Leaderboard

Yes, it's absolutely clear to me that the talent we do have is being sacrificed on the altar of 'athleticism'; A paradigm where Hernandez is picked for his pace and hard work when he lacks the skill to perform at this level. I find it hard to comprehend how long we've persevered with two strikers while giving up so much control in midfield while every successful team focuses on winning that central battle while getting their 'weapons' into scoring positions. Sara is a dangerous player and should be operating as a 10 who drops deep rather than an 8 who gets forwards. It's similar with Rowe being asked to run himself into the ground every game, up and down the pitch in both attack and defence. If he was playing in a narrower role with a number 10 then the workload would be massively reduced, leaving him enough energy to make more telling contributions at the crucial moments. While I think we're generally lacking a bit of skill in the squad, imagine how our first choice players would do in Farke's 4-2-3-1 with Rowe, Sara and Sainz behind Sargent; Nunez paired with a new CDM and McLean along side Hanley in defence; Idah as super-sub... That would be a decent team.

It's a slow afternoon and the family have gone out so ignoring the rhetorical elements of the Knapper Socratic method element for the moment to take the questions literally, let's have a go at this. Apologies for the length of replay but Parma's questions are incorporated as without them it looked more of a ramble than it even is ... 1. Is the 2 x false nine, deep striker box well-suited to Barnes and Sargent as a pair? Yes to an extent. Although I would argue that actually Barnes lacks a little of the mobility requires to carry off the role perfectly, both offensive and defensively. He does offer a decent focal point for counters though - both in terms of ball-retention and winning free kicks through 'experience' - but oddly lacks as much of a goal threat as a former #9 should offer. I could see Sara in this role for all of the above reasoning. 2. Is it well suited to any of our other strikers or players? Generally no - although it does allow Rowe and potentially Sainz to get beyond the strikers when the box is inverted which plays to some of their strengths. As indicated above, it (or a variation thereof as suggested below) could suit Sara in the Barnes role. 3. If not, why was it persisted with without Sargent and-or Barnes? It shouldn't have been IMO - it does smack of a rather single minded / blinkered tactical approach from Wagner. 4. Does playing 2 strikers compromise the shape of the rest of the team regardless of who plays it? Absolutely. Particularly with two high fullbacks and two predominantly attack minded central midfielders. And most importantly a lack of pace at centre back which means that the high line required to condense the space in midfield on the counter is largely unworkable. The key issue for me is the Wagnerian insistence on winning the ball back with a high press with two fullbacks high - if it works then great. If not, it leaves a gaping hole in midfield. To take a boxing analogy, it is basically a fighter flailing a series of haymakers - against inferior opponents you can often land a knockout punch. Against better opponents they will wait for you to be off balance and overcommit before picking you off and I'm not convinced that our knockout punch (weapons) is quite as devastating as this approach would need it to be to make the gamble worthwhile. I quite like the wingers inverting ahead of Sarge as a false 9 out of possession both because Sargent isn't a traditional target man able to play with his back to goal and because our wide attackers are more inside forwards than wingers but something has to give somewhere else just in terms of basic maths. Two central midfielders goal side of the ball at all times is one possibility. One of the fullbacks tucking in to form a defensive 3 with the CMs ahead whilst the other bombs on could be another. There are lots of compromises which could / should be made to occupy that no man's land between the forwards and the defence that we concede so readily in Wagnerball when nearly 3/4 of the outfield players are committed to the press in the final third. 5. Who are the fixed points that should be tactically built around? In terms of weaponish points, Sargent, Sainz, Rowe and Sara. Arguably CB Kenny in this system. 6. Does the current system suit Sara? He has strengths in his current role but they are more than offset by his weaknesses in the tactical requirements laid on him defensively IMO. 7. If Sara and Rowe are key assets in disrupting the opposition are there better ways to deploy them? Yes - again IMO the current system could be tweaked slightly by playing Sara in the Barnes role albeit with the option to come slightly deeper to create. It becomes very difficult to reduce this to a numbered formation but almost a 4-3-1-2 with Sargent almost playing as a false 9 out of possession and the wingers playing the channels ahead of him. 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 in possession. Rowe has to be kept in that channel position - he isn't a traditional winger looking to assist nor a player that could start centrally as a #10 but seems more of an inside forward. What seems clear to me is that (since bulking up which to be fair seems to have added much to his game) he just isn't fit enough to combine much defensive work - this approach removes some of the defensive workload, gives the Vardyish outball and potentially either occupies one or both fullbacks or splits the centre backs wider to allow Sargent and / or Sara to exploit space though the centre. 8. Can 7 be done playing two strikers? Not two out and out strikers. The defensive compromise is too great IMO. See above. 9. If the aim is to bring down the average age of the squad, why are we currently deploying 7 players over 30? Because that's who Wagner / Webber for the most part have signed. We don't really have a lot of other options. 