Just how much damage did Roeder cause at Norwich.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Incredible post Big Vince. Just wondering how you marry all that up with winning the Championship by 8 points and automatic promotion by 15.

 

As for Doomcaster being behind the loan players, you blame him if you want. I couldn''t care less. But Munby thought the plan was being more clever than the other clubs and there were other directors involved in the whole "Roeder show".

 

 

[star_manic 0]

[quote user="NWC"]Roeder - tactically competent?? Sorry, just had a quick truip to A&E to sew up my split sides.
Remember away at Forest - the infamous 4-6-0 formation - the Death of Football ??

Roeder was a tw4t, Hux is still an NCFC Legend, and yes I am old enough to have seen a few. Surely we must all be united on this at least???

[/quote]..................there is a thing called "the peter principle" which states that everyone is promoted until they reach their level of incompetence. unfortunately we had doomcaster and roeder with us at the same time.

[Big Vince 318]

I can marry it up very easily. Worthington was neither head-hunted, nor did he apply for any vacancy for which others were being considered. If you know your Canary history, in January 2001, the Canary board were dithering around in working out their next move, and it took a showdown for Worthy to get the job as he, and Dougie Livermore, and Stevie Foley, went to the board to demand that they be given the jobs they got.

The board were so astounded by these shock and awe tactics, they obliged.

My original point is still valid. Prior to McNally, the Canary board was hopeless at all football-related decisions, as indeed the appointment of Worthington himself demonstrated. The fact he went on to win the First Division by 8 points was down to him, and Darren Huckerby, not the board.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

So who were Nigel Worthington and Darren Huckerby down to? If you know your canary history you will know we had a very different boardroom in 2001 to the one that welcomed in Roeder. I doubt it''s possible to cobble together a team good enough to be promoted by 15 clear points with no football knowledge whatsoever. Your post defies belief Vince.

 

 

[lake district canary 0]

As Big Vince says, the board were struggling with football decisions. They were fishing abit - learning as they were going on. Having got on board a decent enough manager in Worthington, they had success with loans of Hucks and Crouch and others who I can''t remember.

After it went sour and relegation from the prem, my contention is that having had some success with loans, it was deemed that loans worked on the field and made sense financially, hence the fiasco of having so many loans in the next couple of years. You''ve got to give credit to the board now -they have learned - got in McInally, got in good people and are now going through a successful phase.

The damage done was temporary, running a football club is a story of ups and downs - they''ve worked through it and come out the other side.

[Jacko 0]

I think you have to give Roeder some credit for job he did initally. I remember watching a lifeless display against QPR and thinking that relegation was an absolute certainty. He made some astute moves in the transfer market. He cleared out some deadwood such as Brellier and Strihavka. The fact they have failed to make any serious inroads in the professional game validates those decisions. Although only loan, the likes of Taylor, Bertrand, Evans, Camara and Pearce all made decent contributions as the season wore on. There were of course some very dodgy pieces of business as well such as Juan Velasco. The situation of taking Valentin Illiev on trial when he was never likely to obtain a work permit was also bizarre. But he definitely finished the season with more ticks than crosses in that regard.

 

His tactics during that unbeaten run were decent. I noticed that an earlier poster ridiculed his system of playing with one and out winger and one more conservative winger. Usually Croft and Bertrand. But Roeder''s philsophy was modern and now it is the norm to play with only 3 geniune forwards and to look to control the midfield, particularly away from home. We became tough to beat on the road as a result winning at Scunny, Barnsley, Southampton and Cardiff. It was actually when he decided to throw us wide open and play James Henry and Croft as the out and out wingers against Leicester that we picked up a real 4-0 hiding at the Walkers.

 

But after that the freefall was pretty alarming. We went from being only 2 points from playoff contention to looking over our shoulders at the drop. It was a pretty alarming run. His arrogance began to get the better of him after some decent results. Such as the farcical situation where he prided himself on "never paying the asking price for a player," when Martin Taylor was the commanding centre half we needed. The way he patronised some Norwich fans at press conferences and forums also wasn''t nice to see. These things come back to haunt you when you are going through a tough period and were ill advised.

 

The recruitment  was also short termist and scattergunned. The signings of people such as Carl Cort when he ran out of ideas showed just how desperate he had become.When he took over short termism was the order of the day. Anything to ensure survival that season. But we needed a more long term strategy after that. The over reliance on loan players made no business sense and didnt help team morale. Let''s make no mistake either. The board backed him hard. He was given an extremely generous budget in the 2008/9 season and we had a very limited stockpile of players to show for it. Indeed it was the thinnest and most depleted squad I have ever seen at the end of the season once the loan players had been taken away. That is bad management in my view. I accept Gunn took charge from late January onwards but by then the chance to sign permanent players had passed.

