Nigel's biggest failing

[Tumbleweed 106]

OK, perhaps a post in parallel to the debate on where it went wrong, but I will record my thoughts on what I regard as the biggest problem he has and perhaps the most significant resaon on why I am a "WO".

My view is that Nigel is a gambler. I think he has a short term attitude and the problem is that he makes rash decisions which take too long to get turned around.

He has brought in and changed the team too much. It worked in the Championship season because he bought/loaned in well and got that elusive mixture of flair and doggedness which served a one season purpose against all expectations. Harper/Leon/Hux/Sven/Cooper/Crouch to name a few arrived that year for shorter or longer periods. An inspirational group.

Then he thought he could do it again. Out go the stalwarts of Eddy/Captain Braveheart and legend Iwan. He tore the squad asunder and started afresh. Helveg/Jonsson/Bentley/Safri/Ashton/Doherty within short order. He had ripped out the guts from the team and placed it in the hands of a host of new faces. Panic? Probably. Many of those have come.....and gone.

This season: Hughes/Etuhu/Davenport/Rehman/Colin/Louis Jean/Robinson/Earnshaw/Marney. For goodness sake- how on earth are we supposed to start with a new team every year??? Lightning does NOT strike twice.

I don''t think Nigel builds for the future. He seems to have contempt for the youngsters. Why not blood them all against Wolves in that last game of the season? Nothing riding on it and an chance to give them some experience. McLaren has many doubters as England manager but at least he had the guts to field his youngsters in meaningless matches.

Nigel says we need stability. Yet that is the ONE thing he refuses to deliver. New face after new face. We don''t need them. We need a settled side with a leader, structure, organisation and good solid coaching. Nigel doesn''t work that way and that is why he will not be a top class manager until he changes his approach.

I fear the public statements that we need to bring in more players. Actually we need very few changes. I would like the funds spent on better coaching instead.

Reasoned responses welcomed. One line attacks on my spelling or grammar are not.

[Saint Canary 0]

I would agree that his focus appears to be on the current season and not the future and he appears to only be interested in the now.  Whether or not the youngsters are good enough I don''t know but we must stop signing all the short-term loans.  They drain money from the club for players we are not getting enough use of.  If we are going to loan a player it has to be someone who will improve the team not just add numbers to the squad, you may as well use the young players as squad fillers. 

The problem with loans, as we have seen in the past is that if a loan player comes and does well (Crouch, Davenport) but does not want to sign for us or we cannot afford them, you immediately have to start looking for a replacement.  Worthington did very, very well with the Svensson signing but we were lucky that a player like him was available for £50k.

I do think that we need more players in though.  For two seasons in a row we have suffered with injuries and with a small squad like ours you are just asking for trouble.  We need more players at an age that we can get 5 or 6 seasons out of them.  There is no point being promoted again having a squad with aging players who can''t make the step up and we need to replace them all. 

As Worthington appears to be staying he needs to be looking to build a team/squad that can stay together and improve together over 5 season''s.  A bit like Arsenal or Spurs but on a lesser scale.

 

[Yellow Rider 0]

Agree with Tumbleweed''s points + most of Saints.

I''m unconvinced about the ''small squad'' argument though, I think the shortfall is more in terms of quality rather than quantity. Worthy will try and make you believe that he has had to ''make do with a small squad'' but surely reality tells a different story. Bearing in mind the so called ''horrific'' injury list we had (alledgedly) last season why was it then that not one single youngster HAD to start a game because of injuries? The only possible exception to this might have been Rossi Jarvis starting at fullback at Plymouth?

Admittedly, now we have lost Charlie and JB, we will need cover in defence but, again, it is QUALITY that must be paramount.

This leads me to my answer to Tumbleweed''s original question. I think it is more fundamental than either he or Saint have mentioned. In brief, Worthy''s main shortcoming is that he accepts a standard of MEDICORITY. Quality of play, chances created, attempts on goal etc. all play a decidedly second fiddle to the great God ''WORK RATE''! I honestly don''t think that Worthy realises this as an issue, his obsession with work rate and effort is only likely to enhance next season if his final coments about .......''there''s little football played in this league'' are to be taken at face value. Did Reading run away with the league because they were physically fitter, stronger and worked harder than all the other teams? Er, No! Ultimately, quality will almost always win through e.g. Seville against Boro last week as a good example. Even more so over the course of a 46 match campaign!     

