Punching above our weight

[James Kent 0]

This has been mentioned a lot and it''s annoying me a bit.

But is it intended to be an insult or compliment?

[Lincs CR 0]

Regardless of it it''s an insult or a compliment, what it does is lower expectation levels and keep everybody''s feet on the ground. That can only be a good thing in the long run :)

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

As City1st will no doubt say no team ''punches above its weight'' or ''overachieves'' as a side finishes where it deserves to on the pitch.

I agree with that but in the modern game, spending does strongly correlate with performance. So in terms of spending we are as a club.

However under the leadership of a superb manager, a hungry group of players are performing well & defying that correlation. Long may that continue.

[Gingerpele 0]

I really dislike terms like ''punching above your weight'' or ''overachiveing'' or even ''we deserve to be in the premiership''.

What you do in each induvidual game, and over the 38 games, defines your position. Nothing else, doesn''t matter we were League One side two years ago, and may have spent less money than the majourity of the teams below us. We are 9th (or around there), and we deserve it, if anything we have lost points and could have been higher this season. Obviously its wrong to look at it this way, but to me it seems like a number of games we could have easily ended up with 3 points instead of 1 or none, with only Blackburn perhaps being a game we shouldn''t have won the point.

 

Anyone saying were punching over our weight, while they may mean it in a complimentary way, are being rude and using a stupid term.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

There was a very telling table produced last season (or the season before) and it showed teams in order of their spending on wages - it looked almost exactly the same as the table at the end of the season. At the moment Norwich are much higher in the real table than the spending table - thus we are ''punching above our weight''.

 

Also, ''weight'' in footballing terms is a very subjective term and as Norwich are higher than pretty much anyone predicted them to be at this point in the season I would call that an overachivement.

 

It is of course meant as a compliment, and although some might take it as an insult, berating the stature of the club it should only ever been taken as a positive.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

BYG, Deloitte in their annual football report, produce a table & graph with the correlation line showing that near enough every side finishes along it.

I''m sure however, Lambert & his players don''t take a lot of notice of stuff like that. They just go out there, a game at a time, believing in themselves.

Whilst they carry on in that vein. I believe we''ll carry on defying it & out-performing clubs £ for £.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

There was a very telling table produced last season (or the season before) and it showed teams in order of their spending on wages - it looked almost exactly the same as the table at the end of the season. At the moment Norwich are much higher in the real table than the spending table - thus we are ''punching above our weight''.

 

Also, ''weight'' in footballing terms is a very subjective term and as Norwich are higher than pretty much anyone predicted them to be at this point in the season I would call that an overachivement.

 

It is of course meant as a compliment, and although some might take it as an insult, berating the stature of the club it should only ever been taken as a positive.

[/quote]

We are currently the exception because we deserve to be. We are doing it by taking every advantage we can to redress the balance. This is possible because football is a team game and we have an exceptional manager.

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

Another cliche that saves on having to construct a reasoned argument.It also provides the not too bright with something to say, for the same reasons.

As to the correlation of what is spent to where a team is in the league that is mostly put up retrospectively as no club releases it''s end of year accounts, by the very nature of their being ''end of year''.So what is bandied about are income streams which are based on not only on the roughly equal amounts of TV revenue by the proportionate allocation of ''prize money''. Man Utd finish top and receive £15m prize money - West Ham finish bottom and recieve £800,000 prize money. Which means Man Utd finished top because they spent more !Look out of the window and you might see it is a windy day. Something that is caused by the trees flapping some one have us believe.

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="City1st"]Another cliche that saves on having to construct a reasoned argument.It also provides the not too bright with something to say, for the same reasons.

As to the correlation of what is spent to where a team is in the league that is mostly put up retrospectively as no club releases it''s end of year accounts, by the very nature of their being ''end of year''.So what is bandied about are income streams which are based on not only on the roughly equal amounts of TV revenue by the proportionate allocation of ''prize money''. Man Utd finish top and receive £15m prize money - West Ham finish bottom and recieve £800,000 prize money. Which means Man Utd finished top because they spent more !Look out of the window and you might see it is a windy day. Something that is caused by the trees flapping some one have us believe.

[/quote]

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

I''m not saying Norwich don''t deserve to be in 9th. The very nature of a league table puts team where they deserve to be.

 

As I said a club''s ''weight'' is a subjective term and it depends on what you define it as; if you go the money route then Norwich are higher in the Premier League than they are in the Money League. Of course this doesn''t give a definative defanition of ability etc but it is a base line to work from.

 

Lambert has got Norwich into a position where their whole is greater than the sum of their parts (and long may it continue) - this could also be seen as ''punching above thier weight''. After hearing it over and over again it does become patronising, but that is just a matter of pride. I''d rather that than to always hearing they are falling short of their potential.