kevin bond

[staffs canary 0]

C

Can anyone help ? Did Kevin Bond score all 4 goals in a 2 2 draw with Coventry or have i dreamt it????????

[ryan1992 0]

I don''t know if this was him, but I know there was a player, come to think of it, it could have been him, who scored for NCFC and an own goal in two games on the spin, resulting in 2 1-1 draws!

[Nolly 0]

if he did score all 4 in a 2-2 draw it wasn''t against Coventry. We didn''t have a 2-2 draw with them when he was at the club (looked that up on statto.com but it doesn''t give golascorers)

I do remember him being the first player i''d seen to put a shot into the upper tier of the River End, sheer class lol

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

According to Canary Citizens his claim to fame was scoring a goal and an own goal in two successive matches. From that season''s records it would have to be the 2-1 win at Stoke and the 1-1 draw at home to WBA.

[Mister Chops 7]

Was he John Bond''s son, and John Bond kept signing him for each club he managed?

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="El Choppo"]Was he John Bond''s son, and John Bond kept signing him for each club he managed?[/quote]

Yes, he was the worst defender I''ve seen at pro level and only got the gig because of his dad.

[Drazen Muzinic 1,444]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="El Choppo"]Was he John Bond''s son, and John Bond kept signing him for each club he managed?[/quote]

Yes, he was the worst defender I''ve seen at pro level and only got the gig because of his dad.[/quote]

Only superseded by the even worse Kenny Brown a few years later. A sort of Kevin Bond-lite.

[Yellow Rose of Texas 0]

"Yes, he was the worst defender I''ve seen at pro level and only got the gig because of his dad"

Well maybe on the dad bit, but he did get a lot better over time, and I really doubt that you haven''t see a worse defender at Norwich...

[Kathy 733]

[quote user="Yellow Rose of Texas"]"Yes, he was the worst defender I''ve seen at pro level and only got the gig because of his dad" Well maybe on the dad bit, but he did get a lot better over time, and I really doubt that you haven''t see a worse defender at Norwich...[/quote]

Agreed. He almost certainly wouldnt have been a professional footballer if his dad hadnt been John Bond, but he did improve remarkably in the time he was here. I remember Kevin Reeves thought highly of him (although he was his best mate!) and the Observer did a special feature on him one Sunday. Being an anorak I probably have it stowed away somewhere.

[ricardo 7,348]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="El Choppo"]Was he John Bond''s son, and John Bond kept signing him for each club he managed?[/quote]

Yes, he was the worst defender I''ve seen at pro level and only got the gig because of his dad.[/quote]What a load on nonsense. He may well have only got the chance because of his father but you don''t amass 567 games and 35 goals if you are no good. He also played twice for England B.There have been dozens of players far worse than Kevin Bond who have appeared for City over the years.

[marvin the martian 0]

I remember him scoring a 35 yard screamer at home to Leeds

[bloodwagon 0]

[quote user="marvin the martian"]I remember him scoring a 35 yard screamer at home to Leeds[/quote]And his dad doing his nut when he hit it from almost half way line, till it went in and then he was full of praise for Kevin for scoring.Yes i was there lol

[dylanisabaddog 4,876]

In what was Ron Saunder''s last game as manager of the club, we lost 3-2 at home to Everton and all the goals were own goals.  Saunder''s showed his disgust at the lack of funds available to him by bringing on Clice Payne as a centre forward.  Payne was actually a right back, and a pretty basic one.

Or did I just imagine it?

For wht it''s worth, I thought Kevin Bond was an extremely accomplisher footballer.  His record speaks for itself.  Perhaps some people made a judgement based purely on the fact that his father was the manager.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="dylanisabaddog"]

In what was Ron Saunder''s last game as manager of the club, we lost 3-2 at home to Everton and all the goals were own goals.  Saunder''s showed his disgust at the lack of funds available to him by bringing on Clice Payne as a centre forward.  Payne was actually a right back, and a pretty basic one.

Or did I just imagine it?

For wht it''s worth, I thought Kevin Bond was an extremely accomplisher footballer.  His record speaks for itself.  Perhaps some people made a judgement based purely on the fact that his father was the manager.

[/quote]Pretty much. It was 3-1 rather than 3-2, but our goal certainly was an own goal. Payne did come on for Paul Cheesley, who was the centre-forward. Whether Payne actually then played up front I can''t remember.Without pushing this too far, there were similarities between that game and the 7-1 loss to Colchester. Both, because they were humiliating defeats, provided the catalyst for change. In the case of the Everton game it wasn''t so much that we lost, but that we awful - and dull. It was symptomatic that we couldn''t actually score ourselves. It has never been quite explained whether South sacked Saunders or Saunders walked out, but it had become clear South had lost patience with Saunders. I don''t think South minded us being beaten; he minded us having no style.And he used that dreadful performance (perhaps the worst I''ve seen from a Norwich side, bearing in mind it was a pretty dire Everton team) to oust Saunders, rather as McNally used the humiliation of the 7-1 to get rid of Gunn.

