Punditry

[lake district canary 0]

Now I know we are one of the lesser clubs in terms of financial muscle in the scheme of things, but pundits - and some of our fans - don''t accept the evidence of  of what they see when talking about our "chances" this season.     Last season we received quite alot of praise later in the season because of the resilience of the team.    We finished 12th and have just put in two excellent solid performances this season.    Now some may think this is no reason to talk up our chances - however,  if you look at the evidence - the way the club has performed over the last threes season, the squad building that has taken place - the team spirit - the new manager who (despite the doubters) was ALWAYS the right man for the job -  you have to give credit and say the club is improving all the time. 

 

 

 

It is simply too easy and too glib just to say we are not going to do well.   It doesn''t take into account the other poorer clubs in the division (poor in the sense of lack of ethics).    Spending millions does not guarantee you a good team.  It just doesn''t.   We are undoubtedly a very "together" club   and this counts for alot.     The statisticians will tell you that over a period of time the overall league position is related to the amount of money you spend.    Well not here.   We have the adavantages of being a club where everyone is pulling in the same direction (except afew fans - but perhaps we can all help try and persuade them to be a bit more positive about our chances [;)] ).     Not many clubs can say the same.   Money isn''t everything and a touch of reality will bring be good for football in general.     Reality means that actually, good football is possible - if you have the right ingredients - skilfull players - a team ethic - and the collective will to succeed (just look at the Olympics for how it inspired people to achieve).    

 

 

 

If you think the opposite - that we are poor, have inferior players, our team is not good enough, our manager is not up to it etc etc - you have not "bought in" to what Norwich is all about these days.   ie- you are living in the past.    Thats what pundits do. They don''t know the ins and outs of everything that  goes on at our club - they just  see a small unfashionable club that can''t compete with the big boys.  But as I say - that flies in the face of the evidence.   Maybe their view is understandable - but maybe because they are paid for their opinion they should kmow more.  

 

 

I remember when we were doing well in Europe we became one of the most high profile clubs in the country - rightly so.   It can happen again - we are no different a club to what we were in 1994 - in some ways we are so much better because the financial structure is now stable.   Whether it is pundits or our own fans talking out of an idea that we are somehow inferior because of who we are - then I think it is right that fans should complain.   I think that the MOTD  are well aware of the level of acrimony there is regrading the language they use about us.  Shearer now says nothing of any worth, Lawro doesn''t care if he upsets us, I just wish they - and some of our own fans who talk us down - just reacted to what is real, rather than their old fashioned, unimformed, prejudiced views.

 

 

Shearer says "Time will tell" - if thats not sitting on the fence, I don''t know what is.  He doesn''t want to say what he really thinks. Some pundit.  Lawro says what he says just to wind us up, I''m sure.  There is an inbuilt bias against a club like us succeeding - don''t anybody be fooled by it. We know better - and if we succeed again this season it is because the club and the fans are pulling together to make it happen.  Stuff the pundits - and stuff those fans that are living in a pre-conceived world of how things "should" be.  [:P]

 

  

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Lake District Canary"]I just wish they - and some of our own fans who talk us down - just

reacted to what is real, rather than their old fashioned, unimformed,

prejudiced views.[/quote]Okay, let''s talk about what is real.What is real is a dreadful performance against Fulham and a failure to beat QPR when we dominated them for 70 minutes of the 90.  Equally, yesterday was a fine performance albeit against a disjointed Spurs side.What is real is we haven''t won a game this season and have a goal difference of -5, scoring 2 and conceding 7.What is real is it''s too early to say Hughton is the right man for the job, never mind he "was ALWAYS the right man for the job".What is real is that in financial terms, we are a small club.What is real is it''s too early to say we''ll punch above our financial weight.What is real is that we are an unfashionable club, but that''s because we''re stuck in Norfolk and the London media types wouldn''t know how to find it unless it''s via Sandringham or Burnham Market.If you want to talk about what is real, try joining the real world.  Your views are equally prejudiced and barely based on fact.

Other than that, I agree with you.

