time for glenn to tell us....

[Baldyboy 0]

just whats going on with huckerby. is he staying or not, and if not why? he says hell offer new deals to doc and fozzy but what about hux?

[NegativeVibes 0]

It is pretty obvious that he will be leaving.

[Charles 0]

More to the point...what is Roeders problem with Hucks?  He seems to pick everybody in favour of him and now doesn''t even select him in the 16. Can''t help but think that Roeders trying to force him out and give him no option.

[Mello Yello 2,297]

Personality Clash......

[WeAreYellows49 0]

Ok so now Roeder has a problem with Hucks??  Or maybe Hucks is the problem, seems he clashes with most managers.

Or maybe we are all guessing that there may be something wrong when really there''s a simple explanation [:|]

[chicken 0]

Cast your mind back to when Glenn came into the job. I should imagine that he went around all of the players and asked them if they were happy here and then assessed it from there.From the signs and mutterings we can guess that Brown and Murray weren''t too happy here. Strihavka seems to have struggled behind the scenes.This is all immaterial really - the point is what do you think Huckerby said? I should imagine that Roeder wanted to know if the players had the desire to be here for another season but we know that Huckerby may not have done. Can you blame Roeder for looking through the squad and some of the loan signins to see if any of them are capable replacements?Even if Hux was to stay on another season we would be looking at the same thing this time next season.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Well, Chris Goreham bottled it and did not ask Roeder about it, truly pathetic.

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

Ok so now Roeder has a problem with Hucks??  Or maybe Hucks is the problem, seems he clashes with most managers.

Or maybe we are all guessing that there may be something wrong when really there''s a simple explanation [:|]

[/quote]Well I doubt they''ll exchange christmas cards but they are both proffesionals. If Hucks hasn''t got his head 100% commited to the cause then GR is absolutely right. Roeder is the future, not Huckerby. Like many before him, thanks, but we''re moving on.Not the last player GR will fall out with ..to be sure..... (there''s a little clue)

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]Well I doubt they''ll exchange christmas cards but they are both proffesionals. If Hucks hasn''t got his head 100% commited to the cause then GR is absolutely right. Roeder is the future, not Huckerby. Like many before him, thanks, but we''re moving on.Not the last player GR will fall out with ..to be sure..... (there''s a little clue)[/quote]Just a shame it meant we went into the game playing two right wingers.  Two poor team selections from Roeder this week.

[tribes 0]

If Roeder is our future God help us. He has made so many bad decisions lately and only got away with them because we have been so very lucky.

[0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

Roeder may be the future but he has a responsibility to the supporters of this club to field the strongest team possible to this end he failed on Tuesday and has failed again today. It is beginning to look like Worthington all over again.

[Boyo 0]

can everyone leave this Huckerby thing alone it is obvious he is on his way at the end of the seasson and its not like we are missing him anyway, Bertrand has done perfectly well.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="tribes"]If Roeder is our future God help us. He has made so many bad decisions lately and only got away with them because we have been so very lucky.[/quote]

It shames me to agree with a lot of this, if any of the utterly, useless young loanees, are better than Hucks, then I''m a alien from the planet Zog.

Roeder has made this personal at the teams expense...........grow up!.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]

[quote user="tribes"]If Roeder is our future God help us. He has made so many bad decisions lately and only got away with them because we have been so very lucky.[/quote]

It shames me to agree with a lot of this, if any of the utterly, useless young loanees, are better than Hucks, then I''m a alien from the planet Zog.

Roeder has made this personal at the teams expense...........grow up!.

[/quote]

 

Roeder has made this personal at the teams expense, and you figured that from what Wiz?

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]

[quote user="tribes"]If Roeder is our future God help us. He has made so many bad decisions lately and only got away with them because we have been so very lucky.[/quote]

It shames me to agree with a lot of this, if any of the utterly, useless young loanees, are better than Hucks, then I''m a alien from the planet Zog.

Roeder has made this personal at the teams expense...........grow up!.

[/quote]

So he''s no longer the best manager that Norwich have had in ages, and premiership clubs are no longer knocking on the door for him?

There''s that flippy floppy sound again.

And "Tribes", you don''t go 13 games unbeaten purely on luck.

 

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]

[quote user="tribes"]If Roeder is our future God help us. He has made so many bad decisions lately and only got away with them because we have been so very lucky.[/quote]

It shames me to agree with a lot of this, if any of the utterly, useless young loanees, are better than Hucks, then I''m a alien from the planet Zog.

Roeder has made this personal at the teams expense...........grow up!.

[/quote]

 

Wiz, I''m sorry but even by your standards this is ridiculous. Bertrand is utterly useless? that is the biggest load of crap i''ve heard for a while.

Gibbs and Henry have not performed, but Gibbs played on Tues and was starved of the ball because Hull had a striker at LB who Croft was running rings round, hardly evidence to say an England u-19 international who is highly rated by the best developer of young talent in the world (Arsene Wenger) is utterly useless is it? It''s a close call, but i think i''d go with Arsene''s opinion over you ever-changeable ones.