10. We have spent most money on Sara and Nunez. To appreciate these asserts they must play. To increase as assets they must play in the position and system most suited to them: Are they good enough to deserve this? Is this what the current coach is doing? In the current system I don't think we can play both at CDM. Neither has natural defensive tendencies in a positional sense - although both do work hard and can put a tackle in - and both have a tendency for the Hollywood ball which doesn't actually have much to aim at in the current system and which isolates the recipient if they do find him. I could see Nunez as one part of a double pivot alongside maybe Gibbs with Sara ahead in the Barnes type role. But if we weren't concerned with resale values there is no way we should be playing both as a central midfield duo. As I suggested in a nother thread, both were signed to play in a 3 and both would benefit from doing so. Sara is probably good enough (or at least eye-catching enough) to justify having the team largely built to accommodate him. I'm not sure that Nunez is at present, although it could be that we do the same with him once Sara moves on. Playing Sara further forward and Nunez in the quarterback / one half of a double pivot could be the best compromise. I'm not sure anyone in the Premier League would be looking to pay decent money for either Sara as a deep lying playmaker or Nunez as an attacking midfielder. 11. Are we repeatedly exposed in the CDM area because of the system? Absolutely. 12. If you were the opposition, would the deep box double striker system scare you more than playing Barnes high and others running beyond? (For example) I don't think Barnes would win enough to play high as a #9 and make that approach work. I think Sainz and Rowe running beyond a #9 does potentially work but I don't see that it has to be the traditional big lad (or indeed that the big lad could or should be Barnes.) I could see a combination of Sargent and Sara in the Kane role for England, dropping deep and drawing centre backs out with Rowe and Sainz taking the Saka / Rashford / Sterling roles in running beyond. But that is less the deep box double striker system than a false 9 and Sara as an attacking midfielder. 13. If you use the inverted wide players to go beyond as your strikers drop into the box, do you get repeatedly exploited and overloaded wide and 3/4 wide and get exposed to a large volume of unchallenged crosses? Yes if you also play two strikers with two simultaneously high fullbacks. Basic maths ! 14. You have good headers of the ball, experienced, dominant defenders, a high quality goalkeeper for this level, are comfortable from crosses and are happy to concede wider areas as it stretches the opposition (as they attack). Is this counter-punching tactic suited to deep strikers and inverted wingers asked to work hard in deep areas? Where is the cheap counter-attack ball (say to a Vardy)? So where is the counter-threat? I suspect that this is largely rhetorical, but I'll play. As the system stands, I'm not sure that the wingers are supposed to be working hard in deep areas out of possession. If they are, then no I agree that there is no counter threat. Working on the assumption that any (other / normal) team likes to have a spare man at the back, however, I would suggest that it should be Rowe and Sainz providing the out ball on the counter which should occupy some combination of three out of two centre backs, two fullbacks and / or possibly a CDM. Which would mean that worst case one of the wide attackers may have to work as hard as their fullback counterpart defensively. This is another reason for playing Sara over Barnes as he can drop in to a 3 as a more natural (and mobile) midfielder with Sargent dropping in ahead of him. 15. Sara plus MacClean does not look at all balanced or positionally-disciplined (as @king canary notes). MacClean’s vertical delivery from Centre back and ability to step into midfield areas looked a neat find. Why did you revert? Excellent question. I absolutely agree and can only assume that Maclean's greater physicality (compared to Nunez) was anticipated to be required in midfield - and Gibson does offer (a degree of) ball-playing ability. It was a mistake in my view however (see below.). A cynic might also suggest that getting Gibson playing before the opening of the last transfer window before his contract expiry might be an idea in order to get him off the wage bill if only for a nominal fee. Duffy, Batth, Gibson, Warner and now MacLean could definitely be seen to be too many options (even if one might question the ability of many of them ...) 16. With full backs high and no natural CDM, is the area in front of the Centre backs strongly enough protected? Not at all in the current set up. Exacerbated by the lack of pace at centre back which means we cannot play a high enough defensive line without being exposed. Which wouldn't be enough in itself anyway, but it does make things worse. 17. Is a midfield of Sainz, Rowe, Sara, Nunez (say) plus playing two strikers - solid enough as a structure? No. Which is one of the reasons why I feel Sara should be deployed instead of one of the strikers (Barnes.) 18. Teaching new skills to players skills is excellent, though players tend to revert to their natural tendencies under pressure. Is this a valid gamble with a limited squad or is there an element of unnecessary shoe-horning into fixed blueprint? I'm not sure that players learn new skills per se - rather deploying them in different roles can utilise their existing skills in different ways. Kenny at CB being a excellent example of this (and one which I believe should be continued, with Gibson as his understudy for the time being.) Oddly they are very similar players in that role with Kenny offering a little more creativity and pace which are essential given the limitations of the other CB options. On current form I'd only play Gibson if Kenny was unavailable at CB and only with Warner or Hanley as a pacier partner. Gibson and Duffy are too slow as a pair, Kenny and Gibson too left sided and not dominant enough in the air. So a valid gamble in certain situations but there is definitely an element of shoe-horning given Wagner's stoic adherence to his preferred formation in the face of much evidence against it ... 19. Idah has finally had a run. What have we learned? That he has all of the tools bar a footballing brain or a striker's instinct. You can hear the cogs turning when following tactical instructions and so seems better suited to chasing a game as a impact sub where the requirements are clear and he doesn't have to think. At which point he looks half decent. Badly needed a loan two seasons ago. Has a really weird running style (reminds me of a cross between a distance walker and Riverdance.) So I think we are pretty much where we were two years ago. In 2035 he will probably be the leagues oldest striker with potential. Still needs a loan IMO. 20. Do we have any weapons? Some. Sara passing range, shooting from range, set pieces. Sargent suggested some weaponish attributes earlier in terms of his mobility and aerial ability as well as being difficult to pick up from deep. Sainz has hinted at creativity between the lines and shooting from distance. Rowe in that 3/4 channel cutting inside. But most are compromised by being played too deep or isolated or having too many defensive responsibilities.

