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

"We were not physical enough" - Farke

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I’ve played in Italy, coached in Italy and been coached in the Ajax system and took my badges under an International Manager. 

As WCorkCanary notes from his experiences with the Auxerre Coach, other countries just don’t have the obsession with size. 

They will of course embrace high physicality  gratefully if it comes as part of the tactical-intelligence-technical-speed package, but those things will always be the primary drivers. 
 

I have literally never met a quality player that thought ‘oh my God, I’ve got no chance today, he’s taller than me’. 

Parma

Great thread and as ever terrific to have the views of Palma bringing an injection of expertise the rest of us can only aspire too.

This obsession with size really does seem to be a British thing, I can recall during the Worthy days being involved with the youngsters at Colney, Worthy was certainly a "size matters" man and seeing lads released on the basis that they were too small was pretty tough to see. It did make you wonder how these lads were ever moved up from the PDC, as it was then, to only be rejected later on due too being too small. Bellamy was often mentioned in these scenarios but to no avail.

We have made a choice as a club to find a formula that fits our purse and satisfies the (apparent ) demands of fans to play the "Norwich Way" We were treated to some amazing footy last season and I wouldnt want to change that for the world. If you believe in a style of play and want to push that to the limit within a reasonable spend, you end up with what we have, I am happy with that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

This is one of several times on this thread that your response is to talk about something other than the point that is being made. So we looked at Maddison, decided he was worth £4million and paid it. Is that a problem? Where does that contradict what Parma has said? The fact he didn’t play in our academy for 10 years first is to be regretted but hardly a disaster.
 

The point I think he has made is that the next time we see a promising player in the mould of Maddison, £4 million or not, they are much more likely to come to us because we have shown we can take promising young players who have missed out on being snapped up by the academies at the “big” clubs and not only develop them, but play them, hence giving them an excellent step up for their career. 

I don't disagree that we'd be an attractive employer to some 18 year old playing senior football at a League One or League Two side, if we were prepared to match their clubs asking price. As we did when we purchased Godfrey for £1m and Maddison for £4m.

But we've spent £1.75m this season on transfer and loan fees if the reported figures are to be believed, less than Barnsley, and are unlikely to be spending 7 figure sums on U23 players upon relegation. So what good is that to us? 

It is rather appalling that the legacy of these two signings is so seldom mentioned when McNally is discussed on here, only his transfer mistakes. Not just on here actually but hinted at by Webber himself on numerous occasions.

The cost of paying the wages of Jarvis and Naismith for one season beyond parachute payments pales into complete insignificance when we acknowledge that Maddison's sale funded the rebuild of our squad and Godfrey sits there being quite clearly the most valuable member of our squad in a market where Adam Webster goes for £20m.

In the event that Webber leaves this summer after relegation (hypothetical), he'd do so without having left the next regime with two young players of a similar calibre + a probably highly paid Grant Hanley contracted beyond the end of parachute payments. 

I do see where Webber was coming from in respect of keeping faith in the first team, although don't fully agree with it (particularly the extent of the contract spree). But that stance is no barrier to some decent investment in first team succession planning. 

Noteworthy that a player under 21 does not have to be registered in the 25 and quite telling that thus far none of our existing players under 21 In the U23 squad have been deemed worthy of a single minute of Premier League football during a serious injury crisis. 

Meanwhile Brighton and Newcastle have both fallen back on 18 year old debutants this season to great success. 

And we're talked about as the new Ajax on this thread! Who incidently, looking at their current squad, seem to purchase young first team players from other Dutch sides at the age of 19/20 frequently as part of their strategy? 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I don't disagree that we'd be an attractive employer to some 18 year old playing senior football at a League One or League Two side, if we were prepared to match their clubs asking price. As we did when we purchased Godfrey for £1m and Maddison for £4m.

But we've spent £1.75m this season on transfer and loan fees if the reported figures are to be believed, less than Barnsley, and are unlikely to be spending 7 figure sums on U23 players upon relegation. So what good is that to us? 

It is rather appalling that the legacy of these two signings is so seldom mentioned when McNally is discussed on here, only his transfer mistakes. Not just on here actually but hinted at by Webber himself on numerous occasions.

You make a good point that about players bought in McNally’s time. But I don’t know how you can say we “are unlikely to be spending 7 figure sums on U23 players upon relegation”? You don’t know that. Our current spending has been dictated by the need to balance the books following the gambles we took. Once this season is over, it is entirely possible that we have paid off the debts of the past, so will again be investing 7 figure sums in promising players. We apparently were prepared to spend something like €15m (?) on Claude-Maurice (or whatever his name was). That to me looks like us coming out the other side of a financial problem and starting to spend again, but spend within our now increased budget.

 

Also, to be picky, I think we spent more than £1.75m on Fahrmann, Amadou and Byram, who let’s not forget, were the three positions I think most on here thought we needed to bolster. Plus we have been investing in youngsters like Adshead and the rest at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

You make a good point that about players bought in McNally’s time. But I don’t know how you can say we “are unlikely to be spending 7 figure sums on U23 players upon relegation”? You don’t know that. Our current spending has been dictated by the need to balance the books following the gambles we took. Once this season is over, it is entirely possible that we have paid off the debts of the past, so will again be investing 7 figure sums in promising players. We apparently were prepared to spend something like €15m (?) on Claude-Maurice (or whatever his name was). That to me looks like us coming out the other side of a financial problem and starting to spend again, but spend within our now increased budget.

  

Also, to be picky, I think we spent more than £1.75m on Fahrmann, Amadou and Byram, who let’s not forget, were the three positions I think most on here thought we needed to bolster. Plus we have been investing in youngsters like Adshead and the rest at the same time.

We made a £14m profit in 2018. I think the books were already balanced before we went up, that excuse doesn't cut it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

And we're talked about as the new Ajax on this thread! Who incidently, looking at their current squad, seem to purchase young first team players from other Dutch sides at the age of 19/20 frequently as part of their strategy

Anax have been mentioned,  yes, and why not purchase young players from other teams around you if affordable and  you believe they can improve  your  squad.  I dont think anyone has suggested otherwise.  I have no desire to  enter into a long session of 'whataboutery' and goal post shifting.  The subject  Matter  is physicality,  and whether or not we show enough  of it.  As someone  else  said earlier  with a fully fit squad , we are more able to cope in the physical  aspects of the game. Just so happens that our Injured Players are those that offer a bit more of that. There are exceptions  to every  rule, as I'm sure you are aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, king canary said:

We made a £14m profit in 2018. I think the books were already balanced before we went up, that excuse doesn't cut it anymore.

And unless rumours were untrue,  we were prepared to pay  around that fir JC Maurice,  so I don't really get your point on that. We didnt get the player(s) we felt were the right ones ao we didnt spend, good. Unless  we've lost that money down the back of the sofa, itll be available for the right target. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

And unless rumours were untrue,  we were prepared to pay  around that fir JC Maurice,  so I don't really get your point on that. We didnt get the player(s) we felt were the right ones ao we didnt spend, good. Unless  we've lost that money down the back of the sofa, itll be available for the right target. 

My point was that the poster I quoted was using the idea that we still needed to balance the books for past poor spending to justify our lack of spending this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, king canary said:

My point was that the poster I quoted was using the idea that we still needed to balance the books for past poor spending to justify our lack of spending this season.

No he doesn't,  he says it looks like we are starting to spend again after balancing the books, they're two very different things. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

No he doesn't,  he says it looks like we are starting to spend again after balancing the books, they're two very different things. 

Based on a player we didn't actually sign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, king canary said:

Based on a player we didn't actually sign?

 

37 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

And unless rumours were untrue,  we were prepared to pay  around that fir JC Maurice,  so I don't really get your point on that. We didnt get the player(s) we felt were the right ones ao we didnt spend, good. Unless  we've lost that money down the back of the sofa, itll be available for the right target. 

I've already covered that aspect of whether or why or why not we did or didn't spend, so if it pleases you, then yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree with Farke, from kick off it looked like we sat so deep and invited man united to build confidence from the off. Where was the fast start up and at'em approach?

far too much respect was shown, man united were there for the taking and could have been got at, instead we sat back, so frustrating to watch and the crowd picked up on that.

