Please help with some ideas

[Coneys Knee 1,033]

I just keep pondering the thinking behind why Farke chose to replace Timm Klose with Ben Godfrey on Sunday. I know it’s a bit random and a bit late after the game but I just wondered what people’s thoughts were.

I can’t seem to see what his thought process for choosing Godfrey over Zimmermann would have been, especially keeping in mind we already had two youngsters in the back line. I’m not saying it was an incorrect decision, just wondering what people’s thoughts were on why he went for Godfrey and not Zimmermann.

[SwindonCanary 456]

Apparently Klose had suffered concussion with the 1p5wich man who was carried off - so injury 

[KeiranShikari_2 0]

Didn''t he play better than Zim in the cup games.

[nutty nigel 7,776]

My guess is future planning and that Godfrey is to be Klose''s replacement. Possibly in January. If Hanley had been injured Zimmermann would may have been the call.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,196]

Farke''s comments earlier in the week saying that he thought Godfrey would make a top class centre back were widely publicised. Given this is what Farke thinks it''s hardly surprising that he brought him on at Ipswich.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356]

The time and space in the modern game is in the centre back area (and increasingly with the goalkeepers).

It is essential to have calm ball players in this area to make an integrated passing system work or it fails before it begins.

Good passing midfielders otherwise receive receive the ball a half second too late / at the wrong pace / slightly into the wrong place / without thought as to the next pass. An average watcher might not even note that the pass is actually poor or poorer than it needed to be (straight to feet can be a poor ball for example).

Klose is a fine ball-playing centre back. Hanley isn’t. As a pair they can be seen as Championship complementary. Zimmerman plus Hanley is not as effective for ball retention or constructive ‘vertical’ balls into midfield, indeed they might not even be tried.

Godfrey can play these balls and also has a very bright, sharp, flat, early diagonal which none of the others possess to the same level.

It is not about the best eleven players, or even who is the best defender, it is about who fits the system better to allow the system to function at its optimum and allow the eleven players combined to achieve more than would otherwise be the case.

Parma

[norfolkngood 1,167]

Exactly Parma the Modern CB one has to be like a CB / Midfielder mix like a John Stones

Able to be a CB when defending but with the ball pass like a midfielder

[ZLF 327]

As well as the ball playing angle I retain doubts over Zims effectiveness in a pair; his star games for us are in a back 3 and usually against better quality teams who are less reliant on the big ball forward.

Given kloses better early season form and godfreys ball playing skills perhaps Klose Godfrey is the CB pairing we should be using going forward.

[Big O 269]

[quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"]The time and space in the modern game is in the centre back area (and increasingly with the goalkeepers).

It is essential to have calm ball players in this area to make an integrated passing system work or it fails before it begins.

Good passing midfielders otherwise receive receive the ball a half second too late / at the wrong pace / slightly into the wrong place / without thought as to the next pass. An average watcher might not even note that the pass is actually poor or poorer than it needed to be (straight to feet can be a poor ball for example).

Klose is a fine ball-playing centre back. Hanley isn’t. As a pair they can be seen as Championship complementary. Zimmerman plus Hanley is not as effective for ball retention or constructive ‘vertical’ balls into midfield, indeed they might not even be tried.

Godfrey can play these balls and also has a very bright, sharp, flat, early diagonal which none of the others possess to the same level.

It is not about the best eleven players, or even who is the best defender, it is about who fits the system better to allow the system to function at its optimum and allow the eleven players combined to achieve more than would otherwise be the case.

Parma

Parma, I always find your posts interesting and thought provoking. Thanks

Given the above, in your view do you think that we should really be using Godfrey as a single pivot in a deep lying defensive midfield position?

Tettey doesn’t have the passing range and leitner coming so deep doesn’t quite work, surely Godfrey is the answer and then we can have two other midfielders going forward who can compete I.e leitner and trybull or mcclean?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356]

Big O,

Passing centre backs with vision, stature and a technical ability to play a pass half a second later than most - and who can defend Championship balls and who are English - are rare.

