time for glenn to tell us....

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

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...... "

[/quote]

How about "It''s time for someone in the Norfolk Media to ask the question".  Obviously Waghorn won''t as he tows the party line.  Chris Goreham bottled it after the game in truly embarrassing fashion.  Nothing from Archant as yet.

Seems obvious to me these guys havent been allowed to ask the question.

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="chicken"] Even if Hux was to stay on another season we would be looking at the same thing this time next season.[/quote]Surely that would apply to any player on a one year contract anywhere in the world

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="ricky knight"]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.[/quote]Unfortunately Ricky, this is a silly comparison. Dublin is a model-pro, has always conducted himself in a fine manner and turned in performances worthy of a starting shirt the next game. Opposed to which, Huckerby has conducted himself poorly, shouting his mouth off to the press, whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant, it was a stupid thing to do and didn''t do team spirit any favours, i''d wager. It is good enough for Huckerby as he has not done enough to warrant a start.I think he should be in the squad but imo he should not be starting as he doesn''t deserve it.Everybody is slating Gibbs, but he did not isolate himself - Croft was running at a striker playing at left back. If you lot all think he is so awful, why is he rated so highly by the England u-19 set-up and the world''s best developer of youth talent, a certain Mr Wenger. Their opinions are worth far more than people who think they are master tacticians as they sit on FM all day.In reference to those morons saying Glenn is making it personal etc and what poor management that is....What are your opinions on Huckerby''s conduct under Grant and not playing to the best of his abilities for the manager because of personal differences? After all, if it''s good enough for the goose.....Or is Huckerby above criticism?

[Joanna Grey 0]

I always get the impression that Hucks probably wasn''t the cleverest kid at school. On two major issues he has had a conflicting opinion with his agent, that says something (good or bad) about the man.

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="kick it off"] Everybody is slating Gibbs, but he did not isolate himself - Croft was running at a striker playing at left back. If you lot all think he is so awful, why is he rated so highly by the England u-19 set-up and the world''s best developer of youth talent, a certain Mr Wenger. Their opinions are worth far more than people who think they are master tacticians as they sit on FM all day.  [/quote]I''m sure mr Wenger is correct in his opinion that Gibbs will one day become a major talent, I''m sure he shines playing against 16/17 yr olds playing youth football too, the bottom line though, is Wenger has loaned him to Norwich with the view of seeing if he''s ready to take the next step forward. Obviously both clubs stand to benefit if he proves to be good enough and physically strong enough for the championship, the early signs are, he is not yet ready, whether playing him out of position on the left as GR has done has contributed to his two non-performances could be another factor.I think all Norwich supporters want to see the strongest 16 picked for each game, we are clearly not seeing that at the moment with the exclusion of Huckerby.Nigel Worthington excluded Bently because of his attitude, at the time we had no one better for his position, that decision possibly cost our place in the premiership. Grant excluded Safri [according to Grant for an attitude problem] again at that time it was doubtful if anyone was better for his position, that decision cost Grant a further layer of respect.I think the lesson for Worthington, Grant and Roeder is, if you want to exclude one of your best players for petty reasons, you better make sure you have someone at least as good to replace them, if you dont you ultimately end up with egg on your face

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

Huckerby and Roeder have obviously had a major row and that is why Hucks is now having to sit on the naughty step. It''s a great pity to us fans that we are made to suffer the consequences of this silly little tiff, though. I had always thought of Roeder as a calm, sensible man who showed the maturity of his years: now, however, I''m beginning to think I have misjudged him badly. He seems to fall out easily with other managers; he comes out with some juvenile nonsense about wanting to catch Ipswich (just keep quiet and do it - don''t rabbit on about it!) and he falls out in a big way with one of our best attacking players. As regards his comments about catching Ips..t and targeting a play-off place, whatever happened to the far more sober and sensible philosophy of taking one game at a time and not looking at the table?! I hope he gets a grip immediately, before our team loses its harmony and disintegrates into a shambolic mess. Ho hum! Forget the play-offs - our only aim now is to avoid relegation. One thing''s for certain, many more crap performances like Saturday''s and we''ll be right back down amongst the dead men again.

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="kick it off"]Everybody is slating Gibbs, but he did not isolate himself - Croft was running at a striker playing at left back. If you lot all think he is so awful, why is he rated so highly by the England u-19 set-up and the world''s best developer of youth talent, a certain Mr Wenger. Their opinions are worth far more than people who think they are master tacticians as they sit on FM all day.[/quote]I''m sorry but Gibbs is not good enough yet. It was all to obvious to see. He wasn''t used to being tackled, pushed. Having pressure applied to him, having to play in a team where he didn''t know anybody. In a league where you get no time and can''t get carried. Gibbs is not good enough for any level of professional league football. I''m sorry if that upsets you but that''s the plain truth. The fact he might have talent is irrelevant. He plays in the u19, last time I checked the u19 wasn''t anything like a physical hull side that wouldn''t mind getting stuck in all the time. I will tell you this now, if gibbs had played in his "preferred" midfield position we would have lost 4/5-1 to hull just like leicster.