Unless Worthy has a major shift in his priorities and emphasis, you can recruit another dozen players to the squad but it will make zero difference if the constant chopping and changing of players, poor tactical set up, man-management problems and ''work'' obsession remain. 

    

[EadiesRight Foot 0]

Well said Yellow Rider.

Without the procurement of several quality players, then we arent going to move forward as a club. We are going to stagnate. Coupled with the other things you mentioned (inept tactics, personality clashes, and this fixation on "work rate" and "commitment"), we need some good players coming into our club, and to get rid of the usual suspects who have clogged up our team.

But as long as Worthy remains, I cant really see this change happening, just more headless chickens, has beens, and hand clappers coming in here.

[Yellow Rider 0]

Here''s me banging on about QUALITY only to find I can''t even spell, what a donkey!

The word should, of course, have read ''MEDIOCRITY'' - I think that''s it anyway, sorry!

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Great post Tumblewood being both elegantly written and bringing a new perspective to the ongoing debate.

Worthy''s whole managerial career at Norwich reflects an impatient man in a hurry always looking for quick fixes to immediate problems.  Get a new player in, move someone out of position, chop and change players etc.  His personal irrascibility is consistent with this and reflects an impatient nature.

So many of the issues that concern fans about the last two seasons reflect players not given time to settle, teams and tactics changed constantly and without rhyme or reason, the captain''s armband passed around and a sort it out today and leave tomorrow to look after itself attitude.  Examples include playing Charlie in midfield rather than bringing on Rossi and accepting that he would stumble at times, not giving Helveg time to settle in and not selecting McVeigh because he is unpredictable.  There are scores of other examples.  Perhaps sometimes he was right.  I know Helveg is a genuinely controversial issue.  It always seems to be management by knee jerk though!!

Since promotion, there has not been any apparent plan beyond the next game.  Does anyone know Worthy''s favoured team or even his favoured tactics???   Thought not.   This may be the reality of the modern game but the Board constantly reiterate that they have a long view to make this club another Charlton.

That is something I agree with but the flaw in that plan is brought home by Tumble''s post.  Long term development requires a Curbishley, Gradi or even an Allardyce to see it through.  Someone who has a long term vision and is prepared to stick to the plan through highs and lows.  Mr Impatient is actually not the man for the long game on temprament never mind ability. We are not going to build any lasting foundations with Worthy.  How many players have lasted more than three seasons with him????

God, I feel down now!!!!

[Syteanric 1]

Thats one of the best posts seen on here in a long time Tumbleweed!

Just to add, i feel Worthington has a plan for each season, but changes it vastly. Rather than saying "this is what i want in 2-3 seasons" he says "this is what i want in May" and if it goes wrong he wont stick to the plan... but rather make wholesale changes and begin again. Sometimes its better to stick to the plan and see what happens.

jas :)

[Tumbleweed 106]

Thanks for the feedback chaps (or chappesses!). I would be very interested in hearing whether anybody feels that Worthy DOES have a long term plan. He has been here as manager for 5.5 years yet I still feel that none exists, unlike the Board who do appear to have  long term strategy.

On the field we are capable of turning up with a 4-4-2 then we lurch to 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 and sometimes we appear to have had a 4-4-1-1. Often a formation is tried, fails while the palyers get used to it and then is abandoned.

With respect to quality I feel that in the likes of Drury, McVeigh, Huckerby, Safri and Earnie we have a good quality core. Shacks and Doc are both good championship standard players. However we consistently fail to get the best out of what we have, the good becomes mediocre and the mediocre becomes poor. Even Crewe looked like a more fluid team than us with innate understanding and good organisation. That''s why to me coaching is the urgent priority.

