Well said Glenn Roeder

[gazzathegreat 0]

Blimey Nutty, my head still hurts from my long rant at the weekend, but I will try to answer your burning question.

This I feel is a trick question, but never mind.

The answer you want us to flag up is undoubtedly (a). Of course we all want success Nutty, but to reach (a) we must first come to terms with perhaps some add ons like (d) having a competent and financially sound board who can help deliver (a). Add to that a manager who can deliver and keep delivering, but that''s not going to happen overnight and I think whatever anyone personally thinks of Roeder he should stay at least for 3 seasons. I don''t really like him, but have to concede the last thing this club needs is more changing of managers. I may grow to love him more if he can consistently deliver some more of the promised silky skills, and bring in more like Hoolahan, but then he''s not just there to please me and I know that.

Success at any price? You mean you would be happy for us to metamorphose into Stoke City. If you mean this, then no, I would prefer the longer, prettier and infinitely more scenic route, but I confess I am maybe alone in that. Success in more or less the same fashion as 2003/4, yes, but to have that you need a united team and we don''t have that because we don''t have enough of (b).

I have to confess, at least for me, I have to like at least 50% of the players to feel connected to them. I don''t particularly like them just because they are "fans'' favourites" or the top scorers, in fact I have my favourites amongst the ones who are booed at times. Of the team who played on Saturday I have to say I probably only really feel connected to less than half of them.

I don''t think the reason so many of the posters are unhappy or discouraged is soley due to Roeder; it''s more due perhaps to an ongoing decline, much of which happened before he was manager.

Apologies if this is a bit confusing, I am trying to calm myself before making the mind numbing trek along the A17 to Pride Park, with a special tea at the Farm enroute! I therefore wish the players we own and loan to make some sort of effort for me tonight.

[ron obvious 1,501]

To CA, a1 et al.I''ve just read the original article yet again. I repeat, would you please point out he exact phrases of Roeder''s that you find so offensive to your dignity.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

To be honest Gazza the answer I expect from a lot of posters is ''C'' because that''s what I''m hearing on here. How else do you explain some of the comments that are made on this message board?

Success at any price? That''s not what we are seeing here is it? Surely we are playing better football than we saw over the last 3 seasons even though we liked the players who didn''t play better football more. The complete no shows we witnessed away from home over the last few seasons seem to have dried up this time. Over the last few seasons we would make the mind numbing treks to places like Plymouth only for the players not to turn up and completely let us down, but we liked those players better?

Are we in an ongoing decline ot at the start of a recovery?

I agree with you about favourites. Mine are often not the same as others. It''s very difficult to identify with players this season because there are so many new ones. We hardly know them or recognise them yet. But the players we liked better took us no where for three seasons. We all wanted change but most fans saw change as getting rid of players like Doherty, a player who has sometimes stood bravely alone in the many no shows some of the gutless favourites took part in over the last few seasons. Wolves away last year? Plymouth away last year? Those are just 2 but the list is endless.

Derby is one of the easiest mind numbing treks we make so let''s hope we see another performance tonight like Plymouth this year, and not a retro no show from days gone by.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]The complete no shows we witnessed away from home over the last few seasons seem to have dried up this time.[/quote]

From watching the Donny game, I''d have to agree nutty.  In fact the two games I''ve seen this season have probably been the worst, against Donny and QPR.  It seems to be that the difference is that the team doesn''t just give up like it used to.  Ok, we couldn''t break QPRs'' 10 men down, mainly because of a lack of pace in getting the ball up front, but that wasn''t for a lack of trying.  No doubt that the Donny game was an off day aswell, but where previously we would have lost 1 or 2 nil, the team kept plugging away and eventually got the result.

[a1canary 0]

Who said anything about offending our dignity? If you can''t understand and see that some people come across well and some don''t, i''m not going to indulge in endless posts exploring the psychology behind why that is. And if by reading the article in question you also can''t see how Roeder might come across as arrogant, then you must be an incredibly un-perceptive person for whom many things just pass you by! It''s not just one person after all.

