Its time for a truce......

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

In the wake of Brio Ferdinand''s announcement I have to confirm that I am no longer making myself available to play for England.Now back to the "truce" that cusdp so successfully called for...

[morty 0]

Ah Mr Brownstone, its fine for you to call someone a pant wetter further up the page, but when I do it I''m a dick?

Lol, okay.

[Herman 9,700]

Is this like the WW1 Christmas truce??

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Mervmeister"]Who''s to say that if we had got Poyet or someone else in playing a more attacking style that we wouldn''t have been relegated? Hughtons style for this season may have been the survival factor. We dont have the quality to go all out attack, look at Wigan!![/quote]

The reason Wigan failed was because they prioritised a Cup run over the Prem and ended up  playing 5 games in 15 days.
But for that exhausting schedule I''ve no doubt that they would have survived quite easily.  We and a few other teams above them should think ourselves lucky.
[/quote]

Nonsense. They finished where they did because they were the third worst team in the league. You''ve been swallowing too much of the s***e emanating from MOTD.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="A Load of Squit"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

"Here''s a stat. Brighton had the best record in the champ. Only now found that out. "

Cardiff, Hull & Watford managed to finish above them?

 

[/quote]

Has he answered this?

[/quote]

 

How can he? Harry Houdini couldn''t get out of that.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]Tbh I think it is likely that Poyet would have turned us down - he seems to set himself ''projects'', and getting Brighton promoted was his focus, something he may well have wanted to see through (and almost did).[/quote]

In short, he failed. Others didn''t.

[Warren Hill 0]

He missed the word "defensive" out of his post, I think.

It should read the best defensive record...but then you all knew that and were pulling his leg...

[can u sit down please 0]

Jeez what have I started.

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

re: Poyet, got a few Brighton mates, they aren''t happy with him at all. Too many draws that could have been wins with more positive football (sound familar?), constantly whining about transfer budgets despite spending a fair whack, and doesn''t handle the pressure well, he''s always going mental at referees for the slightest thing.Apparently he and the chairman have had a falling out over Reading''s approach for him and haven''t spoken since Christmas, can''t see him being at Brighton much longer, personally I reckon he might end up Wigan bound once Martinez is poached.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

I don''t think Poyet would''ve fitted in at Norwich. Brighton play very cultured football, heavily focused on possession and methodical attacking rather than continuous assaults. Lambert''s style of football, whilst attacking, was not ''cultured'' or ''methodical''.

[Power Hamster 0]

How about some more statistics? A quick look at the league table shows that we have won the same number of games as Wigan (nine). The difference between us and them is that we have six more draws, and six fewer defeats, and therefore six more points, than they do.

Could this perhaps owe something to Hughton''s strategy of playing for a point in games where we don''t look like winning? Of course we could have played open attacking football like Wigan, and we could have ended up getting beaten twenty times like they have.

None of us know the exact details of what happened in the last two transfer windows, but the fact is that, for whatever reason, we didn''t have the quality up front this season to risk playing all-out attacking football. We got through last season under Lambert with the momentum from two promotion seasons, but I can''t see that the momentum would have carried us into a second season. Lambert has manages it at Villa because he has quality strikers like Benteke and Agbonlahor at his disposal, which we don''t.

Basically Hughton''s brief for the "difficult" second season was to tighten up the defence, and to follow the old maxim, "if you can''t win, at least make sure you don''t lose", and to keep the club in the Premier League.

As far as I can see, he has done exactly that. In my opinion, he is a far better manager than most people on here give him credit for.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

I''m kind of with Ellis and Power Hamster on this.

 

As I have written elsewhere there are some posters on here that find some sort of perverse pleasure in "knocking our own"!

 

Some have spent months posting bilious attack after attack - and then instead of having the guts to apologise for their small / petty mindedness, want to hide behind a "truce"! I''m afraid it isn''t quite that simple - now that CH has delivered, man up to the error of your vitriolic attacks then ask for a truce!

 

And, on top of all that, they have the audacity to say OK, I''ll give him x number of games to sort himself out!

 

Absolutely beggars belief!

 

And, before anyone starts pontificating about "concern for the club and the direction it was going in" etc, etc - I think one ought to be concerned about the direction that a small section of the population were hell bent on taking us. We are Norwich - as the sign says "A Fine City" - a city that has always looked after it''s own. Since when did we become so loathsome as to continually condemn a man, doing the job he was paid to do, and then succeeding in completing that job, and to top it off, not even having the decency to apologise for our behaviour! And one wonders why they make the "jokes" they do about Norfolk people!! So, you know who you are - stop trying to defend your position! You should be ashamed of yourselves!

 

Truce! Do you REALLY think you deserve it? Could you hold your head up high in public and say "I was proud of my actions"?

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I would have thought it was pretty obvious that I was joking Morty, seeing that his post was agreeing with mine!

