Pretty sure I know how this is going to go, but it would be interesting to attach some stats to the debate. I'm sticking myself firmly in the third choice, I'm surprised by the decision and think it is a risk we probably don't need to, and very possibly shouldn't have taken, however I'm definitely not making any bold statements about how it's all going to go wrong and that this is the worst possible appointment because the reality is we just don't know. Every manager started somewhere, I don't think any manager in history has been thrown into such a horrendous first five fixtures, and he speaks of positive, attacking football so I'm definitely keeping my eyes open to all possibilities and see no reason why he couldn't be a big success. Can't wait for the season to start so we can find out!
same. nobody can know as he's totally unproven but that's the reason why i'm not happy, because this job, this situation called out for somebody with experience of this situation
Has to be, let's wait and see. How do any of us know that he won't bring the good times back? It's ludicrous to be assuming that he will be hopeless just because he hasn't managed at that level before.
I'm not happy with his appointment, but it could work, there was a time where most clubs promoted from within, continuity and footballing ethos preserved. That isn't what this was, whovwould want to preserve what we had last season? It's really too big of a jump from youth and uninvolved in 1st team, to manager. But he talks a good game and conceptually I think he wants to attack more than perhaps Malky. Would. Zola maybe not and that again baffles me. But then has Zola really had any great success either? The board seemingly want to see the Norwich way, for that he maybe the most qualified option! Bah!
You genuinely think it is the product of a sane mind to conclude that Neil Adams will be hopeless in his role as manager of a football club purely because he has not previously been manager of a football club? So essentially you're saying that nobody could ever succeed unless they have already done the job? In other words once the current crop of managers retire, football will cease to exist because we have nobody to replace them?
Hi bors, I'm trying to look behind the decision to appoint NA. Why did the board takes so long to make a decision that could have been decided right after the season's ending ? Why go to the trouble to interview candidates and then revert to their caretaker manager? Did the board impose a condition their preferred candidate didn't approve of such as NA as assistant manager ? Then there is this newly created position to be filled. Have the board considered who they want to liaise with NA ? Will this person be someone with a wealth of football experience to proffer advice to NA ? There has been a lot of adverse comments regarding this appointment. It should be borne in mind that NA achieved something both Lambert and Hughton didn't do: Liverpool actually had to work hard for their victory at Carrow Road and didn't get their customary runaway victory. To take a point from Chelsea away was also a creditable performance. I'm not a clairvoyant and can't see into the future so I'll wait and see how NA makes out before I offer criticism or praise on his handling of our club. OTBC.
Na, Gunny wasn't even involved in any coaching at the club and hadn't even done any badges as far as I'm aware, he was more involved in some scouting, marketing and the hospitality side of things. Adams even with his role with the youngsters - FA Youth Cup winners last year - has far better credentials than Gunny ever did.
Yes, I do as there is very little to suggest he will succeed. He is not taking over a L1 team with little expectation and time to learn.
To compare Neil Adams to Bryan Gunn is silly. He will do better, but how much better remains to be seen. What I have a problem with is that next season is undoubtedly our best chance to bounce back. Obviously, if we don't go up next year, we will again play in the Premier League, but we will never have a better chance at the start of the season to go straight up. Therefore, if this appointment was made after we'd already been in the Championship for a number of years, and looking to try something different, then fair enough. But Neil Adams almost certainly won't take us up next year. Not because he won't turn out to be a good manager, but he's got a lot to learn. How many rookies ever achieve promotion in their first season? And every season, it's going to get a little bit harder for him to get us back up. That's why this appointment is ridiculous. And if we are promoted this time next year, it'll be due to determination and hard work from Neil Adams, and he'll deserve the plaudits. But the board should get no praise, because they'll have benefitted from sheer dumb luck. Rant over.
I really don't know. I like NA, as several others do, and I am all for giving opportunities to new managers, but is this really what we needed at this time? I just don't know.
The technical answer to the question must be 'don't know', but only in the sense that agnosticism is more logical than atheism. I was one of the people who supported the decision to sack Hughton with five matches to go, but simply because I felt things were so bad with Hughton that our chances of survival improved from practically zero to a few per cent. In the situation we face now, it seems a bizarre risk for the Board to take, especially since Adams did very little in those five matches to suggest that he has the skills or vision to take us into the future.
