With Arsenal that makes sense, but then even in their "darkest days", all that they have suffered is concern that they might not make the Champions League, which they have anyway. As for the others, it's far too short a period to say whether they panic when the chips are down and yet hold their nerve because each of those clubs has had unrelenting success over the period you are discussing. So the chips have never been down and the board has never been in a position to panic. Our board has, on a couple of occasions, been in a position where they could have pressed the fire button and eyebrows would not generally have been raised. We are an anomaly in that sense and the only club you can really liken us to is Everton under Moyes. Even then you could consider them "too big" to compare to us, as I certainly think Arsenal are (and their well-documented problems have been on completely different scales).
Unrelenting success? Both Saints and Swansea had several set backs and frustrating reverses during their rise from the lower leagues to the PL. Yes, the trajectory has been upward overall, but not smoothly. I'd say we are on a similar upward trajectory overall but in our case success was indeed "unrelenting" while Lambert was in charge, which is a lot of the problem.
I'd say Southampton have had unrelenting success since they went into administration - they nearly made play-offs when we won League 1 despite a ?10 point deduction, then promotion, then promotion, then safety (with a slightly odd change of manager), then this year's stellar effort. Swansea have been slightly more steady, but every season since 2006-7 they have finished further up the table (and they'd only finished one place higher the year before, following previous promotion) and these last three years - promotion, comfortable safety, league cup win, etc. - have been unrelenting (until about now). Ours has been admittedly good (we're hardly Wolves or Blackburn!), but the difference I was highlighting is that neither of these teams have had extended periods of very poor football, or bad results. Their set-backs and reverses have been momentary, ours, under Hughton, have been rather more drawn out and whether you like it or not there have been realistic moments when the board could have fired Hughton and it would generally have been viewed as logical. Neither of Swansea or Southampton have been in that position
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this Rob, I personally don't think there have been those situations yet and in fact I doubt very much if McNasty has even given it any real consideration at all. We are currently amid our longest run without a win this season, six games of which four have been draws, which is hardly disastrous if you ask me. Before this we had one period of five games without a win, but of course these included four potential Champions League teams with the anomaly being the home game against Cardiff. The most consecutive defeats in a row all season has been just two - Arsenal/Chelsea, Man Utd/Man City and Spurs/Villa and in fact we didn't lose more than two games in a row throughout the whole of 2013. And for all the "tonkings" that people talk of, aside from the Sky Six the only other team to score more than two goals against us is Bury - and we put six past them in that game. True, we've had plenty of blips this season (as any team in the bottom half will), and we've not yet been able to put anything like a decent run of wins/undefeated games together yet, but I wouldn't say that we've had any extended periods of bad results so far that would warrant the sacking of our manager, not by a long chalk.
Mmm, a lot of this sounds like a sophisticated way of saying 'jam tomorrow', Robbie. Or your belief that CH is taking us forwards against the outers' belief that he has started taking us backwards. I'm not sure that Southampton are a good example. Surely since they sacked Adkins when they were in a relatively 'comfortable' position - similar to that of ours now - they could be just as easily used as an argument for getting rid of Hughton. In fact, I've seen precisely that argument made (I think it's totally flawed, by the way - cherry picking one successful example and assuming the same would happen to us is clearly fallacious). Your stuff about long-term thinking, I can see. As Rob says, though, events are much more precarious for smaller teams hoping to break into the top half of the Prem than they are for big teams who rarely sink below sixth. In other words, I doubt if we could ever achieve the stability of a club like Arsenal.
