I don't know, but is it as simple as this

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

4 hours ago, Petriix said:

I believe Sorensen signed a new contract in the summer. He's definitely a holding player. We absolutely should have signed another.

I was absolutely fine with selling Buendia, weighed up against a significant war-chest with which we would certainly end up with a stronger team.

I'm still trying to figure it out. We must have spent a net £25m. On reflection that's pretty low. I was expecting double that. But it seems crazy to be able to spend that much and apparently have a significantly worse team.

‘Weapons, dear boy, weapons’

Parma 

[Petriix 2,834]

4 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

‘Weapons, dear boy, weapons’

Parma 

Indeed. I just didn't envisage spending the kind of money we did and producing only 2 goals.

I still think Tzolis could be better than Buendia... In 3 years time. But it's the defensive weapons we're missing the most.

[chicken 2,624]

On 25/10/2021 at 21:25, Iwans Big Toe said:

Now I never played at a level higher than Anglian Combination, nor have I ever managed a team, so I do not claim to be a tactical genius when it comes to football. However, having a sports degree, coaching badges and game experience at the aforementioned level, I think I may be a little more qualified than the (majority of) posters who are going to **** **** my suggestion for daring to criticise anything Norwich City (you know who you are).

I'm wondering though, after looking at and analyzing the picture of Chelsea's 4th goal that Jim Smith posted in a separate thread, if fixing our defensive problems could be as simple as not having our full backs bomb forwards and playing two holding midfielders?

5 of Chelsea's goals were as a result of our either fullbacks being out of position, no defensive midfielder closing down the opposition or both. I know we do not have many, if any, holding midfielders and our full backs are all predispositioned to charge forwards like headless chickens. But I think that maybe, if we could be a little more Hughtonesque (I feel dirty for saying that and am now going to take a shower), we would become more difficult to breakdown. After all it's not like we would create less chances by playing the Hughton way at the minute is it?

 

 

I agree. I have said this to my father in law a number of times this season. I don't think we have the players to carry off a 4-3-3 or a 3-5-1 or a 5-3-2. Especially if both full backs are expected to do a lot of work up and down the line.

I know he doesn't like to be called it, but I do believe Farke was especially naive in those opening four or five games. We have transitioned a fair bit over the summer, losing some quality experienced squad players due to age and not having made the grade last time round. That means we had quite a number of new players coming in.

Farke then curved balled the established players we had by playing a new formation. So the new players were getting used to playing with the players already here, perhaps looking to them for guidance, whilst the same players were busy trying to get to grips with new roles and expectations.

Then, against some of the best sides in the division, you surrender space out wide... top sides have an abundance of pace, technical ability and vision. Against Liverpool you are giving the channels to Sane and Salah. Against Man City it's Jesus and Grealish with Mahrez and Sterling waiting to come on from the bench. Even against Watford you have a £30m player in Sarr and Dennis didn't do too badly either.

The focus of Farke's criticism has been our left back area because it seems to lead to more goals. But in fairness to Dimi, he has faced some of the best right wingers in this country. I don't think the other flank has been any less exposed to be honest. I feel at times, the left possibly seems weaker as often the closest players in support have been McLean and Gibson...

So yes, I totally agree. At this point I am calling what Farke is doing insanity. Playing the same formation week in, week out and expecting something different. Yes, we did well in those two draws, and yes, we perhaps should have had more than two points to show for it. Just like against Leicester. However we don't and two or maybe three games that we arguably deserved more from still isn't enough.

I just don't get why 4-2-3-1 hasn't been tried again yet? I struggled to understand why it wasn't the formation we started the season in. That familiarity with existing players knowing their roles and being able to bed new players into a team with players that knew what they were doing. 

The other issue for me is that Giannoulis and Aarons are no Robertson and Alexander-Arnold. They are very good at getting into forward areas, but for me, their final balls rarely warrant seeing them being in those positions.

Get back to 4-2-3-1.

Norman, PLM, Sorenson and McLean to fight for those two CM positions almost in that order.

Plenty of options for the attacking three. Rashica, Cantwell, Tzolis, Dowell all good options out wide with Placheta back now as well. All and any of those could arguably be playing the No.10 style position as well although Gilmore could be played there and Sargent could be used there in the same way Stiepermann was deployed there to ruffle feathers and offer some height and hold up ability for Pukki to feed off. I think people perhaps underestimate just how much he helped Pukki in that first promotion season too.

[Yellow and Green 334]

17 minutes ago, chicken said:

I agree. I have said this to my father in law a number of times this season. I don't think we have the players to carry off a 4-3-3 or a 3-5-1 or a 5-3-2. Especially if both full backs are expected to do a lot of work up and down the line.

I know he doesn't like to be called it, but I do believe Farke was especially naive in those opening four or five games. We have transitioned a fair bit over the summer, losing some quality experienced squad players due to age and not having made the grade last time round. That means we had quite a number of new players coming in.

Farke then curved balled the established players we had by playing a new formation. So the new players were getting used to playing with the players already here, perhaps looking to them for guidance, whilst the same players were busy trying to get to grips with new roles and expectations.

Then, against some of the best sides in the division, you surrender space out wide... top sides have an abundance of pace, technical ability and vision. Against Liverpool you are giving the channels to Sane and Salah. Against Man City it's Jesus and Grealish with Mahrez and Sterling waiting to come on from the bench. Even against Watford you have a £30m player in Sarr and Dennis didn't do too badly either.

The focus of Farke's criticism has been our left back area because it seems to lead to more goals. But in fairness to Dimi, he has faced some of the best right wingers in this country. I don't think the other flank has been any less exposed to be honest. I feel at times, the left possibly seems weaker as often the closest players in support have been McLean and Gibson...

So yes, I totally agree. At this point I am calling what Farke is doing insanity. Playing the same formation week in, week out and expecting something different. Yes, we did well in those two draws, and yes, we perhaps should have had more than two points to show for it. Just like against Leicester. However we don't and two or maybe three games that we arguably deserved more from still isn't enough.

I just don't get why 4-2-3-1 hasn't been tried again yet? I struggled to understand why it wasn't the formation we started the season in. That familiarity with existing players knowing their roles and being able to bed new players into a team with players that knew what they were doing. 

The other issue for me is that Giannoulis and Aarons are no Robertson and Alexander-Arnold. They are very good at getting into forward areas, but for me, their final balls rarely warrant seeing them being in those positions.

Get back to 4-2-3-1.

 

Agree with a lot of this - particularly the part about Farke getting it wrong at the beginning of the season. I like Farke and want us to give him a few more games, but we knew the fixtures weeks in advance... with players signing late plus the covid outbreak, it was incredibly naive to change the system. 

After conceding so many, it was the correct decision to go 5-3-2. We had to stop conceding. We showed signs of progress vs Burnley and Brighton but the Chelsea game was just a horror show. It was partially down to Chelsea being excellent and us simply not being competitive. Farke's half time changes were suicidal. 

Now is absolutely the right time to revert back to a more positive formation. The fixtures are better and both the players and the fans need a positive approach. 

[Beefy is a legend 224]

Loads of very considered and thought out analysis here. I agree with a lot of what has been said.

One thing, however, that I don't think has been given enough attention, is just how physical this league is, and how Farke has almost felt forced into putting every single 'big' athlete into the side. At the expense of using our technical players. 

I thought Liverpool looked like giants. Then I saw Watford, and Brighton. They were all huge sides. Dan Burn is 6 inches taller than Pierre Lees-Melou! You just don't see sides like that in the Championship.

If you don't compete on set pieces, you have no chance whatsoever. And since we have two vertically challenged full backs, there's almost no choice but to put McLean, PLM and Sargent into the side just to enable us to compete.

That is why this league is so brutal. Teams don't just out skill you. They out pace you, they out muscle you, they out jump you. They out think you.

And when you try to compensate for one of those weapons being used against you, they use one of the others. Because, for the most part, they have better players than you. 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Beefy is a legend