Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
king canary

Farke and a failure of evolution

Recommended Posts

Yes I know, another Farke thread but I think this is the key point in why Farke is no longer here.

We learned a couple of years ago that this team couldn't step up from the Championship playing the same kind of football and not expect to get battered. In both Championship seasons under Farke we went up playing a very specific brand of football- domination of possession, narrow midfielders who tucked inside, overlapping fullbacks to provide the width and a focus on playing through rather than around teams. Dowell, Cantwell and Buendia were all players who would largely be used as a number 10 in other teams but for us became an interchanging attacking trio who dragged defenders out of position and created space for little passes into space to supply Pukki or each other. Crossing, even from our overlapping fullbacks, was non-existent and teams were so scared of us as an attacking threat that they sat deep and didn't press. Eventually a team playing without the ball and trying to deal with players of our quality cracked and chances came. Defensively we were largely passive until teams crossed the half way line rather than trying to press high and win the ball back further up the pitch.

This didn't work in the Premier League. Top level defenders were better equipped to deal with the AM's, the lack of crossing meant teams were willing to let us have the space out wide knowing we weren't a threat and most importantly the fear wasn't there so teams pressed us high. We became remarkably easy to play against- press high, either the defenders made a mistake or they'd be forced to go long where we didn't have an out ball. On the occasions we could beat the press, Premier League defenders were more able to cope with Pukki/Cantwell/Buendia. 

Webber recognised this and you could see it in the last 12-18 months worth of recruitment. Out went Emi and rather than another tricky number 10 type who might start out wide, we signed players like Rashica and Tzolis instead, players who stayed wider and put crosses in. Sargent, a player who is known for his work rate and running rather than his creativity and two central midfielders in Normann and PLM known for being 'box to box' types to add something our previous midfielders didn't. Even last season we went out of our way to increase our height and physicality with the 5' 11" Godfrey and 5' 8" Lewis replaced by the 6' 1" Gibson and 5' 11" Giannoulis.

So, to me, there was clearly a strategy to play differently on our return to the top flight. Not to morph into Burnley style hoof merchants or Hughton-esq defend at all costs types, but into a team that could trouble teams on the counter with pace and press them higher up the pitch rather than letting them have their way. Farke's failure this season has been his inability to implement a more sustainable style of play and adapt his natural preferences into something that could suit these players and succeed in this league.

Lots has been made of the Burnley and Brighton performances and the switch to 3-5-2 as evidence that adaptation was taking place. However all that was doing was largely increasing the numbers of players in the defensive areas of the pitch without really trying to adapt the style. We still wanted to play out from the back, we still didn't attempt to press teams in their own half and we still lacked any form of out ball when we were put under pressure. Farke changed the shape but didn't change the fundamental principles of the way we played and it cost him.

This is why, in my opinion, he had to go and why I'm not convinced the transfer window has been the disaster some want to claim it is. These players can succeed they just need to be put in a system that allows them to- one that can harness the energy of Sargent and Normann and the pace and trickery of Tzolis and Rashica. 

You can argue that the strategy is wrong and that Webber should have signed players to suit his head coaches preferred style rather than asking him to adapt but I'd argue the kind of players you'd need to play Farke's preferred style at this level would be hugely out of our budget and actually the kind of style it looks like Webber wanted to pursue is the more pragmatic and realistic course of action.

I'd imagine the new coach will need to be someone who can set up a team to press and counter and if so we'll see actually how good these players can be.  My hunch is they can be so much more than we've seen so far.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 7

Share this post


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

Yes I know, another Farke thread but I think this is the key point in why Farke is no longer here.

We learned a couple of years ago that this team couldn't step up from the Championship playing the same kind of football and not expect to get battered....

I don't think we did learn that two years ago, given the extraordinary injury crisis had a noticeable negative effect on results compared to the start of the season. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't think we did learn that two years ago, given the extraordinary injury crisis had a noticeable negative effect on results compared to the start of the season. 

Agreed, felt that two years ago was always a "bonus" season in the prem so just took everything we faced with a pinch of salt really. 