I''ll try and make it a little more obvious for you next time. Bless.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Power Hamster"]we didn''t have the quality up front this season to risk playing all-out attacking football.[/quote]Oh FFS - How many f**king times do we have to spell this point out.I''m going to try it once more and hope to christ that someone actually reads it, understands it and that little lightbulb upstairs clicks ''on'' for some posters.NO-ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE PLAYED GUNG-HO ATTACKING FOOTBALL - WE ARE SAYING THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BALANCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE OVERLY DEFENSIVE APPROACH HUGHTON USED.I really, really, hope that''s clear enough now...

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Power Hamster"]we didn''t have the quality up front this season to risk playing all-out attacking football.[/quote]   Oh FFS - How many f**king times do we have to spell this point out.  I''m going to try it once more and hope to christ that someone actually reads it, understands it and that little lightbulb upstairs clicks ''on'' for some posters. NO-ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE PLAYED GUNG-HO ATTACKING FOOTBALL - WE ARE SAYING THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BALANCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE OVERLY DEFENSIVE APPROACH HUGHTON USED.   Really, really, hope that''s clear enough now...[/quote]

No it isn''t clear. [:)]    The trouble is  there have been a lot of posters saying we should play to our strengths - attack - as we did with Lambert.    The argument  that some of us have is that we haven''t been using an overly defensive approach - simply, that the players haven''t been up to playing the style that we all should know is Hughton''s way - a balanced approach.     That we appear defensive is because the midfield have struggled to keep possession and create anything worthwhile in some games.   So the appearance is of a defensive side, unable to create anything.   But it hasn''t been the case all season - and we have seen how at our best we are very good.     The pressure got intense after Christmas trying to maintain - or get back to - the unbeaten run - hence the dour games.    

I''m not trying to prolong the argument but the truth appears to be much less black and white than people are saying.   I have always maintained that when we see a Hughton team at its best it will be solid, organised and free flowing - that is historically what he has done and I don''t see why it should change just because he is at Norwich.    It''s down to what people see - and we all see different things - but the development will be more pronounced the further Hughton gets into his stride - and that could take another season - or two - before that happens.  

I am getting rather tired of these arguments too, we should all have learned something from this season - that a little patience is required to wait to see the best of Hughton''s team development and that it its best it is very good - and at it''s worst it can be dull - but to be honest that could be said of any football team under any manager.      Very good means  we are all happy, dull it means we are less happy but we still pick up points and don''t get beaten that much.    

What I am looking forward to next season as the team develops is more of the "very good" and a little less of the "dull".   Its a question of balance and I am totally confident that Hughton will get that right.  

Just a little less posturing from posters is needed and a little more understanding.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Power Hamster"]we didn''t have the quality up front this season to risk playing all-out attacking football.[/quote]
Oh FFS - How many f**king times do we have to spell this point out.

I''m going to try it once more and hope to christ that someone actually reads it, understands it and that little lightbulb upstairs clicks ''on'' for some posters.

NO-ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE PLAYED GUNG-HO ATTACKING FOOTBALL - WE ARE SAYING THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BALANCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE OVERLY DEFENSIVE APPROACH HUGHTON USED.

I really, really, hope that''s clear enough now...
[/quote]

What do you mean when you say ''WE'', is Indy_Bones a collective of people?

 

[Power Hamster 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Power Hamster"]we didn''t have the quality up front this season to risk playing all-out attacking football.[/quote]Oh FFS - How many f**king times do we have to spell this point out.I''m going to try it once more and hope to christ that someone actually reads it, understands it and that little lightbulb upstairs clicks ''on'' for some posters.NO-ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE PLAYED GUNG-HO ATTACKING FOOTBALL - WE ARE SAYING THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BALANCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE OVERLY DEFENSIVE APPROACH HUGHTON USED.I really, really, hope that''s clear enough now...[/quote]

But that was the point I was trying to make! Hughton''s approach wasn''t "overly" defensive, it was the correct balance between attack and defence, GIVEN THE RESOURCES AT HIS DISPOSAL. I''m not stupid, I can understand your point, it''s just that I don''t agree with it. Can''t you handle that?

[Indy_Bones 441]

When you post "we didn''t have the quality upfront to play all-out attacking football" that certainly doesn''t suggest you were advocating a balanced approach...

Maybe if you were more clear in what you meant it would be easier to respond to (or are you simply trying to backtrack on what you wrote?)

[Power Hamster 0]

No, I was just comparing us with teams like Wigan and Villa, who I think at times didn''t adopt a balance between attack and defence.

Villa got away with it, Wigan didn''t.

I still believe Hughton had his brief for the season, and achieved what he set out to do.

[Murphy and the Bricks 0]

I''m neither for nor against Hughton TBH, he wasnt my preferred option when he came in but I have warmed to him. The fact that we have done two bits of good business early doors with one good signing(Garrido) & a brilliant signing(RVW) IMO has increased my warmness. But I worry for those prepared to give him pre-season & 10 games.