[John Boubepo 0]

Fans in reality only take to the best players, [the bad ones are

clearly disliked, sometimes unfairly] even good players, who declined

over the years have taken stick and fell down the fans pecking order very quickly, just ask Brian Gun. But Hux wasn''t yet

in that category. he was most fans favourite and he was their favourite

because he was considered one of the best, if not the best player -

Although GR thinks he is the only authority on the game of football,

the fans often pick up on poor player performances before he does

[Fozzy/numerous loan players etc] likewise the fans also have the common

sense to pick out good players and good performances.

Although it''s a shame when players are being booed, they are often

being booed for a reason, when they are being cheered and held in high

esteem by the fans there is obviously a good reason for that too. Any manager worth his salt would tune into that and at least consider why!Showing Hux the door was a mistake - based solely on the fact GR can''t find anyone who comes close to replacing him, high wages maybe but what does it cost to bring in a true replacement?

[city4eva 207]

I havent read all of this thread so this may have been mentioned.

 

I dont like GR attitude towards the fans and/or the players, but one of his quotes in the article stands out to me

“And if you want to get to the nitty-gritty, the bottom line is the decisions I made were right because we won the game. That''s the bottom line.”

IMO opinion he has made many wrong decisions in tactics and subs and we have lost, i havent heard him say that the bottom line is I was wrong because we lost the game!!!

 

 

 

[a1canary 0]

Loving your response to Nutty''s ''trick question'' Gazza. You and i are very much of the same mind. You flag up an absolutely central issue in modern football. That of the connection, or lack of it, that fans have with players of their clubs. Or, more pertinently in recent times, their national teams. It''s difficult to have any kind of connection with players because as we all know, they live in another world to the rest of us, and at clubs like ours, rarely stay at the club for long enough. Either they don''t contribute enough to the club''s progression and are shipped out, or they''re too good and move onwards and upwards.

Everyone loved Huckerby because he had an incredibly rare combination of attributes and characteristics in a footballer. He managed to come across relatively normal and more like us by being a real family man, he stayed at the club for a good number of years, showing it loyalty and respect, AND he was an awesome player. I think he was a freak occurrence in that respect of the like we will be lucky to see just once more in our lifetimes!

People forget that it was the unity at the club, from top to bottom, and between fans and players alike, that played a key part in our success under Worthington. We see it again and again with clubs that quite suddenly become successful in this league when they were previously not given a hope. Take us, Reading, Watford, Hull. None were considered promotion contenders when they were promoted, none had stand out big time players, all will tell you they had outstanding unity, team spirit, atmospheres at the club and so on. And being able to connect with the players plays a big part in all that. It is absolutely critical to success at this level. Even if you have a huge financial advantage, as the teams that come down do, if you lose that unity, it makes life a hell of a lot harder, as we found, as west ham found when they came down and many others. Can we recreate that unity at CR with GR? I''m not sure.

I see the loans as a neccessary evil in a way. I understand why they can be good and that they allow us to bring in quality we could never buy. But i also see them as temporary in the quest to get us promoted. If they do that, they will either become permanent or will go back and we can buy in quality. Silly thing is, if we never get promoted, or not for several years, will we just spend the whole time using loan players and become more and more detached from our club? Oh dear, my head hurts now!

[Mook 0]

[quote user="a1canary"]Loving your response to Nutty''s ''trick question'' Gazza. You and i are very much of the same mind. You flag up an absolutely central issue in modern football. That of the connection, or lack of it, that fans have with players of their clubs. Or, more pertinently in recent times, their national teams.[/quote]

I find this all a bit sentimental. I think fans have had smoke blown up their backsides for too long by Sky TV, so we buy their packages, and by Chairmen, so we renew their season tickets and buy shirts.

We all want Delia out and want someone with money in. "Who with money?" I hear you cry. We don''t care. We just want the money. That''s hardly sentimental, is it? Gary Holt played his heart out for this club, and ended up being disparaged by the same fans that had worshipped at his feet only 1 year before, whilst he was driving us to our most successful season in recent memory. Where''s the connection there? Seems to me we''re happy to build a relationship when we''re being performed for, but are perfectly happy to throw the relationship out of the equation when things get tough for us.

