Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Indy_Bones

Impressive Wins?

Recommended Posts

Have a look at the following victories and tell me if you think they were against ''quality'' opposition:GillinghamQPR x 2WatfordStockportWolvesBased upon this seasons league table, only Wolves stand out, with QPR being underwhelming, Watford finishing not much better than we did, and Stockport and Gillingham not even in the CCC.Where''s the relevance you ask?Simple, back in 2000, these were the only wins in Worthingtons first 16 matches. A period when we had a better squad than we do now, and more finance (apparently).He also had 5 draws during this period:BarnsleyForestBlackburnCrewePalaceIf we were purely to look at these stats, we''d seen a remarkable similarity to Gunn''s first 16 games, and based on current board sentiment we''d therefore have already dismissed Worthington as another ''cheap option'', with no experience and be demanding the boards head.HOWEVER - In Worthington''s case, he was given more time and a chance to rebuilt, and was easily the most successful manager we''d had in over 5 years (since Martin O''Neill left).With this in mind, is there a particular reason why we can''t give Gunn and co a fair chance?Give them a chance to bring players in over the summer, offload a bit more of the crap, and we have a good chance of the players actually playing how they want them to, whilst giving a damn at the same time.Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think some of the players gunn brought in at short notice were good players , and he sent back the one that was proven to be rubbish .

players need time to gell together , infortunately he never had that luxury ,

as i said before roeder being here , damaged us badly beyond repair.

its worth looking down our list of players 17 from 24 were roeders and grants players.

i hardly feel its fair giving gunn a hard time for players he never brought in and never wanted to be here to start with .

its back to basics , i really hope gunn can put things right , we well have to wait and see who is comming in .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="singing canary"]

i think some of the players gunn brought in at short notice were good players , and he sent back the one that was proven to be rubbish .

players need time to gell together , infortunately he never had that luxury ,

as i said before roeder being here , damaged us badly beyond repair.

its worth looking down our list of players 17 from 24 were roeders and grants players.

i hardly feel its fair giving gunn a hard time for players he never brought in and never wanted to be here to start with .

its back to basics , i really hope gunn can put things right , we well have to wait and see who is comming in .

[/quote]

 

 

Gunn was chief scout for Roeder, he had a hand in bringing most of the players he has know to carrow road!

I support Gunn asd a Norwich fan, but his appointment is a joke!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]Gunn was chief scout for Roeder, he had a hand in bringing most of the players he has know to carrow road![/quote]Not saying that this isn''t the case, but where''s the evidence?When Roeder was in charge we got some pretty underwhelming players coming in, when Gunn was put in Caretaker charge he seemed to bring in exactly the type of players we needed in the positions we needed - where possible.Gunn brings in Lee - Roeder got LupoliGunn brings in Shackell - Roeder sold Shackell and went for OmozusiGunn brings in Gow - Roeder didn''t feel Gow was good enough despite performing for Blackpool and then almost signing for WolvesGunn signs Mcdonald - Roeder wouldn''t even consider looking down there for playersGunn wants to give youth a chance - Roeder didn''tGunn was looking for experienced or hungry players to try to help keep

us up, whereas Roeder generally went for players who didn''t give a damn.I could go on here, but it''s crystal clear that Gunn''s ideas for transfers are way above what Roeder''s were, at least in the position we were in.Just because Gunn was in charge of scouting, didn''t mean that Roeder actually listened to him that much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="singing canary"]

i think some of the players gunn brought in at short notice were good players , and he sent back the one that was proven to be rubbish .

players need time to gell together , infortunately he never had that luxury ,

as i said before roeder being here , damaged us badly beyond repair.

its worth looking down our list of players 17 from 24 were roeders and grants players.

i hardly feel its fair giving gunn a hard time for players he never brought in and never wanted to be here to start with .

its back to basics , i really hope gunn can put things right , we well have to wait and see who is comming in .

[/quote]

 

 

Gunn was chief scout for Roeder, he had a hand in bringing most of the players he has know to carrow road!

I support Gunn asd a Norwich fan, but his appointment is a joke!

[/quote]

gunn was part of the process of bringing in players. he would have

been given orders. i.e i want to bring in good young prem players on

loan... go out and look for a decent young centre back... ok... so in

comes grounds etc etc and so on...

gunn wasn''t going to turn around and say ''no way laddee we don''t wanna sign these wee bairns on loan...''

