Morph

@nutty nigel I consider myself suitably chastised and corrected. Out of interest on that list of expensive buys how many were Webbers? And the question is not about finding a stick to beat him with.

I guess my follow up would be is it something we think Knapper would go back to? Or should go back to? Should we have an identity? And yes, @ZLF I totally get that Webber abandoned it on the second promotion to the EPL, ironically doing all those things he complained about with previous regimes splaffing money up the wall.

Have another question for @Parma Ham's gone mouldy When Webber joined us there was talk about adopting a method of playing that permeated the playing hierarchy, the Norwich Way if you like. Something that gave us an identity. Something that gave us a migration path for our youth to the first team. Is this a fanciful idea or is it something that you see put in place on the continent? Something that any head coach that comes in buys into. Players that fit that style of play. You commented that you adapt your tactics to fit your players base tendencies, so is such a Norwich way pie in the sky?

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy do you see Attanasio insisting on such a structure at City once he gets control?

As you say @BroadstairsR this is where our esteemed SD has knackered it so badly after publically complaining about splaffing millions of pounds away and then doing exactly that in his vain hope of giving his man more ammunition. As many fans have said keeping what we had and filling the gaps we may have had made more sense, but no ego got the better of common sense.

Good to see another thoughtful and considered thread. Question is does a Farkeball v2 (say) and overarching vision and strategy get us to the promised land and fixed there or is it simply all pie in the sky? I think the monied clubs have to leave the English game if there is any hope for the rest. Are we happy to be a yo yo club like the early Farke successes or do we have to be something different?

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy that comment suggests to me that you have already noted a flaw in the tactics chosen. If those players will resort to their base tendencies then isn’t it down to the coach to modify his tactics? Not sure where that leaves the club? If a coach is unable to recognise and adjust his tactics accordingly where do we go? It’s like he’ll continue to try the thing that doesn’t work with the inevitable results. At some point surely the players lose faith in that approach and we get the going through the motions efforts. The is the broader question here too, that establishing a way of playing has to involve a willingness to adopt the strategy and stick to it, applying it throughout the playing hierarchy to allow continuity if it is to succeed. Wasn’t that what we tried to do with Farke. At some level the SD has to stick to that plan too even when there are bumps in the road. We seem to have simply abandoned that believing it can’t work leaving ourselves in a colossal mess.

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy you commented in response to my post: At some level Wagner has to shoulder the majority of the blame in where we are given his intransigence to adapt. It seems to be, these are the tactics we will play irrespective of injuries. And those injuries are likely to happen whether he likes it or not. Your comment about Wagner acting as if to say look what I have to work with is him trying to push the blame for his woes on to the players. Can’t see that ending well. It raises another question, where are the leaders on the pitch if the manager has abdicated responsibility? Where’s the professionalism and pride? Saturday will be toxic if he is still in post.

I‘ve been meaning to ask for a while, do you see a solution to City’s current malaise @Parma Ham's gone mouldy with the squad they have, with the current injuries and after they are sorted? If so, is Wagner simply incapable of seeing it himself? Is there a tactical change he should have made when the two key strikers were lost to injury?

If Wagner is sacked is there anything to pay on his rolling contract? If he leaves by Mutual consent can we afford that? Relegation form on the current trajectory

Brilliant once again Daniel. Such a relief from the "inner", "outer", "shake it all abouter" stuff that this forum has become a rest home for in the past 6 months.

Puzzled by this whole question and want some opinions from the other readers of the forum. I''ve seen several posts over the weekend about how we have a piss-poor squad compared the rest of the Premiership, yet we spent over £25M before the season start to improve that squad. Surely the squad has improved just in financial terms, if not in playing terms. So it begs the question if the squad has not improved in playing terms is it because they are worse than the sum of the parts? If they are playing worse than the sum of the parts, what has to happen to make them play better than the sum of the parts? Martin Keown made some interesting comments in the lead up to the Arsenal game on radio yesterday about how Wenger always allowed his players to go out and express themselves even in the context or restrictions of his tactical setup. Get the impression that that is not happening here at City, and perhaps on a simply level is the reason we are currently worse than the sum of the parts. Do we have too many square pegs in round holes?

