Here's a theory: Farke massively over achieved

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

I've long believed Webber knew he needed to sell someone to boost his measly transfer budget and ideally wanted it to be Aarons- it was pretty clear we were actively briefing that he was available almost as soon as promotion was secured (see here). In theory it makes sense- if you can sell Aarons for £30m, you can probably replace him for £10m (or even a good loan) and use the extra money to fill other positions. 

When that didn't happen we ended up having to sell Buendia. However the same rationale doesn't apply to him- selling a player of his qualities for £30m+ and replacing him for significantly less is near impossible. It is much easier to find a good lower Premier League level right back that it is a key creative midfielder. Hence we ended up spending almost all the Buendia money on players to try and replace what he did (Rashica, Tzolis, Sargent) while not upgrading other parts of the squad. From a monetary standpoint it was basically net zero.

Yes. I really like that assessment.

Parma 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

2 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

Long-time lurker.

Seems to me that as various posters have suggested, Webber needed to top up the transfer kitty through the sale of an asset and may well have preferred that asset to be Aarons but in combination with his desire to move on and the fact that the only sizeable bids received were for him, that asset turned out to be Buendia.

The interesting element for me then focuses on the change in formation and personnel following the sale.  We didn’t look to replace Buendia like for like (if that was even possible) – the signings of Rashica and Tzolis in particular up top and Normann, PLM and Gilmour in midfield looked to be geared absolutely towards a counter-attacking 4-3-3 with the midfield trio looking to provide longer vertical passes in a faster transition from an essentially defensive standpoint to more traditional wide players.  

I vaguely remember an Athletic article on Normann highlighting his use of longer channel passing for example, and I wonder if the Sargent signing was a recognition that Pukki might not thrive in such a set up, but that Hugill wouldn’t be mobile enough.

It obviously didn’t work – Parma has articulated the shortcomings of traditional wingers if you don’t have the ball in the Premiership - but there is a [sort of] logic there.  The fact that Cantwell disappeared, Sargent demonstrated that he lacked a striker’s instinct, and Rashica and Tzolis had nothing like the expected effect would certainly not have helped the change. 

Similarly Gilmour and Normann’s inability to find them regularly and the fact that even as a relatively low central block in midfield they were all questionable defensively in comparison to Skipp also undermines the approach.

So the question for me would be a chicken and egg one of whether the move to a counter-attacking but more direct 4-3-3 was a result of the sale of Buendia and the lack of a direct replacement, or whether he was viewed as potentially expendable given a change in formation that was viewed as more likely to keep us up than the Farkeball 4-2-3-1 (which was also always going to suffer from the lack of an available alternative to Skipp and our demonstrable dependence on Buendia in the Championship formation.)

If the latter, the sale of Buendia and the subsequent “justification” that he had forced a move would be necessary to finance the changes that perhaps Webber thought needed to be made anyway – hence Farke suggesting that we [Webber] had chosen to sell.  Given Farke’s comments about his preferred targets and the general tactical approach during his tenure, I’m not sure that the decision was entirely mutual mind …

Very good post indeed. 

We sold Buendia and we bought wingers.

Odd and odder. 

Parma 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

2 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

Long-time lurker.

Seems to me that as various posters have suggested, Webber needed to top up the transfer kitty through the sale of an asset and may well have preferred that asset to be Aarons but in combination with his desire to move on and the fact that the only sizeable bids received were for him, that asset turned out to be Buendia.

The interesting element for me then focuses on the change in formation and personnel following the sale.  We didn’t look to replace Buendia like for like (if that was even possible) – the signings of Rashica and Tzolis in particular up top and Normann, PLM and Gilmour in midfield looked to be geared absolutely towards a counter-attacking 4-3-3 with the midfield trio looking to provide longer vertical passes in a faster transition from an essentially defensive standpoint to more traditional wide players.  

I vaguely remember an Athletic article on Normann highlighting his use of longer channel passing for example, and I wonder if the Sargent signing was a recognition that Pukki might not thrive in such a set up, but that Hugill wouldn’t be mobile enough.

It obviously didn’t work – Parma has articulated the shortcomings of traditional wingers if you don’t have the ball in the Premiership - but there is a [sort of] logic there.  The fact that Cantwell disappeared, Sargent demonstrated that he lacked a striker’s instinct, and Rashica and Tzolis had nothing like the expected effect would certainly not have helped the change. 

Similarly Gilmour and Normann’s inability to find them regularly and the fact that even as a relatively low central block in midfield they were all questionable defensively in comparison to Skipp also undermines the approach.

So the question for me would be a chicken and egg one of whether the move to a counter-attacking but more direct 4-3-3 was a result of the sale of Buendia and the lack of a direct replacement, or whether he was viewed as potentially expendable given a change in formation that was viewed as more likely to keep us up than the Farkeball 4-2-3-1 (which was also always going to suffer from the lack of an available alternative to Skipp and our demonstrable dependence on Buendia in the Championship formation.)