[ricky knight 0]

I return your question with a question, is Roeder above criticism, if so why not, yes we have had a good run but on the other hand Hux has been our star for a few years, i think he deserves better. He may not warrant a start but being overlooked for some kids who still have nappy rash is a blxxdy disgrace imo. Also i dont remember people complaining about Hux speaking his mind, when he wanted to come here or when he helped get us promotion.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="JaundicedJockGeorgy"]Huckerby and Roeder have obviously had a major row and that is why Hucks is now having to sit on the naughty step. It''s a great pity to us fans that we are made to suffer the consequences of this silly little tiff, though. I had always thought of Roeder as a calm, sensible man who showed the maturity of his years: now, however, I''m beginning to think I have misjudged him badly. He seems to fall out easily with other managers; he comes out with some juvenile nonsense about wanting to catch Ipswich (just keep quiet and do it - don''t rabbit on about it!) and he falls out in a big way with one of our best attacking players. As regards his comments about catching Ips..t and targeting a play-off place, whatever happened to the far more sober and sensible philosophy of taking one game at a time and not looking at the table?! I hope he gets a grip immediately, before our team loses its harmony and disintegrates into a shambolic mess. Ho hum! Forget the play-offs - our only aim now is to avoid relegation. One thing''s for certain, many more crap performances like Saturday''s and we''ll be right back down amongst the dead men again.[/quote]Yeah that''s right, if huckerby acts like a petulant little child, then Roeder should show absolutely no spine and let him get away with it, so all the other players can do the same. Huckerby has never got on witha manager, EVER. If he has an authority problem or is just not a nice guy, then fair enough, but i fail to see how Roeder can win if Huckerby plays up, as we all know he is prone to do. If Roeder picks him anyway, it sends a message to all players that sort of behaviour is OK, and they all lose respect for him. If he doesn''t play Huckerby, we go on a 13game unbeaten run - how is he meant to start picking him? He can''t, and he gets slated for it. Lose-Lose situation.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="kick it off"]Everybody is slating Gibbs, but he did not isolate himself - Croft was running at a striker playing at left back. If you lot all think he is so awful, why is he rated so highly by the England u-19 set-up and the world''s best developer of youth talent, a certain Mr Wenger. Their opinions are worth far more than people who think they are master tacticians as they sit on FM all day.[/quote]I''m sorry but Gibbs is not good enough yet. It was all to obvious to see. He wasn''t used to being tackled, pushed. Having pressure applied to him, having to play in a team where he didn''t know anybody. In a league where you get no time and can''t get carried. Gibbs is not good enough for any level of professional league football. I''m sorry if that upsets you but that''s the plain truth. The fact he might have talent is irrelevant. He plays in the u19, last time I checked the u19 wasn''t anything like a physical hull side that wouldn''t mind getting stuck in all the time. I will tell you this now, if gibbs had played in his "preferred" midfield position we would have lost 4/5-1 to hull just like leicster. [/quote]Two words - Ched Evans. How do you know how teens will adapt to the man''s game without playing them and giving them a chance?

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="kick it off"]Everybody is slating Gibbs, but he did not isolate himself - Croft was running at a striker playing at left back. If you lot all think he is so awful, why is he rated so highly by the England u-19 set-up and the world''s best developer of youth talent, a certain Mr Wenger. Their opinions are worth far more than people who think they are master tacticians as they sit on FM all day.[/quote]I''m sorry but Gibbs is not good enough yet. It was all to obvious to see. He wasn''t used to being tackled, pushed. Having pressure applied to him, having to play in a team where he didn''t know anybody. In a league where you get no time and can''t get carried. Gibbs is not good enough for any level of professional league football. I''m sorry if that upsets you but that''s the plain truth. The fact he might have talent is irrelevant. He plays in the u19, last time I checked the u19 wasn''t anything like a physical hull side that wouldn''t mind getting stuck in all the time. I will tell you this now, if gibbs had played in his "preferred" midfield position we would have lost 4/5-1 to hull just like leicster. [/quote]Two words - Ched Evans. How do you know how teens will adapt to the man''s game without playing them and giving them a chance?[/quote]I''m sorry but I don''t quite understand your point. Are you saying that we should give him as many games as ched and betrand have even though in both of their debuts they gave MOTM performances? Or are you saying that with him in the team we could lose and then subsequently rebuild a new unbeaten run? Both evans and betrand are/were key parts of the reason we were doing so well. I don''t think it''s a coinsidence that when betrand was taken out of the team and replaced by gibbs and henry the "wheels well off" so to speak.In my opinion gibbs has had his chance. He was given 60 minutes, at home, against a team norwich will have to compete against to do well in this league. We had to carry him throughout those 60 minutes and he caused the whole team unit to fail. I would rather, if we want to carry any players who are not good enough, at least make them players who have a future here. What''s happened to eagle and smart? Both impressed me when they were given a run out during their relevent periods.

