Just how much damage did Roeder cause at Norwich.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

Its often been said of Roeder that he has always been a "firefighter", temporarily repairing a club when its in a mess.

Remember the dreadful mess he took over from Peter Grant, immediately identifying some of the crap that he''d inherited and shipping them out ,i.e Strihavka,Brellier,Murray and then going on a 14 match unbeaten run taking us away from the relegation zone?

However in making a short term impact inevitably enemies are made along the way and this trick will only last so long, 2nd season syndrome comes along and "bully boy" tactic wear thin and coupled with the ridculous policy of a revolving door of loan players which he adopted left us once again in a mess, one which Gunn carried through to its sorry conclusion.

[flecky76 0]

When things get as bad as they do, like when Roeder was at Norwich during his 2nd season, I try to take a step back and think of the bigger picture and perhaps even dare to speculate what the future could possibly hold.

I attended Reading v Norwich back in December 2008, one of the most awful away games I''ve had the ''pleasure'' of watching (and believe me there have been a few!). The scoreline may not suggest it, but we lost 2-0 (a convincing 2-0 if ever there was one).

But looking at the scoreline alone does not begin to tell the story. Take a look at the team from that day (below):

Norwich

D Marshall, J Otsemobor, G Doherty, J Kennedy (E Omozusi, 89), R Bertrand , L Croft, S Clingan, M Pattison (C Cort, 54), D Bell, M Fotheringham, D Russell

Subs not used: S Nelson, A Lupoli, W Hoolahan

Not one striker in the starting line-up, it was clear to everyone that we would not have scored had we still be playing now. If Carl Cort coming on as sub was the answer, I dread to think what the question was. It was negative, unimaginative, boring, clueless, dull, predictable, one-dimensional.... and unsuccessful.

I cannot think of one song that us fans would sing about any one of these players in this line-up. This team had no heros, not one player to worship on a saturday afternoon. Oh how dull!

Without wishing to depress myself further by looking into it even more, I think it says everything about Roeder to look at the 2 unused substitutes from that day when those that played struggled to even get in the opponents half, let alone create an opportunity or, woe betide, score a goal. Those 2 names? Arturo Lupoli and somebody called Wesley Hoolahan. Nuff said. Hucks didn''t stand a chance even if he had have been fit that season.

Sitting there at the Madejski that day, whilst still supporting Norwich to the full, it had become more of a chore than I ever wish it would have done. The fun had gone and I was worried where the club was going. Things in football do go in cycles however and I secretly wondered when our upward curve would come again. Was there anything in particular to cling to in hope that day? Nope. Not a jot.

Which is why the last 2 years have been so exciting under Sir Paul. The return of smiling faces to the terraces, both home and away. The return of heros that we can sing after. We attack with gusto, with a swagger. Everything about today puts the class of 2008 completely in the shade - it''s like comparing chalk with cheese.

When you sit back and think how good we are today, how proud we are of our team right now and how despite losing 2-0 at Old Trafford were still able to create chance after chance with skillful incisive football, sit back also and remember how god damn awful and negative we were back in 2008/09.

Then you realise what such a bad and negative manager Glenn Roeder was and what such an inspired and positive one Paul Lambert is.

Huckerby was never a Roeder player. He would have been a Lambert player.

One of these managers has been, and will continue to be, successful, respected, positive, refreshing and highly rated.

The other is Glenn Roeder.

[Shyster 0]

Some good posts here, especially flecky76''s above.

All I can add is that Shack must be hormonal today.

[Shyster 0]

Some good posts here, especially flecky76''s above.

All I can add is that Shack must be feeling hormonal today.

[Mello Yello 2,279]

I don''t put our then demise entirelyy down to Glenn Roeder.....Our then board of Director''s of which 50% are still Director''s at the helm.....Are just as responsible for our floundering and failure at that time.

Roeder Grant Gunn.....What was all that about?

They couldn''t afford to make another faux pas...It was their last chance saloon and had to get it right.

[barclaystand 0]

Brilliant post by flecky76.The only good thing that Rodent did was signing Hoolahan, yet the fool couldn''t get anywhere near the best out of Wes. Only Lambert has managed that.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]I don''t put our then demise entirelyy down to Glenn Roeder.....Our then board of Director''s of which 50% are still Director''s at the helm.....Are just as responsible for our floundering and failure at that time. Roeder Grant Gunn.....What was all that about? They couldn''t afford to make another faux pas...It was their last chance saloon and had to get it right.[/quote]

 

Thank goodness we kept the right 50% then.