Sadly we seem to be worse this time round which is the most upsetting aspect for me personally.  Quite enjoyed two years ago, felt we had an identity, not felt that this season it's just been a big slab of hope slowly sliced at the knees each week.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't think we did learn that two years ago, given the extraordinary injury crisis had a noticeable negative effect on results compared to the start of the season. 

Disagree personally.

Yes the injury crisis didn't help but our style and set up meant we were so easy for lower midtable Premier League teams like Palace, Burnley and Brighton to keep us at arms length. Having Hanley or Zimmerman fit wouldn't have changed the ease with which teams could cut through us on the counter or were able to bully us out of midfield battles. 

Share this post


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

Disagree personally.

Yes the injury crisis didn't help but our style and set up meant we were so easy for lower midtable Premier League teams like Palace, Burnley and Brighton to keep us at arms length. Having Hanley or Zimmerman fit wouldn't have changed the ease with which teams could cut through us on the counter or were able to bully us out of midfield battles. 

We had a good little spell in the spring when Hanley came back fully fit for the first time that season and partnered Zimbo rather than Godfrey, so the evidence (and goals against) suggests otherwise KC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still struggle with the going for wingers piece this time around to get crosses in. My question would be crosses to who? It’s not Pukki’s game, he thrives on defence splitting passes and running off the shoulder of defenders. Not too sure about Sargent so I left thinking there is a missing piece of the jigsaw. I guess we will see.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes the injury crisis didn't help but our style and set up meant we were so easy for lower midtable Premier League teams like Palace, Burnley and Brighton to keep us at arms length.

What the injury crisis did do was take players like Tettey and Amadou out of their established roles. 

I think to only consider how it affected the positions where injuries were apparent is a little blinkered.  Amadou from day one in midfield may have yielded a stronger side after a run of games.

Only game I can remember him playing midfield was the draw against Arsenal, I can't recall any other time.  Could've made a difference, we'll never know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still believe the Farke method was evolving. We did not have enough practice at any adaption - it was virtually straight into a PL season against Man City and Liverpool - we did not even get Normann and Kabak until weeks into the season. The evolving would have to be done during matches - with new players too - and international breaks.  (yes, I know others had those breaks too, but those were not having to rebuild a team....) 

The Burnley and Brighton matches were a clear attempt to be tougher to beat - and it worked - except that it didn't help the attack because the balance was wrong....but how do you get the balance unless you find it by trial and error?  And the only place you could do it was in matches.

The Chelsea match was just awful, but those days happen in the PL - and given our circumstances was it so surprising?  Then came Leeds - now I don't know the thinking there, but putting Omo in at left back was an attempt to match the physicality of Raphina - and Giannoulis got toasted by left wingers this season and Williams was poor against Chelsea.  Omo is a good player - it was like putting Godfrey in at full back, which happened at Norwich and has at Everton. And it could have been so different. Kabak, at 1-1, spoiled it......again, a player still trying to find his level at a new club. Small margins.

So simply, time was against Farke and maybe Brentford was a sign things were improving.  More importantly, I believe several players had undermined him and this would have made his position harder.

 Just a very sad feeling about it, people talking about two seasons ago in the weirdest season ever as if it was still relevant, not seeing the bigger picture of the team development not having had time to develop, not trusting Farke, players undermining him, pressure to get results despite it all. I guess it was an impossible situation for him.

People might start quoting stats at me again, but really - imo - if Webber had been really strong, he would have stood by Farke. Others will say he was being strong by taking the decison....well that remains to be seen, depending on how things go from here  onwards.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of this.  

Of particular importance, I think, is the ability/inclination to press higher up the pitch.  We don't do nearly enough of this, and didn't in the champs either - but it didn't matter so much then since we had the ball most of the time. 

It's vital in the prem: it relieves pressure at the back as well as creating more chances at the front. Top teams in the prem succeed as much by tough pressing (and early fouling to break up anything coming over the half way line) as they do by spectacular individual skills.

Normann and Sargent (despite other issues) can improve this, as I believe could some of the other newcomers so far largely benched.  Pukki, for whatever reason, doesn't press with conviction (and thus perhaps probably restricts his own chances).  Cantwell, ironically, does (as far as I can remember).

