The Case for the Defence

[Move Klose 303]

2 minutes ago, Move Klose said:

And 30 is what? Too old? What a load of rubbish.

Maybe he has spent the majority of his career in the championship, but I bet he's at the best stage he's ever been at in his career. If anyone thinks we will bring in a new CB and just drop a fit Hanley, our captain then I think you're going to be in for a suprise

Gibson is 28, Hanley is 29, that 1 year makes all the difference i guess.

[king canary 7,605]

Just now, Move Klose said:

And 30 is what? Too old? What a load of rubbish.

Maybe he has spent the majority of his career in the championship, but I bet he's at the best stage he's ever been at in his career. If anyone thinks we will bring in a new CB and just drop a fit Hanley, our captain then I think you're going to be in for a suprise

I never said he was too old so relax a bit.

Just that football isn't littered with players who suddenly make the step up at his age. Someone previously gave Wes Morgan as an example of someone who did, which is fair but its pretty rare.

I'm also not saying we sign someone and drop him. But everyone needs competition and right now who in the squad is pushing Hanley and Gibson for their start? Not Zimmerman and not Omobamidele right now in my opinion. 

[FatCanary 249]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

I never said he was too old so relax a bit.

Just that football isn't littered with players who suddenly make the step up at his age. Someone previously gave Wes Morgan as an example of someone who did, which is fair but its pretty rare.

I'm also not saying we sign someone and drop him. But everyone needs competition and right now who in the squad is pushing Hanley and Gibson for their start? Not Zimmerman and not Omobamidele right now in my opinion. 

Well, this is fine, obviously, as I don't think you'll find a Norwich fan who doesn't think we should sign a CB, whether they like Gibson and Hanley or not.

[Nuff Said 5,131]

13 minutes ago, Move Klose said:

Which we are basing off of 15 apps last time round.

Just shows we see what we want to see sometimes. The more Hanley played in the PL, the better he got, which correlates with this season.

[FatCanary 249]

4 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Just shows we see what we want to see sometimes. The more Hanley played in the PL, the better he got, which correlates with this season.

Of course 15 appearances a Premier League centre-half doth not make, we know that from a few certain suspects there've been over the years.

But, I'm pretty sure I remember him being awesome against wave after wave of attacks at the start of the season...(and overcame his early faux pas against Liverpool which would have been mentally horrendous)...he couldn't stop everything and by Christ we took some hammerings eventually (which coincided well with his injury after lockdown but cause and effect are difficult by that point, so strange were the circumstances) but the fearsomeness and fire he showed when he was fit he has shown again this season. A fit Grant Hanley is an elite defender. Bear in mind he was essentially expected to lead a team of insane talent who had in the most part never experienced a setback through the brutal intensity of the concentration required to be consistent in the Premier League.

It is easy to point fingers at his past failings, but Grant Hanley is a beast now and I love him.

Also can we cut out the mobility crap? His ability to recover from errors in an agile way is one of his best attributes....

[king canary 7,605]

12 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

Also can we cut out the mobility crap? His ability to recover from errors in an agile way is one of his best attributes....

Personally I don't think its crap- I think it is an issue he can hide much more easily at this level but it gets exploited at the next, especially combined with some occasionally suspect positioning. 

The attributes for being an excellent player at the top of the Championship and being a capable player at the bottom of the Premier League is often quite different. For me, Hanley is perfect for dealing with the kind of strikers you deal with week in week out at Championship level but those in the Premier League are better positioned to exploit some of his weaker areas. 

[Gordon Bennett 783]

Before writing off Grant Hanley consider the career of Wes Morgan.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Gordon Bennett

[king canary 7,605]

11 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Before writing off Grant Hanley consider the career of Wes Morgan.

Again, I think it is really important to state nobody is 'writing him off.' You can critique a player without 'writing him off.'

[Nuff Said 5,131]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

I think its also based on...

1- observing his weaker points

2- the fact he's turning 30 this year and has spent the vast majority of his career in the Championship. 

Gary Bowyer, who managed Hanley at Blackburn, doesn't seem to think 30 is that old. From a recent Athletic article:

“Grant will be the first to admit he didn’t have a particularly great time in the Premier League because of his injuries but he’s got himself really fit, he looks good and he’s only 29. He’s coming up to some of the best parts of his footballing career,” says Bowyer.

[birchfest 397]

Ahh 2004, I was gutted to see Malky and Roberts shown the door. I thought at the time both could have had an impact in some shape or form.. especially when Munby messed Worthington around in the summer by not getting Ashton to replace Iwan when he asked, only to say the funds were available in January after all. Then we ended up with 5.8 Simon Charlton at the back... didn't end well. 

 

Anyway, back on topic, I think a lot of it comes down to who we can also get in CDM. We get a good one of those in and I think Hanley and Gibson will be enough to keep us up just about. If we end up with someone ok in that role, but not as effective as Skipp then I think we need to look at someone else to push Hanley for his spot. The man has been a mountain this season, but I worry that he is also at the peak of his capabilities, where as with Gibson I think there is still a little way for him to go till he's reached his potential... something he was showing when he made the England bench previously. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by birchfest

[FatCanary 249]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Personally I don't think its crap- I think it is an issue he can hide much more easily at this level but it gets exploited at the next, especially combined with some occasionally suspect positioning. 

The attributes for being an excellent player at the top of the Championship and being a capable player at the bottom of the Premier League is often quite different. For me, Hanley is perfect for dealing with the kind of strikers you deal with week in week out at Championship level but those in the Premier League are better positioned to exploit some of his weaker areas. 

I see absolutely no residual issue with Grant Hanley's mobility. He'll get done occasionally, but no more than your average PL centre back. He is one of our fastest accelerating players on the half turn, and when he does need to chase back he usually gets there first. I can understand your fears as he has shown issues akin to this at the top level in the past but his improvement has been palpable both mentally and technically. Maybe I'm naive, but I have every confidence in our Scottish warlord. No one likes to play against Grant Hanley because he makes it horrible for the opposition, and I'm willing to believe he can be a nightmare for anyone. Of course elite strikers will win out on him occasionally, a defender who never gets beaten isn't playing for Norwich City.

[BroadstairsR 2,163]

As a side, it's worth mentioning that only Krul, Hanley (30+ appearances for Blackburn) and Tettey were the only players in the squad of two seasons ago who had had previous experience of Premier League football.

Edit: Sam Byram for the Hammers as well.

Edited May 10, 2021 by BroadstairsR

[Vazzza 62]

Hanley has developed into a PL quality centre back. 29/30 is prime age for the position he plays with the maturity that is so important at CB. 

He got into the championship team of the season for a reason. Him and Gibbo are a PL pairing, it’s just getting the right balance in midfield and wing backs flying forward, and the Skipp shaped hole replaced that is more important.

I agree we need another CB to come in to push these 2, but I guarantee that if fit they’ll be our starting partnership. Would put my house on it 

[Gordon Bennett 783]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Again, I think it is really important to state nobody is 'writing him off.' You can critique a player without 'writing him off.'

 

5 hours ago, Wrathofthefarkely said:

I don't agree that Hanley and Gibson are good enough. 

 

Gibson, yes. 

Hanley, no. He will struggle. 

Another more mobile defender is needed. 

 

[Petriix 2,835]

4 hours ago, BigFish said:

So very true, defensively we were better but this is flattered by coming from a very poor base. It doesn't make us good defensively and neither does winning a very poor League. Another central defender is needed as first choice, not for competition. Skipp needs replacing and I think we need another CDM, but don't expect to get two.

This old nonsense again: I have never, ever, seen such high quality football played at Championship level. The game has evolved so that the agricultural style of thugs bullying their way to success is no longer possible with cards being liberally brandished for robust challenges, even when they win the ball. More teams than ever are playing technical football with an emphasis on passing, movement and control.

[king canary 7,605]

3 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

 

 

Ha, fair enough!

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 hours ago, Wrathofthefarkely said:

I don't agree that Hanley and Gibson are good enough. 

 

Gibson, yes. 

Hanley, no. He will struggle. 

Another more mobile defender is needed. 

Hanley's a lot quicker than people think, especially over short distances. He does have his weaknesses, but pace isn't one of them. I'd like Fry to come, or if Barnsley don't make it up their player of the season was a centre-half in Michal Helik. Who incidentally came from the Polish top flight at the start of the season, from Cracovia.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Norwich need a new centre back, I think everyone can agree on that as Zimmermann probably isn’t suitable to be back up in the Prem.  

If Norwich are going to buy a new defender should they look for one is better or worse than their current starting centre backs? It is fairly obvious that the club should be looking for any new players coming in to be improvements on the ones current at the club.

Get a new centre back and let the three of them fight for the starting spots. 

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Zimmermann will do as 4th choice if he's up for it. He's been here a while and knows Farkeball which is a big plus. Clearly he has his limitations but I wouldn't move on from him just yet. Would be looking at Famewo or Big Andy to push him in pre season though.

The main reason I want us to sign a new CB is to give us the flexibility to switch to 5 at the back with wing backs. I think we are going to need a few options to be as flexible as we can when fighting for scraps out of the big sides in particular.

What happened to Bushiri anyway? He was supposed to be fairly promising but he's yet to debut

[Alex Moss 2,165]

Grant Hanley started our Premier League season playing with a groin strain and was on injections just to get him through those games. Now I’m no rocket scientist but I can take a guess why his mobility was somewhat hindered (to say the least). At that point, and not being aware of this fact, I too was concerned and I remember saying his mobility was an issue. Well, that should have taught not only myself but others that there was very good reason for him to look off the pace. Now we are armed with this knowledge we should have a little more faith in the guy. Having seen him play a fully fit season at last, I’ve got absolutely zero concerns about him starting next season, provided he’s fit of course. He’s technically very good, better than I realised actually, has great strength, in fact I’m struggling to name a weakness other than he doesn’t have some fancy foreign surname to make him sound like an elite signing.

The one short spell of games he played in the Premier League when he was actually fit, he looked very good indeed. Far better than Godfrey, who looked a disaster in the telepathy stakes with Krul. We weren’t at sixes and sevens around that time and looked far more assured at the back. Logic tells me those are the games you should judge him on, not when he’s playing with an injury that would obviously hinder him massively! There was no question of Zimbo or Klose starting the season so we had to go with the next best option from the treatment table and that was Grant, but it was far from ideal.

We will need another quality centre back no question. But choosing to judge Grant on his games played with an injury over the spell where he wasn’t and was actually pretty decent is just damn odd in my opinion.

[vos 155]

Very noticeable against Barnsley that without Skipp our defence was not as watertight as usual. Furthermore Barnsley did not possess a lot of individual quality up front but all of their players simply worked their socks off. It is not going to be easy to find a suitable replacement of Skipp's mobility and pace.

[BigFish 1,986]

14 hours ago, Petriix said:

This old nonsense again: I have never, ever, seen such high quality football played at Championship level. The game has evolved so that the agricultural style of thugs bullying their way to success is no longer possible with cards being liberally brandished for robust challenges, even when they win the ball. More teams than ever are playing technical football with an emphasis on passing, movement and control.

Not saying that football hasn't evolved in the Chumps, that it isn't more technical, that possession and pressing isn't the focus. Just that that the teams in the Chumps (particularly if you take out all the loan players - Skipp included) just arn't very good at it. That the gap between the EPL and the EFL is larger than it has ever been. This we could see all three relegated sides get straight returns. I wouldn't be surprised if there a number of EPL under 23 teams capable of top six finishes.Two of last years promoted clubs are coming straight down and the other have only had two seasons. Finally, as this is about the defence it is worth noting that Gibson, who most posters are happy with, couldn't get into the side that is 17th and Hanley only got 10 games for the side that is 15th.

[MORDENCANARY 71]

21 hours ago, lake district canary said:

I dont get this "loan him out" thing about Omobamidele.  No reason to imo, he's made the breakthrough to the first team and imo you only send out players on loan who need to show they are ready for the first team.

He has shown he is up to the task and so what he is only 18?  So what it's the PL?  Where better to learn than actually in the top league?  He'll get chances to play in cup games, occasional PL appearances from the bench and if there is an injury/suspension, the chance to start games.  

Show trust in him and watch him flourish.

Well said , I think sometimes it can hinder a players development to be loaned out but of course not playing regularly is not so great.

[king canary 7,605]

10 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Not saying that football hasn't evolved in the Chumps, that it isn't more technical, that possession and pressing isn't the focus. Just that that the teams in the Chumps (particularly if you take out all the loan players - Skipp included) just arn't very good at it. That the gap between the EPL and the EFL is larger than it has ever been. This we could see all three relegated sides get straight returns. I wouldn't be surprised if there a number of EPL under 23 teams capable of top six finishes.Two of last years promoted clubs are coming straight down and the other have only had two seasons. Finally, as this is about the defence it is worth noting that Gibson, who most posters are happy with, couldn't get into the side that is 17th and Hanley only got 10 games for the side that is 15th.

Exactly. I think if you took this seasons Reading or Barnsley teams and put them into the Championship of 2 or 3 seasons ago there is no way they trouble the top 6. 

Also, look at some of the dross who occupy the top half. Cardiff are an awful bunch of cloggers yet were apparently the 8th best team this season. Preston, a team we should have beaten comfortably with a combination of jet lagged players and reserves finished 13th. This is a poor league. 

 

[Tetteys Jig 830]

19 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Back to the "we need 5 centre backs" rubbish. Sigh. ☹

I genuinely think we do with the caveat that 1 or 2 of them are Big Andy or Famewo so it wouldn't involve big spending. Really don't want us to be having to put squares in rounds at prem level again. 1 more centre back of equivalent level to Gibson/Hanley would be acceptable. Seen Joe Worrall linked which would be a decent shout. Like the look of Dael Fry as well.

As I've already mentioned, I'd love us to have a 5 at the back option. I genuinely think Farke wanted to do that last time up but never had enough defenders. Ben Godfrey was made for that role. Could be one for Sorenson to slot into as well.

[ZLF 274]

Did I read somewhere that none of our centre backs have played regularly for a club and not ended the season relegated?  (I think Gibson played one game for Burnley so the played regularly seems to be the caveat)?   

As good as both  Flem & Malky were in the champs, neither were good enough take that step up;  my gut feel (highlighted by Bethnals analysis ) is that Gibson & Hanley are not quite good enough as a pair in the prem - so we have to strengthen. 

Doing well in the champs is one thing but the prem is another level,   we will be on the back foot for longer against much better attackers and bigger more physical players,  who we struggle against, as our games against Watford and to  a lesser degree, Bournemouth showed.  

Tough calls on two players who have performed so well for us,  but now is the time to strengthen. 

 

 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

This is a good read on Norwich’s season, particularly the defence. 

https://statsbomb.com/2021/05/norwich-city-championship-champions-in-2020-21/

Statsbomb have the best expected goals model around and they have the number at 47 expected goals against. The 60 was from Wyscout who have a more naive model. 

While that sounds great that is much lower, the context is, according to Statsbomb, it is about the same expected goals against as the last time Norwich were promoted.

I don’t think this means Hanley and Gibson aren’t good enough, but Norwich’s system has inherent defensive weaknesses.

(For those about to whine about stats, Norwich City pay a significant amount of money every year to have access to Statsbomb’s data - even if you don’t believe it has meaning the club do and they use it to help inform decisions they make.)

 

[FatCanary 249]

11 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

This is a good read on Norwich’s season, particularly the defence. 

https://statsbomb.com/2021/05/norwich-city-championship-champions-in-2020-21/

Statsbomb have the best expected goals model around and they have the number at 47 expected goals against. The 60 was from Wyscout who have a more naive model. 

While that sounds great that is much lower, the context is, according to Statsbomb, it is about the same expected goals against as the last time Norwich were promoted.

I don’t think this means Hanley and Gibson aren’t good enough, but Norwich’s system has inherent defensive weaknesses.

(For those about to whine about stats, Norwich City pay a significant amount of money every year to have access to Statsbomb’s data - even if you don’t believe it has meaning the club do and they use it to help inform decisions they make.)

 

I don't think you can just conclude off hand that the system has inherent defensive weaknesses, I'd be interested to know if that article considers the formation and breakup of Gibson and Hanley as a partnership as in, at which point do we discern that they are comfortable playing together, and do we only measure it from there, or do we have to factor in both getting used to playing together (not an issue anymore) and the fact that Gibson's injury messed that partnership up?

[FatCanary 249]

i say interested to know as i can't read it at work

[king canary 7,605]

1 hour ago, FatCanary said:

I don't think you can just conclude off hand that the system has inherent defensive weaknesses, I'd be interested to know if that article considers the formation and breakup of Gibson and Hanley as a partnership as in, at which point do we discern that they are comfortable playing together, and do we only measure it from there, or do we have to factor in both getting used to playing together (not an issue anymore) and the fact that Gibson's injury messed that partnership up?

I don't think it is a huge leap to suggest inherent defensive issues in the system- it is a system the plays 3 attacking midfielders, 2 overlapping fullbacks and a box to box midfielder generally in the midfield two. Any system that commits that many forward is going to be exposed at times.