Main Discussion - Norwich City

Topic has 44 replies.
Print Search Sort Posts:

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

 BroadstairsR wrote:
"Given that McNasty was taken out of the appointment process with Adams" Err where is your evidence for this statement othere than blind prejudice." There was something array about the whole thing ... certainly not a football decision, imo. I consider it the most ridiculous decision the club has made in all my years of supporting. The timing made us a laughing stock and Hughton should have been sacked earlier or at the end of the season. He might even have kept us up.The appointment of the novice Adams virtually amounted to throwing the towel in with, what, six games still left of the season.

Except that Adams outperformed what had to be expected of Hughton if he had been left in charge. In the reverse fixtures earlier in the season, with three at home and two away, we lost all  five with a dreadful minus goal difference. Adams, with the disadvantage of three away, actually got a point, at Chelsea.

Hughton was asked by the board after we lost at home to West Brom if he would change his ultra cautious approach to try to get the one win which was probably all we needed, and said he would not. And you could see in the body language of players that they knew if we went a goal behind we would not even try to get back into it.

So Adams was brought in on the basis that he might provide a short-term bounce and get that one win. It didn't work out, but it seems to me there was a better chance of that happening than if Hughton had been allowed to carry on. Appointing Gunn was a bad decision, and reappointing him indefensible, but under the circumstances  trying Adams had some logic to it.


   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

<BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">&nbsp;<strong>Fuzzar wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4">Funny how Lincoln jumps in immediately in support. Knocking the club solidly then and now.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

McNally and Bowkett were the best thing that’s happened to this club in years.

Towards the end of Mcnallys tenure it appeared he was struggling, hence the comments at that time. Now as we know, he had his hands tied.

I’d take the two back in a flash over the second hand car salesman Webber and doomcaster mk2 Stone.
   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

Can you explain how McNally ' had his hands tied ' ?

   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

"Except that Adams outperformed what had to be expected of Hughton if he had been left in charge. In the reverse fixtures earlier in the season, with three at home and two away, we lost all five with a dreadful minus goal difference. Adams, with the disadvantage of three away, actually got a point, at Chelsea.

Hughton was asked by the board after we lost at home to West Brom if he would change his ultra cautious approach to try to get the one win which was probably all we needed, and said he would not. And you could see in the body language of players that they knew if we went a goal behind we would not even try to get back into it.

So Adams was brought in on the basis that he might provide a short-term bounce and get that one win. It didn't work out, but it seems to me there was a better chance of that happening than if Hughton had been allowed to carry on."

Except that Hughton was a seasoned performer, who knew what he was about, whereas Adams didn't quite have it.

We sacked a manager who now has one of the less fancied sides sitting comfortably in the Premier league in favour of a decent novice who has now ended up seemingly doing a good job managing the loans department at the club.

Big difference. Ridiculous decision.
   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

and that's before I even go on again about the absurd timing of it all.
   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

 BroadstairsR wrote:
"Except that Adams outperformed what had to be expected of Hughton if he had been left in charge. In the reverse fixtures earlier in the season, with three at home and two away, we lost all five with a dreadful minus goal difference. Adams, with the disadvantage of three away, actually got a point, at Chelsea. Hughton was asked by the board after we lost at home to West Brom if he would change his ultra cautious approach to try to get the one win which was probably all we needed, and said he would not. And you could see in the body language of players that they knew if we went a goal behind we would not even try to get back into it. So Adams was brought in on the basis that he might provide a short-term bounce and get that one win. It didn't work out, but it seems to me there was a better chance of that happening than if Hughton had been allowed to carry on." Except that Hughton was a seasoned performer, who knew what he was about, whereas Adams didn't quite have it. We sacked a manager who now has one of the less fancied sides sitting comfortably in the Premier league in favour of a decent novice who has now ended up seemingly doing a good job managing the loans department at the club. Big difference. Ridiculous decision.

All you have done is ignore the fact-based argument as to why the board, with good reason, believed Hughton being "seasoned" - which in practice meant him sleepwalking the club towards inevitable relegation - was worse than trying out something different.

   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

And all you have done is defend the sacking of an experienced manager, with a certain amount of success behind him, in favour of a rookie who had never before managed a football team of any worth let alone a struggling Premier League team.

