A huge sigh of relief - and the way ahead for the future

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="ricardo"]If there is a marked regression from last season then NCFC are not alone. Only Southampton and Villa can claim any points improvement after 22 games compared to last season                                               This Season                     Last SeasonSouthampton                              31                                     22Villa                                              24                                     19Norwich                                       23                                     26Stoke                                           22                                      29WBA                                            21                                      33Swansea                                     21                                     30Fulham                                       19                                      25W Ham                                       18                                      26Sunderland                                18                                      25 For my part this simply reflects the fact that the top teams have moved a further step away from the rest in terms of quality. The regression looks general to me with only Villa and Southampton improving on last seasons form.[/quote]This is a very, very interesting post. Those stats are remarkable. That the bottom half was so tight last season was, I thought, explicable by the enormous bounty on offer once the new TV deal kicked in; yet I can scarcely fathom just why so many sides have got so much worse since said bounty was swallowed up. If anything, in a season in which the top end has been much more unpredictable and competitive, and both the two favourites spent the first half of the campaign leaking goals and frequently flattering to deceive, I''d have expected the points totals of at least those between around 9th and 14th or so to have been better, not worse; but quite the opposite has been the case!And if Villa so much as finish 9th, despite being pants for so much of the campaign, the 9 biggest clubs would all have finished in the top nine. Which just goes to show how hard it will be for us to get much higher than we already are. Trouble is though, I don''t know about anyone else, but this just doesn''t feel like success. There has to be more than this, surely?

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

Could it be that the big money available this season has evened out the differences between the bottom ten teams so that we are all able to buy the same standard of player?

Add to this that the fear of relegation encourages risk-free play means teams are happier to play for a draw than a win.

It explains why a couple of back to back wins sees a team leap up the table and brings so much sense relief.

The attitude on this forum has changed immeasurably after just one result, yet there are still sixteen more matches to be played in which anything can happen, It isn''t over yet.

[Block Y Seat 176 80]

Hughton had the hard task of retaining our status in the PL and taking over from Paul Lambert.

As fans we have had an exhilarating ride over the last 5 years, often a big fish in a small pond in the lower leagues but now we are a small fish in a big pond. Our spending is limited by the size of Carrow Road but that expectation and thrill from the Lambert years is still with us. Football fans are addicts and we still crave for something we can no longer have. A canary doing cold turkey.

We need to get real and look forward and have a hint of realism about ourselves. Did i think RVW and Hooper would have scored 20 goals by now? Yes i did.

I didn''t listen to the warnings of ex pro''s who talked of the time it takes for new players to bed into a new side. I''m listening now.

Most sides in the PL suffer the peaks and troughs of form, our brief flirtation with the bottom three brought about an over reaction for some flamed by the media. Hughton''s trying to build a new house while others are knocking down the supporting walls behind his back.

I do not believe that Hughton is particularly happy with our style of play. It happens to be a period of time when due to financial constraints we are where we are. A moderate size club with income to match relying on Championship players with promise, ex International coming to the end of their carers, foreign players with promise and a couple of rough aforementioned diamonds that need polishing.

The problem with football drug addicts is they want their fix NOW! Sorry but life really isn''t like that.

H

[KeelansGlove 0]

As I said in my earlier post there are very few clubs scoring so few and conceding so many goals, so I do not believe we are currently competing with the bottom half of the premiership in football terms even if we are in terms of points.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Interesting OP and a nice summary from H.

Ricardo''s stat post puts things into perspective neatly. You can improve and go backwards.

One understandable issue on this board is its one-track Norwich City mind. That is no criticism, though a broader view could be achieved by learning to see ourselves as others in football see us. Within football circles we are well regarded as a club model and many feel we have chosen extremely well in Hughton.

The question raised, by Riccardo''s post and others is " How much of it is Hughton''s fault?"

That there are many criticisms of him which are valid is not in dispute, though some of what is contained in the OP and many other frustrated posts are actually to do with the nature of the league we are in, the finances, the inbalances and our club structure. The inevitability of not winning somewhere between 26-28 matches simply cannot prevent "negativity". That this is so means that there is a lot of "defending". When other teams have weapons it is only media talk that says "we''ll concentrate on our own game", against Hazard, Carroll or Huddlestone you of course develop specific tactical plans.

