The Norwich City Way

can u sit down please · April 7, 2013

Just watched the JPT final and i kept hearing "The Crewe Alexandra Way". It has got me thinking. What is the Norwich City way?I was born in 1982 and i first fell in love with City watching Dave Stringers team. Crook, Phelan, Bowen, Fleck, Townsend....We werent bad. We played attacking and attractive football and were always entertained.Walker then inherited Stringers team, in the same way that Hughton inherited Lambert''s. The managers were not sacked due to under performing, Stringer and Lambert both left the teams in a good position. In 92, Robert Fleck our talisman had just left and the only piece of business was Mark Robins in from United.It was evident in the early season, that Walker didn''t make major changes to what was an already able team. He stuck with the foundations that had been left. The players were comfortable with this and what happened over the season is now written in to our history. What if Walker had decided to go against the grain of what Stringer had done?I mean, it would have been easy to as we had just finished 18th under Stringer. But a couple of tweaks and we were a finely tuned machine. Arsenal couldnt handle us on day 1. What we saw was us playing without fear over the course of the season. Going in to every game looking and wanting to win. It was of course The Norwich City way.The period between Walker and Worthy.....lets ignore that. It never happened. Cold away days at Oldham, dross served up against whoever we played against.Worthy came in. Stopped the rot. Installed a work ethic that Mo Farah wouldve been proud of. A little dash of Huckerby, a tower of strength of in Iwan, solidity of Malky & Flem and Francis (a player id love to have now) banging in from midfield. We entertained. We played some great football. Cardiff at home. Top of the league at Poormans Rd. The epic win at Burnley. I was witnessing, once again. The Norwich City way. Entertaining football and a packed Carrow Rd. The city was a great place to be.But we know how it ended.Fast forward past Grant, Roeder and Gunn and we found, imo our greatest ever manager. This isnt a thread going on about Paul Lambert though. What we witnessed over the next 3 seasons was nothing short of sensational. This was the Norwich City way. Demolishing Ipswich, leaving Leeds in our wake, that Simeon goal v Derby. We never gave up and played to win. All of a sudden we were seeing something that took us back to the days of Walker & Stringer. Carrow Road was a great place to be. Back in the top league, fearing nobody and playing the Norwich City way.Lambert left and Hughton came in. He studied DVDs on holiday and felt fully equipped to carry on our progress. He inherited, like Walker. A very capable squad that believed in itself and played a certain brand of football that united everyone.We all thought a couple of tweaks here and there and we would be challenging for a top 10 finish. I did. Fulham came and we were blew away. Changes a plenty. Different to that day at Highbury when Walker led his troops out and carried on the Norwich City way.As the season has progressed the divide that exists between fans has returned. "Keep the faithers" v "the bed wetters". I find it amazing that we are now going to be finishing our second season in the top flight and so much negativity is around the place. You would have thought that we were languishing in the championship. Its true, im not a massive Hughton fan. He wasnt my first choice.I walked to the game yesterday full of optimism. It seemed ages since our no show against Southampton. I couldnt wait. I hadnt felt this way for a while. Watching Norwich had become a bit of a bore. Then all of a sudden, the team was announced. People who had been looking forward to the game were now cursing and the atmosphere had changed. Here we go again i thought.Last year the Norwich City way worked. We will never know if it would have this year. the "Keep the faithers" adamant that we would be exposed and the "bed wetters" pining for the Norwich City way, like when you break up with your first love.The money in football nowadays is mad. The aim is to stay up and regardless of who was in charge this year, that would have been the same. If we stay up i will go away on my holidays and forget about football and hope for a return of the Norwich City way next season.For me, Hughtons failure to adopt our way is a reason why we are still in a dog fight. A little bit more adventure and we would be safe. Games against Newcastle, Fulham, Swansea and West Ham spring to mind.For the last few games, we need to be behind the boys like an old european night, an east anglian derby or a last minute Jackson winner. We are so close but come Reading at home, lets hope we adopt the Norwich City way and go for it!

lake district canary · April 7, 2013

The Norwich City Way. Well that has always supposed to be attacking football. That all changed in 1971/2.

We had a manager who made us successful.

Ron Saunders got us playing workmanlike physical football which meant we gave away hardly any goals, had victories by the odd goal and quite a few close fought low scoring draws and very few defeats. One good 5-0. But on the whole, unspectacular, not very attacking, fairly dour football. Where did we end up? In the top league. Did anyone complain? I can''t remember anyone complaining. I''m sure they did, after all where was the attacking Norwich way of playing?

Sometimes success means grinding out results with the players you have and building the club from there. That seems to me a little bit like where we are now. This season is all about getting over the line. Next season we can build.

We all know we couldn''t have carried on like we did last year, whoever the manager. Give the manager some credit. Some "fans" are spoiling what should be a good season with their spoilt brat style support. The players have to adapt to Hughton''s approach to football. Give them and him some time to develop. Its the only way forward!

Bury Yellow · April 7, 2013

Ah LDC ''Hughton''s approach to football'' I fear that''s the problem.