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]I don''t put our then demise entirelyy down to Glenn Roeder.....Our then board of Director''s of which 50% are still Director''s at the helm.....Are just as responsible for our floundering and failure at that time. Roeder Grant Gunn.....What was all that about? They couldn''t afford to make another faux pas...It was their last chance saloon and had to get it right.[/quote]

 

Thank goodness we kept the right 50% then.

 

 

[/quote]

No thanks

[Nuff Said 5,089]

[quote user="Shyster"]Some good posts here, especially flecky76''s above.

All I can add is that Shack must be feeling hormonal today.[/quote]Oscar Wilde must be spinning in his grave [:|]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]I don''t put our then demise entirelyy down to Glenn Roeder.....Our then board of Director''s of which 50% are still Director''s at the helm.....Are just as responsible for our floundering and failure at that time. Roeder Grant Gunn.....What was all that about? They couldn''t afford to make another faux pas...It was their last chance saloon and had to get it right.[/quote]

 

Thank goodness we kept the right 50% then.

 

 

[/quote] No thanks[/quote]

 

Perhaps we didn''t keep the right 50% then[*-)]

 

 

[YellowBlood 0]

For people to say Roeder was completely at fault for us being relegated is wide of the mark although he was a minor factor towards it IMO due to his obvious arrogant attitude towards players and fans alike which was never going to get him stardom. The truth is he was like that as soon as he became manager of the club and it''s okay if your getting the right results as Roeder was achieving in his first 3 months in charge, he had us 4 points off the play offs if i recall on the back of a 13 game unbeaten run and we were hailing him as the new Messiah. It all went pear shaped and then his disgraceful treatment of a club legend in Hucks was down to in my opinion the fact that Roeder couldn''t handle big name characters who always spoke his mind in the dressing room and the fact that he wanted to run things in his own big brass way and that none of the players could voice their opinion on squad selection etc.

The board at the time was solely responsible for being relegated to League One, the sacking of Roeder and the timing of it was spot on, it gave us time to rebuild under an experienced manager for the rest of that season and I''m certain we wouldn''t have been relegated. The appointment then of Bryan Gunn bordered on suicidal and it was inevitable where we were going to conclude. However, League One turned out to be the biggest blessing in disguise anyone could ever get and thanks to Sir Paul and King McNally we are now back where we belong to stay IMO.

[Yellow Rages 0]

I''ve dealt in facts, nothing more nothing less, i didn''t speak to Dejan at all, for the exact reason i wanted the club to do well, i would never tell a player not to sign for Norwich, i''ve been 100% fair with my Roeder comments, many people wouldn''t have been!

 

Scuse me Mr Huckerby Sir, but theres something I don''t get. Not sticking up for Rodent here because I think he''s a tool but if you didn''t speak to Dejan at all then how come you say you bumped into him later on and he said ''you were right about Roeder''?

[hucks@dh6.co.uk 0]

Before the move, obvious I saw him when I returned for Amerca,that was 6 months or so after he signed

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Better Wizard"]bones the 4-6-0 has never been implemented by top teams they still have strikers on the pitch. ridiculous statement.[/quote]No, the ridiculous part is how you completely fail to understand the tactic and then criticise those who do.Any formation be it 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or even 4-6-0 is based on players being in set positions on the pitch - regardless of their natural role or abilities.So 4-4-2 is four players in a defensive position, 4 playing in midfield, 2 playing upfront as definitive strikers.The key factor with 4-6-0 is not that a ''striker'' isn''t present on the pitch, but simply that they are not playing in the traditional striker position, instead you tend to have 2 def mids playing behind a fluid 4 ''attackers'' who move around a lot but with none of them taking a focus role as striker (otherwise it''d turn into a 4-5-1).Next time get your facts right before talking crap.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Well Purple, it is unfortunate that I find you on the side of Bethnal and Shack. Both these two have struck me over the months as similar characters. These are characters one often meets in the football world. They seem to think they have extra terrestrial powers and thoughts way beyond the poor misguided supporter. To show their superiority they often display a contrary nature to a fact that puts them in a minority. As you suggest Purple, if the great Roeder disputes Hucks account, he is free to take legal action. Additionally he can consider calling Bethnal and Shacks as witnesses of course.[/quote]

 

I don''t really know why I''m bothering as you have so obviously made up your mind about me but I feel I should attempt to defend myself here.

