Parma's Tactics Masterclass 14

[Len 74]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Unfortunately I just benched £25m worth of no10 investment that is now not really suited or necessary. It raises legimate questions about the synchronisation of tactics, manager, football board and joined-up investment.

Oh.

And I''d like £12.5m to go and get Afobe who is the right kind of no9 for the formation and shape please.

Thanks.

Parma[/quote]This is a stunning indictment of the manager and the rest of the club. The board seems to know little about football and gets in a cheap inexperienced manager.I would have thought sacking Alex Neil and employing a manager who knows what he''s doing would be at the top of the list of solutions?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

nb2: Whilst the ideal CDM characteristics are outlined, I have often used very limited players in this role.

Didier Deschamps was famously described as a ''water carrier'' by Cantona, who correctly identified that his own gifts were stellar in comparison.

A poor man''s Deschamps is exactly what Norwich require however. Somebody who gets and gives quickly and simply, let''s others play, craves no limelight and moves and does little, yet who adheres to his limited job like a limpet.

Young, honest, worthy players that are keen to please are often ideal.

Parma

[Van wink 2,994]

Wonders why we sold a player in BJ who would play the CDM role with the required discipline and was in fact congratulated by the manager for the work he would put in when tasked with the role.

Work which I might add is rarely appreciated by fans.

[ZLF 271]

Not sure BJ has teh discipline for cdm role and his better performances were marginalised on the left

[Van wink 2,994]

I think he did ZLF, maybe we noticed him more when he was playing a more flamboyant role on the left.

[lake district canary 4,531]

BJ was never good enough technically in the middle of the park and used to regularly get caught out in possession there or give away possession to easily - definitely not a good thing in that position.  His move out to the left was his salvation as he could use his power and determination to better effect. As for improving as Parma suggests in his thread, can''t see that happening under AN as long as we have a strong attacking squad. We have too get used to it - we are an attacking team and just have to make sure we score more than the opposition.  Most of the goals against this season have been through individual mistakes anyway so if the players have sorted themselves out, we might see less of those mistakes and less goals against.  We may we be better with some of the aspects Parma puts forward, but this season, at least, the message other teams will get is that we are out to dominate them from the front - quite a good psychology............as long as we make sure we keep winning, to drive that message home.......

[GPs Beard 0]

Elite English footballers spend more time in the classroom than ever before , and never play on muddied pitches. Your standard academy player , where 99.9% of English professionals will come from in the next 10 years have, and will , have come through this process. Much too simplistic to say they learn slower than Dutch players .

People have held up the Total Football of the Dutch (fluidity) , as developed by Ajax for years. It''s been overtaken by more positional based shape, with and without the ball , as exhibited by Spain. I''ve watched Arsenal academy train many times , with continual reference to high press and narrow shape out of possession , interception , expansion and desire to receive the ball.

I do agree with the fluidity argument of the back four , it still didn''t look convincing against Brentford, who only failed to score because of woeful finishing .

[Woodman 92]

[quote user="Bagster"]The performance against Everton was a good one for sure but hardly their first team or ours for that matter.

I think our performances illustrate exactly what parma is saying with the better sides able to see our weaknesses and able to exploit them.[/quote]

I think you''ll find that 7 of the 11 that started on Saturday v Brentford played in the win at Everton: Ruddy, Bennett, Bassong, Brady, Naismith, Pritchard, Oliveira. Plus Mulumbu and Josh were subs (on Sat).

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Woodman"][quote user="Bagster"]The performance against Everton was a good one for sure but hardly their first team or ours for that matter. I think our performances illustrate exactly what parma is saying with the better sides able to see our weaknesses and able to exploit them.[/quote] I think you''ll find that 7 of the 11 that started on Saturday v Brentford played in the win at Everton: Ruddy, Bennett, Bassong, Brady, Naismith, Pritchard, Oliveira. Plus Mulumbu and Josh were subs (on Sat).[/quote]

 

Interesting point.  Plus the comment about it not being the Everton first team is just silly - they made far fewer changes from their previous match than we did, so their lineup was much closer to their first team than ours was at the time.

[Nuff Said 5,091]

Thank you ICF, I was about to make the same point.Where in Nottingham are you? I live near Long Eaton.

[Bagster 101]

Yeah you have a good point, we made a lot of changes for the game and at the time it wasn''t our first team. But when you look at it like that it was a bit of daft post:)

[Woodman 92]

[quote user="Bagster"]Yeah you have a good point, we made a lot of changes for the game and at the time it wasn''t our first team. But when you look at it like that it was a bit of daft post:)[/quote]

:-)

surprised me too when I looked. Shows how much depth - and quality - we have in our squad.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

LDC,

There are ample stats - long strings of wins, long strings of losses, a 0-5 loss here a 5-0 win there - that demonstrate that our inconsistency is at the extreme end of the scale.

As you intimate in your post - and Len points out caustically in his - investment theory appears to be strongly at work here. The set up and the finances are so invested in a particular direction that there is an unwillingness, inability or inertia where change is concerned.

The tactical modifications identified through this thread are deliberately conceived to be similar - and as unthreatening as possible - to the current ingrained methodology. It is an evolution with the same - actually I am suggesting less post-January - resources.

Advising a continuation of the current methodology - however faithful, heartfelt and supportive that may be - is unlikely to see a dramatic deviation from the clear pattern that has established over a statistically significant period.

Parma

[93vintage 16]

There was an interesting [url=http://www.pinkun.com/opinion/michael_bailey_would_southampton_have_undersold_nathan_redmond_norwich_city_fall_short_of_the_saints_marvellous_model_of_planning_preparation_and_value_for_money_1_4803248]article by Michael Bailey[/url] last week which looked at Southampton''s forward planning when it comes to recruitment. The basic theme is that they''re very savvy in planning their recruitment and sticking to a consistent vision, so it''s kind of related to some of the discussion on this thread.

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

Dan Dare :

06/12/2016, 6:04 PM

Dan Dare is not online. Last active: 08/12/2016 18:51:32 Dan Dare

Top 25 Posts

Joined on 02/03/2006

Posts 12,052

Re: Parma''s Tactics Masterclass 14

I''m afraid that OP sounds like a Babelfish translation

"and even the absolute to shoot from distance when confronted with massed rank defences "

"to sit a compact 8 with a busy 10 and a rangy 9 to wait for such opportunities to create easy turnover and counter chances against us. "

"Bennett repeatedly had acres of time on the hall and used it all for himself, mostly to steady himself, check for danger, read a pass and play a pass."

I''m not sure what acres of time are, or whether you mean Bennett didn''t move the ball quick enough

"When you attack you are mindful of your defensive shape"

eh ? a player breaks free and heads for goal ... the last thing on his mind is the defensive shape behind him

"in basic terms fixed pivot locations that somebody must stand in almost regardless of game situation - are essential and cause structural issues if not properly covered and respected "

not sure what structures are being issued or what earth it actually is supposed to mean, nor I suspect do you

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Send this member an email Send this member a private message Report Reply Quote

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

93v,

Whilst acknowledging that Southampton have had the financial ability to withstand transfer mistakes and underwrite ever-increasing wages via their ownership model, good succession planning predominantly only costs the intellectual capacity to conceive, identify and establish it.

Clubs with a mutual model, less wealthy owners or a desire to move the odds in their favour, would appear to be obvious examples to copy the benefits of the Southampton methodology.

I''m not at all sure that ''letting the Manager manage'' tessellates with the principle however.

Parma

[93vintage 16]

Parma, I think we''ve gone wrong too many times by just letting the manager manage. I''d like to see us set down a framework for our managers to follow so that we get a bit more consistency. It need not be too strict, but strict enough so that the manager gnerally follows a longer term vision.This would almost certainly require a stronger football board (or a revival of the concept since it currently seems to be dormant) and a football input on the main board.

[deltic31 13]

Instead of trying to get the players to fit the tactics. Why don''t we make the tactics fit the available players?

[westcoastcanary 173]

Ironically I don''t think "letting the manager manage" is currently quite accurate. AN was appointed in the aftermath of a season and a half of Hughton''s (for him actually uncharacteristic) ultra defensive strategy for surviving in the top flight against the odds with limited resources. The intolerance in the stands prompted the board to declare "Never again" and set a requirement for "entertaining", and by implication attack-orientated, football (romanticised further by a tenuous harking back to a mythical "Norwich style" supposedly epitomised by the football of our most successful seasons in the old Div 1). This was the background to the appointments of Adams and Neil, and almost certainly a major element in the brief given to both. The fact that it chimed with AN''s vision of how he wants his teams to play was no doubt a factor in bringing him to Carrow Road. So it''s not that what we are seeing is the result of simply letting the manager manage; IMO it''s more that we have a manager whose instincts tally with the rather naive brief given him in the first place. I''m all for following the Southampton/Swansea/continental model, but the parameters laid down have to be the right ones in the first place. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Westie, 93v

The Norwich ownership model doesn''t allow us to compete in terms of transfer pound notes and wage underwriting, so we have to do different to bridge that gap.

''Letting the Manager manage'' is a phrase that would shivers down my spine as an owner or major shareholder. Allowing ex-footballers to splurge my hard-earned Funds on whoever happened to be available at the time of their appointment, largely to marginally increase their odds of staying in the job a year longer, only to be cast aside by the next dugout incumbent with alternative football philosophies and an inevitable human (male) need to differentiate himself from his immediate predecessor (who would typically then become the root cause of all malaise as ''the last one out the door''), strikes me as either reckless or extraordinarily trusting and generous.

Perhaps those with unlimited funds can afford to reinvent the wheel with the arrival of each new lover, but it strikes me as a luxury that Norwich can ill afford.

A Sporting Director that oversees some form of ongoing football philosophy, pattern of play, over-arching principles for player recruitment, ability to liaise with bootroom and boardroom, plus a mentoring and educational role for all stakeholders - both upwards and downwards - strikes me as long overdue.

Just ''letting the (uneducated ex-player) Manager manage'' the essential drivers of a £100m business from an omnipotent dugout looks anachronistic in the modern world.

Norwich can''t afford this often conflicting carousel in either a financial or sporting sense.

Parma

[93vintage 16]

The irony is that Paul Nevin, our Head of Coaching under Hughton, had a vision regarding playing a purposeful technical style of football. But the top level under Hughton didn''t match Nevin''s vision, and the latter left not too long after Neil Adams became full time manager (Nevin is now first team coach at Brighton).I always thought that McNally was referring to Lambert''s time at the

helm when he set up the football board''s brief regarding playing an

attacking style of football (after having consulted with fans), but this didn''t match our way of playing under eg Stringer or Walker. The basics of our style under the latter two hasn''t been seen since Mike Walker''s effective dismissal in 1998.The zenith of the football board model was under Adams, perhaps signified by having his choice of Steve Foley as coach rejected. A myriad of coaching staff changes at first team and levels below seemed to have a disruptive effect. The football board never really seemed to function as it could have done, perhaps because it wasn''t implemented properly, didn''t contain appropriate experience or expertise, or otherwise suffered from McNally''s overbearing influence.We ended up reverting to something which was much nearer to the usual ''manager is king'' model upon Alex Neil''s arrival. He insisted upon having primary control of transfers and having

his own coach, and the football board idea seemed to be silently dropped

in favour of the manager having a greater say on decisions via a less formal grouping.There does seem to be some kind of plan and vision eg consistency of approach from youth to first team level, but the fact that it appears informal makes me wonder whether it can survive staff changes eg Ricky Martin leaving or a new manager arriving.The ''consistency throughout the levels'' plan was originally a Mike Walker implementation from his second spell which amongst other things included opting to play a 4-3-3 system from youth to senior teams. It was influenced a lot by the Ajax model and the continuity aspect was maybe something of a revival of our approach from the 80''s and early 90''s when we had a continuity that naturally arose via managerial ''promotion from within''. It''s interesting to note that Walker''s vision was implemented after we had gone through a similar period of

losing our way post his original resignation.The ''Norwich Way''

was never a homogenous style, it veered from a fast counter attack and possession based continental style under Stringer to a more direct mix of styles under Walker. The basics were accurate passing and emphasis on technique, and these elements were themselves the product of long term development, investment and continuity.A key point is that our evolution and consistency weren''t things which appeared and disappeared when a particular

manager came and went. The roots of our approach and style originated in the West Ham style introduced under John Bond, continued under Ken Brown, and evolved by Stringer and Walker. It lasted 20 years from Bond to Walker.Walker''s reformation efforts got lost (or abandoned) with the many changes of manager and coaches since he left after his second spell. I fear that similar might happen to our current policies if we don''t formalise our plans to ensure that they are followed by future managers and coaches. These ideas and aims need to be firmly constructed above the level of manager so that they survive managerial changes.It''s key that the main board is able to understand at least the basics and rationale of these policies because they are in overall charge of setting the direction to the effect that our long term plans get implemented. They need to stick with them and ensure that Colney does the same, else we''ll never get a consistent approach and reap the benefits that accrue from this. It''s important that new board members are briefed on these matters to ensure continuity at boardroom level.It would help enormously if a football person sat on the board and interfaced with a properly implemented football board which contained sufficient experience and expertise. It''s not necessarily a Director of Football model, it would be trying to get a sufficient level of collective footballing input into the running of the club.Similar to what Parma has written, there''s a lot

more than football style to consider when it comes to the role of the manager. However style goes hand in hand with things like the integration of our youth system, general consistency of approach, and trying to compete on quality as opposed to competing via size of wallet.Our style should be a product of long term plans and visions.

[93vintage 16]

I would add that a football board working to a preset agreed approach should help guide the manager on transfers and prevent some of the mistakes that we''ve seen in recent seasons.It might help with some of Parma''s points regarding some of the imbalances and weaknesses which might have arisen from giving Alex Neil too much autonomy. Alternatively a strong football board might have helped prevent Alex Neil from making such strategic errors, perhaps to the extent that he would have been grateful for their input.Parma''s point about  manager potentially buying in the interests of their avoiding the sack in the short term is a point I have made previously. I would suggest that giving the manager a bit of security in place of some of their autonomy is an attractive deal given the absurd level of sackings in today''s game.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="93vintage"]The ''Norwich Way''

was never a homogenous style, it veered from a fast counter attack and possession based continental style under Stringer to a more direct mix of styles under Walker. The basics were accurate passing and emphasis on technique, and these elements were themselves the product of long term development, investment and continuity.[/quote]

There is a clear argument that we reached a peak of development that had taken years of Bond/Brown/Stringer/Walker with in house managers keeping consistency and leading us to a peak in the early 90''s.  After that peak, there was nowhere left to go.  Without finance we could not sustain or develop further and even if there had been a bit of money around, it would not have been enough to keep players and buy new ones good enough to keep us at the top.  We simply went as high as we could go and that was it.  What followed were some fallow years as we tried to recoup and looked outside the club for a manager - a mistake imo. We''ve never recatured that long term success/style because we lost the established continuity of management personel. Walker coming back did not help.   We''ve had success, but not of the same ilk as the 70''s/80''s/early 90''s.   The Gunn experiment was an attempt to recapture that continuity, trying to set up something that would see inward development using Norwich/ex-Norwich staff.   The Adams experiment was the same.  But if we could keep a manager long enough to actually develop some continuity from within, we might see more consistent success with a regime that builds from within, but as long as the culture is one of get rid of the manager after a few poor results, that is unlikely to happen. The styles may vary, whether you get a manager from within or from without the club, but consistency of approach - ie building from within, is always going to be a better option than getting in a one off manager, who may or may not be successful, leading on to another one off manager etc etc.   I sincerely hope that AN is that man that can stay long enough to see us into another era of sustained success and allow us to develop from within again, because for all his faults (and all managers have faults) he could be our best chance of that happening.  

