Barham Blitz

Blackburn are in severe danger of going down. Only 3 points ahead of Wednesday and still have to play Leeds, Wednesday, Coventry and Leicester...

I don't disagree at all re. Barnes and unlike Wagner I don't see Gibbs as an attacking midfielder / second striker anyway, but there is at least a semblance of logic in playing him off Barnes in that situation. Fassnacht and Barnes together was just daft. It just shows our lack of options up front without Idah - once Gibbs went off though I agree we should absolutely have gone with another striker to offer some form of outlet ball though.

Gibbs at least brings energy alongside the terminally immobile Barnes. Replacing Gibbs with (the only slightly less immobile than Barnes) Fassnacht on the other hand was absolutely handing the initiative over, particularly given how Wednesday couldn't cope with any semblance of movement defensively. They could throw everything at us with no fear of any counter. There was one moment towards the end where Barnes was second to a ball two yards away from him when he had a four yard start on the defender.

Apparently you set the cine film rolling and then a bloke emerges out of your living room floor playing an old style cinema organ.

They won't be though. If it even looks likely, I'm sure Stockley Park and their squiggly lines will intervene to ensure the correct result and avoid a fixture pile up ...

From the first two sentences I thought it was going to be a neo-Marxist explanation as to how the intricacies of Wagner's tactical structure meant that he couldn't play Sainz or Van Hooijdonk for weeks. But then I realised it was just mildly amusing Delia bashing.

As the BBC have just commented, no pressure on Stacey this half then ...

I once played in a local league game where I scored an own goal, gave away the penalty to make it two nil, then scored two headers from corners to gain a draw. Still maintain it was a dive for the penalty mind.

In an unrelated professional capacity I have heard it suggested that UEA are in some financial bother at the moment and are undergoing some pretty significant cost-cutting exercises if that is likely to have had any bearing (haven't read the article ...)

It certainly shows how long Shilton kept the top spot for. And Banks before him. We basically only had two goalkeepers for the national side for over 30 years - the period of indecision with Clemence aside.

Thanks - not read that one so I shall fire up the Kindle this evening ...

If you are in to the evolution of football tactics have a look at Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson. Really interesting book and not as dry as it sounds ...

That's a really interesting stat Hoggy - certainly at odds with my yellow tinted recollection of the season although thinking back Krul did come up with some blinding performances that year. I'd be interested to compare it with the previous promotion season - perhaps my benchmark was particularly low as a result of that - or indeed the premiership season in between - and any improvement seemed exponential ! We did concede 21 fewer goals than the first promotion season (36 as opposed to 57 which is quite a difference) but equally scored 18 fewer (75 as opposed to 93) for a fairly similar overall points breakdown so perhaps the illusion of control was offered by the fact that we just didn't have as many 5 goal thrillers that year !

That was the tragedy of Farke's second promotion squad - with Skipp and some tweaks in the set up, the game management was so much better than the first promotion season and the whole thing just seemed so controlled in comparison. It boded so well for another crack at the Premier League. But then Spurs changed manager and wanted another look at Skipp. And for whatever reason Emi moved on and suddenly the blueprint was aflame ...

That's both the strength and the weakness of Farke though isn't it ? To an extent, his approach was almost Lobanovskian - players knew where their teammates would be at any given moment and could play simple or no look one-touch passes: the collective effect was certainly greater than the sum of the collective parts and where that didn't suffice there was the vision and touch of Emi combined with the movement and finishing of Pukki available to add the necessary stardust if required. But without that weaponish ability to unlock a defence or create and finish a half chance it can appear a little sterile or one dimensional and be relatively easily defended - just remain disciplined and sit narrow and deep and wait for the misplaced pass. I think it is one of the reasons why so many of those relatively recent players have been less successful after leaving (with the obvious exceptions of the star-dust sprinklers Buendia and Maddison if you can count him in this context) - success was less about their individual ability and more about their fit in the collective. We had a lot of average players in a side that performed beyond itself as a whole - particularly in the championship - because with Emi and Pukki (as a gross over-simplification) all the rest needed to do was to make a run, control a ball, make a short pass and repeat. And you didn't need to be a world beater to fit in doing that. Whereas now we are asking Grant Hanley to pick out a winger from 40 yards under pressure with predictable results ...

