The Great Mass Debater
New Member
http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/harry-toffolo-norwich-city-pre-season-2566930.aspx
http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/gregg-broughton-norwich-city-academy-austria-2563866.aspx
Reading the comments on Alex Neil's interest in the youth players in these two articles a number of points come up.
Firstly that I think it is great that Neil seems to have a 'whole-club' approach and seems to want to be involved and instill a philosophy into the club at all levels. I think this is positive and exciting, though it does seem at odds with the 'Football board' approach - in which the manager focusses on the first team and leaves the other duties to someone else. I wonder if this will eventually become a problem? (a clash of philosophies)
I think it is also interesting with regards to Alex Neil's recruitment. Firstly that they would pick someone who wants to be so involved in all levels of the club when they had previously tried to move away from that, but secondly the reasons why Neil was picked.
When Neil Adams was recruited many saw it as the cheap/unambitious option, but many others pointed out the obvious - that Adams was the youth team manager and perhaps the best person to bring the youth on.
It would seem that whilst we all felt the overriding factor behind Neil being picked as his successor was Hamilton's plucky approach and success in the SPL. Might it also have been as much for his work with the youth?
By all accounts Neil's success was based on kids.
Perhaps they saw someone who could not only get the team playing like Hamilton did in the SPL (a challenge not unlike the one he has this season) and in a style that was acceptable to the fans, but also someone who would have a good shot at getting the academy to bear fruit?
I think this shows on multiple levels what a good appointment he was.
http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/gregg-broughton-norwich-city-academy-austria-2563866.aspx
Reading the comments on Alex Neil's interest in the youth players in these two articles a number of points come up.
Firstly that I think it is great that Neil seems to have a 'whole-club' approach and seems to want to be involved and instill a philosophy into the club at all levels. I think this is positive and exciting, though it does seem at odds with the 'Football board' approach - in which the manager focusses on the first team and leaves the other duties to someone else. I wonder if this will eventually become a problem? (a clash of philosophies)
I think it is also interesting with regards to Alex Neil's recruitment. Firstly that they would pick someone who wants to be so involved in all levels of the club when they had previously tried to move away from that, but secondly the reasons why Neil was picked.
When Neil Adams was recruited many saw it as the cheap/unambitious option, but many others pointed out the obvious - that Adams was the youth team manager and perhaps the best person to bring the youth on.
It would seem that whilst we all felt the overriding factor behind Neil being picked as his successor was Hamilton's plucky approach and success in the SPL. Might it also have been as much for his work with the youth?
By all accounts Neil's success was based on kids.
Perhaps they saw someone who could not only get the team playing like Hamilton did in the SPL (a challenge not unlike the one he has this season) and in a style that was acceptable to the fans, but also someone who would have a good shot at getting the academy to bear fruit?
I think this shows on multiple levels what a good appointment he was.
Last edited by a moderator:
