Killen in the World Cup Finals

[dpit 1]

What with John Kennedy''s retirement, Gibbs and Bertrand in the Unser 21s side today and Chris Killen on his way to South Africa with New Zealand, it begs the question...had these and our other loanees over the last year or so, been proper singings (and yes, I know it was never financially feasible), would we have suffered the same fate.

[Canariesworld 0]

Yes.

[Syteanric 1]

it wasn''t the fact they were on loan.. its the fact they didnt give a toss....

Darren Huckerby and alan Lee were loan players from the last few years who cared... shame we couldn''t of found more with their attitude

[In Dubious Battle 0]

New Zealand will get stuffed at the world cup finals. If their performances in the confederations cup are representative of their general ability that is. They had the easiest route to the finals of any country on the planet, all they had to do was beat a couple of little islands & Bahrain. Just because they''re going to the finals doesn''t suddenly make Chris Killen any god. He was useless last season and he''s useless now.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

it wasn''t the fact they were on loan.. its the fact they didnt give a toss....

Darren Huckerby and alan Lee were loan players from the last few years who cared... shame we couldn''t of found more with their attitude

[/quote]

Think you''re being a bit harsh on some of the lads.

Some of them like Henry, Mooney, Killen, Gow and Sibierski never looked like they were going to put it in for Norwich.

But then you''ve got the likes of Lee, Evans, Bertrand, Gibbs, Taylor and even Lita (in his own kind of way) who were prepared to do their bit.

With Gibbs, in particular, I think it was a case of a young and inexperienced player coming into a team with problems. In other words, he was out of his depth. I don''t think it was about his attitude at all.

Besides, plenty of the contracted players let us down as well.

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="GJP"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

it wasn''t the fact they were on loan.. its the fact they didnt give a toss....

Darren Huckerby and alan Lee were loan players from the last few years who cared... shame we couldn''t of found more with their attitude

[/quote]

With Gibbs, in particular, I think it was a case of a young and inexperienced player coming into a team with problems. In other words, he was out of his depth. I don''t think it was about his attitude at all.

[/quote]What, a team that had won 4 out of the last 5 and were unbeaten in 12 games from Febuary to the start of December? Infact if I remember it was us throwing Gibbs and Henry in at the deep-end, out of position, with a lack of knowledge about what the game was going to be like that almost got us relegated. I stand by what I said then. Gibbs was never a midfielder and to throw a 17 year old in against a team of kickers (Phil Brown) was always going to fail miserably. And to defend those lads, the manager was Glenn Roeder. Look what he did to players who actually gave a toss (Huckerby, Shackell etc.), so what was the point?

[ZLF 274]

Our squad last season was good enough to avoid relegation.  However poor managerial choices from Jan onwards meant we were condemned irrespective of the squad.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]Our squad last season was good enough to avoid relegation.  However poor managerial choices from Jan onwards meant we were condemned irrespective of the squad.[/quote]Lets be fair - it wasn''t just January onwards - it was the whole season. Poor managerial choices like keep giving Sibierski chances when he never looked like he was really up for it. Keep playing Fotheringham when he wasn''t doing much above average. Keep playing Russell up front, leaving Hoolahan out of the team.To be fair to Gunn the one thing that gave us a chance was getting Hoolahan back in the team and when he did we started picking up results, it was his injury that left us short creatively.Its really hard to blame just Gunn when you look at the mess Roeder made.

[AJ 1,224]

It begs the question, would they actually have come here perminantly?

[ZLF 274]

Yes - it probably was for  the whole season and Roeder has rightly taken a lot of flack for his part in the debacle.

But by managerial choices I was not solely pointing at gunn,  who should never have been appointed.   The key "choice" was by the board to first sasck roeder without having a replacement in mind and then to appoint gunn - those two decisions alone mean we entered the race handicapped,  let alone the inevitable subsequent errors by gunn, which far far outweigh the introduction of Hoolahoop

 

[norfolkchance1 0]

I was talking to a Celtic fan about Chris Killen, lets just say the lady''s opinion of him was not a ringing endorsement.

It just proves what a joke international football qualification is when Croatia Czech Rep etc miss out and New Zealand qualify after playing a few islands: - they don''t even play Australia now.

[ZLF 274]

Killen simply not good enough - Gow and Mooney were far better players and the ones I would have hoped to have signed.

 

It just proves what a joke international football qualification is when Croatia Czech Rep etc miss out and New Zealand qualify after playing a few islands: - they don''t even play Australia now.