Also, gunn prob put say 50 odd players towards Roeder... it was then

roeder clark and stephenson who would go out and have the final look.

NOT GUNN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]Gunn was chief scout for Roeder, he had a hand in bringing most of the players he has know to carrow road![/quote]Not saying that this isn''t the case, but where''s the evidence?When Roeder was in charge we got some pretty underwhelming players coming in, when Gunn was put in Caretaker charge he seemed to bring in exactly the type of players we needed in the positions we needed - where possible.Gunn brings in Lee - Roeder got LupoliGunn brings in Shackell - Roeder sold Shackell and went for OmozusiGunn brings in Gow - Roeder didn''t feel Gow was good enough despite performing for Blackpool and then almost signing for WolvesGunn signs Mcdonald - Roeder wouldn''t even consider looking down there for playersGunn wants to give youth a chance - Roeder didn''tGunn was looking for experienced or hungry players to try to help keep

us up, whereas Roeder generally went for players who didn''t give a damn.I could go on here, but it''s crystal clear that Gunn''s ideas for transfers are way above what Roeder''s were, at least in the position we were in.Just because Gunn was in charge of scouting, didn''t mean that Roeder actually listened to him that much...[/quote]this man talks a lot of sense. a question i have asked a number of seasoned football journalists is have you spoken with glenn roeder before... without fail they all said he is one of or THE hardiest most narrow minded guy they have dealt with in football... Glenn would have listened a little but not a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]Gunn was chief scout for Roeder, he had a hand in bringing most of the players he has know to carrow road![/quote]Not saying that this isn''t the case, but where''s the evidence?

When Roeder was in charge we got some pretty underwhelming players coming in, when Gunn was put in Caretaker charge he seemed to bring in exactly the type of players we needed in the positions we needed - where possible.

Gunn brings in Lee - Roeder got Lupoli
Gunn brings in Shackell - Roeder sold Shackell and went for Omozusi
Gunn brings in Gow - Roeder didn''t feel Gow was good enough despite performing for Blackpool and then almost signing for Wolves
Gunn signs Mcdonald - Roeder wouldn''t even consider looking down there for players
Gunn wants to give youth a chance - Roeder didn''t

Gunn was looking for experienced or hungry players to try to help keep us up, whereas Roeder generally went for players who didn''t give a damn.

I could go on here, but it''s crystal clear that Gunn''s ideas for transfers are way above what Roeder''s were, at least in the position we were in.

Just because Gunn was in charge of scouting, didn''t mean that Roeder actually listened to him that much...
[/quote]

Killen,Carney, Leijer (sorry if spelling is wrong)

Shackell was sold by the board to balance Turners 2mil non show

Don''t be selective will you[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Roeder would have kept us up , big mistake sacking him if we were only going to replace him with a clown .
[/quote]

oh dear[:S]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Roeder would have kept us up , big mistake sacking him if we were only going to replace him with a clown .
[/quote]

I don''t even know why I am responding to this silly post but I am so here goes : what an idiotic post ! If you haven''t got anything more sensible to say why do you bother ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]Gunn was chief scout for Roeder, he had a hand in bringing most of the players he has know to carrow road![/quote]Not saying that this isn''t the case, but where''s the evidence?

When Roeder was in charge we got some pretty underwhelming players coming in, when Gunn was put in Caretaker charge he seemed to bring in exactly the type of players we needed in the positions we needed - where possible.

Gunn brings in Lee - Roeder got Lupoli
Gunn brings in Shackell - Roeder sold Shackell and went for Omozusi
Gunn brings in Gow - Roeder didn''t feel Gow was good enough despite performing for Blackpool and then almost signing for Wolves
Gunn signs Mcdonald - Roeder wouldn''t even consider looking down there for players
Gunn wants to give youth a chance - Roeder didn''t

Gunn was looking for experienced or hungry players to try to help keep us up, whereas Roeder generally went for players who didn''t give a damn.

I could go on here, but it''s crystal clear that Gunn''s ideas for transfers are way above what Roeder''s were, at least in the position we were in.

