Jump to content
Hank shoots Skyler

Farke's use of subs (in games we are winning narrowly)

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

We are doing something tactically different this year. Something quite brave. It links with the issue of subs.

We are preparing for a higher level of football and have been for a couple of months. 

We have matured our game to the point where we are far from the ‘you score 4, we score 5’ rollercoaster of yesteryear - and indeed the fluid, attack-minded disrupt-you-by-attacking methodology that won praise - though few points - at the higher level. 

Thus a strategic dilemma.

As the club’s stated mission is Top 26 - and ideally for all Top 17 - then do you jump the hurdle that is in front of you (a) or prepare for the hurdle that is to come (b)?

Everyone will say ‘I want both’ though this requires a serious overhaul of tactical approach, something of a change of mentality, whilst naturally retaining all of the fundamental principles of pattern of play.

1. How does this translate into what we see in front of us?

2. What is the Manager doing differently?

3. What are the players doing differently?

4. Do we - as fans - need to change our thinking in any way as a result of 1,2,3?

(4.1) How does this affect substitutions (as a small subset of the overall picture)?

In basic terms this is the dilemma:

Norwich were horribly exposed at the top level. Being brave, ‘going for it’, flooding forward, scoring lots of goals to win games, high volume wins, individual brilliance...

were all over-shadowed by

....lack of weaknesses in any position, structural solidity, high levels of athleticism (particularly vid defensive space-covering), set-piece specialists, highly professional approaches (‘gamesmanship’), tactical fouls, deeply-drilled structural shapes, squad depth, strong game-management, responsibility to the collective in almost all players  some good, weapon players on every side, et al.

How does what we see in front of us now relate to the above and the overall picture?

i. We are playing a much lower risk form of football

ii. We are retaining elements of our fluid forward play where appropriate (early, nil-nil ‘probing period’ or when presented with highly deficient opposition structure)

iii. Once ahead we are sucking the life out of teams - and the game itself - via possession, tempo control (sucking time out of the game, defusing moments when the opposition has any momentum, obtaining ‘easy’ fouls, not trying to advance out of shape..)

iv. Chris Goreham is wrong and Farke is right. The game is not ‘close’ at 1-0. It may be ‘close’ at 0-0 (though we are often well ahead on ‘points’ even at this stage) though the ‘fear’ so commonly expressed is subjective and - particularly yesterday - bears little ressemblance to the amount of on-field strategic control we exert. 

V. Football is a low-scoring game. One goal - as every good Italian knows - is a massive advantage, a huge disruptor to the opposition. They have to change (unless they play very low rent, low-possession,  keep-it-tight-hope-for-a-set-piece or bit-of-luck and cannot change..like Rotherham yesterday) and you do not.

vi. Change is not generally good in football. You spend enormous amounts of time setting up your structure, tactical plan, personnel interactions, minutiae that the average fan would scarcely believe. Change thus becomes an inferior Plan B (or it would have been Plan A). Things can work in your favour - though ‘bringing on Big Crouchy when they’re tiring’ is a luxury most Championship clubs don’t have. If their ‘Crouchy’ was better, he’d start. 

vii. ‘Rotherham’s Crouchy’ doesn’t start because ‘when you’re attacking you are defending’ and ‘when you’re defending you are attacking’. Every piece and action is inter-connected and affects the whole. Few fans have the inside knowledge, data, direct experience, direct contact with the psychology of the players or deep understanding of how disparate parts contribute to the whole. Adding one things costs another, which diminishes another, augments a different piece, all of which suits one player , makes it harder for another, increase stress on one part of the system, strengthening another....but how does that relate to your resources, what the opposition resources are, what the variables of the day are (pitch, conditions, league position, momentum, current dressing-room psychology)?

Viii. We are thus not trying to score at 1-0. We will will if a great opportunity presents itself, if someone does something strategically low-risk though brilliant, the opposition makes a mistake or the opposition breaks its own structure too much in trying to recover a goal. 

ix. When you are ahead you don’t need to change. It isn’t your problem. You might proactively counter a move the opposition is going to make (‘bringing on Crouchy’), though - as with yesterday - not if all that can be offered is more of the same. Why would you then change? The pattern of play is showing that you (remain) far more likely to score than the opposition. 