People said the same in ''72 with Zaire in the finals, and look at the development of African football since.  Thats why these teams are there - to continue local interest and raise the overal standard of world football - not to commiserate with someone like the czechs who cant even be the third best in their group.  At least it is the one best from Oceania - opposed to the 11th best from Europe even if 13 nations from the worlds top 20 are from europe 

[ncfc4life 0]

It has to be said that it is a total farce that new zealand have qualified. They are ranked 82nd (lower than any of our nations i believe) and they had to beat fiji, new caledonia and Bahrain to get to the finals. Hardly the most difficult route to the finals

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="seby1991"]It has to be said that it is a total farce that new zealand have qualified. They are ranked 82nd (lower than any of our nations i believe) and they had to beat fiji, new caledonia and Bahrain to get to the finals. Hardly the most difficult route to the finals[/quote]Australia should never have been allowed to qualify via the Asian section, either that or New Zealand should have had to join them. How can you change continent? Perhaps Wales might be allowed to qualify from North America?

[king canary 7,654]

hasn''t james henry just scored 5 in 4 games?

[J Dilla (Rest In Beats) 0]

If killen can play in the World Cup i could at least play at league 2 level.

[ncfc4life 0]

Thinking about it David Carney could be playing in the world cup. Is it me or are there are some real bad countries in this world cup. I mean Honduras, Costa Rica, New Zealand and Algeria doesnt realy strike any fear in me. Still saying that im sure england will manage to lose to em!

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

Yeah, Carney will be there. He''s featuring regularly in the Australian setup, although mostly on the bench.

Its worth knowing that Carney is currently starting regularly for FC Twente, at the pointy end of the Eredivisie League, and also playing in the Europa League.

Pity he was never fit when playing for Norwich. You never got to see what he can do.

On the quality of the world cup teams, its worth remembering that its the World Cup Finals, not the best 32 teams in the world.

While I agree that NZ are a very poor team (half the first 11 play for the same club - Wellington - in the A-League, and they can''t even top that), they are there on merit, and I think teams like them, & Trinidad & Tobago last world cup, end up making the game more popular in those areas.

If you want more European teams in the World Cup, wait 2 years for the Euro Championships. All the best teams always qualify for that....right????

[jimidack 0]

[quote user="seby1991"]It has to be said that it is a total farce that new zealand have qualified. They are ranked 82nd (lower than any of our nations i believe) and they had to beat fiji, new caledonia and Bahrain to get to the finals. Hardly the most difficult route to the finals[/quote]It''s hardly a farce, it''s called the world cup for a reason. So what if New Zealand have qualified? The tournament is supposed to be about the best from all the federations so if that means New Zealand won the right to play in SA next summer so be it! I think it adds the whole experience to have a couple of unknown quantities taking part, although they did play at the confederations cup last summer but, who was watching?.I bet no one would have complained if Portugal and France went out to inferior footballing nations last night. Infact, I think a lot of people may have enjoyed the prospect and used it to proclaim England as one of the favourites!

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="jimidack"][quote user="seby1991"]It has to be said that it is a total farce that new zealand have qualified. They are ranked 82nd (lower than any of our nations i believe) and they had to beat fiji, new caledonia and Bahrain to get to the finals. Hardly the most difficult route to the finals[/quote]It''s hardly a farce, it''s called the world cup for a reason. So what if New Zealand have qualified? The tournament is supposed to be about the best from all the federations so if that means New Zealand won the right to play in SA next summer so be it! I think it adds the whole experience to have a couple of unknown quantities taking part, although they did play at the confederations cup last summer but, who was watching?.I bet no one would have complained if Portugal and France went out to inferior footballing nations last night. Infact, I think a lot of people may have enjoyed the prospect and used it to proclaim England as one of the favourites! [/quote]I think the issue here is Australia being allowed to leave the Oceania qualifying group. It gives New Zealand an unfair advantage and takes the place of an Asian team. As i said before what if Wales decided to qualify via the North American groups, would that be ok?

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"][quote user="jimidack"][quote user="seby1991"]It has to be said that it is a total farce that new zealand have qualified. They are ranked 82nd (lower than any of our nations i believe) and they had to beat fiji, new caledonia and Bahrain to get to the finals. Hardly the most difficult route to the finals
[/quote]

It''s hardly a farce, it''s called the world cup for a reason. So what if New Zealand have qualified? The tournament is supposed to be about the best from all the federations so if that means New Zealand won the right to play in SA next summer so be it! I think it adds the whole experience to have a couple of unknown quantities taking part, although they did play at the confederations cup last summer but, who was watching?.

I bet no one would have complained if Portugal and France went out to inferior footballing nations last night. Infact, I think a lot of people may have enjoyed the prospect and used it to proclaim England as one of the favourites!
[/quote]

I think the issue here is Australia being allowed to leave the Oceania qualifying group. It gives New Zealand an unfair advantage and takes the place of an Asian team.

