Yanic missing again.

[daisy 137]

With city crying out for a positive winger that takes on players instead of passing sideways and backwards, once again Yanic sits on the bench waiting for a chance. Surely this guy deserves a run of games now as our other wide players don`t seem to know how to take players on. Some will say he lacks the final ball or cannot perform for 90 mins but I would rather see a player that makes at least one of my bum cheeks lift off the seat than watching the likes of Watkins, Stieperman, Murphy or our beloved Wes in that very same position.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

It’s embarrassing to think we conceded from a pacy winger who got to the line and put a cross in for the big striker, yet we almost never do this.

Listening to Farke talk last night it seems that it’s a completely alien concept to him that it’s possible to play like that

**on the flip side do we have anybody capable of playing like that? The ball players have no pace and the pacy players have no final ball...

[king canary 7,559]

Yanic as a sub is fine but he''s just as frustrating as any of the players listed above- he can run but that is honestly about it. His crossing is woeful.

[Clint 221]

He doesn''t retain possession sadly which is all Farke seems interested in.

[Bill 1,788]

Put him in the middle, up frontOliveira seems to tend to drift wide so why not have a lump being a nuisance in the middle. It was NO''s cross that led to our goal against Barnsley Holt was originally a wide playerWatch his second goal here and the bulldozing way he took the ball forwardhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI5o2snTH9Ybe warned - loud volume

[GJP 79]

If Yanic had the final ball to match his pace and power he probably wouldn''t be playing for us.

Similarly if some of our ball players had pace they wouldn''t be playing for us.

But you have to get the balance/blend right and our midfield seems too much of one thing.

Pace worries defenders. And just getting the ball into the right area can be of benefit.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

Sure his final delivery isn''t brilliant, but his fallibility to run with the ball, beat defenders and drive into dangerous areas, relieves pressure from a defensive aspect, and creates opportunities in the right areas.

I baffled he hasn''t started more. I thought his performance against Sheff Utd warranted an extended run in the side. Its almost Alex Neil / Pritchard all over again.

I keep saying it, but one from Hoolahan or Maddison with Yanic and Watkins is our best 3 behind the striker. We played this at Boro and it worked. Sheff Utd it worked too, with Murphy instead of Watkins.

Picking more than one from Madders, Wes and Vrancic hasnt worked all season, and I''m baffled as to why Farke continues with it.

Please Yanic and Watkins with Hoolahan or Maddsion Saturday!

[hogesar 9,609]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]Sure his final delivery isn''t brilliant, but his fallibility to run with the ball, beat defenders and drive into dangerous areas, relieves pressure from a defensive aspect, and creates opportunities in the right areas.

I baffled he hasn''t started more. I thought his performance against Sheff Utd warranted an extended run in the side. Its almost Alex Neil / Pritchard all over again.

I keep saying it, but one from Hoolahan or Maddison with Yanic and Watkins is our best 3 behind the striker. We played this at Boro and it worked. Sheff Utd it worked too, with Murphy instead of Watkins.

Picking more than one from Madders, Wes and Vrancic hasnt worked all season, and I''m baffled as to why Farke continues with it.

Please Yanic and Watkins with Hoolahan or Maddsion Saturday![/quote]

Somewhat annoyingly, I agree with you.

Although I do think Wes and Maddison can play together - but not at a time when we''re significantly out of form and there''s a lack of movement off the ball.

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="king canary"]Yanic as a sub is fine but he''s just as frustrating as any of the players listed above- he can run but that is honestly about it. His crossing is woeful.[/quote]

If he really did cost £7m. thats a very expensive sub!

[FenwayFrank 2,448]

He didn’t cost anywhere near that much

[nutty nigel 7,506]

So, if we were to sell Yanic and replace him with a cheaper player would that still be downgrading the squad?

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="FenwayFrank"]He didn’t cost anywhere near that much[/quote]

Evidence?

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]So, if we were to sell Yanic and replace him with a cheaper player would that still be downgrading the squad?[/quote]

Depends on the quality of the player you are signing.

[king canary 7,559]

If we did sell him it''d be to get his wages off the budget.

[westcoastcanary 173]

I''m expecting a number of football-based departures in the summer irrespective of financial considerations. Yanic could well be one of those. Has he shown any improvement or real adaptability? I haven''t seen any.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

@westcoast

You could say that for 90% of the squad,but is that because the way we play is so rigid? There is never any effort to play differently at home.

Yanic may lack a final ball, but nobody else has the ability to pick it up and run 30yards at pace which is what defenders hate

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="king canary"]Yanic as a sub is fine [/quote]So I make it that we''ve got at least 11 players who are fine sitting on the bench and can come on as an impact player.Trouble is none of them ever make any impact at all.