Just because Gunn was in charge of scouting, didn''t mean that Roeder actually listened to him that much...
[/quote]

 

Good post, thoughtful, constructive and positive. Blimey, and yes I am on the Pink Un MB !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Roeder would have kept us up , big mistake sacking him if we were only going to replace him with a clown .
[/quote]

You''re becoming tiresome now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, my opinion of Gunn as manager hasn''t changed based on the last 19 games.  I mostly blame the players and their inability to play as a team for our position and the blame for that goes to roeder as far as I am concerned.  That is, I still think he is a risk, but one that could pay-off.  He never promised to be a tactical genius, but does seem adequate in that department.I think that a team of players, playing for each other and the fans is far more important than who the players are or what they cost.  All the best Norwich teams through history have this in common and I feel, if (as he claims) Gunn refuses to use the loan system with the exception of season long loans early on (ie in august) or cover for long term injury, then he could be the type of man we need to build this kind of team.We''ll see what he actually does of course -  any board room changes won''t be that quick - but I am sanguine about players leaving, whoever they may be. I am quite confident that any we have who don''t really want to be here will be relegated to reserve positions or removed.  Also he seems to have a reasonable eye for a player, his loan signings last season, while not all amazing were more positive than negativeI am also pleased that the board have identified one of their failings (too many managers in quick sucession) and have tried a different tack.  Hopefully this method will be applied to other failings while they are still in charge.  (Such as still being in charge!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Lord Snooty"]

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Roeder would have kept us up , big mistake sacking him if we were only going to replace him with a clown .[/quote]

I don''t even know why I am responding to this silly post but I am so here goes : what an idiotic post ! If you haven''t got anything more sensible to say why do you bother ?

[/quote]FWIW, I don''t think we''d have been relegated under Roeder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it seems taking a team cut adrift at the bottom of the league and saving them from relegation does not match up to taking a team from 5th bottom and getting them relegated by a clear 5 points . But then Gunny pretends to bleed yellow and green so that makes him the next Ferguson to most of the morons who support Delia on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Yes it seems taking a team cut adrift at the bottom of the league and saving them from relegation does not match up to taking a team from 5th bottom and getting them relegated by a clear 5 points.[/quote]It would if you were comparing the same squads.Roeder had a squad with players like Hucks and Dublin, Gunn didn''t - and who''s fault was that? Roeder''s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Lord Snooty"]

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Roeder would have kept us up , big mistake sacking him if we were only going to replace him with a clown .
[/quote]

I don''t even know why I am responding to this silly post but I am so here goes : what an idiotic post ! If you haven''t got anything more sensible to say why do you bother ?

[/quote]

FWIW, I don''t think we''d have been relegated under Roeder.
[/quote]

you are having a joke aren''t you? the players had given up on him! theres no way we''d of stuck 4 past Barnsley, infact it would of been the other way round.. if roeder had stayed i dont think we''d of won another game all season!

jas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Yes it seems taking a team cut adrift at the bottom of the league and saving them from relegation does not match up to taking a team from 5th bottom and getting them relegated by a clear 5 points . But then Gunny pretends to bleed yellow and green so that makes him the next Ferguson to most of the morons who support Delia on here.
[/quote]

i dont support Delia but i support Gunn, Ridicule me all you like but if you sit and look at the FACTS then it P*sses all over your arguement im afraid.

1. it was Roeders squad.

2. Gunn came in too late in the transfer window to buy anyone

3. there is no money for players.

4. the board hired gunn.. he didnt just announe himself as manager.

5. the board chose Gunn over more suitable applicants.

6. the board, for whatever Reason, Stuck by gunn and hired him for this season, see point 4.. he didnt jusst make himself manager to fuel an ego did he?

7. there is no moneey to spend on players.

8. Gunn got it right with Lee, Mooney and Leijer in my opinion.

9. there is no money for Gunn to improve the squad.

10. there is no money to allocate to Gunn to bring in quality.

Lets also add to the fact that, regardless what some might say, the likes of Marshall, clingan, and others were not good enough for the championship... anyone who says they were then needs to have a good reason as to why they got us relegated.... Gunn is cleaning the crap out. Marshalls gone, Croft is going, the over rated Clingan will hopefully be next.

lets use what little money we do get to tyr and attract players who want to be here.

Don''t expect promotion, thats not what we want.. we need to steady a sinking ship.. then we might all get excited about the 10/11 season UNDER gunn as manager.

