Jump to content
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Parma’s State of the Nation

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The idea that we should have forced a temperamental player to stay who wanted to go, with only one year left on contract, and with bidders offering silly money is just ridiculous. You can argue it as long as you like, but I don't think many people with any sense will be convinced.

 

Buendia had 3 years left on his contract at the time of his sale.

Sold to Villa in summer 2021.

Signed deal with us until summer 2024.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

They paid an astronomical sum for Buendia. Fact is that Webber insisted Buendia wanted out, but nobody at Norwich, Aston Villa, or Buendia himself has said otherwise; you're basically calling Webber a liar with no evidence to back up the accusation.

 

21 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It was a choice in the same way as staying in the road with a bus coming towards you at full tilt is a choice. You can do it, in principle, but in reality, you don't do it unless you're really looking for a world of hurt. The idea that we should have forced a temperamental player to stay who wanted to go, with only one year left on contract, and with bidders offering silly money is just ridiculous. You can argue it as long as you like, but I don't think many people with any sense will be convinced.

 

I'm getting confused now.  Are you arguing that Buendia did or didn't want out or that we could or couldn't have kept him if we'd wanted to ?

Edited by Barham Blitz
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

We did absolutely no such thing! The price tag he went for was massively over-inflated. That's the absolute opposite of 'come and get him'. 

Yes we did, it was come and spend the money. If you want to put people off you issue the opposite message of hands off or maybe more neutrally just don’t address it.

You don’t tell people we will sell if the price is right, that’s 100% putting them up for sale and trying to get the most money.

"It might be the end of the journey for some of them, it might be a club comes in that is off the scale," he said.

"One of them may go, maybe two or all three of them will go, who knows - but the facts are that this team isn't about one or two players. For us to be successful in the Premier League it's going to be how does the squad of 20 do, not if one player performs brilliantly.

"When we sold James Maddison [to Leicester] everyone thought it was the end of the world and then a guy called Emi Buendia turned up - when Ben Godfrey left [for Everton] it was the end of the world and a guy called Ben Gibson turned up, and that's football."

To be fair he called it right when he equated it to replacing Ben Godfrey for Ben Gibson. That’s exactly how our summer went.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I'm getting confused now.  Are you arguing that Buendia did or didn't want out or that we could or couldn't have kept him if we'd wanted to ?

Schrodinger’s Buendia.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It was a choice in the same way as staying in the road with a bus coming towards you at full tilt is a choice. You can do it, in principle, but in reality, you don't do it unless you're really looking for a world of hurt. The idea that we should have forced a temperamental player to stay who wanted to go, with only one year left on contract, and with bidders offering silly money is just ridiculous. You can argue it as long as you like, but I don't think many people with any sense will be convinced.

 

Oh we are doing cr@ppy analogies are we? In that case Webber drove arrogantly on to the road in the first place.

I don’t think many are convinced we needed to sell Buendia before Webber started talking about selling him personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Oh we are doing cr@ppy analogies are we? In that case Webber drove arrogantly on to the road in the first place.

I don’t think many are convinced we needed to sell Buendia before Webber started talking about selling him personally.

Well, you know, a crappy analogy in response to a crappy argument I guess. 🤷‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Yes we did, it was come and spend the money. If you want to put people off you issue the opposite message of hands off or maybe more neutrally just don’t address it.

You don’t tell people we will sell if the price is right, that’s 100% putting them up for sale and trying to get the most money.

"It might be the end of the journey for some of them, it might be a club comes in that is off the scale," he said.

"One of them may go, maybe two or all three of them will go, who knows - but the facts are that this team isn't about one or two players. For us to be successful in the Premier League it's going to be how does the squad of 20 do, not if one player performs brilliantly.

"When we sold James Maddison [to Leicester] everyone thought it was the end of the world and then a guy called Emi Buendia turned up - when Ben Godfrey left [for Everton] it was the end of the world and a guy called Ben Gibson turned up, and that's football."

To be fair he called it right when he equated it to replacing Ben Godfrey for Ben Gibson. That’s exactly how our summer went.

Where did anyone say Buendia was up for grabs? I'm sure it should be easy enough for you to furnish some links to references if it was indeed the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Where did anyone say Buendia was up for grabs? I'm sure it should be easy enough for you to furnish some links to references if it was indeed the case. 

“One of them may go, maybe two or all three of them will go, who knows”

You know very well he was talking about Buendia, Cantwell and Aaron's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

“One of them may go, maybe two or all three of them will go, who knows”

You know very well he was talking about Buendia, Cantwell and Aaron's.

An obvious statement of fact for a club that literally has to buy in players and sell at profit  to balance the books does not amount to 'we really want to sell Buendia'. Besides, approaches would be made regardless of what the club said. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame because the level of analysis and quality of debate in this thread was on another level to what we often see on here. No need to drag it down into squabbling about opinions on things we simply cannot know one way or the other. 

Ultimately you need to look at the bigger picture of where the club is now. It's pretty unequivocal that some big mistakes have been made and the excuses are wearing thin. I can understand some of the choices, but others were seriously questionable even without hindsight. Now we know the outcome it's strange that people still want to defend the indefensible. 

I get wanting to support the club. Me too. I'm even happy with how Dean Smith has responded in the last 3 games. But I won't be leaping to defend Webber's transfers or his performance as 'director of football' - the football has only been going in one direction until very recently. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Petriix said:

It's a shame because the level of analysis and quality of debate in this thread was on another level to what we often see on here. No need to drag it down into squabbling about opinions on things we simply cannot know one way or the other. 

Ultimately you need to look at the bigger picture of where the club is now. It's pretty unequivocal that some big mistakes have been made and the excuses are wearing thin. I can understand some of the choices, but others were seriously questionable even without hindsight. Now we know the outcome it's strange that people still want to defend the indefensible. 