Roeder has made this personal? Are you privy to all personal conversations between Hucks and Roeder? If not then shut up.

Hucks played at Cardiff as a sub and did no more than Gibbs did on Tues. He has consistently failed to perform this season, he is not quick enough to utilise the only real asset he had to his game, which was running at players. Why the sudden Huckerby love-in/ we all know he isn''t good enough, and we all said so 6months ago.

Roeder is not the one who needs to grow up Wiz, you need to look a bit closer to home.

 

[nutty nigel 7,543]

As I understand it Bertrand was to have started but called off late through illness. The sixteen then had to be made up by another player who travelled which was why it was unbalanced. It''s right that Bertrand should have started, he has been one of our best players since he came here. The poster who said that Hucks did no more against Cardiff than Gibbs did against Hull is correct. But then so are the posters who say Hucks wouldn''t have been worse than Gibbs against Hull or Henry yesterday.

I would like to know why Hucks didn''t travel to Leicester. We can all guess but I bet we don''t ever find out. I wouldn''t be surprised if he was gone as soon as we are safe. If Roeder doesn''t want him then his wages would probably get in three more players. Roeder has no loyalty to Hucks in the way the fans do. The players who Roeder inherited have to earn his loyalty. That''s football.

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,297]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

As I understand it Bertrand was to have started but called off late through illness. The sixteen then had to be made up by another player who travelled which was why it was unbalanced. It''s right that Bertrand should have started, he has been one of our best players since he came here. The poster who said that Hucks did no more against Cardiff than Gibbs did against Hull is correct. But then so are the posters who say Hucks wouldn''t have been worse than Gibbs against Hull or Henry yesterday.

I would like to know why Hucks didn''t travel to Leicester. We can all guess but I bet we don''t ever find out. I wouldn''t be surprised if he was gone as soon as we are safe. If Roeder doesn''t want him then his wages would probably get in three more players. Roeder has no loyalty to Hucks in the way the fans do. The players who Roeder inherited have to earn his loyalty. That''s football.

[/quote]

I somehow think the Chief Exec won''t be too sorry to see the departure of Huckerby......

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

As I understand it Bertrand was to have started but called off late through illness. The sixteen then had to be made up by another player who travelled which was why it was unbalanced. It''s right that Bertrand should have started, he has been one of our best players since he came here. The poster who said that Hucks did no more against Cardiff than Gibbs did against Hull is correct. But then so are the posters who say Hucks wouldn''t have been worse than Gibbs against Hull or Henry yesterday.

I would like to know why Hucks didn''t travel to Leicester. We can all guess but I bet we don''t ever find out. I wouldn''t be surprised if he was gone as soon as we are safe. If Roeder doesn''t want him then his wages would probably get in three more players. Roeder has no loyalty to Hucks in the way the fans do. The players who Roeder inherited have to earn his loyalty. That''s football.

 

[/quote]Hucks played 20 minutes against Cardiff.Gibbs did NOTHING in his 60 minutes.Hucks at worst won a free kick in a dangerous area against Hull.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Didn''t Hucks do quite well as a sub away at Southampton recently??

[arrdee 2]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="1st Wizard"]

[quote user="tribes"]If Roeder is our future God help us. He has made so many bad decisions lately and only got away with them because we have been so very lucky.[/quote]

It shames me to agree with a lot of this, if any of the utterly, useless young loanees, are better than Hucks, then I''m a alien from the planet Zog.

Roeder has made this personal at the teams expense...........grow up!.

[/quote]

So he''s no longer the best manager that Norwich have had in ages, and premiership clubs are no longer knocking on the door for him?

There''s that flippy floppy sound again.

And "Tribes", you don''t go 13 games unbeaten purely on luck.

 

[/quote]

Now Wiz you lovely old boy , this planet Zog , are you Ugg or Glug  ?  [;)].arrdee.

[Hackney Canary 0]

My guess, for what it''s worth, is this. It''s pure speculation, but I think there might be a grain of truth in it. Cast your minds back to October. My view is - and I''m a fan of Hucks - that Dazzler behaved pretty poorly in the last weeks of Grant''s reign. It''s not so much what he said (after the game against Wolves and at other times - that was fair comment, just what you''d expect from a senior pro) but what he did. He obviously wasn''t playing for the manager. His performances were lackadaisical and his attitude seemed slack - at least it did to me. It was clear that he didn''t respect the manager and that shone through in his performances. Now, he had a point (Grant was an idiot) but allowing that to affect his performance and the team at such a difficult time was unprofessional in the extreme. When Roeder arrived he would have heard about that  - it wouldn''t have taken much - and, like any manager, he would have realised that he needed to sort the problem out, otherwise Hucks would have had the upper hand. My guess is (another one, for which I apologise) that the original plan was to cast Hucks out, let him know who the boss was, and then bring him back. But things didn''t go according to plan. Hucks was sent off against the scummers, players came in and did well (or well enough) and we started to win games. Time passed. Perhaps it has now become more trouble to Roeder than it''s worth to rehabilitate Hucks and get him back in the team. I hope that''s not the case. As I''ve written before on here, I still think Hucks has bucket loads left to offer this club, but I fear that things have gone too far. As I say, this is pure speculation, but to answer the point of the thread, I don''t think it''s time for Roeder to tell us what''s going on. If the situation I outline above is true - or even close to true - ask yourself if you would front up and come clean. I wouldn''t. Glenn''s still a new manager, he knows how popular Hucks is and he knows how volatile football fans can be (just read this talkboard for an hour or two). If it emerges that the end of Hucks'' Norwich career can be traced back to the blood on his own hands, Roeder would do well to keep schtum.To answer a different question, if I were Roeder I''d get Hucks straight back in the team, up front or on the left, and challenge him to make a playing statement about his commitment to the cause beyond the end of this season. Come on Glenn, you know it makes sense!