[lake district canary 0]

What is real to you might not be what is real to other people...........and most people when they talk about "facts" in football usually mean "stats" which are not the same thing.   

 

 

You can either talk things up or you can talk things down.  I would prefer to do the former - you appear to prefer to do the latter. 

 

 

 

[Scottlarock 12]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

What is real to you might not be what is real to other people...........and most people when they talk about "facts" in football usually mean "stats" which are not the same thing.   

 

 

You can either talk things up or you can talk things down.  I would prefer to do the former - you appear to prefer to do the latter. 

 

 

 

[/quote]

I love the Jingoism (and romance) of your post LDC and indeed it could well be true (mostly) and I do want it all to happen. I never listen to pundits, that however is because I''m a gambler and a realist - the belief system that lets people follow them as if they''re unbiased is similiar to Scientology. 

You''ve said it yourself by saying you are talking it up and Chops is talking it down (you''re both pundits)

 Twelve more games and 3 or more wins and your post has more gravitas - a full season, even more.

Chops is right ( he often is ) but that doesn''t make you wrong, not at the moment anyway.

[The gut 0]

Why aren''t stats facts? A bit early on a Sunday morning for me to reason that one out myself.

[Scottlarock 12]

[quote user="The gut"]Why aren''t stats facts? A bit early on a Sunday morning for me to reason that one out myself.[/quote]

....there aren''t enough of them yet. 

I toss a coin 4 times and tails comes up everytime.

Does this help us predict what happens after 100?

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="The gut"]Why aren''t stats facts? A bit early on a Sunday morning for me to reason that one out myself.[/quote]

 

 

 

Ok, a bit innacurate - its not stats themselves that are wrong, just the way people use them.......people use them to paint whatever picture they want.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Branston Pickle 4,149]

Stats can be used however you want. This season vs last:

- After three games we have the same points, having played arguably ''similar'' sides, Wigan/Stoke/Chelsea vs Fulham/QPR/Spurs, so are going the same

- Comparing the direct results we are -4pts against last season as we had beaten both Spurs and QPR, and have let in more goals so are doing a lot worse

- Given the first day debacle, we have settled well and look defensively better, so are doing well

...which of these is right? The answer is that they all are but depend where you are coming from.

[Militant Canary 0]

I agree with you in many respects, LDC.

However, I would add that at 3 games into the season, whilst the signs are increasingly positive, it is too early to tell what will happen.

Thus far, few teams have really distinguished themselves in the Premier League. Everyone looks beatable. But we do look good! And we are getting noticeably better and more assured in every game.

Ultimately, though, ignoring the pundits and so-called experts who are almost universally lazy and overpaid, what it boils down to for us fans is what we believe.

Over recent weeks and months the attitude displayed by many on this forum has been shocking to me in numerous ways.

A sense of fatalistic defeatism and overwhelming inferiority are not things I adhere to in any shape or form or in anything I do in life, but here it has seemed endemic.

To quote something an old teacher said to me when I was a teenager: "If you think you''re nothing but an idiot, fatherless waster from the back-end of nowhere, with no hope, no prospects and no potential... then that''s all you''ll ever be".

The same could be said for NCFC fans. If we genuinely believe that we are a small, penniless, perpetually unambitious and generally crap club from the middle of nowhere, whose only real ambition can only ever be obscurity in the championship or worse, and that we are basically nothing, a laughing stock, a punchline for a joke ... then that''s all we''ll ever be.

[Aggy 944]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

What is real to you might not be what is real to other people...........and most people when they talk about "facts" in football usually mean "stats" which are not the same thing.   

 

 

You can either talk things up or you can talk things down.  I would prefer to do the former - you appear to prefer to do the latter. 

 

 

 

[/quote]

Doesn''t that just undermine the large majority of your opening post? Which stats you choose to use to form your opinion, and what ''inkling'' or general impression you make that also informs your opinion, is exactly that - what makes up your opinion. You seem to admit that in your post I have quoted above. As such, are you overly surprised that pundits are more negative about us than you seem to be? 