 

1. I don''t think I have ''extra terrestrial powers and thoughts way beyond the poor misguided supporter''. What I am happy to do is offer my opinion on any football related issue no matter how unpopular that opinion may be. Some people do not appear to like this but I really couldn''t care less. The majority are not always correct as has been proved time and time again throughout time with regards to a variety of issues both football and non-football related. I do not seek, nor deserve, any praise for this as we are all hiding behind assumed names on here but I don''t think I deserve to be sneered at for being ''contrary''.

 

2. In all of my ''contrary'' posts I try and give reasons as to why I do not go along with the majority view on any given subject. You are quite welcome to disagree with me and point out where you feel I am wrong. I am open to changing my mind on any given subject if somebody can point out the error of my ways. Or you can play the man rather than the ball as you have above. Your choice.

 

3. If you had read my original post you would see that I cast no aspertions on the truthfulness of what Hucks has put in his book. What I have said is that without knowing what led him and Roeder to this point (maybe it is expended on in the book?) it doesn''t really tell us the full story. I suspect we will never get Roeder''s side of the story as I would imagine any settlement he received from the club following his sacking contained a confidentiality clause.

 

4. I am no ''Roeder apologist'' as somebody else has suggested on this thread. I think he had an eye for a decent player (Hoolahan, Stefanovic, Clingan, Bell) but struggled badly with his man management. He brought in some shockers as well (as do all managers) and he was far too keen on bringing in loan players. I suspect his hand was slightly forced in this regard due to the players Peter Grant brought in on long contracts but that doesn''t excuse him. His first season was a success and the rest was pretty dreadful. 

[Hairy Canary 668]

How any NCFC supporter could side with Roeder as opposed to Hucks is absolutely beyond me. Mr Purple, your statement in your first post is indefensible although you will keep banging on in your fashion, desparately trying to justify yourself. Thank goodness there were plenty on the other side of the fence which retored my confidence a little.

Roeder was absolute poison and damaged our club in so many ways. It wasn''t just the players but also the kit man, the groundsman, Neil Adams and supporters at an AGM. His poison permeated through to the teraces where the atmosphere was as bad as I can ever remember it at Carow Road.

When you fall out with that many people from all aspects of the club it is not just bad man mangaement but begins to border on a personality defect. As someone mentioned earlier - he wasn''t a very nice man. 

[Ruddygore 0]

Here''s another one that doesn''t understand the idea of two sides to a story and why it''s good to hear two perspectives even if you trust one implicitly.

Some people are happy to be spoon fed their gospels.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Could we also stop this "fantastic" first season myth? I''m not going to rewrite history and purport that he was shocking.

However, his record in that "fantastic" first season reads Won 13, Drew 8, Lost 12. Average to good at best. And a good share of the Wins and Draws came in a run that began in December which involved, bar 2 or 3 exceptions, players he inherited.

We ended 3 points off relegation. One win from League One. For sure, he did what was needed, kept us up, but he did anything but a fantastic job.

From March 2008 onwards, he was woeful and inept. His honeymoon period he enjoys with clubs appears to last 5 or so months rather than a full season.

8 defeats from the final 12 games of the season would set a benchmark for the torrid season to come. His destructiveness had set in, the damage had been done. Had he not been fired, Mr Roeder would have been the man to take us down. And this is not a defence of Mr Gunn, who I agree is severely limited as a football manager, but you could probably have counted on one hand the individuals who could have halted our slide into League One that season, and they were all unavailable to Norwich at the time because they were managing clubs like Man Utd, Barcelona and Real Madrid.

PurpleCanary can be at his patronising and arrogant best and he would still fail to defend the worst manager I have ever witnessed in my time as a fan (and that is not NCFC manager. That is manager period).

[Ruddygore 0]

And they keep coming...

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

Shedloads of damage but it''s all history now.

[canarydan23 4,060]

"And they keep coming..."