England is another case in point - we spend all our days saying "club over country every time" or "can''t wait for saturday when the real football starts" - and yet we expect a group of 20 players to come together and play fluidly, care passionately (even though we don''t) and win. Who is demonstrating a connection there?

We all took the mickey out of Worthington''s "can''t fault the effort and committment of the players" line after we''d been battered 3-0 and not had one shot on target, and now we get someone who speaks his mind and we hate that too!

GR isn''t perfect, but not many are. I think he wants to play good football, and will not put up with people under-achieving, or not putting their full effort in. That''s 2 ingredients we''ve been lacking for some time, and I admire Glen for that. The fact that he says some crap doesn''t really bother me - he''s here to do a job now, the job is driven by money, and we all want success.

[a1canary 0]

Some really great points there Mook. You have to remember of course that the real reason fans are seen as fickle is because there are lots of them all with different views. Therefore ''fans'' as a single entity will always appear fickle cos they are made up of individuals who say one thing and others another. You can''t say "we all want Delia out" - there are plenty who don''t think her removal would do us much good.

Re England, you are talking in extremes as well, taking opposite views from the same group of fans and then bemoaning that they are so fickle! It''s possible to say club AND country and to care passionately about both. That''s my stance and I don''t think i''d be unusual in that.

But on ''connecting'' - with players, the club in general - it seems cheesy but i go back to the point that it is a central ingredient of building that team spirit, throughout the club and with the fans, that is a feature of any successful championship club that gets promoted. I''ve said on here many times that while i don''t like Roeder and a lot of what he says, i do like what he''s doing with the team and the club in general, and like Gazza says, would like to see him given a few seasons to show what he can achieve. It just feels sometimes like the club is becoming a little detached from the fans, and Roeder quite often exacerbates that with his sometimes prickly and arrogant attitude. It doesn''t really bother you, fine. It bothers me and some others just a little bit more, like a tiny stone in your shoe!

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I''m going to ask a question tyhat I asked on another thread about Roeder and his team plans. Has he replaced Hucks? Most say no. And if you''re looking for a direct replacement then I agree no. But the same posters who criticise Roeder for not renewing Hucks contract also berate the board\managers for the last three seasons. Not only about the league positions and flirting with relegation but also about our style of play over those seasons. Some now say our style of play is better but still aren''t happy.

So what do you suggest we use to measure the success or failure of the players who have been shipped out / brought in since the end of last season?

a) Success in the Championship

b) How many players we own

c) How much the fans like the players regardless of results

 [/quote]

Sorry if I''m being thick, Nigel, but isn''t (b) a bit tautological?

You''re asking whether players are a success or failure using the measurement of if we "own" them or not (leaving aside my earlier point that nowadays clubs "own" players like people "own" cats).

That''s a measure of the club''s success (albeit a spurious one), not the players success.

 Likewise, I suspect there should be a "style of play" option in here somewhere too.  And of course, the answer will be "a bit of all of them"...

(a) success (Doncaster, terrible game)

(b) style of play (Birmingham, Wolves to an extent though I don''t think we were as good as against Brum)

(c) players owned by the club

(d) style of play

(e) general indefinable sense of well being, which I can only describe as the feeling that if we go 1-0 down, we might still pull it back.  Notably absent under Grant, returning under Roeder.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I''m going to ask a question tyhat I asked on another thread about Roeder and his team plans. Has he replaced Hucks? Most say no. And if you''re looking for a direct replacement then I agree no. But the same posters who criticise Roeder for not renewing Hucks contract also berate the board\managers for the last three seasons. Not only about the league positions and flirting with relegation but also about our style of play over those seasons. Some now say our style of play is better but still aren''t happy.

So what do you suggest we use to measure the success or failure of the players who have been shipped out / brought in since the end of last season?

a) Success in the Championship

b) How many players we own

c) How much the fans like the players regardless of results

 [/quote]

Sorry if I''m being thick, Nigel, but isn''t (b) a bit tautological?

You''re asking whether players are a success or failure using the measurement of if we "own" them or not (leaving aside my earlier point that nowadays clubs "own" players like people "own" cats).

That''s a measure of the club''s success (albeit a spurious one), not the players success.