Good luck Bryan!

jas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Lord Snooty"]

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Roeder would have kept us up , big mistake sacking him if we were only going to replace him with a clown .[/quote]

I don''t even know why I am responding to this silly post but I am so here goes : what an idiotic post ! If you haven''t got anything more sensible to say why do you bother ?

[/quote]FWIW, I don''t think we''d have been relegated under Roeder.[/quote]I disagree - I think he''d clearly lost the players (the shambles against Charlton in the Cup was proof of that). However I think appointing a ''proper'' manager could well have kept us up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Have a look at the following victories and tell me if you think they were against ''quality'' opposition:

Gillingham
QPR x 2
Watford
Stockport
Wolves

Based upon this seasons league table, only Wolves stand out, with QPR being underwhelming, Watford finishing not much better than we did, and Stockport and Gillingham not even in the CCC.

Where''s the relevance you ask?

Simple, back in 2000, these were the only wins in Worthingtons first 16 matches. A period when we had a better squad than we do now, and more finance (apparently).

He also had 5 draws during this period:

Barnsley
Forest
Blackburn
Crewe
Palace

If we were purely to look at these stats, we''d seen a remarkable similarity to Gunn''s first 16 games, and based on current board sentiment we''d therefore have already dismissed Worthington as another ''cheap option'', with no experience and be demanding the boards head.

HOWEVER - In Worthington''s case, he was given more time and a chance to rebuilt, and was easily the most successful manager we''d had in over 5 years (since Martin O''Neill left).

With this in mind, is there a particular reason why we can''t give Gunn and co a fair chance?

Give them a chance to bring players in over the summer, offload a bit more of the crap, and we have a good chance of the players actually playing how they want them to, whilst giving a damn at the same time.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

IMO the reason that Gunny will not be given a fair chance is purely because of the hostile feeling towards Delia and co. In fact it really doesn''t matter what decisions they make now, good or bad they will not be supported by most on here because they just want her out, end of !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody wanting a idiot like Gunn to manage this club has not got any knowledge of football whatsoever , he got the job because he will say yes to Deliar , worst Norwich City manager of all time bar none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Gunns NO Legend"]Anybody wanting a idiot like Gunn to manage this club has not got any knowledge of football whatsoever , he got the job because he will say yes to Deliar , worst Norwich City manager of all time bar none.[/quote]I see...So his 31% win ratio isn''t better than Roeder, Hunter, Duffy, Hamilton, Megson, Deehan and Bond then? And that''s just from the last 30 years.Gunn is also clearly no idiot. Lacking in tactical nous - fair play, lacking managerial experience - absolutely, but idiot? You''re having a bubble my friend.If you just want to bash the present manager without any justification, why not take yourself off my thread and do it elsewhere. IF you can come up with good, justified and well thought out reasons for your opinion, I''ll be happy to listen, if not - do one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Gunns NO Legend"]Anybody wanting a idiot like Gunn to manage this club has not got any knowledge of football whatsoever , he got the job because he will say yes to Deliar , worst Norwich City manager of all time bar none.[/quote]I see...So his 31% win ratio isn''t better than Roeder, Hunter, Duffy, Hamilton, Megson, Deehan and Bond then? And that''s just from the last 30 years.Gunn is also clearly no idiot. Lacking in tactical nous - fair play, lacking managerial experience - absolutely, but idiot? You''re having a bubble my friend.[/quote]I must say, you are right in what you say. Gunn didn''t stand a chance of doing anything last season, which i feel sorry for him. But next season, i feel more confident of us doing something, as BG will get some men (or boys) in that i think will do the job.Looking who he signed last season gives me hope.Good luck to him and hope it works out, for him (and us).OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indy_Bones "So his 31% win ratio isn''t better than Roeder, Hunter, Duffy, Hamilton,

