Radio Norfolk

[morty 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"]No, sorry, but Sunderlands Lazarus style recovery is unprecedented.Even their own manager said they would need a miracle to stay up.[/quote]It really isn''t... 4 wins 1 draw 1 defeat from their last 6 games.Wigan won 7 of 9 (including 5 of their last 6) to stay up in 2011-12 including wins over Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal.Indeed Wigan won 3 drew 2 lost one in 2010-11 to stay up.  A set of results which would also have saved Sunderland this season.[/quote]Well googled[Y]My point is though that no one saw Sunderlands recovery coming, unless maybe you predicted it?

[morty 0]

And its not just about the points they won, its who they beat to win them.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"]No, sorry, but Sunderlands Lazarus style recovery is unprecedented.Even their own manager said they would need a miracle to stay up.[/quote]It really isn''t... 4 wins 1 draw 1 defeat from their last 6 games.Wigan won 7 of 9 (including 5 of their last 6) to stay up in 2011-12 including wins over Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal.Indeed Wigan won 3 drew 2 lost one in 2010-11 to stay up.  A set of results which would also have saved Sunderland this season.[/quote]Well googled[Y]My point is though that no one saw Sunderlands recovery coming, unless maybe you predicted it?[/quote]Why would you expect all three bottom sides just to whither and die? History shows us whether it was Fulham, Cardiff or Sunderland, chances were one of these sides would find some form.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="morty"]And its not just about the points they won, its who they beat to win them.[/quote]Yes... no different to Wigan just two seasons ago.

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="morty"]No, sorry, but Sunderlands Lazarus style recovery is unprecedented.Even their own manager said they would need a miracle to stay up.[/quote]It really isn''t... 4 wins 1 draw 1 defeat from their last 6 games.Wigan won 7 of 9 (including 5 of their last 6) to stay up in 2011-12 including wins over Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal.Indeed Wigan won 3 drew 2 lost one in 2010-11 to stay up.  A set of results which would also have saved Sunderland this season.[/quote]Well googled[Y]My point is though that no one saw Sunderlands recovery coming, unless maybe you predicted it?[/quote]Why would you expect all three bottom sides just to whither and die? History shows us whether it was Fulham, Cardiff or Sunderland, chances were one of these sides would find some form.[/quote]

Or we could have...

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Pauls Ferry"] Or we could have...[/quote]There was something a bit inevitable about us... it is as if the players thought we were safe and would be fine and dandy, until that West Brom debacle.  I don''t think putting the youth team manager in charge helped either, his lack of experience shone through.  It was a terrible decision from the board and showed serious incompetence.It all rings a bit of Wolves actually... they went from Terry Conner (when they could have had Steve Bruce) relegating them... to a foreign manager with no idea about the Championship, who pretty much relegated them again.When I hear talk of playing the norwich way, and attractive football, it is a concern.  We need to get out of the Championship asap, while we have decent funding and parachute payments.  Not many teams get out of this league with flicks, farts and fannys.

[Sussexyellow 55]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Sussexyellow"]

I also doubt if his risk model would have given much weight to Sunderland going on top 4 form at the end of the season.  Without that seemingly unlikely upturn in form we and they may just have got away with it.[/quote]If he risk model was based on staying up on 33 points, it is a very bad model.  As for Sunderland''s form, it is a regular occurrence that one side in and around the drop zone pulls off some great form at the end of the season.  Entirely understandable as well with teams on the beach and nerves fraying in games which still matter.[/quote]

I very much doubt that the assessment of points needed came up with 33. More like 36 to 38 which they assessed they could get from home games. As we all know it didn''t happen. But that looks to have been the decision making process.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Sussexyellow"]

I also doubt if his risk model would have given much weight to Sunderland going on top 4 form at the end of the season.  Without that seemingly unlikely upturn in form we and they may just have got away with it.[/quote]If he risk model was based on staying up on 33 points, it is a very bad model.  As for Sunderland''s form, it is a regular occurrence that one side in and around the drop zone pulls off some great form at the end of the season.  Entirely understandable as well with teams on the beach and nerves fraying in games which still matter.[/quote]