Knapper wasn’t in the door yet so who should have overseen the transfers? Do you want Delia or Attanasio picking the players to sign instead? Stopping Webber from doing the job you’re paying him to do while you have no replacement lined up to do that work would have been the most idiotic thing I can think of. Although reading your posts I’m under the impression there’s not much consistency in your opinions. Delia seems to be simultaneously a control freak who constantly interferes where she’s not wanted, while being extremely hands off to the point of negligence

What I took from match of the day last night Man Utd need a CDM like us Aston Villa shows us that the right manager right tactics can change how a club performs in their league ,with a lot of the same players , Nottiingham forest , again get a good manager can get the same players playing to there full ability as a unit Luton might lose might go down but boy are they give it a go and have a wonderful spirit and fight Most of above shows Wagner is not the right man as most can be solved with the right manager in place

Letting a Sporting Director recruit whilst he should be on gardening leave is ironically exactly analogous to letting a manager or coach recruit without the longer term vision of a Sporting Director. Whilst I don't think that Webber directly or deliberately stitched us up, there is a strong sense of him attempting a legacy enhancing 3rd promotion - to leave the club in a better position than he found it - through a very short term plan which runs entirely counter to everything he stood for during the rest of his tenure. And which has quite evidently not worked. Although I will also point out that a fair number of you were delighted with the signings of Duffy and Batth as just what we needed (although any smugness is mitigated by the caveat that I thought Barnes was a decent signing as well ...)