If the latter, the sale of Buendia and the subsequent “justification” that he had forced a move would be necessary to finance the changes that perhaps Webber thought needed to be made anyway – hence Farke suggesting that we [Webber] had chosen to sell.  Given Farke’s comments about his preferred targets and the general tactical approach during his tenure, I’m not sure that the decision was entirely mutual mind …

If you have been lurking because you weren't sure if your posts would be interesting or well enough argued for this message-board...

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

The eternal question that Managers, Sporting Directors, Pep and Fergie ask is ‘who do I break the rules for?’

If you look through their - and football’s - history generally, it is littered with exceptions to the ‘no player is bigger than the club’…’’he was under contract but he wanted to go’…even ‘he is unsaleable’ (to be promptly sold days later)...

So the only questions are ‘who? When? And why?’

In due course ‘events, dear boy, events’ indicate whether you were right or not. 

In our case we are talking about tens of millions we may not have again, a fortune, irreplaceable unless further promotions or investment is achieved. 

It was - and has proved to be - the ‘Shakespearean fulcrum’ moment I advised at the time. 
 

it was not a big call. It was an historic call.

Parma 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Silver Canary 7]

At the time when Buendia was sold it felt to me like a seismic change. The reasons, the rationale behind it were important because it flows from the ambitions and direction of the club but those were not clear. So maybe the replacements could give a clue - but maybe they have not so far.

So we are where we are. Do we persist with those signings -  is it worth trying to find a system that maximises their skill sets ( or would this compromise other players performance) can we / should we spend a lot of effort to improve those skills to fit our preferred system (whatever that is) or do we try to move them on, take the hit ( look at it as sunk costs) and use the proceeds on other new “projects”. 

At the moment it feels like drifting. We have been used to a clear style and direction with Daniel. I don’t feel that right now right from the SD down to the individual players. Maybe it’s there but I can’t see it. On signing I’ve had a growing feeling over the last few years that there’s an element of opportunism in some signings - not what we really need but we can turn a profit on this one etc.

 

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

I notice that Dean Smith has today commented that ‘we must find a way to feed Pukki’

Indeed.

Parma 

[king canary 7,609]

3 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

Long-time lurker.

Seems to me that as various posters have suggested, Webber needed to top up the transfer kitty through the sale of an asset and may well have preferred that asset to be Aarons but in combination with his desire to move on and the fact that the only sizeable bids received were for him, that asset turned out to be Buendia.

The interesting element for me then focuses on the change in formation and personnel following the sale.  We didn’t look to replace Buendia like for like (if that was even possible) – the signings of Rashica and Tzolis in particular up top and Normann, PLM and Gilmour in midfield looked to be geared absolutely towards a counter-attacking 4-3-3 with the midfield trio looking to provide longer vertical passes in a faster transition from an essentially defensive standpoint to more traditional wide players.  

I vaguely remember an Athletic article on Normann highlighting his use of longer channel passing for example, and I wonder if the Sargent signing was a recognition that Pukki might not thrive in such a set up, but that Hugill wouldn’t be mobile enough.

It obviously didn’t work – Parma has articulated the shortcomings of traditional wingers if you don’t have the ball in the Premiership - but there is a [sort of] logic there.  The fact that Cantwell disappeared, Sargent demonstrated that he lacked a striker’s instinct, and Rashica and Tzolis had nothing like the expected effect would certainly not have helped the change. 

Similarly Gilmour and Normann’s inability to find them regularly and the fact that even as a relatively low central block in midfield they were all questionable defensively in comparison to Skipp also undermines the approach.

So the question for me would be a chicken and egg one of whether the move to a counter-attacking but more direct 4-3-3 was a result of the sale of Buendia and the lack of a direct replacement, or whether he was viewed as potentially expendable given a change in formation that was viewed as more likely to keep us up than the Farkeball 4-2-3-1 (which was also always going to suffer from the lack of an available alternative to Skipp and our demonstrable dependence on Buendia in the Championship formation.)

If the latter, the sale of Buendia and the subsequent “justification” that he had forced a move would be necessary to finance the changes that perhaps Webber thought needed to be made anyway – hence Farke suggesting that we [Webber] had chosen to sell.  Given Farke’s comments about his preferred targets and the general tactical approach during his tenure, I’m not sure that the decision was entirely mutual mind …

I posited on here after Farke was sacked that part of the reason was Webber saw a need for a change in playing style and Farke was unable to pull it off. The signings he made certainly indicated he wanted the team to play a bit counter attacking and pressing football and less classic Farkeball. 

However I don't believe that change would have necessitated moving Buendia on- my belief is he's a talented enough player to fit into a different system and his tireless running combined with his ability to play good through balls while moving at speed would actually suit this system pretty well. 

I do agree that a sale needed to be made to finance those changes- however I believe Webber, either in confidence or arrogance, believed he could replace Emi if needs be. Turns out he was wrong.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

6 hours ago, Monty13 said:

What was the root cause of Farke’s departure though?

Personally I think given what happened he had to go, wanting him to go is different. I didn’t want him to, but the circumstances ended up dictating it IMO and that includes his actions.

I think you can trace his departure back to the summer and arguably the Buendia sale was the starting point.

Not exactly sure what you’re saying in that second paragraph to be honest to be able to offer a counterpoint.

No you can't trace his departure back to the Buendia sale because that argument is a whole load of ifs and ands and pots and pans. It's pointless. 

You think he had to go. That's fine then. He went, his successor did a teensy bit better and here we are. 

I argued at the time that others were calling for his head that it was more important to be able to rely on automatic promotion from the Championship than survival at all costs in the Premier League, but many many fans found being a yoyo too much to bear, so the board made a twist to try and survive, failed and here we are. Sometimes the dice don't roll the way you want them to and you live with the consequences. 

We've made a change and now automatic promotion feels a little bit more uncertain at the start of the season. That's a consequence of the choice to switch Farke. Live with it. 

We do at least have a manager who has got teams out the Championship and kept newly promoted teams in the Premier League. I suggest focussing on those positive angles in preference to getting all hysterical about all the risks that come with competitive sport and a 1-0 away loss in the very first game of the season. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarybubbles 1,923]

Just want to say that there are some really excellent posts on this thread.

[Petriix 2,840]

5 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

Long-time lurker.

Seems to me that as various posters have suggested, Webber needed to top up the transfer kitty through the sale of an asset and may well have preferred that asset to be Aarons but in combination with his desire to move on and the fact that the only sizeable bids received were for him, that asset turned out to be Buendia.

The interesting element for me then focuses on the change in formation and personnel following the sale.  We didn’t look to replace Buendia like for like (if that was even possible) – the signings of Rashica and Tzolis in particular up top and Normann, PLM and Gilmour in midfield looked to be geared absolutely towards a counter-attacking 4-3-3 with the midfield trio looking to provide longer vertical passes in a faster transition from an essentially defensive standpoint to more traditional wide players.  

I vaguely remember an Athletic article on Normann highlighting his use of longer channel passing for example, and I wonder if the Sargent signing was a recognition that Pukki might not thrive in such a set up, but that Hugill wouldn’t be mobile enough.

It obviously didn’t work – Parma has articulated the shortcomings of traditional wingers if you don’t have the ball in the Premiership - but there is a [sort of] logic there.  The fact that Cantwell disappeared, Sargent demonstrated that he lacked a striker’s instinct, and Rashica and Tzolis had nothing like the expected effect would certainly not have helped the change. 

Similarly Gilmour and Normann’s inability to find them regularly and the fact that even as a relatively low central block in midfield they were all questionable defensively in comparison to Skipp also undermines the approach.

So the question for me would be a chicken and egg one of whether the move to a counter-attacking but more direct 4-3-3 was a result of the sale of Buendia and the lack of a direct replacement, or whether he was viewed as potentially expendable given a change in formation that was viewed as more likely to keep us up than the Farkeball 4-2-3-1 (which was also always going to suffer from the lack of an available alternative to Skipp and our demonstrable dependence on Buendia in the Championship formation.)

If the latter, the sale of Buendia and the subsequent “justification” that he had forced a move would be necessary to finance the changes that perhaps Webber thought needed to be made anyway – hence Farke suggesting that we [Webber] had chosen to sell.  Given Farke’s comments about his preferred targets and the general tactical approach during his tenure, I’m not sure that the decision was entirely mutual mind …

What an excellent post. Please post more!

I'm definitely just guessing (and lots of people have already articulated their disagreement) but I'm pretty convinced that Webber was the driver of the change.

The change started with the shift in tactics to the flawed 4-3-3 and the sale of Buendia, the recruitment that followed before culminating in Farke's sacking. I believe it's not a coincidence that Farke had dropped Gilmour and reverted to his 4-2-3-1 for his final game in charge; a complete rejection of Webber's changes.

We didn't need to top up the transfer kitty. We simply needed to keep doing what we were already doing. Every time we've spent over £5M on a player it's ranged from neutral to disastrous. We shouldn't be doing it at all. Instead we could have just carried on with youth and rough diamonds (like Emi).

The trouble is that my plan is unlikely to be popular. Webber needed to be seen to act, whether or not his actions were actually good. Sacking Farke was the ludicrous result of this.

The Brentford win gave Webber the chance to pause and think. He didn't. 

[Monty13 2,235]

44 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No you can't trace his departure back to the Buendia sale because that argument is a whole load of ifs and ands and pots and pans. It's pointless. 

You think he had to go. That's fine then. He went, his successor did a teensy bit better and here we are. 

I argued at the time that others were calling for his head that it was more important to be able to rely on automatic promotion from the Championship than survival at all costs in the Premier League, but many many fans found being a yoyo too much to bear, so the board made a twist to try and survive, failed and here we are. Sometimes the dice don't roll the way you want them to and you live with the consequences. 

We've made a change and now automatic promotion feels a little bit more uncertain at the start of the season. That's a consequence of the choice to switch Farke. Live with it. 

We do at least have a manager who has got teams out the Championship and kept newly promoted teams in the Premier League. I suggest focussing on those positive angles in preference to getting all hysterical about all the risks that come with competitive sport and a 1-0 away loss in the very first game of the season. 

Who’s hysterical? Who’s talking about Saturday’s loss in relation to this topic?

I said the circumstances dictated it, that’s the point of why I thought he had to go. Fan pressure didn’t get him sacked, it wasn’t anywhere near the level of pressure Norwich managers have had in the past. Webber said he was sacked “to give the best opportunity preserve our premier league status”. He was sacked to roll the dice that someone else could get a tune out of the players. It made sense given Webber’s position.

Bailey said it clearly at the time: “It would also be churlish to lay everything at Farke’s door. The quality of Norwich’s summer recruitment remains questionable 11 games into the new season. Norwich’s view remains that their signings are good enough to earn survival this season and their decision to dismiss Farke effectively came down to feeling that a different head coach can get more out of the current group of players.”

So the question becomes why did he fail and then Smith didn’t do much better. You’ll find many who point the finger at the summer window, which as I said started with the Buendia sale and then ended with our failure to replace him using that money with any quality. Saying you can’t trace it is just completely untrue.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Monty13

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

On 31/07/2022 at 09:31, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Indeed. Collegiate to a fault. Thoughtful about ‘where the lines are’ between Head Coach and Sporting Director. 

Drawing those lines is an art, not a science. 

Suspect Farke also knew that ‘Plan B’ was pointless. We were heavily invested in Farkeball, from the ground up. Any top level limited money needed to be spent well on more athletic, complete players that were intrinsically still Farkeball acolytes. Almost only expensive players and Man City reserves need apply. 

By definition Norwich are not going to attract many. Finances horribly limited. So recruitment should logically have been  very forensic. A strong rejection of anything less than ideal would be required. Difficult to do when all are screaming for ‘upgrades’ (‘quick sign someone!’).

I do not believe that Farke thought Sargent a technically-gifted player. 

Webber would be forgiven for spending limited money on ‘the most likely to appreciate’ assets. This would be ‘young, somewhat-established players in good leagues, who look physically suited to top level football.’ 

Not quite the same criteria as ‘Farkeball acolytes and Man City reserves. 

This crack in the tectonic plates of the Head Coach - Sporting Director is where the ‘fights-discussions-meetings’ are held. 

‘Committee decisions’ in these areas are often shown in psych experiments to favour the dominant character in the room. The one with the most practical power to affect the future of those present. Hence ‘Committee decisions’ are not always made on the fact at hand, but for more ‘political’ reasons. 

We do not have to guess if we can read the book. Rashica, Sargent, Tzolis - £30m of incredibly precious resources - have all failed horribly thus far. Buendia, Skipp were even more fundamentally important than we already knew they were. Our top level team was worse than our Championship team. 

We did brilliantly to get promoted first time under Farke, our second promotion was a brilliant, processional romp. In the current parameters of football, it was very clear that that could be our Apotheosis. 

Our identity was clear. The fans understood it, recognised it and bought into it. 

The very purpose of ‘the model’ is to smooth out  the bumps and troughs of new managers coming in and ‘not having their own players’. There can be no ‘clear out’. There should be no need for ‘a new identity’. That is the purpose of the model, the raison d’être of the Sporting Director role. 

I go back to the horrible game against Leeds. It looked like Farke had been asked to write left-handed. It looked like he almost wanted the world to see that change was being forced. 

The system was not designed to have a Plan B. That’s good logic if you are under-resourced. You amortise some of the gap with repetition, with drilled instinct, with clear pattern of play.

Positional play principles are also difficult to teach, they take a long time to bed in. You typically need a certain kind of player - intellectually, in terms of fluidity of thought, an off-the-ball constant engagement wherever the ball is (not nearly as common as you would think). That is also a way to amortise disparity of resources. It all adds up. 

Adding one or two very suitable players at a time forensically was the only strategic option. It probably wouldn’t have been enough. So be it. Be strong enough to bank the difference. Go again.

My instinct - which may be totally incorrect - is that Webber would have left had we succeeded. It was the failure that forced him to stay. Thus there was a sense of ‘throwing every dart’ at last  year. Even a few that might fail. Is that what was best for ‘the Company’ or ‘the model’? That they were poor choices is in some ways a moot point. They didn’t obviously seamlessly fit. Selling Buendia upon promotion, not replacing Skipp’s role. Buying wingers for £20m (or £30m if you strangely include Sargent) at the top level where nobody plays them because you are then defensively too open??

Now we are in the classic position of ‘rebounding’ somewhat away from what we were, with the very dangerous addiction to creating a Prem-lite ersatz team for the one we think we would need to stay up in the Prem. 

That is not where we are. 

We will simply look a pound shop version of the lower Prem teams that scrap up every year. What identity is that? How is it different to what every other Champs team do? is that what brought us success before?

Make no mistake our current financial parameters mean that promotion is huge success. 

Investing in people, models, style of play, philosophy, training centre, youth is a great long-term way to maximise what little we have. 

Using Head Coaches as lightning rods for poor structural decisions, letting new managers change the script too much, failing to adhere to stated methodologies, principles and intentions, do not strike me as consistent with the model as stated. 

The system failed, the recruitment failed, the finances failed. Farke went. 

All because of the here-and-now requirements of the top level where our odds of even short-term survival for any period were very low. 

 Is what happened and what is happening now consistent with the model?

Parma 

 

 

Interesting. 

Thinking about the exact point raised here on where the lines of communication are between Head Coach and Sporting Director at Norwich - indeed whether, as some have reasonably posited, that Farke might have instinctively been ‘collegiate to a fault’ - 

Smith has today also said this:

‘"We've identified positions, what we need. On those positions there are profiles, and they get whittled down to players. The job of the recruitment team, and Stuart (Webber, sporting director) and Neil (Adams, assistant sporting director) is to contact those players and their clubs and agents, and set the wheels in motion."
 

If I didn’t know better, I would suggest that that is a wily, experienced football man who understands the importance of drawing certain lines in the sand. Less collegiate, more self-interested in preserving his own job longer, perhaps even a bit of a power land grab. Nonetheless perhaps not quite the tone Farke might have adopted. 

I have stated elsewhere previously that my belief is that Smith-Shakespeare would have made the selling of Buendia a back-me-or-sack-me moment. They have been around the block, they are football people. Mercenary, transitory possibly - of which Farke was genuinely, extraordinarily neither - though they feel the Shakespearean fulcrum moments, they know Weapons don’t grow on trees, or can be easily bought or grown by a club like Norwich. 

They know that ‘we need to feed Pukki’. They know momentum is everything. They know players are fragile. 

Setting his stall out quite decisively I’d say. Slight put down even? Telling them their job? These strategic land grabs are par for the corporate course. Good to have a bit of constructive tension…

Parma 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

13 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Who’s hysterical? Who’s talking about Saturday’s loss in relation to this topic?

I said the circumstances dictated it, that’s the point of why I thought he had to go. Fan pressure didn’t get him sacked, it wasn’t anywhere near the level of pressure Norwich managers have had in the past. Webber said he was sacked “to give the best opportunity preserve our premier league status”. He was sacked to roll the dice that someone else could get a tune out of the players. It made sense given Webber’s position.

Bailey said it clearly at the time: “It would also be churlish to lay everything at Farke’s door. The quality of Norwich’s summer recruitment remains questionable 11 games into the new season. Norwich’s view remains that their signings are good enough to earn survival this season and their decision to dismiss Farke effectively came down to feeling that a different head coach can get more out of the current group of players.”

So the question becomes why did he fail and then Smith didn’t do much better. You’ll find many who point the finger at the summer window, which as I said started with the Buendia sale and then ended with our failure to replace him using that money with any quality. Saying you can’t trace it is just completely untrue.

Plenty of teams play successful football without being overly reliant on one key player. If we genuinely can't possibly play football without Buendia then maybe the whole strategy was wrong. 

[Monty13 2,235]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Plenty of teams play successful football without being overly reliant on one key player. If we genuinely can't possibly play football without Buendia then maybe the whole strategy was wrong. 

Well that is to be fair, another great question.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

47 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Plenty of teams play successful football without being overly reliant on one key player. If we genuinely can't possibly play football without Buendia then maybe the whole strategy was wrong. 

Equally whole countries played exactly this way for decades.

My beloved Italy - and almost every Série A team for decades - always, always relied on a single number 10 fantasista to ‘make the play’.

Typically allied with a ‘bomber’ number 9 who was a structural pivot - or alternatively a flyer or poacher 9 - with a reasonable prosaic, tightly structured midfield, with perhaps a regista tempo passer to set the tone, all backed up by a catennaccio-tight 3 or 4 at the back. 

Many an Italian team ‘locked up tight’ and ‘gave them nothing to write about’ waiting simply for a magic moment from the single fantasista in terms of an assist, set piece or even a great goal. 

Low scoring, tight, strategically reliant on a single player. Almost always. For decades. 

Buendia plus Pukki would be considered everything you need. Tight as hell behind. No marauding full back, no wide midfielders with chalk on their boots, no expansive open spaces. Sit. Wait. Occasional magic.

Especially good if you are inferior. Or the opposition have weapons that worry you. Or it is a high level. Or the game is important. 

The 10 is everything. A great 10 plus a finisher nine is a suited A-K dream hand. 

Parma 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Monty13 2,235]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Interesting. 

Thinking about the exact point raised here on where the lines of communication are between Head Coach and Sporting Director at Norwich - indeed whether, as some have reasonably posited, that Farke might have instinctively been ‘collegiate to a fault’ - 

Smith has today also said this:

‘"We've identified positions, what we need. On those positions there are profiles, and they get whittled down to players. The job of the recruitment team, and Stuart (Webber, sporting director) and Neil (Adams, assistant sporting director) is to contact those players and their clubs and agents, and set the wheels in motion."
 

If I didn’t know better, I would suggest that that is a wily, experienced football man who understands the importance of drawing certain lines in the sand. Less collegiate, more self-interested in preserving his own job longer, perhaps even a bit of a power land grab. Nonetheless perhaps not quite the tone Farke might have adopted. 

I have stated elsewhere previously that my belief is that Smith-Shakespeare would have made the selling of Buendia a back-me-or-sack-me moment. They have been around the block, they are football people. Mercenary, transitory possibly - of which Farke was genuinely, extraordinarily neither - though they feel the Shakespearean fulcrum moments, they know Weapons don’t grow on trees, or can be easily bought or grown by a club like Norwich. 

They know that ‘we need to feed Pukki’. They know momentum is everything. They know players are fragile. 

Setting his stall out quite decisively I’d say. Slight put down even? Telling them their job? These strategic land grabs are par for the corporate course. Good to have a bit of constructive tension…

Parma 

I truly believe Farke signed his own death warrant last Summer, it’s my main criticism of him. I wanted him to be a long term success but I can’t look past him being complicit in his own downfall for exactly the reason you posit here, and it may be churlish but I can’t forgive him for that.

I wonder what Smith was promised to take the role? Again I agree, I could never see him accepting and agreeing to last summers business. It’s why while I have no warmth for him at all so far, I’m happy to wait this out and see what happens hoping he’s the strong character in the role I personally think Webber needs.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

Trying to move this forward, not for nothing is the Norfolk motto: “Du different”. On promotion last summer we sold our prize asset for many millions and squandered the proceeds on players most of whom we didn’t need and who in some cases were also sub-standard.

On relegation this summer we have (so far) sold no-one of note, with little in the way of cash coming in, and at some considerable expense (and a great deal of time-consuming scouting and negotiations) acquired three players to plug the gaps we left unfilled a year ago. Du different indeed.

Yes, last season was awful, and significantly self-inflicted, but it seems as if we have understood what went wrong and moved to repair the damage.

I am not sure about the idea that Smith has pushed back a bit against Webber, but I can believe it might be true. In any event I simply do not buy the idea that Webber is not just incompetent but intransigent as well. If Smith has pushed back it was probably at a half-open door.

One does not have to be quite as optimistic as Lake District Canary, for example, to imagine that with the salvageable remnants of last summer and the seemingly better judged acquisitions this time around the result come the morning after transfer deadline day will be a talented squad with most positions well covered. Then it will be up to Smith and Shakespeare to make it all work.

[chicken 2,627]

6 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Again we’ll never know. It’s my belief though if we’d stood firm and the window slammed shut there’s no way he wouldn’t have played. He had international ambitions, he wanted to play on the PL stage. Yes he wanted that move and the money, but in that situation his best move was to play and accept he’d get it next summer.

He could have downed tools and looked for a January move but that’s a major red flag for future clubs. The how does this look to future players/clubs works both ways.

Not really. It's part and parcel of modern football, you see it time and time again. Bournemouth had no problem signing Grabban for twice the amount they sold him for despite his no-show for us.

We've also signed players, and managers, who have done the same. It really isn't a big deal at all. Especially if they are in for a player from what is deemed a lesser club.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

8 minutes ago, chicken said:

Not really. It's part and parcel of modern football, you see it time and time again. Bournemouth had no problem signing Grabban for twice the amount they sold him for despite his no-show for us.

We've also signed players, and managers, who have done the same. It really isn't a big deal at all. Especially if they are in for a player from what is deemed a lesser club.

Was going to say - Leitner was an obvious example for us.

[Monty13 2,235]

14 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Trying to move this forward, not for nothing is the Norfolk motto: “Du different”. On promotion last summer we sold our prize asset for many millions and squandered the proceeds on players most of whom we didn’t need and who in some cases were also sub-standard.

On relegation this summer we have (so far) sold no-one of note, with little in the way of cash coming in, and at some considerable expense (and a great deal of time-consuming scouting and negotiations) acquired three players to plug the gaps we left unfilled a year ago. Du different indeed.

Yes, last season was awful, and significantly self-inflicted, but it seems as if we have understood what went wrong and moved to repair the damage.

I am not sure about the idea that Smith has pushed back a bit against Webber, but I can believe it might be true. In any event I simply do not buy the idea that Webber is not just incompetent but intransigent as well. If Smith has pushed back it was probably at a half-open door.

One does not have to be quite as optimistic as Lake District Canary, for example, to imagine that with the salvageable remnants of last summer and the seemingly better judged acquisitions this time around the result come the morning after transfer deadline day will be a talented squad with most positions well covered. Then it will be up to Smith and Shakespeare to make it all work.

That’s a great post. I believe in what’s being done this summer, it’s a bit slower than I’d like but presumably finances dictate that so it is what it is.

It definitely feels like lessons have been learned privately even if mistakes have not been admitted to publicly. I’d have happily seen Webber walk before his interview, and while I got nothing really of substance from what was said, I did walk away believing his passion for the project was still there and prepared to wait and see.

The signings so far have been exactly what I feel we need on paper and we’ve kept hold of key players and reintegration some others. I remain very optimistic of where the squad will be when the window closes. Whether that optimism remains when these players are fully bedded in only time will tell. All signings are gambles. Plus I still don’t know what to think of Smith, but I’d rather make my judgment when he has something that looks closer to the squad required.

[Monty13 2,235]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

Was going to say - Leitner was an obvious example for us.

A red flag is just a sign of potential danger, a warning, doesn’t necessarily stop anything happening. I’m not convinced it has no effect on the thoughts of future suitors for a player to create one though, especially not a pattern of behaviour.

Downing tools and not returning is the nuclear option.

I’d argue we potentially only got Leitner because of his history of being discarded by other clubs for whatever reason. We then ended up freezing him out. 

We shop for bargains and are not averse to picking up some damaged goods, bigger clubs can afford to be more picky.

[chicken 2,627]

39 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Trying to move this forward, not for nothing is the Norfolk motto: “Du different”. On promotion last summer we sold our prize asset for many millions and squandered the proceeds on players most of whom we didn’t need and who in some cases were also sub-standard.

On relegation this summer we have (so far) sold no-one of note, with little in the way of cash coming in, and at some considerable expense (and a great deal of time-consuming scouting and negotiations) acquired three players to plug the gaps we left unfilled a year ago. Du different indeed.

Yes, last season was awful, and significantly self-inflicted, but it seems as if we have understood what went wrong and moved to repair the damage.

I am not sure about the idea that Smith has pushed back a bit against Webber, but I can believe it might be true. In any event I simply do not buy the idea that Webber is not just incompetent but intransigent as well. If Smith has pushed back it was probably at a half-open door.

One does not have to be quite as optimistic as Lake District Canary, for example, to imagine that with the salvageable remnants of last summer and the seemingly better judged acquisitions this time around the result come the morning after transfer deadline day will be a talented squad with most positions well covered. Then it will be up to Smith and Shakespeare to make it all work.

Yup, IMHO I think it's always been quite clear for some time that the scouts do analysis which is organised by Webber/Adams, then with all info collected and a list of targets, Webber sits down with the head coach and "whittle" down to the players wanted.

I envisage this to be a little bit like how the end of the auditions in x-factor where each person could pitch for each candidate.

Last summer, Webber explained this and gave the example of PLM being one that Farke had wanted to get in. I believe he also stated that originally they felt he might be a bit unobtainable.

[king canary 7,609]

12 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

A red flag is just a sign of potential danger, a warning, doesn’t necessarily stop anything happening. I’m not convinced it has no effect on the thoughts of future suitors for a player to create one though, especially not a pattern of behaviour.

Downing tools and not returning is the nuclear option.

I’d argue we potentially only got Leitner because of his history of being discarded by other clubs for whatever reason. We then ended up freezing him out. 

We shop for bargains and are not averse to picking up some damaged goods, bigger clubs can afford to be more picky.

Yes Leitner feels like a terrible example- I'd argue his history of being difficult to work with is part of what made him so impossible to shift for us. Also I'm not sure he ever 'downed tools' he just fell out with people and got frozen out of multiple clubs.

Edited August 2, 2022 by king canary

[Monty13 2,235]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes Leitner feels like a terrible example- I'd argue his history of being difficult to work with is part of what made him so impossible to shift for us.

Just took a look, I knew Zurich only gave him one year, he’s been released again. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

22 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes Leitner feels like a terrible example- I'd argue his history of being difficult to work with is part of what made him so impossible to shift for us. Also I'm not sure he ever 'downed tools' he just fell out with people and got frozen out of multiple clubs.

His history of being awkward didn't stop a lot of clubs giving him a go, that was the point - and he hadn't really produced a season like Buendia did in the Champs.

