Webbers recruitment aide speaks- We DON'T lack ambition!

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

35 minutes ago, Ray said:

Parma, A very valid point.  The brain is hard wired to achieve, hence the expression, be careful what you wish for, as the subconscious is unable to accept the negative/reverse of an idea, telling someone 'not' to look down is futile as the brain ignores the 'not' and hears, look down and therefore sends signals to do exactly that, the conscious can override this but is slower and weak compared to the subconscious.  

Expecting success must be the indigenous mindset if success is to be achieved, it guarantees nothing but certainly tips likely outcomes in your favour,

The way sports psychologists explain your point is to often refer to a common situation in golf. To explain the brain not being able to process ‘don’t’ they use the example of water on the right and a palm tree on the horizon on the desired target line.

The golfer who says to himself ‘don’t hit it in the water…mustn’t hit it in the water’ …

…inevitably hits it in the water.
 

The brain processes images far more effectively than words. Thus the ‘don’t’ or ‘mustn’t’ is totally overwhelmed by the power of the image of the water.

The mind has - in effect - understood the instruction that the water IS the target. And thus it cannot go anywhere else. Derren Brown has made a very good living out of this principle. 

If you cannot use ‘don’t’ then what can you use?

The answer is the palm tree on the horizon on the desired target line. 

You must - in effect - replace the image of the water with the image of something else specific that the brain can ‘latch onto’ more strongly.

Therefore you focus on and repeat to yourself the palm tree. Ideally the smallest part of the palm tree you can see (a leaf even, the smaller and more precise the better).

This acts as a brain break from the negative water outcome and gives the brain a ‘look and react’ target that it instinctively prefers. 
 

The sale of Emi and the failure to replace Skipp were the water. There never was a palm tree.

Parma 

@nutty nigel

@TIL 1010

@hogesar

@Petriix

@Boris

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Greavsy 2,412]

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

There never was a palm tree.

Our friends down the road have a tree we could bid for, would that work? 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

Our friends down the road have a tree we could bid for, would that work? 

I presume it's growing out of the top of one of their stands?

OTBC

[Greavsy 2,412]

1 minute ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I presume it's growing out of the top of one of their stands?

OTBC

Thats the one I meant. Others may be available. 

[sgncfc 1,221]

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

There never was a palm tree.

Surely Gilmour was the palm tree? Normann and Kabak were also statement signings to add to new, highly thought of youngsters who had the legs we needed.

Unfortunately Gilmour has turned out to be a miniature cactus. Kabak at least plays like a palm tree.

The VAR disallowed equaliser against Leicester and the display against Watford were the defining moments. Since then we haven't really turned up, other than for a parts of games against Southampton, Wolves and Man Utd.

Momentum and belief is what we need to restore - a couple of fresh faces in January could still do that. A fit Rashica and Normann could also make all the difference.

We're really not that far off - a bit like Fulham last year though, I suspect we'll discover too late how to get results in this league.

[Ray 111]

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

The way sports psychologists explain your point is to often refer to a common situation in golf. To explain the brain not being able to process ‘don’t’ they use the example of water on the right and a palm tree on the horizon on the desired target line.

The golfer who says to himself ‘don’t hit it in the water…mustn’t hit it in the water’ …

…inevitably hits it in the water.
 

The brain processes images far more effectively than words. Thus the ‘don’t’ or ‘mustn’t’ is totally overwhelmed by the power of the image of the water.

The mind has - in effect - understood the instruction that the water IS the target. And thus it cannot go anywhere else. Derren Brown has made a very good living out of this principle. 

If you cannot use ‘don’t’ then what can you use?

The answer is the palm tree on the horizon on the desired target line. 

You must - in effect - replace the image of the water with the image of something else specific that the brain can ‘latch onto’ more strongly.

Therefore you focus on and repeat to yourself the palm tree. Ideally the smallest part of the palm tree you can see (a leaf even, the smaller and more precise the better).

This acts as a brain break from the negative water outcome and gives the brain a ‘look and react’ target that it instinctively prefers. 
 

The sale of Emi and the failure to replace Skipp were the water. There never was a palm tree.

Parma 

@nutty nigel

@TIL 1010

@hogesar

@Petriix

@Boris

 

Maybe the water was a mirage Parma, created from a lot of hot air, he, he!!

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

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

The sale of Emi and the failure to replace Skipp were the water. There never was a palm tree.

A wonderful analogy for a depressing state of affairs.

Maybe Sargent, Gilmour et al were the palm tree (at least for the focus of the fans)...but perhaps they were simply a mirage. Lots of hot air and light but ultimately nothing really there of substance.

OTBC

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

Just now, Ray said:

Maybe the water was a mirage Parma, created from a lot of hot air, he, he!!

Just beat me to it!

OTBC

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

3 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

 Kabak at least plays like a palm tree.

A palm tree with no positional discipline whatsoever - you'd most likely find him in the middle of the motorway rather than beside a beach.

OTBC

[Highland Canary 76]

The key issue is we don’t appear to have the financial capability to navigate the PL/champ transition without either putting the club at risk and/or forcing a fire sale of player assets. Therefore, we are unable to pay the salary necessary to attract PL quality players even if we are able to pay modest transfer fees (which largely are financed from other player disposals). Only new equity investment can break this cycle which, self-evidently, does not work in the PL.

[Ray 111]

Parma, Perhaps chicken and egg is more appropriate here, does the mind lead the body, or the body lead the mind, if our players are of a 'positive/success driven' mindset is it more likely they will perform to a higher standard?  I leave it to Walter D Wintle to answer that question in his poem, The Man Who Thinks He Can.

[Petriix 2,834]

The ridiculous irony is that it's ambition which has derailed us. We had a decent squad which had just achieved the best season in the club's history (albeit at Championship level). We had a footballing philosophy deeply embedded through the entire club and we had money to spend. 

Ambition led us to ruthlessly cast aside many of the players who got us promoted and to reinvent the game plan around a bunch of new signings brought in at great expense.

A far more conservative approach with fewer signings and greater continuity would certainly have yielded better results. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

3 hours ago, Ray said:

Parma, Perhaps chicken and egg is more appropriate here, does the mind lead the body, or the body lead the mind, if our players are of a 'positive/success driven' mindset is it more likely they will perform to a higher standard?  I leave it to Walter D Wintle to answer that question in his poem, The Man Who Thinks He Can.

The simplest explanation comes from the father of American psychology William James who stated simply: 

’People - by and large - become what they think about themselves’ 

Parma 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

On 04/01/2022 at 14:23, Petriix said:

The ridiculous irony is that it's ambition which has derailed us. We had a decent squad which had just achieved the best season in the club's history (albeit at Championship level). We had a footballing philosophy deeply embedded through the entire club and we had money to spend. 

Ambition led us to ruthlessly cast aside many of the players who got us promoted and to reinvent the game plan around a bunch of new signings brought in at great expense.

A far more conservative approach with fewer signings and greater continuity would certainly have yielded better results. 

I think that there is considerable truth camouflaged in this. 

The previous premier season reflected badly on Webber - he was conscious eyes were on him - so he wanted to make a splash, to ‘provide a gun’.

However football logic doesn’t quite work that way. What tends to happen when you are forced - or choose - to go big in a given window, is that you choose from what is available. 

This is simply not what more established clubs do. They wait for what they want and add what they think they need.

Contextually if you look at underperformers like Everton - perhaps Villa too (though I would arguing that establishing for them is success from where they were), it is because of an influx of money and a desire to ‘make a jump’ forwards. 

You end up buying the best the market has to offer at that time (and at your level). This kind of forced-rushed-jump spending has a history of failing. 

What we have done - both financially and strategically - is frightening. We may never see its like again. The very ‘jam tomorrow’ promises (from the previous failed Premier season) that pressured Webber to be more active this time exposed the cracks in the model. I long ago identified relative success as the model’s fracture point. 

