Getting fed up with the word "naive"

[lake district canary 4,549]

Easy word to use and heard it too many times already this season....but not accurate if you understand what we are trying to do.  We will only get success at this level if we improve the way we do things.....not to change what we do, but simply to do what we are doing, but do it better. 

You'll hear it every time we lose, every time we are losing "oh, they're naive" they all say.....but when we do exactly the same thing but are doing it better and win games...what will they call it then?   Oh, they'll say we play well and in the right way.   So which is it, naive or just sticking to our guns because we know that when we do it well enough, we will succeed with it.

No compromise imo, it's play the way we play because it is the way we want to play. Naive?  Not really, just single minded....we want to play the game in the right way.

[Dr Greenthumb 750]

1 minute ago, lake district canary said:

Easy word to use and heard it too many times already this season....but not accurate if you understand what we are trying to do.  We will only get success at this level if we improve the way we do things.....not to change what we do, but simply to do what we are doing, but do it better. 

You'll hear it every time we lose, every time we are losing "oh, they're naive" they all say.....but when we do exactly the same thing but are doing it better and win games...what will they call it then?   Oh, they'll say we play well and in the right way.   So which is it, naive or just sticking to our guns because we know that when we do it well enough, we will succeed with it.

No compromise imo, it's play the way we play because it is the way we want to play. Naive?  Not really, just single minded....we want to play the game in the right way.

Going and attempting to pass it around the back away against Manchester City is “naive” though, so you will hear it a lot 

[fredherring 136]

How else would you describe shipping five cookie cutter man city goals? 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,438]

Strangely enough, you've just described the word naive 

[Monty13 2,252]

3 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Going and attempting to pass it around the back away against Manchester City is “naive” though, so you will hear it a lot 

And the alternative is to boot it upfield and probably immediately lose it? It’s how we play.

Don’t get me wrong, one minute to half time someone probably should have put their foot through it rather than nearly giving a goal away, That was naive. But we can’t change the entire way we play just because the opposition is better than us.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Monty13

[WD40 720]

You’ll be disappointed then as Farke uses it all the time. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

5 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Easy word to use and heard it too many times already this season....but not accurate if you understand what we are trying to do.  We will only get success at this level if we improve the way we do things.....not to change what we do, but simply to do what we are doing, but do it better. 

You'll hear it every time we lose, every time we are losing "oh, they're naive" they all say.....but when we do exactly the same thing but are doing it better and win games...what will they call it then?   Oh, they'll say we play well and in the right way.   So which is it, naive or just sticking to our guns because we know that when we do it well enough, we will succeed with it.

No compromise imo, it's play the way we play because it is the way we want to play. Naive?  Not really, just single minded....we want to play the game in the right way.

Compromise is a key attribute of successful coaches. If you don’t think a critical factor is the ability to compromise then you are being , oh I just can’t think of the right word 🤔

[Jim Smith 2,339]

Sorry but naive is exactly the word to describe today’s performance, tactics and lack of strengthening of the key central positions. No other word for it. Naive. Naive. Naive. 

[Dr Greenthumb 750]

Just now, Monty13 said:

And the alternative is to boot it upfield and probably immediately lose it? It’s how we play.

Don’t get me wrong, one minute to half time someone probably should have put their foot through it rather than nearly giving a goal away, That was naive. But we can’t change the entire way we play just because the opposition is better than us.

You can have a plan B though.

Literally putting out the same team that lost 3-0 at home to Liverpool last week wasn’t exactly enthusing to see. Watching Ben and Grant constantly kick the ball to their players and Tim kicking it of touch trying to get it to Max twice in the first half just invited the pressure.

[Van wink 2,994]

6 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Easy word to use and heard it too many times already this season....but not accurate if you understand what we are trying to do.  We will only get success at this level if we improve the way we do things.....not to change what we do, but simply to do what we are doing, but do it better. 

You'll hear it every time we lose, every time we are losing "oh, they're naive" they all say.....but when we do exactly the same thing but are doing it better and win games...what will they call it then?   Oh, they'll say we play well and in the right way.   So which is it, naive or just sticking to our guns because we know that when we do it well enough, we will succeed with it.

No compromise imo, it's play the way we play because it is the way we want to play. Naive?  Not really, just single minded....we want to play the game in the right way.

Problem is its a style of play we used last time and once teams sussed us out we had very little success with it. I'm not saying we should throw the blueprint away but we have to develop the style of play so that we dont make it so easy for the opposition.

[Danke bitte 967]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Sorry but naive is exactly the word to describe today’s performance, tactics and lack of strengthening of the key central positions. No other word for it. Naive. Naive. Naive. 

