Roeder - ''I targeted 2 players in Darren's position''

[Matt Morriss 69]

“I targeted a couple of players in Darren''s position - younger players - and I decided to let him go and bring in two others.Roeder''s words on letting Huckerby go.So he brought in Bell and Hoolahan to play on the left wing, to play in Hucks position, so that meant that there was nowhere else for hucks to play did it? Hucks as we all know can play anywhere on the forward line, left wing, right wing, striker. And indeed when the chips were down last season and we needed wins who was it that got the nod ahead of Lee Croft? So Hucks was deemed worthy of the starting eleven, when not fully fit. And now that he is fully fit where is he?If Hucks position was to be taken by 2 younger players in Bell and Hoolahan why is it then that it took Roeder until October to bring in Lita that we finally started finishing what we started and scoring goals. My view is that i would have preferred to have seen Hucks up front this season, much the same as when he first joined us in 2003. This would have allowed us the stability and shape of playing with 2 out and out wingers, whilst using Hucks attacking ability to its fullest and not shackling him with defensive duties on the wing, as that is clearly not part of his game, nor should it be. This I believe would have given us the quality and composure in front of goal that we had been sorely lacking all season until Lita arrived. Would have resulted in more goals, a happier crowd and a higher league position. Instead were left 1 point of the bottom, no hope of the playoffs and wondering what might have been had we seen a team with Bell, Hoolahan and Hucks in it.Hucks was a player to build a team around. Worthy did it by playing Drury behind him and Holt in midfield. Roeder decided to ditch him purely because he didnt want anyone bigger than him at the club. Roeder wants to be the leader in the dressing room, and as star player Hucks has always been the vocal one. And rightly so.And i find it even more arrogant of Roeder that he wont admit the truth and spills the line of '' the new heroes ''. What exactly has Hoolahan and Lupoli done so far then Glenn? Oh right yeah, you sucked all the confidence out of them and now they cant even get on the bench.Well done Roeder.

[Taxing 0]

Completely agree with you Barclayman. It was blindingly obvious, a genuine no brainer, that not renewing Huckerby''s contract was a bad mistake and, moreover, a decision that IMO was motivated by spite, malice and self-serving interest. Anybody with any sense (so, by definition excluding many posters on here) recognised that Roeder''s decision to "let Hucks go" was misguided to say the least. Hucks would probably jump at the chance to play for Norwich again and IMO this would inspire both the team and the fans. Sadly, whilst ratface is in charge this will not happen.

[Paul Spector 0]

completely disagree with you. Building another team around Huckerby would have been a backwards step for this club. Last season I thought he was poor - remember he was part of the team that were bottom of the league last season.

If you were offered before the season, Hoolahan & Bell or Huckerby, would you really pick him? I certainly wouldn''t. It was the right time for him to go.

Well done Glenn.

[PhatCanary 0]

[quote user="We Want Worthy Back"]completely disagree with you. Building another team around Huckerby would have been a backwards step for this club. Last season I thought he was poor - remember he was part of the team that were bottom of the league last season. If you were offered before the season, Hoolahan & Bell or Huckerby, would you really pick him? I certainly wouldn''t. It was the right time for him to go. Well done Glenn.[/quote]

WWWB, I have to say the the saga of bring back Huckerby does annoy me at times, yes we needed to move forward, that''s correct but to not keep a player of Hucks ability even to use as a sub was just bloody mad!! And the fact that he was desperate to stay and the club never even offered him new terms shows me that the club is moving backwards,for gods sake eleven other clubs tried to sign him because they could see he still had plenty to offer. 

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

roeder was wrong to let huckerby go, but if hucks had stayed we would not have been able to sign bell and hoolahan.

we have got to move on!

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="We Want Worthy Back"]completely disagree with you. Building another team around Huckerby would have been a backwards step for this club. Last season I thought he was poor - remember he was part of the team that were bottom of the league last season. If you were offered before the season, Hoolahan & Bell or Huckerby, would you really pick him? I certainly wouldn''t. It was the right time for him to go. Well done Glenn.[/quote]

 

I agree as well - GR was right to let him go even though he ducked the ''reason why'' question at the AGM last night. So many fans simply can''t let the Hucks thing go, there were several questions last night still banging on about this. I have written several posts in the past praising Hucks as being one of the most exciting players ever to pull on the yellow jersey but last season he had clearly lost a lot of his impact and sparkle. Far too many mazy runs ended with absolutely no end product at all (IMO).

As GR said last night, at some stage you have to move on and build for the future, you can''t keep living in the past. We still don''t know the REAL reason why he let Hucks go and it would be disappointing if it was for non footballing reasons (as speculated). It has to be said though that there had been stories before about Hucks relationship with previous managers and his, perhaps, undue level of influence at the club via some of the comments he made.    

