Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CANARYKING

Farke putting the boot into Connor Southwell

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Number9 said:

I understand that Farke doesn't sign players on his own. 

Most clubs have a group of decision makers who sign players, the manager being a senior member of that group. 

Yeah that isn't how our set up works.

Share this post


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

i really like Daniel and I'm also a very good friend of Connors so wont get involved in the war of words

Connor is a very young lad,  it's his first job so if you've read his whole article and you'd don't agree with the contant , how about giving him some constructive feedback which I know he'll take onboard

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/connor-southwell-on-daniel-farke-s-tactical-approach-against-southampton-1-6710533  

 

 

I was going to do as you suggest, but reading the Comments already posted on the EDP site, frankly they are lightweight garbage and any constructive feedback would look well out of place.

The best feedback that Connor will ever receive has been provided by Daniel Farke. So long as Connor understands what Daniel has said, and takes it onboard, it will stand him in good stead for the rest of his career. He has been thrown to the lions by his sub-editor who allowed it to be published. Lessons learned all round, I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/06/2020 at 14:14, CANARYKING said:

Quote - “ I’ve never read a poorer analysis of a game “ 

That'll be because Farke is too sensible to read some of the idiots like Keith Scott and Big Vince on here!!   🤣

But personally I find Farke's openess very refreshing, and would far rather hear what he actually thinks than the cliched sh1t that passes for so many football interviews. Plus he's generally pretty tactful when speaking about others so I guess in this case that he was pretty unimpressed with what he read, so why not say so?

Share this post


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

Yeah that isn't how our set up works.

So Farke is a senior voice in signing players, we've agreed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

end of the day, id be fuming if I was Farke. All that work last season and he got about 2 pence to go buy players with. No wonder they were not up to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if good old Connor hasn't had his knuckles wrapped by Archant for having the audacity to say it like it is, and if he has the balls to come up with another scathing, but fully justified, attack on Farke tomorrow, then this story is set for round two.

Bring it on

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Connor’s next article will be an interesting read, does he apologise, does he twist the knife or will it be a “ nothing “ report 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Diane said:

i really like Daniel and I'm also a very good friend of Connors so wont get involved in the war of words

Connor is a very young lad,  it's his first job so if you've read his whole article and you'd don't agree with the contant , how about giving him some constructive feedback which I know he'll take onboard

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/connor-southwell-on-daniel-farke-s-tactical-approach-against-southampton-1-6710533  

 

 

Connor was right to write that article. He is a journalist and I don't want a journalist who doesn't attempt to tackle issues ambitiously! Sometimes that means overreaching. It's not even about whether the analysis is 100% right. It hit a nerve, which means that there was enough truth in it to provoke someone who matters. It is now important to get things in perspective when listening to feedback.

Conformity is problematic in journalism. I don't want a team fanboy there. I want a perspective, a voice and honesty. Being antagonistic is a whole another thing than taking a good swing at an issue one deems cause for concern and knocking a few things over during the process accidentally. You did your job if your heart was in the right place. Possibly a somewhat poor job if you missed by a mile and knocked a lot of things over. I don't think that is the case here. I think one needs to take into account the different journalistic practices, social expectations and cultural backgrounds of various actors too...

Being young, talented and ambitious means you take risks and tend to step on toes sometimes. It is a feature, not a bug. It happens if you intend to make a difference! Within reason, being called out for being disrespectful once or twice is almost a feather in cap, but with a caveat: If you've made a mistake, you own up to it. But be sure you're apologizing for your actual mistake and not the effort itself or for someone else's idea what the mistake was. Usually things aren't black and white. It helps if you separate personal opinion from something you can back up with facts and show the logical process leading to conclusion openly.

The subtleties and nuances of communication, understanding of cultural context, sense of proportion and knowledge of any field covered by the journalist come with experience and willingness to learn. But balls you can't learn from a book or sage advice. It is generally good idea to be respectful, but you've wasted your time on this Earth if nobody ever tells you to get the f**k off their lawn. That is my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Upo said:

It hit a nerve, which means that there was enough truth in it to provoke someone who matters.

Sorry, that’s rubbish - people can get every bit as angry and annoyed by nonsense too just as they can by hitting a nerve with the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Upo said:

 

Connor was right to write that article. He is a journalist and I don't want a journalist who doesn't attempt to tackle issues ambitiously! Sometimes that means overreaching. It's not even about whether the analysis is 100% right. It hit a nerve, which means that there was enough truth in it to provoke someone who matters. It is now important to get things in perspective when listening to feedback.

