Another excellent report from Gary Gowers - which mentions, funnily enough, "Relief" in the title. Should've got copyright on that, supers http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter...-half-joy-in-the-original-game-of-two-halves/ For those not wanting to read it, it does contain this joyous paragraph
Not sure where that 2nd half performance came from, but very much what was needed. Hats off to CH and the players for turning that around. Yeah we got lucky and they probably should've been out of sight after such a woeful opening 45, but three points was the most important thing yesterday... Season up and running hopefully...
I have to say I'm confused by the naysayers who are only focusing on the performance. I thought the sign of a good team was one that can win when they aren't playing well...?
By the same argument the yaysayers who focus on performance when we lose. Surely that is the sign of a bad team.
we aren't a good side and we aren't a bad side either. we are somewhere in the middle because we are still developing. i think some seem to have difficulty accepting this for some reason. but because morale has been so low of late, we've looked a lot worse than we actually are, and this was one of the reasons why i kept backing hughton and will continue to do so while i see encouraging signs. of course its down to the manager to lift morale if it wains but you do need a little luck as well and we hadn't had any this season until yesterday. last season during our great run we had an abundance of confidence flowing through every player - pilks goal against sunderland which featured 29 passes is a great example - and we over achieved, beating the likes of united and arsenal, but when we lost four over christmas the confidence drained and we had a poor run. its never easy for any manager to lift players out of a rut and to be fair, i don't think its one of hughton's greatest assets, but it amazes me when people don't take into account the confidence levels, especially when a league is so tight, as it is between at least 12 teams in this league. small things can make big differences as we saw yesterday, which is another reason why the manager should be cut some slack. many of the goals conceded this season have been down to individual errors. we've got some good players, some who aren't perhaps quite up to scratch too, but when we're playing with a little confidence we are more than a match for most in this division. we didn't even play that well last night but we had too much for a half-decent west ham who had been playing well, especially away from home this season.
I don't think we are a bad team either, there's about 5 or 6 I'd say are worse, West Ham being one of them. I don't even think under Hughton we'd be relegated because of this. But I think we'd avoid relegation in spite of him not because of him. It's just time after time, bad errors, bad set ups,poor planning, poor game plan, disjointed areas of the pitch, an aura of cluelessness, basic concepts, lack of adaptibility. Putting it simply virtually everything he touches, he turns into a sows ear.
have you ever managed a football side? doesn't matter what level, just wondering - if not, i'd absolutely love to see the results
funny you say that, i went to watch a couple of under 9s and under 12s matches this morning in london and the standard of football was very good. no stand out performers but one of the sides in particular (at under 9 level) were playing some great one touch football. i've seen vast improvement in the youngest age groups in the last 12 months alone. the same old issues still occur once you get over 12 though
F##k me, a font of all football knowledge, a football scout and also a manager (i guess that is what you are implying) That definitely means that any of us that disagree with you are wrong Sorry supers, had to go out for a while so could not address your last statement directed at me. Just wanted to reply. We have had 7 league wins in 2013 ( not 8 as you said)in 32 games, that would give us 30 points with 6 games left. Given we are gaining points at less then 1 a game we are likely to finish on 35 points and thus be relegated. As I said i have been going to watch City since the early 70's. When we had open terraces, standing in the Barclay and had a crowd of 40,000 against Chelsea. We have had some good managers since that time. Ron Saunders, John Bond, Ken brown, Dave Stringer, Nigel Worthington and of course Paul Lambert. I think Mike Walker lucked into a good team. All these people were good leaders and inspired their teams to play well. Hughton has shown none of this ability and it saddens me to watch poor football week in and out (albeit from Mexico Supers) when there is so much talent in the squad. This is why I have no faith. I am not asking anyone to agree with me, it is just my opinion. I will remain a dissenting voice Supers or negative as you like to call it. i am not concerned about managers only Norwich City. I have been supporting them a long time and was probably attending matches before you were born Supers. You may continue to pontificate on the board but it does not mean your opinion is more valid than mine.
Like his Newcastle side that ran away with the Championship in 2009-10, finishing 11 points clear of the team in second, accumulating more than 100 points and a goal difference of +55? Some sow's ear that. Or then there's his Birmingham side of 2011-12, which finished 4th on 76 points with a goal difference of +27 (while also making a creditable fist of their Europa League campaign, in which they came within a single point of getting through to the knock-out stages -- Braga and Bruges finished on 11 points, Birmingham on 10). There's clearly far more to Chris Hughton than you are capable of recognising -- more a reflection on you than on him IMO.
Chippy, you must be so happy that you've found a soul mate! You could be journalists, "never let the truth get in the way of a good story!"
The only problem with that stat is that we have played all the teams in last season's top 7 twice this calendar year, bar Chelsea and Liverpool. Since we've been in the prem we've averaged about 0.7 ppg against the top 7 and 1.6ppg from the bottom 13. If you prefer to restrict it to these past 30 games, it's 1.2 ppg against bottom 13 and 0.5ppg from the top 7. So it's actually more likely we would have 36 points (4.8 against the bottom 13 teams and 1 against the top 7), assuming the football doesn't get worse (and the impression I get is we are agreed it's been broadly dreadful since January and can only get better). just about enough to keep us up. If we're to do just this season, though, we've actually had a very hard start, but are running at 1.8ppg against bottom 13 and 0ppg against top 7, which means we've got 9 games of 0 points (against top seven) remaining, but 16 games of 1.8 points remaining. That means we're on track for 41 points this season (and safety), if we continue getting the same average results as the first 11 games based on last season's table position (which people feel has been us playing poorly and we have room for improvement). Of course, you could make it even more nuanced than that, but I'm not going to go through home and away - basically it works in our favour.
I think what a lot of younger posters on here fail to grasp is that the likes of Mexican and myself grew up only knowing top flight football for Norwich City. '95 - 2003 when Worthington finally got us back to the big time was an abhorrent time, something that was hard to take. We probably think that the Premier League is our rightful place, at least I do, that is why I get so irritated with fans who think we are a small club.
Well I started watching when we were third division south, so I know we have no God given right to be top flight, but while we are, by God I'll enjoy it and thank the team, the manager and the board for giving us the chance ti pit our wits against the best and God help any negative doom-mongers that try to destroy the team spirit! Do you not understand the meaning of the term supporter?
It's true that we're not a small club. However, we are also not a big club. In the Prem, we are in the bottom half in terms of size, possibly even bottom third. I think that is difficult to argue against. You have to be realistic about this - a third place finish, fantastic European run and leading the table at Christmas was the apotheosis of our history, but cannot be a marker for our current ambitions. The thing is, "size" is a pretty loose concept. My personal preference, as a definition, is size is relative to a club's medium term ambition. Having history is different and not relevant to "size", it's just relevant to culture. The reason I say medium term is because a club's size can change - e.g. Chelsea, more dramatically Man City (both because of a moneyed owner) or Swansea (how it's run), by comparison Forest, Leeds or to a lesser extent Newcastle. I think our "size" is therefore very much in the bottom half of the Prem because our medium term ambitions are threefold (a) break into the top half (b) challenge in a cup and (c) get into the Europa League. This matches most teams, even including the promoted trio (well maybe not Palace), outside last season's top seven.
Exactly. although i think size is not important. We were a well respected club, known for our attractive football. A far cry from what we see today