[Ricko 0]

At last some thoughtful discussion rather than just pointless speculation or casual insults. It seems to me one of the questions that arises is can a club in Norwich''s position actually have a long-term strategy. Having got to the Prem, the number one priority was survival, i.e. a short-term goal, and only having achieved that target would it have been possible to think in a slighter longer time-frame. This season the pressure has been to make an immediate return to the Prem, again a short-term goal. When you add in the fact that money is the fundamental driving force in the modern game, that most clubs are teetering on the edge of financial ruin, and that you can no longer guarantee someone''s loyalty even within the terms of their existing contract, then developing a strategy becomes vastly complicated. Having said that, we do have elements of a strategy in terms of a youth set-up and what has been done with respect to ground development (the more positive elements) but these longer-term aspects are constantly undermined by supporters'' expectations which have been vastly inflated over the past 5 seasons and constraints on spending in order to ensure the club''s survival. I accept that good coaching is essential at all levels of the club but if you look at Crewe - OK they always try to play football attractively but they were still relegated so there was something missing somewhere - perhaps a sense of self-belief that they do actually belong in the Championship. For all of our supposedly poor footbal we still finished 9th so even if some of our football was ropey we had other qualities that at least partially compensated. The key question is how to instill good footballing habits while retaining the more positive aspects of our current play.

[Mook 0]

I honestly think that our quality up front - Hucks, Earnshaw, Ashton, McKenzie to a certain extent, and McVeigh -  is the reason we finished 9th. This in itself says something good about Nigel Worthington.

He really can pick a good striker. With very few exceptions (Lisbie and possibly Abbey) he has bought / loaned quality up front. Unfortunately, this only masks the situation, and cures a symptom rather than the root cause of the problem.

We are scoring goals despite very poor build-up play.

I don''t think it is "attractive football" per se that we are all hoping for. It is EFFECTIVE football, maximising your strengths and working on your weaknesses. When Nigel first took over he instilled organisation and shape into a team that had zero solidity.

If he could see then that with "weaker" players (Easton, Rivers, Nielsen, Sutch etc) that we could get results by playing to our strengths, why can''t he see that now?

[David4567 0]

I''ve only just read this post as after reading the title I thought it was one of those posts full of insults aimed at Worthy and anyone who has something positive to say about him, but it''s not so i applaud you tumbleweed.

I just want to add one point that I dont believe has been mentioned.

When we have a bad game certain sections of the crowd will get on Worthys back and start booing their own players (Andy Hughes against QPR being a prime example) the question I put forward did Worthy bring Hughes off for tactical reasons or because he felt he just had no choice but to take Hughes off. I look at comments made by Jarret and Charlton recently saying they were always the fall guy, but how much was that down to the pressure the fans put on Worthy to make a change. I know this is no excuse for Worthy and I''m not trying to defend his sometimes strange decisions.

I''m sure many people wont agree with this view but i''m just interested in what other people think.

[Syteanric 1]

who thinks Worthy is going for the "score more goals than u concede" attitude?

with the quality we have up front and the weaker midfield and Defence it seems as though this is a scary reality.

 

6-5 anyone?

jas :)

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

who thinks Worthy is going for the "score more goals than u concede" attitude?

with the quality we have up front and the weaker midfield and Defence it seems as though this is a scary reality.

 

6-5 anyone?

jas :)

[/quote] I said at the time that the attempt to sign Clinton Morrison looked like an attempt to blast our way to promotion on the basis of winning games just by scoring more than the opposition (Yes I know that is what the game is about but you know what I mean.  It is what Keegan tried at Newcastle.  Attack and leave the defence to look after itself on the basis that how ever many the other team score, we''ll score more).

Whether that is still his plan is another matter.  It is hard to reconcile any of his subsequent transfers with that plan.  Even the purchase of Earnie was to replace Ashton rather than boost the firepower further.

[Ottawa Canary 2]

[quote user="Tumbleweed"]

Thanks for the feedback chaps (or

chappesses!). I would be very interested in hearing whether anybody

feels that Worthy DOES have a long term plan. He has been here as

manager for 5.5 years yet I still feel that none exists, unlike the

Board who do appear to have  long term strategy.

On the field we are capable of turning up with a 4-4-2 then we lurch

to 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 and sometimes we appear to have had a 4-4-1-1. Often

a formation is tried, fails while the palyers get used to it and then

is abandoned.