 Likewise, I suspect there should be a "style of play" option in here somewhere too.  And of course, the answer will be "a bit of all of them"...

(a) success (Doncaster, terrible game)

(b) style of play (Birmingham, Wolves to an extent though I don''t think we were as good as against Brum)

(c) players owned by the club

(d) sense of squad''s "strength in depth"

(e) general indefinable sense of well being, which I can only describe as the feeling that if we go 1-0 down, we might still pull it back.  Notably absent under Grant, returning under Roeder.

[/quote]Note that the repetition of "style of play" is evidence of my current thick headedness... I have amended it above.  C and D are complementary.

[ron obvious 1,501]

[quote user="a1canary"]Who said anything about offending our dignity? If you can''t understand and see that some people come across well and some don''t, i''m not going to indulge in endless posts exploring the psychology behind why that is. And if by reading the article in question you also can''t see how Roeder might come across as arrogant, then you must be an incredibly un-perceptive person for whom many things just pass you by! It''s not just one person after all.[/quote]So, since I am apparently terminally lacking in perception, would you please quote the offending (for whatever reason) remarks.Or are we in the realms of metaphysics?

[a1canary 0]

Where do i start! Tell you what, yet another person who feels the same way about his attitude has picked a good example. Look up a few posts for city4eva''s quoted example...

[ron obvious 1,501]

[quote user="a1canary"]Where do i start! Tell you what, yet another person who feels the same way about his attitude has picked a good example. Look up a few posts for city4eva''s quoted example...[/quote]That''s the best example you can come up with? Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="a1canary"]Where do i start! Tell you what, yet another person who feels the same way about his attitude has picked a good example. Look up a few posts for city4eva''s quoted example...[/quote]

That''s the best example you can come up with?

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
[/quote]

I''d like to see an example of your suspicions....can you confirm them?[:|]

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="a1canary"]Loving your response to Nutty''s ''trick question'' Gazza. [/quote]

Thanks for that a1! Why was it a trick question though? Was it because it''s difficult to answer without appearing hypocritical? To be honest I agree with much of what Gazza writes. But as you have pointed out subsequently, many of the things that make fans unhappy are problems within the game itself and the way players freedom has affected clubs owning them, and fans identifying with them. This and the other changes Roeder had to make meant we were going to go into this season not having a connection with many of the players. I have never known so many new players in one go but ironically that''s what the fans were shouting for the club to do anyway. I suppose the big issue is that they wanted Doc out and Hucks in. I guess last night Hucks would have been great to come off the bench when we were pushing for an equaliser in the second half but would have been a liability if he''d been on from the start. I don''t know the answer to this one except to say that I have memories of a great player and I do feel we miss him, especially as nobody else has come close to taking his place in our hearts. The disparities between the haves and have nots which means big clubs hold on to so many player registrations that if they weren''t loaned out they would never play at all. Norwich City have to compete in these circumstances though, and not in an idyllic league from days gone by that us fans would like to see.

 

[Giovani Dos Santos 0]

he doesnt know what hes talking about

[a1canary 0]

Not meant as a dig Nutty - more a reference to a well written response that revealed what makes gazza tick as a city fan.

It''s a trick question because it''s too easy to answer, not too difficult. But saying ''a'' would be too simplistic and glossing over other issues that are important to some fans. Hence the suggestions for d''s e''s and f''s!

[ca 1]

[quote user="ron obvious"]
To CA,

I''ve just read the original article yet again. I repeat, would you please point out he exact phrases of Roeder''s that you find so offensive to your dignity.


[/quote]

I neither like or dislike him and as long as he produces a winning team that plays entertaining football then I''ll be happy. But he does come out with some strange pompous stuff at his interviews and if I''m honest I haven''t warmed to him yet. I don''t think he''ll ever have a close warm relationship with us fans and I don''t he''ll ever accept criticism from us of any kind.

When he arrived last Oct I posted '''' I''ll be getting right behind him and the players and praying that Glen and his two new members of staff can turn this round.'''' so I had a very open mind.

