Farke and a failure of evolution

[Petriix 2,853]

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

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.

With hindsight we can certainly agree that Buendia is the weapon we're missing; but I'd still contend that, at £35m and £80k per week, we could afford to let him go and look at someone in the £20m, £50k per week bracket as an alternative weapon. I'd also suggest that Skipp has been the bigger missing piece of the puzzle, but Normann is very much starting to fill the void.

The total number of signings looks decidedly odd when the message was of 'quality over quantity'. I'd say we've achieved the opposite of the intention in that regard.

We are now left to hope that whoever they bring in to replace Farke can rapidly turn one of Rashica, Tzolis and Sargent into a weapon. I've got my eye on a young lad who's been playing in the U23s who might make the step up to the first team under the right coach. Can't-dwell or something, I forget his name now...

[Badger 2,412]

2 hours 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.

Great post! 👍

[Robert N. LiM 4,476]

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

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.

Interesting that he seems to have struggled in this role for Villa.

Quote

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. 

So do you not accept that the 'choice' was forced on us by his determination to leave?

Quote

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. 

I think 'replace' is a bit much. We clearly needed an extra full back. Going into the season with only Mumba and an injured Byram to cover Aarons and Dimi would have been insane. Similarly, had we only had an inexperienced Omo and a creaking Zimbo as CB cover we'd have been risking a similar crisis to 19-20, especially given Gibson and Hanley both had pre-season injuries.

The bigger problem with the LB position is that DF didn't seem to trust Williams or Dimi.

Quote

 

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. 

 

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 

It's certainly a disaster that we let our best player go. Without more information on why we did that I don't feel able to comment.

I assume that the point of the summer transfers was to try and do both: find immediate weapons and look long-term. I imagine they were hoping that Rashica would be more dangerous sooner (promising signs on Saturday, I thought). Tzolis was clearly advertised as one for the future. And the fact that only Normann really took to the PL straightaway, and that Gilmour couldn't get in the PL's worst team, presumably wasn't part of the plan. 

What looked particularly odd about the summer recruitment was the way it didn't fit with the players already here, notably Pukki. And that brings us back to the OP and the idea that we tried to revamp our style, but either tried to do too much at once, or that DF wasn't the coach to do it. I guess we're about to find out which.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Robert N. LiM

[king canary 7,661]

2 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.

Its an interesting view but not one I agree with. We saw the same issue last time in the Premier league where we had a number 10 but teams still knew they could press us and make us panic. If anything I'd suggest the lack of a natural playmakers who drops deep and picks the ball up from the defenders has sometimes hurt us but its also the inability to play longer when needed in any effective way- either to a forward who can hold the ball up with his back to goal or into the channels where pace can threaten- that has allowed teams to step up and press us high without having to worry about retaliation.

[king canary 7,661]

56 minutes ago, Alex Moss said:

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.

They were, in my opinion, at best a passable partnership. The best result was a cup win v an under strength Burnley. The idea that our defence was the least of worries even for a small spell isn't one backed up by my memory for sure. 

[Tumbleweed 106]

Great thread!

Seems to me that the players lost confidence in Farke as a tactician because they were being asked to do things that weren't working and getting pilloried for it, as well as the debilitating defeats. By the end all confidence had been eroded, they resorted to long balls, probably fed up with trying to play out in an "over the top of the trenches" adherence to dogma. They looked shapeless and disorganised as a result. Some of the selection decisions were very strange and that probably didn't help: we played in a way that didn't work with players that weren't suited.

[king canary 7,661]

1 hour ago, Google Bot said:

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.

I'm not only considering it, I guess we just disagree on how much to blame it was for all our woes.

It didn't help, no doubt but even with two fit central defenders in place and Tettey in defensive midfield we were extremely easy to play against and beat. During project restart we only had one game without a recognised central defensive pairing yet lost them all. 

I also think back to some of the goals conceded by the team even during the injury crisis that, in my view, were significantly more due to system than personnel. Take the infamous goal v a winless Watford after less than two minutes. Godfrey and Lewis charge upfield, Buendia is for some reason in a central defensive position with no cover in behind and loses the ball leading to the goal. That didn't happen because Zimmerman or Hanley weren't fit, it happened because Farke played a gung ho system that often had 8 outfield players bombing forward and no focus on positional discipline. The kind of thing you can get away with when you're the best team in the league, not when you're one of the worst.

