Barham Blitz

Eh ? He has exactly as much bargaining power as anybody else. Probably more so than a player for whom a club is paying a transfer fee as the club don't have to account for said transfer fee in the overall cost.

Couldn't see a route to the first team you say ... 🤔 He may have had a point ...

Whilst I'm certainly not a fan of Wagner's approach, I think that this is probably fairly close to the reality. Given the defensive resources available to him which - with the potential exception of a fit Hanley - are really not suited to a high line but which are perfect for a low block, it could just be a more pragmatic approach. Almost more of a Mourinho anti-possession approach than the Klopp-lite pressing that we saw earlier in the season but which was rendered pretty much unworkable by centre back pairings that can't condense the midfield space with a high line because they are too vulnerable to pace. That said, it would still be nice if we could occasionally pass to a yellow shirt on the counter ...

I've just added my vote to your 71% - does that take you to Delia's fabled if ill-portending 80% ... ?

Thanks TGS - as @Petriix responded that is excellent company to be in and I'd agree that would also rate all three of you as posters that I would always look out for - we seem to share a similar footballing world view which probably helps. I'd obviously also add in @ricardo not just for the excellent match reports but also for his occasional interjections as the forum's voice of reason who reminds us all when necessary as to the reasons why we all support this little club of ours (often despite everything.) I also like posters who are able to add to my own meagre sum of knowledge - @shefcanary and @PurpleCanary in particular on the finance threads - and @Parma Ham's gone mouldy who often makes me see things a little differently in terms of the footballing side of things. His Masterclass and State of the Nation Threads have consistently been the most thought-provoking things on this forum and seem to attract more reasonable and reasoned discussion and less shouting into the void and feuding than some of the threads on here. True Grit will always remain the pinnacle of Forum posting for me though Clive, albeit run close by whoever it was that used to claim that they had a greater insight into the game because their bigger screen TV would show more of the action ...

He is very good at heading things away from the edge of the area or last gasp lunging tackles which is basically what our recent tactical approach seems to require. Anything else, not so great. I'd also pick a fit Hanley ahead of him, which given my opinion of Hanley is more of an indictment than a compliment...

Spurs fan forum about to melt down with why aren't we Norwich threads.... https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/feb/11/tottenham-new-stadium-no-cheese-room-spurs?CMP=share_btn_tw

Duffy is perfect for defending crosses in his own penalty area in a very low block. Anything more adventurous and the problems start. Perhaps Wagner has looked at his centre back options and decided on this Rorke's Drift formation as the way to get the best out of them ...

I think it was quite well documented that he wanted to ship out Max and / or Todd but that nobody came in with any decent offers. Max as evidenced by all sorts of "leaks" around continental interest which never materialised into anything concrete, Todd to the extent that he was shipped out to the Championship on a loan to buy which wasn't ultimately taken up. And we were pretty convinced we'd get Skipp back right up to the change of management at Spurs. And the public line was that Covid had put an approximately Emi-sized hole in the finances so we were £30m or so down on where we would have expected to be. Which doesn't exempt our transfer dealings that summer from criticism by any means, but there were some mitigating factors. Personally, if there was any chance of him staying I'd have thrown a fair bit at Emi to stay for another season - with a new contract and a release clause if necessary - and stuck with the approach that we had with a couple of hopefully judicious upgrades, but @Google Bot's assertion of Webber being convinced that he can turn rocks into diamonds on demand rings pretty true to me. If Emi was dead set on going (which I'm not totally convinced was irrevocably the case) then as I've suggested elsewhere the eventual tactical plan wasn't entirely without merit despite much evidence to the contrary. But we needed two more industrious wide men than Rashica and Tzolis (the failings of whom led to Sargent blundering around out of position for half a season,) better midfield recruitment than Gilmour (who to be fair had looked decent for Scotland that summer) PLM and Normann and a more appropriate centre back than the frustrated midfielder Kabak. It would also probably have needed Sargent to play instead of Pukki up front. As it was, it was doomed to expensive failure almost from the outset and basically undid the previous 3 years of development in one summer.

I've said the same previously. His punditry / analysis was outstanding and he has done a good job at Hull.

And Darius Vassell evidently had the negatives of that incident at the Christmas party ...

He kept falling for the fallacy that just putting the best players together in a rigid 4-4-2 together made the best team... A very English decision to appoint - as our first overseas coach - a manager absolutely steeped in the English way of playing. That said, I always liked Eriksson in the way that he came across as a person. A very dry sense of humour and a sense that he could never quite believe how much money people were prepared to pay him to manage football teams, nor the effect that this seemed to have on the ladies ... A horrible diagnosis and disease - but I'm sure that Sven will make the beat of the time remaining to him. And we'll always have Munich ...

I'd completely forgotten about that bizarre little interlude. Our version of Tactics Tim Sherwood.

The netting paid for itself then. Was that the first iteration of the City Bond scheme ?