Conformity is problematic in journalism. I don't want a team fanboy there. I want a perspective, a voice and honesty. Being antagonistic is a whole another thing than taking a good swing at an issue one deems cause for concern and knocking a few things over during the process accidentally. You did your job if your heart was in the right place. Possibly a somewhat poor job if you missed by a mile and knocked a lot of things over. I don't think that is the case here. I think one needs to take into account the different journalistic practices, social expectations and cultural backgrounds of various actors too...

Being young, talented and ambitious means you take risks and tend to step on toes sometimes. It is a feature, not a bug. It happens if you intend to make a difference! Within reason, being called out for being disrespectful once or twice is almost a feather in cap, but with a caveat: If you've made a mistake, you own up to it. But be sure you're apologizing for your actual mistake and not the effort itself or for someone else's idea what the mistake was. Usually things aren't black and white. It helps if you separate personal opinion from something you can back up with facts and show the logical process leading to conclusion openly.

The subtleties and nuances of communication, understanding of cultural context, sense of proportion and knowledge of any field covered by the journalist come with experience and willingness to learn. But balls you can't learn from a book or sage advice. It is generally good idea to be respectful, but you've wasted your time on this Earth if nobody ever tells you to get the f**k off their lawn. That is my opinion. 

I suppose 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/connor-southwell-s-verdict-city-short-of-quality-in-another-carrow-road-defeat-1-6715896

Good for you, Connor. No grovelling apology, just an acknowledgement of Daniel's pre-match conference rant.  An excellent piece posted at 6 a.m, hours after the game. Seems CS has the backing of his employers, and rightly so. He seems to have made a big impact in his first few months there, as well as doing a degree at UEA at the same time, it seems. 

 I felt that DF got it completely wrong in the pre-match presser. It was fine for him to be upset at criticism after the Southampton game, but he could have easily expressed those feelings generally toward comments in the media without making  a personal, pointed attack on one article written by a 20 year-old local reporter. Farke went on and on with comments like  "poorest analysis I have ever read" amongst other things. For me it felt like verging on classic  bullying  - "it doesn't affect me, but my coaching staff brought the article to my attention and weren't happy".  The PL  club coaching staff vs 20 year old.   Surely a private phone call from the club to archant to air their grievances would have been a better way to have dealt with this.

Don't get me wrong. Daniel Farke is my favourite NCFC manager of all time. I dearly hope Webber and him don't depart any time soon. It just seemed that it was the first time his humility deserted him. During the most critical week of the season, a general rant would have been understandable, and he'd have been better to have expressed his own personal hurt more. He is doing an incredible job and we'd probably have been fine had we had another quality CB and a midfielder like Bissouma (Brighton) in the squad. 

Top marks, though, to young Connor for not backing down, and still producing  excellent work hours after such a public dressing down. He should go far. Clearly far cleverer and thicker skinned than I had imagined.

 

Edited by makham
to move link to top of post
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2020 at 11:06, Alex Moss said:

I completely disagree. A loud voice positively helping to rouse and unify the supporters and all those at the club, rather than irritate the backroom staff which almost certainly makes our task harder, would be most welcome.

Lakey as our very own Comical Ali?  🤔

"We are actually top of the league by 30 points. Talk of relegation is simply an ugly rumor spread by infidels."

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, makham said:

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/connor-southwell-s-verdict-city-short-of-quality-in-another-carrow-road-defeat-1-6715896

Good for you, Connor. No grovelling apology, just an acknowledgement of Daniel's pre-match conference rant.  An excellent piece posted at 6 a.m, hours after the game. Seems CS has the backing of his employers, and rightly so. He seems to have made a big impact in his first few months there, as well as doing a degree at UEA at the same time, it seems. 

 I felt that DF got it completely wrong in the pre-match presser. It was fine for him to be upset at criticism after the Southampton game, but he could have easily expressed those feelings generally toward comments in the media without making  a personal, pointed attack on one article written by a 20 year-old local reporter. Farke went on and on with comments like  "poorest analysis I have ever read" amongst other things. For me it felt like verging on classic  bullying  - "it doesn't affect me, but my coaching staff brought the article to my attention and weren't happy".  The PL  club coaching staff vs 20 year old.   Surely a private phone call from the club to archant to air their grievances would have been a better way to have dealt with this.

Don't get me wrong. Daniel Farke is my favourite NCFC manager of all time. I dearly hope Webber and him don't depart any time soon. It just seemed that it was the first time his humility deserted him. During the most critical week of the season, a general rant would have been understandable, and he'd have been better to have expressed his own personal hurt more. He is doing an incredible job and we'd probably have been fine had we had another quality CB and a midfielder like Bissouma (Brighton) in the squad. 

