Parma’s State of the Nation

[Serinus Canaria Domestica 45]

13 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Yes, this quest for some sort of permanence among the elite is a fools errand, only 6 to 8 clubs can have that sort of near certainty.

The rest of us just rotate in and out of the limelight when its our turn. Only a foreign billionaire with money to burn could change that and the likelihood of it happening is close to zero.

In the final analysis its the striving to get there that gives us the buzz. The participation we get upon arrival is somewhat less enjoyable.

I think the phrase is “ it is better to travel hopefully, than to arrive”.

[Monty13 2,241]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Sure you can't ever be free of the possiblity of relegation as a club our size.

But you can do more than finish limply bottom of the table.

The Hughton 11th place season was a damn sight more enjoyable than what we saw under Farke/Smith. There is nothing enjoyable about routine humiliation, unless you've got a very specific kink.

Do I want us to be Pulis era Stoke? No. But I'd take a few seasons of being Thomas Frank style Brentford or even Wilder style Sheffield United.

I don’t think we disagree on that.

IMO we finished limply at the bottom of the table the first time because we made a conscious decision to bank the money and communicated as much.

We finished limply at the bottom of the table the second time because we had a desire to stay up and had put so little thought into how we would do that based on what we’d achieved so far and had at our disposal to give the best chance of that.

All I wanted us to do was battle bravely against relegation that season personally. We might not have achieved it, in fact the odds are we wouldn’t, but how we tried to was more important long term.

We abandoned the long term with short term thinking of the most questionable and arrogant IMO.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

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

Just to comfort some of you I would thoroughly expect that Knapper - regardless of technical contractual status - is currently very well briefed and informed on all affairs Norwich City.

To discomfort I also highly doubt that Webber is actively looking to make any meaningful decisions currently. To that end whilst something of a ‘dead man walking’ Wagner I think will be trotsdem kept in situ as long as possible. Certainly until Knapper has allowed enough reasonable time to indicate he gave everything a proper look round. That will disappoint many, though is probably right. 

Whilst some may - probably correctly - label this all as ‘strategic drift’ or similar, there probably is no other realistic option at this point in time. 

I doubt the Huddersfield  old boys club will carry quite the influential credibility weight that Webber has appended to it for Knapper, so I would expect reasonably meaningful changes in due course once Knapper feels his way around. 

One point worth mentioning: I’m not sure that Webber was ever considered ‘in the inner circle’ when it comes to football’s black book of contacts - in the way that Daan Smith and Craig Shakespeare certainly were to be fair - though I suspect he might not have wished to have been. 

Knapper’s role at Arsenal will have had him very well connected - at the very least across London - which is already quite a nice database of playing and staffing talent.

‘Ear to the ground’ rather than ‘ignore the noise’ one might suggest…

Parma 

‘Wagner's personal motivation to lead City revival’

…screams the headline on today’s Pink Un…very much in line with what we noted above. Webber may well have had a nice positive American pep talk with Davey boy, reminding him of the good old days at Huddersfield, how he could turn water into wine and ‘get them running through walls’…

…it is in everybody’s interest that we have a bit of ‘old manager bounce’ to buy time for the new Sporting Director to feel his way around and leave a reasonably decent period of Due Diligence time before cleaning house. 

It would be great for all of we could Jackson Pollock it and steal a couple of quick wins, so then we can make the change feel and look more transitional and carefully-planned whilst removing the axe from the old executioner’s hands…

…he likes to wield, though it just isn’t his time…so now he finds himself in the unfamiliar role of cheerleader, motivator and comforter…

…he must be delighted. He loves being out of his comfort zone…

Parma 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[king canary 7,654]

17 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I don’t think we disagree on that.

IMO we finished limply at the bottom of the table the first time because we made a conscious decision to bank the money and communicated as much.

We finished limply at the bottom of the table the second time because we had a desire to stay up and had put so little thought into how we would do that based on what we’d achieved so far and had at our disposal to give the best chance of that.

All I wanted us to do was battle bravely against relegation that season personally. We might not have achieved it, in fact the odds are we wouldn’t, but how we tried to was more important long term.

We abandoned the long term with short term thinking of the most questionable and arrogant IMO.

I'm not sure I totally agree it was short term thinking.

As I've mentioned before I think it was clear from the summer that Webber was looking to drive a change in playing style. I don't think it was a knee jerk or short term decision.

I agree though the planning and thought behind the change was half baked- particularly in the construction of the midfield and the very odd splurge on Tzoils and Gunn who weren't seemingly expected to start.

[Soldier on 160]

The pinkun podcast hits the nail on the head. What happened to a true playing identity that all Norwich sides would aspire to from u8’s up. It’s frightening how far away we’ve moved away from having some identity .

[Monty13 2,241]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

I'm not sure I totally agree it was short term thinking.

As I've mentioned before I think it was clear from the summer that Webber was looking to drive a change in playing style. I don't think it was a knee jerk or short term decision.

I agree though the planning and thought behind the change was half baked- particularly in the construction of the midfield and the very odd splurge on Tzoils and Gunn who weren't seemingly expected to start.

Knee jerk no, but I do think it was done without a coherent plan on how to transition and feels like  a short term ( I suppose that depends on your definition, I was thinking short term = 1season) decision rather than a long term strategic vision.

[king canary 7,654]

9 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Knee jerk no, but I do think it was done without a coherent plan on how to transition and feels like  a short term ( I suppose that depends on your definition, I was thinking short term = 1season) decision rather than a long term strategic vision.

Very difficult to tell I guess.

My feeling it was a change but it was a change to a long term vision- I think Webber viewed Farkeball as incompatible with staying up and while a slightly more pragmatic, counterattacking approach may not have kept us up I think it could have at least kept us in the fight.

I don't actually disagree with the approach either- I think we're seeing with Burnley now, how difficult playing the kind of football both he and Farke love is at the top level without huge budgets. The most successful of the recently promoted teams either have huge budgets like Forest or play some breed of counter attacking football (Wilder's Sheffield United, Frank's Brentford). If we know we don't have what Forest have then I think longer term we need a style that can at least compete.

I think the execution has been poor- if Webber really wanted this change he needed a head coach who fully agreed which clearly wasn't Farke, and lurching to Smith or even considering Lampard smacked of short term thinking.

I do think Wagner was short termism though- Webber knowing he needed to get us back up and falling on his old pal who'd done it once before. 

 

[repman 635]

Webber arrived at the club as a football radical and now leaves as a man who seems behind the times.

He knew the importance of using data to sign players, it placed us firmly ahead of the curve of 90% of English football. I think he possibly learned this when at Liverpool under Damien Comolli, who he's mentioned as an influence. Comolli now is the SD at Toulouse who are one of the data-heaviest clubs in Europe. They won the French cup last year with a very young squad.

Due to the financial reality of the club we always need to find inventive ways to get ahead and that's what we did extremely well in Webber's first few years. The problem is that clubs took note of that and started copying us. We were the only club paying attention to Emi Buendia in 2018, nowadays every club knows every player due to the fact they all subscribe to similar data packages. Our failure since 2020 is that I don't think we've been pushing the envelope like before. 

Webber's attitude towards head coaches is, in my view, the biggest sign he isn't really as modern in his approach as people at Brentford or Brighton for example. I don't know if this is also as a result of our failures but I think I recall him mentioning our wage budget being very low in 19/20 (that was by design of course) as one of the driving reasons for our relegation. This thinking, that wages correlate closest to performance, is rooted in a lot of early football data discourse. This tends to minimise the impact of managers and is no doubt linked to the European model of SDs where there seems to be much more churn (particularly in Italy). I think any Norwich fan however could tell you that the quality of coaching has steadily declined since Farke left. While it's important that under the SD model the head coach is replaceable, that doesn't mean they're interchangeable. It's notable that some of the best run clubs in the world have not had such turnover in the coaching position, it's that they take their time to identify the best coaches around. If you can use data to find the best players it's not hard to do it with coaches too, but I'm fairly certain that neither Smith or Wagner would've scored highly if we had such a process.