I get wanting to support the club. Me too. I'm even happy with how Dean Smith has responded in the last 3 games. But I won't be leaping to defend Webber's transfers or his performance as 'director of football' - the football has only been going in one direction until very recently. 

You know the debate is in trouble when the word “literally” gets misused . That’s when I tuned out . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Petriix said:

It's a shame because the level of analysis and quality of debate in this thread was on another level to what we often see on here. No need to drag it down into squabbling about opinions on things we simply cannot know one way or the other. 

Ultimately you need to look at the bigger picture of where the club is now. It's pretty unequivocal that some big mistakes have been made and the excuses are wearing thin. I can understand some of the choices, but others were seriously questionable even without hindsight. Now we know the outcome it's strange that people still want to defend the indefensible. 

I get wanting to support the club. Me too. I'm even happy with how Dean Smith has responded in the last 3 games. But I won't be leaping to defend Webber's transfers or his performance as 'director of football' - the football has only been going in one direction until very recently. 

I’m actually still begrudgingly Luke warm on Webber, I’d have happily seen him go towards the end of last season but despite the complete lack of humility and accountability he showed in his club end of season interview, he at least still seemed focused and determined.

Overall I think his tenure could legitimately be quantified a success in many ways, but I agree you can’t ignore the questionable decisions and errors, especially given the absolute level of arrogance displayed around them. 

I hope we will be successful this year but I think we’ve again made too many gambles this summer, just the Championship is quite a bit more forgiving when you perhaps don’t get it right.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be that decent players were approached at representative games. But now with agents, and plenty of motorway services available, its probably even more clandestine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

An obvious statement of fact for a club that literally has to buy in players and sell at profit  to balance the books does not amount to 'we really want to sell Buendia'. Besides, approaches would be made regardless of what the club said. 

Look you believe that nothing the club did in any way influenced the sale of Buendia.

Fine, stick to that belief despite the numerous indicators that might not be the case.

I’m not wasting any more time arguing with ideologues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buendia is a key figure in the the State of the Nation, though some of the key elements are lost If we are not careful.

Good players move on. Weapons are always desirable. Anybody any good always wants to move to Real Madrid and earn more money. Everyone. Every day. All the time. 

In modern football, with eye-watering sums of money available in the Premier League, nobody - literally nobody - sells their key weapon at the point of promotion. 

It doesn’t happen. It’s suicide for a number of reasons. Momentum is utterly, fundamentally important in football. There is huge collateral damage in the morale and belief of all of the remaining players. I can assure you that this was the case post-Buendia sale. 

It is very difficult to attract weapons and really good players to Norwich. Football is funny though, it only takes Guardiola to say ‘I love watching Norwich’ and your chances might go up 25%. Players across all clubs are forever talking about which clubs ‘are on the up’.  
 

We really were. Then we sold Buendia. And then we really weren’t. The narrative spins on a dime and the ‘feelings vultures’ circle. ‘Brave, fluid, highly-technical… positional play adherents’…outside bet’…..becomes ‘not trying’….’they don’t deserve promotion’…’Norwich never give it a go’….’whipping boys’ 

I can tell you now that players do not ignore that noise. It is the water cooler currency of footballers, and it was ever thus. 

Statutory accounts are generally about 18 months out of date (versus Live-feed Management Accounts). This is quite handy here because we don’t now have to guess, we can read the book. 

We have taken out advanced monies of around £66m, which has allowed us to remain within our financial limits-covenants-overdraft-access to cash. This means that we needed somebody to advance us cash to cover what we wanted to spend - were obliged to pay. 

This means we needed cash to conduct our affairs and - as an extension - to fund our purchases of Rashica-Tzolis-Sargent. Aston Villa not only paid a good price for Buendia, they structured the payments so we received a good amount of cash early on.

So even to buy what we did-will now do, took a large £66m loan and the sale of Buendia and the cash from the deal weighted up front.

But we did it because a player threw a tantrum? 🤣🤣🤣

Like they all do, every day, and have done since time immemorial?

They are 22 year old boys earning £50k per week (they get double upon promotion upon bonuses), they have had to bite and scratch every minute of every day since they were 7 to get here. They have girls throwing themselves at them at every night club and bus stop. And what? They are a bit of an **** sometimes?…🤣🤣

Oh no, Quick get rid! ….you’d have a squad of about 3 (and they’d all be crap)….🤗

Any star player loves limelight, attention, a bit of drama, some success, the headlines. 

A bit like you get every week in the Premier League really. One goal, one assist, a bit of attention and the world is full of Buendia-tinted rainbows. At the point of maximum excitement and positivity for all. 

It is the timing that is so exceptional, not the event per se.

Some context. I have seen really serious fights so often in training so many times. And been involved in several. In nearly every single case it was almost completely forgotten by all the next day. 

There are players who hate each other. There are players who are not at all ‘team’. Buendia was not like that. Other Players love weapons too. It is professional football. It is about success. And more money. And a big move.

But not at the point of promotion. Ever. Smith would have made it a back-me-or-sack-me-moment. It’s a no win for a head coach. You’ll be gone in 12 games if you’re not careful. 

It would take £66m reasons for a club to do something like that.

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

It all comes down to this central issue doesn't it ? 

Whether or not you are in the Farke had to go camp or not (I am firmly in the "not" camp btw) Webber tore up the blueprint that he himself had created, binned the concept of incremental progression (the Top 26 metric,) the model regarding playing style (and arguably elements of the recruitment process) and threw the manager who had helped make all that possible under the metaphorical bus in the process.  The metaphorical bus that we were still unable to tactically park under the new manager anyway I might add.  Was it because he bet the farm on bucking the trend through imposing a new set of tactics and a new set of players - the infamous bazookas and grenades - so that he himself could go out with a bang ?