[kick it off 1,948]

60minutes to judge a player. sad sad day when we are reduced to Wolves fans measurements.

[NIGELWNONOTHIM 0]

It looks obvious that DARREN HUCKERBY will be on his way.Is it right that there has been a fall out with LEE CLARKE ?  When I saw the mangers comments about DARREN''S agent saying that DARREN was going I thought that the manager was saying that to either challenge DARREN to come out and contradict it or to make it look like D H was to blame not G R .

[Yellowfuture 71]

[quote user="kick it off"]60minutes to judge a player. sad sad day when we are reduced to Wolves fans measurements.
[/quote]

Yep "kick it off"  it`s amazing isnt it. 60 mins and people are prepared to make such definite statements. We must have some incredably astute football experts on here who can see all and judge so quickly.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

........and the brainy chav in the Snakepit sings..''Oh! Huckerby, wherefore this great greek tragedy!''

[Buncey 1]

So I take it you were at the game then "kick it off"? Becuase if you were, then you would have seen the worst debut in recent norwich history. He was taken off after 60 minutes because he was that bad. Most people around me didn''t think he''d come out for the second half, we were in disbelief.

[kick it off 1,948]

No I was not at the game. I think however, if you have the intellect of course, that you regard the bigger picture. Hull had a striker at LB. If Hucks had been playing, he wouldn''t have seen the ball either. If Hull had been playing a striker at LB and we had been playing it to Gibbs all the time on the Left wing, I would have been disappointed. This was stated by Roeder, and seems blindingly obvious to me. I simply cannot understand why other people are so blind as to ignore this, Then again, why let common sense get in the way of scape-goating?

[Buncey 1]

Blind to ignore what exactly? The fact that everytime gibbs got the ball he lost it. Everytime a hull player ran towards him he just kicked the ball away. He was muscled out of every 50/50 ball.I''m sorry but you have no place to tell me what happened in the game if you didn''t go.Oh and btw, Pedersen (who played LB) has actually played LB for bolton wanderers in the UEFA cup. He also had a superb performance man marking SWP out of a game against chelsea before coming off and bolton losing 4-0.Croft did not run rings round pedersen anymore than he did against leicster. Did that mean betrand had an awful game? No. You are making excuses.

[hogesar 9,618]

[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]I disagree. He''s done something Grant couldn''t. And got SOMEONE in. If not, Croft wouldn''t have to keep on his toes and put out the performances he does, would he?Onto the subject of Huckerby, it''s getting pretty much ridiculous now. I see it as Huckerby simply not being up to scratch this season. If we''re going to play an out of form Huckerby, compared to Bertrand, who can attack AND defend, i think you''ll see our results slowly get worse.Just my opinion, of course =]

[Stevie Wonder 0]

I don''t think that Hux should necessarily be starting at the moment as Mo and Bertrand have looked good on the left and Crofty has been very good for the last 6 weeks. However, he is quite obviously amongst the best 16 players at this club and should be on the bench.

I also don''t think that Roeder should be above criticism for what he has achieved in his 3 months here. Darren Huckerby has been here for 4 years during which he virtually single handedly turned a mid table team into a championship winning team, was player of the year (and most fouled player) during our prem season and then again almost single handedly kept us up last year (not even a year ago). Personally, I think we should cut him a little slack. Some people on here have very short memories it seems. For me Darren Huckerby has probably had more impact on this club than any other individual player in the 25 years that I have been attending games at Carrow Road. Is there really any other player at the club who can excite the crowd like him? Croft as done well of late but he doesn''t score enough or create enough yet.

This is not me having a dig at Roeder as he has performed near miracles to get us where we are but he has got it badly wrong in the last 2 games and the reason appears to be pressure from the "owners" of our loanees to give their players match time. I would much rather see the likes of Pattison and Spillance get games as they are more likely to be here next season - Pattison in particular as he is only 21 and needs more games under his belt. It also has to be said that during the 13 games there were a number of games where we didn''t play particularly well but nicked a result (Colchester, Scunthorpe, Wolves, Preston & Hull) - this isn''t necessarily a bad sign but Roeder has not got us to produce a storming 90 minutes yet. We have some tough games coming up against an in form Barnsley (where we have to do without 3 key players) and trips to Watford & Coventry. We need to get some more points on the board quickly as you can see a minor blip rapidly become 5 or 6 games without a win.