[PhatCanary 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]

roeder was wrong to let huckerby go, but if hucks had stayed we would not have been able to sign bell and hoolahan.

we have got to move on!

[/quote]

Yes but the point is we should be able to afford all three we should not have to get rid of players like Hucks because we are skint, the way the club has been run over the last few years is costing us big time,Bell looks like he will be a brilliant signing in time,Hoolahoop seems okay but has fallen out with the boss and we haven''t seen the best of him yet but neither have made a huge impact like Huck did..

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="We Want Worthy Back"]completely disagree with you. Building another team around Huckerby would have been a backwards step for this club. Last season I thought he was poor - remember he was part of the team that were bottom of the league last season. If you were offered before the season, Hoolahan & Bell or Huckerby, would you really pick him? I certainly wouldn''t. It was the right time for him to go. Well done Glenn.[/quote]

 

Hang on, who said anything about "building another team around Huckerby" ? It''s often been said on here that Huckerby would have been extremely effective as an impact sub brought on with 20 minutes to go against a tired defence. How beneficial it would have been to have had Hucks available to unlock those ten man teams that we managed to fail against ! QPR and Derby wasn''t it ? As for being part of the team that was bottom of the league last season you can''t blame Hucks for that, maybe the manager had something to do with it, the same manager who is currently presiding arrogantly over the current bottom of the table team...... without Hucks.

[Mook 0]

I genuinely think that Huckerby''s pride would have hated being used as a supersub. I''m sure Glen read that too. I would have loved him to stay as a supersub, or against weak opposition, but he can achieve more in MLS where the pace is slower and the opposition not as good.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]It''s often been said on here that Huckerby would have been extremely effective as an impact sub brought on with 20 minutes to go against a tired defence.[/quote]

So who plays on the left wing then ?  Because we wouldn''t have been able to afford Huckerby, Bell, and Hoolahan.

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="Mook"]I genuinely think that Huckerby''s pride would have hated being used as a supersub. I''m sure Glen read that too. I would have loved him to stay as a supersub, or against weak opposition, but he can achieve more in MLS where the pace is slower and the opposition not as good.[/quote]

 

Yes, but not just as an impact sub. he was not fully fit last season but he is now and he is far from past it. Therefore, depending upon fitness he copuld have started or been used v effectively this season as an impact sub. When you have a player of undoubted quality, head and shoulders above anybody else, the last thing you doso is let him go.

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]It''s often been said on here that Huckerby would have been extremely effective as an impact sub brought on with 20 minutes to go against a tired defence.[/quote]

So who plays on the left wing then ?  Because we wouldn''t have been able to afford Huckerby, Bell, and Hoolahan.

[/quote]

 

I wouldn''t have bought Hoolahan. I''m still out on Bell. But what I do know is that you don''t release your best player and in the most unpleasant manner. In any case, didn''t I read somewhere that a Norfolk businessman was paying Huckerby''s wages ? How true that was of course who knows.

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="Lord Snooty "]

[quote user="Mook"]I genuinely think that Huckerby''s pride would have hated being used as a supersub. I''m sure Glen read that too. I would have loved him to stay as a supersub, or against weak opposition, but he can achieve more in MLS where the pace is slower and the opposition not as good.[/quote]

 

Yes, but not just as an impact sub. he was not fully fit last season but he is now and he is far from past it. Therefore, depending upon fitness he copuld have started or been used v effectively this season as an impact sub. When you have a player of undoubted quality, head and shoulders above anybody else, the last thing you doso is let him go.

[/quote]

 

....... unless as the manager you perhaps have other non-footballing reasons for kicking the player out. Possibly, something to do with ego and autocracy.

[Xavi- Poor Mans Ian Crook 0]

I agree with Mook. Huckery wouldn''t have wanted to be a supersub and frankly we couldn''t afford to keep him as a supersub. His wages were too high and who would be starting ahead of him without the wage space his departure freed up, Robert Eagle bet huckerby would have loved playing secong string to Eagle.

[blahblahblah 2]

I don''t think you can compare the performances in MLS games with Championship football.  I have no doubt that Huckerby has kept himself fit, but I doubt that he is capable of producing pace over 90 minutes.  On the wages he was on Lord S, which were paid for by Carl Moore, the same fella who is paying Lita''s wages, he becomes a luxury item we can''t afford when we need to make wholesale changes to the team.

[Blofield Canary 12]

This rubbish being posted about not being able to afford to keep Huckerby or not being able to keep Huckerby and buy Hoolahan and Bell is frankly ridiculous.

The money he is on in the States would put him below what we are paying half the loan players who don''t even get a game. He was a high wage earner (although a fraction of what Lita, Lupoli and Sibierski are on) but not any more.