[Old Shuck 183]

Yep, Everton stuffed us 3-1. John McLoughlin (o.g) scored ours, big Duncan put through his own net for them. Cushions thrown onto the pitch at the end in protest!

That was in mid-November 1973, we didn''t win another league game until the following February!

[dylanisabaddog 4,876]

Thanks for reminding me it was 3-1.  As for lack of style, I don''t think Aston Villa fans were moaning a few years later!

I still think Saunders was probably our best manager.  He turned around an under performing club in a very short space of time with very little money to spend.  Similar to Paul Lambert, although Sir Arthur would probably prefer Lambert as far as style goes.

[Kathy 733]

Is Ron Saunders still alive?

 

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

I''m sure he''s still alive Kathy - late 70''s now only so not that ancient!!

As for Payne he was originally a centre forward so not that stupid to play him up front.

[Kathy 733]

The reason I ask is because if he wasnt we will never know did he jump or was he pushed? I wonder if anyone is brave enough to ask him now?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="dylanisabaddog"]

In what was Ron Saunder''s last game as manager of the club, we lost 3-2 at home to Everton and all the goals were own goals.  Saunder''s showed his disgust at the lack of funds available to him by bringing on Clice Payne as a centre forward.  Payne was actually a right back, and a pretty basic one.

Or did I just imagine it?

For wht it''s worth, I thought Kevin Bond was an extremely accomplisher footballer.  His record speaks for itself.  Perhaps some people made a judgement based purely on the fact that his father was the manager.

[/quote]

Pretty much. It was 3-1 rather than 3-2, but our goal certainly was an own goal. Payne did come on for Paul Cheesley, who was the centre-forward. Whether Payne actually then played up front I can''t remember.

Without pushing this too far, there were similarities between that game and the 7-1 loss to Colchester. Both, because they were humiliating defeats, provided the catalyst for change. In the case of the Everton game it wasn''t so much that we lost, but that we awful - and dull. It was symptomatic that we couldn''t actually score ourselves. It has never been quite explained whether South sacked Saunders or Saunders walked out, but it had become clear South had lost patience with Saunders. I don''t think South minded us being beaten; he minded us having no style.

And he used that dreadful performance (perhaps the worst I''ve seen from a Norwich side, bearing in mind it was a pretty dire Everton team) to oust Saunders, rather as McNally used the humiliation of the 7-1 to get rid of Gunn.

[/quote]

What do you reckon did go on between Saunders and South Purple? Your post is exactly as I remember it and I have often wondered what the truth was. My guess is if it was lack of funds then Sir Arthur held the funds back to get exactly the reaction he got. Because Arthur South was my all time favourite owner/chairman/guvnor or whatever you would call him. He seemed to get us shedloads of money to spend. The whole John Bond and half of Bournemouth deal must have cost a packet. Macdougall, although Graham Paddon I believe was part of that club record deal. Then the following season Martin Peters!!!!!!!!!!!!! To play in the second division too!

Football was certainly stylish under Sir Arthur. But there was more to him than that. Where as Watling was a businessman South was a man of the people. But South''s links to the club went back a long way. He was Lord Mayor at the time when the club nearly went bust in the 50''s. I was told he had more than a little to do with raising the money to keep the club afloat. Ricardo would know more if he''s looking at this thread.

Ron Saunders was Watlings man. And I believe Ron made a rare appearance back here to attend Watlings funeral. John Bond was Sir Arthurs man in the same way. But the two pairings were chalk and cheese.

But this now links with the Trevor Hockey thread from last week. Because when I met Hockey in the 80''s I spoke to him about the club under Watling / Saunders and South / Bond. I was probably a little bit too enthusiastic about the stylish South / Bond era and Hockey was extremely dismissive of it. He just wanted to sing the praises of Saunders, Forbes and Stringer and was not a bit interested in Bond, MacDougall and Peters.

Maybe it was the imminant change in the boardroom that was responsible for Hockeys short stay.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="dylanisabaddog"]

In what was Ron Saunder''s last game as manager of the club, we lost 3-2 at home to Everton and all the goals were own goals.  Saunder''s showed his disgust at the lack of funds available to him by bringing on Clice Payne as a centre forward.  Payne was actually a right back, and a pretty basic one.

Or did I just imagine it?

