Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Crafty Canary

You're Not Whining Anymore

Recommended Posts

To be fair "Sozzled Old Trout" does invole a lot more thought. If Crafty was as dumb as TCWE he''d have called her a "Sozzled Old Sozzler" or maybe a "Trouty Old Trout"!

 

I think even Crafty may win the battle of wits that''s going on here...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On behalf of somebody who only posts when he has time (apparently) can I just say that you are stirring the pot Nutty. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]1) Those of us old enough to have watched City from the 60s onwards will tell you of the many years of very average football to have been witnessed at Carrow Road.2) I have no problems with posters expressing concerns about the style of play however I do expect them to have realistic expectations.3) Whilst CH is a manager who sets up teams not to lose rather than to win (a la Roy Hodgson, Tony Pulis et al) that doesn''t mean he sets out to deliberately stifle the players'' abilities and creativity. Once they have left the dressing room he is in their hands and if they don''t perform to their capabilities (which has often been the case this season) that''s their fault not his.[/quote]1) And your point is? True but irrelevant to the here and now. The here and now being (financially and in other ways) a world away.2) My expectations for this season were for a final points tally of between 43 and 45 points, and more recently for four points from the quartet of games starting with Newcastle and finishing with West Ham. They seem eminently reasonable expectations to me, with a solid basis in logic and finance.3) Er, yes it does. At least potentially. If one manager encourages a fullback to overlap and another tells them to stay back the latter is setting out to stifle creativity. Ditto with telling a midfielder to hold position rather than sometimes to break beyond the lone striker. It might be the right thing to do but that is another argument.It is true in one sense that it is not Hughton''s fault if a player has an off-day. That happens to the best players. But everything leading up to the game should be aimed at ensuring the right players have been coached in the right way to play the right system. Thus reducing the chances of a player not doing their job properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good to see the Nelson cohort are still around looking to make asinine comments that have no objective other than to stir it up.

You never fail to disappoint!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True [:D][quote user="Making Plans"]No, because for once there''s nothing to whine about. Manager does job, players do job, team does job - simples, everybody is happy.That''s all we want and that''s all we''ve been asking for.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Ah bless, the old use abuse to those whose POV you don''t agree with. Those of us old enough to have watched City from the 60s onwards will tell you of the many years of very average football to have been witnessed at Carrow Road. .[/quote]Aw come on now Doc. Are you for real ?You invent a post with a provocative title, and controversial, very pointed , not to mention questionable, material. Not so much a ''POV'' as you put it, as a red rag to a bull.And then expect others not to rise to the bait.I''d agree (as I said) that using the word ''cretin '' was a bit insulting, but it''s a bit rich for you to come on at this late stage , whining .....(yes I''ll use that word).... about teenage, immature emotions, and not indulging in grown up debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . ."]It''s the pinkun'' musketeers! (although unfortunately there are a few more than three of you). All for one and one for all![/quote]

 

Would these ones be the muskateerous muskateers[:^)]

 

Having seen Crafty''s latest post the battle of wits is going to be closer than I thought...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"] I''m happy to debate the issue with you but on an adult basis and not with teenage hormonal abusive emotions. If you are grown up enough to be able to do this, fine otherwise I''m not interested in your opinions.[/quote]

I suppose the Nelson cohorts is an improvement on being called Lappdog, a bog cleaner and  PC Unpromotable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple, my point about football from times past is that what we watch now is definitely a step up in quality even if not always exciting.

The second point you make is reasonable in terms of the season''s objectives however over a limited sequence of games is less so as we all know that football is a ''funny old game''. Ask Manchester City supporters after yesterday'' game.

On your last point, I disagree completely. Asking players to fulfill certain roles within a game plan does not imply stifling of creativity. As for setting up players to perform well are you seriously suggesting that CH and his coaching team do not aim to achieve each week in training? Did Manuel Pelligrino aim to set his players up to underperform as they did yesterday? Of course not and as you rightly point out even the greatest have off days. My observation is that too many of ours have had such days too often this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nutty nigel wrote the following post at 09/02/2014 5:29 PM:

Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . . wrote:

It''s the pinkun'' musketeers! (although unfortunately there are a few more than three of you). All for one and one for all!

Would these ones be the muskateerous muskateers

Having seen Crafty''s latest post the battle of wits is going to be closer than I thought...

That''s it Nutty, keep that post count up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there was me thinking PC Unpromotable was merely a statement of fact. If a higher was achieved I will be happy to apologise on seeing the documentary evidence proving otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . ."]Lovely banter Nutty, i''m bereft of ribs. Anyway got to go and enjoy my life outside of this forum, (and finish my english lit. homework for class on the ''morrow, of course) enjoy the rest of your evening, you c**nty

old c**t............... X[/quote]

 

I thought it was too close to call but I think this gives you edge.

 

Crafty.. you''ll have to up your game. Or maybe call in Tangie for assistance...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was unpromotable Dr Crafty as I never sat any exams in an attempt to achieve promotion so in that sense you are correct. Job satisfaction and a sense of achievement in life is not just measured in certificates and letters after your name you know. You would have thought that someone so articulate as your good self would be above name calling but you never know what runs around some peoples heads in their desire to appear superior to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Purple, my point about football from times past is that what we watch now is definitely a step up in quality even if not always exciting.

The second point you make is reasonable in terms of the season''s objectives however over a limited sequence of games is less so as we all know that football is a ''funny old game''. Ask Manchester City supporters after yesterday'' game.

On your last point, I disagree completely. 1) Asking players to fulfill certain roles within a game plan does not imply stifling of creativity. As for setting up players to perform well 2) are you seriously suggesting that CH and his coaching team do not aim to achieve each week in training? Did Manuel Pelligrino aim to set his players up to underperform as they did yesterday? Of course not and as you rightly point out even the greatest have off days. My observation is that too many of ours have had such days too often this season.[/quote]1) Of course asking a player to fulfil a certain role can mean a stifling of creativity. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. It might be the right thing to do, but as I said that is another matter.2) You need to dead my post more carefully. I didn''t say Hughton didn''t aim in training for the ideal performance. I said that was what training was for. I assume he does aim for that.But there has to be a suspicion that the frequent underperformance of some players  (on which we agree) is not just a question of the player intrinsically playing badly. But in part it is because the training just isn''t preparing the players adequately for their roles and/or because there is a disconnect between the particular abilities of the players and the roles assigned to them. For example, I don''t see much club football but I see some international matches. Elmander is just not a linking Premier League  No. 10. He really really isn''t. And yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TIL 1010 wrote the following post at 09/02/2014 6:10 PM:

I was unpromotable Dr Crafty as I never sat any exams in an attempt to achieve promotion so in that sense you are correct. Job satisfaction and a sense of achievement in life is not just measured in certificates and letters after your name you know.

I have never been any good at exams either TIL 1010 and used to say the same sort of things that you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Purple, my point about football from times past is that what we watch now is definitely a step up in quality even if not always exciting.

The second point you make is reasonable in terms of the season''s objectives however over a limited sequence of games is less so as we all know that football is a ''funny old game''. Ask Manchester City supporters after yesterday'' game.

On your last point, I disagree completely. 1) Asking players to fulfill certain roles within a game plan does not imply stifling of creativity. As for setting up players to perform well 2) are you seriously suggesting that CH and his coaching team do not aim to achieve each week in training? Did Manuel Pelligrino aim to set his players up to underperform as they did yesterday? Of course not and as you rightly point out even the greatest have off days. My observation is that too many of ours have had such days too often this season.[/quote]1) Of course asking a player to fulfil a certain role can mean a stifling of creativity. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. It might be the right thing to do, but as I said that is another matter.2) You need to dead my post more carefully. I didn''t say Hughton didn''t aim in training for the ideal performance. I said that was what training was for. I assume he does aim for that.But there has to be a suspicion that the frequent underperformance of some players  (on which we agree) is not just a question of the player intrinsically playing badly. But in part it is because the training just isn''t preparing the players adequately for their roles and/or because there is a disconnect between the particular abilities of the players and the roles assigned to them. For example, I don''t see much club football but I see some international matches. Elmander is just not a linking Premier League  No. 10. He really really isn''t. And yet...[/quote]Ron Ashman, Terry Allcock and Terry Anderson, for example, all ended up being told to play in defence, after years as forwards. Stifling their creativity. But for the good of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whining is not something I have ever done. I support NCFC and all that it is, the people that are part of it and our great supporters.