We totally threw in the glove, for what reasons of inter club politics I have no idea. It was a million miles away from being a sensible footballing decision as events proved.

The whole thing was absurd. We invited relegation (or a "fate worse than death" as McNally put it) in what was a decision that had the whole of the footballing world totally bemused.

We became a laughing stock.

Perhaps you can recall another instance of a struggling club, threatened with relegation, changing managers so very late in the piece? I can't.

The famous point against Chelsea you mentioned as a success ignored the fact that we needed a win to save ourselves, due to the fact that he had achieved nothing previously but losses. Adams was stuck in mud as to how to achieve it on a day of hit or bust needs and requiring at least a hint of the positive. I don't know about you, but I was tearing my hair out in frustration at his inactivity and he never convinced me of his suitability to manage the club for five minutes after that.

Events since have resoundingly confirmed the comparative managerial talents of both men and the absurdity of the decision making at Carrow Road.
   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

Sorry Broady, but that's total horse$hit.

We didn't simply "throw in the glove", we made a change when it was completely clear that 'experienced manager' Hughton wasn't even going to try to save our season, and having seen the most dire, turgid $hite I've ever seen served up in the months preceding this choice, I'd make that choice again every single time if it was down to me.

It may well have been a later decision than it should have been, but who expects an 'experienced manager' to turn round to the board and refuse to change something that hasn't worked ALL F**KING SEASON, when you're staring relegation from the premiership in the face???

We didn't 'invite relegation', we did our best to prevent it, having had the temerity to stand by the failing manager for a little bit longer than we should have.

Hughton was a superb professional and his manner and conduct were outstanding, his football however was total dung, and his willingness to bring on defensive reinforcements when we were already 1 or 2 goals down, instead of looking to at least get something from a game was simply horrible to watch.

As for comparing managerial talents, it means absolutely nothing in terms of our club. Eddie Howe is loved at Bournemouth but he hardly set the world alight at Burnley, Moyes did a great job at Everton for years and then failed miserably when he went to Man Utd, some managers simply do well at clubs and fail at others. Even the much revered Lambert has proven he was only really great when here and hasn't done anything really of note since, yet based on your approach, Hughton is the better manager of the two, but how many would have agreed with that when they were with us, and how many would take Lambert back over Hughton...

   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

Sorry. I just do not see it that way but, and as I've said before, I did not have to sit in the Carrow Road stands on a regular basis watching that season of dire football

The sacking of Chris Hughton is my issue though. I maintain that the timing was stupid at his replacement ill-advised.

If we had had a real go at staving off relegation with a recognised troubleshooter in the Sam Alladyce mood then it could well have been viewed as a brave, if belated decision and things might just have turned out differently.
   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

Adams was a youth FA cup winner against all the best young teams in the country
IF he was at chelsea or Liverpool , Man utd he would have been seen as a Great up and coming Manager
The club tried to tell Hughton that his style was not working i heard many times Mcnally told him this and to Attack more ,
so we had to try something and Adams youth teams played with attacking football
a little Known fact also Adams was not sacked by the club he left for personal Reasons which i will not go into here that is the reason he is still at the club
   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

 norfolkngood wrote:
The club tried to tell Hughton that his style was not working i heard many times Mcnally told him this and to Attack more

This was always the problem - trying to change the manager rather than let him get on with his job.  Hughton was/is a good manager and without the pressure of being more attacking, we might have been more successful in the second season - after all, the move to be more attacking didn't really work, did it?   The same way Alex Neil tried to attack in the PL didn't really work........






   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

Jesus wept LDC, how can you still defend that god awful style of play that failed miserably ffs???

The board DID let him get on with his job, they let him sign players of higher value, which he then misused and play boreball instead.

At no point did we go 'more attacking', it was just defend, defend, defend, concede, defend, defend, concede, bring on defensive players to secure a 2-0 loss, defend, defend, lose.

   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

 lake district canary wrote:
 norfolkngood wrote:
The club tried to tell Hughton that his style was not working i heard many times Mcnally told him this and to Attack more

This was always the problem - trying to change the manager rather than let him get on with his job.  Hughton was/is a good manager and without the pressure of being more attacking, we might have been more successful in the second season - after all, the move to be more attacking didn't really work, did it?   The same way Alex Neil tried to attack in the PL didn't really work........