[El Convento 14]

27 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

What looked particularly odd about the summer recruitment was the way it didn't fit with the players already here, notably Pukki.

I think that the bigger problem was the failure to recruit a prem-quality striker, which I'm afraid Pukki isn't (for reasons mentioned here and in other threads, and demonstrated last time around). So it wouldn't have been a good idea to arrange recruitment around him in my opinion.  Obviously prem-quality strikers are expensive, and maybe we couldn't have run to one, but the favouring of recruiting quantity over quality was particularly damaging in this regard.

[Nuff Said 5,173]

It’s not remotely statistically significant, but the evidence we have (2 seasons in the Championship, 1 and 1/4 in the Premier League) indicates that Farke-ball, whatever that is, works in the Championship but doesn’t in the PL. Now Farke has gone, the success or failure of his replacement will help clarify whether the issue was with him/his tactics or the squad. Of course, his replacement might have the wrong tactics too…

[1902 1,167]

Everything for me comes down to the press at both ends of the pitch. I actually feel we miss Emi more in his ability to regain possession than we ever have as a creative outlet. I tend to agree with @king canary that it's been an inability to consistently get the ball out of our own third quickly and without panic that has been our downfall (if I understood him correctly).

For me this has rarely been anything to do with a lack of outlets up the pitch, but just players not knowing how to escape the attentions of premier league opposition in our own half. As far as I can tell this was the reason for Gilmour's loan, he was supposed to allow us that deep lying passing option.

This inability to find an effective outlet has meant we are also too pedestrian in attack, you have to be very very good to build an attack slowly in the premier league, that's why so few teams do it, most go either long or strike swiftly on the counter. Only the best sit outside the area for a long period of time, because teams are too good at disrupting it.

Incidentally, by pushing PLM up the pitch, Farke finally tried to disrupt a team in their own half more, and for 45 minutes we looked better.

Again thanks for this thread. It's a good one.

[king canary 7,661]

19 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Everything for me comes down to the press at both ends of the pitch. I actually feel we miss Emi more in his ability to regain possession than we ever have as a creative outlet. I tend to agree with @king canary that it's been an inability to consistently get the ball out of our own third quickly and without panic that has been our downfall (if I understood him correctly).

For me this has rarely been anything to do with a lack of outlets up the pitch, but just players not knowing how to escape the attentions of premier league opposition in our own half. As far as I can tell this was the reason for Gilmour's loan, he was supposed to allow us that deep lying passing option.

This inability to find an effective outlet has meant we are also too pedestrian in attack, you have to be very very good to build an attack slowly in the premier league, that's why so few teams do it, most go either long or strike swiftly on the counter. Only the best sit outside the area for a long period of time, because teams are too good at disrupting it.

Incidentally, by pushing PLM up the pitch, Farke finally tried to disrupt a team in their own half more, and for 45 minutes we looked better.

Again thanks for this thread. It's a good one.

Largely yes that is what I'm saying.  I don't think we actually lack the outlets now, we just don't really know how to use them. We don't have a player waiting on the shoulder of the defence looking to exploit space in behind, nor do we try and get Sargent matched up on a smaller fullback to allow him to hold up a longer  ball and get others involved.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

3 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

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.

 

I think the difference is quite simple in some ways: we were far better at possession football than what the Championship had to offer. In the Premier League,  you're against more teams that are also good at possession football so what you do off the ball becomes more important, and that's where we haven't been as strong, which is why the possession flair got sacrificed to some extent in the short term. 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

46 minutes ago, king canary said:

They were, in my opinion, at best a passable partnership. The best result was a cup win v an under strength Burnley. The idea that our defence was the least of worries even for a small spell isn't one backed up by my memory for sure. 

With the greatest of respect KC, the tightness of results for that small spell of games with the partnership of Hanley and Zimbo are there for anyone to see on the internet, recorded for posterity, irrespective of your memory in the nicest possible way.

On the Burnley game, that is simply not close to accurate either, it was for their squad at the time a very strong line up - if anything we put out more squad players than they did as we can see here. A win away at a time when they were arguably a better side than they are now deserved credit.