This isn't another lament for Farke per se (although I wish we'd never dismissed him in the first place.)  Or even another diatribe against Smith (again, although for various reasons I wish we'd come up with a better alternative.)  It's recognising that having established ourselves as a club with an identity and a process and achieving relative success on a relative shoestring whilst playing some great football in the process, we managed to throw all that away in a transfer window and the first dozen games of a season.   We have gone from defiantly yellow and green to the same beige of the lower-mid premiership and upper-mid championship because we were chasing the dragon (or perhaps chasing the chicken might be a more apt metaphor) of Premiership survival without the idealistic pragmatism - if you'll forgive the oxymoron - that got us there. 

Yes, it would be great if we could afford to speculate more money on a higher class of player, or retain the good ones we have.   But we don't.  And in line with Sam Vimes's 'Boots Theory' of Socioeconomic Unfairness we end up wasting cash on what turn out to be inferior players we can just about afford because we can't afford to spend a little more on better ones.

The following quote is an extract from an interview Webber gave to The Athletic after that first relegation. 

"Now is the time for us to be backing him. Not talking bad of him or putting him under any undue pressure. As far as I’m concerned, he’ll be here as long as he wants to be here. If he doesn’t, then that’s a call he has to make himself [...] We’re going to be in the Championship next year. Why do you not have the guy who just won the league with 94 points taking you forward [...] Will Daniel change how he plays? I hope not because that would cause a problem. We’ve built for three years on this. But do we need better personnel in there and a better profile of personnel? Definitely." Source https://theathletic.com/1925314/2020/07/13/stuart-webber-norwich-city-relegation/

What changed in a year Stuart ? 

Another excellent post @Barham Blitz 👏🏽👏🏽

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I’ve thought about this @Taiwan Canary.

No there are no weapons really. Though just to re-clarify you can have very good players that are not weapons, and conversely not very good players that are weapons.

To explain by using extremes, I could probably argue that Kevin de Bruyne is not technically a weapon, he is ‘just’ brilliant (that is weaponish of course, I know I’m reaching, humour me), though Andy Carroll - who is now not the greatest footballer - still is a weapon. 

The weapon can do certain ‘special teams’ things that you cannot as an opposition coach ignore. You have to change your own preferred tactical  blueprint for your own side, to take account of the the opposition’s weapon. 

Carroll gets thrown on in the 80th minute. They go high and long and hit early deep balls to him. He is not mobile, but he’ll win the headers. You definitely can’t sit deep and let crosses rain in. So you have to get one in front one behind, get your midfielders to be alert to second balls, try to get wide players alert - and quite possibly pressing a little higher - to stop full backs at source.

Conversely what exactly are you going to do about Kevin de Bruyne? He’s just better than anything you’ve got (He is a weapon with his set pieces too, so you really can’t give free kicks away), you certainly have to go 3 in the middle if you don’t already and you have to keep a tight catenaccio 4 with very short spaces between them to prevent slide rule balls. Ok so he is a weapon, but you know what I mean now… 🤗

Anyhoo, we have nothing like either of them. Only Pukki. I won’t be disingenuous to @Petriix and - here’s some hope for you and @nutty nigel @Taiwan Canary - will acknowledge that when clumsy Sarge starts driving hard and cutting into spaces, looking to shoot, he can look hard to stop, though I’m afraid he is ‘a level’ player. With a fraction more time and space, and a fraction less diligent and counter-threatening opposition he can look quite a handful. Take those things away (higher level) and I am afraid he doesn’t and won’t. 

Sara and Nunez are interesting additions that represent gambles on a number of levels and have novelty value and some nice moments. We will see whether diligence and positional discipline come to both or either. I am not at all sure I have seen it yet.

The good news: Love Nunez’ free kicks, that’s a weapon actually, as he genuinely strikes them all well and correctly. Sara’s corners also please me, they should be more weaponised, though I dislike our attacking of corners. I don’t yet see the quality of runs and movement I would expect. I am not knocking Alan Russell, who has good pedigree and valuable ideas, though Gibson and Hanley are simply not good enough at attacking headers (as opposed to defensive headers, two very different techniques). Kenny is the best at getting into good positions, though he is not as good at finishing as he might be either. Sarge is good in the air, though makes poor runs, gives free kicks away cheaply and is too ‘noisy’ about it all, often getting ‘tagged’ by referees (and thus treated sharper, to his and our own harm).

 It’s a wasted opportunity from one of our very limited weapon-like things (best phrase I could find). I imagine Alan Russell is a bit frustrated by it and Smith might well want to add someone who can profit from these deliveries better. It’s a huge source of cheap goals that we don’t get. 

Aarons can be weaponish when he is really on song. His advantage is his deep position - with often plenty of time and space - and his ability to cut both ways and accelerate past players. Wonderful in full flow. Hard to defend against sometimes, so opposition coaches have worked out not to. They actually overload his side, pump balls high and get him defending. Not a great compliment really. He’ll have to overcome that to move on (and not just be distant back up). His sliding last-ditch save was absolutely magnificent yesterday by the way, I thought it got a bit overlooked. Every bit as good as a goal I’d say. That’s what’s he can do. 

Cantwell I desperately want to do ….well?…better? It is there, striking cleanly off both sides, magnetising the ball at his best, though - sorry Todd - I do always think of Brian Clough when I watch him play, what he said about how he achieved his success with provincial players: ‘They come to me with false confidence, I strip that away and give them real confidence’

Onel flatters to deceive,  Dowell doesn’t run hard enough and gets bypassed too easily, he also isn’t nasty enough. Psychologists studied the best players, trying to find out what really made them great. They found all the things you’d expect: drive, determination, will to win, an attitude of continual improvement…but that was just the averagely good ones…they found that the very best had all of that, though equally just hated losing, couldn’t bear it. It Pathologically troubled them. One doesn’t get any sense of that from Dowell. 

