Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Rudolph Hucker

So what was the difference?

Recommended Posts

Apart from different opposition, what was the difference tonight?

Some might say Oliveira for Jerome.

Some might say Wes for Naismith. No disrespect to Naismith but Wes every time for me at home.

Some might say Josh instead of Husband etc, etc.

Personally, I think it was NOT playing 3 centre-half''s at home and passing the ball in front of the opposition.

Farke is learning and is prepared to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On paper it could be argued that the squad at the coach''s disposal for the last couple of years was more suited to 3 at the back with wing-backs. We''ll never know. I don''t think we''ve seen the last of it though - I suspect it''s Farke''s preferred philosophy although so far he appears more flexible than the previous incumbent which is surely a positive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironically from the stats on the clubs website it looked like we had less possession.

So the difference seems to be as you say exactly

more defence and more directness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was also interesting to note the possession was 45% tonight as opposed to 71% on Sunday.

Much more direct.

I''d be happy to go back to the possession game at Villa though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="RUDOLPH FARKE"]Apart from different opposition, what was the difference tonight?

Some might say Oliveira for Jerome.

Some might say Wes for Naismith. No disrespect to Naismith but Wes every time for me at home.

Some might say Josh instead of Husband etc, etc.

Personally, I think it was NOT playing 3 centre-half''s at home and passing the ball in front of the opposition.

Farke is learning and is prepared to change.[/quote]We don''t have three centre-halves, which is why I hope Farke continues to field a back four -- Vrancic is a must in left central-midfield and hopefully Stiepermann will prove to be a good back up in said position -- The central midfielders have differing roles in Farke''s favoured 4-1-4-1 formation and it will be Vrancic or Stiepermann who play the traditional role of box to box, as well as helping out the defence when required -- The other central midfielder should be the main attacking threat in the partnership and has a license to get forward more often - attacking central midfielders such as Naismith, Pritchard, Maddison & Hoolahan will prove effective there, but Hoolahan is best effective left central midfield with the likes of a box to box central midfielder playing on the right.You can’t have two central midfielders who play the same way or the formation will not work.    The presence of the defensive midfielder (where Reed is proving extremely adept) within the 4-1-4-1 allows the wingers to have a bit more freedom when getting up the pitch to attack and they don’t have to worry about defensive duties --- wingers can in effect act as forwards - yes, we won tonight, but I don''t expect to see Hoolahan starting many games, especially on the left flank .As for Oliveira -- yes, he''s proved that he should start more games than he misses..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norwich were actually trying to score goals by going behind the opposition, getting in the penalty box and shooting rather than Sunday where the main game plan was to look pretty in the middle of the park!

Swapping the more effective Oliviera and Hoolahan for Jerome and Naismith was a big help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="kingsway"]Norwich were actually trying to score goals by going behind the opposition, getting in the penalty box and shooting rather than Sunday where the main game plan was to look pretty in the middle of the park!

Swapping the more effective Oliviera and Hoolahan for Jerome and Naismith was a big help![/quote]Fielding Oliveira for Jerome = correct [Y]Fielding Hoolahan for Naismith = incorrect -- It was a 4-1-4-1 and the former replaced Wildschut -- Maddison played in place of Naismith.Try to think of the development of something into a particular thing or shape, like the formation for instance, and best suited personnel for any given football formation.I''m not taking the P, just attempting to clarify and help [Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="RUDOLPH FARKE"]It was also interesting to note the possession was 45% tonight as opposed to 71% on Sunday.

Much more direct.

I''d be happy to go back to the possession game at Villa though.[/quote]Villa will probably come flying out of the blocks, but if we can nullify that and get them chasing the ball, the crowd will just turn on Bruce.I''d swap Wes for Watkins, can''t see Wes being that useful away from home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the one weak link was Murphy, lost count of the number of times he blasted the ball for a throw in the other side. Perhaps Stiepermann would be a better option, certainly looks a beast, or give Wildschut a run in his preferred role ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Direct play and flair was the main thing that was missing against Sunderland. We were flat and posed no threat to their defence.

I agree Josh could have had a better game but few players in our team pose a bigger threat and cause opposition defenders to panic as much as Josh does. We now seem to be hearing the same complaints we were hearing about Jacob last season but he was valued and sold at £12M by a very experienced manager. Make no mistake we still have the best Murphy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A large part of the difference is that on Sunday Sunderland took their chances whereas QPR did not last night.

Norwich had much less control of the game last night and created less chances, even with QPR pushing up looking for an equaliser. Personally I feel the Sunday performance was better than yesterdays and Norwich just lacked that little bit of luck in front of goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good management, Farke got team right and got the guys fired up for it! Not afraid to make changes and change tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a bad point Bethnal , I think playing Oliveira on Sunday would have made a difference. But the defense clearly got a kick up their *** by Farke and were mor up for it than sunday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green wrote the following post at 17/08/2017 9:22 AM:

A large part of the difference is that on Sunday Sunderland took their chances whereas QPR did not last night.

Norwich had much less control of the game last night and created less chances, even with QPR pushing up looking for an equaliser. Personally I feel the Sunday performance was better than yesterdays and Norwich just lacked that little bit of luck in front of goal.

