Matt Morriss 69 Posted May 15, 2009 One thought has just occured to me (its been a hard week) but this season was our first in 6 years without Darren Huckerby, and look what happened.Hucks was a talisman on the pitch, his performances spurred on the rest of the team. A lot of the time the team played crap, but Hucks always managed to be the deciding factor and would get us out of trouble. This season we missed that greatly, especially at the start when there was no one unlocking defences or scoring. I have actually thought that this season at times weve played some of the best football ive seen in years, even better than the promotion winning season. But whilst it has been great passing football, it hasnt been winning football, and that was our downfall.The promotion season we were dogged and wore the opposition down. The cutting edge was provided by Hucks. Seasons after relegation we looked poor at times but managed to win matches mainly thru Hucks contribution. We relied on him so much in every single match and it got to the point where he was our only form of attack.But then Roeder gets rid and what happens. We start the season devoid of anyone to create or score and we finish with relegation. There are many reasons for it, lack of money from the board, Roeder, the loans, but could Huckerby''s absence have been the major reason we went down?I actually think so now, we relied on him for so long, he carried us for years, the second he''s gone we get relegated.So what does everyone think? Was it the board? Was it Roeder? Was it Gunn? Was it the loans? Or was it simply the loss of our talismanic, inspirational leader Darren Huckerby? A man who led by example and never let us down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Romantic 0 Posted May 15, 2009 But we got relegated once with him too...You love him too much. It''s not that simple surely? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lincs CR 0 Posted May 15, 2009 With the greatest of respects losing him didn''t relegate us. Years of tactless and inept decisions from our board got us relegated.When he still played for us under Grant the spirit in the squad was dwindling and deteriorating. Saying that the reason we were relegated because of Huckerby''s departure is madness... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viva_Marc_Libbra 0 Posted May 15, 2009 It wasn''t the main reason, but had he been offered a contract would we be more likely to stay up? In my opinion that''s a no brainer yes, our left side was a problem all season, there would have been no need to spend 500k on David Bell, that money could have been better spent elsewhere, such as a permanent central defender or right back. So yes I think had Darren Huckerby stayed, we''d be much more likely to still be in the championship. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted May 15, 2009 yep, we''d still be in the top 2 leagues i agree. But i think Dublin was more of a loss in terms of team spirit and leadership. We never replaced him. 7 goals and half the time he spent in defence and setting up others, at the ripe old age of 39! Legend! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pudd 1 Posted May 15, 2009 We were a one-man team when he was here.We were struggling before he turned up. We''ve struggled since he left. We''ve been a very average side years (pretty much since Martin O''Neill left us).Nigel Worthington''s finest hour was annoucing Huck''s arrival. We were very lucky to have someone that played so well and regularly that loved the club.Even during very poor Norwich performances, you knew that he had the ability (and the desire) to turn the game in a few moments.Roeder''s ego couldn''t cope with having a big character to compete with. Roeder''s lowest point was dumping Hucks out.We''ve really missed him since! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singing canary 0 Posted May 15, 2009 i firmly belive its a mixture of poor management , poor loan players , no ambition .but yes i agree with you to a certain degree , we did miss huckerby late on in the game when defences started to tire he unlocked them .alot of bad mistakes , which was clear to see in august we would strugle this season . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardhouse44 261 Posted May 15, 2009 [quote user="Lincs CR"]With the greatest of respects losing him didn''t relegate us. Years of tactless and inept decisions from our board got us relegated.When he still played for us under Grant the spirit in the squad was dwindling and deteriorating. Saying that the reason we were relegated because of Huckerby''s departure is madness...[/quote] So you don''t think that Huck would have scored a few goals set up more goals and helped win just maybe one more game if not two. Cos I sure as hell think he would. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singing canary 0 Posted May 15, 2009 without a shadow of doubt , i also think if we had the big man up front from the word go this wouldnt have happened , roeder said this at the end of last season and nothing was done at all .when we brought lita in we gained points , when he went we started losing again .i dont understand how a big club like this has people in charge who have made some pathetic choices , Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Croydon Canary 0 Posted May 15, 2009 I,ve said repeatedly,Huckerby,s absence this season has cost City at least six points.Roeder couldn,t cope with Di canio at Wet Spam and it was history repeating itself here! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WrightyBoy 0 Posted May 15, 2009 Your right.... The same effect happened to QPR about ten years ago when Sir Les left they went from being a top 5 finishing team to relegated!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptnCanary 0 Posted May 15, 2009 You only just noticed? Getting rid of Huckerby is not the reason we went down but had we kept him we would almost certainly have survived. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites