Parma’s State of the Nation

[chicken 2,604]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Don't ever be normal. I've avoided that label all my life. We weren't put on this earth to be normal😂

100%

Pretty much live my life by that.

Established early on that to be "normal" you had to "follow" some group at school etc. Why should what other people think determine my own path? Especially when the main choices always seemed to be "the cool kids" who went off in a big group to smoke out of sight or the "yes sir" kids who just got on with what they were told never questioning, never really having much curiosity.

Make your own choices, don't be normal, be a floating voter, don't staple colours to a mast and refuse to move them. Constantly question, challenge if needed, listen to all, make your own mind up given the information available. 

[Monty13 2,229]

40 minutes ago, chicken said:

Means literally nothing.

Honestly, and I hate to say this, but if you think contracts mean anything in the modern day footballing world, your concepts of football are probably 20-25yrs out of date.

As I have said, you created a completely hypothetical situation that suited your "fan connection" rather than relate to real examples of which there are plenty out there.
 

My position is that once a player has made it clear that they want to leave, leaving is inevitable.

Not only that, we have a relatively good understanding of Buendia, the club had an even better one.

It takes a leap of faith to believe that the club didn't want to keep Buendia and had tried to do so. Like I say, we know something along those lines happened the summer before.

As I said before, the main issue is that you keep making it sound like a straight choice, an balanced choice. That you could simply say "No Emi, you are staying, tough. No move for you, no matter how much you want it, you are staying." And that's it. Dust your hands off as you walk away with a wry smile.

That's never, ever how it works. Again, we have examples. One example involves a far better model of player - Pukki. Another involves the player at Leicester that simply refused to play. Both kicked up a bit of a storm. Pukki through his agent (followed by a couple of weird posts on here and elsewhere) which ultimately ended with him saying he'd see out his contract.

However, the big difference with Pukki is that he is in the last year of his contract now and he is 100% in control. It is unlikely that we'll get a fee for him. Though it is likely we are not concerned about that due to his age and the fact we signed him on a free, not to generate funds but to be a longer standing member of the squad for the younger players to play with.

And that's the point. It isn't a 50/50 choice, not even close.

Conspiracy - sort of. You want to attach a narrative that is contrary to what appears to be the accepted narrative by the people who you say are reliable sources. No matter the timescales the one thing none of them have suggested is false is that the move was driven by the player wanting to leave.

As I said before, with Buendia, I don't believe there was much of a choice purely based on what we know. There isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise. You can choose to believe there is an alternative narrative, but there isn't anything that particularly corroborates that.

You also appear to refuse to believe that Buendia would become an issue if "forced" to stay. We actually have knowledge that he could become an issue - Aug 2020 for example, but also on the pitch when things weren't going his way. I'm not suggesting he would have completely gone AWOL, but I think the evidence is there that he would become an issue. We also don't know what his agent is like, and whether, like many agents it would seem, he would unsettle their player and continue to look for suitors no matter the clubs stance. Playing this out over a season that would already be difficult enough for us. Now, sure, this also takes a leap of faith, but there is more evidence for this than of Buendia accepting the decision happily and playing on as if nothing had happened - which is what your suggestion has been. Just a very simple and naive "we choose not to sell". 

I suppose I would also disagree slightly with one thing Parma says about Buendia too, in that he is a weapon, but so far, he appears to have been a weapon custom made for our use. Now, he could go on and shake that, but he isn't proving to be a weapon as of yet for Villa. That he was a weapon for us is key, not anyone else. But if Pukki is half a weapon, then I wonder what Buendia would have been like in last season's set up under Farke...then Smith. Would he have been reduced to half a weapon too? 

Like I say, it's all immaterial, it's the nexus point because we didn't uncover the next Buendia... in reality though, I think we had looked to find similar players before. I think they hoped Dowell could replicate some of it. They certainly hoped that Cantwell would continue to develop as well. Rashica was also clearly hoped to step up, and possesses more pace. That none of these happened just underlines how hard it is to find a player like Buendia. Arguably the last one we had was Hoolahan - I'd say Maddison but we had him for one season and again, was clearly going to play consistently at a higher level. 
 

The bit in bold is the bit I agree with entirely, and that’s why I think it was such an important pivotal moment.

The club made clear they wanted to sell a player to fund the recruitment. It’s pretty clear from reporting in hindsight the only player with the interest and cash likely forthcoming that window was Buendia.

The only independent source (I’m aware of) that confirms Emi definitely wanted away is Bailey, and he is clear that was after Webbers interview and after the bidding process started.

Webber completely spun his interview, as of course he has, while allowing no scrutiny and cross examination of his claims to confirm the details of what he was saying. That isn’t conspiracy, it’s just reality.

You maintain it is a leap of faith the club didn’t want to keep Buendia. I say it’s obvious. You don’t tout your best players for sale if you want to keep them.

The choice was don’t sell a star player and have virtually no funds again, or roll the dice and make the best use of the money you get. He literally told us that before doing it. The strategy was laid out.

All the reporting is clear Norwich strategy was sell one of the best players to fund a restructuring. That was the narrative and it was one journalist and pundits alike raised eyebrows at. I’m not sure where you get the idea this is some alternative narrative.

It was shear hubris IMO, we were already a weak side with Skipp gone, with Emi sold the task was almost impossible. 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Monty13

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

I miss the days when the trendy jargon buzzword was pivot, now it’s all about weapons 😁

[Mengo 821]

13 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

I miss the days when the trendy jargon buzzword was pivot, now it’s all about weapons 😁

😉 

"Last time I sent Daniel to war without a gun. Now he's got a gun, a few grenades and a bazooka, we just haven't quite got the tank yet."

And what a load of Sh!te you talk big stu

Weapons my A$$. 

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

57 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

The bit in bold is the bit I agree with entirely, and that’s why I think it was such an important pivotal moment.

The club made clear they wanted to sell a player to fund the recruitment. It’s pretty clear from reporting in hindsight the only player with the interest and cash likely forthcoming that window was Buendia.

The only independent source (I’m aware of) that confirms Emi definitely wanted away is Bailey, and he is clear that was after Webbers interview and after the bidding process started.

Webber completely spun his interview, as of course he has, while allowing no scrutiny and cross examination of his claims to confirm the details of what he was saying. That isn’t conspiracy, it’s just reality.

You maintain it is a leap of faith the club didn’t want to keep Buendia. I say it’s obvious. You don’t tout your best players for sale if you want to keep them.

The choice was don’t sell a star player and have virtually no funds again, or roll the dice and make the best use of the money you get. He literally told us that before doing it. The strategy was laid out.

All the reporting is clear Norwich strategy was sell one of the best players to fund a restructuring. That was the narrative and it was one journalist and pundits alike raised eyebrows at. I’m not sure where you get the idea this is some alternative narrative.

It was shear hubris IMO, we were already a weak side with Skipp gone, with Emi sold the task was almost impossible. 

They paid an astronomical sum for Buendia. Fact is that Webber insisted Buendia wanted out, but nobody at Norwich, Aston Villa, or Buendia himself has said otherwise; you're basically calling Webber a liar with no evidence to back up the accusation.

Edited November 6, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Monty13 2,229]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

They paid an astronomical sum for Buendia. Fact is that Webber insisted Buendia wanted out, but nobody at Norwich, Aston Villa, or Buendia himself has said otherwise; you're basically calling Webber a liar with no evidence to back up the accusation.

No I’m not, so maybe read what I’m actually  saying before butting in and making accusations.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

The only independent source (I’m aware of) that confirms Emi definitely wanted away is Bailey, and he is clear that was after Webbers interview and after the bidding process started.

Webber completely spun his interview, as of course he has, while allowing no scrutiny and cross examination of his claims to confirm the details of what he was saying. That isn’t conspiracy, it’s just reality.

 

7 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

No I’m not, so maybe read what I’m actually  saying before butting in and making accusations.

Webber was absolutely explicit in his claim that Buendia made it absolutely clear he wanted out. You've explicitly challenged his honesty in the interview in the paragraph I quoted, with no evidence to support your point.

[Monty13 2,229]

15 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

Webber was absolutely explicit in his claim that Buendia made it absolutely clear he wanted out. You've explicitly challenged his honesty in the interview in the paragraph I quoted, with no evidence to support your point.

No, I’ve questioned the timing and what initiated that approach from Buendia.

Webber would be an absolute moron to do an interview (especially one he doesn’t have to do) and lie.

He’d also be an absolute moron to conduct a PR exercise with the underlying purpose of placating the fanbase and not spin it in the best light for the actions took by him and the club.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

8 hours ago, Taiwan Canary said:

Almost happened once in the first half. Overall, I thought we were strangely, simultaneously more solid AND more open yesterday. 

 

Thought he was anonymous after he came on, yesterday was not a game situation/ "topic" which played to his strengths.

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy any green shoots of weapons/tactital situations which opposition coaches would need to take heed of on display yesterday? (Obviously plenty of watering/fertilizer needed.)

I fear that although I approach football from a pessemistic constitution; similar to your good pal @nutty nigel I may, in fact, be a hopeless romantic.

I’ve thought about this @Taiwan Canary.

No there are no weapons really. Though just to re-clarify you can have very good players that are not weapons, and conversely not very good players that are weapons.

To explain by using extremes, I could probably argue that Kevin de Bruyne is not technically a weapon, he is ‘just’ brilliant (that is weaponish of course, I know I’m reaching, humour me), though Andy Carroll - who is now not the greatest footballer - still is a weapon. 

The weapon can do certain ‘special teams’ things that you cannot as an opposition coach ignore. You have to change your own preferred tactical  blueprint for your own side, to take account of the the opposition’s weapon. 

Carroll gets thrown on in the 80th minute. They go high and long and hit early deep balls to him. He is not mobile, but he’ll win the headers. You definitely can’t sit deep and let crosses rain in. So you have to get one in front one behind, get your midfielders to be alert to second balls, try to get wide players alert - and quite possibly pressing a little higher - to stop full backs at source.

Conversely what exactly are you going to do about Kevin de Bruyne? He’s just better than anything you’ve got (He is a weapon with his set pieces too, so you really can’t give free kicks away), you certainly have to go 3 in the middle if you don’t already and you have to keep a tight catenaccio 4 with very short spaces between them to prevent slide rule balls. Ok so he is a weapon, but you know what I mean now… 🤗

Anyhoo, we have nothing like either of them. Only Pukki. I won’t be disingenuous to @Petriix and - here’s some hope for you and @nutty nigel @Taiwan Canary - will acknowledge that when clumsy Sarge starts driving hard and cutting into spaces, looking to shoot, he can look hard to stop, though I’m afraid he is ‘a level’ player. With a fraction more time and space, and a fraction less diligent and counter-threatening opposition he can look quite a handful. Take those things away (higher level) and I am afraid he doesn’t and won’t. 

Sara and Nunez are interesting additions that represent gambles on a number of levels and have novelty value and some nice moments. We will see whether diligence and positional discipline come to both or either. I am not at all sure I have seen it yet.

The good news: Love Nunez’ free kicks, that’s a weapon actually, as he genuinely strikes them all well and correctly. Sara’s corners also please me, they should be more weaponised, though I dislike our attacking of corners. I don’t yet see the quality of runs and movement I would expect. I am not knocking Alan Russell, who has good pedigree and valuable ideas, though Gibson and Hanley are simply not good enough at attacking headers (as opposed to defensive headers, two very different techniques). Kenny is the best at getting into good positions, though he is not as good at finishing as he might be either. Sarge is good in the air, though makes poor runs, gives free kicks away cheaply and is too ‘noisy’ about it all, often getting ‘tagged’ by referees (and thus treated sharper, to his and our own harm).

 It’s a wasted opportunity from one of our very limited weapon-like things (best phrase I could find). I imagine Alan Russell is a bit frustrated by it and Smith might well want to add someone who can profit from these deliveries better. It’s a huge source of cheap goals that we don’t get. 

Aarons can be weaponish when he is really on song. His advantage is his deep position - with often plenty of time and space - and his ability to cut both ways and accelerate past players. Wonderful in full flow. Hard to defend against sometimes, so opposition coaches have worked out not to. They actually overload his side, pump balls high and get him defending. Not a great compliment really. He’ll have to overcome that to move on (and not just be distant back up). His sliding last-ditch save was absolutely magnificent yesterday by the way, I thought it got a bit overlooked. Every bit as good as a goal I’d say. That’s what’s he can do. 

Cantwell I desperately want to do ….well?…better? It is there, striking cleanly off both sides, magnetising the ball at his best, though - sorry Todd - I do always think of Brian Clough when I watch him play, what he said about how he achieved his success with provincial players: ‘They come to me with false confidence, I strip that away and give them real confidence’

Onel flatters to deceive,  Dowell doesn’t run hard enough and gets bypassed too easily, he also isn’t nasty enough. Psychologists studied the best players, trying to find out what really made them great. They found all the things you’d expect: drive, determination, will to win, an attitude of continual improvement…but that was just the averagely good ones…they found that the very best had all of that, though equally just hated losing, couldn’t bear it. It Pathologically troubled them. One doesn’t get any sense of that from Dowell. 

We have finally woken up - I think Smith totally knew it from the outset to be fair - to the fact that we need the role of CDM desperately. You need 2 good CDMs at least actually. To have none in the Premier was madness. The only way I could forgive it, is if we totally threw everything at getting Skipp and it fell through on us….though a Plan B was surely in a drawer somewhere too?…Quite how that drawer ended up marked ‘Gilmour’ is far beyond me. 

The Gunn-Krul axis is far too good - and surely too expensive - for this level. So that is a positive that must surely be fairly short-lived. 

The Hanley-Ono-Gibson triumvirate is super strong at this level. Though Gibson has been strangely below par, his passing can be quite sweet, with good range and accuracy. Perhaps Omo can start scoring a few more goals too, he has quite a decent presence and eye I think. 

Giannoulis-McCallum is of course good enough. McCallum has something about him too. I like him. Giannoulis can look dynamic and daft in the same minute. Bit frustrating for coaches that. 

Ramsey is a good player and it’s perfectly ok to have good loan players at 10 - or even 9 - if you don’t have them. Assist and scoring players don’t need to care much about the team, they can be selfish and just want to look good, get headlines and further their careers. It fits the space in the jigsaw anyway..

Pukki is brilliant.  He is and always has been our weapon. The only issue - and anyone (any forward) that has dropped down the leagues from a good level knows this - is that you are reliant on everybody else. And they don’t and can’t think as fast as you. They make the right pass half a second too late. Lots of what you have doesn’t get used. It’s frustrating. It can make you snatch at what does come your way. Pukki is better than this, he has a world class temperament and a supreme level of movement.

We’re just not good enough for him. And we are increasingly not completely set up to serve him either. 

Whisper it, but the way we are starting to play looks better suited (designed?) more for Sarge.

That’s where the money went and we probably don’t have any more to spend. Strikers are bloody expensive. 

Personally I dread the day we don’t have Pukki anymore, though - as @chicken says - it is the model. Rinse and repeat. 

We have bet some of the farm on Sargent and we are - again - going to bank on him. 
 

If I was feeling a bit Norwich Private Eye, I would say this was fine. He will fit our requirements perfectly. 
 

Somewhere between 8th and 4th in the second tier. 

Parma

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Parma, oddly I think going by your definitions, which I accept, Hernandez is a weapon, rather as you have Carroll as such. He really isn't very good, mainly because there is hardly ever any end product.* But even if defenders know this statistically (if there is an XG type thing for creating chances then his will be sub-optimal...) they cannot assume that is always going to be the case and so he is often double-marked.

*By contrast the only time I saw Mumba play he came on as in effect a left-winger with about 15 minutes to go in a 0-0 with I think Swansea, terrorised the right side of their defence, and laid on the only goal.

[chicken 2,604]

4 hours ago, Monty13 said:

The bit in bold is the bit I agree with entirely, and that’s why I think it was such an important pivotal moment.

The club made clear they wanted to sell a player to fund the recruitment. It’s pretty clear from reporting in hindsight the only player with the interest and cash likely forthcoming that window was Buendia.

The only independent source (I’m aware of) that confirms Emi definitely wanted away is Bailey, and he is clear that was after Webbers interview and after the bidding process started.

Webber completely spun his interview, as of course he has, while allowing no scrutiny and cross examination of his claims to confirm the details of what he was saying. That isn’t conspiracy, it’s just reality.

You maintain it is a leap of faith the club didn’t want to keep Buendia. I say it’s obvious. You don’t tout your best players for sale if you want to keep them.

The choice was don’t sell a star player and have virtually no funds again, or roll the dice and make the best use of the money you get. He literally told us that before doing it. The strategy was laid out.

All the reporting is clear Norwich strategy was sell one of the best players to fund a restructuring. That was the narrative and it was one journalist and pundits alike raised eyebrows at. I’m not sure where you get the idea this is some alternative narrative.

It was shear hubris IMO, we were already a weak side with Skipp gone, with Emi sold the task was almost impossible. 

This is converse to interviews with Buendia during that season with foreign media. It is also converse to what we know about the previous summer. I think you may be confusing Buendia wanting to go to Villa after the bidding process had started. That's different to having wanted to leave before that.

Again, if you are going to suggest something is spun, you need evidence to the contrary. And you don't need to cross examine Webber, there are other players. Again, Pukki's agent is a great example of this. Again, Ajer in his own transfer saga.

"Virtually no funds" we spent around £60m didn't we? So around half of that is accounted for by Buendia. We'd already spent a further £12m on Gibson and Giannoulis. We'd have had around £18m. I suspect we probably wouldn't have gone for Tzolis on a reduced budget. Without the "fan connection" you can probably see that they went for a Buendia replacement in Rashica... to use Parma's terms, they hoped Rashica could be a weapon, not a like for like Buendia replacement.

I would also say they hoped that Tzolis could become a weapon, a weapon in waiting, as they said at the time they expected him to be more one for the future. I suspect, used a bit during the campaign when needed and if form permitted with the idea that Rashica might attract be the weapon for the now and Tzolis the weapon for tomorrow. 

Tomorrows are a bit of a luxury for us in the premier league where margins are much tighter. Easier in the championship where those gambles tend to not come with an EPL 'tax' levied by clubs around the world that see the league and £/$ appear on their eyeballs like in cartoons.

As I say, there has been no evidence to support disputing the narrative that stands. You can claim it's spin, but no one in the media appears to be, mainly because it really isn't that unusual. As I say, we have seen it before and since. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Parma, oddly I think going by your definitions, which I accept, Hernandez is a weapon, rather as you have Carroll as such. He really isn't very good, mainly because there is hardly ever any end product.* But even if defenders know this statistically (if there is an XG type thing for creating chances then his will be sub-optimal...) they cannot assume that is always going to be the case and so he is often double-marked.

*By contrast the only time I saw Mumba play he came on as in effect a left-winger with about 15 minutes to go in a 0-0 with I think Swansea, terrorised the right side of their defence, and laid on the only goal.

You are exactly right. I thought it was on this thread - though it may have been another - I said exactly that of Onel.

Parma 

[Barham Blitz 652]

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

We’re just not good enough for him. And we are increasingly not completely set up to serve him either. 

Whisper it, but the way we are starting to play looks better suited (designed?) more for Sarge.

Suited and designed.  That has been the way since we were last promoted.  Sargent was surely signed to replace Pukki in the short to mid-term in that 4-3-3 because surely nobody could think that approach would get the best out of Teemu or indeed that Teemu would represent the optimum focal point for that approach.  That he did as well as he managed is bordering on the miraculous.  That he got the opportunity to is probably a testament to the collective failings of the new signings up front last season.

My only surprise is that nobody has really come in for him in the last few years.  He'd be a great signing for a Brighton or similar.

I would actually be intrigued to know if Teemu could coach that sort of movement and decision making into a younger player like Sargent or if it is something more instinctive.

[Petriix 2,834]

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy, I totally get what you're saying... But... I don't think anyone would have called Buendia a weapon at first. Players develop. Sargent looked absolutely useless initially but is showing some genuine promise. Sara has... something? Nunez too. Not there yet, but glimpses, getting more frequent.

Who knows if they (any one of them) will go beyond their 'level'. It's dynamic and emerging. I've seen a glimmer of hope, nothing more. Let's wait and see rather than write them off.*

*Ok, fine, I'm happy to write off Rashica and Placheta and Onel I doubt will deliver more than we've already seen. 

[Monty13 2,229]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

This is converse to interviews with Buendia during that season with foreign media. It is also converse to what we know about the previous summer. I think you may be confusing Buendia wanting to go to Villa after the bidding process had started. That's different to having wanted to leave before that.

Again, if you are going to suggest something is spun, you need evidence to the contrary. And you don't need to cross examine Webber, there are other players. Again, Pukki's agent is a great example of this. Again, Ajer in his own transfer saga.

"Virtually no funds" we spent around £60m didn't we? So around half of that is accounted for by Buendia. We'd already spent a further £12m on Gibson and Giannoulis. We'd have had around £18m. I suspect we probably wouldn't have gone for Tzolis on a reduced budget. Without the "fan connection" you can probably see that they went for a Buendia replacement in Rashica... to use Parma's terms, they hoped Rashica could be a weapon, not a like for like Buendia replacement.

I would also say they hoped that Tzolis could become a weapon, a weapon in waiting, as they said at the time they expected him to be more one for the future. I suspect, used a bit during the campaign when needed and if form permitted with the idea that Rashica might attract be the weapon for the now and Tzolis the weapon for tomorrow. 

Tomorrows are a bit of a luxury for us in the premier league where margins are much tighter. Easier in the championship where those gambles tend to not come with an EPL 'tax' levied by clubs around the world that see the league and £/$ appear on their eyeballs like in cartoons.

As I say, there has been no evidence to support disputing the narrative that stands. You can claim it's spin, but no one in the media appears to be, mainly because it really isn't that unusual. As I say, we have seen it before and since. 

No, I’m not confusing, I don’t know why I repeatedly keep having to tell you the same thing. I’m well aware Emi had previously wanted to leave when we were in the championship. 

“Despite us not wanting Emi to leave, once he made it clear that he wanted to go to Aston Villa, and they reached the level of deal we have got to, we were left with little option."

Webber’s quote when Emi was sold is pretty symptomatic of my whole issue with the saga.

Apparently we didn’t want him to leave? Yet we literally publicly touted him to clubs to fund the majority of summer spending and apparently started a bidding process for him. It’s completely contradictory.

Note Webbers admission that only once he made it clear he wanted to go to Villa and the money was right was was when he felt there was little option. We know this didn’t happen till after Webber made his selling players interview and after the bidding process started thanks to Bailey (there’s a reason he’s on the naughty step).

Everybody knows it’s spin Chicken there’s nothing to dispute because A) it’s expected and B) Webber won’t take any follow up questions that may give more insights.

Listen to the Pinkun or On the ball podcasts and you will get more insight to the reporters actual opinions beyond reporting what’s been said.

I’m sure they hoped a lot of things post the sale and summer, it’s clear they still did when he made his interview in October asking for time and only post relegation did the true defence of the clear failure start.

Honestly I’m just truly bored of this now. If you want to believe everything Webber says in stage managed PR interviews, and more importantly not wonder about what’s not being said and what he doesn’t want to be scrutinised on you’re free to, as I keep saying.

I’m going to choose to believe what best fits to me given it was signalled from the start. We sold him because we wanted to sell someone and he was the only one anyone was interested in.

Continue to have a massive issue with anyone that reads it that way if you want, up to you. However if it wasn’t true Webber need only have modified his statements in such a way as to make it impossible to read it that way (it would change my mind if he had) and yet (for him) he has chosen his later words very carefully, standard PR.

[Monty13 2,229]

8 hours ago, chicken said:

Make your own choices, don't be normal, be a floating voter, don't staple colours to a mast and refuse to move them. Constantly question, challenge if needed, listen to all, make your own mind up given the information available. 

Except if NCFC TV tell you something apparently.

[canarybubbles 1,915]

14 hours ago, chicken said:

100%

Pretty much live my life by that.

Established early on that to be "normal" you had to "follow" some group at school etc. Why should what other people think determine my own path? Especially when the main choices always seemed to be "the cool kids" who went off in a big group to smoke out of sight or the "yes sir" kids who just got on with what they were told never questioning, never really having much curiosity.

Make your own choices, don't be normal, be a floating voter, don't staple colours to a mast and refuse to move them. Constantly question, challenge if needed, listen to all, make your own mind up given the information available. 

For me, this sounds like the kind of babble you get in self-help books. Or Webber when he talks to The Times.

Edited November 7, 2022 by canarybubbles

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

10 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

Suited and designed.  That has been the way since we were last promoted.  Sargent was surely signed to replace Pukki in the short to mid-term in that 4-3-3 because surely nobody could think that approach would get the best out of Teemu or indeed that Teemu would represent the optimum focal point for that approach.  That he did as well as he managed is bordering on the miraculous.  That he got the opportunity to is probably a testament to the collective failings of the new signings up front last season.

My only surprise is that nobody has really come in for him in the last few years.  He'd be a great signing for a Brighton or similar.

I would actually be intrigued to know if Teemu could coach that sort of movement and decision making into a younger player like Sargent or if it is something more instinctive.

Super post that. Your analysis looks entirely logical.

I accept it. Though I’m scared of what it means. 

Parma 

[Rottingdean canary 117]

A couple of things.  First, Parma makes a suggestion that basing our team around Sarge up front will do very well if our aim is to finish between 4th and 8th in the Championship.  I am at a stage where I'd be happy with that provided the general quality of play is pretty good and exciting.  Even when I watch a Premier League match described as a "poor match between two poor sides" I end up thinking that those teams are way too good for us - maybe I haven't recovered from last season.  I don't enjoy watching EPL matches nowadays even if they're really good if I start thinking about how we might compete with them.  I prefer to thinking of it almost as another competition which has nothing to do with us - then I can enjoy it.

I actually quite enjoyed Saturday's match.  I thought it was a good performance and I'm happy watching us play like that even though it may not have been as good as Farkeball at its best - and even though we might lack weapons.  A few special moments from Sara in the first half and Max's rejuvenated performance were great to watch.

My second point comes from the news that Hasenhuttl has been sacked. The Guardian report from their match yesterday said "their pressing game is gone, replaced with a method that involves bypassing the central areas – criminally underusing James Ward-Prowse – and playing on the break."  That sounds as though he/they came to a similar view to Webber that we needed to move away from Farkeball in order to survive/flourish in the Premier League.  It doesn't seem to have worked for them so far..

 

[shefcanary 2,385]

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

Super post that. Your analysis looks entirely logical.

I accept it. Though I’m scared of what it means. 

Parma 

Between the pair of you, I think that nails our State of the Nation.

I do sense a corner has turned this season, ditching Webber's "we need to prepare for EPL and only use 4-3-3" with a false assumption that it would get us promoted, to a more pragmatic "let's just get promoted first" then try again over the close season to make minor amendments to the plan.

And I do mean it that Webber has been driving the 4-3-3. Smith strikes me as a pragmatic bloke, I'm grateful he has finally had words with Stu and cleared the decks!

[kirku 1,332]

58 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Between the pair of you, I think that nails our State of the Nation.

I do sense a corner has turned this season, ditching Webber's "we need to prepare for EPL and only use 4-3-3" with a false assumption that it would get us promoted, to a more pragmatic "let's just get promoted first" then try again over the close season to make minor amendments to the plan.

And I do mean it that Webber has been driving the 4-3-3. Smith strikes me as a pragmatic bloke, I'm grateful he has finally had words with Stu and cleared the decks!

I don't understand the recruitment rationale if they set out to play 4-3-3, who are the wide players that would be expected to pose a threat? We got rid of the ones that vaguely fit that description..

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

3 hours ago, Rottingdean canary said:

A couple of things.  First, Parma makes a suggestion that basing our team around Sarge up front will do very well if our aim is to finish between 4th and 8th in the Championship.  I am at a stage where I'd be happy with that provided the general quality of play is pretty good and exciting.  Even when I watch a Premier League match described as a "poor match between two poor sides" I end up thinking that those teams are way too good for us - maybe I haven't recovered from last season.  I don't enjoy watching EPL matches nowadays even if they're really good if I start thinking about how we might compete with them.  I prefer to thinking of it almost as another competition which has nothing to do with us - then I can enjoy it.

I actually quite enjoyed Saturday's match.  I thought it was a good performance and I'm happy watching us play like that even though it may not have been as good as Farkeball at its best - and even though we might lack weapons.  A few special moments from Sara in the first half and Max's rejuvenated performance were great to watch.