We have finally woken up - I think Smith totally knew it from the outset to be fair - to the fact that we need the role of CDM desperately. You need 2 good CDMs at least actually. To have none in the Premier was madness. The only way I could forgive it, is if we totally threw everything at getting Skipp and it fell through on us….though a Plan B was surely in a drawer somewhere too?…Quite how that drawer ended up marked ‘Gilmour’ is far beyond me. 

The Gunn-Krul axis is far too good - and surely too expensive - for this level. So that is a positive that must surely be fairly short-lived. 

The Hanley-Ono-Gibson triumvirate is super strong at this level. Though Gibson has been strangely below par, his passing can be quite sweet, with good range and accuracy. Perhaps Omo can start scoring a few more goals too, he has quite a decent presence and eye I think. 

Giannoulis-McCallum is of course good enough. McCallum has something about him too. I like him. Giannoulis can look dynamic and daft in the same minute. Bit frustrating for coaches that. 

Ramsey is a good player and it’s perfectly ok to have good loan players at 10 - or even 9 - if you don’t have them. Assist and scoring players don’t need to care much about the team, they can be selfish and just want to look good, get headlines and further their careers. It fits the space in the jigsaw anyway..

Pukki is brilliant.  He is and always has been our weapon. The only issue - and anyone (any forward) that has dropped down the leagues from a good level knows this - is that you are reliant on everybody else. And they don’t and can’t think as fast as you. They make the right pass half a second too late. Lots of what you have doesn’t get used. It’s frustrating. It can make you snatch at what does come your way. Pukki is better than this, he has a world class temperament and a supreme level of movement.

We’re just not good enough for him. And we are increasingly not completely set up to serve him either. 

Whisper it, but the way we are starting to play looks better suited (designed?) more for Sarge.

That’s where the money went and we probably don’t have any more to spend. Strikers are bloody expensive. 

Personally I dread the day we don’t have Pukki anymore, though - as @chicken says - it is the model. Rinse and repeat. 

We have bet some of the farm on Sargent and we are - again - going to bank on him. 
 

If I was feeling a bit Norwich Private Eye, I would say this was fine. He will fit our requirements perfectly. 
 

Somewhere between 8th and 4th in the second tier. 

Parma

 

 

 

The real weapon was the Emi / Teemu combo. It seems neither have hit the same heights since. It was a weapon that fell into place rather than planned. I don't think either was bought with the other in mind. But that's often the way in football. That's why the future is of hopes and dreams as much as plans and the past.

A big part of the state of the nation is Colney and the Academy and making sure that pathways are made to the first team. That was the first priority of this board even though originally funded by fans. I wouldn't have stumped up to pay players wages even if those players were Emi and Teemu. But Norwich fans have always supported the academy ever since the events of the mid- nineties. Let's not forget that Ray's Funds was originally Rays Funds for FONCY and we took pride whenever one of our own made the first team. For me playing a small part of the FONCY story was a bit of a dream come true. When premier league riches brought the prospect of Cat One Academy our contributions would make little difference so now we take even more pride in our wonderful DS and pan-disability football teams. However that connection we feel with the club and the youngsters of that time will always be there. Now as well as our own youngsters we buy in young players from other clubs and try to make them better. But that' won't work if there's no pathway to the first team.  I remember a post on here from 2018 stating that having sold Maddison and Murphy there was just Lewis left with any value. Within a couple of months Aarons, Godfrey and Cantwell had found their paths. Mistakes are always made when buying players but we mustn't compound those mistakes by having them here blocking the pathways for our youngsters. Calls to sign a journeyman fourth choice centreback would certainly have stopped Tomkinson's games this season. Keeping Rashica and Plachetta would have blocked Rowe and Springett. Of course you have to have a manager who's prepared to use those pathways and it seems Smith is carrying on where Farke left off in that regard. So although I haven't really taken to Smith I do recognise and appreciate that continuation.

As for Sarge he is still very young for the type of player he is. He played 50 Bundesliga games before he was 21. He's still young and still one who can improve further and become that weapon for us. I've always liked him and made no secret of that.

So as well as Sarge (and we still have Pukki) other reasons to be cheerful include Gunn, Aarons, Omobamidele, Tompkinson. McCallum, Gibbs, Cantwell, Idah, Rowe and Springett. Also Saxon Early and Bali Mumba appear to be having good loans and if that's not enough a young Welsh centre forward called Roberts signed a pro contract last month.

335231522_Screenshot(99).png.73f1b4c1c11fe01f1f9dd1c46f781834.png

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Except if NCFC TV tell you something apparently.

Not just NCFC TV, whatever that is in any case. It's about all of it. You look at all of the information available. None supports an alternative all agrees.

Again, your narrative keeps missing things out. The timeline doesn't start with Webber's warning that we may have to sell to reinvest in the squad. It starts before that, back when there were issues with Buendia. And it wasn't in the championship campaign - it started before the championship campaign and spilt into the championship campaign.

The evidence all suggests that Buendia wanted to leave as far back as that. There were interviews with Buendia during the season which intimated as much too - people on here even commented on some of them with the view that he wanted to leave. This is then followed by the statement from Webber, at which point things are already happening as the rumours confirm... or there a just one hell of a lot of coincidences... That's the narrative and the timeline.

And you can bang on as much as you like, but that is the only narrative/timeline we have evidence to support. You can't ignore what happens before to try and rewrite the story.

Now, you can feel/think what you want, but it's evidence less. For every "all clubs say/do the same thing" there are as many pieces of evidence that counter that. Handwaving it all off as club spin whilst the journalists you suggest are more reliable fail to refute it.