A good piece by the OP

PurpleCanary · April 7, 2013

[quote user="lake district canary"]The Norwich City Way. Well that has always supposed to be attacking football. That all changed in 1971/2. We had a manager who made us successful.

Ron Saunders got us playing workmanlike physical football which meant we gave away hardly any goals, had victories by the odd goal and quite a few close fought low scoring draws and very few defeats. One good 5-0. But on the whole, unspectacular, not very attacking, fairly dour football. Where did we end up? In the top league. Did anyone complain? I can''t remember anyone complaining. I''m sure they did, after all where was the attacking Norwich way of playing?

Sometimes success means grinding out results with the players you have and building the club from there. That seems to me a little bit like where we are now. This season is all about getting over the line. Next season we can build.

We all know we couldn''t have carried on like we did last year, whoever the manager. Give the manager some credit. Some "fans" are spoiling what should be a good season with their spoilt brat style support. The players have to adapt to Hughton''s approach to football. Give them and him some time to develop. Its the only way forward!

[/quote]I don''t think that is true. The decade beforehand, of Reid, Swindin, Ashman and Morgan, was not that attack-minded. Saunders just got the players fitter and perhaps more motivated. If there was a sea-change it came with Bond. And over the decades I don''t think there has been a particular Norwich City "way". as there has been with Crewe, where one can identify a use of youth products and an emphasis on pure skill.

lake district canary · April 7, 2013

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]The Norwich City Way. Well that has always supposed to be attacking football. That all changed in 1971/2. [/quote]I don''t think that is true. The decade beforehand, of Reid, Swindin, Ashman and Morgan, was not that attack-minded. Saunders just got the players fitter and perhaps more motivated. If there was a sea-change it came with Bond. And over the decades I don''t think there has been a particular Norwich City "way". as there has been with Crewe, where one can identify a use of youth products and an emphasis on pure skill.[/quote]

I once put in a post that said that Bond was the instigator of our attacking reputation - which is what I had always thought - and was rounded upon by some older fans who said I was talking out of my backside (again [:)] ) by saying we didn''t have an attacking reputation before Bond. I agree with you, really, Bond represented a sea change in the way we were seen as a club. It would be interesting to see if any older fans can back up their claims about our football pre-Saunders. I can only remember back to 67, the 50''s was maybe good for attacking football.

nutty nigel · April 7, 2013

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]

The Norwich City Way. Well that has always supposed to be attacking football. That all changed in 1971/2.

[/quote]

I don''t think that is true. The decade beforehand, of Reid, Swindin, Ashman and Morgan, was not that attack-minded. Saunders just got the players fitter and perhaps more motivated. If there was a sea-change it came with Bond. And over the decades I don''t think there has been a particular Norwich City "way". as there has been with Crewe, where one can identify a use of youth products and an emphasis on pure skill.[/quote]

I once put in a post that said that Bond was the instigator of our attacking reputation - which is what I had always thought - and was rounded upon by some older fans who said I was talking out of my backside (again [:)] ) by saying we didn''t have an attacking reputation before Bond. I agree with you, really, Bond represented a sea change in the way we were seen as a club. It would be interesting to see if any older fans can back up their claims about our football pre-Saunders. I can only remember back to 67, the 50''s was maybe good for attacking football.

[/quote]

Yes. What was the 50s like Tilly[:^)]

PurpleCanary · April 7, 2013

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]The Norwich City Way. Well that has always supposed to be attacking football. That all changed in 1971/2. [/quote]I don''t think that is true. The decade beforehand, of Reid, Swindin, Ashman and Morgan, was not that attack-minded. Saunders just got the players fitter and perhaps more motivated. If there was a sea-change it came with Bond. And over the decades I don''t think there has been a particular Norwich City "way". as there has been with Crewe, where one can identify a use of youth products and an emphasis on pure skill.[/quote]

I once put in a post that said that Bond was the instigator of our attacking reputation - which is what I had always thought - and was rounded upon by some older fans who said I was talking out of my backside (again [:)] ) by saying we didn''t have an attacking reputation before Bond. I agree with you, really, Bond represented a sea change in the way we were seen as a club. It would be interesting to see if any older fans can back up their claims about our football pre-Saunders. I can only remember back to 67, the 50''s was maybe good for attacking football.

[/quote]

I only came in towards the end of the Macaulay era but we played some very good football then, in the (unparalleled) cup run and getting promotion to the second tier. But there was a real - and quite deliberate - change of emphasis with Bond.

nutty nigel · April 7, 2013

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

And over the decades I don''t think there has been a particular Norwich City "way". as there has been with Crewe, where one can identify a use of youth products and an emphasis on pure skill.[/quote]

Spot on Purple. There has been no one thing that''s spanned the generations. Bond, Brown and Worthy played attacking football and brought in superstars who gave us so much sheer joy. In particular Peters, Channon and Huckerby but there were others like Royle and Dublin. Saunders and Lambert wouldn''t have trucked with these players. Their way was through hard work and no stars. Stringer and Williams brought us what many like to see as the Norwich way with wonderful football and players coming through from the youth. Making our own superstars if you like. Walker carried this on but then with the help of Chase broke it. Many other managers perhaps weren''t here long enough to make an impression. Or perhaps weren''t good enough to make an impression.