If a pundit came out and said "oh yeah all 20 teams are good enough to stay up", then you''d think they were fairly rubbish at their job because, after all, three teams have to go down. Based on our poor start at Fulham and the failure to win at QPR, as well as our lack of spending in relation to a lot of the clubs you''d expect to be in the relegation battle, our fairly meagre strike force, and having a new manager with relatively little top flight experience as a manager, I don''t think it''s unreasonable whatsoever for the pundits to form the opinion that we are on of the three most likely clubs to go down. 

If they said someone else was most likely to go down, their fans would be moaning as well. But three teams do go down every year, and it''s the pundits job to try and predict those teams.

[Officer Tillys small Willies (Nigel,lappy) 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

 It is simply too easy and too glib just to say we are not going to do well. It doesn''t take into account the other poorer clubs in the division (poor in the sense of lack of ethics). Spending millions does not guarantee you a good team. It just doesn''t. We are undoubtedly a very "together" club and this counts for alot. The statisticians will tell you that over a period of time the overall league position is related to the amount of money you spend. Well not here. We have the adavantages of being a club where everyone is pulling in the same direction (except afew fans - but perhaps we can all help try and persuade them to be a bit more positive about our chances ). Not many clubs can say the same. Money isn''t everything and a touch of reality will bring be good for football in general. Reality means that actually, good football is possible - if you have the right ingredients - skilfull players - a team ethic - and the collective will to succeed (just look at the Olympics for how it inspired people to achieve). [:P]

 

  

[/quote]

Theres already several threads slating fans with a different oppinion to yours LDC couldnt you of just put this garbage on one of them, and before you say anything i wanted hughton in

[The gut 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]Stats can be used however you want. This season vs last:

- After three games we have the same points, having played arguably ''similar'' sides, Wigan/Stoke/Chelsea vs Fulham/QPR/Spurs, so are going the same

- Comparing the direct results we are -4pts against last season as we had beaten both Spurs and QPR, and have let in more goals so are doing a lot worse

- Given the first day debacle, we have settled well and look Edefensively better, so are doing well

...which of these is right? The answer is that they all are but depend where you are coming from.[/quote]

I am coming from Norwich, and I reckon stats are facts.

I also reckon some are getting too hot and bothered about people giving their opinion, which they are probably doing without even knowing the stats, facts, odds or probabilities.

[The gut 0]

[quote user="Scottlarock"][quote user="The gut"]Why aren''t stats facts? A bit early on a Sunday morning for me to reason that one out myself.[/quote]

....there aren''t enough of them yet. 

I toss a coin 4 times and tails comes up everytime.

Does this help us predict what happens after 100?

[/quote]

What??? Are you telling me there aren''t enough stats?

Should we change ends if we win the toss?

[The gut 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

[quote user="The gut"]Why aren''t stats facts? A bit early on a Sunday morning for me to reason that one out myself.[/quote]

 

 

 

Ok, a bit innacurate - its not stats themselves that are wrong, just the way people use them.......people use them to paint whatever picture they want.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

So did you try painting an inaccurate picture with your facts or stats?

[nutty nigel 7,902]

We need you lot on our Rays funds threads. If you could use the stats or facts to predict the outcome of football matches we could win a lot of money for our academy. Especially if we could get six right every week in the premier league. Yesterday the 6 results would have paid £6,116 for our tenner.

 

Come on guys. Next weeks thread will be up on Wednesday.

 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

<BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/forums/pinkun/cs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">&nbsp;<strong>lake district canary wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4"><P><BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/forums/pinkun/cs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">&nbsp;<strong>The gut wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4">Why aren''t stats facts? A bit early on a Sunday morning for me to reason that one out myself.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE></P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Ok, a bit innacurate - its not stats themselves that are wrong, just the way people use them.......people use them to paint whatever picture they want.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>. </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE

 

I ask you? What a joke.

 

Sorry  gut, not picking on you or your post, but that load of gobs made it impossible to bother with.

 

I notice that the adverts at the top of the page are nice and clearly presented.

[The gut 0]

Not sure again of your point Broadstairs, is it the mess of the quoting, my actual comment or both?

I tell you this.... I agree that the whole thing is a joke which is why my comments are deliberately nonsense.