I don’t think you mentioned naive

[birchfest 397]

I don’t think anyone wants a complete philosophy change, more just the flexibility to have a different approach depending on our opponents. Going toe to toe playing the top teams will see us occasionally win, but more times than not see us getting thumped, I’d like to see a slightly more pragmatic approach to those fixtures, especially away from home. But then at home against the teams outside the top six we should be going back to our fundamentals. 
 

The phrases I’m hoping we don’t hear and I’m sick of is ‘bad luck’ and ‘best bottom side ever’. I’d love to see us bloody a few noses to get 0-0’s and 1-1’s in games away from home where we have less possession. 

[Capt. Pants 4,284]

As long as we keep losing we will be naive. As they say "if you always do what you've always done, then you'll always get what you've always got".

We must be getting close to the record for straight Premier League defeats so that improvement and getting better is still very much work in progress. Let's see where we are after 10 games.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,153]

Generally our style of play means we consistently beat teams with worse players than us and lose to teams with better players if they're on their game. Great for when we're in the Championship but we get exposed at this level and it is a bit naive to think we can out pass a team like Man City. When we beat them two years ago we sat deep, worked incredibly hard, fought for every ball and got the ball forward quickly, it was good football but not our usual game. 

 

I think Farke is an excellent top level coach, but he's more suited to working with a team that has good players relative to the league they're in. He's kind of the opposite to a Roy Hodgson type who doesn't do much with good players but gets weaker teams good results. 

I don't think we should abandon our methodology. Just tweak it so that we work harder off the ball, not try to play in dangerous areas and attack with pace when we get the opportunity. It is very naive to try to pass out from the back and not have a long ball outlet against top level teams. 

[lake district canary 4,549]

I just don't think it's fair to call it naivety though.  Imo it was just poor teamwork.  Lees Melou isn't fully integrated yet, the players are still getting used to Gilmour and that was our central midfield today, plus a less than effective Rupp. Add to that Cantwell who ran around a lot as usual, but failed to deliver anything much, Rashica who is still getting used to the club/country/league and Pukki who relies on the others to feed him.

Changing the way you play will not necessarily improve things anyway.  Alex Neil gave in to his positive selections and tactics in that game away at Newcastle and switched to a more defensive set up and that did not work.  A leopard can't change it's spots and neither should we try to.  We can do better, but changing the way we play will not work - we will either improve and do well, or we will be outclassed in too many games and go down. It seems a bit cr*p at the moment, but these two games have been something that we might look back on and say it was good we got these out of the way first and look forwards to better things.

[hogesar 9,760]

Unless people actually think Farke is a useless manager (if so, wish they'd have said so last season) calling us naive for today is so hypocritical and lacking understanding themselves.

Its worth noting last time we played City and won, all our moves came from passing through them and playing out from the back.

We also don't really have a long ball option. Saying that, I'd have liked us to turn them around every now and again with balls in the channel for Rashica.

Farke, strangely enough, is aware of the risks of passing out from the back. The reality is, Man City only had 4 shots on target all match. Had Giannoulis stopped a single cross from his side, and Mumba after him, or a midfielder doubled up, I dont think things would have been half as bad.

For comparison, streetwise,  defensive, ugly, physical experienced and proven Burnley only conceded one less than us vs Liverpool.

[Mello Yello 2,303]

  Apologies to those who are dyslexic amongst us...... 

[Jim Smith 2,339]

5 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Generally our style of play means we consistently beat teams with worse players than us and lose to teams with better players if they're on their game. Great for when we're in the Championship but we get exposed at this level and it is a bit naive to think we can out pass a team like Man City. When we beat them two years ago we sat deep, worked incredibly hard, fought for every ball and got the ball forward quickly, it was good football but not our usual game. 

 

I think Farke is an excellent top level coach, but he's more suited to working with a team that has good players relative to the league they're in. He's kind of the opposite to a Roy Hodgson type who doesn't do much with good players but gets weaker teams good results. 

I don't think we should abandon our methodology. Just tweak it so that we work harder off the ball, not try to play in dangerous areas and attack with pace when we get the opportunity. It is very naive to try to pass out from the back and not have a long ball outlet against top level teams. 

I think early on in games against big teams we need to abandon the short goal kicks and play for a bit of territory. We were pinned back from the ourself today, primarily because we chose to go short from our goal kicks throughout snd invited the press.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Unless people actually think Farke is a useless manager (if so, wish they'd have said so last season) calling us naive for today is so hypocritical and lacking understanding themselves.

Its worth noting last time we played City and won, all our moves came from passing through them and playing out from the back.