[Yobocop 1,105]

5 hours 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. 

Must admit I thought exactly the same and stopped reading after that point 

which is a shame given how much work the OP clearly put into the post 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,237]

Robert N. LiM     83

 

•  
  •  

Posted 2 hours ago

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

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.

Interesting that he seems to have struggled in this role for Villa.

A team with  European aspirations, multi-billionaire owners and far more playing resources choose to play him there. 
 

  Quote

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. 

So do you not accept that the 'choice' was forced on us by his determination to leave?

Farke said clearly it was a financial imperative to allow for the other signings. Webber created a classic Football smokescreen. 

  Quote

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. 

I think 'replace' is a bit much. We clearly needed an extra full back. Going into the season with only Mumba and an injured Byram to cover Aarons and Dimi would have been insane. Similarly, had we only had an inexperienced Omo and a creaking Zimbo as CB cover we'd have been risking a similar crisis to 19-20, especially given Gibson and Hanley both had pre-season injuries.

The bigger problem with the LB position is that DF didn't seem to trust Williams or Dimi.

Gibson and Dimi were ‘bought for the Premier’ (also in their eyes and words), then did not play. They were expensive signings, not academy graduates. Competition for places is fine, though this created unnecessary issues. It felt incoherent to all. 

  Quote

 

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. 

 

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 

It's certainly a disaster that we let our best player go. Without more information on why we did that I don't feel able to comment.

Selling your best player upon promotion  to the Premier is unheard of. We were reliant on him for our play. The players knew it and felt it too. Lack of finance dictated. 

I assume that the point of the summer transfers was to try and do both: find immediate weapons and look long-term. I imagine they were hoping that Rashica would be more dangerous sooner (promising signs on Saturday, I thought). Tzolis was clearly advertised as one for the future. And the fact that only Normann really took to the PL straightaway, and that Gilmour couldn't get in the PL's worst team, presumably wasn't part of the plan. 

Buying potential is a lovely long-term strategy. It does not usually correspond to immediate Premier survival however. It is auxiliary to that strategy, not a replacement for it.  

What looked particularly odd about the summer recruitment was the way it didn't fit with the players already here, notably Pukki. And that brings us back to the OP and the idea that we tried to revamp our style, but either tried to do too much at once, or that DF wasn't the coach to do it. I guess we're about to find out which.

We got a little drunk on our own successes and thought we could re-invent the wheel. Farke couldn’t and I would doubt that anyone else can. We have spent a lot of money on quantity - which we said we wouldn’t. 

Farke carries the can. 

Parma 
 

 

[Danke bitte 967]

4 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.

Your 4231 is the equivalent of @Indy_Bones’ Ricky van Wolfswinkel 😁👌

Edited November 9, 2021 by Danke bitte
Poor speeling..

[lake district canary 4,544]

2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

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

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.

Interesting that he seems to have struggled in this role for Villa.

Villa are a more direct team than Norwich and he often looks like a passenger with the play passing him by.  When he does get on the ball he still looks dangerous, but he would be much better in a club that plays more like we do (did). 

I'm still a Farke supporter.  In trying to build a new team to counter the loss of Buendia and Skipp, he has precious little time to do it - Kabak and Normann have had, what...5 games where they were available? Signs were the fight was was still there at Brentford, plus a bit better understanding between players.

The evolution hadn't imo failed - it simply wasn't given enough time - and it was under too much pressure under the conditions of what was needed and in the full glare of the PL cameras and idiot pundits. The margins in several of the games was so small - and as Farke said, in returning to our "dna" - ie farkeball - we saw a bit more effectiveness going forwards.

Farke - and us - have been a bit unlucky. Having got that first promotion we then had huge injury crisis and then covid which ruined that PL season - we then had the second promotion season which was mostly behind closed doors - and then this season in which preparation was interupted by more covid and on top of that international breaks and late arrivals in Kabak and Normann. 