I hope Knapper comes in with a similar verve as Webber in 2017. He's coming from good pedigree too, Arsenal are very modern in their approach nowadays under Edu and if it's true he was being groomed as a future SD then we can only hope he's picked up lots already. However, it's also important that there's some clear oversight, of which Webber had none. Attanasio feels like the obvious candidate here, his baseball team have had success by consistently finding edges and I'm sure he'll want to replicate that here.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

1 hour ago, repman said:

Webber arrived at the club as a football radical and now leaves as a man who seems behind the times.

He knew the importance of using data to sign players, it placed us firmly ahead of the curve of 90% of English football. I think he possibly learned this when at Liverpool under Damien Comolli, who he's mentioned as an influence. Comolli now is the SD at Toulouse who are one of the data-heaviest clubs in Europe. They won the French cup last year with a very young squad.

Due to the financial reality of the club we always need to find inventive ways to get ahead and that's what we did extremely well in Webber's first few years. The problem is that clubs took note of that and started copying us. We were the only club paying attention to Emi Buendia in 2018, nowadays every club knows every player due to the fact they all subscribe to similar data packages. Our failure since 2020 is that I don't think we've been pushing the envelope like before. 

Webber's attitude towards head coaches is, in my view, the biggest sign he isn't really as modern in his approach as people at Brentford or Brighton for example. I don't know if this is also as a result of our failures but I think I recall him mentioning our wage budget being very low in 19/20 (that was by design of course) as one of the driving reasons for our relegation. This thinking, that wages correlate closest to performance, is rooted in a lot of early football data discourse. This tends to minimise the impact of managers and is no doubt linked to the European model of SDs where there seems to be much more churn (particularly in Italy). I think any Norwich fan however could tell you that the quality of coaching has steadily declined since Farke left. While it's important that under the SD model the head coach is replaceable, that doesn't mean they're interchangeable. It's notable that some of the best run clubs in the world have not had such turnover in the coaching position, it's that they take their time to identify the best coaches around. If you can use data to find the best players it's not hard to do it with coaches too, but I'm fairly certain that neither Smith or Wagner would've scored highly if we had such a process.

I hope Knapper comes in with a similar verve as Webber in 2017. He's coming from good pedigree too, Arsenal are very modern in their approach nowadays under Edu and if it's true he was being groomed as a future SD then we can only hope he's picked up lots already. However, it's also important that there's some clear oversight, of which Webber had none. Attanasio feels like the obvious candidate here, his baseball team have had success by consistently finding edges and I'm sure he'll want to replicate that here.

Excellent stuff @repman

Parma 

[Robert N. LiM 4,464]

Brilliant post, @repman - always enjoy and learn from your stuff on here. cheers

[Don J Demorr 162]

On 30/10/2023 at 21:06, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Nothing much at all that would surprise our dear friend @Don J Demorr

My dear Parma, thank you for extending the hand of friendship, which I greatly value and which hope I can justify.

In this thread several of us have previously analysed the predicament in which NCFC finds itself. Together we have proposed the kind of structural changes to the organisation which have been repeatedly shown to be successful elsewhere. No changes of the right kind have been made and in fact the situation seems to have worsened. In this context all the current tribulations are no surprise whatsoever – in fact the present dismal outcome is only too predictable. What, if anything, can be done?

As I look at this Forum, among the footling disputes and lugubrious misanthropy I think I can see several relevant themes: -

1.     Uncertainty as to the purpose of the organisation

2.     Unhappiness with the actions of the Board of Directors

3.     Dissatisfaction with the way the playing team is set up

4.     Dissatisfaction with the performance and application of the players on the pitch.

5.     Distain for the capacities of octogenarians

Now for a few thousand ill-chosen words of advice. All free of charge.

Before the clouds parted and I ascended to my destined footstool in the Milky Way of Management Consultancy I spent more than twenty-five years as a Chartered Engineer. Engineers frequently face the problem of complex systems that don’t work as they should. One always valuable action is to “Add more simplicity.”

Can we bring that mindset to the NCFC predicament? At least we can try.

Let’s look at the “NCFC Purpose” confusion. It has been variously defined as:-

*We will be an established EPL Football club

*We will always be in the top 26 Football Clubs in England

*We will be the best footballing team in the Championship

The problem with all of these is that whilst they might influence behaviour they are none of them directly actionable and in management actions are what count. Looking a little deeper, success in each of these statements of aspiration would in fact be the outcomes of multiple actions. So we have a complex and uncertain situation. Can we add some simplicity? Well, perhaps we can.

Boiling this thing down to the bones, the success or failure to achieve any one of these aspirations depends in each case on exactly the same thing – the success or failure to garner points in competition with other clubs. Without this all fails, even possibly the survival of the organisation. In that case it seems to me to be imperative that every decision, every action and every thought of every member of the Board, the operational management, all players and support staff must be directed to this end. Every day. Simple and obvious? Yes, but in the jargon this is “That simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity”.

Rather than a swirling maelstrom of bafflegab, there is the need to set clear goals for everybody. Any so-called goal must be real; tangible; achievable and measurable and every action should be scrutinised with that in mind. At the Board table and on the pitch the achievement of a planned accumulation of points is certainly all of these. To establish this change of mindset would hurt nobody and motivate everybody in the club.

Of course inevitably there is the background of a paucity of funds and the rather hopeful business model of being financially self-supporting. These are serious problems for another day but they are not the same problem and would in any case be ameliorated by the proposed reset.

As for Octogenarianism, may I request your indulgence for my “slow and muddled thought processes” as identified by the dauntingly @Big Vince. In my defence, I can claim to be old enough to have pushed the Estimable Delia round the local park in her Osnath Perambulator.

Best to all, as ever,

Don

[Robert N. LiM 4,464]

15 minutes ago, Don J Demorr said:

As for Octogenarianism, may I request your indulgence for my “slow and muddled thought processes” as identified by the dauntingly @Big Vince. In my defence, I can claim to be old enough to have pushed the Estimable Delia round the local park in her Osnath Perambulator.

I enjoyed this. Not sure the self-certified 'big' Vince has ever had his (presumably commensurately large) a$$ handed to him in quite such an elegant way.

[hogesar 9,717]

Really good post @repman and hard to disagree with any of it to be honest.

[Barham Blitz 654]

22 hours ago, repman said:

Webber arrived at the club as a football radical and now leaves as a man who seems behind the times.

He knew the importance of using data to sign players, it placed us firmly ahead of the curve of 90% of English football. 

Lots of good stuff as usual Repman - but just a small note about this particular extract.

I don't think anyone is in any doubt as to the value of using data to sign players.  What is somewhat more in doubt is the relation and application of whatever data is available to the tactical requirements of the side.  I think this is partially where we have come unstuck in recent times as the tactical clarity (for better or worse) of the Farke Blueprint has been superseded by the rather more muddled or at least contingent approach of Smith and then the current set up - it is probably easier to unearth players with a very defined profile (to misquote an article from the Guardian about Wenger-era Arsenal "dinky little Velcro-touch skill-gnomes") than it is to unearth a more rounded set of skills.

If memory serves, this was best exemplified by the metric by which we noticed Buendia - it wasn't goals or assists (if he'd played with a Pukki-esque striker who could actually finish what he created he'd have been picked up way before we found him) it was something like key passes resulting in creation of an assist or similar.  It is that sort of creative, layer down data analysis that unearths the value for money options that others haven't noticed yet but the brief of what they are looking for that needs to be related to the tactical requirements of the team. Otherwise we end up with the Rashica's and Tzolis's of this world or to take another example, Placheta with his FIFA pace score of 94 (I've made that up - no idea what it actually is) which looks great on a scattergraph but arguably not so great on the pitch.

