We want Pulis!

[The Bristol Nest 513]

Tosh

[Scot-e-dog 34]

[quote user="coming on strong"][quote user="Scot-e-dog"][quote user="coming on strong"]Pulis is waiting for a PL job so I don''t think he would want to come here. We need to give our new coach time to bed in as he''s only been here a few days![/quote]

Are you for real CoS? You seem to think a horrible run of 10 games is ''rub of the green'' and that Adams hasn''t had time. This squad is good enough to destroy this league and showed that at the start of the season. However, steadily Adams has managed to make it worse and worse and worse.

Just how long should we give him then?[/quote]He ought to have until the end of the season. Keep faith in the board![/quote]

Why? Give me one (really, I only need one) reason why?

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="OldRobert"]If the Championship is so competitive Kick It Off, please tell us what it is about, say, the last 10 league matches that you like so much, that make you appear to want to retain the services of our current manager?[/quote]

Clearly literacy is not your strong point, as I said very clearly earlier in this thread that I don''t care who is at the helm, I just want to see Norwich putting some results on the board, but not at the expense of entertainment.

If anything, the last ten or so games have shown exactly how competitive the Championship is, albeit it''s not been very pleasant for us, but teams that haven''t cost a lot of money have consistently put one over on one of the league''s big boys (us). The level of footy in the Champs is technically not as good as the Prem, but it''s generally more entertaining.

Football is meant to be about entertainment. Now maybe I''m a little less simple-minded than some, but watching our defenders by-pass midfield with aimless hoofs up the pitch to a 6''4+ striker is not my idea of enjoyable watching. Sure, it may be effective but when I''m shelling out my hard earned cash to go and see it, I expect better.

The Prem under Hughton was the most boring, soul-destroying waste of time to watch. No entertainment value whatsoever, going out, with both teams setting up to play for a dull draw if they were a similarly poor team or going 1-0 up and time-wasting and parking the bus, and knowing that you have no chance of actually beating the bigger teams, nor any chance of achieving any success without spending hundreds of millions that a club like us doesn''t have.

Seriously, how many games in the Prem were genuinely entertaining to watch once Lambert went? Even the unbeaten run was dire football and parking the bus.

Please tell me what is so exciting about having Pulis come in, take us to the Prem (which isn''t guaranteed) and watching him build a team of hoofball specialists who can''t finish above 11th in 6 years (something Mark Hughes managed to do in his first season at Stoke).

I''m quite happy to get a new manager in, but Pulis would be a horrible choice, and can you imagine if he wasn''t effective? We''d have to endure his hoofball crap and still not getting the wins to take us up?

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

[quote user="kick it off"]Speak for yourself, I certainly don''t want Pulis. He might be effective at winning, but I can''t imagine anything worse than watching his hoofball $hit every week. Stoke had 6/7 years of it, and he was starting to take Palace the same way before he left them.

Horrible "football" and strikes me as a bit of a **** as well.

Massive no from me.

What an ignorant post !!!

Football all the way with palace ,,, did you not see the 3-3 v Liverpool ,,,, that was NOT hoof ball !

Pulis did for Stoke what he was asked to do ,, survive,, since then he has aptly demonstrated his man management and footballing nous .

I''m not bothered if we get a new manager in, or Adams stays and we turn it round with Phelan''s input, I just want to see Norwich City playing decent football and getting some results on the board. I don''t want us to be signing players for their throw-in abilities ffs!![/quote]

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

[quote user="kick it off"]Speak for yourself, I certainly don''t want Pulis. He might be effective at winning, but I can''t imagine anything worse than watching his hoofball $hit every week. Stoke had 6/7 years of it, and he was starting to take Palace the same way before he left them.

Horrible "football" and strikes me as a bit of a **** as well.

Massive no from me.

What an ignorant post !!!

Football all the way with palace ,,, did you not see the 3-3 v Liverpool ,,,, that was NOT hoof ball !

Pulis did for Stoke what he was asked to do ,, survive,, since then he has aptly demonstrated his man management and footballing nous .

I''m not bothered if we get a new manager in, or Adams stays and we turn it round with Phelan''s input, I just want to see Norwich City playing decent football and getting some results on the board. I don''t want us to be signing players for their throw-in abilities ffs!![/quote]

[kick it off 1,952]

So my post is ignorant Barclay 48/49, but foregoing 6 full years of evidence on the basis of one game is well-informed? Clearly you have something more to support your opinion, otherwise yours would be the one considered ignorant.... I know a few Palace fans, and all said he was slowly but surely dismantling the football and replacing with hoofball. None were particularly sorry to see the back of him.

But then there was that one game where he didn''t play hoofball crap, wasn''t there?

In reality, at Palace, he wasn''t half as hoofball minded, but that''s because he didn''t have the players to do it. You can''t exactly hoof it up to lightweight Chamakh can you?

Hoofball is all Pulis knows, and it''s all he can do. Give him chance to build a team, and we''ll be stuck with a legacy of cloggers with little passing ability.

"He did what he was asked to do" - So he deliberately went down a route of having a fair bit of money to spend, and spending it on players who suited hoofball because he didn''t want to exceed expectation and finish above 11th? Or were the board asking him to play anti-football every week?

Your post is utter tosh. The only reason Pulis didn''t play hoofball all the time at Palace was because the players weren''t suited to it. You can call it tactical nous if you like, I will stick with calling it basic common sense.

[Mickdundee 0]

Yes because yesterday was great wasn''t it. It''s all about results not pretty football

I

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Mickdundee"]Yes because yesterday was great wasn''t it. It''s all about results not pretty football

I[/quote]

Have I said yesterday was great?

Actually Results, and pretty football are not mutually exclusive. Believe it or not, you don''t have to play hoofball to win, and you don''t always lose playing pretty football.

I swear the IQ of some people on this board is single figures.