Considering your previous post to the one quoted immediately preceded mine, I have no choice but to assume that it is in response to my post.

Therefore I am compelled to ask, what part of my previous post would indicate that I fail to grasp the idea that there are two sides to a story? Have I missed something with regards to our results from March 2008 onwards? Is there another side to the story, a side where we actually won more games than 4 in 12? Or is there another side to the story that the 12 game unbeaten run that got us to within striking distance of the playoff places was played out largely by players that Roeder inherited? Is there an alternative story to the one with ends with us finishing 3 points off relegation in Roeder''s first season?

The fact of the matter is, Roeder was a woefully poor manager and his man management skills were shocking. Huckerby''s anecdote is merely one piece of a bank of compelling evidence that shows this to be the case.

However, some of you seem to think either that we should not think these things without hearing Roeder''s side of the story, or that if his side of the story was told, we would be arriving at very different conclusions.

Here''s someone failing to understand the idea of common sense.

[Ruddygore 0]

No I just found it distasteful that you targeted someone who has an opinion that there just possibly could be another side or context to the story when in fact that person is perfectly entitled to have that opinion, doubly so since it is mine also.

Not looking to fall out with anyone but you mentioned patronising and arrogant in that previous post which I found ironic given you preaching bollix to me.

Roeder was promoted beyond his abilities, his people skills were poor and he did not achieve what we expect from a competent manager but it is debatable whether he was the worst manager ever, anywhere. There must be so many criteria you could judge them on and there are others out there who are plain and simple crooked. In my opinion that trumps just about anything no matter what fleeting success they bring on the pitch.

[canarydan23 4,060]

The tone of my post, if it was patronising, was born from an annoyance at the "And they keep coming..." which in itself is difficult to read as anything other than a condescending remark.

The the very fact that you describe my assertion that he is the worst manager I have witnessed as a fan as a point that is "debatable" shows you think there is some validity in the opinion.

And I fail to see which parts of my posts could be described as "bollix", particularly when large parts of them are factual statistics.

[Ruddygore 0]

Condescending? No just commentary.

Precisely why I think different opinion is valid on here is why I said "debatable" - sorry if I wasn''t clear on my concept.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Ruddy Wizard"]No I just found it distasteful that you targeted someone who has an opinion that there just possibly could be another side or context to the story when in fact that person is perfectly entitled to have that opinion, doubly so since it is mine also.

Not looking to fall out with anyone but you mentioned patronising and arrogant in that previous post which I found ironic given you preaching bollix to me.

Roeder was promoted beyond his abilities, his people skills were poor and he did not achieve what we expect from a competent manager but it is debatable whether he was the worst manager ever, anywhere. There must be so many criteria you could judge them on and there are others out there who are plain and simple crooked. In my opinion that trumps just about anything no matter what fleeting success they bring on the pitch.[/quote]Who are the crooked ones?

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]

How any NCFC supporter could side with Roeder as opposed to Hucks is absolutely beyond me.

[/quote]

 

Just so everyone is clear it is statements like this that I have an issue with. The fact that Darren Huckerby is one of our best players of the past fifteen or so years is no more relevant than the fact that Roeder is one of the worst. The only thing that should matter is what led to the falling out between the two of them and so far we have very little information.

 

I have no problem with saying that Roeder was in the wrong by calling Hucks a ''has been'' in the dressing room after the game. It was massively unprofessional and probably incorrect. But if you have an inquisitive mind then you have to ask what has led to such a thing happening. It is comforting to imagine that it was as a result of Glenn Roeder being a horrible man as it as it doesn''t affect our narrative of what we believe happened at this time. I just can''t help feeling that there is more to the story than Glenn Roeder arrives - Glenn Roeder is a c*nt - Darren Huckerby leaves.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Hairy Canary"]

How any NCFC supporter could side with Roeder as opposed to Hucks is absolutely beyond me.

[/quote]

 

Just so everyone is clear it is statements like this that I have an issue with. The fact that Darren Huckerby is one of our best players of the past fifteen or so years is no more relevant than the fact that Roeder is one of the worst. The only thing that should matter is what led to the falling out between the two of them and so far we have very little information.