X. In this context subs become a tactical weapon - like a set piece - and are actually used to disrupt the opposition momentum, defuse the last 10 minutes (subs at ‘85 minutes’ as written may actually play for 15 minutes note), ‘steal’ time from the referees watch and re-inforce key spaces as opposition teams overload. 

xi. The actual quality of ‘chances’ we are conceding is generally very low. Fans are conditioned to fear narrow leads (in England) and thus hold their breath ‘Goreham-like’ every time the opposition crosses the half-way line because of ‘what might happen’ in their passionate, partisan minds. Professionals must resist such subjective fear and contextualise it clearly with the empirical evidence in front of them. 

We are preparing - bravely - for a higher level. This is not ‘putting the cart before the horse’ , it is necessary transitioning and re-inforces Farke’s (and others’) observation that free-scoring promoted teams may - occasionally - keep scoring at the top level and survive a (lucrative) year, though teams that generally establish over a mid-term period (and thus are able to structurally strengthen) have far better defensive structure, are able to ‘see out’ tight games and resist ‘fear marketing’ when they are ahead. 

Like any really good (and he is excellent) coach he is managing to elegantly tessellate the immediate objectives with organic, persistent progression towards a deeper growth objective. 

Thus you use current circumstances to create ‘set-pieces’ that point your charges towards the future. You are hardening your players to perform, act and decide as if they were playing at a (far) higher level. 

Which they will be. 

Parma 

 

This 'really good' (excellent) coach didn't realise this prior to last season? Even though it was plainly obvious to everyone who cared to look objectively and risk the reaction of the Pinkun gang's yellow tinted glasses.

Let's hope he can see the problem with our playing squad being drastically diminished in the summer. Perhaps he will excel in dealing with it in a couple of seasons time.

Share this post


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

Parma

Excellent post, largely what I was thinking with the usual sprinkling of Parma insight.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

iii. Once ahead we are sucking the life out of teams - and the game itself - via possession, tempo control (sucking time out of the game, defusing moments when the opposition has any momentum, obtaining ‘easy’ fouls, not trying to advance out of shape..)

 

You could have left it at this . More single goal lower scoring wins than before . 
 

But it isn’t a new approach from Farke. As I’ve mentioned before we had the lowest goals conceded away from home in our title winning season than any other team in the league . 
 

We have got better at it . And have the tools to do it . Mostly . 

Edited by Graham Paddons Beard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Number9 said:

This 'really good' (excellent) coach didn't realise this prior to last season? Even though it was plainly obvious to everyone who cared to look objectively and risk the reaction of the Pinkun gang's yellow tinted glasses.

Let's hope he can see the problem with our playing squad being drastically diminished in the summer. Perhaps he will excel in dealing with it in a couple of seasons time.

Farke will manage at a top club. That you don't rate him is fine, it's just funny because he constantly proves you wrong.

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy, thanks for posting. I hadn't really thought of it that way round, but it makes sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can absolutely see what Parma is saying and it makes a lot of sense. But Sheffield United's experience this year is another warning. They have been well and truly sussed out and haven't managed to "change up" their game like clubs like Brighton and Burnley have done this season. Leeds could easily struggle next year unless they spend wisely in the summer; their game is still at the novice Premier League level as ours was last year, and although their squad is stronger their reliance on Phillips is worrying for them. West Ham have moved into a different way of playing and have bought players to suit that style, ruthlessly getting rid of those who don't; so have Everton. That should ring some bells with the way Farke has disposed of those players he doesn't think can adapt.

Trying to survive next season means starting how Fulham are playing now, rather than how Fulham were playing in September. I still don't think we are anywhere near the physicality and athleticism we will need to survive in the PL, but we have too much of it for most Championship teams to throw us off our stride now. I think that's why Watford are coming, and also why Brentford and Swansea won't stay with us. The way someone like Todd Cantwell now uses his strength to reclaim the ball is new this year and he has allied that to his running game. Hanley plays almost every challenge in a cleverer way than he did two years ago. Our full backs are looking so strong and athletic.