Pre-season is a joke its just playing meaningless matches for the sake of fitness. So that leaves ten games if the old fixtures robot comes out with the following fixtures highly unlikely but you never know & the results happen as below what then?

Cardiff H - Newley promoted first game in they will be looking for a good start. We should beat them at home but we get a draw, Win/Draw

Man Utd A - highly unlikey we go there & get anything, Lose

Chelsea H - The Special one is back & they are on fire, Lose

Arsenal A - Ok we got cheated out of it this season & we got a draw last season, Draw/Lose

Villa H - PL History enough said, Win/Draw

Man City A - New Manager, will spend in the summer, Lose

Tottenham H - We have played well against these several times this season, but struggle to win, Draw

Everton A - Depends who they get in to replace Moyes, Draw/Lose

Liverpool H - Bucked tooth little racist cheat is back enough said, Lose

Swansea A - Laudrup will not let it happen twice, Lose.

we have 7/10 points out of a possible 30....People would then be calling for his head, getting on the teams back & unsettling everyone, we are past Transfer deadline, so a new Manager cannot bring anyone in & will be stuck with Hughton''s team. We have the so called lesser teams to play in the next 9/10 games & points could be easier to come by.

He deserves at least half a season so he can be judged on us playing all the teams in the league once. I will be giving him until Christmas...if we have not improved, ie the brand of football & winning more games then change. At least it would give a new Mangaer a chance in the January window(thats if we havent spent all the money pre-season)

I think we will sign some decent players & we will see a whole different brand of football next season, this year was all about survival & Hughton getting to know Norwich City FC, he knows now so its onwards & upwards.

Sorry for long post, just playing Devils advocate!!

 

[morty 0]

When you''re finished being patronising Mr Brownstone, perhaps you''ll consider that perhaps I was being tongue in cheek too?

 

[Mr Brownstone 0]

[quote user="morty"]

When you''re finished being patronising Mr Brownstone, perhaps you''ll consider that perhaps I was being tongue in cheek too?

 

[/quote]

 

If you say so Morty.

 

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

Whatever happened to CUSDP''s proposed truce? Can''t we talk about something else for a change?

[morty 0]

I''m with Power Hamster on this. I am having trouble with understanding how people can still bat on about this awful football we have been playing when we may even finish in the top half of the table, really, in the cold light of day, its just a bit silly maintaining the opinion.

In my opinion of course.

I would insert a smiley to show that my post is in good faith, just in case anyone takes offence, but my browser won''t allow me to :)

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="morty"]I am having trouble with understanding how people can still bat on about this awful football we have been playing when we may even finish in the top half of the table, really, in the cold light of day, its just a bit silly maintaining the opinion.[/quote]It''s because there''s a difference between attractive football and effective football.Chelsea for example, have played far more effective football in recent years than they have attractive (especially under Mourinho), whereas for example Blackpool often played attractive football but which often wasn''t effective enough.What we have played this season has been mainly effective football (although the 2nd half season run hasn''t been THAT effective), which came at the cost of the more attractive elements to the game.My argument rests around my firm belief that we could have played more attractively whilst still remaining effective (as we did under Lambert), and this is why I consider it to be ''awful'' football, because it''s awful to watch even if it''s worked at times...(much like Stoke)...

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]I consider it to be ''awful'' football, because it''s awful to watch even if it''s worked at times...[/quote]You may consider it ''awful'' Indy, I found it ''absorbing'', and ultimately ''successful''.Perhaps it''s simply that I enjoy football more than you, I can''t think of another explanation.  [;)]

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="lappinitup"]You may consider it ''awful'' Indy, I found it ''absorbing'', and ultimately ''successful''.[/quote]I didn''t say it wasn''t succesful (as we''ve stayed up), I just said it was bad to watch a lot of the time. If you genuinely enjoyed games like the dire showing at Stoke then you''ve already invalidated your next statement..[quote]Perhaps it''s simply that I enjoy football more than you[/quote]Perhaps it''s simply that you''re more willing to accept dross than I am as long as the end result is ok...?

[morty 0]

Indy, we''re not Chelsea, and Lambert has gone.

Hope this helps.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Perhaps it''s simply that you''re more willing to accept dross than I am as long as the end result is ok...?[/quote]What I describe as absorbing you describe as dross. And you''re probably correct as you say what you see just as I do. I love cricket too particularly test matches (which have started today). Many modern fans only want to see one-day games and more recently, the twenty over version. I enjoy all forms of the game but for me, the five day test matches are what cricket is all about and again, totally absorbing. Many would consider them to be ''dross'' and don''t ever consider the technical side of the game but simply want to see a quick ''slog''. I don''t see them as wrong. To each, his own.

[BOO 0]

I really didn''t want to dip into this but come on, Lappin suggesting that the cr@p we played last season was absorbing and those that didn''t enjoy it failled to do so because they do not enjoy football as much as him.

There have been some extreme points posted on here but that one is beyond extreme.

Claiming the high ground because you appreciate cr@p football is going a bit far.