 

I have no problem with saying that Roeder was in the wrong by calling Hucks a ''has been'' in the dressing room after the game. It was massively unprofessional and probably incorrect. But if you have an inquisitive mind then you have to ask what has led to such a thing happening. It is comforting to imagine that it was as a result of Glenn Roeder being a horrible man as it as it doesn''t affect our narrative of what we believe happened at this time. I just can''t help feeling that there is more to the story than Glenn Roeder arrives - Glenn Roeder is a c*nt - Darren Huckerby leaves.

[/quote]I thought Hucks explained that Roeder didn''t believe him when he said his hip was crook.  Therefore Roeder made the assumption Hucks was wimping out.... allegedly of course 

[Ruddygore 0]

Gene Tierney -Who are the crooked ones?"

To my mind an example would be George Graham, nine successful years on the pitch as manager at Arsenal - 1 year ban for accepting "unsolicited gift" of £420k odd.

We all know rumours of others which I''m not going to put in print.

Just my opinion that "crooked" is a criteria of bad manager that I''d place worse than some others.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

 

How on earth would Roeder''s side of the story put what happened in a different context? Please enlighten me!

[/quote]

 

I''ll try. This is Huckerby''s account. Which I believe.

 

“I went in and Glenn said, ‘I hear you told Dejan that I wasn’t a very nice man.’

 

‘No, I didn’t say anything to Dejan. I spoke to my agent and said that I wouldn’t.’

 

‘What did you say to your agent, then?’ he asked.

 

‘I told him that I didn’t want to speak to Dejan because I didn’t want to jeopardise anything, and I said to him that I don’t think you’re a very nice man’.”

 

So Huckerby thought privately that Roeder wasn''t a nice man, and told his agent that, but said that shouldn''t be passed on to Stefanovic. Only months later did Huckerby speak to Stefanovic about this.

 

That all makes sense. But it leaves unanswered the obvious question, which is why Roeder thought Huckerby HAD tried to warn off Stefanovic. It is just possible Roeder made the whole story up, as an excuse to punish Huckerby. But whatever you think of Roeder that seems unlikely. Way too Machiavellian. And Huckerby doesn''t suggest that. All Huckerby says it that he didn''t speak to Stefanovic.

 

A possible explanation is that Huckerby''s private view of Roeder - which he admits he shared with his agent but which he intended to stay private - then by a long or short series of Chinese whispers got out there on to Planet Football. It became public knowledge in what is a small, incestuous world in which not a lot stays private for long. And got back to Roeder. May have got to Stefanovic.

 

Is that the explanation? I don''t know. It strikes me as plausible. Which is why Roeder''s account would be useful. He might well be able to explain why he thought Huckerby had spoken out of turn. How this idea had reached him. Roeder could answer that obvious unanswered question. I don''t see the harm in that.

 

[Big Vince 318]

Neither Peter Grant nor Roeder nor Gunn had any substantial track record in football management. You have to question the fitness of the Canary board, as it was then, in making these ridiculous appointments. As McNally has shown, the recruitment of a manager should always be a head-hunting exercise, not an interview process. But the Canary board had no idea who the bright young things in football management were, and so took the easy way out in inviting applications for the vacant post each time. This only invited all the out of work has-beens to apply (Roeder, Peter Reid, etc), or those who thought they could crack it (Grant), but had no track record. Roger Munby was an absolutely hapless chairman if ever there was one. Every mantra that passed his lips turned to dust. Remember the one about all coaching staff needing to have NCFC DNA coursing through their veins. Neil Doncaster was simply over-promoted. He was a solicitor not a Chief Exec. He would never have done what McNally did in getting Lambert because he would be thinking like a lawyer, making sure that no rules were broken. The biggest crimes that Delia and MWJ have committed against Norwich City Football Club are 1) that they have not learnt anything about the way football operates in all the 15 years they have been at the helm, and, 2) they had, before McNally, failed to surround themselves with people who did know how the world of football operates. Had McNally been in charge, Roeder would have been kicked out because he would have spotted that his man-management was odious. This has been the problem with NCFC since 1996. The owners do not get involved and do not know what is going on at Colney. They place too much trust in others and that is liable to be taken advantage of. This explains why the club slid so alarmingly. I shudder to think what we would do without McNally. Also, it was Doncaster''s idea to go for the loan players, not Roeder.