Fact is I''m not that bright. I have stats that prove that, but those stats could be interpreted otherwise. I am bright enough to know that there are too many clever people on here who talk absolute ballix.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Not getting at you or your point gut. Far, far from it.

 

I was just expressing my increasing frustration at the way people''s posts are made difficult to negotiate because of the way that so many of their posts are ruined by this quoting ''gobbledy-gook'' that is unique to this Board.

 

Hence my last sentence.

[Scottlarock 12]

@ the gut

What I''m obviously saying , in the form of an analogy (example) is that after 4 games under Hughton and not Lambert there isn''t enough evidence (or stats) to confirm the OP''s point. 

Fairly straight forward post mate and frankly I have no idea what you''re talking about in your last question about changing ends.

[The gut 0]

Broadstairs, I totally get what you mean now.

Thing is I am guilty of writing some nonsense, hence my uncertainty of your comment.

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

I have just had an epiphany. LDC is Cluck on high dosage of medication.

[The gut 0]

Hello Scottlarock . It is very straight forward mate. I know what you are saying, it just happens to apply to a mathematical world not that of football.

Even tossing the coin 38 times means nothing, even if it had three sides. The only stats that matter are AFTER 38 games of bloody football.

The only thing i tossed a coin for in football was to choose kick off or ends.

[Scottlarock 12]

[quote user="The gut"]Hello Scottlarock . It is very straight forward mate. I know what you are saying, it just happens to apply to a mathematical world not that of football.

Even tossing the coin 38 times means nothing, even if it had three sides. The only stats that matter are AFTER 38 games of bloody football.

The only thing i tossed a coin for in football was to choose kick off or ends.[/quote]

You obviously don''t know what I''m saying (bruv?)

I mean, if I didn''t know any better and I''m sure it''s not the case but the only conclusion I can draw from your replies is...............

that you are incredibly stupid 

or 

you are a slack jawed hick who likes findus crispy pancakes with a pot noodle drizzle.

[The gut 0]

Hello again Scottlarock, good afternoon.

Well I thought I did know what you were saying, in fact I still do.

Are you one of my brothers from my father''s side or my mother''s. I do hope you don''t have to toss another coin.

I think you do know better and obviously lots more than I do. My jaw is perhaps slack, and being a self confessed hick, who has no complaints about crispy pancakes or pot noodles i guess i feel lucky that you are not calling me incredibly stupid although I have already admitted to not being very bright.

As you are so superiorly clever could you explain what stats make any difference to punditry and how you have become so good at tossing.

[lake district canary 0]

Football is a real game and stats are just an indiaction of how things MAY go.   If you follow a football club do you follow the stats and say we have £20m therefore we will finish 5 points behind the club that has £40m and they will finish 2 points behind a club that has £50???  

 

 

 

Or do you look at the recent history, the way the club is set up, the players that have been brought in, the manager and his attitude and cv?  

 

 

I know which I would prefer to do in following my football club.   And I would have a little belief in what they are trying to do.

 

 

As for those of you that just pass ridicule without any kind of reasoned argument - F*** you.

 

 

 

 

 

[The gut 0]

Stats are a record of what has happened, they have no bearing or indication on what may happen.

For example if you looked at the club stats of recent history when we started the season in league one it is unlikely that you would interpret them to indicate we would finish 12th in the top division 3 seasons later.

Punditry is nothing more than someone''s guess or feeling, whether using every bit of information available or none whatsoever.

There is no reasoned argument to prove someone''s guess is right or wrong until the season is over.

[drurys dodgy knee 0]

I felt bad after the Fulham game. I now feel better after the last two games.