Top marks, though, to young Connor for not backing down, and still producing  excellent work hours after such a public dressing down. He should go far. Clearly far cleverer and thicker skinned than I had imagined.

 

Hello Makham,

An excellent post. 👍

I like Daniel too and very much want him to be with us next season. Hopefully, he can learn from what hasn't worked this season; I'm sure he will.

OTBC

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised Norwich's press officer didn't intervene before the press conference and set up a 1-on-1 off-the-record/informal chat between Southwell and Farke. They must've known he was annoyed about the article in advance.

Both want the same thing, for Norwich to succeed. There are better ways to air one's disgruntlement than in the public domain like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Legend Iwan said:

Surprised Norwich's press officer didn't intervene before the press conference and set up a 1-on-1 off-the-record/informal chat between Southwell and Farke. They must've known he was annoyed about the article in advance.

Both want the same thing, for Norwich to succeed. There are better ways to air one's disgruntlement than in the public domain like that.

There is lots we don't know. Did Daniel realise that he was dealing with a rookie journalist? Had there been a previous discussion with the EDP about very unqualified opinion masquerading as fact (or at least expert opinion)? The ferocity Daniel's words suggested to me that this may not have been the first problem in this area. I wonder if Connor has caught the flac which maybe other EDP writers deserve even more.

Listening to Daniel's words, his coaches that bought the article to his attention. I would like to think that they will be clever enough to now invite Connor into a Friday training session to give him some insight into how much thought goes into pattern of play. It would show a degree of trust to which Connor would surely respond. (He would have a good idea of the team a day before the game). It would also make Connor less likely to be influenced by juvenile external opinions, online and so on. 

I do think the negatives of this episode can be changed into positives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I highly doubt that Daniel Farke pays any attention whatsoever to articles in the EDP or anywhere else for that matter.

As for ‘brought to my attention’ or ‘must defend my coaching staff’ these are all excellent non-sequitur distraction techniques to divert from a dreadful performance vs Southampton where everybody - Farke included - looked out of sorts, tactically flawed (the tactical change from the season-long drilled methodology was by Farke from the outset, before altering it subsequently note) unfocused, physically and mentally slow and second best in all departments.

Trybull was awful, Buendia gave the ball away in the wrong areas repeatedly, Cantwell was anonymous and Pukki looked shot of confidence. 

The team had to move on quickly - the reversion to a very prosaic nil-nil type set up for Everton and all eyes on the key United game - so Farke (or Webber?) borrowed directly from the Ferguson playbook and picked on an irrelevant media kicking post and created a useful headline and a bit of ‘them-and-us’ siege mentality to try to create some drive, urgency and psychological fire from somewhere. 

It was not very Farke (though it might be quite Webber) though things were dramatically not working after the restart. It was an admittance of failure of sorts, though not necessarily ineffective. It was an old school football shock-tactic distraction move through-and-through. It was a note to the players that Farke was taking a bullet in the shoulder for them (they would all know they had been poor). Now that it is chip paper we can out it...I didn’t really like to see it. It looked cheap, though it’s a well-worn tactic.

As for Connor Southwell, it will forever be a badge of honour and will do his career no harm. Nobody really loses and each perform a function for the other. It was ever thus. He and bosses will be delighted at his name-check. Positive or negative makes no difference.

If we’d got to penalties and nicked it against United, it would all have been considered a cute move I suppose, defending it by saying Farke (and Webber) trying everything to stay up and succeed. Having come this far with an elegant and admirable clarity of philosophy - and an air of decency in our footballing presentation - this was an irrelevant, cheap shot. 

Not winning most of your games in the Premiership is a very tough thing to manage. It’s why most focus on defending primarily and being hard to beat. It’s going to happen a lot to the bottom 12, so at least be good at defending. Norwich went for real gung-ho vs Southampton - somewhat succumbing to the siren call of pub up-and-at-em wisdom - and it all fell woefully short tactically and also burnt up the ‘this is the way we do it, stick to it, you know it, the deep-drilling will amortise the quality difference’ methodology.

As for criticism in the press, online, by good journalists, bad journalists, local, old, young, best mates, enemies......it is all an utter irrelevance to players, Managers and Coaches because so much of the reality of why things occur cannot be seen from the outside, so others are judging with limited information.  

It was all a bit crass and desperate. It simply said to me that post-Southampton ‘anything that floats’ was worth a try. It seemed staged and not very Farke. Somewhat contrived and scripted in fact (instructed?).

It’s all chip paper now, though I think it indicates that ‘going up and having a free hit, sticking to our principles, spending little and bouncing back’ is not free from cost. Losing every week is still losing every week. It affects everyone, fans, players and Managers. 

