Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ricardo

Ricardo's report v W.B.A.

Recommended Posts

Ther was a time when I''d be full of nerves and anticipation on the day of the first home match of the season but that feeling seems to have lessened in recent years. It was more a case of, here we go with another season, I wonder what that will bring. Anyway, enough of that, it was fine and warm with a bit of broken cloud when I cycled down to CR and having seen nothing much other than a few video clips, I was looking forward to running the rule over the new boys.The new idea of setting up at the Barclay end doesn''t appeal to me and if history is anything to go by it will be seen as a mistake that may or may not be acknowledged in the fullness of time.We saw little of City as an attacking force until the fourth minute when Hernandez suddenly sprang into action and warmed Johnstone''s hands with a low shot from the angle that the keeper did well to palm away. A couple of minutes later Hanley''s delicate chip was only a shade too strong for Rhodes who had taken up a nice position on the shoulder of a defender. I hadn''t expected to be impressed but City were playing some neat stuff and the visitors were soon looking very second best. Rhodes and Pukki seemed to be working well together and Leitner was probing away to great effect. In on nice move Pinto let fly just over the top then went even closer with a mazey run and a powerful shot which Johnstone turned away in style. The Baggies only came forward in fits and starts and we were on twenty minutes before Krul had to palm away a deflected effort. Rhodes should have opened the scoring a minute later when Leitner found him wide open in the box just right of centre. Unfortunately he dithered a split second too long and the keeper was able to block it away. We barely had time to bemoan the missed chance however as Hernandez cut in from the left and struck a hard shot across goal. In the scramble it looked like the ball would go out of play at the far post but the bustling figure of Pukki kept it in play and Rhodes was on hand to bang it home from a couple of yards when the ball came back.Fully deserved and sitting pretty at this stage and indeed it might have been two in quick time had Leitner kept his twenty yarder a couple of feet lower. City kept their cool for ten minutes and there looked to be little danger when a speculative cross from the right wasn''t cleared and Krul had to foul Rodriguez as he attempted to follow up. An obvious spot kick and no surprise to find ourselves back at all square. The disappointment should have been lifted within a minute however, when Tetty won a tackle and sent Hernandez into the box. Lee Mason had the simple task of awarding another obvious penalty as the City winger was taken out by Brunt but this time when Rhodes stepped up his low shot lacked the power to beat Johnson as he dived to his left.So we arrived at the half disappointed to be all square but greatly encouraged by some good play from the home side. I was especially impressed with Pukki who looked a very decent addition with some strong and neat play and was a constant threat to the Baggies defence.As so often happens with City these days, halves are like chalk and cheese and the they started with a lack of urgency that was apparent from the first minute. Tetty tried to be clever and lost possession thirty yards out. Even then it should have been a fairly routine save for Krul as Rodriguez struck a hard shot straight at him. Whether it swerved I couldn''t say but somehow it squirmed off the City keepers arms and into the corner of the net to give the visitors a lead, that on the balance of play, they didn''t deserve.Having presented the visitors with an unexpected lead it was now it was a different game as the confidence flowed out of us and into them. There were a few panicky clearances and Krul made a decent block before City regained some composure and Rhodes almost brought it back all square when he latched on to Pukki''s cross, but couldn''t get enough on it to beat the keeper. Then it was lack of concentration again just after the hour when the Baggies winger chased down a lost cause and cut back a neat ball for Barnes to sweep into the corner from twenty yards giving Krul no chance.Oh dear, from the sublime to the ridiculous but at least they didn''t give it up and five minutes later Hernandez robbed the full back and set Pukki up nicely for a deflected effort that flew over Johnstone. It got the crowd back on side and Farke beefed things up swapping McLean for Srbeny. There were a few blocked shots as City came forward in search of an equaliser roared on by the CR faithful ,but it all went Pete Tong again when an unmarked man headed a corner back across goal for Robson Kanu to lash low past a startled Krul to extend the lead. Three minutes later it was back to one goal again as Hanley crashed a bullet header past Johnson and the crowd turned the volume up. Were we going to get another late leveller?The answer was no, and although Pukki almost got on the end of head back across goal it was just not to be as the visitors professionally milked the clock. Oh well, we''ve lost the first home game a couple of times and still been promoted. If they could have continued the style of that first half hour and cut out the stupid mistakes at the back then it is a possibility, but perhaps my expectations before a ball was kicked of 13th to 15th might eventually finish up nearer the mark.Disappointed but unbowed, OTBC Pukki my M.O.M. McLean and Marshall, decent. Not sure about Krul, he looked shell shocked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 "Pukki my M.O.M. McLean and Marshall, decent. "
Very encouraged by all three, thought Rhodes looked a bit lightweight but he does win balls in the air and generally directs them to City players, we look much more dangerous in the final third, infact in both final thirds, which is the worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent report Ricardo, a thoroughly accurate summary.