 

The man management was also dreadful. The way he treated good professional like Huckerby and Lappin was absolutely disgraceful. It couldnt have been good for team morale. But what was more worrying was that he didnt even treat his own signings with any respect. He didnt give David Bell adequate time to recover from his ankle injury and forced him to play. I don''t think Hucks did anything wrong. He didnt go out of his way to derail any transfer and didnt make a lot of noise in the press. That showed a great deal of integrity to me because he was probably entitled to. After the fantastic entertainment he gave 25,000 of us most weeks he deserved much better than that.

 

The damage he did to the club was enormous. Of course other managers such Worthington, Gunn and Grant must take their share of the blame for our slump and ultimate relegation. But I think the atttitude of Roeder as much as anything else is the reason why he attracts so much criticism and contempt amongst Norwich City fans.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Great post Jacko!! You watched the same games that I saw[Y]

 

[lake district canary 0]

Nice one Jacko!

Good to see an informed, balanced post.

Power to you.

[Legend Iwan 30]

Jacko, what are you thinking? C''mon, you know you can''t come on here and make a sensible post.  [;)]

[Mello Yello 2,294]

I''m comfortable with the 50% of the board that is the current CE, our present Chairman and Micky Foulger....Stephen Fry, that ex Archant bloke and Delia and Michael are owners and serving Board members.....but, I personally do think that the CE and Chairman are without question, the real decision makers and controlling influence at NCFC.

During Roeder''s reign.....we shouldn''t forget the role played by Lee Clark... I thought he was more of an influence to the squad than Roeder....

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="Jacko"]

short termist and scattergunned.[/quote]

Sorry to quote such a short part of your rather good post Jacko, but this sums it up for me.

When the history books of football are written, the managers and the players who are remembered are the pioneers, the inventors. Regardless of however Lambert''s reign as Norwich manager ends, I will fondly remember the professionalism and education he brought onto the pitch, his ability to mould players into roles that initially they weren''t suited towards and his eye for realising his tactics need to change (433 to the diamond to a flat 4).

I can''t comment on the Huckerby saga, mainly because I can''t be bothered with the tit-tat, for me what is most important is the 11 on the pitch. Whilst Roeder''s start at the club was admirable, and the tactics sound, I always got the impression he was a fix-it-man and not a builder. He mended the Grant team but failed to adapt and develop a strategy and plan when he was found out (Hull (H), we threw away a lead, they got promoted). Never once was I inspired by what I saw on the pitch, Roeder merely instructed the players onto the pitch, and never seemed to inspire them. Players of good talent (Huckerby, Clingan, Bell and dare I say it, Fortheringham) never were able to express themselves on the pitch because it was never in Roeder''s game-plan. Beyond correcting the players were they went wrong, he could never forsee the long-term role of telling them what was right, i.e. Cureton''s hatrick congratulation. Roeder was certainly one to retell his successes and live on them for too long.

Roeder showed that he had neither inspiration or foresight, with the bizarre variety of strategies, which are all very good and sound when implemented correctly, being thrown in in a desperate attempt to derive something missing from the players he had selected. Perhaps it''s not unreasonable to go as far as to say Huckerby''s confusion on the Dejan matter is symptomatic of the problems on the pitch, where the players were unable to identify the position they are in, and being put in roles unsuitable and challenging for their skill set.

I for one am very glad that we have seen the back of those times, with a Chief Exec. and Manager, who are pro-active and unwilling to rest on their laurels.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

I feel Roeder combined with the disasterous loan player policy (was it Roeder or board policy to go down this route?) set the wheels in motion for a string of events that have led to the current success story that is Norwich City FC!

Lets analyise Roeders time at Carrow Road.

2007/08 - Without doubt steadied the ship after the woeful Peter Grant era though I still think he underperformed. Why oh why in the middle of a 13 game unbeaten run did Roeder decide to break up a successfull team to bring in the substandard loans Henry and Gibbs?

(Oh and before all the "but Gibbs plays for Arsenal" posts come in, the fact about Gibbs when he was with us was he was way way out of his depth and done b*gger all for us!)

It seemed to me that Roeder was p*ssing about rather than actually trying to build something good, structured and successful. Most of the loans were absolutely pointless (messrs Henry and Gibbs were prime examples) exercises cause the players wern''t needed, didn''t add nothing to the team, were below the standard of players already at the club and it seemed Roeder only got them with clauses saying they had to play a certain amount of games. Ryan Bertrand although good in a handful of matches, had more games underpar yet was picked week after week.