Being not good enough every week - and repeatedly using your lesser quality as a defence mechanism or as an apparent tool to ‘take the pressure off’ may not be 100% character building. It might also be disheartening, demoralising and constantly struggling may have you make uglier compromises than you ideally wished to make. Even then they may not work. 

Whether somebody writes such a thing or not, doesn’t change the reality of the results. Fair or otherwise. Such is professional football. As every player, coach and Manager knows perfectly well. 

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the opening paragraph from today’s Sunday Times Chief Sports Writer David Walsh (long-in-the-tooth, seasoned and respected) reporting on the Norwich game and referring to Ole Gunnar Solskjaer:

’There are things you learn from more than a decade under Sir Alex Ferguson. Not least the importance of what is said in the aftermath of an unacceptably bad performance. Frankness must be avoided at all costs’.

Parma 

Share this post


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

 

As for criticism in the press, online, by good journalists, bad journalists, local, old, young, best mates, enemies......it is all an utter irrelevance to players, Managers and Coaches because so much of the reality of why things occur cannot be seen from the outside, so others are judging with limited information.  

Parma, I take the general point. Outsiders would often think they knew what was going on in my profession when they didn't have a clue. For insiders it was just a cause of amusement and not be taken seriously.

But I wonder if that is as true in football now as it used to be, because of the overhelming nature of cyberspace, and players in particular taking an active and even sometimes aggressive role. They are not insulated from the world any more.

I don't know of any examples but in the past a player who lost some form would at worst get it mentioned in the odd article, or by a drunken fan in a pub. Now, unless the player is some kind of non-techie hermit, the coverage will be vastly greater and inescapable. Easy to see how such a player's loss of confidence could quickly magnify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2020 at 18:19, Creative Midfielder said:

That'll be because Farke is too sensible to read some of the idiots like Keith Scott and Big Vince on here!!   🤣

But personally I find Farke's openess very refreshing, and would far rather hear what he actually thinks than the cliched sh1t that passes for so many football interviews. Plus he's generally pretty tactful when speaking about others so I guess in this case that he was pretty unimpressed with what he read, so why not say so?

In this particular case though, Farke was wrong to be so critical of what is actually a pretty accurate analysis of one of the worst performances of his 3 year reign. It should be him who apologises to Conor Southwell, not the other way around.

Share this post


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

In this particular case though, Farke was wrong to be so critical of what is actually a pretty accurate analysis of one of the worst performances of his 3 year reign. It should be him who apologises to Conor Southwell, not the other way around.

But it wasn't a general criticism of the display that caused the problem. Everyone knows it was an awful display against Southampton (although incredibly little credit was given to the excellence of Southampton). In an interview I saw last night, Todd Cantwell said or implied it was a bad performance. No problem; we all saw it. What angered Daniel was the inaccurate 'analysis' (God help us) and the suggestion that Daniel and his coaches did not see what was happening on the pitch, although Connor did. That was what was disrespectful. I am not going to read it all again, life is too short, but there was also some sort of suggestion that Soton's high press was activated as soon as Tom Tybull received the ball. That was simply wrong. As Daniel said, Soton have a way of playing, it has hardly changed all season. There was also a suggestion that a side including Ings and Ward-Prowse, amongst others, had no quality. Wrong again. If this sort of thing appears as 'opinion' it is less of a problem than if it appears as 'analysis'. It is not qualified analysis.

I worry for Connor if influential people are telling him that he was right and Daniel was wrong. He needs to take the bump, smile, and move on, older and wiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Parma, I take the general point. Outsiders would often think they knew what was going on in my profession when they didn't have a clue. For insiders it was just a cause of amusement and not be taken seriously.

But I wonder if that is as true in football now as it used to be, because of the overhelming nature of cyberspace, and players in particular taking an active and even sometimes aggressive role. They are not insulated from the world any more.

I don't know of any examples but in the past a player who lost some form would at worst get it mentioned in the odd article, or by a drunken fan in a pub. Now, unless the player is some kind of non-techie hermit, the coverage will be vastly greater and inescapable. Easy to see how such a player's loss of confidence could quickly magnify.

Purple, in line with the change you identify is the corollary use of sports psychologists and your own sports science and data analysis teams.

These are excellent and necessary and good, progressive developments. They equally ensure that the internal (club) narrative is the overriding one, which it must be for any good team and individual.

As a player (or Manager) You have spent a lifetime being told you are not good enough, won’t make it and that the odds are against you. This is not unique to football, though it is more hard-grained and prevalent than in many a ‘normal’ industry sector. 