Tettey had a very poor game. I was instinctively concerned about false confidence when he made a couple of neat turns / clever passes early on and the crowd Roared approval. He is not Maddison. When he stays in shape, wins the ball back and gives it to Leitner or similar (who must also keep a link line to him) he looks effective, but he can be a passing and strategic liability. He was at fault for 3 of the goals. He also let the runner go beyond him for the other. His pivot position is so key. Particularly if the 4141 leaves him as the only shield. Running about can then be a poor substitute for holding the correct position.

We played more directly far more often than we have done previously, both creating more action in the box and more simple 2D counters as a consequence. The 2nd half wasn’t very Farke, though your shell-shock point following Krul’s horror show and Rhodes’ feeble penalty is certainly right.

In the first half it was a game we never looked like losing and in the second it was a game we never looked like winning. Those who say they want ‘to get it in there more’ and ‘don’t mind if we lose 3-4 so long as we get goals’ have precisely what they wished for. I saw quite a lot of tactical ill-discipline and felt it looked chaotic and a backwards step.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ParmaYes it felt chaotic second half but if you have to keep chasing a two goal deficet its inevitable. I thought if Rhodes pen had gone in it would have been a different game and somewhat of a routine win. Chasing a game that we should have been in control of might be exciting for the neutral but I had my head in my hands more than once. It seemed an unnecessary self inflicted defeat.I''m worried for Krul. He seems to have had a fragile confidence recently and that goal won''t have helped. At least the crowd didn''t get on his back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good report as usual Ricardo.

Agree that had Rhodes netted the penalty the game would have been different. It seemed to knock the stuffing out of us.

I thought it was Rhodes (not Pukki) who could and probably should have converted Hanley’s header back across goal.

I share the reservations about Krul. He has lacked form since his injury which is a few seasons back now. Let’s hope he can rediscover it, as Farke does not seem to to fancy his other options. As you say the crowd seemed to forgive him this one, but he now needs to have a good game or two to build some credit.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good summary but really MoM surely must be Onel had a hand in all 3 goals and brought down for penalty. However seemed wasted at times when isolated out wide needs to get more interested. Our new hero Josh Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tried to view us in a positive light as after all I have already paid for the rest of the season !!! Have to say disappointed with the performance. First half we did play a bit more direct albeit that this mainly consisted of long balls up to Rhodes although we did seem to pick up quite a few knock downs etc. Second half we looked tired and Krul''s/Tettey mistake did not help. Overall I thought we kept our build up play slow and predictable and continually failed to notice our wide players with loads of space. We desperately needed someone who could put their foot on the ball and open up the opposition. I did not think any of the new players impressed and the theory "you get what you pay for" continually came to mind. WBA were nothing special. Still think the quality of Championship Football is pretty average and with the best will in the world just cannot see that Daniel Farke will take us anywhere. When we went 3-1 down he sat on the bench and looked completely lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can''t agree with your comments about Tetty Parma; I thought he had a good game, doing the dirty stuff well, as ever. To say he was at fault for 3 goals and to infer he was part responsible for the other is simply not accurate imo.

Despite the disappointing result, one big positive was the performance of Pukki. Aggressive off the ball, clever on it. Lots of short, smart passes setting teammates off into space, positive forward movement with the ball and an assist and a goal to go with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed Ricardo. The penalty was fundamental and then compounded by the Tettey / Krul horror show second.