Yes, I challenge things, to do that you take in as much information as possible including the perspectives that you think are unlikely. You robustly test them but finding evidence that undermines them. You then eliminate each that has little/no/weak supporting evidence until you are left with as few outcomes as possible.

In this instance, you have one that fits with the overall picture of the narrative and timeline, and one that doesn't. The one that doesn't mainly fits with a bias that the club can do nothing right and is fraught with illogical arguments such as "you only sell on relegation" which could be seen as a solid argument that the club should have sold all of the players it thought it could get money for to totally rebuild the squad in the championship, in itself an interesting concept.

So we would have sold Cantwell, Aarons, Buendia and perhaps Krul and Pukki and raked in as much coin as we could at that time and rebuilt there and then. You could be looking at around £80-100m in transfer fees at that time. Surely enough to buy a squad worthy of promotion and perhaps one more balanced for the premier league? May have taken more than a season.

Yet, on point again, what the actual argument is, is the idea that a player could be forced to stay OR that he did not want to leave. As said, one of these options is already off the table. And arguments for the other have diminished fast. As said, we have evidence as to what an unfocused, unhappy Buendia could do to the squad. We knew that the team struggled without him. We could not afford to buy another Buendia in terms of as ready to deliver as he, but if he stayed, we'd need an insurance option in case he did do exactly as he had done a year prior, but for longer.

As I say, the amount of hand waving needed is astonishing. For a subtext that no journalist out there has put on the table or looked to evidence. So yeah, when I smell BS, I see BS, I'll call it BS.

Yes, it was a turning point. However, I would also agree with others that the previous summers recruitment was also part of that. I think Dowell was hoped to be better than he has been, possibly to compete with Buendia and Cantwell for a position, perhaps to replace the first one of those to leave. He's not rubbish, but he is not as consistent as either of those here before him, when they were on form. Gibson was not a success in the premier league... at least, not in the system/approach that Farke started with and Smith was brought in to persevere with.

I feel had the recruitment that summer been better, brought in more players that proved they could make the step up, we'd have also been in a much better position for life without Buendia. Not to mention, Cantwell, who folks thought would go on to progress yet again, completely went off the rails. Followed by the need for all of the new signings to be brilliant or we were screwed. Too many questions for a successful season at that point.

As stated before elsewhere - you look at the clubs that succeed in staying up for at least a season, they have a settled side, one that has grown together a bit. Knows how to play with one another, even if they have no real weapon(though this seems to be a convoluted term now it has a much broader, looser definition than first appeared). The weapon at Shef Utd was their defensive unity.

I actually think that is something much underappreciated of Brentford too. They have Toney, and one could say that he is a "weapon" but he also isn't the reason they are doing well. Sarr is at least as good a weapon as Toney yet Watford did marginally better than we did. It isn't enough to have a weapon if you haven't got a solid, reliable, if unspectacular, core to your team.

Again, Burnley is another great example. Their main weapon was their unity as a team. As soon as several members of that team were sold off they started to struggle and were ultimately relegated. I would say Brighton have been another example, strong as a team, without having any really league busting standout players. Southampton are another that tend to do well at this. Even if somewhat seeming to scrape through each season.

It's why I think we are looking at a period of transition, one that arguably could/should have been done sooner, though in all likelihood it was the ambition of getting back to the premier league that took precedent - which the majority will say, and I 95% agree with, should be the priority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

The real weapon was the Emi / Teemu combo. It seems neither have hit the same heights since. It was a weapon that fell into place rather than planned. I don't think either was bought with the other in mind. But that's often the way in football. That's why the future is of hopes and dreams as much as plans and the past.

A big part of the state of the nation is Colney and the Academy and making sure that pathways are made to the first team. That was the first priority of this board even though originally funded by fans. I wouldn't have stumped up to pay players wages even if those players were Emi and Teemu. But Norwich fans have always supported the academy ever since the events of the mid- nineties. Let's not forget that Ray's Funds was originally Rays Funds for FONCY and we took pride whenever one of our own made the first team. For me playing a small part of the FONCY story was a bit of a dream come true. When premier league riches brought the prospect of Cat One Academy our contributions would make little difference so now we take even more pride in our wonderful DS and pan-disability football teams. However that connection we feel with the club and the youngsters of that time will always be there. Now as well as our own youngsters we buy in young players from other clubs and try to make them better. But that' won't work if there's no pathway to the first team.  I remember a post on here from 2018 stating that having sold Maddison and Murphy there was just Lewis left with any value. Within a couple of months Aarons, Godfrey and Cantwell had found their paths. Mistakes are always made when buying players but we mustn't compound those mistakes by having them here blocking the pathways for our youngsters. Calls to sign a journeyman fourth choice centreback would certainly have stopped Tomkinson's games this season. Keeping Rashica and Plachetta would have blocked Rowe and Springett. Of course you have to have a manager who's prepared to use those pathways and it seems Smith is carrying on where Farke left off in that regard. So although I haven't really taken to Smith I do recognise and appreciate that continuation.

As for Sarge he is still very young for the type of player he is. He played 50 Bundesliga games before he was 21. He's still young and still one who can improve further and become that weapon for us. I've always liked him and made no secret of that.

So as well as Sarge (and we still have Pukki) other reasons to be cheerful include Gunn, Aarons, Omobamidele, Tompkinson. McCallum, Gibbs, Cantwell, Idah, Rowe and Springett. Also Saxon Early and Bali Mumba appear to be having good loans and if that's not enough a young Welsh centre forward called Roberts signed a pro contract last month.

335231522_Screenshot(99).png.73f1b4c1c11fe01f1f9dd1c46f781834.png

Great post and I 100% agree with you on Sargent. I said last season that I felt people were far too critical of him. He was 21 when he joined. The pressure on him from fans was both immense and incredibly unrealistic. That he continued to battle hard and give 100% all season is only testament to his strength in character IMHO.