Who knows what the new manager will bring. It'll be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alex Moss said:

We had a good little spell in the spring when Hanley came back fully fit for the first time that season and partnered Zimbo rather than Godfrey, so the evidence (and goals against) suggests otherwise KC.

Good little spell is stretching it somewhat. We didn't win a single game with the Zimbo/Hanley combo in the period as while we got a few credible drawers it is hardly evidence that the system we were employing was working fine. 

 

5 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

What the injury crisis did do was take players like Tettey and Amadou out of their established roles. 

I think to only consider how it affected the positions where injuries were apparent is a little blinkered.  Amadou from day one in midfield may have yielded a stronger side after a run of games.

Only game I can remember him playing midfield was the draw against Arsenal, I can't recall any other time.  Could've made a difference, we'll never know.

Farke took Amadou out of the team, not injuries. He played v Arsenal and then 45 minutes v Southampton in midfield before Farke basically stopped using him. Rumours were Farke didn't rate him as strong enough a passer which rather encapsulates the issues of 'Farkeball' at the top level- a strong defensive midfielder who's also an excellent passer of the ball is like gold dust and likely well beyond any budget we have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the depth of your analysis, but I fundamentally disagree with your basic premise:

9 minutes ago, king canary said:

We learned a couple of years ago that this team couldn't step up from the Championship playing the same kind of football and not expect to get battered.

To me that 's the sort of thing a lazy pundit who wasn't particularly familiar with the club or the nuances of our last Premier League campaign might come out with. A more balanced view might note that we had a degree of mitigation in the injury crisis and the pandemic. But tactically, the shortcomings were largely in the defensive behaviours in the midfield.

We of course addressed these in the next, Championship, season. We switched to a double pivot in defensive midfield and brought the wide attacking midfielders deeper to help defend the wide areas. Your argument (that the relative success is largely down to the weakness of the opposition) is not without merit, but does a disservice to the way Cantwell and Buendia (in particular) added a significant amount of discipline and workrate to their game when we didn't have the ball.

I simply don't agree that the system we played last season would have failed this campaign, whereas it's clear that the attempted alternative (the 4-3-3) by any objective or subjective measure, totally did. Whether that's down to recruitment, coaching or just a lack of cohesive vision is not totally clear.

In my opinion, it's the assumption that we needed to do different rather than better that sealed Farke's fate. He seemingly tried everything apart from what we were best adapted to, with the irony being that we'd almost come full circle by the time he was sacked. You'd have a hard time persuading me that, had we played 4-2-3-1 from the outset, we'd somehow have achieved worse than 3 goals and 2 points from our opening 10 games.

I don't think it's just a coincidence that we won our first game when we finally reverted to two holding midfielders and one more advanced out of the three. I can only imagine how we might have caused other teams problems, preventing them from being able to totally dominate us.

We did, however, see plenty of examples of the type of play you seem to think will be effective. We had lots of attacks in wide areas resulting in fairly aimless crosses into the box. With Pukki as our main striker, and none of the alternatives being particularly strong in the air, this seems a bizarre tactic. Sargent has shown plenty of endeavour, but a total inability to either score or assist. Rashica has failed to understand how to link up with Pukki.

You're right that Farke didn't do a very good job of getting these players to play well in a new system. My conjecture is that it was a fundamental mistake to completely abandon our identity (in both the squad and the tactics) without at least trying to make it work with a greater degree of continuity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Channon’s Windmill said:

I still struggle with the going for wingers piece this time around to get crosses in. My question would be crosses to who? It’s not Pukki’s game, he thrives on defence splitting passes and running off the shoulder of defenders. Not too sure about Sargent so I left thinking there is a missing piece of the jigsaw. I guess we will see.

I think it also slightly links to the new midfield types too. Say we set up with Rashica on one wing, Sargent on the other and Normann/PLM in the midfield. When attacking with Rashica you've then got the potential to get Pukki, Sargent and one of the central midfielders in the box for any cross. Previously Buendia and Cantwell are more likely to hang around on the edge of the box looking for a pass rather than attacking a cross.