We ‘scattergunned’ young, promising talent for £10m a pop, that were likely not ready for the job at hand. 

Relegation or not, we have still bet the farm on them. In theory they are posh, up-market versions of the Godfrey, Maddison and Buendia’s of yesterday. In practice they have to be appreciating assets that go well beyond £10m each on resale. 

It was - remarkably and concurrently -  both aggressive, dynamic, expensive, not linked to the job at hand and relatively high risk in many ways. 
 

All this whilst selling your only true weapon (Emi) pre-promotion season, costing yourself the potency of your half-weapon (Pukki) and not replacing - either literally or strategically - your most important and effective structural player (Skipp).

A strange strategic swap overall that did not look likely to succeed proctor hoc - as the ignored football noise said at the time -  and has de-facto not succeeded post hoc.  

It was always (relative) success that would kill  the model. Unless of course that the reality is that the model fits the job at hand, which is ultimately not tied to top level success. 
 

As we noted earlier when talking about the instinctive psychology of players. Of water and of trees. Be very, very wary about taking away peoples’ dreams. They can be unlikely, ephemeral or distant, though demonstrating the ‘little old’ glass ceiling of things leads straight into the water. 

Parma 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

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

I think that there is considerable truth camouflaged in this. 

The previous premier season reflected badly on Webber - he was conscious eyes were on him - so he wanted to make a splash, to ‘provide a gun’.

However football logic doesn’t quite work that way. What tends to happen when you are forced - or choose - to go big in a given window, is that you choose from what is available. 

This is simply not what more established clubs do. They wait for what they want and add what they think they need.

Contextually if you look at underperformers like Everton - perhaps Villa too (though I would arguing that establishing for them is success from where they were), it is because of an influx of money and a desire to ‘make a jump’ forwards. 

You end up buying the best the market has to offer at that time (and at your level). This kind of forced-rushed-jump spending has a history of failing. 

What we have done - both financially and strategically - is frightening. We may never see its like again. The very ‘jam tomorrow’ promises (from the previous failed Premier season) that pressured Webber to be more active this time exposed the cracks in the model. I long identified relative success as the model’s fracture point. 

We ‘scattergunned’ young, promising talent for £10m a pop, that were likely not ready for the job at hand. 

Relegation or not, we have still bet the farm on them. In theory they are posh, up-market versions of the Godfrey, Maddison and Buendia’s of yesterday. In practice they have to be appreciating assets that go well beyond £10m each on resale. 

It was - remarkably and concurrently -  both aggressive, dynamic, expensive, not linked to the job at hand and relatively high risk in many ways. 
 

All this whilst selling your only true weapon (Emi) pre-promotion season, costing yourself the potency of your half-weapon (Pukki) and not replacing - either literally or strategically - your most important and effective structural player (Skipp).

A strange strategic swap overall that did not look likely to succeed proctor hoc - as the ignored football noise said at the time -  and has de-facto not succeeded post hoc.  

It was always (relative) success that would kill  the model. Unless of course that the reality is that the model fits the job at hand, which is ultimately not tied to top level success. 
 

As we noted earlier when taking about the instinctive psychology of players. Of water and of trees. Be very, very wary about taking away peoples’ dreams. They can be unlikely, ephemeral or distant, though demonstrating the ‘little old’ glass ceiling of things leads straight into the water. 

Parma 

Do you think Webber really believed this strategy would be successful in keeping us up this year or was it always intended to be a platform to build on in the future with the young players we signed? (while projecting bullishly and confidently in the media maybe as way of trying to project confidence in the playing squad, trying to paint that picture of the abstract tree you alluded to) because the two objectives seen incompatible to me and despite his mistakes I don't think Webber is stupid or incompetent. 