It is my view that the board want/wanted to invest long-term in a manager and also wanted a consistent club-building structure throughout the club. This did not involve loading all of those club-building factors onto one man - and indeed the club has good senior managers with devolved powers - enduring structural continuity as far as possible.

The real job was to stay up. In my view that is the only real job for a few more years. Changing mid-season and forced into a Plan B that was not obvious was always a poor business choice; though results are necessarily the final arbiter. I suspect more time will now be allocated to a Plan B, if only to keep in a sealed envelope for a sunny day.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="ricardo"]If there is a marked regression from last season then NCFC are not alone. Only Southampton and Villa can claim any points improvement after 22 games compared to last season                                               This Season                     Last SeasonSouthampton                              31                                     22Villa                                              24                                     19Norwich                                       23                                     26Stoke                                           22                                      29WBA                                            21                                      33Swansea                                     21                                     30Fulham                                       19                                      25W Ham                                       18                                      26Sunderland                                18                                      25 For my part this simply reflects the fact that the top teams have moved a further step away from the rest in terms of quality. The regression looks general to me with only Villa and Southampton improving on last seasons form.[/quote]This is a very, very interesting post. Those stats are remarkable. That the bottom half was so tight last season was, I thought, explicable by the enormous bounty on offer once the new TV deal kicked in; yet I can scarcely fathom just why so many sides have got so much worse since said bounty was swallowed up. If anything, in a season in which the top end has been much more unpredictable and competitive, and both the two favourites spent the first half of the campaign leaking goals and frequently flattering to deceive, I''d have expected the points totals of at least those between around 9th and 14th or so to have been better, not worse; but quite the opposite has been the case!And if Villa so much as finish 9th, despite being pants for so much of the campaign, the 9 biggest clubs would all have finished in the top nine. Which just goes to show how hard it will be for us to get much higher than we already are. Trouble is though, I don''t know about anyone else, but this just doesn''t feel like success. There has to be more than this, surely?[/quote]It will be interesting to see that table after 38 games. One possible element in this, surprisingly, is the Premier League''s version of Financial Fair Play, which has come into effect this season, and tries to limit both losses and wage spending. Allardyce in particular has said it has limited West Ham''s transfer activity (hence the recent arrival of Roger Johnson rather than someone good). Even allowing for Allardyce''s need for some outside factor to blame it may be FFP is starting, even if not by much, to curtail the dealings of clubs that would otherwise have spent to get out of trouble.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]It is my view that the board want/wanted to invest long-term in a manager and also wanted a consistent club-building structure throughout the club. This did not involve loading all of those club-building factors onto one man - and indeed the club has good senior managers with devolved powers - enduring structural continuity as far as possible.[/quote]This needs to be more specifically explained. Not least because the argument I was following was that Hughton was a good manager precisely because he was a club builder and had other virtues/duties besides those involving his stewardship of the first tea,but now it seems much of the club-building stuff is delegated to others.In any event from a distance it seems as if we have a rather old-fashioned structure that is no different from that of the old regime of Smith and Jones and Munby and Doncaster. And going back before then.We have a chairman who may be a bit more hands on than was Munby (although less so than Chase or South) but who is still an amateur. McNally is presumably the director closest to the football side, but his main job is as chief executive of the entire business. Football and non-football.He has no practical background in professional football and does not  appear to be anything like the now rather modish director of football. Someone who is an ex-player/manager and controls the big-picture football stuff, with the "manager" being effectively the head coach. So that the over-arching playing vision of the director of football continues while head coaches come and go.I will gladly be corrected but it is not obvious that any of the traditional powers of a football manager have been devolved from Hughton. There are coaches for the levels below the first-team squad, but then there always have been. Nor is it obvious that any "club-building" activities in the past carried on by the non-football exceutives have been delegated to Hughton. But then I am a long way from Carrow Road.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Excellent post by the OP and a good thread.