We've clearly changed our style. It's less easy on the eye but much more efficient and actually reminds me of the Wolves team that went up a few years ago. Relentless.

If we go up of course we will need to strengthen the squad - but this time some of them will be able to step up too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome insight as ever@Parma Ham's gone mouldy - I can’t disagree with any of that! I actually posted a very vaguely similar summary of your comment in King’s ‘are we better than we were in 18/19’ thread earlier today (much briefer and much less eloquently of course). 

The point you raised on managing the game at 1-0 is an interesting one, and not one I had considered previously. So you are saying my perception of us ‘losing momentum’ in these narrowly winning games is actually a deliberate action from the team to keep the opposition at arm’s length, rather than trying to maintain the previous high performance levels and potentially risk exposing ourselves?

This makes sense. And indeed a like-for-like change (as I would’ve liked) under these circumstances would clearly not change anything because the players are simply under direction to maintain the current position and suffocate the opposition out of the game? 

However while your explanation justifies the perceived ‘losing momentum’ aspect of my query, there is also the general question of rotation in the squad and utilising our bench / keeping our back up players match sharp. 

So a couple of questions I would pose to you please;

1) Are you worried our reliance on a very tight knit group over the next run of games could; a) Cause the current group to burn out a bit, and/or b) render our bench less reliable due to the lack of game time?

2) Would your personal preference for subs in winning situations match that of Farke’s or would you prefer to see like-for-like subs in games earlier for a bit more rotation?

Thanks!

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iv. Chris Goreham is wrong and Farke is right. The game is not ‘close’ at 1-0. It may be ‘close’ at 0-0 (though we are often well ahead on ‘points’ even at this stage) though the ‘fear’ so commonly expressed is subjective and - particularly yesterday - bears little ressemblance to the amount of on-field strategic control we exert
 

Gorham isn’t wrong . He is commentating on a live football match. The game , in simple terms, is close at 1.0. 
“On field strategic control” goes out of the window if the shot that hits the bar , is 30cm lower and goes in . 
The moment that changes the game , a Rotherham equaliser , was entirely within the control of their player . He missed the target and they didn’t score . That was beyond the “strategic control” of our players. That’s what makes the game “close” however you dress it up. 
 


 

Edited by Graham Paddons Beard
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

iv. Chris Goreham is wrong and Farke is right. The game is not ‘close’ at 1-0. It may be ‘close’ at 0-0 (though we are often well ahead on ‘points’ even at this stage) though the ‘fear’ so commonly expressed is subjective and - particularly yesterday - bears little ressemblance to the amount of on-field strategic control we exert
 

Gorham isn’t wrong . He is commentating on a live football match. The game , in simple terms, is close at 1.0. 
“On field strategic control” goes out of the window if the shot that hits the bar , is 30cm lower and goes in . 
The moment that changes the game , a Rotherham equaliser , was entirely within the control of their player . He missed the target and they didn’t score . That was beyond the “strategic control” of our players. 


 

Not to mention the heroic block from Aarons!

Then again on the balance of chances we should’ve been out of sight by then.. 

I don’t think we necessarily look to get specifically 1 goal up and then sit back either. Our last two games for instance have been relentless energy and attacking for the first 45 (both whilst already winning 1-0 for the majority), followed by much more passive second halves.

It would certainly be a bit better if our attacking players could convert the vast number of chances we create during our initial bombardment! That would make for more comfortable second half viewing...

But until we at least get that two goal cushion, I do think we should try to maintain the levels we know we can get to - try to get ourselves comfortably ahead.

It does seem risky to let the opposition take the initiative somewhat when we are only carrying a slender lead! 

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/02/2021 at 19:22, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Awesome insight as ever@Parma Ham's gone mouldy - I can’t disagree with any of that! I actually posted a very vaguely similar summary of your comment in King’s ‘are we better than we were in 18/19’ thread earlier today (much briefer and much less eloquently of course). 