We as fans were confident after spending the money and bought into the hype around the players but the reality is none of us really know all that much about football when compared to professionals, but did Webber and the recruitment team really believe this was the right strategy or was this always the plan? To build a whole new squad that would probably get relegated again but harmonize and mature in time for our next PL campaign? Because with the benefit of hindsight trying to stay up by relaying on players like Kabak, Tzolis and Sargent being key performers seems a bit bonkers. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

5 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Do you think Webber really believed this strategy would be successful in keeping us up this year or was it always intended to be a platform to build on in the future with the young players we signed? (while projecting bullishly and confidently in the media maybe as way of trying to project confidence in the playing squad, trying to paint that picture of the abstract tree you alluded to) because the two objectives seen incompatible to me and despite his mistakes I don't think Webber is stupid or incompetent. 

We as fans were confident after spending the money and bought into the hype around the players but the reality is none of us really know all that much about football when compared to professionals, but did Webber and the recruitment team really believe this was the right strategy or was this always the plan? To build a whole new squad that would probably get relegated again but harmonize and mature in time for our next PL campaign? Because with the benefit of hindsight trying to stay up by relaying on players like Kabak, Tzolis and Sargent being key performers seems a bit bonkers. 

Yes. I think that is a very logical assessment of what has happened and why it was done. 

Anything other than that which you surmise is even more worrying.

I would make an obvious point however: weapons are what people pay for. Weapons are what bring in the big money. We are relying on buying them young, bringing them on to weapon level and selling them - basically for ever more. 

Weapons are simply not so easily ‘generated’ nor are we the only people to think of it. 

I find it very, very hard to believe that Webber would follow the same strategy with access to even close to average funding. 

The worrying truth must surely be that ‘raising the stakes’ from Godfrey-Maddison-Buendia to Tzolis-Sargent-Rashica does not really amortise the risk. In fact our £30m outlay represents an enormous pivot on these players (in a way that only Maddison vaguely was - and he had clear set-piece weapons from the outset).

I suppose the argument is that these players were carefully scouted for a long time and that they could not have been attracted without Premier football on the horizon - getting them into the building and calculating that they will either do well and appreciate as assets fast, or end up being far too good for the Championship in due course. Which does rather make your point that even the status quo was within the plan (as a worst case back-stop no doubt). 

I think however that the signing of Gilmour, the non-replacement of Skipp, the £20m splash on wingers (when few top level teams play so open), indicates clearly that there was a triumph of belief over evidence (or ‘noise’). 

All concerned must therefore have thought that we would be ‘protagonists’, popping the ball around, dominating possession, having a deep playmaker, then driving in-to-out and whipping balls behind for Pukki. 

We have literally seen none of that. 

The trouble with ignoring the noise is that the only voice you hear is your own.

Parma 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

7 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Do you think Webber really believed this strategy would be successful in keeping us up this year or was it always intended to be a platform to build on in the future with the young players we signed? (while projecting bullishly and confidently in the media maybe as way of trying to project confidence in the playing squad, trying to paint that picture of the abstract tree you alluded to) because the two objectives seen incompatible to me and despite his mistakes I don't think Webber is stupid or incompetent. 

We as fans were confident after spending the money and bought into the hype around the players but the reality is none of us really know all that much about football when compared to professionals, but did Webber and the recruitment team really believe this was the right strategy or was this always the plan? To build a whole new squad that would probably get relegated again but harmonize and mature in time for our next PL campaign? Because with the benefit of hindsight trying to stay up by relaying on players like Kabak, Tzolis and Sargent being key performers seems a bit bonkers. 

I think the greater problem is that we don’t know the extent to which any transfer strategies of ours were affected by events outside our control, not least because of our place some way from the top of the football food chain. And by the financial limits on our transfer spend and – probably more important – the wages we could offer.

It is possible Webber and Farke started with a plan not unalike the kind of one some fans think we should have pursued but found themselves thrown of course by events, and by reality.

Supposing, for example, they wanted a mid-20s proven Premier League defensive midfielder capable of doing the job Skipp did in the Championship and capable of doing it as well or nearly as well a division higher. But found not only would that have cost £20m-£25m, but that in any event even if willing to spend a great deal of the budget on one player they realised that no-one they deemed good enough would accept NCFC wages.