Sorry I think we're arguing different things - you're saying that Hughton shouldn't have been sacked and that you don't think McNally has considered it. I tend to agree with the latter, but this doesn't go against what I've been saying about Norwich being unusual in keeping Hughton. It's exactly that - McNally hasn't considered firing him and that is unusual in context. As for whether he should or shouldn't have been fired, I'm not saying that I disagree with your points, they are all good ones, and this isn't a discussion as to whether he should have been, it is about whether we are unusual for having not fired him. You only had to read the news reports after the Manchester week and the Fulham match to see plenty of reporters have questioned how much longer he would last. I.e., if he had been fired, there wouldn't have been the head scratching that occurred after, e.g., Allardyce was fired in charge of Blackburn or even Clarke was fired at West Brom. All I'm saying is that at certain points this season, people generally wouldn't have been surprised if he had gone, not whether it was the right or wrong decision. That is a big difference to Southampton or Swansea where it would be strange if either manager had been sacked up to now.
Actually Rob I think we are arguing the same things, but we just happen to disagree with each other as I do not agree with the comments in bold as I think the 11th place finish last year earned him more a big enough safety blanket to counter the blips we have suffered this season. If we'd had a run of four/five losses in a row, or nine/ten games without a win then I would understand the knives being sharpened, but I genuinely think that from an outsider's point of view, regardless of what a few of the reports I read after the Man City game (that conveniently failed to look at the bigger picture I must add - eg criticising the big money spent on forwards that hadn't improved our goals for tally without recognising both RVW and Hooper had spent significant amount of time injured at that point) it would have looked illogical to have sacked him at any point this season and I think exactly the same head scratching that occurred with Clarke would have taken place in our direction. The various comments I've read from neutral fans on some of the articles about our current plight tend to back this up, and as has been said on here by others, it only seems to be our own fans - and only a sub-section of those - who think he should be sacked
Not "jam tomorrow" at all, because that sort of jam never comes. The jam I'm talking about does come, precisely because the people who run clubs sensibly (clubs like the ones I referred to) do deliver long term. And my point about CH was that "taking the club forward" doesn't refer just to playing style or entertainment on the pitch; fortunately for us, the board of NCFC don't suffer from the tunnel vision that apparently afflicts so many fans. If the board don't think the club is moving forward with CH as manager, he will be replaced as and when the board deem appropriate. But as carrabuh said on an earlier thread, currently they appear broadly satisfied.
Sorry, I've not been clear - we are definitely talking about different things. I'm not discussing whether you, I or neutral fans think he should have been sacked. What I'm saying is that neutral fans, even the ones who don't think he should be sacked (which as you say are plenty) would not have been surprised if he had been. This is why we get articles saying (e.g.): - Norwich sensible to not sack Hughton yet (i.e. the inference being that it would not have been a surprise if we had) - how long does Hughton have left (i.e. it must be pretty close) And plenty more of that sort of thing. All of them infer that Hughton's job, to a greater or lesser extent, might be under threat and so that's why I'm saying there would not have been widespread surprise. I completely agree with you that most "neutral" articles have suggested that Hughton shouldn't be sacked yet and they might even think it was illogical. I'm just saying they would not have been surprised. Not like with the other examples listed. It's not really a big deal what I'm saying so I'm not sure why I've made us go round in circles because it's all part of the same point - because clubs are often now trigger happy, people would not be surprised if Norwich were to follow suit and be trigger happy, rightly or wrongly.
Or to simplify: football currently has a reputation for being trigger happy with managers we are the anomaly (probably one of several) because we haven't been because people expect football clubs to be trigger happy they would not be surprised if Hughton had been fired (whether they agree or disagree that he should still be there)
I agree that the board takes a longer term view of the Club's development than some of the noisy fans. City's last 6 league games (I don't include the cup game) have produced 1W3D2L, including an inspired performance against ManUtd. The only disappointing result in those 6 games was the loss to Fulham. IMO, the board looks at the whole picture, not just the latest result. They would probably look at the 11th place finish last season, and the situation after the first 19 games this season, taking into account the injuries, but as long as there is not a run of consecutive losses or a drop in morale, they hold their nerve, convinced that the long-term development is taking place. This includes the development of young players like the Murphys and Carlton Morris. IMO, that's the right view to take.
Or, to put it another way, the people who would not have been surprised if CH had been sacked are people who simply lump all clubs together and expect them all to behave in the same way. These are the people who cannot understand why Arsenal don't welcome Usmanov (the richest man in Britain) onto the club board and start spending some of his billions to "buy" a trophy and win the league, or why our owners refused to hand over control of the club to Tony Fernandes with his bulging pockets.
I kind of get what you're saying, but it all sounds so wishy-washy it doesn't really mean anything, does it? You're saying some fans would be surprised if he was sacked and some wouldn't, I'm not really sure that's it's a point you should be bothering to make is it? I mean you could say that about pretty much anything in life.
Well, that's sort of what I meant when I said I'm not quite sure why we've gone round in circles because it was such a small point! But no, it's not meaningless - this thread is about how impatient football fans are - I was pointing out that generally speaking people outside of the club have made it clear that they are surprised (or at least, more softly, they wouldn't be surprised if he was) that Hughton has not been sacked. That tells us that not only is there impatience from certain boards and among certain fans, but there is also a perception that clubs would and possibly even should be impatient. This impatience has permeated every level. That's probably not good. The reason that ties into where I originally came in is that I was saying that we are now perceived as anomalous in not having done what was expected (i.e. I think everyone would have been surprised if any of the managers of Swansea, Everton, Southampton or Arsenal had been fired). You make quite clear you think this is a good thing, and I can understand (even if I don't wholeheartedly agree) why
But this is my entire point and where we disagree - I don't agree with you when you say the things in bold!! Who has made it clear "they wouldn't be surprised if he was sacked"? Why would it have been "expected"? And by who exactly? What folk do you speak of? You are making bold assumptions that I just don't agree with I'm afraid and you haven't said anything to convince me otherwise. I work with a lot of fans of all sorts of different clubs and and we talk football all the time and I don't think I've heard anyone suggest that Hootun should be, or is even likely to be sacked. In fact I don't recall a single person that I've discussed this with saying they would be anything other than stunned if we sacked him and I think it would be exactly the same as when WBA sacked Clarke. When I spoke of the "safety net he had earned with last season's 11th place" and how we haven't a had any really bad runs of defeats etc I wasn't talking about my personal belief of what should happen based on these things, I was talking about the perception of anyone from the outside looking in. I genuinely think fans of Stoke, Chelsea, Villa, Everton, Newcastle etc etc would think we were bonkers if we had sacked him at any point up until now, and if they thought it was in any way because of a campaign amongst our own fans to get rid of him then I'm certain we'd be absolutely slated. And rightly so in my opinion. I appreciate this is a totally pointless debate and that we are mind of going round I circles somewhat, but I don't think we're at crossed purposes here as much as you suggest and think we are actually taking contrary positions. As I've tried to make clear throughout this (obviously. It very well!!) I totally disagree with the highlighted assumptions you make and think that you're basing your perceptions upon an unsubstantiated myth as far as I'm concerned.
Bit in bold is not what I'm talking about, bit underlined is. Fair enough, if that's who you've spoken to and what they've said, but I'm surprised. In the last couple of weeks off the top of my head, I've spoken to two Newcastle fans, an Aston Villa fan and a Watford fan about Hughton, which they all initiated by asking why he hasn't be seen sacked. Clearly they were interested in the reasoning and envisaged it being a possibility. For the record, only one Newcastle fan actually thought he should have been, but they all saw it as a possibility. That is not the only reason why my view is substantiated. Just a quick glance at newsnow shows a couple articles which clearly register that Hughton could have been sacked by now, and therefore it wouldn't have been a surprise: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...under-pressure-after-nightmare-Christmas.html http://www.football365.com/norwich-city/9096667/-? In fact, I'm very surprised that you consider Hughton's potential for being sacked hasn't been discussed outside the club, because I'm fairly sure several articles or excerpts have been posted here, one specifically by a Hughton-inner if I recall correctly which was a well-argued piece about why the Norwich board should hold their nerve. I honestly think we're talking at cross-purposes
Fair do's mate, I'm more then happy to leave it there - think we've gone round in enough circles by now