For wht it''s worth, I thought Kevin Bond was an extremely accomplisher footballer.  His record speaks for itself.  Perhaps some people made a judgement based purely on the fact that his father was the manager.

[/quote]Pretty much. It was 3-1 rather than 3-2, but our goal certainly was an own goal. Payne did come on for Paul Cheesley, who was the centre-forward. Whether Payne actually then played up front I can''t remember.Without pushing this too far, there were similarities between that game and the 7-1 loss to Colchester. Both, because they were humiliating defeats, provided the catalyst for change. In the case of the Everton game it wasn''t so much that we lost, but that we awful - and dull. It was symptomatic that we couldn''t actually score ourselves. It has never been quite explained whether South sacked Saunders or Saunders walked out, but it had become clear South had lost patience with Saunders. I don''t think South minded us being beaten; he minded us having no style.And he used that dreadful performance (perhaps the worst I''ve seen from a Norwich side, bearing in mind it was a pretty dire Everton team) to oust Saunders, rather as McNally used the humiliation of the 7-1 to get rid of Gunn.[/quote]

What do you reckon did go on between Saunders and South Purple? Your post is exactly as I remember it and I have often wondered what the truth was. My guess is if it was lack of funds then Sir Arthur held the funds back to get exactly the reaction he got. Because Arthur South was my all time favourite owner/chairman/guvnor or whatever you would call him. He seemed to get us shedloads of money to spend. The whole John Bond and half of Bournemouth deal must have cost a packet. Macdougall, although Graham Paddon I believe was part of that club record deal. Then the following season Martin Peters!!!!!!!!!!!!! To play in the second division too!

Football was certainly stylish under Sir Arthur. But there was more to him than that. Where as Watling was a businessman South was a man of the people. But South''s links to the club went back a long way. He was Lord Mayor at the time when the club nearly went bust in the 50''s. I was told he had more than a little to do with raising the money to keep the club afloat. Ricardo would know more if he''s looking at this thread.

Ron Saunders was Watlings man. And I believe Ron made a rare appearance back here to attend Watlings funeral. John Bond was Sir Arthurs man in the same way. But the two pairings were chalk and cheese.

But this now links with the Trevor Hockey thread from last week. Because when I met Hockey in the 80''s I spoke to him about the club under Watling / Saunders and South / Bond. I was probably a little bit too enthusiastic about the stylish South / Bond era and Hockey was extremely dismissive of it. He just wanted to sing the praises of Saunders, Forbes and Stringer and was not a bit interested in Bond, MacDougall and Peters.

Maybe it was the imminant change in the boardroom that was responsible for Hockeys short stay.

 

[/quote]Nutty, notice how I cunningly turned this thread into an argument for my McNally-Gunn theory?! Seriously, I wish I knew the answer to your question. Was South Machiavellian enough to force out a manager in that way? Possibly. But my it''s an extreme solution. A bit like the US rationalisation during the Vietnam War that it was necessary to destroy a village in order to save it!Certainly it was said at the time that South wanted shot of Saunders as much as anything because he hated the way we were playing. And the replacement - Bond - was the polar opposite to Saunders. But I don''t KNOW that was the case. I was long gone from the city and the county by the time of the South/Bond era. Which remains my favourite, both in terms of chairman and manager. But best? Hmmmm. And, as we both know, it is quite impossible to compare eras. Despite what some posters here would have us believe...Perhaps Ricardo, as you say, might be more in the know.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

You can compare eras Purple. I know what I like. It''s that benchmarking malarkey across eras that''s impossible. Despite what some posters here would have us believe .....................

 

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="El Choppo"]Was he John Bond''s son, and John Bond kept signing him for each club he managed?[/quote]

Yes, he was the worst defender I''ve seen at pro level and only got the gig because of his dad.[/quote]What a load on nonsense. He may well have only got the chance because of his father but you don''t amass 567 games and 35 goals if you are no good. He also played twice for England B.There have been dozens of players far worse than Kevin Bond who have appeared for City over the years.[/quote]

Okay, I concede to being a tad brash there, he did get better in the latter stages of his Man City career and then Southampton, but I recall getting incredibly frustrated with him during his time with us - at that time he was the worst defender I''ve seen at pro level.Maybe memory isn''t serving you too well, Richard - your being an octogenarian and all.

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

To be fair he was never popular here, but at Southampton he became a very very good full back.

It was said above about his erratic shooting but you have to admit he had a hell of a shot on him that could make a defenders eye''s water if he caught them wrong!

[Andy Larkin 15]

[quote user="Shyster"]Okay, I concede to being a tad brash there…[/quote]Read all abahtit, read all abahtit… Shyster in "Maybe I was wrong confession…"