Thoughts

[can u sit down please 0]

Rhodes, Hooper and Van Wolfswinkle.From August till now, we had the opportunity to IMPROVE the strike force with any 1 of these. I believe that they would have taken us to the next level and given us the goals that we so badly lack.CH has had 7 months to IMPROVE our strike force but he has only brought in players that will play back up to Holt. I remember people saying in League One that if Holt gets injured we will be in trouble. The same still applies to us. Its the fashionable thing to play with 1 up top in football nowadays. But it doesnt suit us.If we are to kick on this season we need to change the formation and go with at least 2 forwards. At times on weds and at other stages this season we have had nobody in the box to aim for as our only forward was the man putting the cross in. Get another body up there and get him to stay in the box.1 player up top just isnt working. We lack any creativity and penetration to really hurt teams. I am a massive Hoolahan Fan but come the summer, we will need better than him. Someone that gets goals and assists in that No 10 role. Someone that grabs the game by the scruff of the neck and dictates the game.Come on CH, let the shackles off and let the boys go at teams!

[zippy23255 0]

Maybe the two new signings could prove to be bargains and Holt could turn out to be their backup. Kamara looks very strong and Becchio has got goals in him.

[pablofarmer 0]

The system that you say doesnt suit us, led us to the longest unbeaten run in europe this season bar Barca.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,164]

I think the important thing CUSDP is to have a bit more of a go at the teams who are in the bottom half of the table - many of whom we still have to play at home.

If you go gung-ho against the top teams in this division the reality is that they will probably rip you apart - a painful experience which seems to happen to Aston Villa most weeks under our ex manager. In the last 25 minutes against Spurs they pushed us back and most of the play was in our half - however their goal actually came from a quick break when they won the ball back in their penalty area.

Winning home games against teams in the bottom half of the table was something we did very well under Lambert last year - our gung-ho approach worked in those fixtures. The thing that is going to decide whether we stay up this season is whether we can win the majority of those games this time round.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

It''s should be fairly clear to fans that Norwich don''t have massive amounts of money to throw around - the squad was boosted by 8 players in the summer, and a further 2 in January. This is without really selling or loaning out that many. I think many people happily overlook the fact Norwich have a big squad and have to continue paying all those wages - whilst of course there are no £100k a week people in their, Fox and Jackson were both given new, Premier League contracts and the signing of Turner and Bassong, established Premier League players would not have been cheap. We all know that Holt recieved a significant pay rise as well.

 

I can''t think of too many strikers around, in the £4m - £6m price range who would have been an improvement to the first team. Everyone needs to forget about the names being mentioned. Especially van Wolfswinkel! Even if Norwich could have matched the £10m (minimum price) I doubt the club could have offered him the wages he wanted or if he would even be interested in a move to Norwich. It''s worth remembering that El Ahmadi turned Norwich down due to the club''s lack of status - so getting someone on the edge of the Dutch national team from Sporting Lisbon was always a bit of a pipe dream.

 

Norwich could easily have picked up a striker this window, and could have paid £5m for him, but it wouldn''t mean Norwich would be automatically safe. To be honest, I doubt Norwich could have got anyone who was significantly better than Becchio for the amount the club had to spend. Some people believe Norwich are sitting on a pot of cash and refusing to spend it, this really isn''t the case (as Purple Canary has pointed out time and time again) I am very surprised Norwich even had the money to make some decent bids for Hooper with.

 

And the £9.2m was a figure dreamed up by a Twitter troll, and the figures Sky were talking about were equally made up. They just want a number to put on their pointless totaliser. Norwich haven''t lost any players that made a significant contribution to the unbeaten run - and this morning the squad has been improved on from the team that drew against Tottenham on Wednesday.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

It''s should be fairly clear to fans that Norwich don''t have massive amounts of money to throw around - the squad was boosted by 8 players in the summer, and a further 2 in January. This is without really selling or loaning out that many. I think many people happily overlook the fact Norwich have a big squad and have to continue paying all those wages - whilst of course there are no £100k a week people in their, Fox and Jackson were both given new, Premier League contracts and the signing of Turner and Bassong, established Premier League players would not have been cheap. We all know that Holt recieved a significant pay rise as well.

