Perhaps I am over reacting - they are just genuine feelings which I can't prove one way or the other. Perhaps I read too much into the dugouts last year - shall I, should I, lets have another huddle, shall I, whoops what happened there, should I, another huddle - and then a decision is made 20 mins too late. The current GK problem was easily avoidable as long as the full decision was made first. He didn't have to wait till July 1st to tie down Steer and Rudd to new contracts. If, for example, his decision was Steer as 3rd GK, Rudd out on loan and Camp to leave then surely you don't do the last 2 until Steer is tied down to a new contract. If Steer was proving reluctant to sign then why loan Rudd out unless he was not happy with either Rudd or Steer as 3rd GK in which case why let Camp go? I just get the impression that Camp was allowed to leave as he was out of contract and he was talked into letting Rudd go to Preston as it would be better for Rudd and he was then faced with a problem when Steer left for Villa. I fully accept that I may be completely wrong and that I have no facts to justify my comments - only feelings and impressions. I think the same thing is happening over changes in the squad. Shall I, what if someone comes in for him, should I buy A & B or should I buy C & D, what if I end up with A & D and nobody comes in for the players they are replacing, should I sell before I buy etc etc etc. After last Summer we were left with Ward being under contract, but surplus to requirements, before being loaned out much later for the rest of the season. He has had no problem finding a new Club now so why all the dithering about last year. Why wasn't he let go last Summer or in January when we might have got a few bob for him? Was Becchio a planned signing in January? I expected you all to disagree but that is how I genuinely see the situation and the character of our Manager. I hope I am wrong and am sure that just to spite me he will sell 3 and buy 4 next week!!
I think this is a slight over reaction, in january he didn't dither at all he had two targets and went for them aggressively, just because we weren't successful doesn't make it Hughton's fault. So far this window we have broken our transfer record and signed Javi permanently. we've also had 2 bids accepted for exciting players which are pending contract negotiations. Things are moving, my final point is that we signed our player of the season this year after the season had started, it's nice to have players early but we have 2 months to go.
(1) Did Hughton dither last summer? No, he came in, made up his mind what we needed, and went out and signed Bassong, Garrido, Whittaker, Turner, Bunn. Where was the dithering there? (2) You have absolutely no justification for saying he is dithering now. As has been pointed out time and again, the players he wants will have been identified months ago and the task of securing them is McNally's and the board's, not Hughton's. There are all sorts of reasons why more deals have not yet been been finalised, none of them to do with Chris Hughton.
It doesn't matter HOW decisions are taken regarding substitutions, the only thing that matters is the success or otherwise of the substitutions made. You seem to assume that Lambert-like decisiveness actually works, whereas Chris Hughton's less dramatic approach doesn't. In actual fact, an analysis of substitutions made in the Premier League last season revealed that Hughton was more successful than Lambert with his substitutions. If you don't mind me saying so, "feelings" are one type of judgement and like other types of judgement can be more or less soundly based!
I have to accept what you say to some extent but it is not as straightforward as you suggest. 1) The squad he inherited was a group of Championship and Div 1 players who had grown into better players but had completely over performed in the Premiership. It was also a bit threadbare and by the end of that season we had a winger playing at right back, our only contracted right back playing in central defence and Tierney was the only specialist left back. We had a 20 year old and an 18 year old as back up keepers and nobody, yet nobody, thought we could get away with the central defenders available for another season. That explains all the players you have mentioned. In no instance did he have to say to a player ' you are not up to it, I am going to have to replace you and I will sell you if I can. ' He would have to do that now. It must be a lot easier to just tell a Player that his contract will not be renewed than to tell him that you don't think he is up for it and he will be sold if possible even though he is under contract. 2) I hope you are right and I am wrong. Do you know he has given a list to McNally? Are you certain that he knows who he is going to replace and sell to make way for the new signing? Is there a possibility that he is waiting to see if we get approaches for players such as Snodgrass or Pilkington before he goes out and buys? Particularly bearing in mind what has already happened this week does he fear Lambert coming back for Martin and,say, Hoolahan? Is he waiting to see the state of mind of Holt when he returns to training instead of basically saying either (a) your heart is no longer with the Club so we will sell and replace you or (b) you asked for and got a better contract last year, you are part of my plans for next season and you will not be sold so get your head down and work. I hope I am wrong - and I probably am - but I just have these niggling doubts. Only time will tell whether my doubts were justified.
I was just talking about the lack of activity on the transfer front with some other fans at lunchtime and we all agreed that most of it is because players, agents etc are all taking a holiday whilst they can. We have the basis of a decent team, which will require the addition of 3 or 4 players to improve it, so that we can win more games than we lose. You're not alone 1950 in wanting something to happen, but I'm confident we will be signing some more players by the end of July!!!
I really have no idea how you can arrive at such an analysis or how you quantify ' success ' but I can remember games being completely turned round by a Lambert substitution - I cannot remember that happening last year. In any case Lambert is very much a ' one off ' and there is no way you can or should compare the two. If you don't mind me saying so there are ' lies, damn lies and statistics'
1950, i understand your frustrations but i do think you are misguided on this topic. to even conceive the notion hughton is dithering is laughable. a list of targets will have been formed long ago - the list will have been trawled through, narrowed down, played with, ordered, contingency plans will have been thought up. there really is nothing at all to panic about. signings will be made when they are ready to be made. unless you have a big wad of cash and don't care how you spend it, there has to be careful and precise procedure about every transfer. this isn't a computer game - this is real money, real players, real agents and real decisions. sometimes deals happen very quickly, sometimes they take a long time. that's life. deal with it. as for steer, the kid was offered a new deal at the same time as everyone else (who we wanted to keep) - probably around february/march, but he didn't sign cos he wanted to move. that's up to the lad. hughton wanted to keep him and so did the club but if a boy wants out then you can't force him to stay.
