Ricardo's report v Southampton

[mastoola 183]

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

Nice report Ricardo, a very odd game. 

Absolute dream for a coach to have lots of pretty clear things to work on and win anyway.

There’s no law against being a lucky general. 

Parma

Better lucky than good some might say.

[Robert N. LiM 4,227]

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

@RobertN.LiM

I thought Normann looked a little lost and restricted in his restrained role.

I think the coach is right to play 2 pivots - and I think with what we’ve got they have to be Normann and McClean - if he wants to play Gilmour at all. 

The corollary would be a question for the recruitment as to why we don’t have  2 Skipp-a-likes (or absolutely, crucially 1 at this level, given our relative station).

The further point would be - as you said - what you lose elsewhere by giving this strategic padding to Gilmour. It is not only what you lose from Normann, it is also what you lose from the different instructions you have to give the 3/4 players - be it Rashica, Cantwell, Tzolis, Dowell et al.

Strategically the answer will always be Sargent, because of his defensive work rate and good defensive positioning (which is considerably better than Gilmours btw). This however means - in my view - that you are unbalanced, as you either play Sargent as a 10 and let him cover ground (the likely best option) or you forever shoe-horn him from wide, where he is diligent, though unsilky and clearly finds it hard to get into shooting positions from wide. 

Parma 

Cheers: really appreciate the thoughtful reply

[Petriix 2,834]

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

@RobertN.LiM

I thought Normann looked a little lost and restricted in his restrained role.

I think the coach is right to play 2 pivots - and I think with what we’ve got they have to be Normann and McClean - if he wants to play Gilmour at all. 

The corollary would be a question for the recruitment as to why we don’t have  2 Skipp-a-likes (or absolutely, crucially 1 at this level, given our relative station).

The further point would be - as you said - what you lose elsewhere by giving this strategic padding to Gilmour. It is not only what you lose from Normann, it is also what you lose from the different instructions you have to give the 3/4 players - be it Rashica, Cantwell, Tzolis, Dowell et al.

Strategically the answer will always be Sargent, because of his defensive work rate and good defensive positioning (which is considerably better than Gilmours btw). This however means - in my view - that you are unbalanced, as you either play Sargent as a 10 and let him cover ground (the likely best option) or you forever shoe-horn him from wide, where he is diligent, though unsilky and clearly finds it hard to get into shooting positions from wide. 

Parma 

I thought Gilmour was vastly better in the second half. He benefited from a generally higher midfield around him but did the defensive duties well after the brake. Rashica was also far better defensively when he switched sides.

While Normann and McLean were largely anonymous, they were fairly solid in the centre of the park. Perhaps they could have offered slightly more support to the overloaded flanks at times in the first half, but the double pivot worked well in my opinion.

Sargent demonstrated perfectly what that wide midfield role entails. Whoever plays there should embody that desire to work hard in both attack and defence.

It bodes well for Smith's tenure that he achieved more with the midfield in that second half than Farke managed in the whole of the season until his departure.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Personally I thought stopping them hitting crossfield balls and keeping Max tied down and using Sargent to keep Walker Peters occupied allowing Max to venture forward was the key.

[ricardo 7,334]

3 hours ago, Alfie54 said:

Don’t understand the binoculars, Southampton were attacking the Barclay in the first half!

I sit in the River End😉

[Alfie54 76]

20 hours ago, ricardo said:

I sit in the River End😉

That’s what I thought, but you said almost everything was happening 100 yards away at the River end!

[ricardo 7,334]

1 hour ago, Alfie54 said:

That’s what I thought, but you said almost everything was happening 100 yards away at the River end!

I beg your pardon, I should have said 'from' and not 'at'🙄

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by ricardo

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

I beg your pardon, I should have said 'from' and not 'at'🙄

 

I must admit I wondered if you’d strayed from your normal seat when I read that 😂.

 

I still prefer it when we attack the Barclay end 2nd half, always have.

[ricardo 7,334]

14 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

I must admit I wondered if you’d strayed from your normal seat when I read that 😂.

 

I still prefer it when we attack the Barclay end 2nd half, always have.

Ive always thought we did better the other way. Ive got no stats so I can't  prove it.

 

[Taiwan Canary 142]

On 21/11/2021 at 19:24, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

@RobertN.LiM

I thought Normann looked a little lost and restricted in his restrained role.