Hence, possibly, the late arrival on loan of Normann, who was itching to get away from Russian football and so was willing to accept NCFC wages for a season, and seems good enough for the Premier League, albeit with the rather large drawback that he isn’t a defensive midfielder.

Supposing, for example, Webber and Farke knew they needed another striker, but struggled to convince anyone to play second fiddle to Pukki in a one-up-front system. Hence what seemed like a genuine attempt to get Josh King, capable of playing out wide as well. He preferred Watford’s wages, and we found there were not many others of that usefully flexible type. Hence the arrival of Sargent, in a move that apparently stretches the definition of one for the future.

Supposing, for example, we liked Ajer, but only to an extent, rather agreeing with the view of some Celtic fans that he was a good ball player in a team on top but sometimes struggled with the more physical side of the game. The price went beyond our valuation, and we dropped out. Not forgetting that we were committed to buying Gibson, and we liked the look of Omabamidele. Hence the arrival of the palindromic Kabak.

Supposing, for example, that we thought we had enough wingers with Rashica and Placheta, but late on found that the very promising Tzolis, whose career Webber had followed since their paths apparently crossed at Liverpool years ago, was potentially available. Too good an opportunity to miss as far as the model goes. Potentially a goldmine in a few years. Hence the current overload in wingers.

Supposing, for example, it was roughly similar with Lees-Melou. £3.5m is chickenfeed for a player of his top-flight experience in a top-five league to bulk up the squad, even if he might not prove good enough to start EPL games. On top of which, the whatever the problem with Cantwell, and no matter whose fault it is, there is now an unforeseen Cantwell-sized hole in the squad just when we can least cope with it…

I don’t know how many of the above ‘supposings’ and ‘hences’ are true, to a greater or lesser extent, or true only as general examples of the convoluted world of a transfer window. Just some context to try to explain why last summer Webber and Farke seem to have got tied up in the convolutions.  

[Mengo 821]

Do we have any ex footballers as football scouts these days at Norwich. Or have those days long gone. ????

 

 

[kirku 1,332]

Good thread, very interesting read

[BurwellCanary 215]

13 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I think the greater problem is that we don’t know the extent to which any transfer strategies of ours were affected by events outside our control, not least because of our place some way from the top of the football food chain. And by the financial limits on our transfer spend and – probably more important – the wages we could offer.

 

It is possible Webber and Farke started with a plan not unalike the kind of one some fans think we should have pursued but found themselves thrown of course by events, and by reality.

Supposing, for example, they wanted a mid-20s proven Premier League defensive midfielder capable of doing the job Skipp did in the Championship and capable of doing it as well or nearly as well a division higher. But found not only would that have cost £20m-£25m, but that in any event even if willing to spend a great deal of the budget on one player they realised that no-one they deemed good enough would accept NCFC wages.

 

Hence, possibly, the late arrival on loan of Normann, who was itching to get away from Russian football and so was willing to accept NCFC wages for a season, and seems good enough for the Premier League, albeit with the rather large drawback that he isn’t a defensive midfielder.

Supposing, for example, Webber and Farke knew they needed another striker, but struggled to convince anyone to play second fiddle to Pukki in a one-up-front system. Hence what seemed like a genuine attempt to get Josh King, capable of playing out wide as well. He preferred Watford’s wages, and we found there were not many others of that usefully flexible type. Hence the arrival of Sargent, in a move that apparently stretches the definition of one for the future.

 

Supposing, for example, we liked Ajer, but only to an extent, rather agreeing with the view of some Celtic fans that he was a good ball player in a team on top but sometimes struggled with the more physical side of the game. The price went beyond our valuation, and we dropped out. Not forgetting that we were committed to buying Gibson, and we liked the look of Omabamidele. Hence the arrival of the palindromic Kabak.