With respect to quality I feel that in the likes of Drury, McVeigh,

Huckerby, Safri and Earnie we have a good quality core. Shacks and Doc

are both good championship standard players. However we consistently

fail to get the best out of what we have, the good becomes mediocre and

the mediocre becomes poor. Even Crewe looked like a more fluid team

than us with innate understanding and good organisation. That''s why to

me coaching is the urgent priority.

[/quote]

This second half of this season looked like an example of the

principal-agent problem that is present in all firms/governments etc

due to differences in information. Here an agent (the manager) performs

actions on behalf of the principal (in general shareholders and in our

case supporters as well) and (in theory) has better information (player

form/fitness etc) than the principal. The problem occurs because the

objectives facing the two parties may differ. In the second half of the

season the supporters, recognizing that promotion is not going to

happen would like to see the club build for the future by playing

youngsters etc. However the agent (Worthy) has second objective - he

wants to keep his job. He may well recognize that promotion is not

going to happen this year, however he may believe (rightly or wrongly)

that by finishing just below the playoff places he is more likely to

keep his job that if he were play some youngsters,  lose more

games and finish say 15th (the position from which Royle lost his).

Therefore, given he faces this second incentive he makes decisions that

are not in the best interest of the principal (supporters). For

example, he plays a 34 year old defender about to be released from the

club in midfield instead of a promising youngster. The only reason that

seems to explain this and many of Worthy''s decisions for this season is

that he was panicking and trying to keep his job..

Of course there is also the possibility that he is just totally inept.

[beelsie 0]

Many points on here make sense, but one continual remark gets under my skin more than any.  It is the constant undermining of the request for work rate.  IMHO quality is a measure of the ability of the player/person/ technician.  If that participant does not put in the work necessary to outsmart/ outplay/out skill/outrun/or whatever then winning is not possible.  Last night watching Arsenal in France both teams were awash with skill and it was people applying their craft by outrunning/out-passing and generally trying to overcome the opposition with their work-rate and positive desire to win.  Skill yes!!! but with application at a rate that overcomes your opponent in whatever way possible, long ball, short-ball, outmuscling especially in the opponents half and in their 18 yard area where speed and good movement produce panic, and panic can lead to goals, you only have to look at our defence when they seem to have no clue what move to make when forced into stumbling over one another''s feet. Last nights game was played with great skill and most of all with great effort in it''s implementation. 

 A clever player with his hands on his hips waiting for inspiration will loose far more games than he wins. 

[Mook 0]

Good point, Ottowa. He could have been attempting to keep his job, but then surely it looks more promising to his employers that they will have to spend less money on wages (and no money on transfer fees) if one of our promising youngsters turns out to be a great player. So I think that theory is a little unrealistic.

I think that he views football in a very simple way, and in it''s own way, this is a great mentality to have. It is, after all, a fairly simple game and those that try to over-complicate matters with crazy formations, and bizzare movement scenarios, tend to be unsuccessful.

Nigel was a defender, and a very good one at that. He has bought great defenders in too, with the notable exception of Jurgen Colin, who appears not to have been scouted at all. Doherty, Drury, Charlton, Edworthy (a masterstroke) and Helveg are all great players - and with Fleming and Mackay have been great for the club.

As I mentioned previously, our strikers have pretty much always been very good, too. So why are we so poor?

In my opinion it''s fairly simple. Wingers. We''ve never had any. Ever.

And they make goals happen, they help the fullbacks defend, they give the central midfield an "out" ball, they get on the scoresheet, they take the dead-balls and they excite the crowd.

Hughes is not great, but he''s easily as gifted as Holt. Holt was never played right wing, so why Hughes now?

When we had Mullers and Holt in midfield, we had possibly the closest thing to wingers we''ve ever had in Easton and Rivers. This helped the pattern of play, and allowed us to mix up possession instead of hoofing the ball to the striker in the vain hope that someone will fall over and we''ll score.

In my opinion a right and a left winger would make this team into a promotion team.

[First Wizard 0]

Nigels biggest failing?, not listening to my wise advice to resign and sod off!.

[Ottawa Canary 2]

[quote user="Mook"]

Good point, Ottowa. He could have been attempting

to keep his job, but then surely it looks more promising to his

employers that they will have to spend less money on wages (and no

money on transfer fees) if one of our promising youngsters turns out to

be a great player. So I think that theory is a little unrealistic.