Correct. Norfolkngood's comment, if in any way accurate, shows that the club, like many of the fans, thought it somehow knew better than a good manager about football. About what works, and what doesn't - and that it completely deluded itself about the quality of our squad too.

You're absolutely right about the pressure Hughton came under. I think Farke's probably been put under similar pressure. I doubt there are many boards or fanbases anywhere in England with a more one-dimensional view of 'good football' than we have. So Farke's thrown out three at the back and possession football, meaning the entirety of last season was a total waste of time. And Hughton tried to be more positive too - meaning instead of at least drawing on our travels, we were too open and just caved in instead.

Meanwhile, if you ever wanted the perfect example of the breathtaking levels of apologia some Norwich fans can produce, look no further than PurpleCanary's post above. Apparently, with one point from 15 (a game we had to win, but didn't even try to), Adams' "out-performed expectations". I don't know whether to laugh or cry. He "out-performed expectations" despite Hughton having beaten Man Utd, beaten Arsenal, beaten Tottenham, held Man City and won at Man City. Amazing.

The board's 'thinking' was, in the wealthiest, highest profile league in the world, full of top, top managers, it could game the system by hoping for a dead cat bounce. That's it. That was the level of its football knowledge. "Many teams briefly get better when changing manager - so let's do it, regardless of the man we choose". It was a suicide note: compounded beyond all reason when we unbelievably gave Adams the job on a permanent basis, after one point from 15.

Norwich City fans will always completely bewilder me:

- We remained hostile to Robert Chase more or less throughout his entire time at the club, and started trying to get him out before we'd even gone down from the Prem

- We've remained loyal to Delia Smith throughout her more than two decades at the club, despite it having been colossally less successful than under Chase. In fact, large swathes of the support appear oblivious that "little Norwich" ever finished 3rd, 4th and 5th or played in Europe to begin with. Under Delia, 5 years out of 22 (and counting) in the top division apparently constitutes glorious success; under Chase, selling players while spending 9 years out of 11 in the top flight was a Mark of Cain. Weird.

- We, as a fanbase, have been infinitely angrier towards Nigel Worthington and Chris Hughton than we've ever been towards the board. In Hughton's case, we had the sheer arrogance to think we could both get by with little investment and play exciting football. Why do people think we've never appointed the likes of Warnock, Pulis or Allardyce? The fans wouldn't tolerate it. And at the same time as Hughton's Norwich ground their way along, so did a whole bunch of other clubs in the Prem. Apparently, we thought we were different.

- And right now? No no, we musn't have new owners. That would be "selling our soul". That everyone else changes ownership is neither here nor there; we're different. Long live the Norwich City way; brickbats to all those who point out that the only time it ever achieved a single damn thing was under an owner we demonised and ran out of town.

   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

The problem with all that BF is that you have dragged in a whole lot of stuff about a time when McNally was nowhere near the club - and it is he who was the main instigator of pressure on Hughton, not the board.  And people who keep bigging up Chase and belittling DS/MJW I'm afraid are just showing that their agenda is just a little twisted. 





   Report  

Re: McNasty: The Fall of.........

 thebigfeller wrote:
 lake district canary wrote:
 norfolkngood wrote:
The club tried to tell Hughton that his style was not working i heard many times Mcnally told him this and to Attack more

This was always the problem - trying to change the manager rather than let him get on with his job.  Hughton was/is a good manager and without the pressure of being more attacking, we might have been more successful in the second season - after all, the move to be more attacking didn't really work, did it?   The same way Alex Neil tried to attack in the PL didn't really work........


Correct. Norfolkngood's comment, if in any way accurate, shows that the club, like many of the fans, thought it somehow knew better than a good manager about football. About what works, and what doesn't - and that it completely deluded itself about the quality of our squad too.

You're absolutely right about the pressure Hughton came under. I think Farke's probably been put under similar pressure. I doubt there are many boards or fanbases anywhere in England with a more one-dimensional view of 'good football' than we have. So Farke's thrown out three at the back and possession football, meaning the entirety of last season was a total waste of time. And Hughton tried to be more positive too - meaning instead of at least drawing on our travels, we were too open and just caved in instead.