[vlad666 203]

The bottom line is, regardless of formation, we''re poor in a couple of positions. A defensive midfielder with a brain who knows how to sit in his position and keep play ticking over. Also a centre back with pace. Without these we''ll always concede silly goals.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="93vintage"]The ''Norwich Way''

was never a homogenous style, it veered from a fast counter attack and possession based continental style under Stringer to a more direct mix of styles under Walker. The basics were accurate passing and emphasis on technique, and these elements were themselves the product of long term development, investment and continuity.[/quote]

There is a clear argument that we reached a peak of development that had taken years of Bond/Brown/Stringer/Walker with in house managers keeping consistency and leading us to a peak in the early 90''s.  After that peak, there was nowhere left to go.  Without finance we could not sustain or develop further and even if there had been a bit of money around, it would not have been enough to keep players and buy new ones good enough to keep us at the top.  We simply went as high as we could go and that was it.  What followed were some fallow years as we tried to recoup and looked outside the club for a manager - a mistake imo. We''ve never recatured that long term success/style because we lost the established continuity of management personel. Walker coming back did not help.   We''ve had success, but not of the same ilk as the 70''s/80''s/early 90''s.   The Gunn experiment was an attempt to recapture that continuity, trying to set up something that would see inward development using Norwich/ex-Norwich staff.   The Adams experiment was the same.  But if we could keep a manager long enough to actually develop some continuity from within, we might see more consistent success with a regime that builds from within, but as long as the culture is one of get rid of the manager after a few poor results, that is unlikely to happen. The styles may vary, whether you get a manager from within or from without the club, but consistency of approach - ie building from within, is always going to be a better option than getting in a one off manager, who may or may not be successful, leading on to another one off manager etc etc.   I sincerely hope that AN is that man that can stay long enough to see us into another era of sustained success and allow us to develop from within again, because for all his faults (and all managers have faults) he could be our best chance of that happening.[/quote]Some good points LDC. I think getting some long term plans and structures in place would help in both building up and maintaining the kind of era we had for 20 years. Last time we went off track under Chase it was perhaps because we didn''t have a long term formal structure and planning in place.Then as now, it''s too easy to go off track. With the long term stability of ownership that we have, we have the potential to build back up again and hopefully sustain our success.

[westcoastcanary 173]

LDC wrote: "I sincerely hope that AN is that man that can stay long enough to see us into another era of sustained success and allow us to develop from within again, because for all his faults (and all managers have faults) he could be our best chance of that happening. "

Supporters and board turned their backs on the best chance of that happening with Hughton''s sacking. If ever short termism triumphed over long, that was it. Our loss, Brighton''s gain.

[Greedy 0]

Good analysis as ever Parma, a question however. I agree the need for good ball retaining, tackler and passing defensive pivot is a high priority. If this player can''t be found is 3 centre backs an option with Dorrans providing the passing pivot and additional protection in front of the 3?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Got nothing more to add right now except to say what an excellent thread this is with some great contributions all round.

[Van wink 2,994]

Have to agree with that Nutty

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Buonasera Greedy,

Typically in a back 3, there would be the flat 2 defensive midfielders as now. In this scenario there wouldn''t necessarily be a pivot and the two could play freer and move more. With an extra central defender there would be less absolute requirement for tight passing if the addition (very) central defender assumed something of a playmaker role.

To this format in action watch Conte''s Chelsea in action his weekend. Luis is provided with something akin to a libero free role, without typical marking duties, he sweeps and playmakes behind Kante and Matic, who are disciplined and busy, though need not be silky.

With Luiz flanked by Cahill and Azpilucueta, there is the 3/4 drift fluidity that Martin provides into the semi-full back areas, whilst if you envisage the formation on our Pink''un word-visual whiteboard you''ll see that this formation naturally shuts spaces between the lines, both in front of and on the angles from the centre backs.

In this formation the full backs can play high - as Neil would want - though nota bene that even Conte, with his endless resources, requires Alonso and Moses to assume typical full back roles against some opposition and advanced flying winger roles against others, playing far higher or far deeper as opposition personnel, tactics or in-game flexibility requires.

Parma