[/quote]

Hi Mook - Maybe, but the cost savings are essentially equivalent to the

building for the future argument. The point is that the manager makes

decisions taking an additional factor into account, the need to keep

his job. This means that he might make decisions that are not

necessarily in the club''s best interests. However, my guess is that his

limited ability is probably the dominant factor.

[Tumbleweed 106]

Sure Mook, wingers (or lack thereof) contribute to the problem, but Huckerby has been very successful as our only real weapon over the past three years and he has played more or less as an out and out winger. We have struggled to match him on the right with Bentley, Jonsson, Marney, Henderson and now Hughes in recent seasons and none of those have really worked (although Marney looked useful until he got injured). The last time we had true balance was when Cooper arrived for 10 games or so and provided excellent service from the right and Harper both in the Championship season- perhaps that illustrates your point in that when we did have quality out there we did very well. But the days of the like sof Disco Dale and Ruel Fox are long gone.

However right now I would shudder to think what would happen in the centre if we did have a genuine right winger. I have not seen us truly dominate a midfield for a long time. Only in a few sections of matches in the last few years have we "bossed" the park. All the successful teams have a pivotal figure in the centre making them tick and we have lacked that instead opting for mediocity and as a result there is a big no man''s land for us in the middle meaning (i) our defenders get too pressured by men running from deep (ii) too little support for the strikers down the middle (the exception being when damien was here and could be bothered) and (iii) our only outlets are to the left (where Hux often gets man marked) or the right (where we haven''t had anybody comfortable in that position). Its no wonder we struggle!

I suppose by now that anyone who knows what Nigels 5 year plan is would have posted so I take it there is none and we will lurch around with a succession of under-utilised loanees, average quality signings and increasingly de motivated "stars".

If the reports about Brain Kidd are right we should push the boat out and spend the money on him instead, we would get a first rate coach (by all reports) and an obvious successor for when Nigel finally takes Wizard''s advice

[Mook 0]

And this post was going so well.

[Mook 0]

Ottowa, see your point there dude, possibilities of losing ones job can do strange things to ones judgement.

Tumbleweed, it''s not just the wingers that are affected by having wingers ... if you see what I mean. Fullbacks can overlap when they have someone to overlap, but Hucks WON''T let Drury overlap. He just stands there when Drury makes a run, pointing to his feet. "Gimme the ball, let me run" is all he''s thinking. With proper wingers we could get the interplay going, and it gives us more attacking options.

Holt and Mulryne were hardly goal-machines, Holt wasn''t exactly Ian Crook and all Mulryne did was receive the ball, have a look around and then pass it to the fullback. BUT it didn''t stop us from playing attractive and effective football. It''s to do with options.

We had Kenton/Steeno bombing past on one flank, Drury and Easton interchanging on the left, Plus McVeigh dropping deep and a long ball option to Roberts.

Now we just have Hucks.

I actually feel a damn sight more positive after this debate, because I have realised that we DO have quality in our squad - quality forwards and quality defenders. I don''t think the centre-midfield are letting us down, nor do I subscribe to the view that they are worse than others we''ve had in the past. I just feel with two proper, well drilled and hard-working wingers our game will be unlocked. And I even think McVeigh could do that job on one flank.

This also means that Hucks needs to get back up "front" ie running the channels like Eto''o, Henry etc and causing havoc. But I would say that, because I never wanted him moved to the wing.

[South Norfolk Old Boy 0]

Good points, well made. This is the sort of debate for which this board should be used.

An interesting question to ask would be how many games since Worthington arrived have been won because we have been physicallyu stronger than the opposition or our workrate has been better. Does he seriously believe that the other team sits in their dressing room swigging beer and smoking fags before a game?

If he is to be belived and we find ourselves in a league where all the teams are big, l stong and run about like a Headless Hughes then surely the team that does something different is the one that will ultimately triumph.

[lucky green trainers 0]

the quality players we released after our prem downfall were never properly replaced.worthy also placed too much faith in an aging fleming early last season and especially in the prem.  we''ve also had loan signings coming out of our ears this last season, but in our prem season, it was abundantly clear our central defence was not up to the task - yet no one was drafted in.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Mook"]

Ottowa, see your point there dude, possibilities of losing ones job can do strange things to ones judgement.

