Desperately searching for positives...

Look guys, I'm trying to get behind him, really I am. I'm trying to get over the crushing sense of despair I felt when I heard. Nice, decent guy, very experienced, has managed Prem clubs, huge array of contacts throughout the game, and made a positive short-term impact at Watford, West Ham and Newcastle.

But sorry: given he's so experienced, and has so many good connections, why is his record so bad? If you ask me, his qualities make him an ideal DoF - but a manager? His record of short-term success is deceptive too: at Watford, he finished 7th after beating a bunch of mid-table sides with nothing to play for - but they were never in play-off contention (only the sides placed 2nd to 5th played off that season). After he'd had a full pre-season, made his own signings etc, they went down. At West Ham, he finished 7th after beating a bunch of mid-table sides with nothing to play for - but they were never in UEFA Cup contention. After he'd had a full pre-season, made his own signings etc, they went down. And at Newcastle, where he inherited a squad many of whom despised Souness, but remained the fifth-highest paid squad in the Prem, he finished 7th after beating a bunch of mid-table sides with nothing to play for; and after he'd had a full pre-season, made his own signings etc, they suffered their worst campaign in Premier League history.

But Norwich are in the s**t - we won't have some comfortable run-in against disinterested teams. And even if he keeps us up, which is certainly possible, what then? Are our board clever enough to heed the warnings which his record practically screams, move him upstairs, and bring in a young up-and-comer? I doubt it: I bet they made this decision because he's a nice guy who's decent to get along with. At all four previous clubs, Roeder has appeared during the dog days of failing regimes: if you're skint, up the creek, and have totally run out of ideas, you appoint him.

And we chose him over someone feisty and tough, who's done well at all three of his previous clubs; and was sacked by a ridiculous Chairman after beating the probable Champions 4-1? It's not a gamble if you have a record of success (or as near as dammit); it IS if you give the job to someone who's failed wherever he's been! Unbelievable - even by our board's standards. Does this mean I don't want him to prove me wrong, and won't get behind the team? Of course not: I want us to be successful, and hope he leads us to it. But like Otto, phrankin and SCC, I have grave fears about this - and it doesn't make me any less of a fan to express them.

Posted By: thebigfeller, Oct 30, 22:28:00