I rarely find myself disagreeing with Parma - and in this instance rather than outright disagreeing, I'd suggest that my my point is a little more nuanced (as indicated by the parenthesised (if that's a word) "probably" in my reply if nothing else !) I absolutely agree that we have sold our Farkeball "weapons" - but really in that era what were the weapons in Parma's definition ? Buendia ? Pukki to an extent ? maybe even Vrancic ? I'd actually argue that rather than individual players, the overall possession based system / approach was the actual weapon - the thing that forced the big tactical switches from the opposition, at least at this level. I'm not sure that opposing Championship teams altered their tactical plan to counter specific players particularly in that era which was at least part of his definition. But your point still stands - whatever it was, we no longer have it. To be clear, my point was more a response to the "anyway" element of the question "‘Do we have enough good players to compete anyway?’" which i took to interpret as would a tactical approach without the deliberate structural imbalances achieve a similar or better outcome than the current squad / approach has managed. Which on the face of it is a borderline playoff position, albeit one achieved with some unfortunate injuries (plus ca change.) I'd also suggest that in our hypothetical world, different signings would (or at least should) have been made to fit a non-Wagnerian tactical plan (and yes, i can cherry-pick Sainz as fitting my brave alternative vision and leave out Duffy and Batth if i want to ...) Last season after half a season of Smith (5th - but only 3 points off 16th) and just under half a season of Wagner we finished 13th with 62 points so I'm not sure that the bar is set too high - particularly given that more or less the entire season saw Teemu chasing around after lost causes again in a spectacular case of the wrong tactical horse for the wrong tactical course. If we aren't Farkeballing, Sargent is a more effective all round front man - and his goals per minute ratio in a team that hasn't been without it's struggles is an absolute bonus. It is however very difficult to explain how I'd do things in a post without writing War and Peace ! I can probably bullet point it if challenged. The key difference would be to avoid the current situation of sometimes finding ourselves with 6 men on or ahead of the ball - both full backs, at least one of the central midfield, two widish players and two strikers. The maths just doesn't add up in transition. particularly with two slow centre-backs. Overall, I'd not be quite as kamikaze with both full backs playing as auxiliary wingers for 90 minutes - one (the non-active side in any move) needs to either make a back three or tuck in as a second pivot if we have a (god-forbid) CDM / single pivot Deep Playmaker (the Kenny QB role) dropping into defence. The fullbacks can rotate back as play switches. Basically anything to avoid being countered with the 3-1-6 formation that we seem to have adopted when on the attack. If that involves a single striker and a more "midfieldy" Barnes alternative then I'm more than fine with that. No reason not to be a bit more fluid about the whole thing, whilst retaining basic principles. I like Kenny as a CB. I don't mind Gibson as a CB but they do essentially the same job (progressive ball playing defender) with different emphases and the same relative weaknesses (aerial ability, pace, very much left-footedness.) So one should play alongside either Hanley or Duffy (much as I would personally move them both on as both lack the necessary composure on the ball) as a complementary pairing. The fullbacks are mainly ok to decent at this level so no real issues if no real strengths there. Gunn has developed into a top end Champs keeper. We sort of assume that we don't have the players to play a more possession based system and that rather than the Farke-esque probing and quick give and goes to pull the opposition of of their defensive shape we need to storm into attack in overwhelming force. I'm not sure that is the case (although I'm not necessarily angling for a return to pure Farkeball either) - Sara, Nunez, Rowe, Sainz, Gibbs and even Fassnacht would all be more than capable from the current squad. I'm all for quick transitions - indeed it was something that we were really good at times with Pukki's channel runs - we have the personnel to achieve that, and it should absolutely remain a focus, but even now there aren't any real technical duffers in the midfield / attacking areas so there is no reason why we can't play a more patient / structured game if the initial foray doesn't present a chance. At the moment, if a move slows we often just look a bit confused and uncomfortable in possession, essentially trying to force things, essentially by throwing more attackers at the problem which is where the problems start. The urge to create space behind the opposition press through the slightly flawed medium of having the least technical players in the team pass it amongst themselves before making a long pass - as opposed to passing into a player capable of receiving it under pressure and finding the run of a team mate with a short pass into space - is another manifestation of this, not helped by having Sargent and Barnes dropping in as the de facto midfield outlets. As Parma has identified, it creates a really interesting space that as a result of the defensive obligations of the wide attackers, we currently don't have anybody moving in to - surely absolutely perfect for a Rowe or a Sainz if they are slightly freed from their defensive obligations by having their full back and a least a couple of midfielders behind them. In any event, for all that overloads are catnip to managers, as my old coach used to tell me, you can always support an attack from behind the ball - a simple approach but one i think might make the world of difference to this team with a structural tweak or two, and one which i think could be achieved by this group if they were asked to.