 

I can''t think of too many strikers around, in the £4m - £6m price range who would have been an improvement to the first team. Everyone needs to forget about the names being mentioned. Especially van Wolfswinkel! Even if Norwich could have matched the £10m (minimum price) I doubt the club could have offered him the wages he wanted or if he would even be interested in a move to Norwich. It''s worth remembering that El Ahmadi turned Norwich down due to the club''s lack of status - so getting someone on the edge of the Dutch national team from Sporting Lisbon was always a bit of a pipe dream.

 

Norwich could easily have picked up a striker this window, and could have paid £5m for him, but it wouldn''t mean Norwich would be automatically safe. To be honest, I doubt Norwich could have got anyone who was significantly better than Becchio for the amount the club had to spend. Some people believe Norwich are sitting on a pot of cash and refusing to spend it, this really isn''t the case (as Purple Canary has pointed out time and time again) I am very surprised Norwich even had the money to make some decent bids for Hooper with.

 

And the £9.2m was a figure dreamed up by a Twitter troll, and the figures Sky were talking about were equally made up. They just want a number to put on their pointless totaliser. Norwich haven''t lost any players that made a significant contribution to the unbeaten run - and this morning the squad has been improved on from the team that drew against Tottenham on Wednesday.

 

[/quote]

 

Bethnal, I agree (I guess I would!) with some of that, and especially the unlikelihood of getting RvW. But we obviously did have several million (probably £10m or so) to spend and effectively have spent none of it. In other words we seemed to have no Plan B in the event (which happened) of not getting Hooper (Becchio not being instead of in our minds but as well as). Even if we didn''t agree with Celtic''s valuation we were plainly ready to smash our previous record transfer fee. We DID have serious (by our standards) money to spend.

My point is not that so much that we didn''t have a Plan B for another striker if we didn''t get Hooper, but that we didn''t have a Plan B to spend the now-available Hooper money on another part of the squad. Not necessarily a striker at all. It could have been a central defender or a classier midfielder.

[writeronthestorm 4]

Camp, Becchio and Kamara in whilst Lappin & Morison leave…no

“marquee” striker signing, although it sounded like we were pushing for Hooper

right to the deadline.

 

All in all, I’m reasonably happy with what we’ve done:

Camp gives Bunn some competition and cover (I don’t think Ruddy

will be back playing until close to the end of the season) and it also gave

Rudd the chance to go out on loan.

Kamara replacing Lappin is also pretty good – Lappin was never

seriously going to get used, so I’m happy that we have an unknown quantity who

may make an impact than the occasional cover for left mid/ back that Lappin

gave us.

Becchio for Morison is tricky, as I quite like Morison. 

But, let’s face it, he hasn’t really done much since the 1^st half of

last season, so swapping him with someone who’s scoring goals for fun at the

moment is ok with me.  Having seen Holt, Lambert, Le Fondre, Doyle and

numerous others make the step up to Premiership football and keep scoring, I’m

reasonably confident Becchio will do likewise.

 

I think we’ve got enough to keep us up and reasonably distant

from the bottom 3.

 

The scenarios for the players we were after will change in the summer,

e.g. Hooper will be entering the last year of his contract, etc.

Of course, we could have done more, e.g. striker, defender...but generally you don''t revamp your 1st team/squad halfway through the season

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Bethnal, I agree (I guess I would!) with some of that, and especially the unlikelihood of getting RvW. But we obviously did have several million (probably £10m or so) to spend and effectively have spent none of it. In other words we seemed to have no Plan B in the event (which happened) of not getting Hooper (Becchio not being instead of in our minds but as well as). Even if we didn''t agree with Celtic''s valuation we were plainly ready to smash our previous record transfer fee. We DID have serious (by our standards) money to spend.