Then Roeder obviously had a personal dislike of Huckerby for some reason, playing him out of position, dropping him, trying to get him out on loan and then releasing him and never giving a good reason for doing do. I''m still convinced the never going to make it at Norwich left winger, Robert Eagle was only signed on again to further rub salt into Huckerbys wounds. Huckerby had at least another 2 seasons of decent play left in him and was still one of our best players at the time of his exit. I''m sure many who''ve seen Hucks in action recently for the Norwich/Ipswich combined Legends team will agree with me that the great man could still be playing League standard football now!

I''m stiill convinced that although we came out of a seemingly desperate position in late 2007, we could of had a serious go at getting in the play offs that season, yet Roeder decided in the middle of Januery after the long unbeaten run that we were safe so he would experiment for the rest of the season. we only secured our Championship place in the penultimate game of the season!

The way we declined from January 2008 till the end of that season gave a hint at what was going to happen the next season, 2008/09 -

Yet again we had a host of woeful loan signings -

Omar Koroma (wheres he now?) the young African striker signed on loan from Portsmouth was an awful signing and to think Roeder let Huckerby go just a couple of months before!

Sibierski - Over the hill has been. legend has it that Shackell who was a good CB was sold to subsidise the Sibierski loan signing!

Jon Kennedy - Was obviously a class CB but the only rreason we had him was cause he was constantly injured so he wasn''t much use to the team.

Elliot Ommorzussi (or however you spelt his surname!) had his reasonable games but overall was worse than players he replaced!

Dejan Stefanovic - Over the hill, slow, expensive and again not as good as players he was replacing.

The fact that the Doc came in from the cold and was out best CB tells you all need to know about the 3 above mentioned CB''s!

Signing David Bell when injured and then playing him out of position!

One of Roeders few good moves was signing Hoolahan but its no coincidence that Hoolahans worst season for us was his first season under Roeder. This was cause Roeder signed him to be Huckerbys left wing replacement. As anyone who watches Norwich and understands Wes Hoolahan will know, the guys unique and cannot be pinned down to one position, being neither a striker, midfielder or winger. Hoolahan can only be played in the free role in between the forward line and midfield. The so called football expert Roeder couldn''t see this blinkered by an awful stubborness. This was one example of Roeders tactical nievity, somthing which Lambert and Culverhouse cannot be accused.

Combined with this tactical nievity and a seemingly less than full hearted attempt at getting Norwich doing well was one of the worst man managers I have ever seen with very very poor people skills which created a horrible atmosphere aruond the club!

Roeder was very up tight and snappy with the media and anyone really and I honestly think he thought the club would never sack him cause they couldn''t afford to.

Bryan Gunn should never have been put in the position he was put in by the borad after the sacking of Roeder but Gunny was never going to say no to the job.

I''ve heard people say that we were never in the bottom 3 under Roeder during that fateful 08/09 season but they are deluding themselves if they think we''d of stayed up under Roeder. In real terms we were in the slide under Roeder and the 2-0 Derby win against Ipswich in December only serrved to give him another month in a job he wasn''t capable of doing.

Roeders last game in charge, a woeful FA Cup 3rd round replay defeat at home against a Charlton team that couldn''t buy a win showed a Norwich team minus any confidence in them selves and the manager. Indeed the team seemed to lose something about them when Roeders assistant Lee Clark fulfilled his stepping stone desire by leaving to become Huddersfield manager.

Those who say Roeder shouldn''t of been sacked were obviously not at this Charlton game!

Personnally I sussed Roeder out the season before on the day our long unbeaten run came to an end with a 4-0 drubbing at Leicester who were relegated that season. The sight of Roeder out on the pitch at half time telling the woefully out of his depth new loanee Henry what to do was cringeworthy!

Overall Roeder only took the job for the money, at his age he wasn''t hungry enough which when combined with his poor ability as a manager meant it was a big mistake from the board appointing him!

As for being a manager. Well I think calling Roeder a football manager is akin to calling me an astrounaunt!

With his poor tactical awareness, poor judgement when signing players and awful people/man management skills, Roeder was a million miles away from being a proper football manager!

To summarise, the Glen Roeder era at Norwich City FC was an awful time for the club and the bloke did a lot of damage that thankfully we''ve recovered from,.