I remember jokingly suggesting after a couple of weeks of him being here that Wagner seemed to be trying to implement the "old up and at 'em" WM formation much beloved by Hebert Chapman in the 1930s but humour aside, it isn't actually wildly removed. It seems to me just a really crude method of creating overloads - essentially almost (and yes, I do "get" the boxes / inverting / pressing elements of Wagnerball) a case of "if more of you go and stand over there we'll outnumber them." Which is fine until the opposition has control of the situation (ie. the ball) at which point they go and do pesky things like put the ball behind our overload and create one of their own. At it's best, we occasionally look fluid and dangerous and adventurous as we transition quickly and effectively swarm the opposition by weight of numbers. Plus, some very good players at this level - or at least players capable of the eye-catching in this setup - Rowe / Sara / Nunez / Sargent / Sainz. But as I've said before it is very much the footballing equivalent of a boxer flailing haymakers in an all out attack - against weaker opponents we may land a knockout punch but there is a significant risk against a more technical counterpuncher of leaving ourselves wildly vulnerable (as @Fen Canary has demonstrated.) It is also significant that we seem to veer wildly to the other defensive extreme when faced with an opponent that we feel is threatening - the lowest of low blocks, midfield camped in front of our back four, no passing through midfield, draw the press on to our defence before playing out etc. Wagner knows that his standard approach is a massive throw of the dice / All-in numbers based gamble and that it would be picked apart by a team with even a semblance of control, hence the plan B yin to his plan A yang. So we have two tactical extremes which seem largely pre-determined before kick off - and nothing much between that could be considered to represent an attempt at in game control (although to be fair. there do seem to have been some signs in the last month or so that we are developing a little in this respect.) As you'd hope / expect, it seems to be working more effectively with our first choice XI out there, and it looks as if it may even squeak us in to the playoffs, but for me @Parma Ham's gone mouldy has summed up my doubts in the following two questions - 2. ‘Do we have enough good players to compete anyway?’ 3. ‘Are the tactical compromises in creating this structural weapon worth it?’ At this level, my answers would be (probably) Yes and No - on both counts it is actually pretty telling how many of our goals this season have been individual moments of brilliance rather than something inexorably crafted from systematic pressure. At a higher level, even with this approach we would need to develop some method of joining the two plans together beyond the current crude numbers game (at both extremes) as otherwise we'll be looking back on the Hughton era as a halcyon dream of free-flowing attacking football.

Whilst you have to admire anyone who apparently sells football boots by the inch (and indeed eschews fancy-Dan new-fangled black boots) it would seem that they are from so long ago that players were smaller than they are now. Or alternatively I have giant clown feet. Or perhaps - as anybody who saw me play back in December might suggest - a little of both ... But I'll bookmark that page anyway in case the call comes again ...

I got asked to play in an eleven aside on grass for the first time in about twelve years a couple of months ago. Having decided that my old boots were basically knackered I went out to buy a new pair. It was surprisingly difficult to find anything that I wouldn't term hi-vis which - as a pushing fifty year old centre half - I really didn't think I could carry off with a straight face ...

Harsh. But entirely fair

Can't believe this has been up for an hour and no mention of Duffy or Barnes ... What's ours called ? Canariasaurus ? Duffyplodocus ? Kennysaurus Rex (ironically not much good at pointing ...) ?

Weirdly I actually own a Farsley Celtic away shirt. Went to see them play Oxford in an FA Cup tie as their ground isn't far from where a mate of mine lives. A few beers too many later I decided that buying us each a replica shirt that cost more than my Norwich one at the time was an excellent idea ... Strange little club - 3 sided ground with netting covering off a big drop on one side at the time - no idea if it has changed. They had a couple of ex pros playing for them - Carl Serrant and another one whose name I recognised but have since forgotten - and excellent half time chips. Still my FM starting team ...

I'd agree entirely - and have done at probably tedious length on various other threads - but that's a whole different conversation ... 😉

To be fair, in the early part of the first season back under Farke we got lots of positive media coverage - largely about the way that we played. Second time, not so much - probably because we were no longer a novelty so not so many clicks and we had gone from plucky little Norwich who nearly went bust to parachute payment Norwich unfairly gaming the championship by not spending their premiership money to stay up. Plus we were awful. I don't begrudge Luton their time in the limelight - the media spotlight will move on soon enough one way or another. They've given it a really good go on a limited budget and have certainly ruffled a few feathers along the way - Barkley in particular has been a revelation.

No prizes for guessing who is first up ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/68338914