That is what I am hoping the new SD brings - a renewed clarity as to what we are trying to do and how we are trying to do it.  We had it once and lost it (or rather pawned it for Webber's ego / legacy.)  Without it, we really don't stand much of a chance irrespective of the numbers our analysts crunch.

[Morph 19]

Have another question for @Parma Ham's gone mouldy

When Webber joined us there was talk about adopting a method of playing that permeated the playing hierarchy, the Norwich Way if you like. Something that gave us an identity. Something that gave us a migration path for our youth to the first team.

Is this a fanciful idea or is it something that you see put in place on the continent? Something that any head coach that comes in buys into. Players that fit that style of play.

You commented that you adapt your tactics to fit your players base tendencies, so is such a Norwich way pie in the sky?

[ZLF 274]

I think parma answered this earlier.  Sadly this was promptly abandoned upon the second prem promotion, with the adoption of a pragmatic approach and move to 433, the recruitment of smith and creating a disconnect with academy planning.

[repman 635]

1 hour ago, Barham Blitz said:

Lots of good stuff as usual Repman - but just a small note about this particular extract.

I don't think anyone is in any doubt as to the value of using data to sign players.  What is somewhat more in doubt is the relation and application of whatever data is available to the tactical requirements of the side.  I think this is partially where we have come unstuck in recent times as the tactical clarity (for better or worse) of the Farke Blueprint has been superseded by the rather more muddled or at least contingent approach of Smith and then the current set up - it is probably easier to unearth players with a very defined profile (to misquote an article from the Guardian about Wenger-era Arsenal "dinky little Velcro-touch skill-gnomes") than it is to unearth a more rounded set of skills.

If memory serves, this was best exemplified by the metric by which we noticed Buendia - it wasn't goals or assists (if he'd played with a Pukki-esque striker who could actually finish what he created he'd have been picked up way before we found him) it was something like key passes resulting in creation of an assist or similar.  It is that sort of creative, layer down data analysis that unearths the value for money options that others haven't noticed yet but the brief of what they are looking for that needs to be related to the tactical requirements of the team. Otherwise we end up with the Rashica's and Tzolis's of this world or to take another example, Placheta with his FIFA pace score of 94 (I've made that up - no idea what it actually is) which looks great on a scattergraph but arguably not so great on the pitch.

That is what I am hoping the new SD brings - a renewed clarity as to what we are trying to do and how we are trying to do it.  We had it once and lost it (or rather pawned it for Webber's ego / legacy.)  Without it, we really don't stand much of a chance irrespective of the numbers our analysts crunch.

I totally agree with you, it's clear our recruitment has been worse ever since we tried to change the playing style. I don't actually think we've signed bad players for the most part, but we haven't been able to put them into positions where they can succeed. I certainly think the signings of 21/22 were made with a style in mind, it's just we never had a good enough coach to put the parts together and make it work.

 

 

 

[Morph 19]

8 minutes ago, ZLF said:

I think parma answered this earlier.  Sadly this was promptly abandoned upon the second prem promotion, with the adoption of a pragmatic approach and move to 433, the recruitment of smith and creating a disconnect with academy planning.

I guess my follow up would be is it something we think Knapper would go back to? Or should go back to? Should we have an identity?

And yes, @ZLF I totally get that Webber abandoned it on the second promotion to the EPL, ironically doing all those things he complained about with previous regimes splaffing money up the wall.

[nutty nigel 7,566]

52 minutes ago, Morph said:

 

And yes, @ZLF I totally get that Webber abandoned it on the second promotion to the EPL, ironically doing all those things he complained about with previous regimes splaffing money up the wall.