I don't think Tzolis and Rashica are going to be asked to get down the wing and stick crosses in on repeat but I do think they'll at least give us the option to do so which can at least keep the opponent guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I don't agree Farke had to go, I think you've touched correctly on what the recruitment was aiming to do. Certainly, we are much better equipped this season for a high press yet we've not really utilised it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I simply don't agree that the system we played last season would have failed this campaign, whereas it's clear that the attempted alternative (the 4-3-3) by any objective or subjective measure, totally did. Whether that's down to recruitment, coaching or just a lack of cohesive vision is not totally clear.

In my opinion, it's the assumption that we needed to do different rather than better that sealed Farke's fate. He seemingly tried everything apart from what we were best adapted to, with the irony being that we'd almost come full circle by the time he was sacked. You'd have a hard time persuading me that, had we played 4-2-3-1 from the outset, we'd somehow have achieved worse than 3 goals and 2 points from our opening 10 games.

I wonder if we're getting into a semantic difference between formation and system. I agree a 4-2-3-1 could well work at this level and I don't disagree Cantwell and Buendia did work hard as part of that. However the fundamental principles underlying our style of play don't work at this level, or certainly to the extremes we went to under Farke. Witness the increasingly desperate passes between defenders as well drilled, athletic Premier league players hunted and pressed, leading to either a punt to nobody, a defensive error, or those weird dinked balls from Krul out to Aarons which either resulted in a throw in or Aarons being immediately tackled. Farke never worked out a way to deal with that.

The players weren't chucking the ball long these last few weeks on instruction- they were doing it because being pressed left them with no other choice. I don't think we needed wholesale changes but there were some major tweaks needed that he just didn't seem capable of.

Share this post


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

Whilst I don't agree Farke had to go, I think you've touched correctly on what the recruitment was aiming to do. Certainly, we are much better equipped this season for a high press yet we've not really utilised it.

Agree here. Would also say with Rashica and Sargent we're also more equipped for scoring via crosses with two players who've already played together with each other for some time.

I think that's what's surprised me, really. We looked like we had some potentially ready-built partnerships with Rashica and Sargent, along with Giannoulis and Tzolis, but they've not been used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting discussion; thanks to the OP for kicking it off. I think it all boils down to the fact that we've just been far too easy to play against in the PL. In the Championship it never really mattered since we always had the ball (to a ridiculous degree last season, when we often had 70%+ possession), but in both our PL seasons under DF I was always terrified the moment we lost possession. Yes, you can point to the weakness of the squad and all the injuries in 19-20, but the same failings have been evident this season too, and were against Brentford - look how much space Williams allowed for the cross that led to their goal.

It may be that our players simply aren't good enough. But after 49 games at this level, it's certainly worth seeing whether a different coach could make us harder to beat.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, king canary said:

I wonder if we're getting into a semantic difference between formation and system. I agree a 4-2-3-1 could well work at this level and I don't disagree Cantwell and Buendia did work hard as part of that. However the fundamental principles underlying our style of play don't work at this level, or certainly to the extremes we went to under Farke. Witness the increasingly desperate passes between defenders as well drilled, athletic Premier league players hunted and pressed, leading to either a punt to nobody, a defensive error, or those weird dinked balls from Krul out to Aarons which either resulted in a throw in or Aarons being immediately tackled. Farke never worked out a way to deal with that.

The players weren't chucking the ball long these last few weeks on instruction- they were doing it because being pressed left them with no other choice. I don't think we needed wholesale changes but there were some major tweaks needed that he just didn't seem capable of.

Again I disagree that it doesn't work.

The real issue with the passing early in this season was the lack of options which (in my opinion) was the direct result of not having a number 10 on the pitch. With one fewer attacker to worry about, the opposition could step up into our half and make it impossible for us to pass it out. Our main out ball became hitting the channels rather than into feet in midfield. Pukki was isolated and the wide players had little option but to hit crosses.

I agree that Krul in particular suffered from the change in formation. His distribution has been poor all season. However, there was plenty of evidence that we were getting the ball moving in the right way at times. We were just lacking that dynamic attacking midfield to create the openings as well as the solid defensive midfield to screen the defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, king canary said:

Rumours were Farke didn't rate him as strong enough a passer which rather encapsulates the issues of 'Farkeball' at the top level

Regardless of such rumours he was afforded no time in his natural position due to the injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our first goal on Saturday came from a Rashica cross, with Aarons (our right back) attacking the ball in the penalty area. Normann drove at the Brentford defence when he picked up the loose ball because he had no alternative "out" ball to his right, because Aarons wasn't there.

Is that strategy or ill-discipline? Who knows.

I think the win was fortunate in many ways. Brentford thought they just had to turn up for the first half, yet still should have scored at least one in that half, again because of defensive frailty, and that Krul stopped the chance in the second half was just good fortune.

Against that is the fact that the Brentford defender should, according to the rules, have been shown a red card for the foul on Pukki which led to the penalty.

My point is that the game showed nothing new, other than a team trying harder than they did against Chelsea and Leeds. There was no discernible change in set up - we were still wide open in the second half, when surely we knew they would throw the kitchen sink at us - and no particular hope that Farke had found the answer. If anything, the performance emphasised to me that he still hadn't a clue how to set up a team for the PL, when we cannot control possession.

Every point we have won in the PL under Farke, with the exception of the Newcastle game at home, was "hard fought". We never dominated or really looked like we deserved to win games and both the cleverer and the more physical teams just continually out-thought us.

We now have players who should be competing more regularly - maybe not all the time, but losing to a Leeds team which, with the exception of one player, was simply dreadful, and being comprehensively outplayed by a Watford team who similarly had one decent player in it was never going to be acceptable.

We all loved what he gave us, but Farke was out of his depth in the PL.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Against that is the fact that the Brentford defender should, according to the rules, have been shown a red card for the foul on Pukki which led to the penalty.

I'm pretty sure that this rule has changed, so that an honest attempt to win the ball that leads to a penalty can only earn a yellow, not a red.

 

6 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

  we were still wide open in the second half, when surely we knew they would throw the kitchen sink at us - and no particular hope that Farke had found the answer. If anything, the performance emphasised to me that he still hadn't a clue how to set up a team for the PL, when we cannot control possession.

Completely agree with this, though. I'm no tactical expert, but it seemed a regular occurrence that we'd get out-thought in the second half of games, that opposing managers were much better at spotting tactical tweaks that would change games than DF was.

That's my big hope for the new manager, whoever he (or she!) is, some real tactical acuity. That's the marginal gain we need.

Edited by Robert N. LiM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good OP. 
 

Occasionally you have to listen to experts .  We often dismiss pundits but the point made by Danny Murphy I felt hit the nail on the head. 
 

Twice we gained promotion playing “Manchester City” style football (ok the 433/ 451merchants will pick this apart) largely because in the championship we had better players than the opposition . You can play possession based , expansive football when your players allow . 
 

In the Prem , that advantage vanishes . We have tried to pick high press players (people confused this with two players up top) but we haven’t been able to make the play in the opponents third for long enough to press successfully. In our third we have conceded possession early by long passes as we have decided we cannot play through the other teams press. 
 

Murphy says we can’t play Man City football in the prem - and he is right . Trouble is the other style has just left us to conceded possession. 
 

One more thing . Pukki missed a hat full of chances last year but we created enough chances for him to score 1 in 3 chances . This year he doesn’t get three chances in a game . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes I know, another Farke thread but I think this is the key point in why Farke is no longer here.

We learned a couple of years ago that this team couldn't step up from the Championship playing the same kind of football and not expect to get battered. In both Championship seasons under Farke we went up playing a very specific brand of football- domination of possession, narrow midfielders who tucked inside, overlapping fullbacks to provide the width and a focus on playing through rather than around teams. Dowell, Cantwell and Buendia were all players who would largely be used as a number 10 in other teams but for us became an interchanging attacking trio who dragged defenders out of position and created space for little passes into space to supply Pukki or each other. Crossing, even from our overlapping fullbacks, was non-existent and teams were so scared of us as an attacking threat that they sat deep and didn't press. Eventually a team playing without the ball and trying to deal with players of our quality cracked and chances came. Defensively we were largely passive until teams crossed the half way line rather than trying to press high and win the ball back further up the pitch.

This didn't work in the Premier League. Top level defenders were better equipped to deal with the AM's, the lack of crossing meant teams were willing to let us have the space out wide knowing we weren't a threat and most importantly the fear wasn't there so teams pressed us high. We became remarkably easy to play against- press high, either the defenders made a mistake or they'd be forced to go long where we didn't have an out ball. On the occasions we could beat the press, Premier League defenders were more able to cope with Pukki/Cantwell/Buendia. 

Webber recognised this and you could see it in the last 12-18 months worth of recruitment. Out went Emi and rather than another tricky number 10 type who might start out wide, we signed players like Rashica and Tzolis instead, players who stayed wider and put crosses in. Sargent, a player who is known for his work rate and running rather than his creativity and two central midfielders in Normann and PLM known for being 'box to box' types to add something our previous midfielders didn't. Even last season we went out of our way to increase our height and physicality with the 5' 11" Godfrey and 5' 8" Lewis replaced by the 6' 1" Gibson and 5' 11" Giannoulis.

So, to me, there was clearly a strategy to play differently on our return to the top flight. Not to morph into Burnley style hoof merchants or Hughton-esq defend at all costs types, but into a team that could trouble teams on the counter with pace and press them higher up the pitch rather than letting them have their way. Farke's failure this season has been his inability to implement a more sustainable style of play and adapt his natural preferences into something that could suit these players and succeed in this league.

Lots has been made of the Burnley and Brighton performances and the switch to 3-5-2 as evidence that adaptation was taking place. However all that was doing was largely increasing the numbers of players in the defensive areas of the pitch without really trying to adapt the style. We still wanted to play out from the back, we still didn't attempt to press teams in their own half and we still lacked any form of out ball when we were put under pressure. Farke changed the shape but didn't change the fundamental principles of the way we played and it cost him.

This is why, in my opinion, he had to go and why I'm not convinced the transfer window has been the disaster some want to claim it is. These players can succeed they just need to be put in a system that allows them to- one that can harness the energy of Sargent and Normann and the pace and trickery of Tzolis and Rashica. 

You can argue that the strategy is wrong and that Webber should have signed players to suit his head coaches preferred style rather than asking him to adapt but I'd argue the kind of players you'd need to play Farke's preferred style at this level would be hugely out of our budget and actually the kind of style it looks like Webber wanted to pursue is the more pragmatic and realistic course of action.

I'd imagine the new coach will need to be someone who can set up a team to press and counter and if so we'll see actually how good these players can be.  My hunch is they can be so much more than we've seen so far.

I've read hundreds of posts reacting to Farke's dismissal but yours is the first one that attempts to understand the reasons behind it. And that includes the Archant journalists. So thanks for kicking off what is a very interesting thread with lots of well-thought out responses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Regardless of such rumours he was afforded no time in his natural position due to the injuries.

Well...no. 

Earlier in the season sure. But post Southampton he repeatedly left Amadou on the bench in favour of Trybull and Tettey. So Farke had a chance to use him in his natural position but chose not to.

Share this post


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

Earlier in the season sure. But post Southampton he repeatedly left Amadou on the bench in favour of Trybull and Tettey.

Which is what I said:-

59 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Amadou from day one in midfield may have yielded a stronger side after a run of games.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Which is what I said:-

 

Ok, I suppose my main issue was the 'afforded no time' in that position. But largely it seems like we agree.

Share this post


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

Ok, I suppose my main issue was the 'afforded no time' in that position. But largely it seems like we agree.

Not on my initial point we don't.  Which was that you were only considering the effect in defence that the injuries to Zimmo and Hanley had caused and dismissed it on that front.

When in fact it reached deeper into the midfield positions because Amadou was not afforded time in that position from day one.   

Your argument was that it was Farke's choice not to play him, through 'rumours' that he couldn't pass a ball.  That's really not at all relevant to the point being made of an alternative outcome were all CB's fit, all it does is explain the outcome as it played out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Petriix said:

Again I disagree that it doesn't work.

The real issue with the passing early in this season was the lack of options which (in my opinion) was the direct result of not having a number 10 on the pitch. With one fewer attacker to worry about, the opposition could step up into our half and make it impossible for us to pass it out. Our main out ball became hitting the channels rather than into feet in midfield. Pukki was isolated and the wide players had little option but to hit crosses.

I agree that Krul in particular suffered from the change in formation. His distribution has been poor all season. However, there was plenty of evidence that we were getting the ball moving in the right way at times. We were just lacking that dynamic attacking midfield to create the openings as well as the solid defensive midfield to screen the defence.

At the top level that number 10 had to be Emi. Reducing his capacity to give away turnovers, facilitating the fluid movements necessary in the hole to trouble teams and maintaining his excellent understanding with Pukki.

The decision  to sell him was due to lack of finances and nothing else. The choice was retain him - and somewhat pivot on him strategically - or sell him and spread the benefits across the squad. 

That we also chose to spend money on players to replace Gibson and Giannoulis - that we had only just bought for significant sums - was deliberate and destabilising. 

The continuity of method - which hitherto had always been 4231 as you state - was lost via the changes (which included the move to 433), as it interrupted too many factors as you observe. 

That Emi had been central to our success statistically, creatively and structurally was evident to all. 

A little self-deluded hubris may have crept in and then nothing worked. New or old. 

Ultimately if a ‘pant-wetter’ had said pre-season  ‘I’ll give him 10 games’ or ‘we’ll have 2 points after 10 games’ they would have been ridiculed. Though that is what our Board did and what the new Team managed.

You don’t sell your weapons upon promotion to the Premier. They are hard enough to find in the first place. A broader squad achieves nothing more than superior inferiority. 

Farke had a very poor record at the top level. Though the lack of finances forced a creative strategy that was poorly conceived. The Head Coach is the lightning rod - as always - though  our hitherto coherent methodology was anything but this summer. 

If the goal is to investment buy and stockpile future appreciating assets, then maybe this outcome is still possible in the future. If it was instead intended to compete at the top level this season, very few people inside football - including of course players (who like winning) - thought it was a good idea. 

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good OP and, whilst I respect Farke and think he's an excellent coach, I think a change of manager will give us the clean slate that we need in order to give us any hope of survival.

For me, there was a lot of change in personel over the summer and, after losing Emi, we decided to switch to 4-3-3. After a couple of hammerings and 'important' losses, we (being the manager and players) lost faith in that formation.

We then switch to 5-3-2 and, after initially doing the job that it was intended to do, got torn apart by Chelsea.

By this stage, Farke had moved away from his usual plan A (4-2-3-1), plan B (4-3-3) and plan C (5-3-2) failed. When this happens, the players will naturally question the manager and lose faith in the system. The confidence was dead and the quality of football was poor.

Interestingly against Brentford, we reverted back to the original 4-2-3-1 and played a lot better. 

In hindsight, I think they tried to refine their system by having three in midfield, but the covid outbreak completely hampered their preperations. Nine new players arrived and they just weren't ready. Liverpool and Man City gave us no chance and all momentum had gone.

Hopefully a new manager can reset everything, have a strong plan A and this squad can change people's perception of us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, king canary said:

and 5' 8" Lewis

I have nothing to say other than, having met Jamal Lewis, he is not 5 foot 8.

Share this post


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

Good little spell is stretching it somewhat. We didn't win a single game with the Zimbo/Hanley combo in the period as while we got a few credible drawers it is hardly evidence that the system we were employing was working fine.

It isn’t stretching it at all. Firstly, we did win - Burnley. But irrespective of what happened at the other end of the pitch we are purely talking about Hanley and Zimbo being ‘walked through’. Any of the other combinations in central defence that season then yes, it happened regularly. We took some right hidings that season, but only once during that spell of the season with a fit at last Hanley and Zimbo at the back did we concede more than one goal more than the opposition in any one game, and that was against Man Utd. Every other single result during that spell was either a 2-2, 2-1, 1-0, 0-0, and yes a 2-1 win against fellow Premier League side Burnley in the cup who played a strong side. We also battled Liverpool hard in a 0-1 loss at Carrow Rd finally succumbing to a relatively late goal from Mane.

Hanley and Zimmerman as a pairing were the last of our worries that season, and if the forward players (I’m thinking Buendia) had done their jobs in those games then we might actually have drawn or won more. I think they should get a little bit more credit in fairness KC, because they weren’t the pairing that got walked through that season, certainly not.

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...