Jump to content

Petriix

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,757

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Posts posted by Petriix

  1. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

    The "end product" wasn't poor - we won 4-2!!

    At the point of the game where the booing occurred the team were struggling to string two passes together and were in the process of letting a two goal lead slip. It's clear that Wagner doesn't have much 'credit in the bank' with many fans because of his overall record at the club and particularly the two long runs of bad form that left many thinking more about relegation than promotion.

    Yes, it came good. The tactical switch was correct. An excellent 60 minutes out of 90. More 'patterns of play' than 'moments of brilliance'. Everything people have been asking for. But that period in the middle was everything people have been (rightly) complaining about: huge holes in the midfield, isolated attackers, poor positioning, losing individual battles. 

    Here's the crunch: the booing runs much deeper than a brief misunderstanding about an injured player. There's a deep frustration amongst fans because the club has effectively self-immolated from a period of playing the best brand of football seen in my time as a supporter to paying some staggeringly high wages to a very average, ageing squad playing questionable tactics. It isn't going to take much for things to boil over. The manager escalating things only serves to make matters worse. Boo indeed! 

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    15 hours ago, The Bunny said:

    Wagner's whole point was that the fans had no idea what the situation was but booed anyway. Your post doesn't contest that, and yet somehow you manage to go from that to blaming Wagner for not understanding the fans' frustration. That is some seriously twisted logic. 

    Not at all. The substitutions were fairly typical of the sort of tactical decisions that Wagner regularly makes. Previously it was Rowe being subbed like clockwork on 60 minutes despite being our best attacking threat. It's entirely reasonable for people to have assumed it was more of the same, especially after the previous game. 

    And, yes, Wagner absolutely is to blame for making such a faux pas because he's employed by the club in a professional capacity while the fans are the customers who ultimately pay his wages. Imagine how it would look if you came out and publicly slated your customers for giving your product a bad review.

    I'd have thought the primary purpose of your job is to deliver the best possible customer experience so as to maximise revenue; if people criticised your work because the end product was poor then it probably wouldn't go down too well if you published a video telling them that they should simply not buy your product. That's effectively what Wagner has done.

    Ultimately the fans don't have any responsibility, aren't accountable and don't have any real input to the way the club is managed. All they can do is provide immediate feedback on what they see on the pitch. People genuinely were trying to create an atmosphere but the game went totally flat because of the poor performance for a prolonged period. 

    Given the context of the match, our previous defeat against Watford having been 2-0 up and the QPR draw it doesn't take much emotional intelligence to understand that the fans might have been frustrated. As a professional, Wagner should take it on the chin. Not because the fans were right, but because he's digging himself into a hole from which he's unlikely to be able to escape. 

    Managers simply don't come back from this kind of outburst. That's on him. I can't see him surviving beyond the summer regardless of how the season ends. And that's a shame because he has actually done a half decent job of improving things since Webber left. 

    • Like 2

  3. Posted

    42 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

    There’s hyperbole on both sides. People blamed his subs for the equaliser when it came on the opposite side of the pitch.

    I'm not really interested in the 'sides' thing. It's worthwhile trying to understand why people respond the way they do rather than just dismissing them as whingers or morons. Personally I don't think anyone is to blame when someone scores that kind of goal, but it's reasonable to say that the team were performing badly at that point, arguably due to systemic issues caused by the combination of players on the pitch and the roles they were performing.

    Now it's also clear that the same players then started performing better. Maybe you could attribute that to Wagner's tactical change. Great. I don't think you'll find a Norwich fan who is unhappy about that. But, just because people booed doesn't mean they can't enjoy the resurgence and ultimate victory.

    It's clear that no one in the stands knew that Sargent was injured and there was nothing to suggest he was until he went straight down the tunnel. People got the wrong end of the stick. On mass. It's understandable that they were frustrated at that point.

    It's more worrying that Wagner couldn't understand the frustration. The loss away at Watford sticks in the memory and it appeared to be repeating in front of our eyes. "Do something to get a grip on this game... No, FFS, don't take our best attacker off."

    He should get it. So should you. 