That''s all that matters to me.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="The gut"]Stats are a record of what has happened, they have no bearing or indication on what may happen. For example if you looked at the club stats of recent history when we started the season in league one it is unlikely that you would interpret them to indicate we would finish 12th in the top division 3 seasons later. Punditry is nothing more than someone''s guess or feeling, whether using every bit of information available or none whatsoever. There is no reasoned argument to prove someone''s guess is right or wrong until the season is over.[/quote]

 

 

 

That''s kind of my point,  people relying on what they perceive as what our club is about.   If you''re a pundit on the scale of Shearer - we are a backwater small club - if  you are a norwich supporter - you will know the history of the club a bit more.   What I don''t understand is the people who write us off who should know better - ie, some of our supporters.     They above all should appreciate how our club has developed over the last three years - the quality that is being brought in, the professionalism of the management team from McNally downwards -  but some of them are apparently still living in the Grant/Roeder era and are thinking the worst of our club.   

 

 

Its ok to have doubts, its ok to worry about results, its ok to wonder if the players are good enough.    Its not ok, though, to ridicule, write off a season, talk us down for  no other reason than it upsets your ego.    Punditry should be based on what you really think - Shearer has an excuse - he has blinkers on.  Lawro has an excuse - he is a charicature of someone else''s idea of who he is.   Norwich supporters should know better - we know how our club has developed in recent years - even so, some of us would just rather think the worst all the time, you have to ask......why is that??  

 

 

 

 

 

[The gut 0]

Cos everyone is different.

I would imagine though that the vast majority of us all hope for pretty much similar outcomes.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

[quote user="The gut"]Stats are a record of what has happened, they have no bearing or indication on what may happen. For example if you looked at the club stats of recent history when we started the season in league one it is unlikely that you would interpret them to indicate we would finish 12th in the top division 3 seasons later. Punditry is nothing more than someone''s guess or feeling, whether using every bit of information available or none whatsoever. There is no reasoned argument to prove someone''s guess is right or wrong until the season is over.[/quote]

 

 

 

That''s kind of my point,  people relying on what they perceive as what our club is about.   If you''re a pundit on the scale of Shearer - we are a backwater small club - if  you are a norwich supporter - you will know the history of the club a bit more.   What I don''t understand is the people who write us off who should know better - ie, some of our supporters.     They above all should appreciate how our club has developed over the last three years - the quality that is being brought in, the professionalism of the management team from McNally downwards -  but some of them are apparently still living in the Grant/Roeder era and are thinking the worst of our club.   

 

 

Its ok to have doubts, its ok to worry about results, its ok to wonder if the players are good enough.    Its not ok, though, to ridicule, write off a season, talk us down for  no other reason than it upsets your ego.    Punditry should be based on what you really think - Shearer has an excuse - he has blinkers on.  Lawro has an excuse - he is a charicature of someone else''s idea of who he is.   Norwich supporters should know better - we know how our club has developed in recent years - even so, some of us would just rather think the worst all the time, you have to ask......why is that??  

 

 

[/quote]So I think it''s really about what each of us thinks is a realistic appraisal of our club compared to the other clubs in the same league.I understand what you mean about history, heritage, recent changes etc., and we know that stuff in detail.  What we don''t know is the same information about the 19 other teams we''re competing with.  All we can safely assume is:a) every club will be trying to finish as high up the league as possibleb) where each club will finish will depend on tactics, ability, skill, the odd ropey refereeing decision and a fair bit of luckc) money is generally, though not always, an advantage in attracting players of a higher abilityAfter that it''s down to guesswork, informed or not.Now I understand you''re very much of the glass half full perspective, if not completely full - and I am somewhat more inclined to see the glass as half-empty and chipped.  I think our squad is thin, particularly upfront, and as the season goes on we will struggle to score goals.  I think we''ll score fewer than last season, but hope we will certainly concede fewer than last season.  I don''t know enough about Hughton, and I haven''t seen enough of what he''s about, to know if I trust him with our club.  I don''t know enough about Harry Kane to know whether he''ll score the goals we need to win games, but I suspect if he was that good he wouldn''t be loaned out to us.I''m not talking us down but I have genuine concerns about how this season will go and this message board is the place to air and discuss them.The key point I want to make is that none of this makes me less of a supporter.  I can''t "relax and enjoy the ride", much as you''d like me to, because that''s not how I am geared.  If I supported Man U then  I would fear RVP breaking a leg, if I supported Man City then I''d worry about Tevez going loco again and ending up on strike.  If I supported Ipswich I''d be dead.