Tumbleweed, it''s not just the wingers that are affected by having wingers ... if you see what I mean. Fullbacks can overlap when they have someone to overlap, but Hucks WON''T let Drury overlap. He just stands there when Drury makes a run, pointing to his feet. "Gimme the ball, let me run" is all he''s thinking. With proper wingers we could get the interplay going, and it gives us more attacking options.

Holt and Mulryne were hardly goal-machines, Holt wasn''t exactly Ian Crook and all Mulryne did was receive the ball, have a look around and then pass it to the fullback. BUT it didn''t stop us from playing attractive and effective football. It''s to do with options.

We had Kenton/Steeno bombing past on one flank, Drury and Easton interchanging on the left, Plus McVeigh dropping deep and a long ball option to Roberts.

Now we just have Hucks.

I actually feel a damn sight more positive after this debate, because I have realised that we DO have quality in our squad - quality forwards and quality defenders. I don''t think the centre-midfield are letting us down, nor do I subscribe to the view that they are worse than others we''ve had in the past. I just feel with two proper, well drilled and hard-working wingers our game will be unlocked. And I even think McVeigh could do that job on one flank.

This also means that Hucks needs to get back up "front" ie running the channels like Eto''o, Henry etc and causing havoc. But I would say that, because I never wanted him moved to the wing.

[/quote]

Good points Mook, great post.

Entirely agree about Hux.  He needs to be back up front and drifting out wide, not be there all game.  He could cause so many more problems to the opposition.  Drifting out wide presents the problem of who goes with him?  Does the centre back go and leave a whole, or does the full back deal with him and risk being in a two on one with Hux and our left midfielder.  That left midfielder could easily be McVeigh, he played some of his best football there a couple of seasons back, he was working hard and being creative.  In essence though what we really need is attacking options that do not rely on Huckerby, pushing him back up front would help that.

I think some of us have said all season that we need a proper right midfielder and I know I and Zippersleftfoot have said we need a proper left winger too.  Hux is not the right man for that job, he causes more problems than he solves playing there and you only have to see how badly Drury''s form has suffered since Hux has been playing in front of him.  He was the best left back in this league but he doesn''t look like it anymore.

I have felt for a long time that Hughes is no worse than Holt, he is pretty much the same player.  The only difference is Holt (as you say) always had an out ball that didn''t involve him punting up field.   I really believe we do not have buy a Koumas style player to get promoted next year but we will need more quality in the centre if we do.  All our midfield pairing in the centre need to do is keep it simple and if Worthy plays Safri with Etuhu there will be a good balance of defensive and attacking options in that area.  I really hope we see a couple of young wingers join City in the summer because we have just looked so disjointed in that area all season.

We do have quality in our team, what other sides in this division would not want Earnshaw, Huckerby or Safri?  Worthington needs to get the best out of them next season because in the case of Huckerby, his talents have been wasted on the left all year.

 

[Mook 0]

Thanks Saint, and I''m glad it''s not just me that think Hucks on the left causes more problems than it solves.

I have heard a lot of pundits talk about the "balance" of a team, and we have had no balance since Worthington started buying a new striker every month. We then have to fit them in to the shape, other players suffer as a result (McVeigh) and it does nobody any good at all.

This is where Nigel''s short-sightedness winds me up. Yes, we gain a striker, and usually a good one at that. BUT we lose shape, other players lose morale (McVeigh, Jarvis, Hendo, Crow, McKenzie, Svensson) and it''s problems galore.

Two players. It''s all we need, I''m sure. You say which other teams would not want Earnie, Hucks or Safri but what about Drury, Doherty, McVeigh, Green, Shackell and McKenzie? We have a good squad but we are totally bereft of shape, organisation and balance.

This is why I don''t subscribe the the witch-hunt Worthy-Out rubbish, even though he is making a rod for his own back. I just feel that with some good coaching we could be a good team again, and start playing some football.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Mook"]

Thanks Saint, and I''m glad it''s not just me that think Hucks on the left causes more problems than it solves.