In this sense the voice in your head must on occasion be more Lakey than Purple*. Some positive self-delusion is sometimes a pre-requisite. It is a strange - though ever-present and fundamentally important  - bedfellow with searing self-awareness and constructive self-criticism in football (and top level sport generally).

As any good historian (or economist?) knows, the context and where you point the camera is everything. It dictates the narrative. Players paid £100k per week are valuable racehorse assets and imprinting on their footballing thought processes is absolutely fundamental. Alex Ferguson is often referred to as ‘a Father figure’ by ex-players with good - and necessary - reason. Allowing extraneous comment to enter ‘the bubble’ is not required. 

Social Media may be ubiquitous, but it doesn’t pick the team or pay the wages. Amateur Comment may be spot on, well informed and intellectually rigorous, but so what? 

In the immortal words of Winston Churchill - a keen historian himself - when asked if he thought history would treat him kindly said:

’Oh yes, I’m quite sure it will. I intend to write it myself’

Parma

* intended as a compliment to both 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Purple, in line with the change you identify is the corollary use of sports psychologists and your own sports science and data analysis teams.

These are excellent and necessary and good, progressive developments. They equally ensure that the internal (club) narrative is the overriding one, which it must be for any good team and individual.

As a player (or Manager) You have spent a lifetime being told you are not good enough, won’t make it and that the odds are against you. This is not unique to football, though it is more hard-grained and prevalent than in many a ‘normal’ industry sector. 

In this sense the voice in your head must on occasion be more Lakey than Purple*. Some positive self-delusion is sometimes a pre-requisite. It is a strange - though ever-present and fundamentally important  - bedfellow with searing self-awareness and constructive self-criticism in football (and top level sport generally).

As any good historian (or economist?) knows, the context and where you point the camera is everything. It dictates the narrative. Players paid £100k per week are valuable racehorse assets and imprinting on their footballing thought processes is absolutely fundamental. Alex Ferguson is often referred to as ‘a Father figure’ by ex-players with good - and necessary - reason. Allowing extraneous comment to enter ‘the bubble’ is not required. 

Social Media may be ubiquitous, but it doesn’t pick the team or pay the wages. Amateur Comment may be spot on, well informed and intellectually rigorous, but so what? 

In the immortal words of Winston Churchill - a keen historian himself - when asked if he thought history would treat him kindly said:

’Oh yes, I’m quite sure it will. I intend to write it myself’

Parma

* intended as a compliment to both 

Thought-provoking as ever, Parma. The two points highlighted seem to me to be not just strange bedfellows, but mutually exclusive. How can positive self-delusion and constructive self-criticism work together? If you're trying to convince yourself that everything you do is right, how can you simultaneously apply 'searing self-awareness'?

And if you're self-aware enough to know your weaknesses, then surely it's not self-delusional to acknowledge them and work harder on them?

Apologies for getting bogged down in semantics...

Edited by Feedthewolf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

Thought-provoking as ever, Parma. The two points highlighted seem to me to be not just strange bedfellows, but mutually exclusive. How can positive self-delusion and constructive self-criticism work together? If you're trying to convince yourself that everything you do is right, how can you simultaneously apply 'searing self-awareness'?

And if you're self-aware enough to know your weaknesses, then surely it's not self-delusional to acknowledge them and work harder on them?

Apologies for getting bogged down in semantics...

Not at all caro Lupo 🐕...the paradox is exactly the point. If it sounds contrary it’s because it is. Such is the mindset of the sports elite*

As the well-remunerated sports psychologist Dr Bob Rotella (latterly golf, previously basketball and other American sports) has it on your very point:

‘When it comes to [it], you must have it both ways’.

You have worked ruthlessly your whole life, confronting and training your weaknesses, dealing psychologically with all of the necessary, unending sacrifices. And yet...

As you stand over a six foot putt to win the Open, it serves you not to recall the data that shows on the PGA Tour only an average of about 50% of such putts are made. 

At the very crux point, the very thing that got you there - the brutal self-criticism (far, far, far beyond anything any journalist might conceive of) that made made you train so hard, drove you to defy the doubters, to sacrifice more than many are willing to, that got you to this very point - serves you not.

You must believe - you must know - that you will make it. You’ve trained it, now you must trust it, without any thought at all. Blindly. Deeply. Entirely. 

Nothing else helps you in this moment. Searing Self-awareness morphs to virtual blind ignorance of situation or context. 

You must indeed have it both ways. 

Parma

* Those of you who run your own businesses may recognise something similar. Who can you really turn to? Who really understands?

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

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...