Alex Moss 2,165 Posted October 31, 2006 1st Wizard and GazzaTCC....Agreed, these are my points entirely. I agree Worthy was too soft, and believe that players should have a kick up the backside (of course), but there''s ways and means to do this. And some of what PG has said is likely to upset some of the players rather than motivate them. We''re a bit thin on the ground for players, and the BEST ones DO perform (Hucks, Earnie)....Let''s not unsettle THEM so much that they review there thoughts on signing a new contract, because then we really will be in the ''epileptic fit''. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidCanary 0 Posted October 31, 2006 [quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Tumbleweed"]komakino and Kidcanary''s words resonate with me.Grant has a different approach- it looks tougher and I don''t believe he has actually singled out any one player- unlike Worthy who in his most famous rant blamed Huckerby for passing the ball around at 2-0 up. Grant has inherited an underachieving, low on confident, thin on depth squad in a dire state and has already achieved more than Worthy by winning at Brum and at home to the (near) runaway legaue leaders. He needs time to work out what to do with what he has got and what he has got is getting thinner by the day.None of this is his fault. So far he has won 2 and lost one in the league- that''s not a bad start from the state that Worthy left us in.Remember we lost 4-1 to Burnley and that was with our best two players let alone without them.We all know this is going to be a tough job. We all knew that our confidence in Worthy in turning it around had gone. So one bad defeat is no excuse for the kind of reactionary and hysterical rivel being written in some places.Smell the coffee folks- the squad is shot to pieces right now and one new man cannot undo 18 months of neglect with no transfer window. What are you expecting- flocks of pigs to start flying over the Cathedral spire?[/quote]After the plain daft formation picked at the weekend it is no surprise us fans are unhappy with Grants comments blaming the when it is obvious to all and sundry that it was the formation and players badly out of position that was the basis of the problem. When most city fans are probably extremely disappointed with the starting line-up you know there is going to be a problem.However Granty hasn''t been here long and hopefully learns from this.[/quote]I dont agree with people complaining about the formation at the weekend, I didnt see anyone in such a foreign position they couldnt cope with after a couple of days practice in training, aside maybe from Andy Hughes on the left.It was a formation designed to get in the faces of Stoke and make best use of the players that were available, it didnt work because the players didnt perform., end of story.If the players we have are not bright enought to be able to deal with a slight change of formation like some of you are stating, then we shouldnt be employing them as we will never have a plan b. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chunky Norwich 0 Posted October 31, 2006 I don''t really post on here that often because of the amount of (what used to be!) immediate attacks so I feel it may be hypocritical to do the same. However I can''t help but notice that whilst First Wiz spends a long rant about how useless Peter Grant is, his ''sign-off'' sentence (is that a ''signature''? I''m so computer illiterate!) is ''Peter Grant and Norwich City - A match made in heaven''. I''m not one to question your logic or say that you''re wrong for thinking one thing or the other, but can you explain why you have two contrasting points of view in one post? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted October 31, 2006 [quote user="KidCanary"]I dont agree with people complaining about the formation at the weekend, I didnt see anyone in such a foreign position they couldnt cope with after a couple of days practice in training, aside maybe from Andy Hughes on the left.It was a formation designed to get in the faces of Stoke and make best use of the players that were available, it didnt work because the players didnt perform., end of story.If the players we have are not bright enought to be able to deal with a slight change of formation like some of you are stating, then we shouldnt be employing them as we will never have a plan b.[/quote]Doherty in midfield - laughable, he may be able to defend and head theball but he cannot play football... And yes our players are not world beaters... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted October 31, 2006 [quote user="KidCanary"]I dont agree with people complaining about the formation at the weekend, I didnt see anyone in such a foreign position they couldnt cope with after a couple of days practice in training, aside maybe from Andy Hughes on the left.It was a formation designed to get in the faces of Stoke and make best use of the players that were available, it didnt work because the players didnt perform., end of story.If the players we have are not bright enought to be able to deal with a slight change of formation like some of you are stating, then we shouldnt be employing them as we will never have a plan b.[/quote]Doherty in midfield - laughable, he may be able to defend and head theball but he cannot play football... And yes our players are not world beaters... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jerzy Krukowski 5 Posted October 31, 2006 [quote user="Forbes17"]I don''t really post on here that often becauseof the amount of (what used to be!) immediate attacks so I feel it maybe hypocritical to do the same. However I can''t help but notice thatwhilst First Wiz spends a long rant about how useless PeterGrant is, his ''sign-off'' sentence (is that a ''signature''? I''m socomputer illiterate!) is ''Peter Grant and Norwich City - A match madein heaven''. I''m not one to question your logic or say that you''re wrongfor thinking one thing or the other, but can you explain why you havetwo contrasting points of view in one post?[/quote]don''t waste your time wondering about poor old Wiz, he''s never beenoverly concerned with matters of logic or consistency. Just take him atface value ;-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidCanary 0 Posted October 31, 2006 [quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="KidCanary"]I dont agree with people complaining about the formation at the weekend, I didnt see anyone in such a foreign position they couldnt cope with after a couple of days practice in training, aside maybe from Andy Hughes on the left.It was a formation designed to get in the faces of Stoke and make best use of the players that were available, it didnt work because the players didnt perform., end of story.If the players we have are not bright enought to be able to deal with a slight change of formation like some of you are stating, then we shouldnt be employing them as we will never have a plan b.[/quote]Doherty in midfield - laughable, he may be able to defend and head theball but he cannot play football... And yes our players are not world beaters...[/quote]I disagree, he should have been able to cope with that, it was only 10 yards further forward. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted October 31, 2006 [quote user="Forbes17"]I don''t really post on here that often because of the amount of (what used to be!) immediate attacks so I feel it may be hypocritical to do the same. However I can''t help but notice that whilst First Wiz spends a long rant about how useless Peter Grant is, his ''sign-off'' sentence (is that a ''signature''? I''m so computer illiterate!) is ''Peter Grant and Norwich City - A match made in heaven''. I''m not one to question your logic or say that you''re wrong for thinking one thing or the other, but can you explain why you have two contrasting points of view in one post?[/quote]Because I couldn''t be bothered to change it to ''hell'' Forbes, but I will now!. Thanks for pointing it out mate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chunky Norwich 0 Posted October 31, 2006 Ha ha! Thanks for taking it with the light-heartedness with which it was meant! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted October 31, 2006 [quote user="KidCanary"]I disagree, he should have been able to cope with that, it was only 10 yards further forward.[/quote]and Colin plays 10 yards to the right of him, Gallacher plays 10 yards behind him and I wouldnt want him playing there either.... Fact is I wouldnt want Safri in center half and I wouldnt want Doherty starting in midfield with the additional ''footballing'' responsibilities that entails.I give granty the benefit, perhaps as worthy says, players like hughes, the doc and co look good in training. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arrdee 2 Posted October 31, 2006 Don''t worry about dear old wiz , as he has said on here " ray ducker has me sussed" on many occasions , he is a lovely old boy , but toothless now i am afraid , he has become like putty in my hands , oh by the way were you able to clear up you''re problem wiz ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted November 1, 2006 [quote user="ray ducker"]Don''t worry about dear old wiz , as he has said on here " ray ducker has me sussed" on many occasions , he is a lovely old boy , but toothless now i am afraid , he has become like putty in my hands , oh by the way were you able to clear up you''re problem wiz ?[/quote]Its slowly getting there Ray.[:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syteanric 1 Posted November 1, 2006 [quote user="1st Wizard"]This is aimed at everyone of my critics, apart from the wise Cluck that is:When a manager slags off his own players in the media, then I will have a problem with that manager. I would suggest the players will too.Until one of my critics can counter my arguement with REASONED debate, I shall hold to that view.Hopefully, Peter Grant won''t be here too long!.[/quote]I seem to reember a Wizard on here criticising Nigel Worthington for not slating the players in public and insulting the fans intelligence.Wonderful thing Hypocrisy eh?jas :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted November 1, 2006 [quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="1st Wizard"] This is aimed at everyone of my critics, apart from the wise Cluck that is:When a manager slags off his own players in the media, then I will have a problem with that manager. I would suggest the players will too.Until one of my critics can counter my arguement with REASONED debate, I shall hold to that view.Hopefully, Peter Grant won''t be here too long!.[/quote]I seem to reember a Wizard on here criticising Nigel Worthington for not slating the players in public and insulting the fans intelligence.Wonderful thing Hypocrisy eh?jas :)[/quote]And I''d love to see your evidence of that Jas!. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syteanric 1 Posted November 2, 2006 *waits for the rest of the posters to back him up*im not the only one who rememebrs it...jas :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidCanary 0 Posted November 2, 2006 [quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="KidCanary"]I disagree, he should have been able to cope with that, it was only 10 yards further forward.[/quote]and Colin plays 10 yards to the right of him, Gallacher plays 10 yards behind him and I wouldnt want him playing there either.... Fact is I wouldnt want Safri in center half and I wouldnt want Doherty starting in midfield with the additional ''footballing'' responsibilities that entails.I give granty the benefit, perhaps as worthy says, players like hughes, the doc and co look good in training.[/quote]Dont see the point of your post there, I know the positions of where players will normally be located when doc plays his normal position, just as im sure he does. The Doc is not unused to playing further up the field, as you know he''s played up front on many an occassion, so its not like he will start feeling nervous/dizzy by moving 10 yards further up the field. Additionally playing the holding role is easier, position wise and technically than playing centre back, your encouraged to move out of position because you are expected to rely on your reading of the game to move to an area of the pitch and intercept/break up the play. Should you fail to do this you still have your defence backing you up (or so you would hope). Problem with the stoke game is everyone was playing so deep and this negates that role, if people had pushed up as they were meant to (which we all know is a general problem with the team) this would have worked.We had to work at close quarters, given the players we had available to negate the effects of Lee Hendrie, if we had played our normal game, with the same amount of space, we would have been slaughtered, as people didnt do their job this happened anyway, but i can see what he was trying to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted November 2, 2006 [quote user="jas the barclay king"] *waits for the rest of the posters to back him up*im not the only one who rememebrs it...jas :)[/quote]Produce YOUR evidence or apologise Jas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020 Posted November 2, 2006 Kid Canary - The point CJF is making (rightly imo) is that you justify the strange decision of playing the Doc as a holding midfielder by saying "he was only playing 10 yards further foward", so taking that logic to its final conclusion you could also move other players "10 yards further forward" and expect them to slot into a new position, so we could have Safri as a centre forward. No way has the Doc got the skills to be a good holding midfield player, he is what he is, either a centre half or a centre forward. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidCanary 0 Posted November 2, 2006 [quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]Kid Canary - The point CJF is making (rightly imo) is that you justify the strange decision of playing the Doc as a holding midfielder by saying "he was only playing 10 yards further foward", so taking that logic to its final conclusion you could also move other players "10 yards further forward" and expect them to slot into a new position, so we could have Safri as a centre forward. No way has the Doc got the skills to be a good holding midfield player, he is what he is, either a centre half or a centre forward.[/quote]I understood the point but it wasnt meant to be taken a general rule of distance against the rest of the team, my reasoning as to why i felt the doc could play futher upfield i have already explained (see above). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidCanary 0 Posted November 2, 2006 [quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="jas the barclay king"] *waits for the rest of the posters to back him up*im not the only one who rememebrs it...jas :)[/quote]Produce YOUR evidence or apologise Jas.[/quote]I am finding the fact you are challenging someone to prove you dont change your mind like the wind HIGHLY amusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidCanary 0 Posted November 2, 2006 [quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="jas the barclay king"] *waits for the rest of the posters to back him up*im not the only one who rememebrs it...jas :)[/quote]Produce YOUR evidence or apologise Jas.[/quote]In fact Jas, this maybe going over our heads and hes trying to be ironic LOL. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted November 2, 2006 [quote user="KidCanary"][quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="jas the barclay king"] *waits for the rest of the posters to back him up*im not the only one who rememebrs it...jas :)[/quote]Produce YOUR evidence or apologise Jas.[/quote]In fact Jas, this maybe going over our heads and hes trying to be ironic LOL.[/quote]Then I say to you also Kid C..............prove it!. Err, you can''t can you?, other than hearsay!!. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,509 Posted November 2, 2006 [quote user="Sons of Boadicea"] Kid Canary - The point CJF is making (rightly imo) is that you justify the strange decision of playing the Doc as a holding midfielder by saying "he was only playing 10 yards further foward", so taking that logic to its final conclusion you could also move other players "10 yards further forward" and expect them to slot into a new position, so we could have Safri as a centre forward. No way has the Doc got the skills to be a good holding midfield player, he is what he is, either a centre half or a centre forward.[/quote]I wish the whole bloody team would play 10 yards further forward [:^)] [I] [Y] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arrdee 2 Posted November 2, 2006 [quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="ray ducker"]Don''t worry about dear old wiz , as he has said on here " ray ducker has me sussed" on many occasions , he is a lovely old boy , but toothless now i am afraid , he has become like putty in my hands , oh by the way were you able to clear up you''re problem wiz ?[/quote]Its slowly getting there Ray.[:D][/quote]Dear old wiz , brill and again brill , you old sod , you are of the first water , to good to fall into my trap , we don''t want to hear any "clack" from 2nd wiz , we need to hear from you the first wiz . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fat Barman 0 Posted November 3, 2006 I can''t prove it either Wizard - the thought of trawling through more than 3,300 posts of flip-flopping mind-changing (however well intentioned!) is too daunting for my alcohol-enfeebled wits.(I do seem to recall some minor criticism of dear old Nigel for being positive in the face of poor performances though!) [:-*] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted August 2, 2007 I didnt realise Grant made the laughable decision to start Doherty as a holding midfielder in only his 3rd game in charge! If this pre-season is anything to go by we may be seeing him there fairly often - to laughablely poor effect and no doubt defeat. Nice to see Hughes was played at left wing in this game also!Maybe he has learned now... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites