I seriously question Farkes ability fo take this team any further

[king canary 7,578]

12 minutes ago, hogesar said:

What probably doesn't help a head coach make proactive substitutions is every time he has, i've yet to see us improve on the pitch. We've normally been worse.

Any examples?

[lake district canary 4,531]

I still love Farke and want him at the club for many years, but there is no doubt there are plenty of opinions about subs and when to play them - and team selection too.   But it seems like many people just want to say "in Farke we trust" and are scared to think or say anything detrimental about what he does.  I am known - or apparently used to be known - as a positive supporter, but even I can see there are other ways of doing things - and it is not sacreligious to say so. The crunch is approaching where we will not have enough games to get the points we need this season and for me there are question marks over some of the players and whether they need to be taken out of the firing line, or at least other options tried.

I believe in Farke and the way he wants to play football - and if he wants to stick to using the players and subs the way he is, then fair enough - lets hope it works and all our near misses turn into draws and wins - keep the faith and all that, but we do need to start winning and it is time for the players - whoever the manager chooses - to step up.

 

[Hardhouse44 261]

51 minutes ago, Keith Scott said:

Farke doesn't make subs until we are losing. Even when we are under the cosh, or it is clear as day players are knackered and a goal is coming for the opposition he still will not change anything until we inevitably concede. It has happened time and time and time again this season. Not good management. He also will never change a team that doesn't lose, even when individuals have a bad game and there are much better options to come in. He doesn't know how to change a game, he waits for the opposition manager to do it for him. Inevitably at our cost. Last season he worked wonders, but the past is the past. In the here and now he is falling short on a weekly basis. I would argue this squad isn't as bad as a lot of our fans and even Farke himself seems to strangely suggest in interviews. He just isn't getting the most out of them. Farke isn't beyond scrutiny or criticism guys. 

All the best. K. Scott. 

The thing is to many on here and supporting Norwich he is.

But remember when Lambert was just the same. Now look he’s a bust flush

its about adding perspective to things, looking beyond the rose tints and questioning what alternative there are.

not necessarily in manager but in style, selection, tactics, the ability to preempt situations, tweak things during games add another dimension to our game.

we are alway attractive to watch but we are predictable, one dimensional at times and that’s what I’m challenging.

 

 

[hogesar 9,618]

57 minutes ago, king canary said:

Any examples?

Crystal Palace at home (Hernandez came on 78 mins, Steipermann just after)

Sheff Utd at home (Cantwell came on 72 mins, as did Byram, Srbeny followed)

Aston Villa away (Stiepermann, Vrancic and Hernandez all on at 75 minutes)

In none of those games did our chances created or even general performance improve. That's just a quick look over the last couple months.

[king canary 7,578]

16 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Crystal Palace at home (Hernandez came on 78 mins, Steipermann just after)

Sheff Utd at home (Cantwell came on 72 mins, as did Byram, Srbeny followed)

Aston Villa away (Stiepermann, Vrancic and Hernandez all on at 75 minutes)

In none of those games did our chances created or even general performance improve. That's just a quick look over the last couple months.

Palace is the only one I'd agree are proactive- both the others came after the game had already turned against us.

[hogesar 9,618]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Palace is the only one I'd agree are proactive- both the others came after the game had already turned against us.

Sorry, I probably didn't phrase my point that great earlier. What I was really getting at is none of our substitute options have, regardless of the situation in the game, really done much to turn it. So whilst not all Farke's substitutions are proactive - the reactive one's haven't had any significant positive impact for him to think making the changes proactively might help us.

Essentially, I don't think our bench players are strong enough and between most of them they've had enough minutes to prove they're capable of impacting a game.

The only two I see having a positive impact on the first 11 are Vrancic (who I think isn't really an impact sub) and Drmic (who has a bit about him for me, I know others dont think so). 

[king canary 7,578]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Sorry, I probably didn't phrase my point that great earlier. What I was really getting at is none of our substitute options have, regardless of the situation in the game, really done much to turn it. So whilst not all Farke's substitutions are proactive - the reactive one's haven't had any significant positive impact for him to think making the changes proactively might help us.

Essentially, I don't think our bench players are strong enough and between most of them they've had enough minutes to prove they're capable of impacting a game.

The only two I see having a positive impact on the first 11 are Vrancic (who I think isn't really an impact sub) and Drmic (who has a bit about him for me, I know others dont think so). 

I kind of agree that we don't have great options from the bench. However, to have picked up zero points from losing positions all season does suggest we aren't getting even from our limited bench options.