As i said before what if Wales decided to qualify via the North American groups, would that be ok?
[/quote]

If Oceania is so easy to qualify from, why did Australia leave to join Asia? If its as easy as you suggest, Australia should have stayed there and have right-of-passage every 4 years.

The fact is, Australia is way too strong for Oceania, and the reason we left and joined Asia is so the Australian team had more competitive games. Historical, it was actually quite hard to qualify from Oceania. The main reason wasn''t winning Oceania, it was winning 2 competitive games every 4 years, when all you play in between is games against the likes of Fiji, and friendlies that wouldn''t warrant the release of any European based players.

Historically - the winner of Oceania had to play the 5th best South American team. FIFA have since changes that to the 5th Asian team, which is probably a lot easier. But, NZ did a great job to win the games against Bahrain, who aren''t that bad, and have a few of those great "Brazilian" Bahrain residents their government lets in.

Seeing as though before 2006 (from Oceania), the last time Australia qualified for the world cup was 1974 really does render your "unfair advantage" point as a load of c**p.

Funny enough, the last time NZ qualified for the World Cup was 1982. previous to 2006, NZ had a more recent World Cup appearance than Australia. Bet you wouldn''t have picked that eh?

[In Dubious Battle 0]

The principal of world cup qualification is that you qualify from your continent, Australia is not a part of Asia. Either Australia should go back to Oceania or all of the Oceania teams should join the Asian section. I

am sure all that you say is true, But if we don''t have consistency it

will lead to unfair situations. Would you object to Wales joining North

American qualifying? Or Greece joining the African section?

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

So, is why is Russia part of Europe, and not Asia then?

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

...and Mexico part of North America, rather than South?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,568]

[quote user="NorfolkChance"]

...and Mexico part of North America, rather than South?

[/quote]

Because Mexico is Central America and not South America and all Central American teams are in the same region. Otherwise America would have a playoff against Canada.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="NorfolkChance"]

...and Mexico part of North America, rather than South?

[/quote]

Because Mexico is Central America and not South America and all Central American teams are in the same region. Otherwise America would have a playoff against Canada.

[/quote]

ahh yes. Of course. [:)]

[In Dubious Battle 0]

Russia is part of Europe and Asia due to its vast size. Turkey could be said to be Asian too, but equally there is argument for it being European. Israel also qualify in the European section, but thats political. Could you imagine Israel Vs IRAN wouldn''t be pretty. Look i''ll level with you I don''t really give that much of a toss to keep arguing, England have qualified thats the main thing.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

Oh and for what its worth, I hope Australia do better at the world cup than they did in the Ashes.

[jimidack 0]

But the thing is Australia can be classified as Asia due to close proximity, saying Wales to go through the North American qualifying is extreme to say the least. Australasia is actually a region in geographical terms so why can''t they play in Asia? I think it only seems fair that a country the size of Australia has a fair chance of getting to a world cup. Seems ironic that Australia left just before FIFA changed the play off system. So rather than New Zealand play the 5th placed team from South America they get the ''lucky losers'' from Asia.On the Mexico point, due to them being in Central America they play in the North American Gold Cup and the Copa America.I want to see New Zealand cause an upset...it just would make me chuckle. As long as it''s not against England! 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,568]

[quote user="jimidack"]But the thing is Australia can be classified as Asia due to close proximity, saying Wales to go through the North American qualifying is extreme to say the least.

Australasia is actually a region in geographical terms so why can''t they play in Asia? I think it only seems fair that a country the size of Australia has a fair chance of getting to a world cup. Seems ironic that Australia left just before FIFA changed the play off system. So rather than New Zealand play the 5th placed team from South America they get the ''lucky losers'' from Asia.

On the Mexico point, due to them being in Central America they play in the North American Gold Cup and the Copa America.

I want to see New Zealand cause an upset...it just would make me chuckle. As long as it''s not against England! 
[/quote]

Australia is in close proximity to Asia??

Firstly which bit of Asia as the group means they have to play games in the Middle East, not that close to Australia. Also countries like Japan are still a 9 to 12 (depending on which bit of Australia you are on to which bit of Japan) hour flight away! That is about the same amount of time from England to Japan so not really that close is it??

At the end of the day it is all about making sure certain countries have more chance in reaching the finals. It is in FIFA''s interest that Australia regulary qualify and by allowing more "Asian" teams to qualify there is a greater chance of rich countries such as Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or China getting through. Ironically what has happened is North Korea and New Zealand got through - not really what was expected.