How can anyone build a team in those circumstances in the time he has had available? It's actually crazy to think he had enough time. Yes, pressure for results is there - and precious egos needed to be sorted out in one or two players - and the thrashings didn't help, but could anyone else have done better? Really? We started the season with no real replacements for Skipp and Buendia and the system needed to change, partly because of the realisation that farkeball as it was, would not be enough - I mean it was recognised it needed to evolve. And yet, things have improved, we ae back amongst the points, 13th in the form table and every reason to think we could evolve under Farke as he had more time.

The new manager, will have the benefit of inheriting a squad that has started to gel, players clearly up for it, got that bit of confidence going.....and with Farke being thrown under the bus, should get a new manager bounce. Great.....but it still feels like an injustice to Farke. Doing the best he could with what he had and in the past he has not let us down - he would have improved us and to simply say he was useless at PL level is so simplistic.  It is much more complicated than that - and when struggling in past seasons, he has turned it round every time......except in a season where first injuries hamstrung us, followed by a pandemic.

Should have been kept on, any prima donnas made to toe the line and him being allowed to take us forwards from the foundations of a new team that has started to evolve.

[Nuff Said 5,173]

51 minutes ago, Danke bitte said:

Your 4231 is the equivalent of @Indy_Bones’ Ricky van Wolfswinkel 😁👌

And Lakey’s “prima donnas”.

[Indy_Bones 441]

Not sure how me or RvW got dragged into this one!

[king canary 7,661]

2 hours ago, Yobocop said:

Must admit I thought exactly the same and stopped reading after that point 

which is a shame given how much work the OP clearly put into the post 

Glad you stopped by to say you didn't read it 🙄

[sonyc 5,541]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

Villa are a more direct team than Norwich and he often looks like a passenger with the play passing him by.  When he does get on the ball he still looks dangerous, but he would be much better in a club that plays more like we do (did). 

Perhaps I should apologise to Emi lovers on this forum...but I have been pleased he has not done the business (so far) and in fact he has largely looked lightweight. That's not to say he was one of my favourite players to play for us, because he was, it's more a rather cynical and vindictive point of view that I hope Villa get relegated this year (and in an ideal world we survive) and we find a way to get him back! I haven't been able to help supporting any team that's played Villa. How pathetic is that!

[king canary 7,661]

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

Gibson and Dimi were ‘bought for the Premier’ (also in their eyes and words), then did not play. They were expensive signings, not academy graduates. Competition for places is fine, though this created unnecessary issues. It felt incoherent to all. 

 

I usually agree with you Parma but I'm not sure I understand this- was Kabak bought as an upgrade on Gibson? Or was he a potential upgrade on Hanley but ended up replacing Gibson? Similarly I'm not sure we could have gone into the season with just Dimi for an option at left back.

[Yobocop 1,105]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

Glad you stopped by to say you didn't read it 🙄

Sorry mate, I know you’ve put a lot of work into it 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,237]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

I usually agree with you Parma but I'm not sure I understand this- was Kabak bought as an upgrade on Gibson? Or was he a potential upgrade on Hanley but ended up replacing Gibson? Similarly I'm not sure we could have gone into the season with just Dimi for an option at left back.

Yes I rather agree with you @king canary and I should clarify better what I meant. 

Gibson and Dimi were big investments and appeared to then be ’priorities’ for replacement.

This may indeed be ‘unfair’ as you say as m reinforcements were necessary, though footballers are quite simple creatures generally.

Selling Emi, not replacing Skipp (which we maybe needed 2 of, let alone the 0 we bought), buying a non-scoring back up to Pukki, going in hard on Gibson and Dimi (who players were happy with), then spreading the Emi money around on tomorrow potential. 

It was, is and was proved - without hindsight - to have been flawed. All felt it in advance .

Parma 

[king canary 7,661]

3 hours ago, Alex Moss said:

With the greatest of respect KC, the tightness of results for that small spell of games with the partnership of Hanley and Zimbo are there for anyone to see on the internet, recorded for posterity, irrespective of your memory in the nicest possible way.

On the Burnley game, that is simply not close to accurate either, it was for their squad at the time a very strong line up - if anything we put out more squad players than they did as we can see here. A win away at a time when they were arguably a better side than they are now deserved credit.

Just for clarity the results from that run were...

2-1 loss to Wolves

1-0 loss to Villa

2-2 draw with Spurs

1-1 draw with Palace

4-0 loss to Man U

2-1 loss to Spurs

2-1 win v Burnley (FA Cup)

0-0 draw with Newcastle

1-0 loss to Liverpool.