He was signed as an attacking midfielder but I'll disagree with you here for once as I do think his best position is further back in a double pivot, albeit in a more possession based midfield with considerably more structural coherence than ours currently offers. For me he certainly isn't a game changer further forward and it mildly baffles me as to why Wagner seems to think he is. He isn't a full on purely destructive defensive midfielder though, I'll grant you that. But he does offer a decent touch, passing range and work rate and had previously shown some tactical nous as well as the ability to receive the ball under pressure, much of which is lacking in most of our other options there. I suspect he'll end up in the deeper role, and I also think that there is a player there.

Never had the proverbial yard of pace to lose so can probably keep going indefinitely ... I was a big fan of his back in the day though - and actually thought he was a bit underused towards the end of his time here. We seemed to ditch him for - presumably the greater mobility and workrate of - Steve Morison pretty unceremoniously when I thought he might actually be quite a useful player that first Premier season under Lambert. Whenever I've seen him in recent seasons he still has the touch but has definitely descended into one of those Sharp-elbowed Grumpy Senior pros. Whoever is marking him won't have to run far, but they'll definitely know they've been in a game.

I love this post for many reasons, but these two lines in particular - to choose two random values just plucked out of thin air and absolutely not referencing any transfer activity of the relatively recent past ... In my line of work, when we are resourcing a contract we have to consider various potentialities across the duration of that contract - what happens if things don't go entirely according to plan, either positively or negatively - and so plan various entry and exit strategies to minimise risk and maximise the value that can be derived from the deployment of these resources. Given the money spent on the likes of Rashica and Tzolis - and indeed latterly Forshaw, Batth and Duffy - I'm really not sure that is the case with some of our recruitment decisions, even accounting for relegation release clauses. Which given the likelihood - despite even our best efforts in terms of planning - of the negative outcome, seems somewhat negligent. Three teams get relegated very year after all, even if all 20 plan flawlessly. Perhaps, if a former Sporting Director is reading this, particularly one who has previously acquired a widget for next to nothing and sold it for say £35m, one might append a small disclaimer to any subsequent transfer decisions along the lines of "past performance does not guarantee future results." What is the plan if the plan doesn't go according to plan ... ?

Absolutely this. By all means tweak tactics to reflect the realities of the division that we are in, but those tweaks have to accommodate the various (and likely) outcomes involved. What we don't do - unless perhaps we are attempting to secure our short term legacy ...😉- is gamble the farm on players to fit a new system (especially if they don't actually fit that system - and / or the system doesn't work anyway) and in particular if those players have no intention of staying beyond a likely relegation which will adversely affect their resale value, either through underperformance or the discount that seems to be applied for wantaway players. We certainly don't flip flop between systems for which different types of players are required because if the system "required" to stay in the Premier League is then incompatible with or negates the system on which our strengths at the level below is based, then basic maths will highlight the double whammy as we have to move on players who will in all likelihood have depreciated in value and replace them. Or - as we've seen - end up less likely to bounce back. And even relegation clauses won't mask the fact that you end up overpaying in the Championship for players that have had Premiership wages and can't move them on as a result. As has been highlighted, there is a difference between what gets you up and what (may) keep you up. But even throwing five times the budget that we have historically been able to afford at the issue offers no guarantees, so there has to be some notion of what comes after. Which is why I'm not an advocate of tearing up the possession blueprint and throwing all our eggs in the low block gegenpressing basket to stay in a division that we aren't even in, given that it makes it more difficult to get there in the first place and more difficult to get back once the reality of financial gravity takes hold. Plus it makes the whole experience just that little bit less fun.

If Sorenson could get fit and stays fit he is exactly the template of the CDM for Wagner's system that we have been missing given his ability to drop back into a 3 and ability on the ball. Two very big ifs on his records over the past couple of years but I can't imagine he is on big money so I'd say worth an extension if he gets back playing.

I'd consider a buyout from Red Bull. Should perk up McCallum's tracking back if nothing else ... But only on the condition that they rebranded as Yellow Bull ...

Sort of. I personally dislike the gegenpress elements of Wagner's approach as well as the central midfield set up and the related demands on the full-backs as I think each massively over-commits personnel and leaves us so vulnerable to the counter. The emphasis on pressing also seems to result in a lack of proactive creativity either through limitations of personnel or system - we seem so focused on trying to force errors and high turnovers that we don't really seem to have a plan for what we do with the ball once we do get it beyond 'give it to Gabby.' And I might add we remain not particularly effective at the pressing bit either. It all just seems a bit manic out of possession whilst simultaneously being too ponderous in possession. I'm not against pressing - indeed one of the principal criticisms of the Farke side for me was the lack of pressing - but Wagner seems to be making it an end in itself with the tactical setup rather than the means. It sounds perverse given my many criticisms of this side, but with a couple of additions and a tactical tweak or two I don't think we are a million miles away from being an effective side in this division. I've outlined in a post on this thread a couple of days ago how I'd go about it in terms of roles and personnel so I won't reiterate all that again you'll all be delighted to hear. Then ask me again if we get promoted ...