    • Like 1

  4. Posted

    1 minute ago, Nuff Said said:

    Wagner made the substitution, that’s all you need to know, for some people that automatically makes it wrong.

    That kind of hyperbole isn't constructive. People have entirely reasonable concerns with some of Wagner's team selections and substitutions because they're able to clearly observe some systemic flaws repeatedly appear on the pitch as a result.

    On Tuesday we went from a coherent structure to a total shambles for a significant portion of the game. I actually think the booing and conceding the second goal galvanised the team into performing better.

    Ultimately I think it comes down to people not really understanding what Wagner is trying to do. If there was a clearer message about our 'style' then maybe it would be more obvious when a player was being withdrawn through injury. Wagner constantly takes off one of our better attacking players after an hour so it's understandable that people assumed it was tactical this time as well. 

    • Like 6

  5. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Pyro Pete said:

    But Onel is available to play on Saturday.

    Where does that fit into your narrative?

    I can't be the only one who thought Onel was having an absolute mare in the second half because Lewis had pushed forwards leaving Stacey with 2 on 1 and Hernandez was just hanging out on the halfway line marking no one. His substitution was tactical and correct.

    Taking Sargent off seemed strange to me because there was no indication of injury; if he'd gone down and required treatment or even limped on his way off the pitch then it would have avoided the whole debacle. 

  6. Posted

    12 hours ago, hogesar said:

    Teams don't reach the playoffs "in spite" of a manager over a 46 game season. Especially not a squad like ours that does have imbalance and weaknesses. 

    We're not currently on target for the playoffs so I'd say our position is a fair reflection of the players and manager combined. Right now we're not quite good enough; if we do make it then we'll have to do better. If we do see a sufficient sustained run of form then I don't think anyone will still be complaining. 

  8. Posted

    I'm relatively happy with the first 11, except that we're mostly playing two strikers (false 9s or otherwise) and there's no genuine 6 in the squad who can anchor the midfield. McLean, Sara and Nunez are all good 8/10s but don't have the defensive instincts I want to see. Yawn... We've been debating this forever. 

    The real problem I have is that our only options from the bench (or in case of injury) in the AM role are Hernandez and Fassnacht. If we're pushing for the playoffs then I feel we need a bit more quality on the periphery of the first team. We're allowed 5 subs and, as things stand, they could each make the team worse; otherwise we're resorting to deliberately weakening the first 11 to leave some quality on the bench. 

    I don't really know anymore. If the core team stays fit then we might be fine. Our run-in is relatively smooth. Ask me again in May. 

  9. Posted

    I think it's far more nuanced than you're making out @hogesar. I definitely wouldn't call Sara's position today a 'number 10', at least not the kind that I've been hoping for. For me, a number 10 operates in a fairly narrow, free role with the option of dropping deep or running beyond the attacking line. Think Wes Hoolahan in Lambert's diamond.

    As @Mason 47 says, Wagner has him playing as a second striker which is nothing like his best position. A number 10 would generally be much deeper but have licence to break forward in a way that an 8 can't because the latter has much more defensive responsibility.

    Played as a proper 10, Sara would be making those runs from deep and dropping into pockets of space to pick up the ball and playing those quarterback type passes. 

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    21 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

    I'm fed up with this dismissal of Onel's abilities. He made a huge difference when he came on.

    I'm fed up with the unevidenced belief that Onel is 'effective'. I know he's got a couple of assists recently but those moments are very much the exception. He is strong, and fast. Enough to terrify defenders... until they realise that they don't actually need to tackle him because he loses the ball all by himself most of the time. 

    Last night he came on before the 60th minute. He touched the ball 16 times, of which exactly 4 were completed passes. I don't really care what he does with the other touches because, if they don't lead to a successful, progressive pass, they weren't 'effective' at all. 

    He's a great guy but he's never quite been good enough. 

    • Like 1

  16. Posted

    I thought we started with our best possible 11 tonight. Unfortunately we lack any real depth in the squad so every substitution brought the quality down a little bit. You have to make changes purely from a 'fresh legs' perspective but we don't have any quality on the bench.