Meanwhile, if you ever wanted the perfect example of the breathtaking levels of apologia some Norwich fans can produce, look no further than PurpleCanary's post above. Apparently, with one point from 15 (a game we had to win, but didn't even try to), Adams' "out-performed expectations". I don't know whether to laugh or cry. He "out-performed expectations" despite Hughton having beaten Man Utd, beaten Arsenal, beaten Tottenham, held Man City and won at Man City. Amazing.

The board's 'thinking' was, in the wealthiest, highest profile league in the world, full of top, top managers, it could game the system by hoping for a dead cat bounce. That's it. That was the level of its football knowledge. "Many teams briefly get better when changing manager - so let's do it, regardless of the man we choose". It was a suicide note: compounded beyond all reason when we unbelievably gave Adams the job on a permanent basis, after one point from 15.

Norwich City fans will always completely bewilder me:

- We remained hostile to Robert Chase more or less throughout his entire time at the club, and started trying to get him out before we'd even gone down from the Prem

- We've remained loyal to Delia Smith throughout her more than two decades at the club, despite it having been colossally less successful than under Chase. In fact, large swathes of the support appear oblivious that "little Norwich" ever finished 3rd, 4th and 5th or played in Europe to begin with. Under Delia, 5 years out of 22 (and counting) in the top division apparently constitutes glorious success; under Chase, selling players while spending 9 years out of 11 in the top flight was a Mark of Cain. Weird.

- We, as a fanbase, have been infinitely angrier towards Nigel Worthington and Chris Hughton than we've ever been towards the board. In Hughton's case, we had the sheer arrogance to think we could both get by with little investment and play exciting football. Why do people think we've never appointed the likes of Warnock, Pulis or Allardyce? The fans wouldn't tolerate it. And at the same time as Hughton's Norwich ground their way along, so did a whole bunch of other clubs in the Prem. Apparently, we thought we were different.

- And right now? No no, we musn't have new owners. That would be "selling our soul". That everyone else changes ownership is neither here nor there; we're different. Long live the Norwich City way; brickbats to all those who point out that the only time it ever achieved a single damn thing was under an owner we demonised and ran out of town.

Congratuations, thebigfeller. Another grandstanding post that will get applauded by the fans who already agree with you. It won't  do anything to convince anyone else, but I guess that is not the aim. To achieve that your posts would have to be balanced, to use facts only and drop the dubious assertions, and give both side of the argument. For brevity I will stick to this one paragraph,  which is a usefully typical farrago from start to finish:

Meanwhile, if you ever wanted the perfect example of the breathtaking levels of apologia some Norwich fans can produce, look no further than PurpleCanary's post above. Apparently, with one point from 15 (a game we had to win, but didn't even try to), Adams' "out-performed expectations". I don't know whether to laugh or cry. He "out-performed expectations" despite Hughton having beaten Man Utd, beaten Arsenal, beaten Tottenham, held Man City and won at Man City. Amazing.

You have crucially misquoted me, in order to give spurious weight to your argument. I didn't say Adams had "out-performed expectations". I said:


Except that Adams outperformed what had to be expected of Hughton if he had been left in charge. In the reverse fixtures earlier in the season, with three at home and two away, we lost all  five with a dreadful minus goal difference. Adams, with the disadvantage of three away, actually got a point, at Chelsea.

Which is not the same thing at all. I wasn't saying I was pleased that we only got 1 point from those last five and got relegated. Only that given the facts of how we had performed under Hughton in the reverse fixtures earlier in the season it was better than we had a right to expect from Hughton if he had been kept on.

As to us "having beaten
Man Utd, beaten Arsenal, beaten Tottenham, held Man City and won at Man City" - that season? I don't think so. That season we won 1-0 at home to Spurs and got a draw with Man City but lost home and away to Arsenal and Man Utd, and lost at Spurs and got murdered 7-0 at Man City.

Those and the others against the teams we were playing in those final five fixtures - the ones I quoted and which you ignored because they did not fit your argument - are the relevant results that the board had to bear in mind when deciding whether to to stick with Hughton - a manager you hilariously claim, despite all the evidence to the exact opposite, "tried to be more positive".  I am afraid even the posters who generally like your contributions will raise an eyebrow at that.

   Report