Sadly I can't claim the credit for that one as it was flagrantly stolen from a Barney Ronay article a few years ago on Wenger era Arsenal. But I feel equally wonderfully applicable to Farke era Norwich.

I take your point, but wasn't Farke's defensive strategy largely based on the fact that if the opposition didn't have the ball they were unlikely to score ? Or would at least be too knackered after running around after it ? I also think that the optimism from 20/21 was more to do with the game management rather than the defence necessarily being any better. It just looked a bit less edge of the seat we'll score more than you and a bit more control and seeing out the game after we go ahead. Essentially Skipp's positional discipline, nose for trouble and simple passing instead of another skill-gnome flicking the ball riskily around corners. Of course plan A went out of the window when it became clear that Skipp and Emi weren't going to be there, so we ended up with that odd collection of Wingers who didn't want to be here and however you'd care to describe what passed for a midfield that year. For the record, although he would have been a significant improvement on what we ended up with, Skipp would not have made as much of a difference as would have been necessary even if we had managed to keep him. I would almost absolutely agree that recent history would suggest that possession football is the way to get out of the division. I don't necessarily agree that this need to be completely ditched in the Premier League, but it does need to be tempered with a quicker transition and greater defensive solidity. History would also tend to suggest that teams with a Holt / Lambert / Toney style striker, physical but technical enough to hang on to the ball and allow the midfield to catch up generally have the best chance of staying up. For all my and everybody else's justifiable criticisms of our last top flight tactics and recruitment, there was a grain of sanity there. A midfield three with a running 8, and two vertical passers starting in a low block with two quick wide players is one way of approaching it. The issue was one of recruitment. At the risk of summoning the Dark Knight, neither Normann PLM or Gilmour were either progressive or physical enough to perform the roles required of them. More importantly, the wide players can't be traditional chalk on the boots attackers, but also need to do a shift defensively whilst being mobile enough to get up and beyond the striker. I think we can all agree that isn't what we got or indeed could expect with Tzolis and Rashica, whatever virtues they may bring to their current teams. And if you are going to play this system, then for all his GOAT status you don't have Pukki leading the line - you have your Holt or your Lambert or your Toney to hang on to it for a precious few seconds. I suspect this is why we signed Sargent and why we threw the five year contract at Idah. But Sargent put his boots on the wrong feet for the first half of that season and ended up filling in for wide players unable to do the defensive yards and Idah's lack of progression basically ensured Pukki remained undroppable despite being absolutely the wrong player for the system that Webber (I'll mischievously leave it there) was trying to deploy. I also suspect that the underlying principles of this approach is the sort of basis that Wagner has been somewhat ham-fistedly working towards, albeit with a lurch towards a Klopp-lite gegenpress as the philosophical bedrock at the expense of the faster more vertical transitioning but still largely possession based football which is where I would probably look to go. Again, as oft stayed, even at this level the recruitment hasn't been great (with the possible exceptions of Sainz and Stacey) and I've outlined previously my issues with the structural flaws in his approach which I actually think would be enormously magnified a division above. In the Farke era (last season aside) we recruited players with specific skillsets to fit a specific system. Some worked better than others - that's the reality of rummaging in the bargain basement - but there was for better or worse a plan. Since then we have signed a lot of players fundamentally unsuited to what we are trying to do, just as we did in the Premier League in that second season. I guess that my overall point is that it would be possible to play a possession based game in the Championship and then tweak it slightly to a lower block fast transitioning but overall more pragmatic system in the Premiership with the judicious addition of a few players selected expressly for the roles required of them as outlined above. Or rather it would have been had we not thrown all of the Emi cash at a couple of wide players with potential resale value but none of the required attributes, and loaned a callow if potentially gifted teenager with no defensive instincts and an insta ready mercenary made of glass. But I've been on my soapbox often enough on that point ... This is the least of what I expect Knapper to be rationalising and driving over the coming seasons. A clarity as to what is required of the roles at each level and a recruitment to make it happen, hopefully without massive clear outs on promotion or relegation or changes of head coach.

This sums up my feelings towards Wagner's approach in general. Gearing the entire team up to essentially rely on overloads created pretty much solely by winning the ball back high up the pitch with little else to offer creatively and no sense of what to do defensively if this doesn't work is just not sustainable.

I stumbled across some highlights of that match the other day on YouTube. I loved the bravery of that team and it played some utterly sublime football but my word the margin for error in our playing out from the back (that match especially) was breathtakingly small (if terrifyingly exhilarating) at times. Not in the Duffy-dwelling-on-it-too-long-to-draw-the-press-will-he-hoof-it-in-time? kind of exciting, but the one touch triangles under pressure and at pace kind of exciting. It was a beautiful few minutes lost in nostalgia and the contrast to what we've see over the past couple of seasons is astounding. Although given the ultimate outcome of that season, to quote the renowned tactician Woody from Toy Story: 'That wasn't flying. That was falling with style.' I don't necessarily expect City to fly in the modern game, but falling with a bit of style is definitely preferable to just falling. And remember that for a brief glorious period. Buzz couldn't tell the difference - it really felt to him as if he was flying.