One of the issues was (out of position) Pinto regularly driving from left back to right wing. It‬ looks exciting, but requires tactical readjustment elsewhere. This kind of adjustment typically to the pivot player to cover. Tettey over-committed for the first, got caught ball watching and a soft penalty was conceded. The system denotes him often as a central third centre back (so he simply cannot to chasing the ball too far elsewhere). The third was a feeble effort to prevent the back post header.

He has a habit of stepping higher into midfield, in hopeful attempts to win/balls or shut space when an opposition counter is clearly on and he needs to drop 10 yards away from the play (also forcing others to take their own midfield responsibility). He doesn’t do this naturally.

It is so fundamental to watch the patterns of play that are trying to be achieved and who adheres to their role. Much of this occurs off the ball, rather than where the immediate action is. Maddison was a clever player spacially, Leitner is also. Tettey isn’t. His passing will also be exposed as he de -facto receives too much ball in that position and it’s crucial for our structural build-up play. He is too slow to do it and too inaccurate at it.

I think Tettey has a key part to play in the side, though it is so important to ask players to do what they can do and not expose their inherent weaknesses unnecessarily.

He is not the sole reason for our defeat today by a long shot, but it’s a clear structural issue that will repeat (and be quickly targeted by opposition coaches) if left unattended.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, fair report Ricardo. Great to see you posting again Parma.
It''s one of those that swings on the key moments. Well, as they all do I suppose. Rhodes penalty miss, Krul''s mistake. That''s a 2 goal swing and had we won 4-3 we''d have been cheering and running around that we''ve changed to endless attacking play and it''s working.
I''m pleased you mentioned Tettey Parma. I thought he was better in possession today than last week but was considerably worse off the ball. But, it was a big ask for him to play that singular defensive role especially when, as you rightly say, Pinto was regularly on the complete other side of the pitch.
Compounding that with Hanley having had a poor defensive start to the season and it''s always going to be difficult.
The main positives are the same as I took from Brum. We look more dangerous in the final attacking third, we have in Rhodes a striker that''s always getting himself into the right area''s whilst also giving the defence and midfield a longer ball option during build up. We''ve got a winger that''ll blow hot and cold in Onel but has clear ability and pace whilst also having more strength than most wingers in this league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your right to point out the typical movements of our full backs Highy.

If you play a four, then encourage your full backs to attack and play high, your pivot must adhere to station.

He is far more likely to more often drop in between the centre backs, creating a three (and a defensive screen) as they split wide to receive from the goalkeeper, rather than be required to drive high into midfield (where there are four midfielders ahead of him, plus the full backs higher forming the ‘W’) to go pressing or chasing the ball.

It looks like he’s committed, like he’s in the centre of the action, like he’s he’s pressuring the opposition, but he shouldn’t be doing it. Not in that pivot role.

Truthfully it only goes to show that he should be asked to do the pressing and space-shutting he wants to do (and can do well) and not be asked to solve tactical positional issues that he can’t see on-field and that don’t synch with his natural instincts. The pivot role requires a defensive-minded fear-smeller without ego who is a simple, cool passer who is tactically aware and doesn’t puppy-chase the ball.

Then you can load strategic and tactical responsibilities on his shoulders ( and free others). Such players tho silly need a passing minder (Leitner) to buzz around close to them and provide a first-look option (within 5 yards).

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still the same mistakes.
No need for high pressing, steam ironing or any other similar guff. Just mark the opposition players.
Zones or bits of the pitch do not score - the opposition does when it is unmarked and has time on the ball. To watch defenders looking at the ball to see if it comes into their ''zone'' is not only painful but a warning that if Farke persists with this idiotic buffoonery we will continue to concede goals.
And what on earth was Rhodes doing with that penalty ? Just welly it as hard as possible to one side or the other - don''t give the keeper time to react.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought McLean was the worst player in yellow today, he was very light weight and the substitution for Srebny should have been made 10-15 minutes sooner. Pinto was poor, didn''t even make an effort to get back for their 3rd goal just stood looking on the half way line as their right winger put in an unchallenged cross that was easily dispatchetd. Krul was also poor, gave away a penalty and let a bread and butter save through his hands to give them the lead. Yes we scored three, but we should have been out of sight at half time, especially with the poor penalty from Rhodes (who I hope won''t be taking another for a while).
I hope that the mistakes are a one off, or else this is going to be a very long season.
About the only bright spot I can take from today is that the binners lost to Rotherham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t get people bemoaning the build-up play - today the first half in particular was anything but predictable and we looked more incisive than most of last season. Of course there will be some slow play at times, aimless lumping gets us nowhere. It does seem it is going to be a stick to use whenever suits, as though some just want something akin to route-one play, which I certainly don''t want. The ''better balance'' to the side we''ve bern talking about was certainly more evident to me