I really hope he does well, and we can continue to keep him as he does well, and the same goes for Idah. The reality is, come the summer, they could be our two main strikers as Hugill and Pukki depart. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chicken said:

Not just NCFC TV, whatever that is in any case. It's about all of it. You look at all of the information available. None supports an alternative all agrees.

Again, your narrative keeps missing things out. The timeline doesn't start with Webber's warning that we may have to sell to reinvest in the squad. It starts before that, back when there were issues with Buendia. And it wasn't in the championship campaign - it started before the championship campaign and spilt into the championship campaign.

The evidence all suggests that Buendia wanted to leave as far back as that. There were interviews with Buendia during the season which intimated as much too - people on here even commented on some of them with the view that he wanted to leave. This is then followed by the statement from Webber, at which point things are already happening as the rumours confirm... or there a just one hell of a lot of coincidences... That's the narrative and the timeline.

And you can bang on as much as you like, but that is the only narrative/timeline we have evidence to support. You can't ignore what happens before to try and rewrite the story.

Now, you can feel/think what you want, but it's evidence less. For every "all clubs say/do the same thing" there are as many pieces of evidence that counter that. Handwaving it all off as club spin whilst the journalists you suggest are more reliable fail to refute it.

Yes, I challenge things, to do that you take in as much information as possible including the perspectives that you think are unlikely. You robustly test them but finding evidence that undermines them. You then eliminate each that has little/no/weak supporting evidence until you are left with as few outcomes as possible.

In this instance, you have one that fits with the overall picture of the narrative and timeline, and one that doesn't. The one that doesn't mainly fits with a bias that the club can do nothing right and is fraught with illogical arguments such as "you only sell on relegation" which could be seen as a solid argument that the club should have sold all of the players it thought it could get money for to totally rebuild the squad in the championship, in itself an interesting concept.

So we would have sold Cantwell, Aarons, Buendia and perhaps Krul and Pukki and raked in as much coin as we could at that time and rebuilt there and then. You could be looking at around £80-100m in transfer fees at that time. Surely enough to buy a squad worthy of promotion and perhaps one more balanced for the premier league? May have taken more than a season.

Yet, on point again, what the actual argument is, is the idea that a player could be forced to stay OR that he did not want to leave. As said, one of these options is already off the table. And arguments for the other have diminished fast. As said, we have evidence as to what an unfocused, unhappy Buendia could do to the squad. We knew that the team struggled without him. We could not afford to buy another Buendia in terms of as ready to deliver as he, but if he stayed, we'd need an insurance option in case he did do exactly as he had done a year prior, but for longer.

As I say, the amount of hand waving needed is astonishing. For a subtext that no journalist out there has put on the table or looked to evidence. So yeah, when I smell BS, I see BS, I'll call it BS.

Yes, it was a turning point. However, I would also agree with others that the previous summers recruitment was also part of that. I think Dowell was hoped to be better than he has been, possibly to compete with Buendia and Cantwell for a position, perhaps to replace the first one of those to leave. He's not rubbish, but he is not as consistent as either of those here before him, when they were on form. Gibson was not a success in the premier league... at least, not in the system/approach that Farke started with and Smith was brought in to persevere with.

I feel had the recruitment that summer been better, brought in more players that proved they could make the step up, we'd have also been in a much better position for life without Buendia. Not to mention, Cantwell, who folks thought would go on to progress yet again, completely went off the rails. Followed by the need for all of the new signings to be brilliant or we were screwed. Too many questions for a successful season at that point.

As stated before elsewhere - you look at the clubs that succeed in staying up for at least a season, they have a settled side, one that has grown together a bit. Knows how to play with one another, even if they have no real weapon(though this seems to be a convoluted term now it has a much broader, looser definition than first appeared). The weapon at Shef Utd was their defensive unity.

I actually think that is something much underappreciated of Brentford too. They have Toney, and one could say that he is a "weapon" but he also isn't the reason they are doing well. Sarr is at least as good a weapon as Toney yet Watford did marginally better than we did. It isn't enough to have a weapon if you haven't got a solid, reliable, if unspectacular, core to your team.

Again, Burnley is another great example. Their main weapon was their unity as a team. As soon as several members of that team were sold off they started to struggle and were ultimately relegated. I would say Brighton have been another example, strong as a team, without having any really league busting standout players. Southampton are another that tend to do well at this. Even if somewhat seeming to scrape through each season.

It's why I think we are looking at a period of transition, one that arguably could/should have been done sooner, though in all likelihood it was the ambition of getting back to the premier league that took precedent - which the majority will say, and I 95% agree with, should be the priority. 

I’ll say exactly what I said to the other guy.  

You believe that nothing the club did in any way influenced the sale of Buendia.

Fine, stick to that belief despite the numerous indicators that might not be the case.

I’m not wasting any more time arguing with ideologues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

"Now is the time for us to be backing him. Not talking bad of him or putting him under any undue pressure. As far as I’m concerned, he’ll be here as long as he wants to be here. If he doesn’t, then that’s a call he has to make himself [...] We’re going to be in the Championship next year. Why do you not have the guy who just won the league with 94 points taking you forward [...] Will Daniel change how he plays? I hope not because that would cause a problem. We’ve built for three years on this. But do we need better personnel in there and a better profile of personnel? Definitely." Source https://theathletic.com/1925314/2020/07/13/stuart-webber-norwich-city-relegation/

What changed in a year Stuart ? 

You see, now in some ways that intrigues me. Especially the bit I put in bold.

Isn't that exactly what did happen? We started the system with a new formation, a 4-3-3, and largely stuck to that until game 11, when people reflect we switched back to the 4-2-3-1 and won our first game of the season. Reportedly, the decision to sack Farke was made prior to that victory, so was based on the back of 10games with a return of just two points.

Many people have reflected since then that the players we signed, didn't look like they were bought for a 4-3-3.

Take Lees-Melou, for example. His most eye-catching displays had come from him playing in more advanced areas, or getting into more advanced areas. His career positions reflect that:
image.png.1c55dfa7bca5dd0395e524cc85e7e2e9.png

I said when he signed that he looked like a sort of Vrancic meets Stiepermann. I think it is fair to say that he certainly played better when given license to get further forward. After all, 27 goal involvements from 119 starts as a CM is good going, 11 involvements in 36 as an AM is also very good. You could be forgiven if you thought he may have been brought in to play as the middle of the attacking 3 in a 4-2-3-1, and he certainly added height, as Stiepermann had, and experience - which we were lacking to some degree.

When you start looking at it like that at least some of those signings look far more suited to the previous formation we played.

Do I blame that on Farke alone? No. I think they both chose a different approach to the premier league after being unable to land the preferred targets that summer. As Webber predicted, it caused problems. Too many. The problem you have when ten games in to a season of 38, with just two points on the board, you can't change the players, so if you want to change something, it has to be the manager.

That summer was messed up for a lot of reasons. As said before, I would suggest that it started with not getting it quite right the summer before either. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this Emi Buendia talk makes me sad Emi Buendia doesn't play for us anymore. I miss Emi Buendia. 

Perhaps the thread-cluttering Emi Buendia-related bickering & conjecture could be set aside?

 

Once more: Emi Buendia

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I’ll say exactly what I said to the other guy.  

You believe that nothing the club did in any way influenced the sale of Buendia.

Fine, stick to that belief despite the numerous indicators that might not be the case.

I’m not wasting any more time arguing with ideologues.

Indicators that require "interpretation" and ignorance of generally accepted - in the press - events.

"Might" is exactly it. I will change my view if that "might" can ever gain more evidence to support it. "What if" and "might" are far, far from reliable, and as I said, and you wrongly quoted me on, I go on the information that exists. No information that exists suggests that Buendia was happy here and would happily have remained here beyond that summer. Information does exist to suggest that he was not happy and wanted to leave - long before the timeline you'd have it as. It really is that simple.

Parma says "he has a contract". In reality that means forcing a player to stay. The best argument you have is that it would be a gamble. And as I said, even if you accept that, you'd need some sort of option in case that gamble didn't pay off. And you'd also then lose valuation on a player who'd have less time left on his contract and also become less desirable to teams like Villa who may then fear similar situations in the future should he wish to move again. Simply too many variables - might's and what-ifs. 

 

6 minutes ago, paddycanary said:

All this Emi Buendia talk makes me sad Emi Buendia doesn't play for us anymore. I miss Emi Buendia. 

Perhaps the thread-cluttering Emi Buendia-related bickering & conjecture could be set aside?

 

Once more: Emi Buendia

As much as it may not seem it, I 100% agree, and have said as much elsewhere. Folks just need to get over it. He was a great player for us 90% of the time, we knew he'd not stay for ever, he left, largely not under a cloud but having wanted to leave for a season, a season where in fairness he gave us the best possible send off with his most consistent season in yellow in green and being an integral part of that promotion.

As @nutty nigel says, some players slot well together. Some players fit well in the system played. Come the end of the season, we may have found new heroes in this squad. Come next season that could change all over again. Last season no one would have predicted Sargent's about face in form and return. Rowe could yet impact the 2nd half of the season in the way he was perhaps hoped he would impact the first half of the season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I’ll say exactly what I said to the other guy.  

You believe that nothing the club did in any way influenced the sale of Buendia.

Fine, stick to that belief despite the numerous indicators that might not be the case.

I’m not wasting any more time arguing with ideologues.

I'm at a complete loss as to where ideology is supposed to fit into views on the evitability of Buendia's sale...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chicken said:

Indicators that require "interpretation" and ignorance of generally accepted - in the press - events.

"Might" is exactly it. I will change my view if that "might" can ever gain more evidence to support it. "What if" and "might" are far, far from reliable, and as I said, and you wrongly quoted me on, I go on the information that exists. No information that exists suggests that Buendia was happy here and would happily have remained here beyond that summer. Information does exist to suggest that he was not happy and wanted to leave - long before the timeline you'd have it as. It really is that simple.

Parma says "he has a contract". In reality that means forcing a player to stay. The best argument you have is that it would be a gamble. And as I said, even if you accept that, you'd need some sort of option in case that gamble didn't pay off. And you'd also then lose valuation on a player who'd have less time left on his contract and also become less desirable to teams like Villa who may then fear similar situations in the future should he wish to move again. Simply too many variables - might's and what-ifs. 

 

As much as it may not seem it, I 100% agree, and have said as much elsewhere. Folks just need to get over it. He was a great player for us 90% of the time, we knew he'd not stay for ever, he left, largely not under a cloud but having wanted to leave for a season, a season where in fairness he gave us the best possible send off with his most consistent season in yellow in green and being an integral part of that promotion.

As @nutty nigel says, some players slot well together. Some players fit well in the system played. Come the end of the season, we may have found new heroes in this squad. Come next season that could change all over again. Last season no one would have predicted Sargent's about face in form and return. Rowe could yet impact the 2nd half of the season in the way he was perhaps hoped he would impact the first half of the season. 

I never asked you to change your view. I just put forward mine.

43 minutes ago, chicken said:

The one that doesn't mainly fits with a bias that the club can do nothing right

I had not realised that Webber and the club were synonymous, although as I don’t think this about either it’s rather moot. It does explain where you’re at though.

It’s fine, I’ve no interest in hearing more sermons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we also need to accept as well, that as "key a weapon" as he was for us in the championship, he wasn't a big enough weapon to keep us up at the first time of asking and certainly isn't looking to be a "key weapon" for Villa.