Sometimes I wish people would contextualise that quote. It was never about the players signed. It was about having nothing else to show for it. It was followed by comments about Colney and the need to update those facilities. The plans were always there for the improvements needed but were never acted upon. Even the sainted Alan Bowkett would tell us over again that the first team was first priority for income.

Webber would have been daft to make that quote in the way it's used against him. He may be abrasive but he's not stupid.

Signings are always hit and miss. Not just for Webber. Our 10 most expensive signings (transfer market figures) are...

11m - Tzolis, Rashica, Naismith, Klose.

10.5m - Sara

10m - RVW

9.9m - Brady

9.5m - Sargent

9.4m - Pritchard

9.3m - Gibson

So taking it back to the realities of supporting our team, what do we expect for this money? Maybe the odd Barry Butler win?

Only Sara has that.

Maybe some goals from the forwards?

Sargent has 18, Sara 11, Brady 7, Pritchard 7, Naismith 6, RVW 2, Tzolis 1, Rashica 1.

BTW Klose has 10 (including for me the most memorable of all those goals.)

Gibson has a deficit.

So in balance many these millions splashing around over the last 10 years haven't really enhanced my enjoyment in the stands while supporting our team. On the whole we've done as well with frees and academy players. I think not putting my faith in money is probably justified.

If pointing out a reality is defending Webber, being obtuse or deliberately winding people up then I'm guilty. I just post what I see, hear and read.

 

 

[Morph 19]

@nutty nigel I consider myself suitably chastised and corrected.

Out of interest on that list of expensive buys how many were Webbers?

And the question is not about finding a stick to beat him with.

[nutty nigel 7,566]

1 minute ago, Morph said:

@nutty nigel I consider myself suitably chastised and corrected.

Out of interest on that list of expensive buys how many were Webbers?

And the question is not about finding a stick to beat him with.

Amazingly it's a 50/50 split buddy.

[Serinus Canaria Domestica 45]

30 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Sometimes I wish people would contextualise that quote. It was never about the players signed. It was about having nothing else to show for it. It was followed by comments about Colney and the need to update those facilities. The plans were always there for the improvements needed but were never acted upon. Even the sainted Alan Bowkett would tell us over again that the first team was first priority for income.

Webber would have been daft to make that quote in the way it's used against him. He may be abrasive but he's not stupid.

Signings are always hit and miss. Not just for Webber. Our 10 most expensive signings (transfer market figures) are...

11m - Tzolis, Rashica, Naismith, Klose.

10.5m - Sara

10m - RVW

9.9m - Brady

9.5m - Sargent

9.4m - Pritchard

9.3m - Gibson

So taking it back to the realities of supporting our team, what do we expect for this money? Maybe the odd Barry Butler win?

Only Sara has that.

Maybe some goals from the forwards?

Sargent has 18, Sara 11, Brady 7, Pritchard 7, Naismith 6, RVW 2, Tzolis 1, Rashica 1.

BTW Klose has 10 (including for me the most memorable of all those goals.)

Gibson has a deficit.

So in balance many these millions splashing around over the last 10 years haven't really enhanced my enjoyment in the stands while supporting our team. On the whole we've done as well with frees and academy players. I think not putting my faith in money is probably justified.

If pointing out a reality is defending Webber, being obtuse or deliberately winding people up then I'm guilty. I just post what I see, hear and read.

 

 

The problem is these figures are rounding errors in the EPL context.

[nutty nigel 7,566]

1 minute ago, Serinus Canaria Domestica said:

The problem is these figures are rounding errors in the EPL context.

OK. I wouldn't know.

I'd only know the figures quoted against what I see, hear and read. So I doubt that matters a jot. But I don't mind if you correct it. And if there's some that aren't in the ten you're welcome to add them buddy.

 

[Morph 19]

@nutty nigel a question for you.

Did you consider City to have a recognisable identity and style in those early Farke years? When did you think they abandoned it? And do you want something similar back? A long term plan and vision of how City will play.

Or are you more a results person?

[nutty nigel 7,566]

20 minutes ago, Morph said:

@nutty nigel a question for you.