I very much doubt that the assessment of points needed came up with 33. More like 36 to 38 which they assessed they could get from home games. As we all know it didn''t happen. But that looks to have been the decision making process.[/quote]

I think its clear that was the decision making process but its a really, really poor and risky approach to have taken if you ask me. They basically were saying "Ok Chris is not very good and probably won''t get us any points away so we need to replace him in the summer but if he keeps winning every "winnable" home game and all the other teams at the bottom keep losing then we should just about scrape home." What sort of approach/attitude is that for a team whose aspiration earlier in the season was a comfortable mid table finish?

I said on many times this season that one of my issues with Hughton was that his approach/record gave us no margin for error at all and one can say exactly the same about the board''s decision. Lo and behold two winnable home games against Stoke and WBA, 1 point from both and we are scr*wed. It really does beggar belief and i find it hard to believe that Mcnally and Bowkett were the key figures behind the decision to take that view.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

It''s my opinion that this season the board became complacent and they did so because they thought that they would have a rerun of the previous season, where we were never really safe until those last two games made us look better than we really were.

They considered alternatives in January but to say they thought no one was available also smacks of complacency.

I don''t stand much stead by the line that if you do x it is a gamble but if you do y it is a gamble. That''s obviously true with every decision. The question is ''is the gamble(risk) worth it?''

It''s really odd that they thought it too risky not to change the manager in January but thought it worth a gamble with just five games to go. And throwing in the Academy coach just seems like desperation to me. Ironically, it could be argued that Hughton''s style of grinding out points may have been more successful in the last five games, rather than the more open approach of Adams, even though the latter''s game was easier on the eye.

The board obviously thought we had enough to get us over the line. And one odd feature of the season was that there was no real tipping point until the very end. It has been discussed in threads before and there were some good points made on this. There was no real consensus on which game Hughton should have been sacked, because he always managed to pull a win when backs were up against the wall. There was even a decent home record in the period after the New Year which bolstered the arguement that sticking with Chris would see us over the line and then we get rid of in the summer.

However that in itself was a risky strategy as the other ten clubs around us all changed managers or started to get their act together. For most it worked. For Cardiff and Fulham it didn''t. But at least their Boards were not as complacent as our do-nothing sit-on-your-hands-and-hope Board.

So we have good times under this regime and now a bad time. I think the balance is in their favour and we shoudn''t now throw the baby out with the bathwater. This season is hopefully a painful reminder that they need to be vigilant at all times and be more proactive in sensing danger.

The new management structure is a good move in that direction but it mustn''t be concerned only with transfer dealings. This new team needs to identify management KPIs that go beyond looking at our position in the league.

It needs to identify criteria for measuring the manager''s and coaches'' performance and setup monitoring checks to ensure that performance levels are being adhered to.

Football is now full of performance statistics, not only about individual players but about team performance as well. The new management structure has to decide what the clubs objectives are (next season to get promoted seems reasonable), define the strategy to achieve that objective, obtain the players who can fit into that strategy and then work out detailed tactics to drive the strategy forward. It''s no different to any other business in that respect.

Last season our objective was to stay in the EPL. The strategy to achieve that (don''t lose) was flawed, The players recruited did not fit into the strategy, and the tactics led to dire, boring football.

That many on this messageboard saw it, and I presume the Board too saw it (hence January discussions), but didn''t act until too late reinforces my belief that they were complacent.

So they''ve had a kick up the rear end. Let''s hope they learn from their mistakes, to the Board''s credit they''re big enough to admit to them, and let''s get back to the kind of football and results that we can all enjoy.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]It''s my opinion that this season the board became complacent and they did so because they thought that they would have a rerun of the previous season, where we were never really safe until those last two games made us look better than we really were.

They considered alternatives in January but to say they thought no one was available also smacks of complacency.

