Worst Ever Norwich City Manager

[GazzaTCC]

I've gone for Gary Megson, even Iif you ignore his caretaker stint at the end of the Premier League season in 1995 (Played 5, Won 0, Draw 1, Lost 4) his 27 game run (23 December 1995 to 5 May 1996) after Martin O'Neil left yielded a win ratio of just 18.5%.

This was much worse than Hamilton (35 games - 28.6%) Grant (54 games - 33.3%) Roeder (65 games - 30.8%) or Gunn (21 games - 28.57%)

 

[Warren Hill]

Hamilton.

We were absolutely dire under his stewardship, though with his binner contacts that should probably be Dyer. Some of the crap he signed too...it might surprise people that we had Dutch players that were worse than RVW but under Hamilton we did...

 

[yellowarmy]

Because the question doesn't. It doesn't say "Who did the worst job as Norwich City Manager?", or "Who was the least successful Norwich City Manager?" it just asks "Who is the worst ever Norwich City Manager?".

For me that is Roeder. He was an unlikable personality with a poor record and a terrible transfer policy that left us with a threadbare squad having squandered millions on hloans. He also released arguably our most effective player for years, when it was clear he still had the ability to play for us, for what still seems like no other reason than his own arrogance. I may be mistaken, but we also got relegated his last season, so on top of his wastefulness and poor transfer policy I would call that lasting damage. Luckily Lambert and McNally turned that around but we could have so easily have done a Charlton or Leeds.

I respect your opinion on why you have this dislike for Roeder, personaly i don't know the man and as far as i know he might be the nicest man you would want to meet outside of football. Lasting as far as i believe would mean the effects would still be with us today would it not?

 

[Warren Hill]

Roeder is a difficult one because he came across as an arse most of the time. He did what he was tasked to in the first part of his tenure and we were by no means relegated when he got the bullet; Gunn had 20 games from that point but somehow contrived to make us worse.

If I was asked which manager I liked the least or which manager I felt had least affinity with the club; it'd be Roeder every time. Grant, Gunn and Hamilton all surpass him in the "worst manager" stakes for me though.

Roeder really was a horrible prick though....

....but he did sign Wes didn't he?

 

[eatonparkboy]

I voted for Roeder because I couldn't believe how he rubbished everything that had gone before and totally believed that his training methods, team selections etc were completely infallible. And he rubbished Huckerby so much that you just knew that this bloke was another David Icke or Paul Daniels.

 

[bloodwagon]

Roeder for me the Sh**

Killed our team and we had to start again.

 

[The Ghost of Michael Theo]

Gone for Roeder, he did get that dead cat bounce in his first season but he also took what was overall a pretty terrible squad and somehow managed to make it worse. Grant escapes for recognising his own short comings, Gunn left us Grant Holt, (Roeder got wessi but canceled it out by releasing hucks) and Hamilton escapes by virtue of not asking fans when they became England manager, something probably only SAF or Bob Paisly could have reasonably expected to get away with long term.

I posted something on the Birmingham match thread concluding how bad that squad was.

http://www.norwichtalk.com/topic/586-norwich-vs-birmingham-home-20th-september-2014/?p=9156

However, I think Gunn may have been manager for the game in question, it was Roeder's squad.

Hamilton was before my time though. If people say that the squad he assembled was worse than this one, then maybe I should revise my vote!

 

[Watling the Gnome]

Roeder picked up the mess left by Grant and got us from bottom to mid-table. His second season was poor, but too many posters here picking on reputation rather than achievement IMO. Hamilton, Grant, Gunn, even Megson all far worse.

 

[Monty13]

I respect your opinion on why you have this dislike for Roeder, personaly i don't know the man and as far as i know he might be the nicest man you would want to meet outside of football. Lasting as far as i believe would mean the effects would still be with us today would it not?

I don't know him either, he might be lovely!

But his actions and the interviews he gave spoke for themselves for me. Some of the effects arguably still are, stripping Shackell of the captaincy and selling him when he was one of the best young talents we'd had for years and is now playing PL football would be an example, but I should have said could have had long lasting effects as that is really what I meant. If we hadn't got Lambert and McNally we would unlikely be where we are, debt free and chasing another stint in the PL. Gunn receives his fair share of the blame for the position we were in, but for me Roeder laid all the groundwork. His only redeeming thing in my eyes is he brought Wes here, but then he berated him publically so...

If we are just judging by performance then why don't we just check the Wiki page for the lowest win percentage and question answered? There has to be some context to why they were the worst, not just win percentage for me. 

 

[Matt Hopkins]

Old CH takes some beating for me.

Turned so much positivty and passion into a negative atmosphere.

Attack became defence, togetherness became disparity.

Dull, grey and lifeless,both him,his management team and eventualy on the pitch.

But then we have seen some corkers over the last 20 years.

For every Walker and Lambert there is a Roeder and a Hamilton

 

[Keckers]

Roeder purely for the nasty and unpleasant attitude. Left us totally destroyed. I know the board from that time need to take a lot of the blame but he was just the most unpleasant of men.

 

[GJP]

My gut feeling at the time was that Roeder, despite seeming like a very unpleasant chap, would have kept us up. It might not have been pretty but I think we'd have got over the line.

But when Gunn got the job I felt we were in trouble.

 

[mustard gas]

Hamilton was the worst for me. The man had not that first clue on managing a football club. And his signings were worse than Gunnys, at least we got Holt from that time. I cannot remember the names (mainly because I have blanked that period from my memory) of his signings. Were any of them lasting Canaries and considered a success?

 

[nolegs]

Voted for Roeder,purely because he filled the squad with couldn't really give a toss mercenaries,including players like Archibold-Henville? who took the wages but didn't ever play!

But looking through the list we have had our share of plonkers,I started to watch when Lol Morgan was in charge and seem to remember that he wasn't too clever

 

[CanaryNath]

What strikes me with this poll, is the sheer number of really, really bad managers in our not-so-distant past.

Megson, Hamilton, Grant, Roeder, Gunn.

Is there another team that can boast such a list?!

 

[eatonparkboy]

Fulham aren't far behind that in one in a calendar year.

 

[David Evans]

How people can even suggest Chris Hughton as the worst manager is beyond me, unbelievably blinkered...

Bryan Hamilton, Peter Grant, Glenn Roeder all easily take the top three for me, just awful football to watch under them.

 

[morty]

I went for Hamilton, but there was a lot to choose from!