Your other missing stat: until today Villa had not kept a clean sheet in 26 matches. Goes back to 7th December 2012.

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23723921 Comments on tactics employed as part of the reason for his unhappiness last season.

SkySports transfer watch already reporting that Fer signed to a 4 year deal.

cusdp, "Realistically I can''t see him changing his principles. He''s always played 1 up top and 2 defensive mids." That would not be a problem if he was prepared to let the midfield push forward. There''s a distinct reluctance to do that. QPR game away for me was a game begging for some passion going forward. That was a game there for the taking, but how many times did City attack with just 1 or 2 players. One of the fundamental changes Pochettino seemed to have made at Southampton was to get his midfield players forward in support of the attackers. Chelsea are playing with two holding midfield players, but if one pushes forward the other sits. They don''t both sit. How often do you see Ramires beyond the three advanced midfield players.

nutty, to be honest there seems to be a mindset of get it out of the centre of the park to the wings and hope those lads do their stuff and then the ball into Holt will give us an opening, but we''ve done our bit going forward and we are now told to sit and protect.

nutty, I would agree with you that Swansea have changed this year being allowed to use a more direct ball if that ball is on. But I don''t think they''ve fundamentally changed their ethos in the same way that City have. It''s still about passing and movement - Laudrup has not changed that aspect of their play.

cusdp, "I know for a fact that players are frustrated and want the shackles taken off to express themselves, rather than playing in fear and keeping it tight. " That''s a telling point for me. From what we see the players have been told to restrain their attacking intent. Too many games have been there for the taking, but it''s all been a protect what we have. Will he let them loose on Sunday? The game cries out for a "Your destiny is in your own hands, go out and win the game" mentality. I''m not convinced a point will be enough - though Wigan did look poor defensively last night.

Nutty, do you concur that the change in emphasis has made the "watch" a dull affair? The attacking threat from City has been stifled in preference to defensive solidity. There''s no "bust-a-gut" running from the centre midfield pair trying to get into the box to support the wide players. As Webbo points out the ball into the box has been to one player, no-one falling up for any knock downs or clearances.

Nutty, sorry but I''m partly with unique on this one. Last season does have relevance to the discussion. The players that are common to both seasons - the Pilks et al, played without fear of mistakes under Lambert. Those same players seem to have been given a more rigid framework to play in under Hughton, I would say, to their detriment. Under Lambert the philosophy appears to have been go out and attack, your opponents score 2, you go score 3. Under Hughton it seems to be more a case of go out and make sure you don''t concede focusing on our defensive strength. Unfortunately, you don''t win a game 0-0. So when Hughton''s team concedes his plan appears to fall apart. With Swanseas win last night you can already envisage the mindset for Sunday. Play for the draw, rather than risk getting the win that would guarantee safety,

Would have liked to see the midfield knock the ball beyond him and the Sunderland defence to give him something to run on to. Won a lot of knocks today, with surprisingly people running beyond him - most notably Bennett.

He was very poor in the game against Juventus last night. And even the more appealing Kris Commons (my view from his performance in the first leg against Juve) looked very ordinary. From what I saw in the first leg and in flashes last night Kris Commons could play the Wes role just off the main striker. Though if he, like Hooper, was trying to put himself in the shop window last night, he failed.

pete_norw, auction your signed ball off on ebay. I''d be interested in giving it a look.

I don''t quite understand. Someone correct my illusions on this one. But the Spurs game the side were more up and at ''em. There was movement, there was slick passing. There was belief. Where the hell was that today? And why should that only occur at home? And that was against Spurs, not a team rooted to the foot of the table.