Godfrey has the attributes and potential to be a top level centre back - which is the way Farke wants ours to play anyway (quite correctly in my view) - so the issue we face is how to get him into that role when Klose is a fine example and Hanley considered something of a Championship necessity.

It is actually quite a conundrums for Farke and Webber. Holding Godfrey back goes aginst the development ethos, whilst there isn’t an obvious 1st Xi spot for him.

Klose’s contract probably provides the solution.

Parma

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356]

It is my view that we don’t possess a true CDM and so use Leitner as regista sometimes, Tettey as a tactically poorly-disciplined version (though a decent terrier 8), Trybull as something of all of the above and the shadow of Maddison looming large over all, as he was so good it didn’t really matter where he played, he made it work.That the others can’t do this is no shame on them. If you are simply much better, then it is sometimes the case that tactics are not as fundamental, anything can be made to work. Conversely when you are closely matched or inferior tactics become fundamental to level the playing field. Fans never like to think of their team or players as inferior which is where the schism between professional or dispassionate observer and fan occurs.

As a consequence of the above CDM at Norwich is a somewhat exposed tactical role in our current set up and a strategic weakness. To put our (very young), potentially high quality modern centre back into this scenario - regardless of the fact he had a specific breeding period here at a lower level - would be to risk corrupting some very fine ingredients.

Farke is correctly protecting Godfrey from it.

Parma

[Midlands Yellow 4,449]

Names and positions were drawn out a hat ?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356]

Big O,

Having thought about it, it may be that Godfrey’s development and potential encourage a welcome reversion to 3-5-2.

Whilst paper formations can be misleading, it is notable that our full backs look well suited to the wing back role, our defence looks more solid and our midfield - without a true single pivot CDM - benefits structurally from two (relative) holding or deeper-lying players (including at least one of Tettey or Trybull or similar).

Inferior sides - or sides playing at the top level or when playing sophisticated tactical sides - look vulnerable with two strikers or/and high and mostly non-defending wider players.

In our case playing Leitner plus Hernandez plus Pukki plus Rhodes plus a.n.other (that isn’t Tettey or Trybull) in a 4-1-4-1 simply leaves us exposed, whilst not quite having enough tactically-sharp ball retainers with sound Technical ability.

We look sound until we try to attack, whereupon our lack of real weapons leaves us looking a little toothless, whilst (connectedly) not particularly solid either. Tettey chasing the ball anywhere away from the pocket in front of the two centre backs scares me every time. He shouldn’t do it and no-ones in any case covers him. Ironically when Trybull plays the role he ‘stays’ much better, but then others around him don’t press the areas he (correctly) refuses to run into.

Simply throwing Godfrey into that does not solve the structural issue in any case, however good he may be.

Parma

[Bill 1,788]

''Tettey chasing the ball anywhere away from the pocket in front of the two centre backs scares me every time.''

Especially when he shoots

and what about those two defenders Klose and Hanley, what were they doing in the last few minutes against the binners at CR (apart from scoring) ?

also how far ''out of his pocket'' was Maddison when he hit that pass towards Hanley ?

or Klose with that cross to Lewis in the Chelsea box to score another late equaliser ?

maybe Farke could discreetly mark out the players various pockets/areas so they don''t stray out of them

a sort of zonal playing, if you like

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356]

Big O,

One small further factory that might be considered is that it is undoubtedly to the benefit of the new development philosophy to ensure that promising young players do come to the attention of the wider football world.

There is a delicate balance to be struck between protecting young players in a sporting sense ( is possible example above) and ensuring that any value in the young talent we have is realised to the full.

That these two things may be conflicting, and indeed that the second might on occasion be PR over-stated for commercial gain, are issues inherent.

Parma

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

You can go all the way back to the Stringer and Forbes pairing to recognise that we had a ball winner and a ball player in the central defensive positions. Stringer was always a cultured passer of the ball and Big Dunc always sought to pass the ball to him or else whack it up field if a pass wasn''t on. It was more about letting your better player have the ball than any kind of ''system'' as we call it today.

[nutty nigel 7,776]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]You can go all the way back to the Stringer and Forbes pairing to recognise that we had a ball winner and a ball player in the central defensive positions. Stringer was always a cultured passer of the ball and Big Dunc always sought to pass the ball to him or else whack it up field if a pass wasn''t on. It was more about letting your better player have the ball than any kind of ''system'' as we call it today.[/quote]

I''m sure Big Dunc could go a whole game without kicking the ball at all[:)]

[CANARYKING 683]

Poor Duncan wouldn’t last long in the modern games, nor would a few others ? Trevor Hockey for one !

[Nuff Said 5,652]

I''m sure I''ve seen Hanley play a few pinpoint cross-field balls. Is it just my yellow and green glasses that blind me to his lack of skills in playing out from the back?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356]

Nuff said,

It is not about what you can do with a second of time, it is what you can do with half a second of time (or instinctively do with even less).

This is where historical comparisons (or lower levels) bear little resemblance to the modern game. There is so much less time for decisions, you are physically (and mentally) more tired from increased distances, sprints and average intensity.

The key factor for coaches, scouts and analysts is then to determine what a players deep-seated instinctive processes are, how they fit with your team/tactical model/philosophy, and - most importantly - whether they would translate to a higher level.

Parma

[king canary 8,261]

I remember Elliot Ward being bigged up as a great ball playing defender because he could ping it 40 odd yards under no pressure. He really wasn''t though.

Zimmerman should be good (Dortmund training and all that) on the ball but struggles when pressured and often thinks he has more time than he has.

[nutty nigel 7,776]

Indeed Kingo. Doc could ping a decent 40 yard diagonal and would win a footrace over 50 yards. Just couldn''t do anything quickly. If that makes sense[:S]

I still miss him[:''(]

[king canary 8,261]

Oh yes. I remember Peter Grant playing him in defensive midfield once. We lost 5-0.

[Big O 269]

[quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"]Big O,

Having thought about it, it may be that Godfrey’s development and potential encourage a welcome reversion to 3-5-2.

Whilst paper formations can be misleading, it is notable that our full backs look well suited to the wing back role, our defence looks more solid and our midfield - without a true single pivot CDM - benefits structurally from two (relative) holding or deeper-lying players (including at least one of Tettey or Trybull or similar).

Inferior sides - or sides playing at the top level or when playing sophisticated tactical sides - look vulnerable with two strikers or/and high and mostly non-defending wider players.

In our case playing Leitner plus Hernandez plus Pukki plus Rhodes plus a.n.other (that isn’t Tettey or Trybull) in a 4-1-4-1 simply leaves us exposed, whilst not quite having enough tactically-sharp ball retainers with sound Technical ability.

We look sound until we try to attack, whereupon our lack of real weapons leaves us looking a little toothless, whilst (connectedly) not particularly solid either. Tettey chasing the ball anywhere away from the pocket in front of the two centre backs scares me every time. He shouldn’t do it and no-ones in any case covers him. Ironically when Trybull plays the role he ‘stays’ much better, but then others around him don’t press the areas he (correctly) refuses to run into.

Simply throwing Godfrey into that does not solve the structural issue in any case, however good he may be.

Parma

Thanks Parma, your knowledge far outweighs mine so always interesting to hear your views.

I have similar views on the 4-1-4-1 and the way we deploy it, admittedly I’ve missed a few games this year but Preston and Ipswich we just looked lost.