Did you consider City to have a recognisable identity and style in those early Farke years? When did you think they abandoned it? And do you want something similar back? A long term plan and vision of how City will play.

Or are you more a results person?

I think most of these topics are like the peed up the wall one. They stem from a dislike of a person rather than what we actually see, hear and read. 

So, that wasn't what my post was about but I'll happily answer, however again it will be primarily from what I see at Carrow Road.

There was a distinct style that particularly suited the players we had. But it wasn't obvious to all in all those early years. 2017/18 very few people liked the style describing it as fannying around at the back. It became a style to celebrate after Oct 2018 but then became fannying around at the back in late 2019. It remained so until lockdown. I then didn't go again (except for one game in Dec 2020) until Aug 2021 where it definitely was error - ridden fannying around at the back.

That may sound odd to you. But the first managerial change I saw was Lol morgan to Ron Saunders in 1969. What followed were nearly two seasons of attritional football that you would be hard-pressed to pin an identity to. But come the glorious 1971/72 season we were awesome and many fans will say to this day that they enjoyed that football more than anything since. 1972/73 in the top tier was back to the attritional stuff and it took the signing of a werewolf to keep us up. The next November Saunders was sacked.

You'll probably think this is nutty running on about nothing. But what it should show is most long term visions only last until the first team stops winning football matches. So I take it all with a pinch of salt...

Edited November 2, 2023 by nutty nigel

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

3 hours ago, Morph said:

Have another question for @Parma Ham's gone mouldy

When Webber joined us there was talk about adopting a method of playing that permeated the playing hierarchy, the Norwich Way if you like. Something that gave us an identity. Something that gave us a migration path for our youth to the first team.

Is this a fanciful idea or is it something that you see put in place on the continent? Something that any head coach that comes in buys into. Players that fit that style of play.

You commented that you adapt your tactics to fit your players base tendencies, so is such a Norwich way pie in the sky?

Nice question Morph.

I think this is where discussions on tactics both helps and hinders understanding.

Paper formations are often verging on worthless. Indeed football is such a fluid game when in active motion that players psychological tendencies and characters often indicate more how, why and where they move. Perhaps that is for another day, place and time. 

Let me follow good coaching practice and try to ‘show, don’t tell’ to explain better about how to create shapes, patterns and positional play overloads to maximize your odds of moving the game in your favour.

Firstly a nice adage to think about is ‘don’t start where you finish, don’t finish where you start’. Meaning it is movement that causes the opposition issues, so straightaway there we can glean that anything on paper is a fixed point. And to destabilize the opposition we will have to move from fixed points. 

Now before some of you complain that coaching manuals are indeed full of fixed points, plus coaches very much like to look for repeating static positions on the pitch as ‘resets’ and ‘launchpads’ I do of course get that. But let’s be better chefs, learn the rules and then constructively break them as we get better at what we’re doing. 

I will nominally use the classic Cruyffian 343 model as a basic template for you to see in your mind, though nota bene  - as that system itself is designed - it basically morphs into any other tactical system you can think of. Its fluidity is its point when operated correctly. 

I don’t propose to bore you all with a technical explanation of what the classic movements and patters are - or can be - within this system, suffice it to say that to create fluidity you need fluid minded thinkers and movers. Everything is a function of space, ball and the positioning of others. Your own team and the opposition.

Farke embraced many of these concepts. I believe it is a fundamental education for any and every young player to learn. If you learn classical French cooking techniques, you can generally adapt well to making hamburgers. 

However using show don’t tell, let us visualize this theoretical 343 and show how the same tactics, system and basic shapes can be radically amended via the kind of players you have. 

We will start with the number 9. 

If you have Crouch, you would likely either use him playing high, stretching the play, creating acres of space for us to use. We might ask him to possibly drop sometimes into a deep 9 (Dutch 10) position, using that nice bit of thigh control he has with gangly limbs preventing defenders reaching the ball and linking from there. 