How can that be? The massive great club from Suffolk wanting their big rivals to win? That sounds a bit tinpot of former European trophy winners. I hope we stuff Southampton and catch them ourselves. Before the smart Alec comments come. There's been no alcohol consumption here!

Hope he has a good game and scores tomorrow...

I think it's reasonable to say that the transfer business has left us with very few quality options and then to also criticise the manager for failing to pick our few quality players in their most effective positions. It doesn't have to be a binary either the manager or sporting director at fault, there can be blame in both camps. I am in no doubt that Farke would have done better with the squad than either of our managers since, especially at Championship level. That doesn't mean that the squad isn't significantly worse than Farke's previous promotion winners.

I can’t state enough how unrealistic this is. The guy turned down Leicester at the start of the season. His name comes up all the time and it’s just ridiculous.

If we get beaten without a fight by Soton then I'd sack him. At least we'd have half a season for a new manager to either make a miraculous upsurge, or do some planning for next season. Limping on just delays the inevitable and serves no purpose. I'd really need to see a hugely improved performance from us tomorrow to give him longer. (Though even if that does happen I suspect it'll just be a flash in the pan – because ultimately he just seems tactically inept, however nice a bloke he might seem...)

The thing is there is no way he could have done a worse job.

I reckon the final nail in the coffin will be tomorrow. Sainz available but won't be in squad as punishment and banished to u21s. Changes both centre halves again and plays Kenny at left back and hangs Fisher out to dry on the right. Forshaw in the middle behind Sara and Nunez with Onel and Farsi wide and Barnes up on his own. Would we be surprised to see Rowe Sarge etc on bench. Wagner will finally lose the plot stick two pencils up his nose and go wibble wibble in a Blackadder style before trying to convince us all we can still win the league. Now'watch us beat the Saints by 3 and he survives another week

Not true. He was on form at the start of the season, on the back of a fine season last year. He’s never really had a long term injury, until this year with us (surprise, surprise), and I think he’s struggling to get fitness and form back. Yes he’s 34. But you don’t become rubbish over night.. and back in August and September he was far from that!

Never should have bought him. Complete waste of time and can't hit a barn door from 6 yards. Yet another of the so called "experienced" signings last summer that many on here said they were exactly the type of player we needed to quickly propel back to the PL. Jesus, imagine this lot in the PL next season. Laughable. Barnes, Stacey, Batth, Duffy, Forshaw - they are all totally usless. Our recent recruitment strategy obviously has "if they're warm and breathing" as the number one priority and anything after that is regarded a bonus. Not sure why so many fans (circa 80% I believe) continue to believe, and buy into, the utter **** put out by our Club. It's tragic.

@KiwiScot found a tenner down the sofa and has kindly done these for us tomorrow... Caersws 1/10 14:00 Mon Flint Town 2/9 14:30 Mon Lowestoft Town 3/10 15:00 Mon Farnborough 4/6 15:00 Mon Leicester **EP** 1/5 15:00 Mon Chesham 1/3 15:00 Mon The potential pay out is £46.50. Thanks and good luck Kiwi you star. This prompted me into action and I started grubbing about down the sofa and found a 20p, a couple of old bookie's pens, a crumpled old crisp packet and two half eaten barley sugars. I put these on the following where the potential return is £57.92... Leeds **EP** 2/9 15:00 Mon Leicester **EP** 1/5 15:00 Mon Bolton **EP** 1/3 15:00 Mon Barnsley **EP** 4/7 15:00 Mon Chesterfield 3/10 15:00 Mon Liverpool **EP** 9/20 20:00 Mon Happy New Year everyone