Huckerby or Omosuzi?

Huckerby or Lupoli?

Huckerby or Koroma?

 

Not quite such a good decision by the Arogant One when looked at like this is it?

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Lord Snooty "]

[quote user="We Want Worthy Back"]completely disagree with you. Building another team around Huckerby would have been a backwards step for this club. Last season I thought he was poor - remember he was part of the team that were bottom of the league last season. If you were offered before the season, Hoolahan & Bell or Huckerby, would you really pick him? I certainly wouldn''t. It was the right time for him to go. Well done Glenn.[/quote]

 

Hang on, who said anything about "building another team around Huckerby" ? It''s often been said on here that Huckerby would have been extremely effective as an impact sub brought on with 20 minutes to go against a tired defence. How beneficial it would have been to have had Hucks available to unlock those ten man teams that we managed to fail against ! QPR and Derby wasn''t it ? As for being part of the team that was bottom of the league last season you can''t blame Hucks for that, maybe the manager had something to do with it, the same manager who is currently presiding arrogantly over the current bottom of the table team...... without Hucks.

[/quote]Thanks Snooty.I wasnt going to reply to WWWB post as im sitting here sipping me morning coffee and really couldnt be arsed to disect his as usual obtuse reply. I will now tho.We Want i never said build the team around Huckerby, i said Huckerby WAS a player to build a team around, hence 433 with Hucks roaming the left and Drury and Holt behind him.At this point in his career he should be used up front only and not be expected to do any extra defensive work. We should get the best out of him like we did with Dion. Thats what you do with TRUE CLASS, you accomodate them as they will improve the team if you use them right.And another thing with his form last season, which infuriates me every time a numpty like you says ''Last season I thought he was poor'' - HE HAD NO PRE SEASON, A HIP INJURY AND WAS IN AND OUT OF THE TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!If you hadnt noticed he''s been a revelation at San Jose, fully fit and flying. So how anyone can say he''s finished and would have no impact on our team is ridiculous.If we were top of the league and all our players were flying then yes, maybe he wouldnt get in the team. But there not, were rubbish and were 1 off the bottom and we need quality and inspiration.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Fabregas- Poor Mans Ian Crook"]I agree with Mook. Huckery wouldn''t have wanted to be a supersub and frankly we couldn''t afford to keep him as a supersub. His wages were too high and who would be starting ahead of him without the wage space his departure freed up, Robert Eagle bet huckerby would have loved playing secong string to Eagle.[/quote]What a ludicrous statement.In what situation would Robert Eagle ever start ahead of Darren Huckerby???

[Empty Mirror 0]

There were three aspects to the decision to let Huckerby go.

1.   The manner in which it was done.   I don''t think I''ve seen anyone defend that.

2.   Whether we could afford him.  As has been pointed out, the money he is playing on in the USA (for a shorter season) is reported to be less than several of our players are on.   Either way, if money to pay him had been the only issue, the club could, and should, have made him an offer that it could afford and then if he didn''t take it, fair enough.  Since the club did not make him an offer at all, the argument that the club couldn''t afford him fails. 

3.  Whether it was the right decision in footballing terms.  Some thought not.   Others thought so.   Ok, opinions differed at the time.  But, the proof of this particular pudding is now plain to see.  At the end of the last season, when the chips were down and we needed points, a non fit Huckerby was preferred out of position on the right to Croft.   Now, we''re playing Croft on the right (who was considered not as good as a non fit Huckerby by non other than Mr Roeder) and Huckerby''s replacement on the left, Hoolihan, can''t get a game at all.  Which means we have to play Bell on the left, when he should have been on the right.  And we''re crying out for strikers, whilst those we have - e.g., lupoli - can''t get a game either.  What has happened subsequently has demonstrated, and, yes, with hindsight, that the decision was wrong in footballing terms.

People talk about "moving on".   Which is the classic response of those who are in the wrong but won''t admit it (remember Blair after invading Iraq).  What would be needed to really "move on" would be either a change of the personnel that took the decision, or, maybe, the individual involved being big enough to say to the fans "I took what I thought was the right decision for the club.   The way I did it was wrong, I''m sorry about that, and we can put that right with a proper farewell at Carrow Road.  And, looking at how things have turned out, and with hindsight, I was wrong on the decision as well.  But we''ve now got other players ins and we need to back them".   I could accept that.  But an apology would take a big man.  Do we have a big man in that post?

 

[Xavi- Poor Mans Ian Crook 0]

Barclayman maybe if you read the rest of the thread you would have known that everyone was saying Huckerby should have stayed to be an impact player off the bench. Without the space on the wage bill we wouldn''t have signed anyone so all we would have would be Eagle or Pattison