 

Looking at the top end of the table, Man U are much worse than last season (7 defeats out of 22 games) but Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton have all IMO improved significantly while Man C are sustaining good form except for some poor away performances, and Newcastle are definitely over-achieving.  This is the flip side of the bottom end of the table which has everyone clustered together - by definition if the top teams are doing better, the teams lower down must be getting less points.

 

Also this season we don''t have a team or two cut adrift at the bottom already - Palace were looking like it but changing the manager has steadied the ship (not saying they''ll be safe mind, but they''re not out of touch yet).

 

So Villa may be in 10th but they are only 6 points above bottom.  Can''t remember a time when the table was so compressed.

 

I have to agree that expectations were raised to unrealistic levels for many fans.  I''ve seen comments on some threads saying we are now an established Prem club, which is simply wrong.  Our aim this season may be to get into the top 10, but our underlying basic objective is still 17th place.  A lot of the dissatisfaction this season is from people who don''t see this.

[Account Closed 0]

Wow! What a difference a game makes.

[GPs Beard 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]

It is my view that the board want/wanted to invest long-term in a manager and also wanted a consistent club-building structure throughout the club. This did not involve loading all of those club-building factors onto one man - and indeed the club has good senior managers with devolved powers - enduring structural continuity as far as possible.

[/quote]

This needs to be more specifically explained. Not least because the argument I was following was that Hughton was a good manager precisely because he was a club builder and had other virtues/duties besides those involving his stewardship of the first tea,but now it seems much of the club-building stuff is delegated to others.

In any event from a distance it seems as if we have a rather old-fashioned structure that is no different from that of the old regime of Smith and Jones and Munby and Doncaster. And going back before then.

We have a chairman who may be a bit more hands on than was Munby (although less so than Chase or South) but who is still an amateur. McNally is presumably the director closest to the football side, but his main job is as chief executive of the entire business. Football and non-football.

He has no practical background in professional football and does not  appear to be anything like the now rather modish director of football. Someone who is an ex-player/manager and controls the big-picture football stuff, with the "manager" being effectively the head coach. So that the over-arching playing vision of the director of football continues while head coaches come and go.

I will gladly be corrected but it is not obvious that any of the traditional powers of a football manager have been devolved from Hughton. There are coaches for the levels below the first-team squad, but then there always have been. Nor is it obvious that any "club-building" activities in the past carried on by the non-football exceutives have been delegated to Hughton. But then I am a long way from Carrow Road.
[/quote]

 

 

What a good thread. All very interesting. During my (incredibly short) mutterings with D.M. over the years, whilst he will refer to longevity of plan quite often (particularly for the benefit of sponsors) the absolutely critical KPI of the entire football club is staying in the premier league. Hughton''s directive is to achieve this. Any devolution of Hughton''s responsibility will only occur if McN sees it as directly influential to staying in the Prem. I''m not entirely sure that day to day CH is managing many other aspects of the club in a practical way . Any Legacy ideas that people might believe the board have,  starts with us staying in the prem, are of a consequence and not a primary KPI.

 

 

I think at times the fact that the Club have shifted from a desire to be in the Premier League to a need is lost to some extent on us supporters. The very fact that McN tells us that we only budget to finish 16th , actually means we budget, and therefore set our cost profile, at cumulative figures.  In year 1 of the prem, many players were on championship contracts , with relegation clauses, so financially the impact of relegation would not be the same as it would be now. The average wage at City is multiples higher than it was three years ago, (the highest is £40k - Holt was on half this at best)  with all new players on more money, often for longer periods , and without relegation provision. We now have more staff, hugely increased media costs and not forgetting MrN''s own desire to achieve his bonus - (well earned in my humble opinion). Norwich City Football Club is a Premier League club, with a Premier League cost profile. Winning the FA youth club is good for the brand, but will have no affect whatsoever on whether CH keeps his job.  Don''t forget that CH is the highest paid manager we have ever had, in terms of him having a three year contract.