As Nutty already said, and I have explained, it can be that a "weapon" has more than one part.

In total honesty, I think there is far too much focus on "weapons" in this thread. It put's weight on the idea that one or two players can be good enough to keep you up alone. Whilst some may well point at Toney, or Mitrovitc if Fulham stay up, they are only one part of the equation.

If we are really going down the analogy of weapons and warfare, then you need an army, not just a weapon. The force, or the squad, the entire team on the pitch need to be unified, well drilled and well organised and know 100% what they need to be doing.

The truth is, the first premier league season they did, but they didn't look good enough to carry a threat or to hold anyone at bay. If you are not potent enough, teams will watch and gain confidence and push onto you more, knowing you are a relatively blunt and brittle force.

Last season... even in the first 11 games... we had very little. There were some promising signs against Leicester and against Arsenal but again, defensively we looked weak, frail. Not just at the back but as a team/force.

Sod the weapon. If you have a glass jaw, you will always be found out at the top level. It's as simple as that. Has Smith got us there yet? No. Will he be the one to change that for us? Even though we are appearing to be improving, I think it is totally fair to not feel that way, I remain far from convinced, I just think the measure of the task has generally been underestimated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I never asked you to change your view. I just put forward mine.

I had not realised that Webber and the club were synonymous, although as I don’t think this about either it’s rather moot. It does explain where you’re at though.

It’s fine, I’ve no interest in hearing more sermons.

You have challenged the view I take though, and that equates to changing it. You put forward an alternative view that seeks to slice the timeline and ignore earlier parts of it, and is confused in the nature of the timeline it wants to be. That's fine, as you incorrectly quoted me, I like to take in all the information available, not select pieces of it.

Sometimes alternatives to those given have more evidence, that is generally when good journalism throws them up, as is the case with politics frequently at the moment. From sources within and without with access to information. When very little or next to none of this is available, you can hold a view, but it stands on precarious ground without firm footing. "Might" is never a good argument. Sorry.

You are the one who likens Webber as being the club by referring to interviews, PR and spin... all of which will be part and parcel of the club, not just Webber. Webber wouldn't be alone in the choice to sack Farke, that would have been done in the knowledge of the board, as will be player trading.

"Sermons" - at this point, that in itself is dripping with hypocrisy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chicken said:

You have challenged the view I take though, and that equates to changing it. You put forward an alternative view that seeks to slice the timeline and ignore earlier parts of it, and is confused in the nature of the timeline it wants to be. That's fine, as you incorrectly quoted me, I like to take in all the information available, not select pieces of it.

Sometimes alternatives to those given have more evidence, that is generally when good journalism throws them up, as is the case with politics frequently at the moment. From sources within and without with access to information. When very little or next to none of this is available, you can hold a view, but it stands on precarious ground without firm footing. "Might" is never a good argument. Sorry.

You are the one who likens Webber as being the club by referring to interviews, PR and spin... all of which will be part and parcel of the club, not just Webber. Webber wouldn't be alone in the choice to sack Farke, that would have been done in the knowledge of the board, as will be player trading.

"Sermons" - at this point, that in itself is dripping with hypocrisy. 

You are kidding with this bit right?

If you view every alternative viewpoint as a challenge and attempt to change yours no wonder you’re so aggressively combative.

I’ve never known a poster who twists things up in knots so much desperately trying to be ‘right’ about something subjective. Good luck to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

The real weapon was the Emi / Teemu combo. It seems neither have hit the same heights since. It was a weapon that fell into place rather than planned. I don't think either was bought with the other in mind. But that's often the way in football. That's why the future is of hopes and dreams as much as plans and the past.

A big part of the state of the nation is Colney and the Academy and making sure that pathways are made to the first team. That was the first priority of this board even though originally funded by fans. I wouldn't have stumped up to pay players wages even if those players were Emi and Teemu. But Norwich fans have always supported the academy ever since the events of the mid- nineties. Let's not forget that Ray's Funds was originally Rays Funds for FONCY and we took pride whenever one of our own made the first team. For me playing a small part of the FONCY story was a bit of a dream come true. When premier league riches brought the prospect of Cat One Academy our contributions would make little difference so now we take even more pride in our wonderful DS and pan-disability football teams. However that connection we feel with the club and the youngsters of that time will always be there. Now as well as our own youngsters we buy in young players from other clubs and try to make them better. But that' won't work if there's no pathway to the first team.  I remember a post on here from 2018 stating that having sold Maddison and Murphy there was just Lewis left with any value. Within a couple of months Aarons, Godfrey and Cantwell had found their paths. Mistakes are always made when buying players but we mustn't compound those mistakes by having them here blocking the pathways for our youngsters. Calls to sign a journeyman fourth choice centreback would certainly have stopped Tomkinson's games this season. Keeping Rashica and Plachetta would have blocked Rowe and Springett. Of course you have to have a manager who's prepared to use those pathways and it seems Smith is carrying on where Farke left off in that regard. So although I haven't really taken to Smith I do recognise and appreciate that continuation.

As for Sarge he is still very young for the type of player he is. He played 50 Bundesliga games before he was 21. He's still young and still one who can improve further and become that weapon for us. I've always liked him and made no secret of that.

So as well as Sarge (and we still have Pukki) other reasons to be cheerful include Gunn, Aarons, Omobamidele, Tompkinson. McCallum, Gibbs, Cantwell, Idah, Rowe and Springett. Also Saxon Early and Bali Mumba appear to be having good loans and if that's not enough a young Welsh centre forward called Roberts signed a pro contract last month.

335231522_Screenshot(99).png.73f1b4c1c11fe01f1f9dd1c46f781834.png

And this is why we are all still here and not supporting Man City, Liverpool or anyone else.  Club politics and  the rest aside, a lovely post and an apt reminder.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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

×
×
  • Create New...