 

Supposing, for example, that we thought we had enough wingers with Rashica and Placheta, but late on found that the very promising Tzolis, whose career Webber had followed since their paths apparently crossed at Liverpool years ago, was potentially available. Too good an opportunity to miss as far as the model goes. Potentially a goldmine in a few years. Hence the current overload in wingers.

 

Supposing, for example, it was roughly similar with Lees-Melou. £3.5m is chickenfeed for a player of his top-flight experience in a top-five league to bulk up the squad, even if he might not prove good enough to start EPL games. On top of which, the whatever the problem with Cantwell, and no matter whose fault it is, there is now an unforeseen Cantwell-sized hole in the squad just when we can least cope with it…

I don’t know how many of the above ‘supposings’ and ‘hences’ are true, to a greater or lesser extent, or true only as general examples of the convoluted world of a transfer window. Just some context to try to explain why last summer Webber and Farke seem to have got tied up in the convolutions.  

Does the (very well spotted) reference to the palindromic Kabac means he plays the same way going forwards and when going backwards?

[rock bus 850]

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

The trouble with ignoring the noise is that the only voice you hear is your own.

Parma 

This last point is a really critical one for me and is a prime reason we are in our current predicament.

Since he has arrived Webber has done a hell of a lot of great things for the club. Despite our current state I think we would have been in a lot worse position if we hadn't brought him in. For that I will always be grateful.

The ignoring the noise mantra has served him well but it is also now highlighting that he is not the fully rounded Sporting Director he thinks he is.  Just as his gamble on Farke partially paid off with a great Championship team but a failure at Premier league level the gamble the  club took on him is now failing. He similarly does not have the skills and abilities needed to secure the t premier league survival. 

He will in turn be able to lay the blame at the lack of financial resources but there can be no doubt that the money HE has spent has been spent very poorly on players that are either not suitable for the Premier league or for our team. The failure to recruit an adequate CDM is the clearest example of this... I suspect the arrogance of Webber has seen him 'ignore the noise' that everyone knows this is one of the key elements we are missing. This decision making suggests that perhaps we have allowed Webber's perceived business acumen to be louder than the noise of actual 'football' people.

[Mengo 821]

 

https://www.norfolklive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/norwich-transfer-emi-buendia-spain-6441189?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

One reply to the article written

Scroll down to read.

[Danke bitte 965]

On 04/01/2022 at 16:56, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Do you think Webber really believed this strategy would be successful in keeping us up this year or was it always intended to be a platform to build on in the future with the young players we signed? (while projecting bullishly and confidently in the media maybe as way of trying to project confidence in the playing squad, trying to paint that picture of the abstract tree you alluded to) because the two objectives seen incompatible to me and despite his mistakes I don't think Webber is stupid or incompetent. 

We as fans were confident after spending the money and bought into the hype around the players but the reality is none of us really know all that much about football when compared to professionals, but did Webber and the recruitment team really believe this was the right strategy or was this always the plan? To build a whole new squad that would probably get relegated again but harmonize and mature in time for our next PL campaign? Because with the benefit of hindsight trying to stay up by relaying on players like Kabak, Tzolis and Sargent being key performers seems a bit bonkers. 

Are cynically implying that Webber’s plan, all along, was to pump money into unproven youth players, like we have, in order to ‘have a go’ in the Prem knowing his position was safe and in all likelihood we could develop those players to generate funds for the future? 

If so it’s an interesting concept. I suspect it was a bit of both, buying in these unproven players with hoping they’d do a bit of a better job than the class of 19/20. They still might but it looks unlikely.

Its also a bit mercenary as to the players emotional capacity. Playing and succeeding in the Premier League is a bit different to playing and failing (badly). Psychologically it has done no one well thus far; players, coaches, and, most importantly, fans. 

[Yobocop 1,095]

On 04/01/2022 at 10:54, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

What? Better believe it? Based on what? Blind faith?

Nope, evidence of previous Webber signings and foreign imports as a whole 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,251]

21 hours ago, Yobocop said:

Nope, evidence of previous Webber signings and foreign imports as a whole 

There may be examples, but as a whole? No chance.