 

If the Club thought or thinks there as an increase in the risk of relegation it would act. I have absolutely no doubt about it. It would still happen if we lost our next 5 games. What the result of the "Act" would be is pure speculation. But I believe that McN''s reference to relegation being the equivalent of death in financial terms reflected this.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]As I said in my earlier post there are very few clubs scoring so few and conceding so many goals, so I do not believe we are currently competing with the bottom half of the premiership in football terms even if we are in terms of points.[/quote]. Yet you only have to look at the results to see how wrong this analysis is. Our goals for and against is massively distorted by results against the top teams.

Against those in the bottom half we have only lost once while winning four and drawing four, scoring ten and conceding five. If this isn''t competing with your peers I''d like to know what is.

[ron obvious 1,502]

...It is my view that the board want/wanted to invest long-term in a manager and also wanted a consistent club-building structure throughout the club. This did not involve loading all of those club-building factors onto one man - and indeed the club has good senior managers with devolved powers - enduring structural continuity as far as possible. ...

---------------------------------------------------

PHgm, have you ever read Karl Popper''s The Open Society And Its Enemies?

Good, & evolving, institutions are the key.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="KeelansGlove"]As I said in my earlier post there are very few clubs scoring so few and conceding so many goals, so I do not believe we are currently competing with the bottom half of the premiership in football terms even if we are in terms of points.[/quote]. Yet you only have to look at the results to see how wrong this analysis is. Our goals for and against is massively distorted by results against the top teams.

Against those in the bottom half we have only lost once while winning four and drawing four, scoring ten and conceding five. If this isn''t competing with your peers I''d like to know what is.[/quote]

 

It''s 7 goals now Rickyyyy. I keep posting that table but it rarely gets any reaction. I think that''s because it''s difficult to reconcile the games against the bottom 12 with the games against the to 8. In 13 games against the bottom 12 we''ve conceded just 7 goals where as in 9 games against the top 8 we''ve conceded 28 goals.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="ron obvious"]...It is my view that the board want/wanted to invest long-term in a manager and also wanted a consistent club-building structure throughout the club. This did not involve loading all of those club-building factors onto one man - and indeed the club has good senior managers with devolved powers - enduring structural continuity as far as possible. ...

---------------------------------------------------

PHgm, have you ever read Karl Popper''s The Open Society And Its Enemies?

Good, & evolving, institutions are the key.[/quote]Ron, are you on commission for recommending Popper''s stuff?![;)]

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Best thread I''ve seen on here for a long time.

I see a top 9 and a bottom 11. It is fantasy to hope to be among that top 9 but to be in the bottom 11, for all the sides, means you are only two games away from success or failure.

It could be argued CH is doing what he needs to do and that the failure of key players to take chances isn''t his fault. Equally, there is no excuse for all this standing off the opposition when they are in possession or attacking so slowly we end up with good possession stats hiding the fact we seldom got behind defences or penetrate.

Our end of season shows little opportunity to pick up points and we''re all wary of that, but the pressure we are currently under is keeping us on our toes and not doing as Swansea have. It is really difficult to halt a bad run in the EPL.

Best of all the players are showing togetherness and spirit.

[ron obvious 1,502]

Ron, are you on commission for recommending Popper''s stuff?

------------------------------------------------------------

Only that one PC - haven''t read the rest!

One day when I''ve retired (soon) I plan to do a LOT of reading. He''ll be one of the first on my list; his books on the philosophy of science look to be unsurpassable.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

I''m more of a disciple of Macchiavelli...

Popper interesting though, it can be argued that the Internet may/is further/ing his theories, assist self-determinism and flatten intellectual hierarchies. Have found Open Society and am reading.