Taking into consideration your point about paper formations, I just think we might be more suited to a 4-1-2-3 formation. We don’t have a number 10 who stands out to me so I want to get a better balance in midfield and I think one pivot behind two more energetic players might allow us to compete better. Our weapons can then be two from buendia (a must for me), pukki and Hernandez with freeer roles to roam off the one centre forward.

My thinking about Godfrey is that If he plays as the single pivot he can then sink into the two centre when the fullbacks push up. The midfield two would be one of mcclean/leitner with trybull or tettey.

I think the big weakness is that we don’t have a centre forward who could make this work, but I think it would give us better balance.

Would love you to point out why it would or wouldn’t work if you can spare the time?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356]

O,

It depends how you play your formation, who you select in it, what their overriding tendencies are under pressure and what tactics, weapons and approach you are up against as to whether it can work in any given scenario.

What we can look for on paper is a balance, a sensible coverage of space and whether roles are suitable for the Norwich personnel that we know well.

If you intend your formation to be operated à la Terry Venables’ Christmas Tree, with the 1-2 actually a flattish defensive-minded three, operating in the half spaces between (ahead of) the centre backs and full backs, with your attacking 2 (you name Buendia and Pukki) dropping regularly into midfield whilst being capable of going beyond your 9 pivot (to avoid him being isolated and 1-dimensional - Rhodes has limited threat in behind), then there is balance, though - particularly if your chosen full backs want to attack, join midfield and play/receive high - your low defensive midfield 3 need to be good, defensive structural players (or good at holding station on their tucked in side - like a Surman).

As you can see, even a rough analysis throws up plenty of ifs, contingencies and depending-ons. This doesn’t even yet take into account the nature, quality and specific tactics that the opposition may use.

Predetermining your own pieces is only of limited value. Some paper formations are more conducive than others to certain shapes and repeating on-field positions and patterns, though such tactics should overwhelming be based on what best suits the instinctive movements under pressure of your resources and indeed the vice-versa of what suits the same tendencies of the opposition and what they would least like to face.

Parma

[Midlands Yellow 4,449]

Have you managed/coached teams Parma ? Interesting thoughts .

[Duncan Edwards 2,360]

[quote user="CANARYKING"]Poor Duncan wouldn’t last long in the modern games, nor would a few others ? Trevor Hockey for one ![/quote]

Bit harsh.

Don’t know if you ever met Trevor Hockey but I can assure you that I’ve never been in the company of anybody that loved the “beautiful game” more than he did.

He wasn’t Cruyff, Best or Pele but.... he had all of their shirts. I don’t think I’ve ever met a man more dedicated to football than he was. He coached me for five days when I was maybe 6 or 7 years old but I absolutely loved the bloke. I was absolutely rubbish at football but I was the first one on the field and the only one that didn’t want to leave when the monsoon hit. A lot of folk would concentrate on the footballers with some talent but he knew how much I loved the game as I stood there soaked to the bone and that was enough for him.

Later I was coached by Culverhouse and Sutton’s old man but great as they were, if I could send my son to any of them it would still be Trevor Hockey.

Should be in our hall of fame. Terrific player, kept us up and an absolute gent to go with it. Just because he wasn’t John Charles doesn’t mean he was no good.

[TIL 1010 5,034]

Duncan i without doubt acknowledge that Trevor Hockey was an iconic figure and somewhat of a cult hero at Norwich city but The Hall of Fame having played just 13 games for us is a stretch to far for me even though there are some in it that make me raise my eyebrows.

[Nuff Said 5,652]

Nutty, I’m in the missing the Doc club too, I think there a few of us. Got to love a trier, especially if he’s a no nonsense CB. And the Doc had his song too...

[nutty nigel 7,776]

Agreed Nuff. At least he went on the back of a good season. 

As for the late great Trevor Hockey, I agree wholeheartedly that he should be in the Hall of Fame and have campaigned for it. But I guess it depends on the definition of the word fame. If it means "the state of being known or talked about by many people" then he''s in. If it''s a long service award then he''s out.

In for me.