Ricardo - re: setting up at the Barclay first half, surely that is just you - I believe being in the River End - preferring the alternative; I in the Barclay would disagree. IMO away sides shooting ''towards'' their fans in the second half is an advantage and one I find it strange we seem to have previously adopted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glad someone mentioned Pinto. there was something odd going oh with him wasn''t there? Didn''t celebrate the goals particularly , (Hanley had a chat with him after the first goal) , got irritable with his own players, didn''t always track back and on occasions looked like he was looking to take on the world?

As for the verbose analysis of Rhodes - here''s my opinion. The lad missed a one on one, and a pen, and probably should have got on the end of Hanleys nod down. End of. Added to Kruel punching into his own net, that''s game over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]

 Ricardo - re: setting up at the Barclay first half, surely that is just you - I believe being in the River End - preferring the alternative; I in the Barclay would disagree. IMO away sides shooting ''towards'' their fans in the second half is an advantage and one I find it strange we seem to have previously adopted.[/quote]

Its not a random thing. All I can tell you is that over the decades, successive City captains have chosen to kick towards the River End second half when winning the toss. Never having played at CR, I couldn''t give you a reason for this be it sun, slope or whatever but it is certainly an historical fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Didn''t see the game Ricardo so won''t comment but have to ask the question.

Was there a visible change from last season? Or intent to change from last season?

You seemed to enjoy our play in the first half. So are we seeing a different style of play or tempo from the team?

Obviously the result didn''t go our way but scoring five in the opening two games seems to point to a change. It sounds as if Hernandez makes us more direct and pacey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Didn''t see the game Ricardo so won''t comment but have to ask the question.

Was there a visible change from last season? Or intent to change from last season?

You seemed to enjoy our play in the first half. So are we seeing a different style of play or tempo from the team?

Obviously the result didn''t go our way but scoring five in the opening two games seems to point to a change. It sounds as if Hernandez makes us more direct and pacey.[/quote]KGYes, the play was much quicker and there was more of a variation in long and short balls. As I said in my report, I didn''t expect to be impressed but I was because there was some excellent stuff in that opening half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good report Ricardo.Sums it up very well.

Blimey Parma have you been on a FA coaching course?A tad technical me thinks.

My own thoughts?I thought our attacking play was such an improvement on last season.Variation of long ball and playing from the back was good to see ,probably a diagonal ball would not go amiss occasionally as there were times when players were out wide with lots of space.I have to say I was impressed with all the new outfield players.I am not a particular fan of Rhodes so as far as him and Krul are concerned the jury is still out.

I am not sure I am a fan of playing McLean who is predominantly left footed on the right of midfield with Leitner on the left.McLean looked quite uncomfortable at times.

I still can''t quite understand why DF insists on McGovern being on the bench when he could use Matthews.While he is still here Remi can''t be so bad that he can''t sit on the bench.I think he would also count as a home grown player which would give DF the chance to have Trybul/Buendia on the bench instead of Cantwell,who I do not rate.

Oh and another thing.The PA system is still shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KG, you can watch the game on Facebook ( you join the Norwich City fans group). A bloke streams on his TV. It is like any other stream maybe 1.30 /2 minutes behind but you see the pattern of the game live with no problem. People make comments but you can swipe them free if desired.

The first half I thought was a big change to last year and so unlike a lot of the Birmingham game. It''s an obvious change in set up.

