Monty13

Yea agreed, he was much more involved second half and played well. I just don’t like the system personally and without this system I’m not sure where he’d fit in.

That’s a good 3 points and they worked really hard. I’m no fan of the tactics but can’t be upset with the result.

I agree, said it another thread but most Championship clubs would be envious of an attack including Rowe, Sargent, Sainz and Sara. Our overall squad isn’t top material but we have real talent that’s being wasted.

He’s always been a liability coupled with flashes of brilliance. Can’t see him getting a new deal, way too unreliable.

He works hard but it’s not working. Excellent bit of skill from Rowe in an otherwise dull half. Rowe, Sargent, Sara and Sainz is a very good attack in this league, most championship clubs would be envious of that talent. A better system would get much more out of them IMO.

There’s always a choice. He made the interview saying we wanted to sell. I’m sure he’d rather it have been Max or Todd, but the clubs with money rightly deduced Emi was the only one worth our price tag.

This is a key point. It absolutely deflated all momentum. I imagine the dressing room response wasn’t that dissimilar to the supporters.

According to the timeline of events that’s been reported he only pushed for a move after Webbers interview telling the world we were willing to sell our best players. Imagine he hadn’t done that and instead offered him more money. It would have made a difference IMO. Emi was the only truly PL quality player we had and he was on fire that year in the Championship. He also made Pukki so much more potent. Would it have made the difference to keep us up? Who knows. However I don’t believe for a second the team we got promoted with wouldn’t have done a more competitive job versus the one we ended up with. Replacing Skipp was the real challenge and selling Emi on top made building a squad far, far more difficult.

.

I’m not sure I believe “heavily”, but at the same time I wouldn’t be surprised.

We didn’t need to convince them all though. We sold some players on relegation and we got some new players, but we progressed that second Championship season. The club moved forward, some individuals moved on. As a long term tactic it’s pretty unlikely to be sustainable I agree, fatigue after 3, 4, 5 relegations would be pretty hard to avoid across everyone involved including supporters. However I thought we had a real chance that second season of maybe sneaking staying up, certainly putting up much more of a fight. That is until we sold our best player on promotion.

I’d personally honestly rather lose any other player, and yes that includes Sara and Rowe.

The issue and catch-22 of the situation you are right, you probably can’t be successful playing that way on promotion because the required level to reach is just to far. We played like Farkes team in that first championship season at times, like a team still working out the basics. The PL is far too ruthless to let you do that and avoid relegation. However I would suggest an alternative, you might not be successful first time, but maybe second or third if you can maintain the yo-yo while continuing to progress the same setup. I thought that’s what we were doing. Then Webber sold Buendia and tore it all up in a fools gamble.

This was always the root of Webbers failure and his legacy, we (and him) are lucky we have Attanasio cushioning the worst of it. The failure on the pitch is almost nothing compared to what’s happened off it. Very, very little went right since we won that second title and as you say we can’t afford that, it’s been a disaster.

Yes I hate this argument, players that offer more are worth more, that’s simply the case across even the biggest teams. If a 17/18 year old is playing regularly for the 1st team he’s going to get more money than any one playing Under 18s who hasn’t broken through. That shouldn’t be a surprise, it should be encouragement.

Now I’m with you lol, sorry it’s been a long day!

100% this, I’m far more interested in what happens the next few weeks than anything he has to say about it right now. The clubs communication could do with improvement but there’s never been a need for the SD to be the figurehead, in fact with Webber it was as eyebrow raising as insightful, just for someone to be.

Leicester are the anomaly not the future surely? Nothing can take away that achievement but it didn’t half rely upon a fair bit of luck. It’s also not been replicated. If that is the superior strategy where are the superior teams playing it? For all the teams that did do well against a Farke team playing it…we still won two Championships. You might be right that it could have some success but I don’t think it can be called the superior strategy on current evidence.

Again think we are just going round in circles, that wasn’t the whole argument IMO. I read his column and it was pretty clear to me it wasn’t really an indictment of the game itself but what it stood for in the context of Norwich as a club.

While he has been hyperbolic in the bit you reference I don’t think you’re being fair in the assessment of what he’s said. You seem to have ignored his main point which to me is just what several posters have echoed around here. It’s not simply that he set up that way to get a point in that game, it’s everything that surrounds the fact he felt had to.

I don’t think it was one of the most embarrassing ever, but that’s subjective so you’re absolutely entitled to your opinion. I do agree with pretty much everything Sutton has written though.

Read the article Cambridge then maybe comment on that?

I don’t think we are in disagreement personally, pretty much agree with everything you’ve said. I get why Wagner choose to set up that way, makes sense and got the result. I’m not particularly bemoaning the fact he set up that way and wasn’t more positive in this game, more bemoaning the fact we have fallen so low that objectively he probably had to.

I don’t see Dimi being kept, we need a complete refresh so a player really needs to have been a nailed on starter or have potential to be kept if expiring. McCallum is basically playing for a contract, there was a player with a lot of potential there once, he’s got the chance to show it which I think makes sense from Knappers perspective.

I disagree, we only had the players to play one way and we played it, you can’t massively change philosophy and be successful, especially without new players. We never recruited anyone of note, even under Lambert we spent money on players for our model. We also had defensive injuries and then the unprecedented nature of COVID. Should Farke have done better? Yes. However there were massive mitigations. As for the bit in bold I agree to the extent he only needed to set up that way to have the best chance of a result because of how terribly we’ve been mismanaged as a club the last few years. It was a somber reminder of how far we’ve fallen.