Unfortunately this board is not representative of those great supporters .keyboard whiners rule it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Purple, my point about football from times past is that what we watch now is definitely a step up in quality even if not always exciting.

The second point you make is reasonable in terms of the season''s objectives however over a limited sequence of games is less so as we all know that football is a ''funny old game''. Ask Manchester City supporters after yesterday'' game.

On your last point, I disagree completely. 1) Asking players to fulfill certain roles within a game plan does not imply stifling of creativity. As for setting up players to perform well 2) are you seriously suggesting that CH and his coaching team do not aim to achieve each week in training? Did Manuel Pelligrino aim to set his players up to underperform as they did yesterday? Of course not and as you rightly point out even the greatest have off days. My observation is that too many of ours have had such days too often this season.[/quote]1) Of course asking a player to fulfil a certain role can mean a stifling of creativity. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. It might be the right thing to do, but as I said that is another matter.2) You need to dead my post more carefully. I didn''t say Hughton didn''t aim in training for the ideal performance. I said that was what training was for. I assume he does aim for that.But there has to be a suspicion that the frequent underperformance of some players  (on which we agree) is not just a question of the player intrinsically playing badly. But in part it is because the training just isn''t preparing the players adequately for their roles and/or because there is a disconnect between the particular abilities of the players and the roles assigned to them. For example, I don''t see much club football but I see some international matches. Elmander is just not a linking Premier League  No. 10. He really really isn''t. And yet...[/quote]
Absolutely spot on, in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no need to be nasty mr cottee, i can believe people wanted him out before the citeh game and i will understand if people want him out after the west ham game if we lose. What i would think is a bit ridiculous is, if you were the board you would sack him after a fantastic game against man c.

It''s like you and SOME of the people who want hughton out see norwich as a little toy (e.g tony fernades at QPR)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Cottee Woz Ere: Another cretin with another cretinous post. A 0-0 draw at home, albeit against one of the big boys, and all of a sudden those who have criticised the manager for the vast amount of poor results and peformances this season were wrong to do so! Good stuff Crafty. A manager whose win ratio and goals per game ratio would have seen him sacked (and rightfully so) at any other club. Yes Mrs Miggins, we are the retards, one 0-0 draw surely proves that! Let''s forget about everything else that has gone on this season and concentrate solely on one result. Common sense.

Yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]2) You need to dead my post more carefully. I didn''t say Hughton didn''t aim in training for the ideal performance. I said that was what training was for. I assume he does aim for that.But there has to be a suspicion that the frequent underperformance of some players  (on which we agree) is not just a question of the player intrinsically playing badly. But in part it is because the training just isn''t preparing the players adequately for their roles and/or because there is a disconnect between the particular abilities of the players and the roles assigned to them. For example, I don''t see much club football but I see some international matches. Elmander is just not a linking Premier League  No. 10. He really really isn''t. And yet...[/quote]To expand on this a bit. There seems to be a consensus (that includes Hughton) that the best formation/team is roughly the one that played on Saturday. Four defenders, two wingers (inverted or not etc) two workhorse central midfielders out of Fer, Johnson and Tettey, one sort-of link-midfielder out of Fer and Howson, and a striker. The argument in Hughton''s defence is that he has not often been able to pick that kind of square peg in square hole team because of injuries, particularly to Tettey and Howson.The anti-argument is twofold. Firstly, that neither Howson nor Fer is perfectly suited to that role, so why wasn''t someone bought in the summer (or in January) who was? I don''t know what is the Italian for wild goose chase, but the Quagliarella saga was such. And neither Toivonen nor Elmander is that kind of player.Secondly, if you don''t quite have the players for the favoured system (either because not signed or because of injury) isn''t that what management and coaching are for? Either to coach those available to play the system (possibly with a bit of out of the box thinking as to who might be the No. 10) or to switch to a different system that suits the players available.I don''t intend this as a bit of Hughton bashing. I am not certain about this and can''t suggest what better systems there. But I don''t think I am alone in having this doubt about whether Hughton has been tactically smart enough to make the best use of his resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...