[Highland Canary 76]

Simply a lack of quality. That’s nothing to do with Farke. If you want a competitive team you need ownership with the financial capability of matching that ambition.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

3 hours ago, Hardhouse44 said:

The thing is to many on here and supporting Norwich he is.

But remember when Lambert was just the same. Now look he’s a bust flush

its about adding perspective to things, looking beyond the rose tints and questioning what alternative there are.

not necessarily in manager but in style, selection, tactics, the ability to preempt situations, tweak things during games add another dimension to our game.

we are alway attractive to watch but we are predictable, one dimensional at times and that’s what I’m challenging.

 

 

The thing about you supporting Norwich is that you come on here and have a rant, get proved wrong, and don't return until the next rant. If you'd had your way Farke would had been gone the October of last season. How do you think that would have worked out?

So when you throw stones at other fans you'd be better off outside the glass house.

[hogesar 9,618]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

The thing about you supporting Norwich is that you come on here and have a rant, get proved wrong, and don't return until the next rant. If you'd had your way Farke would had been gone the October of last season. How do you think that would have worked out?

So when you throw stones at other fans you'd be better off outside the glass house.

One of my favourite Hardhouse comments from 18 months ago or so is:

Quote

It''s because as much as I hate to say it about him warnock is a competent manager at this level. Farke is an out of his depth joke.

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

Sorry, I probably didn't phrase my point that great earlier. What I was really getting at is none of our substitute options have, regardless of the situation in the game, really done much to turn it. So whilst not all Farke's substitutions are proactive - the reactive one's haven't had any significant positive impact for him to think making the changes proactively might help us.

Essentially, I don't think our bench players are strong enough and between most of them they've had enough minutes to prove they're capable of impacting a game.

The only two I see having a positive impact on the first 11 are Vrancic (who I think isn't really an impact sub) and Drmic (who has a bit about him for me, I know others dont think so). 

I don't disagree that our options on the bench are limited in terms of the players being "game changers" who will transform a game but doesn't that make it all the more important to be proactive and preserve our position in games before the momentum shifts because we don't have the players to shift it back at this level in the way we perhaps did in the championship.

In two of those games you mention (Villa and Shef U) we had already gone behind. In both cases having utterly dominated the first half of the games. V Shef U we did our usual think of coming out completely cold after half time (Farke's other major weakness) and they went 2-1 up after 52 minutes but it was 20 minutes before we made a sub. It was 10 minutes at Villa (where we did create some good chances after the subs) but I would agree again not necessarily the worst example. It particularly drove me mad against Arsenal and Wolves at home where you could see a marked shift in momentum after the opposition made subs and whilst we got away with it to a degree against Arsenal we just didn't do anything in response until after they scored.

[Big Vince 318]

This post has the wrong headline, which should read:

I SERIOUSLY QUESTION THE SOCIALISTS' ABILITY TO TAKE THIS CLUB ANY FURTHER

How you can seriously stop the buck with Farke is ridiculous. He is without doubt complicit in the agenda that the Socialists have for this club; but he is hardly the problem itself. It is not his fault, to use his own words, that they are a second division team playing in the EPL. He has stated he would like to spend tens of millions on any one player, but was told to make do with the boy Byram for 750K.

End of.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

So we've got Housey, Keithy and Vinny on the same thread....

[Daz Sparks 1,150]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

So we've got Housey, Keithy and Vinny on the same thread....

The Holy Bleeding Trinity!

[Ian 1,129]

7 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I don't disagree that our options on the bench are limited in terms of the players being "game changers" who will transform a game but doesn't that make it all the more important to be proactive and preserve our position in games before the momentum shifts because we don't have the players to shift it back at this level in the way we perhaps did in the championship.

In two of those games you mention (Villa and Shef U) we had already gone behind. In both cases having utterly dominated the first half of the games. V Shef U we did our usual think of coming out completely cold after half time (Farke's other major weakness) and they went 2-1 up after 52 minutes but it was 20 minutes before we made a sub. It was 10 minutes at Villa (where we did create some good chances after the subs) but I would agree again not necessarily the worst example. It particularly drove me mad against Arsenal and Wolves at home where you could see a marked shift in momentum after the opposition made subs and whilst we got away with it to a degree against Arsenal we just didn't do anything in response until after they scored.

As you say, we dominated the first half in those games, and several others this season, but ultimately failed to capitalise on that dominance enough to put the game to bed.

I don't think it comes down to use of substitutes, but more to a lack of quality in determining moments. At this level every opposition team are always going to have periods whereby they cause us significant concern, but ultimately we never give ourselves enough of a buffer to deal with it.

I don't believe this could be consistently influenced by 'proactive' subs unless we had a greater squad depth.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

14 hours ago, king canary said:

Any examples?

Don't be naughty Kingy. I've pointed out to you a number of times that he brought on Hernandez when we were 1-0 up against Palace and that the game ended 1-1 and that he brought on McLean and Trybull when we were 2-1 up against Spurs and that the game ended 2-2.

Your normal response to this is to claim that there was no connection between these substitutions and the subsequent opposition equaliser, but for some bizarre reason we are all expected to believe that there would  be some connection between bringing players on and our performance improving in other matches. 

[Nuff Said 5,089]

On 17/02/2020 at 21:30, TeemuVanBasten said:

I don't think it's Farke's fault that his second choice striker is of limited ability, just to answer one of your points. 

The decision was made not to spend, and if limited to the free agent or low cost loan markets then you are going to find your options somewhat limited. 

Other than that, I also wonder whether the system we have built around is ever going to work at this level without the type of money we are never going to have.

It does feel like our choice is between being the boys who play the sexy football in the Championship, a seat which is being kept warm by Brentford this season, or being a Sheffield United or Burnley in the Premier League. 

I suppose both have their merits, but Burnley and Sheffield United get the TV money next season and we don't....

.... I too don't really see where this all goes, unless we sell a couple of our stars and we look somewhat different after the rebuild that it finances. 

See below for one possibility. And I think in many ways we are better positioned than Burnley we’re when they went down.

 

On 17/02/2020 at 20:05, Fiery Zac said:

Or he could do a Sean Dyche. Almost 8 years in charge, a relegation, 2 promotions and now as close to an established PL side as its possible to be these days.

An anomaly? For me a blueprint and a strong possibility of what could be our future

 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Norwich City shock revelation.......... Short on Squad depth and financial resources to change  this in the short term 

Remedies...... Patience. Optimism. Faith. The continued support of the manager, team and Club administration.

  The overall trajectory of the Clubs progress  bother me not one jot. In fact I feel were headed in the right direction, just taking a slight detour at the moment is all.

[king canary 7,578]

9 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Don't be naughty Kingy. I've pointed out to you a number of times that he brought on Hernandez when we were 1-0 up against Palace and that the game ended 1-1 and that he brought on McLean and Trybull when we were 2-1 up against Spurs and that the game ended 2-2.

Your normal response to this is to claim that there was no connection between these substitutions and the subsequent opposition equaliser, but for some bizarre reason we are all expected to believe that there would  be some connection between bringing players on and our performance improving in other matches. 

I'll post the same reply that you ignored last time...

Sure, I guess you see that as bizarre. If you're an idiot.

There is nothing contradictory about thinking bringing Hernandez on as part of a general change in playing style could have affected games, and not thinking that bringing him on played a significant role in one particular goal.

Anybody with a basic understanding of statistics and data would have learned the simple rule- correlation does not equal causation. Hernandez coming on and Palace scoring does not mean Hernandez coming on caused Palace to score. In fact even a swift viewing of that goal shows it coming from the opposite flank before being converted by a central striker.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

12 hours ago, Ian said:

As you say, we dominated the first half in those games, and several others this season, but ultimately failed to capitalise on that dominance enough to put the game to bed.

I don't think it comes down to use of substitutes, but more to a lack of quality in determining moments. At this level every opposition team are always going to have periods whereby they cause us significant concern, but ultimately we never give ourselves enough of a buffer to deal with it.

I don't believe this could be consistently influenced by 'proactive' subs unless we had a greater squad depth.

Its both really. Absolutely were we more clinical then it would not matter so much. In particular had Pukki not completely lost his finishing/confidence in the last 2 months we would probably have another 6 or 7 points. Very unfortunate timing for him to have a dip but then he got injured and has perhaps been overused. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I'll post the same reply that you ignored last time...

Sure, I guess you see that as bizarre. If you're an idiot.

There is nothing contradictory about thinking bringing Hernandez on as part of a general change in playing style could have affected games, and not thinking that bringing him on played a significant role in one particular goal.

Anybody with a basic understanding of statistics and data would have learned the simple rule- correlation does not equal causation. Hernandez coming on and Palace scoring does not mean Hernandez coming on caused Palace to score. In fact even a swift viewing of that goal shows it coming from the opposite flank before being converted by a central striker.

And the Spurs game??? Do you think that substitute Trybull losing the ball which led to the breakaway from which Spurs won the penalty is causation?? 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

16 hours ago, Daz Sparks said:

The Holy Bleeding Trinity!

Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest. With Jobbo waiting to come on as a proactive sub.......to replace the 'ineffective' Todders of course!

[king canary 7,578]

58 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

And the Spurs game??? Do you think that substitute Trybull losing the ball which led to the breakaway from which Spurs won the penalty is causation?? 

In that one case yes- but that isn't exactly a great argument against making substitutions is it?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

There is no proof for or against making substitutions. In that one case not making a sub could have prevented the goal or cost us two goals.

Not making a sub is still being proactive btw. It's an option chosen at that time.

So it ultimately goes down to opinions. And while we may be of the opinion that subs would improve a situation the opposite is also true. And we don't live with the consequences.

 

[Hillhead 114]

57 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

There is no proof for or against making substitutions. In that one case not making a sub could have prevented the goal or cost us two goals.

Not making a sub is still being proactive btw. It's an option chosen at that time.

So it ultimately goes down to opinions. And while we may be of the opinion that subs would improve a situation the opposite is also true. And we don't live with the consequences.

 

Agreed. 
 

if anything against a team like Liverpool where you’re up against it your likely to see less benefit from attacking changes than in situations where you are the Liverpool and bringing on fresh legs against a comparatively weaker, tiring defence can give you such a boost. That’s even before we look at the strength in depth they have over us on the bench!

ultimately if Farke had made a change and we conceded he’d have been unnecessarily upsetting the balance of the team, likewise if Drimic had been bought on and hit the ball at Alisson it would have been “Pukki would have scored that - why take him off” 

I feel for football clubs as sometimes as they just can’t win. I’ve seen the same poster(s) criticise the owners, move into “the model” followed by the manager before bemoaning us having “Donkeys like Hanley” in the team only for when his performances give little to complain about move onto Zimmermann instead. Those people have it good. There will always be something not going as well as we all hope and when you through hindsight into the mix then they just can’t lose!

[Number9 272]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

There is no proof for or against making substitutions. In that one case not making a sub could have prevented the goal or cost us two goals.

Not making a sub is still being proactive btw. It's an option chosen at that time.

So it ultimately goes down to opinions. And while we may be of the opinion that subs would improve a situation the opposite is also true. And we don't live with the consequences.

 

I'm of the opinion that we're hanging off the bottom of the League and we had options to bring on subs whilst our players, although having done extraordinarily well, were tiring and becoming less effective. 

We could have got a draw, we could have got a win,  making subs when you've got 5 mins left and we're losing is ridiculous. 

Unfortunately Farke doesn't appear to be developing his game management skills to the required level. He needs to be proactive rather than intransigent. 

[Indy_Bones 441]

2 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

And the Spurs game??? Do you think that substitute Trybull losing the ball which led to the breakaway from which Spurs won the penalty is causation?? 

You mean substitute Trybull getting fouled, which the ref ignored, and which they then broke from and lead to the equaliser...

[nutty nigel 7,509]

21 minutes ago, Number9 said:

I'm of the opinion that we're hanging off the bottom of the League and we had options to bring on subs whilst our players, although having done extraordinarily well, were tiring and becoming less effective. 

We could have got a draw, we could have got a win,  making subs when you've got 5 mins left and we're losing is ridiculous. 

Unfortunately Farke doesn't appear to be developing his game management skills to the required level. He needs to be proactive rather than intransigent. 

Nobody can argue with your opinion. But it's just an opinion among many others.

But then to use your opinion to measure how Farke is developing his game management skills. Then to use your opinion as the "required level" is arrogant.

Btw not making a sub is not intransigent. It's an in game decision the same as making a sub is. Just making a sub without believing it would change the game could be intransigent as well as futile and later costly.

[ron obvious 1,499]

I suspect the OP won't be happy until we sack Farke & replace him with Tony Pulis.

 

[Number9 272]

10 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Nobody can argue with your opinion. But it's just an opinion among many others.

But then to use your opinion to measure how Farke is developing his game management skills. Then to use your opinion as the "required level" is arrogant.

Btw not making a sub is not intransigent. It's an in game decision the same as making a sub is. Just making a sub without believing it would change the game could be intransigent as well as futile and later costly.

*You can argue with my opinion if you like. 

*The players had done well but were tiring and letting LFC progress. (You could see that, it's statement of fact not opinion)

*Not making subs till it's too late for them to take effect can be called intransigence, but it is only one of the ways which Farke manifests that quality. He hasn't upped his game management past couple of seasons, he still makes the same mistakes. I don't mind if you prefer to overlook his failings, we all have failings, but as a very public football manager his shortcomings are open to critique.