I very much see Wagner as a caretaker coach at the moment, and would imagine those in the club have a similar view. If they have a clear long term vision (i really hope they are working on it at least) and a manager becomes available to build that around then they should make the change as soon as the opportunity presents itself. In the meantime, I don't think the club see it as making a huge difference unless they have serious financial pressures to get promoted which may be the case. It's frustrating to watch the games, such slow and disconnected play, not to mention the endless passing it around the back to no end. We were promised the fittest team in the league but many of our players flag after 60 mins. Some of that no doubt does lie at Wagner's door, and I don't expect the club see him as a long term solution, but they will probably keep him until either the end of the season or until a clear candidate is available. When thinking about season tickets for next year I don't see Wagner or many of the current squad being there. Zooming out a bit, I think a lot of football manager success is very circumstantial. Things like the set of players they have, the characters in the squad, the momentum of the club and the mood of the fanbase. Those factors have become worse over recent years due to poor recruitment and terrible comms/PA from the club. The result is the squad we have and the atmosphere in the stands, nothing about it looks like a club that is on the up and that surely filters down onto the pitch. It takes some time to change too, so I think the issues do go above whoever the manager is. Looking at it objectively it's not big surprise to see us where we are. On paper some might argue that the squad is capable of more. I'm not too convinced, it's an old and slow squad, the fans are fairly disengaged, made worse by some poor comms from the club in the last couple of years. I don't see a team that regularly features Hernandez, Placheta, Barnes, Fassnacht as realistically troubling the promotion picture. I do think it could be doing better than it is, but probably not enough to prompt the club into any early action.

Some excellent recent posts from @BigFish, also really liked @king canary ‘s one above and of course marvellous input from the @Don J Demorr 👍 Following King’s post - and thinking of Don’s interest in the fundamental lines of demarcation between the sporting Director and Head Coach - I certainly think that Knapper will be using Socratic method to judge Wagner’s tactical approach. I would imagine that the following questions loom large: 1. Is the 2 x false nine, deep striker box well-suited to Barnes and Sargent as a pair? 2. Is it well suited to any of our other strikers or players? 3. If not, why was it persisted with without Sargent and-or Barnes? 4. Does playing 2 strikers compromise the shape of the rest of the team regardless of who plays it? 5. Who are the fixed points that should be tactically built around? 6. Does the current system suit Sara? 7. If Sara and Rowe are key assets in disrupting the opposition are there better ways to deploy them? 8. Can 7 be done playing two strikers? 9. If the aim is to bring down the average age of the squad, why are we currently deploying 7 players over 30? 10. We have spent most money on Sara and Nunez. To appreciate these asserts they must play. To increase as assets they must play in the position and system most suited to them: Are they good enough to deserve this? Is this what the current coach is doing? 11. Are we repeatedly exposed in the CDM area because of the system? 12. If you were the opposition, would the deep box double striker system scare you more than playing Barnes high and others running beyond? (For example) 13. If you use the inverted wide players to go beyond as your strikers drop into the box, do you get repeatedly exploited and overloaded wide and 3/4 wide and get exposed to a large volume of unchallenged crosses? 14. You have good headers of the ball, experienced, dominant defenders, a high quality goalkeeper for this level, are comfortable from crosses and are happy to concede wider areas as it stretches the opposition (as they attack). Is this counter-punching tactic suited to deep strikers and inverted wingers asked to work hard in deep areas? Where is the cheap counter-attack ball (say to a Vardy)? So where is the counter-threat? 15. Sara plus MacClean does not look at all balanced or positionally-disciplined (as @king canary notes). MacClean’s vertical delivery from Centre back and ability to step into midfield areas looked a neat find. Why did you revert? 16. With full backs high and no natural CDM, is the area in front of the Centre backs strongly enough protected? 17. Is a midfield of Sainz, Rowe, Sara, Nunez (say) plus playing two strikers - solid enough as a structure? 18. Teaching new skills to players skills is excellent, though players tend to revert to their natural tendencies under pressure. Is this a valid gamble with a limited squad or is there an element of unnecessary shoe-horning into fixed blueprint? 19. Idah has finally had a run. What have we learned? 20. Do we have any weapons? Parma

My personal opinion is that Barnes brings absolutely nothing to the side. Nothing. He is two yards too slow and half a brain short of professional. What was he thinking against Millwall ? Brawling on the pitch like a drunk in a pub car park? His legs will not allow him to be a target man up front where lots of running is required, he is 34 years old. 34! What was the Club thinking of signing him ? For two years! For a salary of a reported £30,000 per week (£1,560,000 per year). Outrageous!