Not surprised he wanted to leave seeing hughton bring in lee camp as cover. Previously he didn't even have bunn in his way and was top notch in the cups suddenly he must have seen it as a lack of faith. We'll all move on though but he does look like he's a bit talented.
I'm sure Steer would be a good GK one day, but if he was in goal covering Ruddy, I would feel nervous. But if he wanted to leave, good luck to him. I hope he'll does well.
Thank God you've appeared Supers - the perfect antedote to my pessimism. Just a couple of questions though a) Why didn't things get delayed in the 2 years before Hughton arrived. Same Club, same Chief Exec but most players in by the start of pre-season training. b) How have Villa got 6 in - they haven't got wads of cash and still haven't sold Bent. c) If Steer wanted to go why did we let Rudd out on a season long loan and also release Camp.
A) Going for bigger signings, not league 1 players (also abroad). So it might take longer. (My guess) B) Maybe because Villa need rebuilding more than we do, we've got a pretty good squad, don't need 6 players and disrupt the team spirit. C) Steer didn't want to sign a new contract, maybe that happened before we released Camp and Rudd out on loan?
i think these questions have already been answered above. it's much harder for us to sign who we want now. because we are trying to bring in a handful of players who are going to make a difference (rather than squad members), we have targeted a higher calibre of player, many from abroad, who may or may not know much about the club. it was easier to convince a pilkington or a bennett to come to norwich as the main draw was premier league football. the type of player we want now expects that - its what else do we offer! as mentioned, villa were in dire need of an overhaul and they are getting one, and although all the signings have promise, that's all it is at this stage. believe it or not, but norwich are currently shopping in a market above that of villa! we are looking for players who can do the biz now and then leave for bigger things in two years time whilst helping us progress. it's still early days this summer, so anyone worrying really needs to stop because they are only making themselves look a little foolish, i'm sorry to say. as for rudd, i assume he's gone out on loan to get first team football - not much point having him playing for the under 21s when he could be in league one! camp's deal ended and i think it was logical to let him leave. he was brought in because of ruddy's fitness concerns and cos steer and rudd were away from the club - effectively we only had two keepers at that point yet nobody complained. we are perfectly fine with two keepers - i don't know if rudd has a release clause but if not, that's the whole point of the emergency loan window. we've signed a young keeper from luton who is extremely talented by all accounts (watson's choice), so maybe he steps in as number 3 while rudd is on loan.
one thing is for sure, none of this is left to chance! it's all very precise. of course, you never know when a bid may come in for a player but there will be contingency plans in place for any scenario like that. if ruddy leaves, who is number one, number two, number three targets. if bassong leaves, same. if tettey leaves, and so on. likewise transfer targets. norwich city are a professional football club who are ranked 11th in the whole country right now, and yet some people seem to think we are a shambles behind the scenes! nothing could be further from the truth. if anything, since lambert has left, i'd say we've become even more professional
Even though I have severe problems with Hughtons persona and attitude, I cannot doubt he has made some very good signings for this club, I'm all for taking your time and waiting on the best players.
You partly answer your own question about measuring the "success" of a substitution when you refer to some of Lambert's substitutions "completely turning round" a game. Did the substitution lead to points being gained that would otherwise not have been? My point is that making substitutions is not in and of itself a good thing. Any given substitution may prove beneficial, but equally it may prove detrimental (how often does one see extra defenders being brought on to avoid conceding a goal, only for a goal to be conceded and the team left shorn of attacking players to try to mend the damage). Also, substitutions may simply be an acknowledgement that the manager got the team and tactics wrong in the first place (which happened several times in the Lambert era). I disagree about not comparing Hughton and Lambert; I find it extremely interesting and illuminating to do so, as long as one doesn't fall into the trap of condemning the former just because he isn't the latter. Not a case of chalk and cheese; two different cheeses!
Whilst Lambert was here, we were an obvious step up to the players we were looking to sign, so the club more or less sold itself, we could also offer competitive wages to players coming from the lower leagues. Now, things are less certain. With RvW and Toivonen, we're asking the players to give up playing European football, and realistic chances are trophies/titles, for the chance to play in the PL. That might work, it might not, but selling the club is certainly harder. Another factor is that we can't compete in terms of wages with the likes of West Ham, Sunderland, Stoke, etc who all have higher wage caps, but are arguably after the same calibre of player. Based on that, you can see the task McNally and co have, and sometimes it'll work, sometimes it won't. But the players we want aren't going to see an offer from Norwich and think "Yes, I must sign for them before they move for someone else", it's more "That's interesting, but who else wants me?". Hopefully though, our tight wage cap means we won't be attracting mercenaries, and whoever signs will want to be at the club, and that should help keep a good team spirit.
Pleased to have got a lively conversation going before setting off for a few days on a golfing/drinking break with 3 mates. It's a hard life being retired but we all have our crosses to bear. Don't worry Supers, Mr Negative will be back next week and we will see if any progress has been made then.