A few examples of what he has said that has annoyed me

1) “What I don’t like is the way people in and around the club have tried to say there is a problem between the two of us. “And yet these nasty, irritating people that try and cause confrontation between myself and a player, between myself and supporters, are just bad people.They are people who will never manage a football club, they have little idea of managing a football club and yet they have a voice that reaches our supporters. I don’t have favourites, I don’t do favourites. I pick the best team and at the end of the day it is my call.It is easy being a manager when you are one of 25,000 sitting in the stand or if you are an ex-player who is now working for the media who will never manage anything better than an under-10 team, thinking he knows best - and you know what I’m talking about, and I will deal with that, trust me. I’m a nice bloke, but not always.” What did Neil Adams do to deserve that?

2) ''''I can''t see what all the fuss is about, you''ll soon get a new hero who is younger and faster'''' Surely in his experience with various teams/clubs he can understand how fans get attached to certain players, saying he didn''t undestand what the fuss is all about doesn''t endear him to people

3) ''''I don''t believe in slatting players in public, thats not my way and it doesn''t help player''''s confidence, that will be done in private '''' Since then Cureton and Hoolihan have both been slatted in public

4) ''''Can I just make it clear that I don''t expect to see my comments in print tomorrow'''' He was talking to an Archant journo who was at the fans forum, it was a public meeting what did he expect?

5)'''' I don''t do favourites, I always play the best team'''' Gibbs, Fozzy, Pattison, Sibbi spring to mind

6) ''''  I think at Blackpool he was the star of the show and I think he was allowed to basically do what he wants. Well, no, not here -- he will play my way or he won''t play." Was that neccessary?

Thats just 6 examples that spring to mind but I could research BBC Norfolk''s archive and find you many more.

As I said I neither like him or dislike him, just wish he''d think before he speaks, was bit more diplomatic and made more effprt to endear himself to the fans.

 

Hope thats answered your question Ron [:D]

 

 

 

 

[ron obvious 1,501]

    I wasn''t going to bother, but since you''ve had the courtesy to make a sensible reply here goes:1) I haven''t got a clue. What was said in private is unknown to either of us. His remarks here display annoyance, not arrogance.2) I largely agree. I also think he has no idea (or appreciation) of how exciting & devastating Hux was in his prime. This demonstrates stupidity, not arrogance.3) Inconsistency, not arrogance.4) Possibly irony. Otherwise stupidity again.5) He almost certainly sees them as the best players to suit his game plan. Right or wrong, it can only be his decision to make.6) Statement of fact. Tactless, perhaps, but honest.        I was specifically asking for the arrogant remarks in the latest article. You have pointed out remarks in previous articles which you dislike, but, as far as I can see, do not display arrogance. I suspect your perception of arrogance lies in the fact that he does not take fans'' opinions (i.e. your opinions) into account when making team selections; as I have already pointed out, this would be impossible - for any manager.    I don''t know that I particularly like him, or agree with his team selections/tactics, but then I''m humble enough to admit that he knows more about it than I do.     I''ll decide whether I like him or not in May.   

[a1canary 0]

That''s brilliant Ron! This manager of ours has really messed with your head!! So let me get this straight. Roeder is:

honest, annoyed, stupid, inconsistent, ironic, stupid (again) and tactless. Yet you may still like him!

And you don''t think an ironic, inconsistent and tactless person, especially when annoyed, might come across as arrogant? Is it possible to be all those things without being arrogant!?

You don''t have to think he''s arrogant, i just don''t understand why you point blank refuse to believe others might find him so. And the fact that you''ve called him pretty much everything else under the sun makes that even more bizarre!

Oh and despite him being doubly stupid, he knows more than you. Oh dear you!

Thing is, he does know more than you, and me and all of us (about football mgmt) i''m sure, so you can''t call him stupid at the same time. Especially when in the same breath you''re all humble towards him and deferring to his greater knowledge!

[ca 1]

Oh dear Ron you don''t like me calling Roeder arrogant but you go on to call him stupid, annoying, tactless and inconsistant [:)]

[ca 1]

Another quote from Roeder today in his  EEN column

'''' We would have be in serious trouble without the loan system but there have been people suggesting that the loan players dont give their all for the club, to me they are classless people

 

Doesnt like fans giving their opinions does he?