Was Farke going for 0-0 today?

[NWC 245]

With that starting line up devoid of any creativity, and relying on the strikers to essentially make their own goals, do you think DF was going for the "hard to break down" approach to this game as a change of tactic?

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

Just now, NWC said:

With that starting line up devoid of any creativity, and relying on the strikers to essentially make their own goals, do you think DF was going for the "hard to break down" approach to this game as a change of tactic?

Think the plan was to nick it 1-0. But when you can't score and can't stop making mistakes, it makes it very difficult.

OTBC

[Baracouda 47]

dont think anyone goes for 'easy to break down' approach. 

Reality is Rafa is no different to Big Sam, his sides are very hard to breakdown. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,778]

Hes trying to make the defence more solid

 

... Which clearly isn't working  

[shaunieboy77 73]

Had it been Liverpool i could have probably gone along with that theory

[NFN FC 1,123]

1 minute ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Hes trying to make the defence more solid

 

... Which clearly isn't working  

It was more solid. 2 individual mistakes cost us the goals. 

I think he was going for 60mins hold them off and then put on Tzolis and Rashica and get a goal. 

[Baracouda 47]

Just now, cambridgeshire canary said:

Hes trying to make the defence more solid

 

... Which clearly isn't working  

it worked we was more solid, it didn't look like we was going to concede every time they attack. But still made 2 mistakes.

Watford and Arsenal both looked like they were going to score 4,5 or 6. We were flying by the seats of our pants in defence. 

[Branston Pickle 3,679]

That’s somewhat unfair - we looked pretty comfortable and grew into the game - the penalty was probably right but also soft (and definitely makes you wonder why the one on Rashica last week wasn’t given), creating a series of opportunities - until they got 2-0 the shots and shots on target were equal.  Chelsea won a Champions League trophy playing a similar way last season, do please explain why it isn’t a good enough system for us to try….

Edited September 25, 2021 by Branston Pickle

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If he was, then why wasn't Andrew picked?

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,139]

He was right to try to make us more solid. Going for anything else would have led to an even worse result with Townsend, Gray, Doucoure and Iwobi absolutely shredding us on the counter attack, we would have probably lost 4 or 5 nil. 

If there was a mistake today it was playing Williams instead of Giannoulis at wing back and one of Pukki or Sargent should have been dropped in favor of a quick winger. That isn't with the benefit of hindsight I said the same before the game it's so we could hit them on the counter.

All mistakes were made in the summer and we are where we are. I don't think there was much wrong with Farke's approach today. People need to keep in mind especially when you're one of the weaker teams that more attacking doesn't mean a better team. Most goals in this league scored from open play come from the counter attack, you are more likely to create chances like this if you set up with a more solid team, we are not good enough to pass through teams so an attacking line up is usually suicidal for us at this level

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

He was right to try to make us more solid. Going for anything else would have led to an even worse result with Townsend, Gray, Doucoure and Iwobi absolutely shredding us on the counter attack, we would have probably lost 4 or 5 nil. 

If there was a mistake today it was playing Williams instead of Giannoulis at wing back and one of Pukki or Sargent should have been dropped in favor of a quick winger. That isn't with the benefit of hindsight I said the same before the game it's so we could hit them on the counter.

All mistakes were made in the summer and we are where we are. I don't think there was much wrong with Farke's approach today. People need to keep in mind especially when you're one of the weaker teams that more attacking doesn't mean a better team. Most goals in this league scored from open play come from the counter attack, you are more likely to create chances like this if you set up with a more solid team, we are not good enough to pass through teams so an attacking line up is usually suicidal for us at this level

The idea today was good. If we do not concede, we have a chance. But we cannot stop the mistakes and once behind, we never look like getting anything. Why does three at the back have to be three CBs? Why not a sweeper?

[Capt. Pants 4,274]

The starting line-up was solid but was never going to create much in open play. If anything we looked worse after the subs but that was because we lost the link up play from Normann.

Kabak was pretty awful to be fair and swinging his leg around in the penalty area like that is never going to end well.

Unfortunately McLean cost us the game and there was no way back after that.

[1902 1,167]

3 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

He was right to try to make us more solid. Going for anything else would have led to an even worse result with Townsend, Gray, Doucoure and Iwobi absolutely shredding us on the counter attack, we would have probably lost 4 or 5 nil. 

If there was a mistake today it was playing Williams instead of Giannoulis at wing back and one of Pukki or Sargent should have been dropped in favor of a quick winger. That isn't with the benefit of hindsight I said the same before the game it's so we could hit them on the counter.

All mistakes were made in the summer and we are where we are. I don't think there was much wrong with Farke's approach today. People need to keep in mind especially when you're one of the weaker teams that more attacking doesn't mean a better team. Most goals in this league scored from open play come from the counter attack, you are more likely to create chances like this if you set up with a more solid team, we are not good enough to pass through teams so an attacking line up is usually suicidal for us at this level

His midfield was a better set up today. Norman at the base was working. Shame that McClean forgot what his job was completely.

However that Williams decision was inexplicable, and was made more so when Aarons started looking good. Why was that not the message for a sub? It was clear that Everton were playing as narrow as always and that there was joy to be had.

Also, Sargent ran a lot but I'm not sure he knew exactly what was expected of him today.

I think we will see the same formation against Burnley and I think it's the best way for us to set up, going 4-2-3-1 would be suicide in my view. However it still needs to be a lot better than today.

[Baracouda 47]

1 minute ago, Capt. Pants said:

The starting line-up was solid but was never going to create much in open play. If anything we looked worse after the subs but that was because we lost the link up play from Normann.

Kabak was pretty awful to be fair and swinging his leg around in the penalty area like that is never going to end well.

Unfortunately McLean cost us the game and there was no way back after that.

I agree on after subs, looked like we had 4 or 5 in attack, the shape and passing came disjointed

[1902 1,167]

2 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

The starting line-up was solid but was never going to create much in open play. If anything we looked worse after the subs but that was because we lost the link up play from Normann.

Kabak was pretty awful to be fair and swinging his leg around in the penalty area like that is never going to end well.

Unfortunately McLean cost us the game and there was no way back after that.

Normann was key, and if he is out for a while it could be dire. 

On the other hand, who do you play if not McLean? 

[Baracouda 47]

Think Williams had a good game for him but agree Dimi should have started. Williams had lots of energy going forward his runs were an outlet. Got himself into really good positions but either poor decisions in slowing down counter attacks, being indecisive or generally lacked quality in the final third resulted in nothing happening in those attacks. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, 1902 said:

Normann was key, and if he is out for a while it could be dire. 

On the other hand, who do you play if not McLean? 

Sorenson. But he looks to be the Nowhere Man.

Obviously DF has never watched The Natural.

[Ward 3 372]

22 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

That’s somewhat unfair - we looked pretty comfortable and grew into the game - the penalty was probably right but also soft (and definitely makes you wonder why the one on Rashica last week wasn’t given), creating a series of opportunities - until they got 2-0 the shots and shots on target were equal.  Chelsea won a Champions League trophy playing a similar way last season, do please explain why it isn’t a good enough system for us to try….

The penalty was very soft. Ball had got away from Allan and aarons was covering too but because he started crying and showed the official his leg it then got VAR checked.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, Ward 3 said:

The penalty was very soft. Ball had got away from Allan and aarons was covering too but because he started crying and showed the official his leg it then got VAR checked.

So why don't we start getting nasty, cheating and crying?

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Ward 3 said:

The penalty was very soft. Ball had got away from Allan and aarons was covering too but because he started crying and showed the official his leg it then got VAR checked.

Wouldn't have been given if it was the other way round.

And still some idiots think we're somehow watching a sport.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

So why don't we start getting nasty, cheating and crying?

Because we wouldn't be given penalties.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Because we wouldn't be given penalties.

Give me strength. Want to be with the big boys but lil ole Norwich syndrome. Referees don't hate us or deny us because of who we are.

Its because the others players cheat and moan. We politely get the skipper to ask the ref.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

Give me strength. Want to be with the big boys but lil ole Norwich syndrome. Referees don't hate us or deny us because of who we are.

Its because the others players cheat and moan. We politely get the skipper to ask the ref.

Lol. Earth is flat too.

[Dr Greenthumb 750]

31 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

If he was, then why wasn't Andrew picked?

Why was Gibson picked?

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

I think Gianoulis should have started, and Tzolis instead of Sargent. We'd have still been as solid, but offered more on the counter and in an attacking sense generally. 

[Ward 3 372]

12 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So why don't we start getting nasty, cheating and crying?

Because we're too nice, little old norwich

[nutty nigel 7,584]

40 minutes ago, NWC said:

With that starting line up devoid of any creativity, and relying on the strikers to essentially make their own goals, do you think DF was going for the "hard to break down" approach to this game as a change of tactic?

The first goal is so important in this league. I think DF picked a side not to concede the first goal but that will only get you do far because the penalty came and that was that.

I liked the three CBs and wing backs though. The challenge is to make that system work with Pukki because the other side of the equation is to score the first goal. And that never looked likely.

[Norfolk Dan 308]

12 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

The idea today was good. If we do not concede, we have a chance. But we cannot stop the mistakes and once behind, we never look like getting anything. Why does three at the back have to be three CBs? Why not a sweeper?

Who plays sweeper? 

[komakino 274]

1 hour ago, NWC said:

With that starting line up devoid of any creativity, and relying on the strikers to essentially make their own goals, do you think DF was going for the "hard to break down" approach to this game as a change of tactic?

I suspect you're right, but whatever Farke does, it will fail. 

 

[Commonsense 638]

1 hour ago, NWC said:

With that starting line up devoid of any creativity, and relying on the strikers to essentially make their own goals, do you think DF was going for the "hard to break down" approach to this game as a change of tactic?

I don’t think it was devoid of creativity. It gave both full backs more time to go forward and Williams in particular created some useful crosses in the second half. Additionally Normann played well, both in creating chances and taking them. It was a considerably better performance than last week.