We cant defend, lets go at these teams at home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through this thread and I must have missed something here. Since when has physicality been about height? We are being out classed and out muscled in the middle of the pitch by stronger and technically superior players. Our midfield are not strong enough it appears to look after possession of the ball, Buendea constantly losing possession and then having a mini tantrum on the ground rather than getting up and fighting for that possession back has been a constant frustration this season. Mentally our players haven’t looked up for the fight for several weeks now. We can’t do anything about the size of our players but a better attitude to fight for everything would go a long way to help bridge the gap a little. That attitude was there in abundance against city and it’s been missing since 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I’ve played in Italy, coached in Italy and been coached in the Ajax system and took my badges under an International Manager. 

I know this is completely off topic and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but I'm curious... Just purely out of interest, what level did you play at and who did you play for?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

 

I've already covered that aspect of whether or why or why not we did or didn't spend, so if it pleases you, then yes.

Fair enough.

I don't think it is unreasonable to judge the clubs willingness to spend based on what they actually did spend vs what they were rumoured to be willing to spend though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think physicality is just about size although obviously that's one element of it. Athleticism is a big part as well and as others have commented mental attitude plays a part. We had the requisite physicality against Man City and were in their faces, putting bodies on the line. Against Man United I thought we were strangely passive and almost submissive at times. Cantwell is another example. He looked a yard faster and much stronger at the start of the season, riding tackles and using an apparent new found strength., In the last few games though, with his confidence obviously lower, he has gone back to looking a little weak.

I do though think that the balance is not quite right although I also accept that being able to play Amadou in midfield would make a difference. I fear he may be out for some time with the way he looked on Sunday which may mean we are denied seeing that until its too late. Buendia is talented but he is not a natural athlete. Cantwell is also talented but weak. Leitner is not one for a battle in midfield. Roberts seemed to be out of the picture but even if he were not he is even smaller than the others. Mclean goes completely missing in 2 out of every 3 games.

All the teams in the premier league are packed full of athletes, especially those in the 6th-16th bracket who know they cannot buy technically better players than the big clubs. We are getting out muscled in midfield and overrun at times. its no coincidence that Lewis (probably the one player we have who has both pace and size/athleticism apart from Godfrey) has been the player who perhaps looks most at home so far.

Trybull in my view lacks the legs to cover large areas and thus be the sole holding midfeilder but he does read the gamne well and can at least get stuck in. I think if Amadou is not available he absolutely has to play in the next few games. If Amadou is available then we should still be playing Trybull with Tettey and trying to sure up that midfield area and give the team a  more solid platform to play from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fair to say we have a physical disadvantage in this league. You only have to look at us during the hand shakes at the beginning of games v the bottom 15 or so in this league to see that. Every smaller club in this league is packed with pace, height and power and the greater finances of every club and better scouting have meant these players are also technically gifted now as well. Tactically this league seems to have regressed in the past 5 or so years, nearly every team plays simple counter attacking football based on a solid defence and a few strong, fast outstanding dribblers.

 

But i think our problems at the moment are more simple. Buendia and Stiepermann who are so crucial to our play haven't found their feet yet, Hernandez who gives us another dimension has been out all season, we haven't had a settled CM pairing and our defence is ravaged by injuries. Yes we're small and slow for this league, but with a fairer wind and the momentum and confidence we came up with we could've had a real chance at thriving for a while. 

 

People won't like this excuse because there's no one to directly blame but it's the injuries and some poor individual form that have killed us. Sucks but that's the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Fair enough.

I don't think it is unreasonable to judge the clubs willingness to spend based on what they actually did spend vs what they were rumoured to be willing to spend though.

Why so? Willingness to spend smacks of kid in sweetshop looking for something, anything to spend that money on, surely the smarter kid has a look round, decides there's nothing that appealing in the shop at the moment and returns later( January perhaps) to see if the stock in the shop has improved. I really want our club to be successful, not just successful at spending, Value for money must be the Mantra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wcorkcanary said:

Why so? Willingness to spend smacks of kid in sweetshop looking for something, anything to spend that money on, surely the smarter kid has a look round, decides there's nothing that appealing in the shop at the moment and returns later( January perhaps) to see if the stock in the shop has improved. I really want our club to be successful, not just successful at spending, Value for money must be the Mantra.

