Clint 221 Posted November 22, 2008 I think I''m right in thinking that if we lose today, which is more than likely, Roeder''s record over his first 54 games in charge will actually be worse than Grants overall 54 game record. Both of these were significantly worse than Worthy''s last 54 matches in charge so........if both Worthy and Grants records were deemed to be ''considerable underachievement'' and ''abject failure'' respectively, what does that make Roeder''s time in charge? At the very least, I would suggest it makes him sackable! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
|BA 0 Posted November 22, 2008 Its not just about results or points. Those that believe that should go shopping and look at the results on sky sportsFootball is about entertainment, opinion, passion, emotion, heart, soul..... losing, as well as winning provides all of that. I''m sadly a long way away, but the repots I get arer that we''re playing much better football than under Grant or the midgets of Worthington ever managed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 5,246 Posted November 22, 2008 [quote user="IBA"]Its not just about results or points. Those that believe that should go shopping and look at the results on sky sports Football is about entertainment, opinion, passion, emotion, heart, soul..... losing, as well as winning provides all of that. I''m sadly a long way away, but the repots I get arer that we''re playing much better football than under Grant or the midgets of Worthington ever managed[/quote]If they are the "repots" you are getting may i suggest for your own health you do not come any closer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
|BA 0 Posted November 22, 2008 Sorry - hotel keyboard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
City 2nd 193 Posted November 23, 2008 Its not just about results or points. Those that believe that should goshopping and look at the results on sky sportsSO WHAT IS IT ABOUT THEN.............what a totally ridiculous statement.........every supporter at EVERY club wants to see a WIN result with MAXIMUM POINTS.that what success is about...........muppet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve b 0 Posted November 23, 2008 [quote user="Clint"]I think I''m right in thinking that if we lose today, which is more than likely, Roeder''s record over his first 54 games in charge will actually be worse than Grants overall 54 game record. Both of these were significantly worse than Worthy''s last 54 matches in charge so........if both Worthy and Grants records were deemed to be ''considerable underachievement'' and ''abject failure'' respectively, what does that make Roeder''s time in charge? At the very least, I would suggest it makes him sackable! [/quote]Roeder should be sacked it was good enough for Worthington, Grant done the decent thing when he realised he couldn''t do the job! Roeder wont quit though to much of a pratt to admit he couldn''t do anything, i do wonder if he is trying to get himself sacked by the stupid things he says about players and fans just so he gets a pay off! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longy 1 Posted November 24, 2008 I think Worthy time in charge is overshadowed by how it all ended, he did a good job for the first half of his time in charge. I don''t think the progress we made under Worthy in the first 15 months of his tenure deserved to be mentioned in this arguement as by then we had made geniune progress, from the mess he took over.Grant had to leave, we were going down last season under him, no doubt. We are pretty bad now, but we were beyond bad at the time of him leaving the way we played against QPR in his last game in charge was one of the most pathetic displays i have ever seen by a Norwich side and there is quite a bit of competition for that.Roeder while we appear to be treading water and I don''t see him as the long term solution does have circumstances working against him, he took over a team in freeroll, stripped of most of its best players. With little or no funds to improve the side. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROBFLECK 134 Posted November 24, 2008 I would choose Worthy over Roeder, and certainly over Grant! Not because of his track record at the club, but because of the way he related to the club and to the players. I think his philosophy was better than Roeders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr carra 0 Posted November 24, 2008 [quote user="Clint"]I think I''m right in thinking that if we lose today, which is more than likely, Roeder''s record over his first 54 games in charge will actually be worse than Grants overall 54 game record. Both of these were significantly worse than Worthy''s last 54 matches in charge so........if both Worthy and Grants records were deemed to be ''considerable underachievement'' and ''abject failure'' respectively, what does that make Roeder''s time in charge? At the very least, I would suggest it makes him sackable! [/quote] The big difference between Roeder and Grant (& Worthington''s last 54 games) is that he is operating on a lower budget since both Worthy at the end of his spell and Grant in his first season (which is when pretty much all the games he won were!) had the benefits of the parachute payments and so were able to have more expensive playing squads. So in answer to your point about his record at the very least making him sackable I would say this is extremely harsh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stone Cold 0 Posted November 24, 2008 While I''m not Roeders biggest fan the point made about the finance''s he has had to work with compared with Worthy and Grant doesn''t make it a fair comparison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xavi- Poor Mans Ian Crook 0 Posted November 24, 2008 [quote user="porkyp"]Its not just about results or points. Those that believe that should go shopping and look at the results on sky sportsSO WHAT IS IT ABOUT THEN.............what a totally ridiculous statement.........every supporter at EVERY club wants to see a WIN result with MAXIMUM POINTS.that what success is about...........muppet.[/quote] Personally i would rather Norwich City played good football than won with rubbish football. If we started playing like Stoke hate to say but i just couldn''t watch anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Binky 0 Posted November 24, 2008 [quote user="Fabregas- Poor Mans Ian Crook"][quote user="porkyp"] Its not just about results or points. Those that believe that should go shopping and look at the results on sky sportsSO WHAT IS IT ABOUT THEN.........every supporter at EVERY club wants to see a WIN result with MAXIMUM POINTS.that what success is about[/quote] Personally i would rather Norwich City played good football than won with rubbish football. [/quote]I would agree that I wouldn''t want to shoot up into the top 6 on rubbish football - a bad reputation for playing style can last for decades. But I''d accept 2 months of whatever Roeder gives us if that is the only way to avoid relegation. Trouble is, we''d never know that it couldn''t have been done differently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