So 9 games, 1 win, 3 draws, 5 losses and 14 goals conceded. I'm going to stick with my assessment that 'fairly good run' is a stretch based on that.

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by king canary

[king canary 7,661]

3 minutes ago, Yobocop said:

Sorry mate, I know you’ve put a lot of work into it 

Yeah but without the approval of 'Yobocop' I'm not sure I'll ever truly believe it was worth it.

[Nuff Said 5,173]

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

Yes I rather agree with you @king canary and I should clarify better what I meant. 

Gibson and Dimi were big investments and appeared to then be ’priorities’ for replacement.

This may indeed be ‘unfair’ as you say as m reinforcements were necessary, though footballers are quite simple creatures generally.

Selling Emi, not replacing Skipp (which we maybe needed 2 of, let alone the 0 we bought), buying a non-scoring back up to Pukki, going in hard on Gibson and Dimi (who players were happy with), then spreading the Emi money around on tomorrow potential. 

It was, is and was proved - without hindsight - to have been flawed. All felt it in advance .

Parma 

Really?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,237]

Indeed @Nuff Said

I don’t write many posts. Most are on Rays Funds with the superb @nutty nigel..the rest are labelled and easy to trace. 

The rest of the time predicting the future and explaining why things do happen or why they will is what I like to discuss, occasionally explaining something in the here-and-now when things are not clear or misunderstood by others. 

I don’t feel any joy about this foresight in this case. It might be a rare moment in time, an opportunity that may not come again for a while. Disappointing. Many, many voices inside football expressed the same. There are not conveyor belts of Emi. Goals and assists are the wisps of gold thread in the wind that cover multitudes of sins. Cherish them.

Weapons are all  at the top level. Players know it too. They have a sixth sense for such things. Norwich blew it this summer. In many senses. 

Poor Farke may have been out of his depth at the top level. Maybe. Our finances certainly are. Our investment has conversely been extensive. At the cost of going backwards. Spreading the money around quantity. A strategy we said we didn’t want and wouldn’t work. It hasn’t. 

Wingers bought for £20m when we have to defend and be narrow. The key £10m Pukki replacement investment  non-scoring (as he never had). The best player sold at the point of promotion. The most important player not replaced by anyone of his like at all (Skipp). The role that was so key - even at a lower level - not replaced or used at all. 

What do you think the players thought…even ahead of the season…? 

 

Parma 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Yobocop 1,105]

59 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah but without the approval of 'Yobocop' I'm not sure I'll ever truly believe it was worth it.

I’m sure it probably was but you lost a lot of your audience in the opening paragraph 

[Boris 56]

Parma you always are top spot but to have doubt that Emi was possible to be keep 1 year more think is naive.

Emi and Cantwell have both big problems with focus  last year in championship until transfer window closed.Im sure Webber promise Emi to do his job and when big offer come he can live(think also this was mentioned from Webber on some of his media meetings).So Emi make amazing season but was clear that must gone when was on Argentina camp with Em.Martinez press him via same agent etc.

To keep Emi ofcourse is possible because him have long deal but we all know when promise not confirmed we have unhappy player (Harry Kane exams.)can play at 50% no more.

So Emi and Skipp was key but both was easy enough to be understand to be impossible to hold.Im sure are other problem is that same time already Max and Cantwell come as players who want to move but of course we can't sell all of them same time and we have now unhappy Cantwell and semi happy Max.\

So from 5 key players we have 2 out 2 unhappy and Pukki at 31 ...

Fundamental problem also was that we recognise Kabak and Normann as top targets on most problematic areas from our last Premiere league spell.Problem with them was that first price tag was impossible for us and we need to waiting until last week of transfer period to sign them at deals who is on our budget but this mean no time to be settled and missed already 3 4 games.

So key zone's addressed too late its a big problem.

So we have too many things wrong or against us to have any hopes to not be this mess now.

Gibson and Hanley also both back in last moment from bad injuries ,covid and 2 canceled friendlies ,too many new unsettled players, key players from last year unhappy or not in club ,bad fixture etc etc.

Farke was dead man walking since August!