TIL 1010 · April 7, 2013

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Yes. What was the 50s like Tilly[:^)]

[/quote]

I am just wondering how old LDC actually is as he talks of the Saunders era of 40 odd years ago giving the impression he was around in those days. He obviously has got his bus pass before me.[;)]

lake district canary · April 7, 2013

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Yes. What was the 50s like Tilly[:^)]

[/quote]

I am just wondering how old LDC actually is as he talks of the Saunders era of 40 odd years ago giving the impression he was around in those days. He obviously has got his bus pass before me.[;)]

[/quote]

56. Next question...............

7rew · April 7, 2013

If I had to sum up "the Norwich Way", I''d use these words: NEGATIVE GOAL DIFFERENCE. Winning tight games and getting smashed when we lose.

I notice that (regardless of what the actual playing style was), the OP associates "the Norwich Way" only with successful teams. I''m younger than the OP and it is of course possible that we found a way of playing that always works but were too stupid to keep using it, but it seems rather unlikely. Rather more likely is that the components held by every successful (ie winning) team that he is identifying as "the Norwich Way" after the event.

I am certainly old enough to remember Worthington and Lambert. Apart from the tendency to win games, there wasn''t that much in common between the two. Given Lambert''s current issues with Darren Bent, I don''t think he would have got on well with Huckerby.

My personal view is that competitive sport, any competitive sport, is about controlling luck. Good management is about maximising the chances of achieving your target, which is a combination of the expected number of points gained over a season and the variance of the points you gain.

When the target is to win the league/promotion, as it has been for many seasons for us, then unless you are very much better than most other teams, variance is basically irrelevant. You just need as many points as you can get.

Things are different when avoiding relegation is the target.

About half the time will be like we were last year, where the average number of points we could expect was close to, or even just below, that required for the target. Then high variance (i.e. attacking, if-you-score-3-we''ll-score-4) tactics are really good, as getting above the target is as likely as going below it. Last year in particular they worked spectacularly, beyond most of our wildest dreams, but there was a lot of luck. This is not to denigrate what we achieved last season - win or lose its all luck in the end.

This season is different, the number of points we could expect to get was, and is, above the number required to avoid relegation. This means the higher the variance, the more likely we are to go down. Attacking football may have got us a few more points and it may have got us a few less points as well. What it probably wouldn''t do is radically change the number of points we expect to get. This season we have traded a very small number of points from the expected in return for largely raising the lower bound on the distribution, lowering the number of points we expect to get 50% of the time in return for raising the number of points we get 90% of the time. I''m glad we did, because the luck really hasn''t gone our way this season. This isn''t a complaint, after all luck, good or bad, is what makes sport so much fun.

We don''t and we will never know what might have happened with different tactics. However, there are some things I think reasonable to say about the options.

If we played the season 100 times with us playing as we did last season (tactics A) and 100 playing as we have this season (tactics D):

1) our highest finish would be higher with A than with D.

2) the total number of points we got would be higher with tactics A than D.

3) the number of times we finished in the bottom 3 and were relegated would be higher with tactics A than D.

4) the range of positions we finished in would be larger with tactics A than D.

A key strategy from another game I play is summed up succinctly as "If you are sure to make your target, play for everything going wrong. If you only might make your target, play for everything going right". I think this is really good advice, is what Hughton has done and I''m glad he has.

ron obvious · April 7, 2013

Excellent post, 7rew.

Unfortunately I think you''ll have to give a short course on statistics for most people here to have a clue what you''re on about!

Warren Hill · April 7, 2013

I''ve just looked back at our 92-93 season, playing the Norwich City way, without fear.

It''s well known that we finished with a negative goal difference that season, indeed only 3 teams shipped more goals than we did. Some results such as getting thumped 7-1 at Blackburn and 1-5 at Spurs didn''t help..

That season 1/3 of all our wins (7) were 1-0. We also had three 0-0 draws. We also lost, from being in a championship challenging position, 4 of our last 8 games. Picking up 10 points from 24 available or 1.25 points per game. Pretty much relegation form as some on here would have it.

We also lost home and away to Ipswich.

Shipped goals at 1.55 per game.

Now, this isn''t a criticism of the OP as I feel it clearly comes from the heart but do we only remember what we want?

Had this message board been kicking around then, there''d have been protagonists on here complaining about our poor end of season form, the fact that we had thrown away certain European football, our lamentable defending late in the season and the fact that irrespective of league position we had been beaten comprehensively twice by our local rivals.

However, Andy Linighan scored against Sheffield Wednesday and our European adventure began...

But was it really all chocolates and roses?

Perhaps some of the current detractors can enlighten us as to how they were reacting back then to 1-0 victories that were the basis of the "boring Arsenal" jibes around that era and to the heavy defeats at Blackburn, Spurs, Liverpool, Wimbledon and Southampton.

Truth is they probably don''t remember.

Stig · April 7, 2013

[quote user="7rew"]If I had to sum up "the Norwich Way", I''d use these words: NEGATIVE GOAL DIFFERENCE. Winning tight games and getting smashed when we lose.