I don''t stand much stead by the line that if you do x it is a gamble but if you do y it is a gamble. That''s obviously true with every decision. The question is ''is the gamble(risk) worth it?''

It''s really odd that they thought it too risky not to change the manager in January but thought it worth a gamble with just five games to go. And throwing in the Academy coach just seems like desperation to me. Ironically, it could be argued that Hughton''s style of grinding out points may have been more successful in the last five games, rather than the more open approach of Adams, even though the latter''s game was easier on the eye.

The board obviously thought we had enough to get us over the line. And one odd feature of the season was that there was no real tipping point until the very end. It has been discussed in threads before and there were some good points made on this. There was no real consensus on which game Hughton should have been sacked, because he always managed to pull a win when backs were up against the wall. There was even a decent home record in the period after the New Year which bolstered the arguement that sticking with Chris would see us over the line and then we get rid of in the summer.

However that in itself was a risky strategy as the other ten clubs around us all changed managers or started to get their act together. For most it worked. For Cardiff and Fulham it didn''t. But at least their Boards were not as complacent as our do-nothing sit-on-your-hands-and-hope Board.

So we have good times under this regime and now a bad time. I think the balance is in their favour and we shoudn''t now throw the baby out with the bathwater. This season is hopefully a painful reminder that they need to be vigilant at all times and be more proactive in sensing danger.

The new management structure is a good move in that direction but it mustn''t be concerned only with transfer dealings. This new team needs to identify management KPIs that go beyond looking at our position in the league.

It needs to identify criteria for measuring the manager''s and coaches'' performance and setup monitoring checks to ensure that performance levels are being adhered to.

Football is now full of performance statistics, not only about individual players but about team performance as well. The new management structure has to decide what the clubs objectives are (next season to get promoted seems reasonable), define the strategy to achieve that objective, obtain the players who can fit into that strategy and then work out detailed tactics to drive the strategy forward. It''s no different to any other business in that respect.

Last season our objective was to stay in the EPL. The strategy to achieve that (don''t lose) was flawed, The players recruited did not fit into the strategy, and the tactics led to dire, boring football.

That many on this messageboard saw it, and I presume the Board too saw it (hence January discussions), but didn''t act until too late reinforces my belief that they were complacent.

So they''ve had a kick up the rear end. Let''s hope they learn from their mistakes, to the Board''s credit they''re big enough to admit to them, and let''s get back to the kind of football and results that we can all enjoy.[/quote]RTB, you have ended up making a good case in defence of the board keeping Hughton on as long as they did! As to whether there was anyone available in January, I think some posters are missing a point here. We may well have identified a likely candidate or two, but they didn''t want to join us.If I was an out of work but still in demand manager I probably wouldn''t take a risk on joining a PL club in relegation trouble. I would prefer to wait until the summer to see what options there were. And if we had attracted someone like a visiting fireman who did the job of keeping us up but proved to be a longer-term mistake (as with Roeder) then we would be again in a pickle, having to make another mid-season change.As to the management structure, I mentioned this a couple of pages back:The

other point I noticed concerned the technical director job. Unless I

have missed it it hasn''t been remarked that McNally said there would now

be four-person technical board, comprising the chief executive, the

manager, the technical director, and the director of recruitment.

Possibly, in the light of the summer fiasco, that is a move towards

greater oversight of transfer dealings.This new technical board may well be aimed in part at the kind of joined-up strategic thinking you are calling for.

[GPs Beard 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Bury Yellow"]I just can''t see why they agreed to this phone-in. Timing is not good and as I feared those who phoned in sounded like the sycophants from AGM audiences. The whole thing made me cringe[/quote]

You sound more like Wiz than Wiz does.

But then again, you''re both from Suffolk. [;)]
[/quote]

Arrrgggghhhhhhh. There Be Dragons .

[Matt Juler 151]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"]MWJ - Did not like style of football.[/quote]Just as he implied to me back in April 2013, but of course I was making it all up.