Sure. It just depends on what our budget actually was. I'm of the opinion there was plenty in the shop that someone with a sensible budget could have purchased and improved our team. I just don't know how 'sensible' our budget actually was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, king canary said:

Sure. It just depends on what our budget actually was. I'm of the opinion there was plenty in the shop that someone with a sensible budget could have purchased and improved our team. I just don't know how 'sensible' our budget actually was.

Well , that just means you know about as much as the rest of us ....which isn't much. I understand what you want, what I don't get is how you can say we should have done such and such or bought so and so without the relevant information as to whether or not these actions were even feasible. So a moot point really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we do know is that there is at least £12 million left in the budget for January as that was how much the french lad that turned us down on deadline day went to Nice for. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Mclean goes completely missing in 2 out of every 3 games.

 

What does that even mean Jimbo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

What does that even mean Jimbo?

I think he doesn’t run around enough for Jim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen the highlights, it’s nothing to do with size or being physical, we’ve lost confidence, it’s almost as if we’re falling into that trap which killed Hughton, going too defensive as we’re conceding too much, meaning we’ve lost that attacking momentum!

Yes we’ve conceded lots but at least we were competitive, now we’re trying to hit the long ball into the channel which just hands the ball back and invites pressure.

Our expansive football which caused problems has gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I think he doesn’t run around enough for Jim.

It's just that in a thread discussing our physicality rather than go missing McLean made 8 tackles on Sunday. The rest of the midfield made 9 between them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/10/2019 at 10:29, JF said:

Reading through this thread and I must have missed something here. Since when has physicality been about height? We are being out classed and out muscled in the middle of the pitch by stronger and technically superior players.

Just to clarify, it isn't about height, its about having some physicality.

But we've got a bunch of centre midfielders who look like they could get blown over the City Stand roof in a strong gale. 

Out muscled is a nice way of putting it, saying "unit" lots of time was my way of trying to say that.

We've got lots of fancy 10 stone playmakers and an insufficient number of combative or industrious alternatives/colleagues. People quick to point at Barcelona, but take Liverpool as an example and little James Milner is as strong as an ox and has a ridiculous amount of bravery. Jordan Henderson is a strong lad as well. 

Liverpool are the current champions of Europe, not Barcelona. 

Man City won the league 3 times with Yaya Toure kicking people off the park and Vincent Kompany behind him. Perhaps people on here think that you can't be physically strong + play attractive football? 

I think people are also forgetting that Barcelona have at times have a very physical team. At one point they had Toure, Keita, Ibrahimovic, and Puyol in the same XI with a 6ft 1 inch left back in Abidal who could comfortably slot in at centre back to give them an extra man in their box.

Perhaps this is a popular misconception? 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea what your point is because with a fully fit squad Godfrey and Zimmerman would be two physical players and Amadou would be in midfield.

Which replicates your Kompany and Toure combination...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, hogesar said:

No idea what your point is because with a fully fit squad Godfrey and Zimmerman would be two physical players and Amadou would be in midfield.

Which replicates your Kompany and Toure combination...

Hoggo, if you want to carry on arguing all night about not much really but plenty of 'whataboutery' TVB is yer man, don't get sucked in mate. I nearly did the other day untill I remembered the thread topic.

I'm pretty sure that when he says ' just to clarify' he means  'im changing the subject'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/10/2019 at 09:48, urdie_Canary said:

Completely agree with Farke, from kick off it looked like we sat so deep and invited man united to build confidence from the off. Where was the fast start up and at'em approach?

far too much respect was shown, man united were there for the taking and could have been got at, instead we sat back, so frustrating to watch and the crowd picked up on that.

We cant defend, lets go at these teams at home. 

 

Edited by Alchemist
Mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could have a midfield trio of Tetty, Amadou and Trybull. Is that physical enough for you tvb? It's injury in the cb position that's the issue and our decision to play possession football means that we value technical players.

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  

×