were linked with for the job that summer but to start the season with the guy who had been managing the youth team until recently felt like a big letdown.

When you consider how ruthless McNally was when he came in and got rid of Gunn and made sure he got Lambert, it just didn't seem to suit him to go for someone within the club with no first team manager experience etc.

[Mr.Carrow 380]

14 minutes ago, king canary said:

The idea we scoured Europe and decided the best option was the bloke who'd just lost 4 games out of 5 in a caretaker role was always a bit of a joke.

However I can't imagine McNally was pushed into it- for whatever reason he must have thought it was a good idea.

Well, we got promoted that season therefore McNally's approach is vindicated. You could even argue it was the best possible outcome as we all had that amazing day at Wembley which increased the reach and status of the club. Adams also should be accorded credit for his part in that.

[king canary 7,703]

12 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

Well, we got promoted that season therefore McNally's approach is vindicated. You could even argue it was the best possible outcome as we all had that amazing day at Wembley which increased the reach and status of the club. Adams also should be accorded credit for his part in that.

I'm not going out on limb to suggest that his plan wasn't 'hire manager A, sack him in January and rely on a new manager going on an amazing run.'

If you have to change manager halfway through a season, you're initial hire isn't 'vindicated' just because the replacement works out.

[Mr.Carrow 380]

15 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm not going out on limb to suggest that his plan wasn't 'hire manager A, sack him in January and rely on a new manager going on an amazing run.'

If you have to change manager halfway through a season, you're initial hire isn't 'vindicated' just because the replacement works out.

If there wasn't anyone available who the club felt confident could achieve promotion then the above would indeed be a sensible strategy. We may even have achieved promotion under Adams- we were not far off.

[king canary 7,703]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

If there wasn't anyone available who the club felt confident could achieve promotion then the above would indeed be a sensible strategy. We may even have achieved promotion under Adams- we were not far off.

So you think it is a sensible strategy to hire someone, expecting to fire them after 6 months?

Right.

[Mr.Carrow 380]

Just now, king canary said:

So you think it is a sensible strategy to hire someone, expecting to fire them after 6 months?

Right.

I expect even when a club appoints Carlo Ancelotti they have a back up plan to change things if things are going badly after six months. Literally no decision within football is without risk. 

In terms of results and players brought in Adams was about 7/10 but maybe without the edge and charisma to take us over the line. Do you have any evidence that other managers were available who would've done better?

All we can really judge by is results and Adams laid decent groundwork and Neil got us over the line. As such, the decisions made that season worked.

[king canary 7,703]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

I expect even when a club appoints Carlo Ancelotti they have a back up plan to change things if things are going badly after six months. Literally no decision within football is without risk. 

In terms of results and players brought in Adams was about 7/10 but maybe without the edge and charisma to take us over the line. Do you have any evidence that other managers were available who would've done better?

All we can really judge by is results and Adams laid decent groundwork and Neil got us over the line. As such, the decisions made that season worked.

Yeah but there is a difference between 'we got it right in the end' and his initial hire of Adams being vindicated because of promotion. 

[Mr.Carrow 380]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

Yeah but there is a difference between 'we got it right in the end' and his initial hire of Adams being vindicated because of promotion. 

Well it's the lot of NCFC that we will rarely get our first choice dream option. Often we have to settle for the best available and hope that it works. In a roundabout way, it did.

Your view smacks of the glass half empty one characterised by when Farke makes early substitutions and we win he "got lucky", but if we lose he should have made different ones or none and we self-evidently would have won.

[ron obvious 1,517]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Yeah, which suggests he doesn't really want to be a manager.

Or he really, really loves it here.

[Gordon Bennett 794]

On 08/12/2020 at 17:36, ron obvious said:

Or he really, really loves it here.

Absolutely. Sounds like he’s pretty much been able to create and shape his current role as he wants too, so it’s obviously a job he enjoys and is motivated by so why leave it while things are going well? Would be very surprised if he doesn’t go back to some sort of coaching or management in the future. 

Anyway, just finished listening to it and it’s another very good podcast following on from the DF one. We have some really good football people working at this club. As NA says his contribution that season helped us get promoted and we played some entertaining attacking football. Glad he is still here at ‘his club’. 

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

On 07/12/2020 at 08:08, BroadstairsR said:

He was pitched into managing the club in what was the most bizarre event that has ever taken place at Carrow road in my memory and in my opinion. The timing of the sacking of Hughton was ridiculed throughout the footballing world and destined to backfire.

Neil Adams had had no experience of managing a football team, let alone a Premier League team, let alone one up against it.

Perhaps if mad McNally had not pitched him into the lion's den at that time Adams would by now be quite a successful manager in the game, although not necessarily at City. He has many attributes that would suggest this.

As it is, he is a good character to have working at the club in what is an increasingly important and demanding role.

It was ridiculed as being an example of jobs for the boys when he was made 'loans manager.' It seemed rather a contrived position at the time.

As it is, with nineteen players (mostly youngsters) now loaned out he would seem to be the right person to handle this significant role. He is no fool after all and has a proven record when dealing with youth.

Even so, I cannot help but feel that he is rather under-employed within the game.

 

 

As someone who saw our must-win game against West Brom after which Hughton was sacked I can say that whatever the 'football world' (which is notororous for being kind to its own and not understanding the real picture at clubs outside the top six) thought, it was absolutely the right decision.

It was such an abject performance, with no sense at all that the manager either wanted or knew how to get back in the game after a 16th minute WBA goal, that the prospect was we would lose the last five, and without a fight.

Actually Adams, by getting a draw at Chelsea, outperformed what any sane person could have expected Hughton to achieve if he had been kept on.

[chicken 2,680]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

As someone who saw our must-win game against West Brom after which Hughton was sacked I can say that whatever the 'football world' (which is notororous for being kind to its own and not understanding the real picture at clubs outside the top six) thought, it was absolutely the right decision.

It was such an abject performance, with no sense at all that the manager either wanted or knew how to get back in the game after a 16th minute WBA goal, that the prospect was we would lose the last five, and without a fight.

Actually Adams, by getting a draw at Chelsea, outperformed what any sane person could have expected Hughton to achieve if he had been kept on.

I'd love to see what the score was of anyone taking over from the likes of Pulis, Allardice or Hughton with a few games left of a season was if there have been many.

I say that because it is very clear listening to some ex Norwich players who played that first season under Hughton very clearly didn't enjoy their time under him due to his approach and style.

The squad Adams inherited was largely lacking decent attacking options in terms of strikers. Much of the changing room was Hughtons, and they were experienced pros. I think more of the reason that several of the senior pros that had done so well for us were shown the door is because their faces didn't fit and didn't like how the style of football had changed so drastically from the way they enjoyed playing.

I can see Adams coming in with little experience, bringing through Murphy with him, making a that statement about giving youth a chance as well as the signal that he wanted more attacking football really not going down well with certain parts of the dressing room.

[king canary 7,703]

11 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

As someone who saw our must-win game against West Brom after which Hughton was sacked I can say that whatever the 'football world' (which is notororous for being kind to its own and not understanding the real picture at clubs outside the top six) thought, it was absolutely the right decision.

It was such an abject performance, with no sense at all that the manager either wanted or knew how to get back in the game after a 16th minute WBA goal, that the prospect was we would lose the last five, and without a fight.

Actually Adams, by getting a draw at Chelsea, outperformed what any sane person could have expected Hughton to achieve if he had been kept on.

It was all based on the idea of getting a bounce just for Fulham really- when we lost that it became clear the gamble had failed.

I'm no defender of Hughton but they either should have sacked him 5 games earlier or let him finish the season.