    We'd probably have benefited from sticking with the starting team for longer, but Gibson for Idah would have made more sense. You can't blame Wagner for trying something, but Hernandez isn't going to worry Farke. We really need to sign a decent attacking midfielder so that we've got more options. Or a CDM and push Kenny forwards (lol). 

  17. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Fuzzar said:

    Sainz and Duffy at fault for their goal; poor closing down and marking. 

    Other than that we've acquitted ourselves well away against one of the best teams in the division. 

    Yep, for the first time I can recall this season we're playing a coherent midfield system and it's generally working really well. Just one piece of awful defending and we're behind. Slightly more composure and we'd be level. 

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    My issues with Kenny are more about the role he's asked to play and the general dysfunctional nature of our midfield system. I really don't think he's got the positional discipline to play as the main anchor and he's prone to a misplaced pass which can be more serious out of the number 6 position.

    I really rate him in an attacking sense and I was really impressed with his defensive covering at both left back and centrally. I just get frustrated with him at CDM because he makes too many mistakes in terms of getting caught the wrong side of his man.

    I do think he's improved over time and, as many people say, he's better than anyone else we have; but it's fair to say that we really should have signed someone with stronger defensive and positional attributes. Really we should have been playing a more coherent midfield system which allowed McLean to play to his strengths. 

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

    Rashica, was the only one who impressed at Premier League level and initially looked very good.

    He really didn't. He was no better than Onel. Sure, he dribbled past a few players but had zero end product and, on numerous occasions, didn't see the simple ball to play Pukki in. 

    In my opinion Rashica was the single worst signing in the club's history. Not the worst player but such an incredible waste of money and completely the wrong type of player for our team. His presence made it impossible to return to the previously successful system. 

  21. Posted

    2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

    I guess the other question is, are we getting anywhere? The results since the New Year have been a lot better; there are signs we are much harder to beat; we have a few weapons at this level, especially now Sainz is getting up to speed and the Sarge is back.

    But can the current approach (and the current coach) get the results against the top sides that we're going to need to get in the top six. The Hull and WBA results are encouraging in that respect; Leeds and Coventry are going to be fascinating too. 

    The main thing is we've stopped conceding goals. We've kept the opposition down to 1 or 0 goals in all but two games since Knapper arrived. That's a huge improvement. We're also scoring regularly.

    I recall @Parma Ham's gone mouldygetting excited about Idah's winner against Cardiff, but it's Rowe and the return of Sargent that have proved to be the 'weapons' while our low block has become the underlying basis for our relative resurgence.

    Yes, we're getting somewhere considering we were dropping like a stone. Now we've at least found some stability and some reasonable (if not quite spectacular) form. We've also got some of our tougher fixtures out of the way. 

    • Like 3

  24. Posted

    I don't think I've ever said Wagner has only one way of playing (or blah, blah, blah), but I am critical of his midfield tactics. Offensive transitions are absolutely our strength and I'm definitely a fan of starting from a low block, like a coiled cobra ready to strike (too dramatic?).

    I think particular attention should be paid to Sara's involvement in that second goal: how he picked the ball up in the central 10 position and drove forwards before playing it out to Dimi.

  25. Posted

    1 hour ago, Barham Blitz said:

    I like possession and wish we currently valued it slightly more highly - but somewhat ironically we currently look to exercise control by getting teams to do exactly what we have been guilty of doing when it doesn't work for us.

    I'm surprisingly comfortable with ceding possession in relatively harmless areas. I think our low block is highly effective and entirely pragmatic, leaving it to our opponents to lose their shape trying to break us down and leaving acres of space for us to break into.

     

    12 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

    Both our goals came in exactly this manner!

    Yes, which supports my position that maybe starting with so many players so high up the pitch isn't particularly a factor in the things we got right yesterday. Our goals came from rapid transitions from a low block. Both involved an incisive run with the ball from deep. The second was a perfect example of how effective Sara is when playing a more advanced role. I stand by my claim that setting up in a 4-2-4 with overlapping fullbacks morphing into a 3-1-6 is a bit too Kamikaze; I don't think we gained anything from doing it and it left us exposed on numerous occasions.  

×
×
  • Create New...