[!M.u.s.t.a.r.d_M.a.t.t.e.r.s! 0]

Great thread - really enjoyed that.If Karl Popper taking a pop at Plato is not your bag, then this could be:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta1KfRX06kAMonty Python Philosophy Football

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="GPB"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]It is my view that the board want/wanted to invest long-term in a manager and also wanted a consistent club-building structure throughout the club. This did not involve loading all of those club-building factors onto one man - and indeed the club has good senior managers with devolved powers - enduring structural continuity as far as possible.[/quote]This needs to be more specifically explained. Not least because the argument I was following was that Hughton was a good manager precisely because he was a club builder and had other virtues/duties besides those involving his stewardship of the first tea,but now it seems much of the club-building stuff is delegated to others.In any event from a distance it seems as if we have a rather old-fashioned structure that is no different from that of the old regime of Smith and Jones and Munby and Doncaster. And going back before then.We have a chairman who may be a bit more hands on than was Munby (although less so than Chase or South) but who is still an amateur. McNally is presumably the director closest to the football side, but his main job is as chief executive of the entire business. Football and non-football.He has no practical background in professional football and does not  appear to be anything like the now rather modish director of football. Someone who is an ex-player/manager and controls the big-picture football stuff, with the "manager" being effectively the head coach. So that the over-arching playing vision of the director of football continues while head coaches come and go.I will gladly be corrected but it is not obvious that any of the traditional powers of a football manager have been devolved from Hughton. There are coaches for the levels below the first-team squad, but then there always have been. Nor is it obvious that any "club-building" activities in the past carried on by the non-football exceutives have been delegated to Hughton. But then I am a long way from Carrow Road.[/quote]

 

 

What a good thread. All very interesting. During my (incredibly short) mutterings with D.M. over the years, whilst he will refer to longevity of plan quite often (particularly for the benefit of sponsors) the absolutely critical KPI of the entire football club is staying in the premier league. Hughton''s directive is to achieve this. Any devolution of Hughton''s responsibility will only occur if McN sees it as directly influential to staying in the Prem. I''m not entirely sure that day to day CH is managing many other aspects of the club in a practical way . Any Legacy ideas that people might believe the board have,  starts with us staying in the prem, are of a consequence and not a primary KPI.

 

 

I think at times the fact that the Club have shifted from a desire to be in the Premier League to a need is lost to some extent on us supporters. The very fact that McN tells us that we only budget to finish 16th , actually means we budget, and therefore set our cost profile, at cumulative figures.  In year 1 of the prem, many players were on championship contracts , with relegation clauses, so financially the impact of relegation would not be the same as it would be now. The average wage at City is multiples higher than it was three years ago, (the highest is £40k - Holt was on half this at best)  with all new players on more money, often for longer periods , and without relegation provision. We now have more staff, hugely increased media costs and not forgetting MrN''s own desire to achieve his bonus - (well earned in my humble opinion). Norwich City Football Club is a Premier League club, with a Premier League cost profile. Winning the FA youth club is good for the brand, but will have no affect whatsoever on whether CH keeps his job.  Don''t forget that CH is the highest paid manager we have ever had, in terms of him having a three year contract.

 

If the Club thought or thinks there as an increase in the risk of relegation it would act. I have absolutely no doubt about it. It would still happen if we lost our next 5 games. What the result of the "Act" would be is pure speculation. But I believe that McN''s reference to relegation being the equivalent of death in financial terms reflected this.

[/quote]Absolutely, GPB. There appears to be no evidence at all that Hughton''s role is anything but that of a typical English football manager, with the handling of the first-team being pretty much the only concern. The thesis that he is some of legacy club-builder seems to be based purely on wishful thinking.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

PC, GPB is indeed correct, but you are obsessing over a narrow point that has never been made.

The club structure is now different to both the Chinese wall times of Worthington and "we let the manager manage" with the "football-side" and the "business side" separate. And also different from the Lambert era, when he was extremely difficult to manage and had no wish to engage in the broader, but fundamental issues for the club, such as finance or lines of communication.

There are two separate issues here as stated, the club developing a continuity that functions regardless who is manager, whilst also encouraging a manager to work more closely with senior managers to ensure joined-up thinking as far as possible. As GPB says the division you may in is fundamental and the effect of the success of the first team is felt through all aspects of the business.

[Madison 0]

I felt at the start of the season it would be after the New Year before things would start to slot together especially with all the changes made in the summer. It may well be next year before we see the full picture and a team that will compete in a league that attracts much of the best talent in the world.