Though one should ask - Would we of ended up with the great Paul Lambert in charge if the events of the previous 2 seasons with Roerder at the forefront not occured?

[Jarrold_stand_blockN 0]

We''re a thriving, healthy, vibrant football club playing (and might I add holding our own) in one of the elite leagues in the world.

 

Condemn Ratty and his awful stint here to the history which is ultimately where he will be judged.

 

I still hate him for how he treated ''our Darren'' though [:@]

[Jacko 0]

I agree with the above comments about the centre backs. John Kennedy was actually a mighty fine centre back in his day. AC Milan wanted to sign him in his peak at Celtic. The problem was we got him when his knees were shot to pieces and he would retire from playing soon afterwards. Thats why he was on loan with us. It made the decision to sell Shackell all the more bizarre. Did Roeder honestly think we could get through the season with Doherty, Stefanovic and Kennedy as our only genuine centre backs?

 

Thats not being wise after the event. Thats common sense. Something an experienced manager should foresee and plan for in his recruitment. Harry Redknapp for instance knows Ledley King has serious knee issues but he wants a player of his class to play in the big games. So he has Gallas, Dawson, Kaboul and Bassong to choose from in other matches. Obviously Roeder didnt have that kind of money or quality available to him. But he could have brought in more cover. That what I mean by the recruitment being scattergunned and having little thought.

 

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Jacko..

 

I honestly believe Gunny''s recruitment for a campaign in League One was more balanced and capable than both Roeder and Grant''s recruitment for their seasons in the Champs. We would have been relegated earlier if it hadn''t been for the players that formed Worthy''s legacy. And the end of Dublin and Hucks was the end of the road. Thankfully it''s all in the past now.

 

 

 

 

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Jacko..

 

I honestly believe Gunny''s recruitment for a campaign in League One was more balanced and capable than both Roeder and Grant''s recruitment for their seasons in the Champs. We would have been relegated earlier if it hadn''t been for the players that formed Worthy''s legacy. And the end of Dublin and Hucks was the end of the road. Thankfully it''s all in the past now.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

He had a very difficult job. Gunn rightly sold the players who wanted out. However the remaining first team squad was effectively Steer, Rudd, Otsemobor, Drury, Doherty, Spillane, Lappin, Adeyemi, Russell, C. Martin, Smith, Hoolahan, McDonald and Cureton. Bedding in loads of players was always going to massive challenge. But starting with a blank canvas was also an opportunity very few managers get. So it was exiciting opportunity to put his own stamp on things. The argument about Gunn has been done to death on here. So I dont think there is anything to add about his reign.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][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.

 

[/quote]

 

Just to add that the latest bit of serialisation confirms what always seemed likely - that Huckerby''s agent was also Stefanovic''s agent. Which certainly doesn''t make that above possible explanation any less plausible. 

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

Glenda certainly sounds like a nasty piece of work when you read Hucks latest revelations, although we all pretty much had surmised that already I suppose.

[writeronthestorm 4]

One of the telling things for me about Roeder is the story about him telling Hucks he can only use the gym at certain times: the whole being men about it thing is pure manipulation.  By putting it like that to Hucks it puts Hucks under pressure so that if he did leak it to the press he would be deemed un-manly/weak/etc.  It also suggests that Roeder knew if word got out he had treated Hucks that way the fans and possibly press would dislike him for it hence him putting the pressure on not to tell.

Hucks comes across as very honest from his match reports and interviews on DH6 (has Hucks met Dave Stringer yet BTW?!) and now excerpts from his autobiography.  Think we all had an idea that perhaps Roeder was a decent football analyst/coach, but not a great people person and this just confirms it.

I''m looking forward to getting/reading the book...

[Big Vince 318]

The board in 2001 was just as incompetent as the one that appointed Roeder. All the main culprits were there: Delia, MWJ, Munby, Foulger (the Gang of Four). The 2001 version had an idiot who lived in London and who somehow managed to get to finance director of one of the largest companies in the land, and supported Aston Villa. The 2007 version had another idiot from Bristol who thought that loan deals were going to revolutionise the way clubs operated and that Norwich were going to be at the forefront of this revolution because it was going to take Norwich straight to the top of the Premier League and beyond. The success that Worthy had was in spite of the board, not because of them. After all, in the 13 years prior to McNally, how many years did Norwich spend in the Premier League. Answer: One. Do you honestly think that is good enough for a club the size of Norwich, and for one which in the Chase era had been qualifying for Europe on a regular basis, only to be denied by Liverpool FC, bar one occassion (1993-94). In any business, long-term failure is a reflection on those at the top. The now Gang of Three are currently being made to look good by McNally and Lambert.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

I assume that post is directed at me Vince. Can you tell me what relevance where these guy''s come from has to the performance of the club. If the guy from London was Bob the grocer then despite your clueless jibes he took on the role of CE when the club was at the bottom of the Champs and left after the play-off final. His cv reads surprisingly well in that respect. Chase is extremely lucky that the likes of you refer to his era in such glowing terms. Yes those successes happened and we loved them but he too should be judged on where he left the club. Nobody seems to remember where that was.