Interesting post, and yes on Sunday we hit the post twice and with a slightly different wheel of fortune oils have got something out of the game.

But surely there was a change of style last night, long kicks from Gunn, almost an absence of lateral passing. Much more direct surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunderland were happy for us to pass the ball out from the back and concede possession to us. QPR pressed higher than Sunderland so that we couldn''t play it around at the back (and when we did, we very nearly got caught out).

Sunderland were also more clinical/successful with their attempts on goal - Gunn made 3 good saves last night.

Also, Wes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main difference was that, while Sunderland sat deep and were happy to let us have the ball and hit us on the break, QPR played much higher up the pitch leaving space for us to get in behind them. This was a much worse performance than Sunday on the whole, except in the areas that actually count. I would say we were far more cautious and defensively disciplined, playing more like the away team at times; but that was what was required to win against a confident looking QPR team who were prepared to take the attack to us.The other difference was that QPR missed their chances and we took ours. I don''t think that you could really call it better defending other than avoiding the repetition of the howler for the first goal on Sunday. QPR had two great chances which is exactly the same number that Sunderland had. I would argue that the chances we had against QPR were no better than the chances we had against Sunderland.It is a game of small margins and things fell a bit more kindly for us last night. I said on Sunday that we would play a lot worse and win this season; and we did that last night. I was disappointed by the first half performance because we seemed to have lost much of the creative spark in midfield, but it returned in a timely fashion for the second half. Hopefully we will score a lot more goals with similar interplay around the edge of the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Bethnal - I said at the game that I thought we (generally) played better on Sunday and, ironically, I think QPR were better and far more adventurous than Sunderland who pretty much sat deep to nullify us. But it''s all about creating and taking chances which we did better yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Van wink"]Bethnal Yellow and Green wrote the following post at 17/08/2017 9:22 AM:

A large part of the difference is that on Sunday Sunderland took their chances whereas QPR did not last night.

Norwich had much less control of the game last night and created less chances, even with QPR pushing up looking for an equaliser. Personally I feel the Sunday performance was better than yesterdays and Norwich just lacked that little bit of luck in front of goal.

Interesting post, and yes on Sunday we hit the post twice and with a slightly different wheel of fortune oils have got something out of the game.

But surely there was a change of style last night, long kicks from Gunn, almost an absence of lateral passing. Much more direct surely.[/quote]Gunn was forced into the long kicks because, unlike Sunderland, QPR constantly pressed high and also pressed hard successfully against our midfield, hence the lower percentage possession and fewer lateral passes and, as Bethnal rightly says, more tenuous control of the game. 
With Hoolahan replacing Wildschut and Murphy ahead of Husband, there was an almost complete lack of right hand side attacking play and a notable shift of balance compared to Sunday. Pinto must have spent most of the game wondering where the yellow shirts had gone. As for Oliveira, I thought he was far too often casual and careless, singlehandedly and unnecessarily surrendering possession. IMO there is a self-serving "I''m good, look at what I can do" streak in him which doesn''t help the team or sit well with the approach Farke is trying to instil. I don''t see Farke giving Oliveira what he thinks he deserves -- first on the team sheet status, so I foresee more trouble ahead and very possibly a replacement before too long, January if not before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No real difference in my opinion.

All four games have been close, and the results could have gone either way. This feels a bit strange compared to last year when we either dominated (home) or were dominated (away) in games.

QPR were well organised, and better than last season, but don''t expect them to be much higher than 14th/15th.

We can only begin to judge after 10-12 games, but there are plenty of indicators that suggest we could be very inconsistent this year.

Where we have great ball playing players who can keep possession with gifted technique, we lack dominating players who can physically control and contain games when required. Vrancic appears to be a perfect example of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much better performance. I think QPR are better than Sunderland too. Better balance and defence better BUT two vital saves by gun. Also opposition more attack minded helped us on the break. Didn''t dominate but good deserved win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ll take tenuous control and 3 points over the ''domination'' we had on Sunday. We barely tested the Sunderland keeper until we were 3-0 down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see why there are claims that we played better on Sunday but personally I don''t agree.

We played with more pace yesterday, there was more adventure and speed in the passing and consequently more clear opportunities came our way. Mainly this was due to having more of that type of player on the pitch, Murphy, Oli and Wes in particular but also Vrancic.

Also I felt the defense looked more comfortable with the four rather than the tentative and uncertain display when we played three at the back against Sunderland.

Small margins often decide games and in the end its about creating and taking chances and defending at the crucial moments. We did those things better yesterday. The possession stats were down and maybe that is something we will look to improve in the long term but for me that doesn''t detract from what was for me a much better performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]I''ll take tenuous control and 3 points over the ''domination'' we had on Sunday. We barely tested the Sunderland keeper until we were 3-0 down.[/quote]A false dichotomy. The difference in the degree of control was not the only relevant variable between Sunday and last night. As several posters have pointed out, Parma and Bethnal among them, the quality of our play on Sunday meant the result might have turned out very different. The tenuousness of our control last night meant that the same could be said in reverse; QPR might easily have scored and taken something from the game. As Hairy says in his post - small margins.

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  

×