You don''t need many cogs missing from a well oiled machine for it to not run properly.

We are at the toughest stage of rebuilding a new squad in depth that has got over the honeymoon period of newly promoted teams and we know there is a massive difference in the quality of football players from the championship to premier league.

Your post definitely reignites the need for us as supporters to do what is right for our team as disenchantment will only aids our demise.

Hat off to ya fella it was a great post!

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]PC, GPB is indeed correct, but you are obsessing over a narrow point that has never been made.

The club structure is now different to both the Chinese wall times of Worthington and "we let the manager manage" with the "football-side" and the "business side" separate. And also different from the Lambert era, when he was extremely difficult to manage and had no wish to engage in the broader, but fundamental issues for the club, such as finance or lines of communication.

There are two separate issues here as stated, the club developing a continuity that functions regardless who is manager, whilst also encouraging a manager to work more closely with senior managers to ensure joined-up thinking as far as possible. As GPB says the division you may in is fundamental and the effect of the success of the first team is felt through all aspects of the business.[/quote]

Parma, if  GPB''s post was, as I read it, entirely agreeing with my post, and you say GPB is correct, then how come I am missing the point!Moving on, debating points aside, I thought about not replying, because this kind of discussion betwen two posters can end up being tedious for anyone else, and start resembling those interminable medieval religious arguments about how many Hoolahans can twirl on a pinhead. Not to mention looking antagonistic, which is not my aim; I am just trying to find out what you''re talking about. This is what I am obsessing over!Just to backtrack (I think this summary is fair) over some months now you have defended Hughton on two counts. That he is trying to bring in a more sophisticated tactical approach. Let''s leave that one, eh! And that off the field he is a long-term (over several years) club builder. You said a while ago that even if we got relegated he should be kept on, for this very reason.That intrigued me, but there was no detail to back this up. What I have been trying to get you to explain how this is true. It seems to me there are two linked ways  in which this would work.Firstly through Hughton being by nature a builder. And more so than others. I get entirely that if you compare him with Lambert, then he is. But Genghis Khan would come across well by comparison with the manager Bowkett described as the most impatient he''d ever come across in decades in business.But Lambert is not coming back to manage Norwich City if Hughton goes. The question is whether Hughton is any more of a builder than typical managers in the Premier League now and/or those who might replace him. Is he more so than Moyes was at Everton, or Martinez at Swansea and then Wigan? Or than Ferguson was at Man United? Any more so than Rosler (about whom I read good things) was at Brentford and probably will be at Wigan?   It is not obvious that he is. And in any event, as said before, in practice the way you build a club is by making the first team team successful and the way you debilitate a club is by its failure.The second way to build would be through organisational changes at the club. Here we may do things differently from the Worthington era, but I suspect most clubs do nowadays. There is more of what in managementspeak is called a holistic approach. I guess this is what is meant by:There are two separate issues here as stated, the club developing a continuity that functions regardless who is manager, whilst also encouraging a manager to work more closely with senior managers to ensure joined-up thinking as far as possible.Which is fine, albeit it very woolly. What does Hughton do to ensure "joined-up thinking" between the football side and the non-football that the directors, the CEO and the director of finance haven''t always done? The link with finance is plain, but I assume you are not suggesting Hughton is now dictating our financial decisions rather than having to work within them. That apart, is Hughton  liaising with the head of catering over the menu at Yellows? A flippant example but I genuinely don''t see where the benefits lie in non-football areas, let alone any synergies, to use another piece of managementspeak.Unless you can do what you haven''t  done so far and explain how precisely this new system is working and how Hughton - more than other managers would be - is crucial to it, I remain highly sceptical. But very willing to be convinced by something resembling a hard fact or two.The final point is that in my watching-time 21 managers (excluding stand-ins) have left, and the club has carried on. The continuity you seem to think is only now being developed has always been there. Unless what you are talking about is some kind of over-arching footballing vision. But for that to be the case then Hughton would have to be a director of football, maintaining the vision, while subservient head coaches came and went. But there seems to be absolutely no sign of that either now or being planned.