Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
grefstad

Norwich physical state (or lack of)

Recommended Posts

[quote user="grefstad"][quote user="Crabbycanary3"]and you will cherry pick which ones suit your agenda[/quote]

But ofcourse. You can get your sorry a$$ out of the chair and find stats that prove me wrong. If you can find them.

Then we can have a fruitful discussion for once.[/quote]There''s some above.You need therapy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here''s a couple of stats that back up what I was saying earlier, Grefstad.

Passes:

Bournemouth 347 v Norwich 402 (15% more)

Touches:

Bournemouth 531 v Norwich 562

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Legend Iwan"]Here''s a couple of stats that back up what I was saying earlier, Grefstad.

Passes:

Bournemouth 347 v Norwich 402 (15% more)

Touches:

Bournemouth 531 v Norwich 562[/quote]
To back up your point about our style of play you have to look at more than just yesterday''s game though LI. Those stats for yesterday reflect much more than just our style of play; they reflect Bournemouth''s dominance, persistent pressing and blanket defence. It also matters what kind of passes and touches, in what situations.
If you look at the figures for the season as a whole, I suspect you''ll see a somewhat different picture. For example, Bournemouth average 406 short passes per game compared to our 326. (Of course you also have to take into account that our approach changed following the Newcastle game, so our stats for the season are skewed and to evaluate your point we''d have to look just at the stats for games 12 to 22.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure it''s really necessary, Westcoast, because Grefstad is contesting that yesterday''s lack of distance covered and sprints shows that they didn''t work hard enough. In reply, I''m contesting the system we used was set up so that they weren''t required to do that.

Being that we shifted our system following the Newcastle game, it would be pointless to do a whole season review, although pre and post that match might provide some interesting data/stats.

In relation to yesterday''s game, here''s a couple of quick stats in relation to type of passes.

Attempted passes body part:

Head

Bournemouth 33 v Norwich 30

Feet

Bournemouth 362 v Norwich 429

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair point, Legend.

Norwich also had mote possession vs Bournemouth, 54% vs 46%.

Blurnemouth did us on the break, but also on quicker, more direct attacks, which is always effective against our defenders. Howe did AN tactically, but AN was also massively let down by a lack of collective effort, and the usual no show from the likes of Martin (defensively VOO was shite too).

Our entire right side needs to be overhauled imho. Not good enough defensively, virtually dead offensively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said, Grefstad, I disagree about tally of KMs and sprints proving there''s a lack of effort, but AN''s tactics are definitely up for debate. Why more pace wasn''t brought in in the summer still confuses me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Legend Iwan
[Y] Wouldn''t you agree, though, that we are far from being the only team in the league to play the system we did yesterday? Indeed is there not a case for saying most teams in the EPL play that way most of the time? If that''s true and yet we consistently rate poorly in comparison with other teams in the way Grefstad has highlighted, maybe we should admit that he has a valid point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a fair point that tactics has something to do with the total km run during a game.

A deep tactic would normally lead to less km, but indeed more sprints (on the breaks).

Also, a common mistake in deep tactics is that the intensity levels drop, because the the team feels more secure, with two deep banks of 4-5-1.

This was a huge discussion in Norway during the 1990´s when Norway did very well in the international scene, playing 4-5-1 with high intensity defensive work, compact lines, and quick counters.

The system works very well, if you keep the intensity up.

If intensity is not present, the system breeds even more passivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teams that successfully (more often than not) play a 4-5-1 high intensity defensive game are Palace, WBA, Leicester, to a certain extent Everton, among others.

Infact, as westcoast says, most of the teams in the Premier try to play like that when on the defensive. It is the level of intensity that differs greatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t think there are many teams that play the same way as us, Westcoast, due to most possessing pace in their team, defending higher up the pitch, and, as Grefstad mentions, countering asap /sprinting.

You only have to look at the likes of Leicester and West Ham to see the benefits of having fast forwards and breaking rapidly. Not only does it help with attack, it improves your defence, which is our major concern. In a season where more teams are winning away, why are we struggling so badly on the road?

This, by Jonathan Wilson, is worth a read: http://www.worldsoccer.com/features/tactics-less-is-more-as-possession-loses-its-appeal-367487

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, Legend.

Good read that article too.

For us, playing deep will rarely work, because we have virtually no threat on the counter. Only Redmond, but he is off form, and not playing much.

We lack pace in midfield, which many of the direct competitors have. A side like Newcastle have got a lot of pace in their team. Players like Sissokho can break with pace from midfield, among others.

We sadly don''t have that, so imho, AN is trying to play a style not suited to our players.

The way our team is set up, is to keep possession, boss the game, and pass our way to success. This has worked well in the Championship, not so well in the Premier because such a stryle requires a high back line, which we all know is death to us, given the lack of pace among our defenders.

So, the options are:

1. Play deep, but recruit quicker forward players to be a threat on the counter.

2. Play "the Norwich way", attacking, possession, high back line, but we need quicker defenders for that.

Pinto has arrives and may help for option 2. Klose is perhaps not the quickest, but surely not slower than the ones we got. Naismith, although not blistering quick, is equally suited to both styles of play, having operated in both styles at Everton.

We do lack a pacy, Ighalo-type of forward to play on the counter when we are laying deep. Maybe why AN seemingly wants Gayle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Legend Iwan"]I don''t think there are many teams that play the same way as us, Westcoast, due to most possessing pace in their team, defending higher up the pitch, and, as Grefstad mentions, countering asap /sprinting.

You only have to look at the likes of Leicester and West Ham to see the benefits of having fast forwards and breaking rapidly. Not only does it help with attack, it improves your defence, which is our major concern. In a season where more teams are winning away, why are we struggling so badly on the road?

This, by Jonathan Wilson, is worth a read: http://www.worldsoccer.com/features/tactics-less-is-more-as-possession-loses-its-appeal-367487[/quote]

Interesting article. Looking beyond the EPL as far as the german Bundesliga you''ll find that Hertha Berlin, who had relegation concerns last season, and now "doing a Leicester" (3rd at HT) under their rookie gaffer Pal Dardai, follow a very similar counterattacking philosophy.

Hertha''s very tight at defense -conceded the 2nd fewest goals after Bayern, who are a different class anyway - , and boast the best conversion rate in the league. Apart from intriguing managerial parallels - such as Hertha appointed Dardai within a month following AN taking over, and the fact that Dardai, like AN was also working towards his pro-license at the time - Hertha, similarly to City, does not belong among the wealthiest clubs in their league, hence achieve success without spending big - with emphasis on tactics and fitness levels.

If we had an Opta-expert around I''d ask how Hertha''s running stats confirm the above, but I fear that''s not an option atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Legend Iwan"]I don''t think there are many teams that play the same way as us, Westcoast, due to most possessing pace in their team, defending higher up the pitch, and, as Grefstad mentions, countering asap /sprinting.

You only have to look at the likes of Leicester and West Ham to see the benefits of having fast forwards and breaking rapidly. Not only does it help with attack, it improves your defence, which is our major concern. In a season where more teams are winning away, why are we struggling so badly on the road?

This, by Jonathan Wilson, is worth a read: http://www.worldsoccer.com/features/tactics-less-is-more-as-possession-loses-its-appeal-367487[/quote]
More to be said about this (and the Wilson article) but can''t right now. Back later [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Legend Iwan
What is it that makes you say there aren''t many teams that play the same way as us because they have players with pace, as opposed to saying those teams DO play the same way as us but much more effectively because they have players with pace? (Referring of course to how we have been playing post-Newcastle.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...