[lake district canary 4,530]

I can''t help thinking that Yanic is not the kind of player for this stye of football, neither are a few others who are not good passers.  What is the point in having a wide player who might score a few goals but rarely delivers anything of worth for anyone else?  We had that with Snodgrass too.  If you look at Rhubarb''s montage of Holt''s goals - many were provided by crosses or through balls from a wide player.   Now that is all well and good, but we simply don''t have the players for that.  Murphy loses the ball too easily and for all Yanic''s power, he doesn''t deliver often enough. Watkins looks to me to be the best of the three potentially - but hasn''t made enough impact yet. The other side of the coin of course is that we don''t have a finisher like Holt who used to bust a gut to get to anything put in the box - how great it must be for a wide player to know that there is someone like him there to cross to.  So in short, we are hamstrung - Jerome isn''t a patch on Holt and Oliveira isn''t the kind to bust a gut to get to anything in the penalty box. The other issue is, of course is that because Murphy and Yanic so often have little end product, we therefore further give the initiative to the opposition - and that is against company policy!   The wide players have to either score more themselves or at least put in a penetrating cross or pass occasionally to give others a chance to score.  I know Murphy shows flashes of inspiration occasionally, but too often just loses the ball. The squad is short of the kind of players needed - Farke needs another transfer window or two to get the kind of players he needs.

[hogesar 9,609]

[quote user="lake district canary"]I can''t help thinking that Yanic is not the kind of player for this stye of football, neither are a few others who are not good passers.  What is the point in having a wide player who might score a few goals but rarely delivers anything of worth for anyone else?  We had that with Snodgrass too.  If you look at Rhubarb''s montage of Holt''s goals - many were provided by crosses or through balls from a wide player.   Now that is all well and good, but we simply don''t have the players for that.  Murphy loses the ball too easily and for all Yanic''s power, he doesn''t deliver often enough. Watkins looks to me to be the best of the three potentially - but hasn''t made enough impact yet. The other side of the coin of course is that we don''t have a finisher like Holt who used to bust a gut to get to anything put in the box - how great it must be for a wide player to know that there is someone like him there to cross to.  So in short, we are hamstrung - Jerome isn''t a patch on Holt and Oliveira isn''t the kind to bust a gut to get to anything in the penalty box. The other issue is, of course is that because Murphy and Yanic so often have little end product, we therefore further give the initiative to the opposition - and that is against company policy!   The wide players have to either score more themselves or at least put in a penetrating cross or pass occasionally to give others a chance to score.  I know Murphy shows flashes of inspiration occasionally, but too often just loses the ball. The squad is short of the kind of players needed - Farke needs another transfer window or two to get the kind of players he needs. [/quote]

Sorry Lakey but there is so much wrong with the above, i''ll number each bold sentence to try and explain.

1) If that''s the case, why does Josh play? He has a worse successful pass % than Wildshut and gives the ball away more often because he''s not as strong

2) Snodgrass got 8 assists for us in the prem. Oh, and this season he already has 2 goals and 4 assists (more than any norwich player this season) in his 12 appearances.

3) I like Watkins but what on earth gives you the impression he has the best delivery out of the 3 is beyond me.

4) What''s your point? We''ve not had Holt for years yet last season we were able to score 55 goals at home, and oh look, we played wingers / wide players.

5) We''re in the championship. There are very few wingers who deliver consistent end product. One of the few that do show consistency at this level is a player you consistently criticise - Snodgrass.

6) Easy to say but what players are we going to get? We have 0 budget and the chances of us coming back with someone who''s an improvement on Josh (not his form, but ability) or Wildshut, is very, very unlikely.

[GJP 79]

I can remember Yanic started the game at Portman Road and caused them a few problems. And we won.

I can''t be bothered to do it but it''d be interesting to see something like how many games started/minutes played Yanic had in the good run compared to the bad run.

[GJP 79]

Whenever I see our line-up I ask myself who I would be worried about if I was an opposing defender or defensively minded player.

Is Maddison running past me? No. Vrancic? No. Hoolahan? No. Stiepermann on the right wing? No bother there. Josh Murphy? Well he''s got a bit of pace and a trick but he doesn''t battle for the ball.

[king canary 7,559]

I kind of agree with LDC that Wildschut doesn''t hugely suit this style of play.

Yet I also agree with GJP that having his pace and ability to run with the ball in the team gives us something different and forces teams to adjust.

If he had any sort of final ball he''d be a top player at this level. However he doesn''t and is at best a squad player for us.