My second point comes from the news that Hasenhuttl has been sacked. The Guardian report from their match yesterday said "their pressing game is gone, replaced with a method that involves bypassing the central areas – criminally underusing James Ward-Prowse – and playing on the break."  That sounds as though he/they came to a similar view to Webber that we needed to move away from Farkeball in order to survive/flourish in the Premier League.  It doesn't seem to have worked for them so far..

 

Do you know what? I think this post brings us full circle.

Webber - whether club-wise or personal ambition-wise - couldn’t bear to accept we had reached a sporting ceiling, so sacked Farke. 

The glossy 2022 Annual Report could not be clearer that the driving goal behind every decision, every investment, every forecaster meeting, is to retain top level Premier status. 

That is the sole economic and sporting driver, benchmark and focus. 

And yet, and yet…..

@Rottingdean canary doesn’t really want it, the football you have to play is attritional, you cannot be ‘the protagonist’ and almost none of your players are good enough upon promotion. Any that are, the self-sustaining model can’t afford to keep. And certainly not for long enough to crack the strategic ice to the next level. 

Farke’s positional play methodology was demonstrably too good for the Championship, though only the preserve of the superior at the top level. 

In fact as @Rottingdean canary painfully - and sadly fairly - says, even the lower-mid table scrappers are miles better than us. 

So you you keep solving yesterday’s problems. You bring a pragmatic lower Prem style coach in to manage a team that doesn’t have the coherent swarming flair to be special in tier 2, though you do develop a team that looks a diluted version of low prem scrappers that just sees you embroiled in a lower league me-too bunfight. Now of course with no weapons and nobody at all good enough to compete at the top level.

Nor do you have the money to ‘do a Fulham-Forest’ - and almost certainly nor should you - so how central really is that Annual Report driving ambition?

Strangely, Webber did demonstrate the centrality of the ambition by sacking Farke.

In many ways that was coherent with the stated objective. Though as @Barham Blitz and now @Rottingdean canary have shown, other plans, decisions and sporting approaches do not seem to adhere quite so stringently. 

I’m afraid We simply wouldn’t have made many of the decisions we have made if we had more money. A bit more access to cash, a little bit more wiggle room for weapons and ephemeral nexus point opportunities. 

We have got used to them coming around reasonably often. They don’t have to, do they @nutty nigel @ricardo?

Parma

 

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[shefcanary 2,385]

1 hour ago, kirku said:

I don't understand the recruitment rationale if they set out to play 4-3-3, who are the wide players that would be expected to pose a threat? We got rid of the ones that vaguely fit that description..

Agreed, that is down to poor recruitment, as you say, Rashica and Tzolis were supposed to be the solution, why however they persisted with 4-3-3 nearly 20 odd games without the personnel can only be down to dogma!

Edited November 7, 2022 by shefcanary

[Cowboy 197]

Cor! There's a lot of words on this page.

[kirku 1,332]

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

Do you know what? I think this post brings us full circle.

This is why I called the "crisis" existential..

[Barham Blitz 652]

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

Webber - whether club-wise or personal ambition-wise - couldn’t bear to accept we had reached a sporting ceiling, so sacked Farke. 

The glossy 2022 Annual Report could not be clearer that the driving goal behind every decision, every investment, every forecaster meeting, is to retain top level Premier status. That is the sole economic and sporting driver, benchmark and focus. 

And yet, and yet [...] so how central really is that Annual Report driving ambition ?  Strangely, Webber did demonstrate the centrality of the ambition by sacking Farke.

It all comes down to this central issue doesn't it ? 

Whether or not you are in the Farke had to go camp or not (I am firmly in the "not" camp btw) Webber tore up the blueprint that he himself had created, binned the concept of incremental progression (the Top 26 metric,) the model regarding playing style (and arguably elements of the recruitment process) and threw the manager who had helped make all that possible under the metaphorical bus in the process.  The metaphorical bus that we were still unable to tactically park under the new manager anyway I might add.  Was it because he bet the farm on bucking the trend through imposing a new set of tactics and a new set of players - the infamous bazookas and grenades - so that he himself could go out with a bang ?

This isn't another lament for Farke per se (although I wish we'd never dismissed him in the first place.)  Or even another diatribe against Smith (again, although for various reasons I wish we'd come up with a better alternative.)  It's recognising that having established ourselves as a club with an identity and a process and achieving relative success on a relative shoestring whilst playing some great football in the process, we managed to throw all that away in a transfer window and the first dozen games of a season.   We have gone from defiantly yellow and green to the same beige of the lower-mid premiership and upper-mid championship because we were chasing the dragon (or perhaps chasing the chicken might be a more apt metaphor) of Premiership survival without the idealistic pragmatism - if you'll forgive the oxymoron - that got us there. 