The point you raised on managing the game at 1-0 is an interesting one, and not one I had considered previously. So you are saying my perception of us ‘losing momentum’ in these narrowly winning games is actually a deliberate action from the team to keep the opposition at arm’s length, rather than trying to maintain the previous high performance levels and potentially risk exposing ourselves?

This makes sense. And indeed a like-for-like change (as I would’ve liked) under these circumstances would clearly not change anything because the players are simply under direction to maintain the current position and suffocate the opposition out of the game? 

However while your explanation justifies the perceived ‘losing momentum’ aspect of my query, there is also the general question of rotation in the squad and utilising our bench / keeping our back up players match sharp. 

So a couple of questions I would pose to you please;

1) Are you worried our reliance on a very tight knit group over the next run of games could; a) Cause the current group to burn out a bit, and/or b) render our bench less reliable due to the lack of game time?

2) Would your personal preference for subs in winning situations match that of Farke’s or would you prefer to see like-for-like subs in games earlier for a bit more rotation?

Thanks!

That’s a good post, with some good questions. Nice also that you recognise that analysing what ‘is’ or what Farke may ‘intend’ is not the same as my opinion or what I would do. I actually rarely get asked that..

To answer directly:

1. I think - as my wise Father taught me - that ‘you don’t have to guess if you can read the book, son’. We can see via repeated actions what Farke thinks. 

In the case of changes in tight winning positions ( and no other factors, such as injury or very specific circumstances) - and reinforcing our observations - Farke typically turns to strategically and tactically astute players. You may note - as per yesterday - that Tettey is brought on for example. 

Many may think that this is simply ‘taking off Todd for someone more prosaic, shoring up the defence, etc)’, though it is much more than that. 

Tettey is a ‘structural player’ as I term it, someone who will do what they do, how they do it, under pressure or otherwise. They know how, when and where to make a foul, what constitutes real danger and what constitutes ‘Goreham Danger’.

Pukki - quite remarkably for a 9 - also has this. This is one of the reasons - in the circumstances outlined in the analysis post - that Pukki tends not to get much of a rest in such circumstances. Idah may (or may not) be dangerous and full of top-level potential, but he is far too callow and does not yet see any of this at all.

Thus Pukki may be tired, over-worked and looking like he might not really force a chance, though that is simply not what is required (anymore). We are not trying to score again.

Italy have won 4 World Cups this way. Many teams have nearly scored, but - due to very cute, calculated defending - the chances conceded are ‘manageable’. They may indeed whistle close, though the odds were always against it. 

In Norwich’s case you may think that this - deep down - rather indicates that Farke does not believe all of his squad have this calculated reasoning at the sharp end of games...and I think you’d be right. 

When he talks about missing Stieperman, Tettey and Hugill, many of you may think that this is warm squad management. It isn’t. 

Unlike Onel, Placheta, Idah, Martin (who I really like) et al....all of whom have interesting goal-getting, opposition-troubling weaponry, this simply isn’t what he needs when ahead and in control. 

2. I think that there are very interesting, quite advanced, quite original conditioning programmes at Norwich. I think that there is also considerable attention on neuroscientific, emotional and chemico-metabolic reactions to certain ways of approaching football, life and tactics. The way Norwich play is pleasing, stimulating, it feel superior (‘we are the protagonist’)...the clear breadcrumbs of Juanma Lillo’s positional play theories run through much of what we see...as Cruyff knew, it affects more than just goals and technique...it changes how you feel about everything , it engages your brain at all times, it becomes second nature, the ball is the dictator, the pole star. Thus - apologies for the long intro - I just don’t see the Norwich players dropping off significantly (which would be a reason to change) .
Couple this with Plan A being more than good enough for all-comers, plus Farke’s penchant for ‘rewarding’ players who do what he needs (rather than what they can),  plus he knows that no-one ever wants to come off (Managers don’t have that many real power weapons over players in the modern game. Game-time is ‘not a free gift’ in his words).
Pukki - for example - will know better than anyone that his chances of scoring actually increase as the opposition chase the game, get tired and make mistakes (good for him, though also further proof that we don’t have to change, the opposition have done it for us..).