Seems to me playing him so deep is not using his outstanding talent to his full potential. Managers decisions these days completely baffles me, he must have a death wish. Leaving Sara there, leaving our leading scorer on the bench, then tries to qualify that in the newspaper today with words that are beyond belief. Putting Gibson in, who should never be even in the match day squad. That carthourse Barnes rather than Idah, shows favouritism at its worst. This season is already done and dusted. I can only conclude the new sporting director has a massive problem clearing up after his predecessor mess over the pass couple of seasons. Just hope he has the bottle to make his presence felt during the transfer window.

Love it when someone else takes ages just to type out what I think.

There isn't a thread yet so I'm using this one as it has the words "New Year" in the title... I would like to wish every poster (on this side of the forum but also on the football side) a very Happy New Year. I guess we may need a thread on new year's resolutions soon. But, Liz Truss has it in for many folk on this side of the forum...which I must confess has given a big laugh (imagine that is actually your New Year's message😅). Anyway, to all you in the anti-growth coalition...🥂🍻🥂

Just noticed SISU is on NOW TV. That's tonight's viewing sorted out 👍

I hope he isn't in the squad

Was it green?

We will get our next manager from Temu And I ain’t talking Pukki

I find it hard to imagine any ambitious manager whose career’s on an upward trajectory would want to come and work within our current structure…. where there’s no money (having been p1ssed up against the wall), where our main assets will be sold in the summer, where there’s such incompetence at Board level and where the elderly owner is so out of touch and deluded that she’s calling her customers ‘whingers’ for having the temerity to question what hell’s going on. There’s certainly no way someone as ambitious and well regarded as Potter would come here to work in such a set-up.

Our next manager should be someone most of us have ever heard of - a young coach from somewhere in Europe or South America with a record of playing good football; someone we can get behind because he's trying to do the right things the right way, using players who can improve.

I don’t want cheap or available next personally

Excellent post. Sums up the position we’re in perfectly. Lack of patience in people is astounding.

There really is some excessively negative dross on this board sometimes. Some people are commenting on him like he stole all their Christmas presents or something. Let's be honest, how much are our midfielders offering our strikers at the moment? Who is realistically expecting Barnes to have banged in goal after goal since he came back from injury with this service? Give him a break. And people slagging him off for getting wound-up by a Millwall team literally elbowing him then persistently surrounding him like jackals. Which team do you actually support?

I'm on record as highlighting the reasons as to why Duffy would be a poor signing before he kicked a ball for us. And constantly defended Sargent as a #9 whilst deriding his role as a wide player. The issue remains the lack of consistency in signing players to work in a formation suited to their strengths (or conversely playing a formation suited to the strengths they have.) Ironically both Sara and Nunez would work better in the 3 man midfield that they were originally signed to play in. Without going in to the Farke elements on which I suspect everybody has a pretty entrenched viewpoint, I have an unsubstantiated pet theory that Webber wanted to go after keeping us up on our last visit to the Premier League through his transfer brilliance and visionary tactical transformation post-Buendia. When that didn't work we've just bounced around between various conflicting approaches all of which were designed to send him off on a high but which have served only to leave us with a mess of a squad. Yes we've signed some decent players amidst the frogs, but we've done so without a coherent tactical vision which has resulted in a squad which is significantly less than the sum of its parts. This is exactly what a Sporting Director is supposed to mitigate.

Part of me thinks he’s young and ambitious and making a step up, part of me thinks he’s easily controllable by the higher ups. Ill give him time, but he’s got to do something as this window approaches. Doing nothing is not an option.

The trouble is, in the pond we're fishing in, will the next manager fare any better. I'm not a fan of chopping and changing the manager quite so often. Let's see what January brings and then take it from there..

We cannot write the season off. Seasons can change very quickly. We absolutely could make the top 6 and win the playoffs with a bit more competency about the place.

I can’t remember feeling this despondent and uninspired by a Norwich team for years. I just want the season to end as quickly as possible in the hope that we then see Wagner sacked and a complete overhaul of the squad. I’m not expecting us to be competing for promotion for years but I’d at least like to be able to support a young team being coached to play good football rather than watching the dross produced by all these has beens (never beens). I’m just a non local arm chair fan who can’t even to be bothered to watch via a stream anymore so my thoughts are with all you season ticket holders who have paid and therefore will have to endure more of this rubbish.

So just as an outdated 12000 stadium wasn't right for Brentford & Luton, 27k Carrow Road isn't right for Norwich

I usually have a pints of wine. I find 2 bottles splits nicely into 3 pints with the third pint having enough space at the top for wobbles!

A rather pleasant day at Kew Gardens yesterday for an exhibition and a wander. Some great Victorian architecture and a glorious Mexican Swamp Cypress. I didn't get a photo of the massive Sequoia though.

The obvious answer to all of the above is no playing this kind of variant 4-4-2 formation does not work and suits nobody except perhaps Barnes. It has been obvious to me all season that 4-2-3-1 suits our squad and players best snd would leave us less exposed on the counter if at least one of the 2 can be positionally disciplined. Personally I would play Nunez and Gibbs as the 2 and then Sainz, Sara and Rowe behind Sargent with Kenny dropping back into the back four again. Re Idah, what we have learnt is he’s a super sub. Which made the decision to go with the team he did at WBA rather strange as playing the extra midfielder v Hudds had actually resulted in one of our best displays for some time

Hard to disagree with much of this, Petriix. I do think Sara plays in more attacking positions than people think. He doesn't end up being a DLP, and often ends up in good positions but I thought he was lazy with his passing and took the safe option far too often. The manager has to take some responsibility because it's his job to get the player performing. This is vs Millwall. It's a bit deeper than you'd like but a 20% adjustment and suddenly it's about as attacking as you'd like him to be. I don't think Barnes offers enough to consistently play that weird fake 10 role that ends up being a second striker. After we spent the last prem season trying to build a team to play it and Farke obviously not rating it I really do think this team suits a 4-3-3 yet we never play it. I think if you had a midfield of Nunez, Sara, Gibbs / Mclean you've got more midfield options more passing options and still giving license to Rowe and Sainz without quite so much work tracking back as the midfields can cover fullback areas more effectively.

I think him and Nunez are both better further up and can unlock defences to create chances. Wasted hanging around the center of defence or on the halfway line with all that side to side passing.

Agree with everything you say, but whatever Knapper does / doesn’t do is within the context of the ridiculous situation he finds himself in; where his predecessor is married to a senior executive at the club and where the majority shareholder recently assured Wagner that his job was safe and used the AGM to sob over the departure of his predecessor. It’s a disgrace and a complete joke.

TBF Tim has ensured that through his selfless dedication to providing cheap alcohol, tens of thousands of police officers and NHS workers are kept usefully employed every night of the week.

Said it before. How we got here is a catalogue of disasters. An acting CEO who has never got anywhere near that position before. An SD working 2/3rds of their notice. A replacement SD who has never been an SD before . Nephew Tom doesn’t really count to be honest. Apparently he has a lot to offer. At least that was the message when he joined the board 7 years ago. Oh for a Bowkett, McNally , inspired Webber even someone with the gravitas of Balls. Add in a manager who is on the upward career curve , not one who has been sacked twice before he came to us. Imagine coming into work . Where is the inspiration?

Thought this thread would be the best place for this. It’s mainly my thoughts on how Knapper may be going about his business, as well as some wider thoughts on analytics in football too. The weird dichotomy between sporting director & head coach. The SD (and recruitment team/analysts) will have an idea of what the best team is. The HC will also have an idea of what the best team is. These 2 ideas may not (and often don’t) line up. That’s why it’s still important to have at least some input from the HC in the recruitment process, the SE might think he’s the best player in the world but if the coach doesn’t rate him then his minutes will be limited. As the SD in control of the overarching football strategy, Knapper will have to decide through a number of possible outcomes as I see it: Players good, coach bad Players bad, coach good Players bad, coach bad Players good, coach good Of these 4, number 4 feels certainly unlikely. Had our underlying numbers been better you could make a case that it’s simply variance but we’re beyond that point imo. If 3 is the true outcome then Knapper will have a lot of work to do, as it would mean that our analyst side is also failing. Even so, he could initially begin to remedy this by a change of manager. This is certainly easier for him as the new, incoming SD. As it stands I think we’re now in the process of figuring out whether 1 is the current outcome. The inclusion of Nunez/Sainz points to this in my opinion. In this 2 other issues arise. They are: How much should a SD influence the starting XI How do we evaluate coaches Number 1 - of how a SD can influence lineup selection, and how far they should do so is a tricky one, as any move to do so would be seen as undermining the head coach (who generally love to have as much power as possible). Attanasio’s input may be crucial here and allow knapper the power to make changes. In baseball, the front office will have a significant impact on lineup construction, the key difference with football however is the tactical element. In baseball your best hitters have to hit (and play some defence, but there’s less importance placed on that), in football there’s a myriad of roles to perform and most of them are in service to the team as a whole. The obvious way of sorting out the lineup disparity between SD and HC is for the SD to tell them who to pick, and I suspect this is what has happened. Considering results under Wagner weren’t exactly great I imagine Knapper quietly ‘suggested’ how about he try some other players. The other way to fix the issue is by making it nigh on impossible for the HC to select anyone other than their chosen lineup. Webber was particularly good at this in regards to promoting youth players but perhaps worse with first teamers. However, when push comes to shove if a HC isn’t playing the squad the SD sees as the best, and results are poor, the only outcome is sacking the HC. Whether this is what happened with Farke I don’t know but Smith’s first game featuring Cantwell & Gilmour seemed pointed. The 2nd issue of evaluating coaches is probably the hardest thing in the sport. As anyone who has seen my posts on here will know, I’m certainly an advocate for a more data/analytics heavy approach in the sport but the one area where I disagree most is this. The prevailing analytical thought surrounding coaches is that they aren’t all that impactful, and any impact they do have comes from making players better, which in turn comes back to the point of having good players. My view is that a lot of player ‘improvements’ you see is due to a functional side which knows how it’s trying to play, and that style is an effective one. I don’t think Ipswich’s true talent level is above ours, but I do think they’re incredibly well coached as a team. Overall, my view is that we’re probably reaching the end point of the process where Knapper decides what the issues are. What his decision will be we don’t know, and he may take the view that there’s nothing to be done between now and next season. The problem for him is that the SD can be as beholden to results as the HC, and if he decides the issue isn’t Wagner then the changes required will be slow (we can’t buy a new squad overnight) and perhaps not in view (analysis team).

True, and perhaps the caretaker approach would be a clearer step towards a longer-term change. I imagine the club are probably put off the cost of it. I would expect Wagner knows the situation, at best he probably sees it as a chance to stake his claim to be the manager for the rebuild but won't be surprised when he's moved on. Realistically I doubt this stops the club speaking to other managers and sounding them out. As a hypothetical thought experiment, would you take an unfashionable but effective option like Warnock as a caretaker coach?

Go for Potter.

I appreciate your eagerness to write the season off and to dismiss Barnes as a 'thug', but I disagree entirely on both counts. The season is barely half way through and we've not seen Sainz and Sarge play together so there's very much more to come from this current setup, and that's ignoring any possible additions in January. In regards to Barnes, look at our results with him in the team vs not - we lost 6 out of 9 when he was injured, and then went on a great run of form when he returned. As we were on a great run when he and Sarge were playing together start of season. As for being a thug, Nunez, Rowe and Sara each have more championship yellow cards this season. So may I suggest he's a lot smarter and wiser than you give him credit? Let's not forget that his role in this team is to do the dirty work and be the pest with Sarge offering the work-rate, mobility and finishing. It's the combination of that kind of pressure backed up with the likes of Rowe and Sainz that really excites me second half of the season. It will not be a coincidence that we'll see a vast improvement having our first choice players fit and available. In my opinion, the time to bottle it was when we were losing players, not regaining them.

Didn’t Glenn Middleton think something similar, so he left us to go to Rangers? I believe he’s currently tearing it up for Dundee United. 😐 :- |