Yes, it would be great if we could afford to speculate more money on a higher class of player, or retain the good ones we have.   But we don't.  And in line with Sam Vimes's 'Boots Theory' of Socioeconomic Unfairness we end up wasting cash on what turn out to be inferior players we can just about afford because we can't afford to spend a little more on better ones.

The following quote is an extract from an interview Webber gave to The Athletic after that first relegation. 

"Now is the time for us to be backing him. Not talking bad of him or putting him under any undue pressure. As far as I’m concerned, he’ll be here as long as he wants to be here. If he doesn’t, then that’s a call he has to make himself [...] We’re going to be in the Championship next year. Why do you not have the guy who just won the league with 94 points taking you forward [...] Will Daniel change how he plays? I hope not because that would cause a problem. We’ve built for three years on this. But do we need better personnel in there and a better profile of personnel? Definitely." Source https://theathletic.com/1925314/2020/07/13/stuart-webber-norwich-city-relegation/

What changed in a year Stuart ? 

[kirku 1,332]

16 minutes ago, Barham Blitz said:

What changed in a year Stuart ? 

His contract was coming to an end and he was absolutely desperate to prove that it wasn't his recruitment that had, again, utterly failed in the top league.

He needed a fall guy and he sacrificed all those years of identity, style, and culture building (which you eloquently summarised) on the altar of his ego and his shot at the big time.

Call me cynical..

[Barham Blitz 652]

1 hour ago, kirku said:

His contract was coming to an end and he was absolutely desperate to prove that it wasn't his recruitment that had, again, utterly failed in the top league.

He needed a fall guy and he sacrificed all those years of identity, style, and culture building (which you eloquently summarised) on the altar of his ego and his shot at the big time.

Call me cynical..

To quote an old Hagar the Horrible cartoon - "Why is the world full of old cynics ?  Because cynics live longer ..." 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

15 hours ago, Monty13 said:

No, I’m not confusing, I don’t know why I repeatedly keep having to tell you the same thing. I’m well aware Emi had previously wanted to leave when we were in the championship. 

“Despite us not wanting Emi to leave, once he made it clear that he wanted to go to Aston Villa, and they reached the level of deal we have got to, we were left with little option."

Webber’s quote when Emi was sold is pretty symptomatic of my whole issue with the saga.

Apparently we didn’t want him to leave? Yet we literally publicly touted him to clubs to fund the majority of summer spending and apparently started a bidding process for him. It’s completely contradictory.

Note Webbers admission that only once he made it clear he wanted to go to Villa and the money was right was was when he felt there was little option. We know this didn’t happen till after Webber made his selling players interview and after the bidding process started thanks to Bailey (there’s a reason he’s on the naughty step).

Everybody knows it’s spin Chicken there’s nothing to dispute because A) it’s expected and B) Webber won’t take any follow up questions that may give more insights.

Listen to the Pinkun or On the ball podcasts and you will get more insight to the reporters actual opinions beyond reporting what’s been said.

I’m sure they hoped a lot of things post the sale and summer, it’s clear they still did when he made his interview in October asking for time and only post relegation did the true defence of the clear failure start.

Honestly I’m just truly bored of this now. If you want to believe everything Webber says in stage managed PR interviews, and more importantly not wonder about what’s not being said and what he doesn’t want to be scrutinised on you’re free to, as I keep saying.

I’m going to choose to believe what best fits to me given it was signalled from the start. We sold him because we wanted to sell someone and he was the only one anyone was interested in.

Continue to have a massive issue with anyone that reads it that way if you want, up to you. However if it wasn’t true Webber need only have modified his statements in such a way as to make it impossible to read it that way (it would change my mind if he had) and yet (for him) he has chosen his later words very carefully, standard PR.

We did absolutely no such thing! The price tag he went for was massively over-inflated. That's the absolute opposite of 'come and get him'. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

On 05/11/2022 at 20:30, Monty13 said:

Again not sure your point as we keep going round in circles. No one is denying that in general he wanted to leave for a bigger club, or that once Villa’s bids had come in that’s where he wanted to go.

Yes there was a choice, not sell him. At the end of the window he would have been a Norwich player, if we didn’t sell him that’s a certainty as he had a long contract. We can speculate about how that would have gone, but it’s fact.

So if I’m understand the above correctly, your position is Buendia was always leaving, Norwich had zero power and to suggest otherwise is a conspiracy.

I’m honestly at a loss at this point if that’s your position. I think you will struggle to find a single independent football journalist who agrees(certainly not the Pinkun or Athletic correspondents), let alone a majority, but happy to be proved wrong with some evidence.

It was a choice in the same way as staying in the road with a bus coming towards you at full tilt is a choice. You can do it, in principle, but in reality, you don't do it unless you're really looking for a world of hurt. The idea that we should have forced a temperamental player to stay who wanted to go, with only one year left on contract, and with bidders offering silly money is just ridiculous. You can argue it as long as you like, but I don't think many people with any sense will be convinced.

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie