Should this be so public?

[ca 1]

Please don''t think I''m moaning because I''m not really,  I''m just a little bit concerned at the public critisism being levelled at certain players in the past couple of weeks.

Today its Hucks he''s having a go at but shouldn''t these sort of things be said in private behind closed doors?

When PG arrived he said that Hucks was part of his plans, now he doesn''t seem so happy with him, are they heading for a collision course?

Is PG just making his mark, being assertive and setting down the ground rules or does he need to be a bit more thoughtful about the statements he''s releasing to the press?

Whats your opinion?

 

[Hucka Hucka Huckerby 0]

I''m very concerned that if Hucks gets too much flack he''ll grab his ball & go play somewhere else!

[0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

I think that Peter Grant is just saying what NW didnt have the guts to or couldn''t see what was happening. I''ve always felt that playing Hucks wide left meant Drury was exposed. I remember last season when Watford were playing down here Boothroyd shouted put two on the left back - Charlton - they went on to score another two goals.

Personally I don''t think Peter Grant has said anything  controversial yet only what many have long believed.

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Please don''t think I''m moaning because I''m not really,  I''m just a little bit concerned at the public critisism being levelled at certain players in the past couple of weeks.

Today its Hucks he''s having a go at but shouldn''t these sort of things be said in private behind closed doors?

When PG arrived he said that Hucks was part of his plans, now he doesn''t seem so happy with him, are they heading for a collision course?

Is PG just making his mark, being assertive and setting down the ground rules or does he need to be a bit more thoughtful about the statements he''s releasing to the press?

Whats your opinion?

 

[/quote]I agree cityangel but that''s the drawback of having a little man as boss they think that if they take a cheap shot at the bigger guys they might grow half an inch!

[Tom NCFC 0]

To be Honest cityangel, I don''t think Grant and Huckerby are going to be on a collision course.

I''ve said this before, but Grant is still the bright new things and the media will publish anything and everything he says (Real info or Speculation). After 5 years, no wanted to listen to Worthy, he was probably making judgements on players but no one the media world cared!

I also Imagine that Grant is just letting the players and the fans know what he''s all about. That he doesn''t take crap performances lightly and also wants the players to be at their best. A good number of times public statements have made players buckle up and release their full potential, maybe Grant hopes this will happen!

Personally I''m happy with Grant''s statements, much more fresh and open than a certain former manager!

[canary cherub 1]

I tend to agree Angel.  Apart from anything else, it leaves nothing in his armoury for when someone REALLY needs a public dressing down.  I''m not saying it should never happen, but surely it''s a weapon of last resort?  Most managers tend to criticise the whole team rather than singling out individuals on a regular basis.  Personally, I don''t like it.  

In Hucks'' case, I''m not the only one who has a nasty suspicion that the board don''t intend to renew his contract and are getting PG to do their dirty work.  Could backfire nastily imo.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

 

My opinion is that the players were protected in public too much by our former manager but those same players constantly let him down on match days. As it became obvious that a change of manager was imminent those same players hid behind their failing manager allowing him to take the blame for their poor decisions and poor performances. Some of our players don''t always put it all in, that''s been obvious for a long time by the way we always capitulate when it really matters. However, I would not include Huckerby in this criticism because he is one of the few players who always stood up to be counted on our "no show days".

Grant has only had a couple of weeks to really assess the players and as with all managers he will want to bring his own players in to stamp his own mark on the team. In a perfect world we would all love the new manager to magically transform our players into champions or at the very least only replace the players we don''t rate. Huckerby was Worthington’s player and it always seemed to me that they had a good working relationship together. There may now be friction between him and the new manager as Grant tries to get the team playing his way. I hope I''m wrong because if that''s the case there will only be one winner.

 

[Yellow Rages 0]

I don''t really see Grants comments as a personal attack on Hucks. Lets face it, he isn''t saying anything we didn''t already know and I''m sure Hucks has always been aware he doesn''t do alot of tracking back.

What Grant is doing is keeping us up to speed as to the fact that he is doing something about it.

[Yellow Shrimper 0]

I think it''s good management to try to get your best performers to

perform even better. Should this be in the public arena? I think so,

it''s been said many times that a football club is all about its

supporters so why shouldn''t they know what the manager thinks of his

players & how he is motivating them. Peter Grant is emphasising

what a great player Hucks is, he just recognises & says that he''s

capable of doing more. That seems fine to me

[Cluck 0]

I think we all have alot of affection for Huckerby and how he has kept this tiny squad together. Grant is a new broom and won''t have a place for emotions........maybe a la Beckham being bigger than the manager.

[Herb 0]

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]

I don''t really see Grants comments as a personal attack on Hucks. Lets face it, he isn''t saying anything we didn''t already know and I''m sure Hucks has always been aware he doesn''t do alot of tracking back.

What Grant is doing is keeping us up to speed as to the fact that he is doing something about it.

[/quote]

I pretty much agree, but it does leave a question mark over Hucks still.
The way I see it, Hucks is a luxury player. The fact he is lacking in certain areas means he really needs to excel in his strengths.
You can''t afford too many luxury players in a successful squad and to my mind Earnie is also a luxury player, particularly in a squad as thin as ours. If I had to choose which one to pull out all the stops to keep, it''d be Earnie, much as it pains me to say it.

I love Hucks, but he''s not getting any younger.
If it''s not about money, then I think he could do a job for us for a good few years to come, but if it is, then sorry we can''t afford it. He''s getting to the age when he can''t expect to be one of the top earners at the club.

[Shack Attack 0]

I think it''s probably a very difficult balancing act to be honest. NW slated the players a couple of times in the last 12 months of his reign but because he had backed them publicly so may times before afeter poor performances it seemed to have no affect. At the same time if PG slates them for every mistake they make then surely after a while the players will start to ignore him.

By the way Mystic Megson, you can add me to the list of people who think the Huckerby situation is starting to smell a bit!

[O.T.B.C 0]

Angel, I have to agree there, when PG started doing the public bashing of the players I thought it was good and what some players needed but the more he does it, the more players might hate it and some bashing should be done behind closed doors and I''m not saying Hucks should be imune from any sort of bashing but we do have to remember he is our most influencial player and probably our biggest match winner and without him we would be in dire poo poo, to boot I also think that for me he is our best player in years and fast becoming a legend.

I think as soon as he can, quite rightly and like most managers do he will buy and sell a completely different team, when Jan comes he will buy a shed load of players to make us a team very similar to West Ham play, 2 quick full backs and wingers, 1 tall striker 1 small striker 1 holding midfielder who can run box to box thou and 1 creative player, which is how I like football being played.

OTBC

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

Of course PG may have talked to Hucks in advance of the "story" reaching the press......

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Yellow Shrimper"]I think it''s good management to try to get your best performers to perform even better. Should this be in the public arena? I think so, it''s been said many times that a football club is all about its supporters so why shouldn''t they know what the manager thinks of his players & how he is motivating them. Peter Grant is emphasising what a great player Hucks is, he just recognises & says that he''s capable of doing more. That seems fine to me
[/quote]

Shrimper, if Grant overdoes it he''ll lose the dressing room.  Is that a price worth paying for telling the fans what they want to hear?

[Gentleman Jim 0]

It is a bit too early to form a complete impression of PG, but his style of management has already become obvious and it makes me feel very uneasy. Throughout my working career I have come across these " fire and brimstone" managers and they tend to cause nervousness and hostility with the workforce and are alien for good teamwork.

As regards to Hucks, he has stated his very clear intention to want to stay and the City management equally so, therefor the lack of progress with his new contract suggests some insincerity on one side or other, and I would not think Hucks is insincere in any way.

[First Wizard 0]

Grant has a big gob, and I don''t like the bloke okay Angel . He''ll lose the dressing room for sure if he carries on slating the players in public.

Is this what you wanted Delia?. Its not clever and I wish he''d bloody stop it!.

Is he trying to drive Hucks away because we can''t afford him next season?.

[ca 1]

[quote user="Yellow Shrimper"]I think it''s good management to try to get your best performers to perform even better. Should this be in the public arena? I think so, it''s been said many times that a football club is all about its supporters so why shouldn''t they know what the manager thinks of his players & how he is motivating them. Peter Grant is emphasising what a great player Hucks is, he just recognises & says that he''s capable of doing more. That seems fine to me
[/quote]

 

But is opening up the paper to read your managers opinions on what you need to do better to maintain your place in the team motivating? I would rather hear it in private, face to face.

He''s a cult hero in Norwich, I just can''t believe he''s happy to make these sort of back page headlines.

Just my opinion.

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

To my mind anything that needs saying to the players regarding their performances, can and should be said in private. That may mean taking a player to one side on the training gound or in the dressing room, or possibly putting his comments/criticisms to the individual in front of all his team mates - but never to the gathered media, in my humble opinion. It''s fine to criticise the team collectively in public, but never single out individuals. If I was Hucks, I might start thinking my future lies elsewhere.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

[quote user="cityangel"]

[quote user="Yellow Shrimper"]I think it''s good management to try to get your best performers to perform even better. Should this be in the public arena? I think so, it''s been said many times that a football club is all about its supporters so why shouldn''t they know what the manager thinks of his players & how he is motivating them. Peter Grant is emphasising what a great player Hucks is, he just recognises & says that he''s capable of doing more. That seems fine to me
[/quote]

 

But is opening up the paper to read your managers opinions on what you need to do better to maintain your place in the team motivating? I would rather hear it in private, face to face.

He''s a cult hero in Norwich, I just can''t believe he''s happy to make these sort of back page headlines.

Just my opinion.

[/quote]

 

And I ask again, are you absolutely sure that PG did not speak to Hucks before he spoke tho the media. I feel that we are reading to much into this (no pun intended!!)

[Mello Yello 2,282]

I eagerly await the manager to start publicly slating the "Oh ever so comfy and frequently incompetent ''La la tweet tweet....Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Is it halftime yet? I''m peckish and thirsty - and I really need a ciggy and the loo." NCFC Board.......

It''s about time they had a few home ''troofs'' fed ''Foie Gras'' style down their gapin'' gizzards......

Don''t just rock the boat PG.......slam a torpedo in it!.........  

[Cluck 0]

I agree with being open and honest to the point where the ''whole'' gets a dressing down......but to pick out individuals who are ''doing their best'' is counter productive.

Even on here when you get a ''slagging'' it doesn''t exectly breed friendship.......so for a player in the public eye it can''t be good for morale.

I really can''t see PG getting things right as he appears to have a patience problem.....something he will need badly if he is to work with journeyman players for any length of time.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 

My opinion is that the players were protected in public too much by our former manager but those same players constantly let him down on match days. As it became obvious that a change of manager was imminent those same players hid behind their failing manager allowing him to take the blame for their poor decisions and poor performances. Some of our players don''t always put it all in, that''s been obvious for a long time by the way we always capitulate when it really matters. However, I would not include Huckerby in this criticism because he is one of the few players who always stood up to be counted on our "no show days".

Grant has only had a couple of weeks to really assess the players and as with all managers he will want to bring his own players in to stamp his own mark on the team. In a perfect world we would all love the new manager to magically transform our players into champions or at the very least only replace the players we don''t rate. Huckerby was Worthington’s player and it always seemed to me that they had a good working relationship together. There may now be friction between him and the new manager as Grant tries to get the team playing his way. I hope I''m wrong because if that''s the case there will only be one winner.

 

[/quote]

I totally agree, I must admit our problems stem deeply from having earnshaw.  We have no partner for him but many players up front whom can do his job in their own way, with a decent partner.  As for Hucks, I still think he is great up front, alongside another good striker/target man. he may drift left, but McVeigh always drifted in.  We don''t have that choice now as Erny is up top.

You say one winner, well IMO there will only be one loser...  NCFC.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Billy Bovine"]To my mind anything that needs saying to the players regarding their performances, can and should be said in private. That may mean taking a player to one side on the training gound or in the dressing room, or possibly putting his comments/criticisms to the individual in front of all his team mates - but never to the gathered media, in my humble opinion. It''s fine to criticise the team collectively in public, but never single out individuals. If I was Hucks, I might start thinking my future lies elsewhere.[/quote]

totally agree Bovine.  A great point.

RE Herb:  If I had to keep Erny or Hucks, I think I would keep Hucks and allow Erny to move on (as he may well move at any time anyway) and get some much needed money into the transfer budget.

[Evil Monkey 52]

Hysteria! Panic! Lies, deceit, conspiracy, OUTRAGE!We''ve really not yet got over Worthington have we?Where has the assumption that PG is using the media to do his dirty work come from? Oh, I know! It''s come from this very message board!Take a look at this quote, lifted directly from the "offending" article:“If he doesn''t play for the team, he won''t play and he''s been told

that, because he made it difficult for us in the second period.“He

understands that, he accepts that, he knows that''s what he has got to

work on even at 30 years of age to make it better and we are determined

to make it better, because with him in the side it is possible to do

anything … but I think I could be very, very grey by the time I get him

to do his job properly.”Now does this not state that PG has already spoken to Hucks about this situation, and that Hucks understands it and is willing to learn?What do you do in your jobs when your manager pulls you to one side and has a go at you for not doing something properly? Do you scream and stomp and say it''s not fair, or do you accept it and look for ways to improve the situation? The only reason the media are involved is, most likely, because they asked him what they thought of Hucks'' performance on Saturday, which I''ve heard from many wasn''t great.PG stated straight away that Hucks'' contract was a priority, but this was never going to happen overnight, and it''s not going to be sped up just to appease some message board hacks who think the board want shot of him.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

I still am not sure about Hucks up front in a 442 but I am sure I would like to see a 442 given a try with Hucks in the team. I am hoping that Grant''s comments about tracking back are because he would like to play Hucks on the left in a 442. If everyone was fit I would like to see Croft - Hughes/Robinson - Etuhu - Hucks as the 4 with Dublin and Earnshaw up front. We could have Safri on the bench if we need a plan B, Thorne on the bench for Dublin if need be and McVeigh to replace Hucks or Croft if they can''t last 90 mins. But I would always start with the strongest team.

It''s difficult to dismiss Mystics conspiracy theory involving Hucks, Grant and the Board. It''s crossed my mind too. But we could all be putting two and two together and making five. I can imagine there would be a problem with our wage structure, if as is rumoured, a local businessman was picking up part of Huck''s wages but doesn''t want to continue. Let''s hope any delay is because all parties are working hard to overcome these obstacles.

CityAngel... how much money you got??? [;)]

 

 

[ca 1]

If I win more than a million on the lottery this weekend I would be happy to pay Hucks wages for another season as long as he''s at my beck and call whenever I want him!! [:)]

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Hysteria! Panic! Lies, deceit, conspiracy, OUTRAGE!

We''ve really not yet got over Worthington have we?

Where has the assumption that PG is using the media to do his dirty work come from? Oh, I know! It''s come from this very message board!

Take a look at this quote, lifted directly from the "offending" article:

“If he doesn''t play for the team, he won''t play and he''s been told that, because he made it difficult for us in the second period.

“He understands that, he accepts that, he knows that''s what he has got to work on even at 30 years of age to make it better and we are determined to make it better, because with him in the side it is possible to do anything … but I think I could be very, very grey by the time I get him to do his job properly.”

Now does this not state that PG has already spoken to Hucks about this situation, and that Hucks understands it and is willing to learn?

What do you do in your jobs when your manager pulls you to one side and has a go at you for not doing something properly? Do you scream and stomp and say it''s not fair, or do you accept it and look for ways to improve the situation? The only reason the media are involved is, most likely, because they asked him what they thought of Hucks'' performance on Saturday, which I''ve heard from many wasn''t great.

PG stated straight away that Hucks'' contract was a priority, but this was never going to happen overnight, and it''s not going to be sped up just to appease some message board hacks who think the board want shot of him.
[/quote]

I really like where you are coming from with this EM. I know someone somewhere (please excuse the vagueness) stated that PG doesn''t have much patience, but I think it is rivalled by some posts on this board [:)] (only a gentle dig people, nothing personal).

I think some are a little scared by all this frankness and these words we are being fed. I admit, my initial reading of the headline made me cringe a little, as it looked like people''s concerns were actually being played out.

But you have to look beyond the sensationalism of the story. It is written to sound like a much bigger story than it is, which the journalist achieved.

If you delve a little deeper though, as EM points out, he has already taken Hucks to one side and spoken to him. He hasn''t gone behind his back. IMO he has said something that every manager who has ever worked with Darren (can I call him that?) has commented on, especially at the start of a working relationship. He acknowledges how good and important a player he is, and how he wants him in his side because he is a "matchwinner".

He even makes a joke about him probably not listening to him in his final comment. Something you wouldn''t do if there was tension in the situation...

Good story though... 

[canary cherub 1]

Evil, I''m not making an "assumption" that PG is doing the board''s dirty work.  It is one of several possibilities which have been suggested by various posters. 

Have you read today''s article "Huckerby the key to City success"?  It includes the following:

"In the past three seasons, including the current campaign, City have only managed to win one league game in which Huckerby has not played any part." 

Coming after PG''s piece yesterday, something is clearly going on.  We''re not sure what it is, but it''s high time the board showed a bit of leadership and put it to bed imo. 

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

MM - And of course we never lose when Hucks is playing......