I think the coach is right to play 2 pivots - and I think with what we’ve got they have to be Normann and McClean - if he wants to play Gilmour at all. 

The corollary would be a question for the recruitment as to why we don’t have  2 Skipp-a-likes (or absolutely, crucially 1 at this level, given our relative station).

The further point would be - as you said - what you lose elsewhere by giving this strategic padding to Gilmour. It is not only what you lose from Normann, it is also what you lose from the different instructions you have to give the 3/4 players - be it Rashica, Cantwell, Tzolis, Dowell et al.

Strategically the answer will always be Sargent, because of his defensive work rate and good defensive positioning (which is considerably better than Gilmours btw). This however means - in my view - that you are unbalanced, as you either play Sargent as a 10 and let him cover ground (the likely best option) or you forever shoe-horn him from wide, where he is diligent, though unsilky and clearly finds it hard to get into shooting positions from wide. 

Parma 

With this in mind is it safe to say that Gilmour < Buendia in that he offers not only less defensive cover and positional awareness but also less attacking threat (I've yet to see Gilmour produce that killer pass)? Considering that Buendia also needed the defensive cover behind him, is it better that Smith leaves Gilmour out? I have a feeling that this will be a difficult decision for our new manager, especially when the national media are praising Wee Billy and have been clamouring for him to start. If Gilmour isn't the answer to the question of who can supply the ammo for Pukki, then who is? Like you stated plenty of issues for Smith to get his teeth into. I appreciate your analysis as always, Parma.

At the moment I feel our squad is a little bit like a Rubik's cube, in that you move one square and another one is hence out of place. Hopefully Smith/January window can find a way to manipulate all the pieces into place.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

On 23/11/2021 at 15:52, Taiwan Canary said:

With this in mind is it safe to say that Gilmour < Buendia in that he offers not only less defensive cover and positional awareness but also less attacking threat (I've yet to see Gilmour produce that killer pass)? Considering that Buendia also needed the defensive cover behind him, is it better that Smith leaves Gilmour out? I have a feeling that this will be a difficult decision for our new manager, especially when the national media are praising Wee Billy and have been clamouring for him to start. If Gilmour isn't the answer to the question of who can supply the ammo for Pukki, then who is? Like you stated plenty of issues for Smith to get his teeth into. I appreciate your analysis as always, Parma.

At the moment I feel our squad is a little bit like a Rubik's cube, in that you move one square and another one is hence out of place. Hopefully Smith/January window can find a way to manipulate all the pieces into place.

Some good stuff here Taiwan. I’m not surprised Webber has gone big on Smith - and Shakespeare - my suspicion would be that they have very healthy remuneration (and I don’t mind that, we can’t pay high for players, though we can afford to pay high for auxiliary non-playing staff and we should).

I think Webber wants-needs to prove his comparatively lavish - and likely exceptional in Norwich’s case - spending as ‘right’.

I spent some time drawing up movements, patterns, shapes, strengths and weaknesses on paper - and I really can’t come up with a particularly convincing, coherent shape or pattern to minimise our weaknesses and maximise our strengths and weapons. There are compromises all over the page. This is a recruitment failing I’m afraid. 

Getting players to run harder, tackle earlier, spill-their-guts is pretty temporary old stuff I’m afraid. Your weaknesses will find you out. 

I agree with your view that ‘football pressure’ somewhat forces Smith to play Gilmour. Meaning building around Gilmour. Meaning covering for Gilmour’s weaknesses. Meaning others have to do different from their - or our ideal strategic - druthers. This is quite an investment. 

Let us hope he is truly as good - in a weaker side that comes under repeated pressure and is forced to defend a great deal - as the back page of the Sun says he is. 

Ultimately it’s not the Gilmour show for Norwich. It is finding a way to keep them out and score sometimes. Both boxes. Both boxes. 

If Gilmour can find Pukki then great. I’d like to see it on grass, rather than reading about it on paper. Someone has to find Pukki. 

Parma

Edited November 24, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Taiwan Canary 142]

It's also noteworthy that the current situation undermines our project somewhat.  the stakes are too high and weaknesses are exploited so ruthlessly in the Prem (see Mumba vs Man City, I thought he played well apart from his mistakes) that we can't really afford to develop our youngsters.  So why should we compromise in order to develop someone else's?