Everyone else is thus -predominantly - waiting on injuries or specific game-management roles. They are forced - to some degree - into subservient team-centric actions, ahead of doing what might get them in the team in ‘old world thinking ‘ (Idah going off and scoring for 2-0 might actually be a ‘negative’ in this sense, if it took an undesirable against-the-odds risk to achieve it. I know that’ll be tough for some 🤗)

Subs are generally used pretty sparingly in Italy, 1-0 is not a ‘nervous’ score line, winning positions are typically not messed with. It’s unnecessary chess. 

At a lower level one might  ‘give all the lads a run out’ ...’freshen things up’ ....’go like-for-like’...at a professional level I would absolutely, categorically and unequivocally do precisely the thing that has the odds (even just) in my favour. Certainly including - and perhaps even preferably - doing nothing.

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
Agree Rupp a reliable, structural player.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet that at least 80% of Canary fans were screaming after 70 min. "Get a sub on" We had lost the control of the first half, some were tiring i.e. Vrancic, and Rotherham had stepped up a gear and quicker to the ball. They were taking no prisoners and roughing us up with no help from the ref. BUT DF took his usual stubborn approach and we got away with it JUST. Of course we should have been four up at half time. Once again the maestro got it right and achieved the object of the exercise THREE POINTS. Thats football. No doubt he will settle for 1-0 against Birmingham and Wycombe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hogesar said:

Farke will manage at a top club. That you don't rate him is fine, it's just funny because he constantly proves you wrong.

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy, thanks for posting. I hadn't really thought of it that way round, but it makes sense.

You are curious, Parma saying thst Farke has realised we're too open for the Premier League so need to adjust our tactics. 

I've been telling you that for the past few years Hoggy, yet I'm being proved wrong?

Nowt queerer than folk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Number9 said:

You are curious, Parma saying thst Farke has realised we're too open for the Premier League so need to adjust our tactics. 

I've been telling you that for the past few years Hoggy, yet I'm being proved wrong?

Nowt queerer than folk.

Past few years? We were only in the Premier League last season, and I've never disagreed with that point of yours. But Farke went with what was available to him. We never had the personnel to sit back and absorb pressure and hope for loads of clean sheets. He even said that in multiple interviews, so as per usual I'm not too sure what the point is you're making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy - interesting point about the 'structured' players although that doesn't really answer why those structured players often don't make it on the pitch until the 89th minute. I understand the desire to disrupt the opposition momentum but you can disrupt them 10 minutes earlier too.

Where I do question what you're sying is the Pukki example- I understand we aren't trying to score at this point but the issue with tired legs in the attacking third isn't just the what it means going forward. The concern is 'is this player too tired to track their runner/make a block/fill in space when the opposition attack? Will the mental fatigue lead to more errors?' Equally the tired legs force us to drop deeper and surrender position as players can't carry the ball out to relieve pressure and Pukki isn't the type to make it stick with his back to goal. While you may see that as 'Goreham danger' I personally subscribe to the idea that the more we can keep the ball and the higher up the pitch we do it, the less danger we face- and that isn't possible when you've got attackers who are running on empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@king canary

Where does Idah run? Why does he run there?

Does he recognise the key moment when ‘running about putting them under pressure’ is actually an absolutely critical 10 yard burst into a specific spot to prevent a specific trigger movement, that leads to increased space in a key area, that allows the wrong opposition player half a second more, that creates a higher grade chance, that moves the odds (just) against us in that key moment?

Pukki does. 

Much of the key work under Farke is in the brain, not the legs.

Parma

(nb: the point is in the entirety of the two main posts. The overall aim always overrides small subset aims. Unless things change of course...🤗)

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting words into @Parma Ham's gone mouldy's mouth it seems that he and Farke believe that the tired 11 on the pitch towards the end of Saturday were a better option than "fresh legs" "running in behind". Added to the fact we won and are top, that would seem to be very persuasive. Everyone is untitled to an opinion, and it has prompted a very interesting thread but there appears to be nothing in the argument in favour of more and earlier subs that looks convincing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Putting words into @Parma Ham's gone mouldy's mouth it seems that he and Farke believe that the tired 11 on the pitch towards the end of Saturday were a better option than "fresh legs" "running in behind". Added to the fact we won and are top, that would seem to be very persuasive. Everyone is untitled to an opinion, and it has prompted a very interesting thread but there appears to be nothing in the argument in favour of more and earlier subs that looks convincing.