I have heard a lot of pundits talk about the "balance" of a team, and we have had no balance since Worthington started buying a new striker every month. We then have to fit them in to the shape, other players suffer as a result (McVeigh) and it does nobody any good at all.

This is where Nigel''s short-sightedness winds me up. Yes, we gain a striker, and usually a good one at that. BUT we lose shape, other players lose morale (McVeigh, Jarvis, Hendo, Crow, McKenzie, Svensson) and it''s problems galore.

Two players. It''s all we need, I''m sure. You say which other teams would not want Earnie, Hucks or Safri but what about Drury, Doherty, McVeigh, Green, Shackell and McKenzie? We have a good squad but we are totally bereft of shape, organisation and balance.

This is why I don''t subscribe the the witch-hunt Worthy-Out rubbish, even though he is making a rod for his own back. I just feel that with some good coaching we could be a good team again, and start playing some football.

[/quote]

I totally agree Mook, Hucks up front would link up well with Mcveigh whom can also cut inside or pull take the ball to the byline, And it gives the solidity of a true 4 man midfield.  Its a shame Earnshaw doesnt come across as the ideal partner for hucks.... 

 The job Holty did covering hucks in the title winning season was magnificent when we played more of a 4-3-3, but while crouch was here we played much more like a standard 4-4-2 with Mcveigh and Harper on the wings.

In the end however I feel the real problem lies in a lack of quality in central midfield (Safri apart) and oin Right Wing, A threat from teh right would free up even hucks on the left wing from his double marking.

[Saint Canary 0]

I don''t think we need too much either Mook.  If you consider how poor we have been this season, yet we were still in contention for a play-off place at times.  In fairness we never really made a firm challenge for 6th but we were still always in with a chance despite not winning at all in January.  Problem was that every time we had a chance we blew it, a great December followed by a awful January summed up our whole season.  A couple of wins, followed by a few defeats, it was almost a cycle.  So many false dawns, so many corners turned, so many second chances - not taken.  If Worthy had got the balance of midfield right this year it could have been very different.  A balanced side with good will have more success than a side with some excellent players playing out of position. 

Another point I would like to make is that Worthy needs to be more careful when signing players.  Whether it''s listening more or less to his scouts or just talking to players more before he signs them but he needs to be careful.  The signing of Jarrett is little more than a joke to me and it can''t happen again this summer, why was he signed?  Same with Thorne and Colin, surely if you feel they are good enough to sign for City in the first place, you have to give them a chance to show what they can do and not drop them after a couple of bad games?  If after a couple of games you know for certain they are not good enough then you should have been able to ascertain that by having them watched for their previous clubs in the first place.  In that case they should never have been signed. 

 

[Saint Canary 0]

Just to add that this is one the best threads on this forum for while.  Well done Tumbleweed and those who have joined in!

[ron obvious 1,502]

Totally agree that this is one of the best threads I''ve seen on this forum for a while. The lack of these is why I''ve given up posting (or even reading, most days).

As has been said before, nearly all the normal, i.e. rational, good-humoured people, have been driven off

Oh Vicar, Where Ar''t Thou?

Also totally agree about the Hux problem; but can he play with Earnie? It''s possible, but will need some bloody good coaching from Nigel & co. to get the WHOLE TEAM to play to their strengths.

Next season could still be very interesting

[Mook 0]

CJF, I''m sure Hughes can do Holt''s job. I''m not sure Safri can, but then he can hopefully unlock a game with his passing. I certainly feel that the players we have now are better than those we have had previously BUT we all know it''s not Championship Manager - you can''t just buy players and then automatically be better.

I know with Hucks and Earnshaw up front we certainly won''t have the "big target man" that all teams are supposed to have. But correct me if I''m wrong - did Reading have one? Can''t remember off hand. And the movement, pace, skill and dribbling ability of that partnership would be impossible for any team in our league to handle.

Nigel has a lot to prove to me, scouting, motivation and certainly coaching BUT the coaching side will hopefully be revamped soon. The scouting situation terrifies me - why Jarrett? Why Heckingbottom? Why Briggs? Why Colin? But we could have got away with that if we had have had less injuries and some dedicated right and left mids. Motivation I think will come when we start to play well again.

But if the squad balance isn''t redressed shortly then I will be hugely disappointed.