My point is not that so much that we didn''t have a Plan B for another striker if we didn''t get Hooper, but that we didn''t have a Plan B to spend the now-available Hooper money on another part of the squad. Not necessarily a striker at all. It could have been a central defender or a classier midfielder.

[/quote]

I really don''t think Norwich have that kind of money at the moment - my best guess would be the bids for Hooper were always around the same value, just the weighting of the payments were altered.

 

January isn''t the time to start getting ''Plan B'' players, unless there is a desperation at the club - there really isn''t that desperation at Norwich at the moment. I expect a fairly major restructuring of the squad in the summer, partially due to a lot of contracts coming to an end and partially due to the ''extra'' money. No point spending several million on a player now, when come the summer they may not be needed.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Bethnal, I agree (I guess I would!) with some of that, and especially the unlikelihood of getting RvW. But we obviously did have several million (probably £10m or so) to spend and effectively have spent none of it. In other words we seemed to have no Plan B in the event (which happened) of not getting Hooper (Becchio not being instead of in our minds but as well as). Even if we didn''t agree with Celtic''s valuation we were plainly ready to smash our previous record transfer fee. We DID have serious (by our standards) money to spend.

My point is not that so much that we didn''t have a Plan B for another striker if we didn''t get Hooper, but that we didn''t have a Plan B to spend the now-available Hooper money on another part of the squad. Not necessarily a striker at all. It could have been a central defender or a classier midfielder.

[/quote]

I really don''t think Norwich have that kind of money at the moment - my best guess would be the bids for Hooper were always around the same value, just the weighting of the payments were altered.

 

January isn''t the time to start getting ''Plan B'' players, unless there is a desperation at the club - there really isn''t that desperation at Norwich at the moment. I expect a fairly major restructuring of the squad in the summer, partially due to a lot of contracts coming to an end and partially due to the ''extra'' money. No point spending several million on a player now, when come the summer they may not be needed.

[/quote]

 

Bethnal, I''m not sure I agree with that. If you are right about the level of our Hooper bids then that was never, never going to work, and we should have realised that, as Jim Smith says on another thread, and cut our lossesearlier on. And I don''t believe there was no-one out there available for at least some of what we were prepared to spend on Hooper who would not seriously have improved the squad for now and the longer term. I suspect our evaluations of how likely relegation is this season are rather different. 

[ncfcstar 291]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Bethnal, I agree (I guess I would!) with some of that, and especially the unlikelihood of getting RvW. But we obviously did have several million (probably £10m or so) to spend and effectively have spent none of it. In other words we seemed to have no Plan B in the event (which happened) of not getting Hooper (Becchio not being instead of in our minds but as well as). Even if we didn''t agree with Celtic''s valuation we were plainly ready to smash our previous record transfer fee. We DID have serious (by our standards) money to spend.My point is not that so much that we didn''t have a Plan B for another striker if we didn''t get Hooper, but that we didn''t have a Plan B to spend the now-available Hooper money on another part of the squad. Not necessarily a striker at all. It could have been a central defender or a classier midfielder.

[/quote]

I really don''t think Norwich have that kind of money at the moment - my best guess would be the bids for Hooper were always around the same value, just the weighting of the payments were altered.

 

January isn''t the time to start getting ''Plan B'' players, unless there is a desperation at the club - there really isn''t that desperation at Norwich at the moment. I expect a fairly major restructuring of the squad in the summer, partially due to a lot of contracts coming to an end and partially due to the ''extra'' money. No point spending several million on a player now, when come the summer they may not be needed.

[/quote]

 

Bethnal, I''m not sure I agree with that. If you are right about the level of our Hooper bids then that was never, never going to work, and we should have realised that, as Jim Smith says on another thread, and cut our lossesearlier on. And I don''t believe there was no-one out there available for at least some of what we were prepared to spend on Hooper who would not seriously have improved the squad for now and the longer term. I suspect our evaluations of how likely relegation is this season are rather different. 