[lake district canary 4,530]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="lake district canary"]I can''t help thinking that Yanic is not the kind of player for this stye of football, neither are a few others who are not good passers.  What is the point in having a wide player who might score a few goals but rarely delivers anything of worth for anyone else?  We had that with Snodgrass too.  If you look at Rhubarb''s montage of Holt''s goals - many were provided by crosses or through balls from a wide player.   Now that is all well and good, but we simply don''t have the players for that.  Murphy loses the ball too easily and for all Yanic''s power, he doesn''t deliver often enough. Watkins looks to me to be the best of the three potentially - but hasn''t made enough impact yet. The other side of the coin of course is that we don''t have a finisher like Holt who used to bust a gut to get to anything put in the box - how great it must be for a wide player to know that there is someone like him there to cross to.  So in short, we are hamstrung - Jerome isn''t a patch on Holt and Oliveira isn''t the kind to bust a gut to get to anything in the penalty box. The other issue is, of course is that because Murphy and Yanic so often have little end product, we therefore further give the initiative to the opposition - and that is against company policy!   The wide players have to either score more themselves or at least put in a penetrating cross or pass occasionally to give others a chance to score.  I know Murphy shows flashes of inspiration occasionally, but too often just loses the ball. The squad is short of the kind of players needed - Farke needs another transfer window or two to get the kind of players he needs. [/quote]

Sorry Lakey but there is so much wrong with the above, i''ll number each bold sentence to try and explain.

1) If that''s the case, why does Josh play? He has a worse successful pass % than Wildshut and gives the ball away more often because he''s not as strong

2) Snodgrass got 8 assists for us in the prem. Oh, and this season he already has 2 goals and 4 assists (more than any norwich player this season) in his 12 appearances.

3) I like Watkins but what on earth gives you the impression he has the best delivery out of the 3 is beyond me.

4) What''s your point? We''ve not had Holt for years yet last season we were able to score 55 goals at home, and oh look, we played wingers / wide players.

5) We''re in the championship. There are very few wingers who deliver consistent end product. One of the few that do show consistency at this level is a player you consistently criticise - Snodgrass.

6) Easy to say but what players are we going to get? We have 0 budget and the chances of us coming back with someone who''s an improvement on Josh (not his form, but ability) or Wildshut, is very, very unlikely.

[/quote]

Thanks for picking out the holes in my argument..........I think.Yes, we scored goals last season, but many of them came from non strikers.  Dorrans 6  Brady 4 Hoolahan 7 Jacob 9 Naismith 5 Pritcard 6 and a few dotted around the rest of the team.  Jerome got 16, Oliveira 11.   Looking at  that, it is impressive - but in a season where we are trying to sort out the defence, the goals were always going to be harder to get - and with the chances we do get we need clinical striker the likes of Holt. As I said Jerome is not clinical enough and Oliveira isn''t going to bust a gut to get on the end of things like holt used to.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

It’s all very well saying that some of the players are not suited to this system, but is it not the system that is just wrong?

We are simply not going to pass through teams at Carrow Road when they will happily sit with 10 men behind the ball, knowing they can hit us on the break repeatedly. Once our initial break slows down, the opposition defenders get back and we end up aimlessly passing it around until we lose it.

As for Jerome being clinical and Oliveira not busting a gut they have NOTHING to get on the end of. We are having 1 or 2 shots on target a game? Hardly any wide play, few crosses, strikers being pulled wide and deep just to get involved

Instead of saying Farke needs 2 or 3 windows to get the players he wants how about he looks at the players we have and sets up to get the best out of them?

Because if not nothing will change and we may as well pack up for the season and hope we have enough to avoid relegation...

[westcoastcanary 173]

@Rogue Baboon

Defenders don''t fear one trick ponies; they just nullify them -- in Yanic''s case by numbers. That would be useful if we were able to target the stretched cover elsewhere, but that requires more from Yanic than he currently seems able to (or be coached to) provide. 

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

If Snodgrass was in this current squad he would monumentally improve it.

[lake district canary 4,530]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]If Snodgrass was in this current squad he would monumentally improve it.[/quote]Unfortunately, I agree with you.  In the championship, Snodgrass is well up to the job. Would not want him back as he needs to feel he is the top man at a club - and needs his ego massaged too much.  Bruce does that so will get the best out of him.  I would still much prefer an unselfish winger who was more inclusve in the way he approached what some forget is a team sport.

[king canary 7,559]

Have you ever met Snodgrass? Or spoken to anyone who has worked with him or knows him?

Your bizarre desire to play psychologist with him is really bloody weird.

[lake district canary 4,530]

[quote user="king canary"]Have you ever met Snodgrass? Or spoken to anyone who has worked with him or knows him?

Your bizarre desire to play psychologist with him is really bloody weird.[/quote]It''s because I''ve never seen a Norwich player so intent on being the main man and not being able to live up to it.  He was in Holt''s shadow until Holt left and he tried to take over as the main man -  the penalty he took off RVW was absolutey in character - and the way he tried to trying to talk himself up into being Scotland captain.  Everything he does is based on boosting his ego - the histrionics when things didn''t go his way, dominating the ball at the expense of other players. Was found out at West Ham, unable to cope with not having his ego massaged.  He will likely tear up the championship this season, Bruce is his ideal manager and will boost his ego at every turn. We need team players - a group that develop instinctive and trusting behaviour towards each other on the pitch, no one player being more important than anyone else. 

 

[king canary 7,559]

Yeah, it''s really weird.