According to you your gang of three were made to look good by McNally who they appointed and Lambert. According to you they were made to look good by Worthington and Huckerby. I suppose according to you they are only made to look bad by themselves. Had so many fans had their way and your gang of three had walked away in 2009 where do you see us being now?

 

If you know your history you will know the make up of the board changed a lot between 2001 and 2007. You will know that it also changed between 2004 and 2007. Good people were lost along the way. Not so good people replaced them. Where are those people now?

 

 

 

 

[Mungo Bumpkin 0]

I''d suggest that the success the club had under Worthy was inspite of him and not because of him. We got promoted because we hit on a stable starting 11 that was never materially effected by injuries. Worthy should have been given his cards on the balcony of City Hall that fatefull evening, instead he was allowed to kill off any chance of survival (let alone prospering) we had by signing a string of duffers like Helveg and starting the season with no recognised strikers - signing Ashton in January was too little too late.

Mungo

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Luvin'' it Mungo!!

 

The success 2001-5 was in spite of the clueless Worthy and in spite of the clueless board.

 

Does anyone know who the tea lady was [c] [:^)]

 

 

[Mungo Bumpkin 0]

Worthy got lucky in the promotion season and got found out in the Premiership campaign. AND he signed the wrong one of the superloanees. If jad picked up Crouchy rather than one trick pony Hucks we would have been Champions League regulars by now.

Mungo

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Mungo has found his niche, well done Mungo!

For me, it is important to realise that these are halycon days - like those under Stringer and Walker - that come along only rarely in the life of a Norwich City supporter and the contents of this thread bear that out.

It was great after the barren post PL relegation years to have the play-off final and then promotion. It was that elation which made the fall all the harder and the depression that followed was prolonged and dire.

Then, realising a professional was needed to run the Club our Board brought in David McNally and the rest has been refreshing and exhilarating.

Let''s look forwards to Saturday and another big Carrow Road occasion. It''s going to be terrific. We have a team of players who we know will give their all and whom we have genuine faith in along with a manager who risks being our greatest of all time and who we will one day look back on with pride.

History is important to help you understand where you are today and how best to approach tomorrow, let''s remember but not forget to enjoy and look forward.

OTBC

[Mungo Bumpkin 0]

Do I get a gold star?

Mungo

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Have a blue one Mungo....

 

 

[Y]

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Just think.

Without Roeder and Gunn..............we may well have not got Paul Lambert.

Hmm....

Should Michael and Delia invite them around for sherry at Christmas to tell them thanks for opening their eyes?

 

OTBC

 

 

[Big Vince 318]

No, no, no. Mr Chase should be judged on his record in the round, not only on where he left the club. Whether you liked him or loathed him he was still the most successful chairman in the history of the club, when taken in the round. Norwich City were a regular top flight club and founder members of the Premier League, which Chase helped form. They qualified for Europe many times. Reached two cup semi-finals. Had excellent coaches in Davy Stringer and David Williams. Chase bought the land at Colney and built the training complex. Chase bought the car park so that the current Gang of Three plus Munby & Skipper could build flats on it and make money to save themselves from their own financial messes. Chase bought the land behind the South Stand so that the successors referred to could build a new, bigger stand that can be expanded further. Chase built the City Stand, the two infills and the new Barclay Stand - again so that his successors could benefit by converting to restaurants, etc. Give the man credit where credit is due. Not just condemn for his bad points.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Sorry Vince old boy but it don''t wash. If Chase had had to take over his own mess do you really think he would have done better than your gang of three? Would he have invested his own wealth in the club? The record books will show that Chase had many marvelous years at the club. Something which we are all thankful for. But they also showed what he took on and what he left behind. Robert Chase didn''t stick around to right his wrongs. He took the money and ran.

 

Every one of your 9 posts on this board has been anti Smith, Jones and Foulger. These three have invested millions of their money into our club. Why have you made it your work on this board to discredit them with every post? And. I''ll ask again, if you''d had your way and your gang of three had walked away where would you see the club now?