We also don't really have a long ball option. Saying that, I'd have liked us to turn them around every now and again with balls in the channel for Rashica.

Farke, strangely enough, is aware of the risks of passing out from the back. The reality is, Man City only had 4 shots on target all match. Had Giannoulis stopped a single cross from his side, and Mumba after him, or a midfielder doubled up, I dont think things would have been half as bad.

For comparison, streetwise,  defensive, ugly, physical experienced and proven Burnley only conceded one less than us vs Liverpool.

I don’t think he’s useless but I do think he’s a bit slow to adapt at times and a bit stubborn. I also still don’t think he’s got a grip of our defending against set pieces. I think our game plan today was wrong. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by Jim Smith

[Capt. Pants 4,284]

It's nearly as bad as plucky little Norwich.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,153]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

I think early on in games against big teams we need to abandon the short goal kicks and play for a bit of territory. We were pinned back from the ourself today, primarily because we chose to go short from our goal kicks throughout snd invited the press.

I'm not one of those who thinks Pukki is past it or anything. But wouldn't it make more sense to start with a Sargent type to give us an outlet when top teams smother us at the start then bring on a clever player like Pukki against tiring defenses when the opposition tire a bit? 

I hate criticizing Farke's team selections because like I said I really rate him. But starting with a poacher type and finishing the game with a hard worker doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be honest.

[Midlands Yellow 4,085]

What a naive post.

[Google Bot 3,329]

The reason Farke loves being here is the freedom to develop a style that he loves and believes in, stamping his mark on the club as a philosophy and style of play.  We truly have an identity here, and players joining us always credit the style of play as being a big factor.

So I don't think that aspect is naivety at all, he knows exactly where we sit and the ramifications in these games if we don't get hold of the ball.   As fans we have a 'Norwich Way' on the field, and we should be proud of that I feel.

I think where the naivety sits is in the previous success of signings such as Pukki/Emi whereby we've uncovered gems with bargain basement buys and it's leading us to thinking that it can be repeated with somewhat ease.  But, There comes a point where you need to bring in proven quality in order to give this a proper attempt...   Pretty much all our midfield are 'hopeful' signings at this point.

Up front, Pukki without Emi may be a totally different proposition, Sargent isn't historically a goal scorer - Which leaves us with Idah.  I think being in that position is somewhat naïve, but it's also a very complicated puzzle.

Problem is, To get the type of player Farke wants (Good on the ball, dynamic) with the added physicality - the fee and wages are out of our reach. 

At that point, the question is whether it's best to buy a 20m player of quality than 2 hopefuls at 10m?   One delivers you quality but at the cost of a thinner squad, the other leaves you sat at the poker table hoping for a flush to come in, or you to be dumped out of the casino if it doesn't.

We're going to be at that table for a few weeks yet i think. 🙂

Edited August 21, 2021 by Google Bot

[Making Plans 940]

How about "showing a lack of experience, wisdom and judgement" instead?

[hogesar 9,760]

50 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I don’t think he’s useless but I do think he’s a bit slow to adapt at times and a bit stubborn. I also still don’t think he’s got a grip of our defending against set pieces. I think our game plan today was wrong. 

God knows how a stubborn and slow to adapt coach takes a side to two championship titles (one of the hardest leagues for consistency).

Hes also the same coach that saw us beat Man City so he already has proven his ability. We weren't good enough today by any stretch but Man City were incredibly up for it, in front of their fans at the same time. Every single team bar maybe one or two in this league loses to them today.

[East Rider 552]

11 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Every single team bar maybe one or two in this league loses to them today.

This in a nutshell. There are a few teams that will get royally stuffed there this season. 

Our next six games are against a mix of very good and lower prem teams. Lets see how we are after that lot.

[CDMullins 446]

Getting fed up with the word naive;

 

Proceeds to epitomise the word naive

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

I do agree with suggestions on this thread about Sargent starting over Pukki, lets shuffle things up for the Leicester game a little please.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,042]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Easy word to use and heard it too many times already this season....but not accurate if you understand what we are trying to do.  We will only get success at this level if we improve the way we do things.....not to change what we do, but simply to do what we are doing, but do it better. 

You'll hear it every time we lose, every time we are losing "oh, they're naive" they all say.....but when we do exactly the same thing but are doing it better and win games...what will they call it then?   Oh, they'll say we play well and in the right way.   So which is it, naive or just sticking to our guns because we know that when we do it well enough, we will succeed with it.

No compromise imo, it's play the way we play because it is the way we want to play. Naive?  Not really, just single minded....we want to play the game in the right way.

If you add an "M" an "N" an "L" and a "!" you can change "Naive" to "Man Alive!!", hope this helps.................