[/quote]McNally''s tweets this morning suggest we bid upwards of £7m for Hooper.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Bethnal, I agree (I guess I would!) with some of that, and especially the unlikelihood of getting RvW. But we obviously did have several million (probably £10m or so) to spend and effectively have spent none of it. In other words we seemed to have no Plan B in the event (which happened) of not getting Hooper (Becchio not being instead of in our minds but as well as). Even if we didn''t agree with Celtic''s valuation we were plainly ready to smash our previous record transfer fee. We DID have serious (by our standards) money to spend.

My point is not that so much that we didn''t have a Plan B for another striker if we didn''t get Hooper, but that we didn''t have a Plan B to spend the now-available Hooper money on another part of the squad. Not necessarily a striker at all. It could have been a central defender or a classier midfielder.

[/quote]

I really don''t think Norwich have that kind of money at the moment - my best guess would be the bids for Hooper were always around the same value, just the weighting of the payments were altered.

 

January isn''t the time to start getting ''Plan B'' players, unless there is a desperation at the club - there really isn''t that desperation at Norwich at the moment. I expect a fairly major restructuring of the squad in the summer, partially due to a lot of contracts coming to an end and partially due to the ''extra'' money. No point spending several million on a player now, when come the summer they may not be needed.

[/quote]

 

Bethnal, I''m not sure I agree with that. If you are right about the level of our Hooper bids then that was never, never going to work, and we should have realised that, as Jim Smith says on another thread, and cut our lossesearlier on. And I don''t believe there was no-one out there available for at least some of what we were prepared to spend on Hooper who would not seriously have improved the squad for now and the longer term. I suspect our evaluations of how likely relegation is this season are rather different. 

[/quote]

Since writing that comment McNally has come out and said the bid for Hooper would have broken the transfer record '' x 2'' so I reckon that puts it around £7m and I am proved wrong.

 

Personally I believe the current squad is more than capable of avoiding relegation - the fixture list has been slightly strange to Norwich this year and bunched tough games together, the remaining home fixtures look winnable and points will be collected in other unexpected places. Also, as none of the main relegation rivals have strengthened to any great degree (including QPR who have sold/loaned out as much as bought) I don''t see Norwich getting left behind.

 

The Norwich squad is in a state of flux, adding players to it now, (on not only January fees but wages as well) will do more longterm damage than good. Many seem to be underating the addition of Becchio who''s track record is certainly as good as Hooper''s so far and will come into the club brimming with confidence.

 

I look forward to the summer, when maybe some more exotic names can be added to the team.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Bethnal, I agree (I guess I would!) with some of that, and especially the unlikelihood of getting RvW. But we obviously did have several million (probably £10m or so) to spend and effectively have spent none of it. In other words we seemed to have no Plan B in the event (which happened) of not getting Hooper (Becchio not being instead of in our minds but as well as). Even if we didn''t agree with Celtic''s valuation we were plainly ready to smash our previous record transfer fee. We DID have serious (by our standards) money to spend.

My point is not that so much that we didn''t have a Plan B for another striker if we didn''t get Hooper, but that we didn''t have a Plan B to spend the now-available Hooper money on another part of the squad. Not necessarily a striker at all. It could have been a central defender or a classier midfielder.

[/quote]

I really don''t think Norwich have that kind of money at the moment - my best guess would be the bids for Hooper were always around the same value, just the weighting of the payments were altered.

 

January isn''t the time to start getting ''Plan B'' players, unless there is a desperation at the club - there really isn''t that desperation at Norwich at the moment. I expect a fairly major restructuring of the squad in the summer, partially due to a lot of contracts coming to an end and partially due to the ''extra'' money. No point spending several million on a player now, when come the summer they may not be needed.