Megson, Deehan and Bond then? And that''s just from the last 30 years."I certainly wouldn''t consider Gunn an "idiot" but the fact is that he inherited a team out of the relegation zone and took them into the relegation zone. The man having had no management experience had sufficient ego, yes ego, to put his name forward to take the management role at a critical time.  Would you take on a job if you didn''t have the qualifications / skills to do it? He must take a large chunk of the blame along with Smith/Jones who of course are the main culprits. Whilst the recent policy of changing management every 5 minutes has been costly for the club I personally cannot see that Gunn remaining in charge next season will help in any way. I will be suprised if he can motivate a squad sufficiently to get us a top 6 finish next season.The man doesn''t inspire confidence. Are you suggesting that his 31% win ratio makes him a better manager than John Bond. Oh how I would like to enjoy the days of Bond''s reign again where for several seasons we held our own against some of the top teams in the land. How great it would be to see Peters, Boyer, MacDougall and co again. I genuinely believe that some of the most attractive football seen by a Norwich team since I started watching (circa 1970) was during that period. I''m sure you will agree that a 31% win ratio should be easier to achieve against the likes of Barnsley & Doncaster in the Championship than the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool & Man Utd in the top division. Your statistics are as meaningless as the Pink Un''s headline "Bookies backing City for promotion". At 9/4 surely the bookies are backing Norwich not to get promoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Stan Ley"]Your statistics are as meaningless as the Pink Un''s headline "Bookies backing City for promotion". At 9/4 surely the bookies are backing Norwich not to get promoted.[/quote]The point I was trying to illustrate with the stats was that during Worthington''s first 16 games, his win percentage was only slightly better than Gunn''s was, and that was with a better squad.Once Worthington had been given time to settle in, acquire a few players and build on what we had, he gave us our best results for nearly 15 years. Had we simply dismissed him at that point, we''d never have known what he could have brought to the table. Let''s face it, his previous performance at Blackpool was pretty dire, and it could certainly have been argued that he was a ''cheaper'' option at that point than other names.Inexperience does not mean Inept as some seem to believe here, look how well Ince did at Macclesfield and MK Dons, look at Grayson at Blackpool, neither of them had previous experience, so were they bad choices? Their results seem to disprove this theory. Add in the fact that some of our best managers came with little to no experience themselves, yet we played some of our finest football under them.Unfortunately recent seasons have tainted our view somewhat, and now we automatically feel that anyone who isn''t a ''big name'', is naturally going to be crap. Maybe if people looked harder at our more recent history, they''d see that this is a sweeping generalisation - not a fact.Whether or not Gunn is the fans choice, he''s now in the role and should be given time and our support to give him the best chance of performing, not personal abuse and other similar things which are being chucked in his direction at the minute...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]Gunn was chief scout for Roeder, he had a hand in bringing most of the players he has know to carrow road![/quote]Not saying that this isn''t the case, but where''s the evidence?

When Roeder was in charge we got some pretty underwhelming players coming in, when Gunn was put in Caretaker charge he seemed to bring in exactly the type of players we needed in the positions we needed - where possible.

Gunn brings in Lee - Roeder got Lupoli Gunn also brought in Killen - Roeder got Klingon, Hoolahoop and Bell. And what was wrong with Lupoli?
Gunn brings in Shackell - Roeder sold Shackell and went for Omozusi Roeder''s hands were forced by the board. Gunn was head of Player Acquisition who had a hand in the Omozusis. Troys and Sibierskis
Gunn brings in Gow - Roeder didn''t feel Gow was good enough despite performing for Blackpool and then almost signing for Wolves Maybe Gow wasn''t good enough? Maybe he was one of these bad apple type players. When Gow was playing well, Gunn decided to drop him to the bench
Gunn signs Mcdonald - Roeder wouldn''t even consider looking down there for players Gunn''s hand forced by lack of money
Gunn wants to give youth a chance - Roeder didn''t Ditto

Gunn was looking for experienced or hungry players to try to help keep us up, whereas Roeder generally went for players who didn''t give a damn.

I could go on here, but it''s crystal clear that Gunn''s ideas for transfers are way above what Roeder''s were, at least in the position we were in.

Just because Gunn was in charge of scouting, didn''t mean that Roeder actually listened to him that much...
[/quote]

One of the key points that people keep bringing up about Gunn is the lack of finance available to him. That''s fair enough and completely true but surely this is EXACTLY why we need a seasoned manager in charge to squeeze the very best out of the limited resources we have and get the players to raise their game? Not someone learning the job by trial and error and making it up as they go. With the ridiculously small squad, lack of money and supporters divided, now is not the time to put an inexperienced yes-man who has proven to be out-of-his-depth in charge.

IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Stan Ley"]Your statistics are as meaningless as the Pink Un''s headline "Bookies backing City for promotion". At 9/4 surely the bookies are backing Norwich not to get promoted.[/quote]The point I was trying to illustrate with the stats was that during Worthington''s first 16 games, his win percentage was only slightly better than Gunn''s was, and that was with a better squad.

Once Worthington had been given time to settle in, acquire a few players and build on what we had, he gave us our best results for nearly 15 years. Had we simply dismissed him at that point, we''d never have known what he could have brought to the table. Let''s face it, his previous performance at Blackpool was pretty dire, and it could certainly have been argued that he was a ''cheaper'' option at that point than other names.

Inexperience does not mean Inept as some seem to believe here, look how well Ince did at Macclesfield and MK Dons, look at Grayson at Blackpool, neither of them had previous experience, so were they bad choices? Their results seem to disprove this theory. Add in the fact that some of our best managers came with little to no experience themselves, yet we played some of our finest football under them.

Unfortunately recent seasons have tainted our view somewhat, and now we automatically feel that anyone who isn''t a ''big name'', is naturally going to be crap. Maybe if people looked harder at our more recent history, they''d see that this is a sweeping generalisation - not a fact.

Whether or not Gunn is the fans choice, he''s now in the role and should be given time and our support to give him the best chance of performing, not personal abuse and other similar things which are being chucked in his direction at the minute...
[/quote]

Yes Indy and it was argued that he was the cheap option. The same arguments were made just as forcibly when Stringer, Walker, Deehan, Megson twice, Hamilton and Grant were appointed. Stringer, Walker and Worthington proved that cheap can be cheerful while the others lived up to their billing. But that kind of success rate is par for the course at all clubs. The difference with Gunny is that he didn''t step up from a position close to management. All the others had been assistants or reserve team mangers or had managed elsewhere.

I would love Gunny to prove me wrong, he''s a brave man for sure and they say fortune favours the brave. But I''m afraid the team selection and performance at Charlton suggested otherwise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Stan Ley"]Your statistics are as meaningless as the Pink Un''s headline "Bookies backing City for promotion". At 9/4 surely the bookies are backing Norwich not to get promoted.[/quote]The point I was trying to illustrate with the stats was that during Worthington''s first 16 games, his win percentage was only slightly better than Gunn''s was, and that was with a better squad.

Once Worthington had been given time to settle in, acquire a few players and build on what we had, he gave us our best results for nearly 15 years. Had we simply dismissed him at that point, we''d never have known what he could have brought to the table. Let''s face it, his previous performance at Blackpool was pretty dire, and it could certainly have been argued that he was a ''cheaper'' option at that point than other names.

Inexperience does not mean Inept as some seem to believe here, look how well Ince did at Macclesfield and MK Dons, look at Grayson at Blackpool, neither of them had previous experience, so were they bad choices? Their results seem to disprove this theory. Add in the fact that some of our best managers came with little to no experience themselves, yet we played some of our finest football under them.

Unfortunately recent seasons have tainted our view somewhat, and now we automatically feel that anyone who isn''t a ''big name'', is naturally going to be crap. Maybe if people looked harder at our more recent history, they''d see that this is a sweeping generalisation - not a fact.

Whether or not Gunn is the fans choice, he''s now in the role and should be given time and our support to give him the best chance of performing, not personal abuse and other similar things which are being chucked in his direction at the minute...
[/quote]

Yes Indy and it was argued that he was the cheap option. The same arguments were made just as forcibly when Stringer, Walker, Deehan, Megson twice, Hamilton and Grant were appointed. Stringer, Walker and Worthington proved that cheap can be cheerful while the others lived up to their billing. But that kind of success rate is par for the course at all clubs. The difference with Gunny is that he didn''t step up from a position close to management. All the others had been assistants or reserve team mangers or had managed elsewhere.

I would love Gunny to prove me wrong, he''s a brave man for sure and they say fortune favours the brave. But I''m afraid the team selection and performance at Charlton suggested otherwise.

 

[/quote]

Agreed - he is not a manager.

Just over 2 years ago when Grant first bought him into the coaching set up as ''club liason'' (does that even qualify as coaching?) Gunn was quoted in the local media as saying he "thought his chance to get back in the game had gone", suggesting he wasn''t exactly bothered and wasn''t trying to get into coaching, seemingly quite happy with his role as teaboy - yet two years later he is our manager? Pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...