[scott 0]

I was at Cardiff and the Hull home game and can catagorically say that Hucks did more in 20 minutes than what Gibbs did in 60 minutes the next game.

 

Hucks made a few runs and gave Cardiff something to think about. While Gibbs gave one of the most inept performances I''ve ever seen in a Norwich shirt against Hull. He blatantly bottled it by hiding away from the ball, looked hopelessly out of position and offered no threat to Hull whatsoever. So what if he is highly rated and has played for England U19''s- the Jarvis brothers were highly rated and have played for England U19''s and we all know how inpet they are!

 

To compare Hucks performance against Cardiff to Gibbs'' against Hull is laughable. - Oh and on the subject of inept loanee performances - Henry was painfull to watch at Leicester yesterday. The fact that Roeder switched him over with Croft effectively playing Crofty out of position and with the much more capable Pattision on the bench and Hucks not even in the squad made watching Henry even more painfull!

Glen - Great job done so far but omitting Hucks and playing inept loan players just cause you don''t get on with Hucks is not right! 

[king of latvia 0]

we lose 1 game in 14 and now GR is a bad manager you lot need to get a life and to say he has been lucky lol.

your doing a great job glen keep it up

 

 

[ricky knight 0]

Is Dublin not leaving at the end of the season, maybe he should be left at home too then, after all if some you lot think its good enough for Hux.

[ca 1]

I can''t agree that all the loanees are useless Wizard because I think Camara, Evans, Bates and Bertrand were good additions to our squad. I would agree that Henry, Gibbs and Pearce are surplus to requirements though. Gibbs and Henry don''t look any better than what we have and why do we need Pearce, we have Dion to cover Doc or Shackell in case of injury.

[nutty nigel 7,543]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

I somehow think the Chief Exec won''t be too sorry to see the departure of Huckerby......[/quote]

I think somehow you could be right Mello. But I very much doubt that he had anything to do with Hucks not travelling to Leicester. That can only have been Roeders decision, Huckerby''s decision or a joint decision between the two of them. This thread could just as easily be called "It''s time for Hucks to tell us...... "

We have two young loan players at the club who are in an impossible position with the fans because they are seen as poor replacements for Huckerby. How much easier it would be if they were centre halves replacing Doherty. It''s not these players fault that they are picked in front of the fans favourite. We surely can''t judge the young lad from Arsenal so harshly over just 60 mins football last Tuesday night.

My previous post was not meant to be anti Hucks, I would always include him in the 16 if I picked the team. I don''t think anybody has stated that Gibbs or Henry were better than him or deserved to play in front of him. But there must be a reason why they are and that''s what I thought this thread was about.

 

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="ridgeman"]Roeder may be the future but he has a responsibility to the supporters of this club to field the strongest team possible to this end he failed on Tuesday and has failed again today. It is beginning to look like Worthington all over again.[/quote]Absolute rubbish. He has a responsibility to make the club as strong as possible long term, not weekend to weekend.. Its a very big, sometimes political game GR has to play. He''s doing a good job too.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="cityangel"]we have Dion to cover Doc or Shackell in case of injury.[/quote]

And then who plays up front...?

I think criticising someone who hasn''t even played yet is a bit silly.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"][quote user="ridgeman"]Roeder may be the future but he has a responsibility to the supporters of this club to field the strongest team possible to this end he failed on Tuesday and has failed again today. It is beginning to look like Worthington all over again.[/quote]

Absolute rubbish. He has a responsibility to make the club as strong as possible long term, not weekend to weekend.. Its a very big, sometimes political game GR has to play. He''s doing a good job too.
[/quote]

What, by playing other teams youngsters, out of position in Saturday''s case?...  These two poor team selections have done us no favours as far as this season goes.

I will applaud Glenn Roeder for what he has done at NCFC so far, but will critisize when neccesary. Fact is it has been two poor team selections which has affected performances these last couple of games.

The summer is going to be a real testing time for Glen, as take out the loan players, Hucks and Dion and you have just about enough players to make up a starting XI

Marshall
Semmy
Doc
Shax
Drury
Croft
Fozzy
Russell
Pattison
Cureton
Martin

Noteworthy below that, Chadwick and Gibbs.  That is yer lot.