Was the "Charlie" Charlie Wyett? I presume it was given the jokey reference to his seeming to have inside knowledge. Who remembers this? "For my money, the Canaries have probably got the right man for the job. Eventually. The board of Norwich City certainly took their time. Far too long, in fact. But in terms of finding a man who can get the team out of the terrible position they find themselves in, Roeder is a good choice." My Football Writer, Wed 31 Oct 07, by Charlie Wyett
And your point is...? People from all walks of life - yes, even football 'pundits' are as likely to get stuff wrong as well as right. Especially when you are being predictive, commenting on something which may happen, but hasn't yet, such as future success based on a new manager appointment. It's easy to dissect a match afterwards and say where a team / manager went wrong etc, as you have statistical and TV footage to back you up. But being a soothsayer is different - otherwise everybody who has a go at RBF's prediction league would be correct every week. Don't forget many canaries saw the appointment of Roeder as a wise one at the time, given his time with Newcastle & West Ham. Fair enough, the bubble soon burst, but........ (Any pun about Wet Shams and bubbles was entirely unintentional )
EVEN football pundits? Of course no-one is infallible, however I don't agree that everybody is as likely to get stuff wrong as right. In particular, an intelligent, well-informed, knowledgeable expert in a field is likely to get things right more often than an unintelligent, ill-informed, ignorant non-expert. And the former are far less likely to make hasty judgements than the latter because they have a much better appreciation of just how many different factors and variables are involved. I accept that journalists, especially those writing for the tabloids, are expected to make instant, and if possible provocative judgements off the top of their heads, that's what they are employed to do. But by the same token, that is a good reason for taking very little notice of them. "Journalist" used to have a certain cachet that today's "air-wave and copy inch fillers" lacks.
I've not seen that Charlie Wyatt bloke before, but have to say he comes across as a right smug prick. Another one of the "false position brigade" Do one
Worth saying twice Tony! I thought the podcast was reflective of the different views on these boards. The substitution issue was raised without reference to the fact that Elmander came on to replace Pilks after 55 minutes. Isn't that an attacking substitution? Some of the other comments were quite relevant and Wyatt backed off quite a bit when challenged. I also liked the comment that Palace could well have been interested in CH if he had been available. I don't think that anybody knows what will happen from here, but the situation is not desperate. A win tomorrow could see City up to 14th place, equal on points with Hull.
Re. "attacking substitutions", why do people think that unless you bring on a forward player the substitution isn't "attacking"? Statistically, replacing midfielder with midfielder is the most effective substitution the manager of a losing team can make, in part because midfielders generally cover more ground during a game and therefore tend to tire first. Injecting energy in midfield is often more important than bringing on another striker -- unless you are going to resort simply to lumping long balls forward and hence cutting out your midfield altogether.