[/quote]

 

Bethnal, I''m not sure I agree with that. If you are right about the level of our Hooper bids then that was never, never going to work, and we should have realised that, as Jim Smith says on another thread, and cut our lossesearlier on. And I don''t believe there was no-one out there available for at least some of what we were prepared to spend on Hooper who would not seriously have improved the squad for now and the longer term. I suspect our evaluations of how likely relegation is this season are rather different. 

[/quote]

Since writing that comment McNally has come out and said the bid for Hooper would have broken the transfer record '' x 2'' so I reckon that puts it around £7m and I am proved wrong.

 

Personally I believe the current squad is more than capable of avoiding relegation - the fixture list has been slightly strange to Norwich this year and bunched tough games together, the remaining home fixtures look winnable and points will be collected in other unexpected places. Also, as none of the main relegation rivals have strengthened to any great degree (including QPR who have sold/loaned out as much as bought) I don''t see Norwich getting left behind.

 

The Norwich squad is in a state of flux, adding players to it now, (on not only January fees but wages as well) will do more longterm damage than good. Many seem to be underating the addition of Becchio who''s track record is certainly as good as Hooper''s so far and will come into the club brimming with confidence.

 

I look forward to the summer, when maybe some more exotic names can be added to the team.

[/quote]

 

Bethnal, the tweet is:

We won''t/can''t spend money we don''t have even though our offers for players would have broken club transfer record x 2 if accepted

"Offers" plural for "players" plural. Suggesting presumably for Hooper and RvW.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Bethnal, the tweet is:

We won''t/can''t spend money we don''t have even though our offers for players would have broken club transfer record x 2 if accepted

"Offers" plural for "players" plural. Suggesting presumably for Hooper and RvW.

[/quote]

Your analytical eye is better than mine!

 

I also presume the ''international transfer costing 20m euros'' was related to RvW (although that is only a presumuption on the fact no other names were linked).

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

 

Bethnal, the tweet is:

We won''t/can''t spend money we don''t have even though our offers for players would have broken club transfer record x 2 if accepted

"Offers" plural for "players" plural. Suggesting presumably for Hooper and RvW.

[/quote]

 

Bethnal, just to be clear, I am not suggesting by that that we were prepared to pay two lots of £7m or whatever. I suspect that was very much either/or. But it does show we did have serious money to spend, and were prepared to spend it. But did not.

[ZLF 274]

Another factor is that while we may make a £7m+ offer we dont pay that all right now - staggered payments would mean we may need less cash right now to make a move viable for us.   Lisbons demands for RvW were unrealistic at E20m - so it seems we made the right moving away decision quickly.

 

We did not get our main targets but have not ruined the club financially either - the summer should give us great cause for optimism

[Salopian 1]

We are a low-scoring side, mainly because of the defensive, single striker, format we use, but also because of a lack of creativity in central midfield.

 

I think that CH will have to become a little more aventurous and flexible, at least on occasions. Otherwise Becchio and Kamara will find themselves in the position that Jackson and Morison were in - playing only in cup games (- none left now) or when Holt is injured, and thus not able to give of their best. I hope that Becchio was given assurance on this, and that the stars were not too much in Kei''s eyes. Kei will also need game time to be assessed about future permanent signing, otherwise we have him here on false pretences.

 

So I hope that we may see Holt replaced on occasion, or Wes dropped and a two striker approach adopted. Certainly later in a game there must be more substitution, and not merely to waste a little time.I think it was Pilks or Snoddy  who explained our recent dip as partly due to the number of high intensity, strength sapping, exhausting games. We still have few positions in the side where we have adequate substitutes, but we surely must avoid  energy loss among players.

 

Rather than playing either Martin or Whittaker, why not play both, - one of them in the midfield? I think that the latter has had experience there, and the former has scored some useful goals while well forward. I think that we need to make more use of Benno, to relieve Snoddy or one of the defensive midifield pair. The same could be said of the new strikers, whom CH should be more willing to use than Jacko or Moro.