Like most, I was amazed at this decision last night and since then I have been trying to work out why the Board have done this. I don't buy the 'cheap option' theory, as McNally has insured that the club is in excellent shape financially, so what might be the reasons? 1. Adams is known and probably well liked by the players while other candidates would have been 'unknowns' to them. This could encourage more players to stay and that would be a big plus factor if it happens. 2. Though less experienced, he is actually older than any of the other candidates at 48 (MacKay & Lennon are 42, Zola 47). I think McNally puts a lot of importance on the 'character' of the man, which is why he went for Lambert, who was relatively unproven at the time. Were there doubts about the temperaments of the others over the long term, especially if results don't go well? 3. MacKay's approach (and possibly Lennon's as well) is conservative and this could have continued to aggravate fans who want 'entertaining football' played the 'Norwich way'. I'm convinced that Adams will play attacking football in the Championship (where he won't be playing the top PL teams). I also think that he's a good tactician who will use the squad well. Zola would also play attacking football, but would his approach fit the players we have or are likely to get? 4. Adams had a good record as a player, including a League Championship medal with Everton and this is important in commanding the respect of players. Zola also had an excellent playing record, but his management record shows two sackings (winning only 28.75% with West Ham and 44% with Watford). McNally actually made a point about the fact that MacKay had never played in the Premier League and of course Lennon's whole career has been in Scotland. These are the positive points I could find, but I am still quite amazed at the decision. I've decided to look at it as an adventure which just might surprise us all! OTBC!
May I say Rick, a very well presented case that has made me feel a little better and that is an achievement after last night.
I feel too many people think this could be history repeating itself. Neil Adams has far more credentials to manage NCFC than (all due respect) Bryan Gunn, so i think its less of a risk this time around. and in all honesty i am quite happy to spend a couple of seasons in the Championship if thats what it takes. Lets build up a squad of players and style of play we can boast about again!
Absolutely fella, and great post from Rick before it All this talk of Gunny Mark II is ludicrous and completely unfounded. People talk of him only picking up one point from 15, I include myself in that, but when you put it into context - playing teams who finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th within those games and only being able to select from a dead man's squad - then I'm not entirely sure what people were expecting. Give him the summer and a few months of the season to build his squad and show us what he can do before totally writing him off, anything else is bonkers if you ask me.
I've calmed down today - calmed down a lot. In truth there were risks to all three candidates (I don't think Lennon was ever a serious contender) and in the cold light of day, Adams, being "known" (should I use the quotation marks and risk the wrath of Susan ?) to the Board and club presented the lesser risk. He has some good credentials and it now remains to be seen if he can use those credentials to good effect - hopefully he can. I've decided not to send back my season ticket and get behind the appointment as any true City fan should - amazing what a night's sleep does for you eh ? OTBC !
the steve foley news has really pissed me off this morning but lets see if i can find some positives. - we are already being linked to some up and coming youngsters such as matt grimes from exeter, who in my opinion will serve us better than the foreign imports in the championship. - neil adams is NOT bryan gunn - the situations are not even remotely comparable because adams is a coach and gunn was a sheriff. their backgrounds and qualifications could not be more different. - this will be a huge boost to the kids at the club who will know that their talents will not go unnoticed by the first team manager. sadly i still think this is an unnecessary risk at a vital time for the club but as always, i'll get right behind the manager. i just hope he makes a good start because otherwise the unrest will appear very quickly.
To be fair I don't think most people are writing him off. The fact is that no one really knows what kind of manager he can become, including Neil himself. Appointing a new manager is always a gamble but this just seems like rather more of a gamble than we needed to take in a very important year. TBH I'm surprised the board really want to put themselves in the firing line in this way. Have they completely misjudged our reaction? That said, this is a positive thread. My positive? Well I must be the only one that's pleased about that contract. I think it's fabulous that he has committed to paying us for 3 years in return for this amazing career opportunity.
Whilst on the pitch we only got a single point we did seem better than under Hughton and it was always going to be hard to fundamentally change a team that far into the season. The noises that have come out if the club about his time in charge have been very positive. Popular training sessions, dealing with the players who weren't happy about Hughton leaving well and not letting them disrupt the team, allowing players more freedom. Far from fearing that this might be going to loose us all out players I wonder if this was a move designed to keep a man who the players seem to respect in charge and not bring in an unknown. The players now know what to expect from next season I'm sure the board asked for their opinions of Adams and if they were negative he wouldn't have been appointed, whilst players might move for a "big name" I'm sure they're rather know what the situation would be like and that they'll get on with the new manager.
did anybody really think we looked better in those five games? fulham was typical of many hughton away performances against the lower quality sides, where we'd dominate for long periods, fail to take our chances and then concede a sloppy goal and fail to get back into it as we drift through the game. liverpool we were so naive for the first half it was scary but at least he changed it and we did show some fight and quality and could conceivably have drawn the match. man united away was the worst performance i saw last season. chelsea away was an excellent performance in my opinion, though is it not slightly ironic that his best showing as manager came in a game where he 'parked the bus'? arsenal at home was abysmal but to be fair, we had nothing to play for. so other than the 2nd half of the liverpool game where we had nothing to lose and the whole of the chelsea game where we defended heroically, i can't see what he did so much better than hughton? there's no way he got the job on the evidence of those five, difficult games. if he did, then something is up with peoples eyesight.
technically we know zola would have taken the job, so i don't buy that theory. whether he'd have been the right manager i don't know - he'd probably have been my third choice but he offers no more guarantees than adams really as although he's had experience of the league, he hasn't had any substantial success in it. all the talk on the radio the other day has now fallen into place. they talked about a technical director to assist the manager, they talked about playing the youth, they talked about the 'norwich way' (whatever the hell that is!). i think they'd already decided it was going to be adams even then, deep down.
Fulham went as we could have expected we had a lot of early play and forced two excellent saves, poor defending form a less than fit Turner, pretty certain Bassong had thrown his toys out the pram, gave Fulham something to defend and that's all they did for the rest of the game and we couldn't break them down. Early on we looked good and dominated play we also never gave up which under Hughton we did repeatedly. Liverpool was a poor start but I think out of a knowledge that we really needed the points, the fight back though was spectacular again something we rarely saw under Hughton, combined with a successful change of tactics mid game which Hughton rarely managed or even attempted. United was poor. Chelsea was excellent, and it shows that Adams had learnt from United and Liverpool Arsenal was wholly irrelevant Ultimately he was given five days to try and change the team before Fulham he was never going to instil fundamental change in a team that had basically forgotten how to score goals. However the confidence was clearly increased and Redmond got more freedom to exploit his pace. With a preseason he might be able to get some good play going currently though we just have to wait and find out.