We lost yesterday quite bluntly in my opinion because of some shocking goalkeeping. I guess all keepers have this now and then. I have started to wonder whether Krul lacks the kind of game time that say Matthews had in a long loan spell at Plymouth. But Farke must know best I suppose. Keelan was at the game and would not have been impressed - but there again even though my favourite keeper of all time, I saw him make some howlers over the years ( one where he rested both hands on his hips as the strikers shot bobbled from the edge of the box, only to see it hit the edge of Keelan''s post and roll in. Think it was v. Boro but my years may be deceiving me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have often seemed to attack the Barclay in the first half. Bit of a tradition. Maybe it might even be 7 times out if 10? Who knows!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree with Parma about Tettey. It''s not that he''s a bad player, he''s just not suited to the role Farke wants him to play. If you''re the ''1'' in the 4-1-4-1 you''re essentially another defender and should barely be crossing the halfway line, particularly when we have the ball and our fullbacks attack. Tettey doesn''t have the discipline to do this, Trybull lacks the mobility to play the role, so it would be interested to see if Godfrey or Thompson possess the required characteristics. If not we need to go back to the back 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly I''ve only seen the highlights, but a couple of things do stand out.
Tettey notably is not match fit, looking a second behind the play at key junctures- not the standard we''re used to from him, but he was culpable in 3 of the concessions today. One assumes this is an overhang from the preseason missed due to his illness, so the question does need to be raised as to why he is starting over our much-vaunted Godfrey or Thompson.
Similarly Pinto, clocking his first match minutes since last season, showed a lot of swashbuckling endeavour in an attacking sense but was caught miles out of position for the 3rd and wandered off his man for the 4th. Tiredness, concentration and playing out of position allowed for, I wonder why we weren''t starting Stiepermann (if he was fit enough to come on, he was fit enough to start) and having Pinto on the bench as an option if needed.
The least culpable of the offenders today for me was Krul- every keeper has a howler now and then, it''s only if it becomes a regular thing that it becomes an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t disagree often with Ricardo but I don''t think that Marshall''s performance was in any way decent, and the overall display, even at the start of a season, was unacceptable.

For 30 minutes we were excellent, for the next 60 we were appalling - that is down not only to the individual errors made but also to the management team for continuing to play people out of position and not responding tactically to a change by the opposition - yet again.

Marshall was not decent - he was poor. Almost every cross hit the first man and the first goal was his fault. He isn''t a right back.

Krul and Tettey were at fault for the second and Pinto didn''t chase for the third, even though Krul should still have saved the shot. Tettey lost his man again for the fourth but the scorer also wasn''t marked.

This is all very, very basic stuff - players simply not doing their jobs. West Brom pushed up on us in the second half, just like everyone did last season and again we didn''t or couldn''t respond - tactically inept.

We might see lots of goals but we won''t trouble the top half of this league when it is so easy to beat us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Just seen the highlights and have to say that there were individual errors all round.

Rhodes penalty was one of the weakest I have seen.

It seemed Marshall totally misjudged the cross for their first.

Tettey looked slower than me for their second and I don''t know what happened but Krul''s demeanour looked like he had goofed as well.

And their last two goals looked like classic ball watching.

I can''t blame DF for individual errors. But maybe he judged certain players too soon.

I think Tettey was always slowish but now looks static and surely Godfrey or Thompson must be more mobile.

If not then maybe a back three is on the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Tettey was always slowish but now looks static and surely Godfrey or Thompson must be more mobile.

If not then maybe a back three is on the cards.

This should be the season for Louis to break through, he was looking good before his injury, a long time on the sidelines for a young man, he must be chomping at the bit now.
Looked a real powerfull unit yesterday, hope he gets his chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time for some changes on Tuesday. I''d rest Tettey and Pinto, but Krul and Rhodes must IMO start, we have to get both of them playing time and equally importantly confidence.

At the back I''d like to see how Lewis, Godfrey, Hanley and Passlack combine as a group, also how Srbeny and Rhodes work as pair up front.

.................................Krul................................

.....Passlack..... Hanley ..... Godfrey. .... Lewis.....

....................McLean .....Thompson..................

..............Srbeny......Leitner ....Hernandez.........

..............................Rhodes..............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickyyyy, surely the reason we always chose to attack the riverend second half was the slope. I assume the pitch was finally levelled when it was relaid.
Great to see Parma posting. 

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...