And Buendia had only been awkward as clubs/agents had turned his head. Petulance on the pitch aside, he wasn't really a problem off it. I just doubt going nuclear would have been that much of a red flag for him with a reasonable Premier League season (albeit shoite at Project Restart) and an outstanding Champ season straight after.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

3 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

Just want to say that there are some really excellent posts on this thread.

I keep hearing that social media such as twitter are making message-boards like this redundant. I don't do these social media but I imagine it would be impossible to have a discussion as complex and multi-faceted as this one has turned out to be on twitter or whatever.

Edited August 2, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[Monty13 2,235]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

His history of being awkward didn't stop a lot of clubs giving him a go, that was the point - and he hadn't really produced a season like Buendia did in the Champs.

And Buendia had only been awkward as clubs/agents had turned his head. Petulance on the pitch aside, he wasn't really a problem off it. I just doubt going nuclear would have been that much of a red flag for him with a reasonable Premier League season (albeit shoite at Project Restart) and an outstanding Champ season straight after.

I think the whole player power push for the move is par for the course, agreed. Plenty of players do everything they can to try to engineer the move they want.

When the window shuts and the club holds firm though, you really don’t see many not return to play.

That’s my point, that’s what I meant would have been a red flag if Buendia had. I just don’t think it was the likely outcome for the reasons I gave, can’t see how it was in his interest to push the nuclear button personally.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,138]

People seem to want to only remember the virtues of 'Farkeball' while ignoring it's limitations. Some other top level and Championship clubs play passing football, but our version under Farke was so passive off the ball by comparison. While we had so many good aspects to our play why did we as a team just gently trot back when we lost the ball? Other pessesion based teams either press really hard to win it back or sprint back into shape to stick 10 men behind the ball, this is why we were always so vulnerable on the counter attack. 

Another annoyance I always had was that player more than 10-15 yards away from the ball never seemed to engage in the game. So if we went through our usual pattern of playing it out from the back, when we gave it to a FB to move forward nobody would come and offer him an option or at most one player would so we often lost the ball as a result, it's called pass and move and so many players seemed to switch off when we were building play if they weren't right near the man with the ball. Other teams who play possession football in the PL have the energy to get around the pitch and offer the passer an option, we just seemed too static except for in the immediate vicinity of the ball. 

Another thing I've noticed is that other passing teams were never afraid to play a good cross field ball to create some space whereas we just seemed unwilling to do anything but pass it 5 yards to the nearest team mate which meant we could never deal with a press. I thought that was Gilmours job but he rarely tried anything. 

These problems are why I wanted Farke gone and thought he was flawed at the top level even if he were to have better players to work with. Other teams now days are just too quick, athletic and tactically well drilled to allow us to pass through them using short, one touch passing. It works in the Championship (although I think we'd still struggle to score goals without that Buendia-Pukki link up playing this way) but it was never going to work in the PL. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

54 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I think the whole player power push for the move is par for the course, agreed. Plenty of players do everything they can to try to engineer the move they want.

When the window shuts and the club holds firm though, you really don’t see many not return to play.

That’s my point, that’s what I meant would have been a red flag if Buendia had. I just don’t think it was the likely outcome for the reasons I gave, can’t see how it was in his interest to push the nuclear button personally.

Possibly not that likely as the nuclear option is by definition the worst case. The spectrum really is from very mild dissatisfaction to the nuclear option, but the core question is how much does dissatisfaction impact on his possible performance and how much of it also hits the team in general. So he might return to play, but how well does he play, as a now much more disgruntled player, under those circumstances?

Only Webber/Farke would know how dissatisfied Buendia really was (or indeed how his agent put it), and indeed know what impact his dissatisfaction could have had on the team - or indeed know what measures were taken when that disgruntlement initially came around.

[Monty13 2,235]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Possibly not that likely as the nuclear option is by definition the worst case. The spectrum really is from very mild dissatisfaction to the nuclear option, but the core question is how much does dissatisfaction impact on his possible performance and how much of it also hits the team in general. So he might return to play, but how well does he play, as a now much more disgruntled player, under those circumstances?

Only Webber/Farke would know how dissatisfied Buendia really was (or indeed how his agent put it), and indeed know what impact his dissatisfaction could have had on the team - or indeed know what measures were taken when that disgruntlement initially came around.

They are fair points, but they also need to be weighed against Parma’s point that the fact selling him almost certainly had a negativity affect on the other players. Again I’d argue though that coming back and playing in a disgruntled manner wasn’t in his interests if still here. I’m not doubting there would be an impact initially, but it was a long season.

I’d also argue only Buendia knew what he was likely to do. He was playing poker and the club folded before the first bet. Webber and Farke could only make an assessment, but they had been there before and got him playing again to the highest level he ever had, all after a pay cut and in a division he really didn’t want to be in.