Agreed the debate has been interesting but I don't imagine anyone has really changed their mind- I still think we should be making subs earlier, you don't but we've all had a lovely time. 

Share this post


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

Agreed the debate has been interesting but I don't imagine anyone has really changed their mind- I still think we should be making subs earlier, you don't but we've all had a lovely time. 

.......same again Tuesday, I expect 😀

Share this post


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

.......same again Tuesday, I expect 😀

I was actually going to pencil you and Badger in for a 'should Delia & MWJ sell the club?' conversation on Thursday, we've not done that for awhile. 

Share this post


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

I was actually going to pencil you and Badger in for a 'should Delia & MWJ sell the club?' conversation on Thursday, we've not done that for awhile. 

So we're going to lose on Tuesday? Those conversations are generally left for our poorer runs of form 😀

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

So we're going to lose on Tuesday? Those conversations are generally left for our poorer runs of form 😀

Not only will we lose but Todd and Pukki will banjo their hamstrings in the 89th minute and Emi will get sent off for two yellows, helping us to revive the 'earlier use of subs' debate in one fell swoop.

Share this post


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

Not only will we lose but Todd and Pukki will banjo their hamstrings in the 89th minute and Emi will get sent off for two yellows, helping us to revive the 'earlier use of subs' debate in one fell swoop.

Don't even joke about that! Think about the long-term consequences...

Such as me looking like an idiot for defending Farke's substitution policy.

And I guess our chances of winning the league is a consequence too.

Share this post


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

That’s a good post, with some good questions. Nice also that you recognise that analysing what ‘is’ or what Farke may ‘intend’ is not the same as my opinion or what I would do. I actually rarely get asked that..

To answer directly:

1. I think - as my wise Father taught me - that ‘you don’t have to guess if you can read the book, son’. We can see via repeated actions what Farke thinks. 

In the case of changes in tight winning positions ( and no other factors, such as injury or very specific circumstances) - and reinforcing our observations - Farke typically turns to strategically and tactically astute players. You may note - as per yesterday - that Tettey is brought on for example. 

Many may think that this is simply ‘taking off Todd for someone more prosaic, shoring up the defence, etc)’, though it is much more than that. 

Tettey is a ‘structural player’ as I term it, someone who will do what they do, how they do it, under pressure or otherwise. They know how, when and where to make a foul, what constitutes real danger and what constitutes ‘Goreham Danger’.

Pukki - quite remarkably for a 9 - also has this. This is one of the reasons - in the circumstances outlined in the analysis post - that Pukki tends not to get much of a rest in such circumstances. Idah may (or may not) be dangerous and full of top-level potential, but he is far too callow and does not yet see any of this at all.

Thus Pukki may be tired, over-worked and looking like he might not really force a chance, though that is simply not what is required (anymore). We are not trying to score again.

Italy have won 4 World Cups this way. Many teams have nearly scored, but - due to very cute, calculated defending - the chances conceded are ‘manageable’. They may indeed whistle close, though the odds were always against it. 

In Norwich’s case you may think that this - deep down - rather indicates that Farke does not believe all of his squad have this calculated reasoning at the sharp end of games...and I think you’d be right. 

When he talks about missing Stieperman, Tettey and Hugill, many of you may think that this is warm squad management. It isn’t. 

Unlike Onel, Placheta, Idah, Martin (who I really like) et al....all of whom have interesting goal-getting, opposition-troubling weaponry, this simply isn’t what he needs when ahead and in control. 

2. I think that there are very interesting, quite advanced, quite original conditioning programmes at Norwich. I think that there is also considerable attention on neuroscientific, emotional and chemico-metabolic reactions to certain ways of approaching football, life and tactics. The way Norwich play is pleasing, stimulating, it feel superior (‘we are the protagonist’)...the clear breadcrumbs of Juanma Lillo’s positional play theories run through much of what we see...as Cruyff knew, it affects more than just goals and technique...it changes how you feel about everything , it engages your brain at all times, it becomes second nature, the ball is the dictator, the pole star. Thus - apologies for the long intro - I just don’t see the Norwich players dropping off significantly (which would be a reason to change) .
Couple this with Plan A being more than good enough for all-comers, plus Farke’s penchant for ‘rewarding’ players who do what he needs (rather than what they can),  plus he knows that no-one ever wants to come off (Managers don’t have that many real power weapons over players in the modern game. Game-time is ‘not a free gift’ in his words).
Pukki - for example - will know better than anyone that his chances of scoring actually increase as the opposition chase the game, get tired and make mistakes (good for him, though also further proof that we don’t have to change, the opposition have done it for us..).

Everyone else is thus -predominantly - waiting on injuries or specific game-management roles. They are forced - to some degree - into subservient team-centric actions, ahead of doing what might get them in the team in ‘old world thinking ‘ (Idah going off and scoring for 2-0 might actually be a ‘negative’ in this sense, if it took an undesirable against-the-odds risk to achieve it. I know that’ll be tough for some 🤗)

Subs are generally used pretty sparingly in Italy, 1-0 is not a ‘nervous’ score line, winning positions are typically not messed with. It’s unnecessary chess. 

At a lower level one might  ‘give all the lads a run out’ ...’freshen things up’ ....’go like-for-like’...at a professional level I would absolutely, categorically and unequivocally do precisely the thing that has the odds (even just) in my favour. Certainly including - and perhaps even preferably - doing nothing.

Parma 

Thanks again Parma. 

Pukki is a good example, he clearly shows a willingness to do the dirty work throughout the entire 90 minutes - and intelligence / efficiency in the way he does it as you indicated. So no qualms from me for him staying on the pitch at all, and I respect that Idah's rawness may not be so useful. 

But how does this trade off weigh up say against say Cantwell going off for Hernandez or Mumba or even Rupp on the left wing, does Cantwell really bring such superior out of possession pressing qualities and intelligence that those players do not have? He clearly has been a huge player for us in possession in recent weeks, but he can also be a bit too cute and end up causing an opposition counter. Or what about a Rupp for McLean type substitution? I don't think these kinds of changes are going to negatively impact our overall approach, or are they? 

As you said, no one knows the players better than Farke himself. But I do remain a tad apprehensive for our coming round of particularly busy fixtures, I am not absolutely convinced we have found the exact optimum balance between managing each game situation, managing our first 11 and also our bench players waiting in the wings. That said, up to this point it has served us fantastically well overall - so I cannot complain. 

''Subs are generally used pretty sparingly in Italy, 1-0 is not a ‘nervous’ score line, winning positions are typically not messed with. It’s unnecessary chess. ''

A couple of points on this sentence, and your previous post which was on similar lines. 

I don't quite think we are a side who has been looking to solely go 1-0 up, then suffocate the opposition and only go forwards when the odds are stacked in our favour (e.g. a 3 v 2 on the counter attack or whatever situation which is low risk). Generally we have dominated opening periods of matches, and continued to dominate even after going 1 up, sometimes getting a second sometimes not - but generally at least creating a hatful of chances which show we are still willing to take risks to get that second goal. 

However in games where we fail to get that two-goal cushion - the desire for a second tends to change towards the latter stages, as we look to maintain what we have and drop deeper. This makes sense as there is less time to prise the game back if we did concede an equaliser.

As now learned, this new approach is likely an instruction from Farke. But it is probably why I never previously saw the sitting off and subsequent 'shifting of momentum' as a deliberate action by the team, because it is nowhere near as simple as going 1-0 up and then doing a Tottenham and camping in our 18 yard box and relieving nearly all attacking risks. That would be really visible. 

So I think instead we are a bit more adventurous than you have given us credit for. Generally I would say our go-to approach at the moment is:

1) Roughly for the first 45 minutes, we look to get out of sight (or at least a two-goal cushion) with high pressing, high tempo passing, and overloading midfielders and fullbacks. 

2) For the second 45, we are comfortable dictating the tempo with slower, more straight forward possession football, with less positional risk taking in terms of both attacking and pressing - whether we manage to get to that two-goal margin or not in the opening phases. This could also explain our perceived sluggish period in matches from around 45 - 65 minutes where plenty of people have noted a drop off after half time.

Also a side note - God help us in the prem if we do take the approach of simply taking a 1 goal lead and then sitting off / trying to manage the game. In my opinion 1-0 can never be a safe score! Look at how that has served Spurs this season, the most points dropped from winning positions in the league - with a far superior defence than we can hope to have next season - you'd think! 

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a good point about Farke using the players he can rely on and will do the job they are told to consistently and even when tired.

Whilst Idah, Placheta, Martin and Hernandez are all capable of 'offering something different' perhaps that's exactly what Farke doesnt want when we are 1-0 up and may be even be perceived to be holding on.

Perhaps the best example of why he does this is Idah's sending off. Having a young, inexperience player or even one who is just trying too hard to make an impression could result in a mistake or rash decision which could end up in us losing that precious 1-0 lead.

Like many I often question the absence of subs but at the end of the day I trust and respect Farke's decision making (as I'm sure most the players do too).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Its a good point about Farke using the players he can rely on and will do the job they are told to consistently and even when tired.

Whilst Idah, Placheta, Martin and Hernandez are all capable of 'offering something different' perhaps that's exactly what Farke doesnt want when we are 1-0 up and may be even be perceived to be holding on.

Perhaps the best example of why he does this is Idah's sending off. Having a young, inexperience player or even one who is just trying too hard to make an impression could result in a mistake or rash decision which could end up in us losing that precious 1-0 lead.

Like many I often question the absence of subs but at the end of the day I trust and respect Farke's decision making (as I'm sure most the players do too).

While I get what you're saying I'm not sure a fear of red cards is the best example considering how willing he was to leave Emi on v Middlesbrough.

Edited by king canary
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel was asked specifically about his use of and timing of subs. As always he gave an honest answer. (I love that about him). He talks about the players being able to deliver over a demanding game schedule. He says he makes subs when it makes sense to do so. He felt we controlled the game. He then went on to explain the subs he did make. My paraphrasing is rubbish but it's all on this video.

But we don't have to leave it there. Is Farke right?

Well, if you look at this chart and the goals for and against in the last 15 mins + added we have scored 12 and conceded 4. That suggests to me his game management and ability to see out a result is extremely good.

1535452197_Screenshot(42).png.55ed4963ed6315b409eb6a1a1c671261.png

Interestingly Beloved Brentford, who some of Farke's critics were crowning as champions just 10 days ago, concede twice as many in those same last minutes.

But is it all luck? I can't take that option off the table and it's been used before....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as i admire Parma's posts, i refuse to believe Vrancic serves much use on a football pitch after 65-70 mins 🤣

CHO lasted 30 mins on the pitch for Chelsea, ability ignored, i reckon Vrancic would last 10 mins under Tuchel.

 

I love Vrancic don't get me wrong, but prepping another player who can last 90 mins by giving them a bit longer on the pitch wouldn't be a bad thing. I agree in as much that other players make key movements and Pukki is a master at it, but i don't feel the same way about Vrancic. Maybe i keep missing it, but i just don't see his use to the defensive side of the game after 65-70 mins.

 

I believe someone like Sorrensen would suck the life more out of the opposition by retaining possession at that stage of the game.

Edited by Downloads

Share this post


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

@king canary

Where does Idah run? Why does he run there?

Does he recognise the key moment when ‘running about putting them under pressure’ is actually an absolutely critical 10 yard burst into a specific spot to prevent a specific trigger movement, that leads to increased space in a key area, that allows the wrong opposition player half a second more, that creates a higher grade chance, that moves the odds (just) against us in that key moment?

Pukki does. 

Much of the key work under Farke is in the brain, not the legs.

Parma

(nb: the point is in the entirety of the two main posts. The overall aim always overrides small subset aims. Unless things change of course...🤗)

Spot on. 

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

×
×
  • Create New...