Now think about your 7s and 11s. What kind of players would you want for the first scenario and which for the second?

If he’s high, the defense is deep and there isn’t great space to run into behind. He might well have the beating of his defender in the air, so a Snodgrass type - no pace, excellent delivery, good positional awareness, defensive discipline against counters also - could be ideal. 

Alternatively if you ask him to drop deeper - think Wagner’s idea with the central deep striking ‘box’ to play and bounce off - then surely you want speed running beyond into the space created as defenders are forced to come deeper  to police? You could imagine a very simple tactic instructing a - very limited - Placheta to endlessly run off him. You can’t ignore that as an opposition coach can you?

Now replace Crouch with Jamie Vardy. You want to get the opposition defensive line high, you need the space in behind. 

Your 11s and 7s don’t have to go beyond now. You probably don’t need aerial crosses. You perhaps want more inverted players, cute heads-up players with an eye for rolling the ball down the sides of the centre backs, very likely coming well away from the full back area, overloading the ‘side central’ areas, getting into the 3/4 space pockets.  

If you draw these scenarios they look very different ‘in live motion’ yet on paper they are identical.

For the FPA’s amongst you it is very much like Statutory Accounts versus Management Accounts. Statutories are ‘true’ in that they show a Polaroid snapshot of a fixed moment in time, though MA’s show a live video of constant motion.

We haven’t actually moved from a 343, yet we have totally different players, doing different things and making entirely different patterns and shapes on the pitch because of their particular skills and tendencies.  

The true question therefore is how do players naturally move, what patterns do they naturally make, what can you encourage them to do, what will they inevitably do under pressure?

What can you do as a coach - with what you have - to maximize the resources at your disposal, make life as uncomfortable as possible for any opposition (some will ‘suit’ the way you play better, some opposition will be awkward and perhaps even ‘luckily’ fit against you naturally of course)?

If coaches try to force shapes, they are destined to fail in my view. Work with natural tendencies, look to fit what you have into the most effective version of what you’d ideally like to see. Most of all recognise your weapons. A weapon is anything  - a player, a skill, a movement - which the opposition cannot ignore and which they must alter their own preferred tactical blueprint for.  One weapon can be worth a bucketful of ‘good’ players in my view. 

In the simplest terms you are looking for ways to move the odds of you winning the game in your favour. There are so many little games within games. At the highest level it is often only your weakest point that matters. A small edge is enough. 

Negating is easier than creating. You have to create a little chaos to create and attack. It inevitably opens your structure a little. 

Going back to Cruyffian ideals, if you can educate, understand and - as a cohort - feel free enough to move according to space, ball, position of teammates, position of opponents, then you can do something akin to ‘constructive bunching’ where you leave your proscribed paper stations and create strategic overloads across the pitch in a swirling mass of purposeful honeycombed beauty that is so difficult to contend with.

But that’s all for another day…

Parma 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[nutty nigel 7,566]

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

Nice question Morph.

I think this is where discussions on tactics both helps and hinders understanding.

Paper formations are often verging on worthless. Indeed football is such a fluid game when in active motion that players psychological tendencies and characters often indicate more how, why and where they move. Perhaps that is for another day, place and time. 

Let me follow good coaching practice and try to ‘show, don’t tell’ to explain better about how to create shapes, patterns and positional play overloads to maximize your odds of moving the game in your favour.

Firstly a nice adage to think about is ‘don’t start where you finish, don’t finish where you start’. Meaning it is movement that causes the opposition issues, so straightaway there we can glean that anything on paper is a fixed point. And to destabilize the opposition we will have to move from fixed points. 

Now before some of you complain that coaching manuals are indeed full of fixed points, plus coaches very much like to look for repeating static positions on the pitch as ‘resets’ and ‘launchpads’ I do of course get that. But let’s be better chefs, learn the rules and then constructively break them as we get better at what we’re doing. 

I will nominally use the classic Cruyffian 343 model as a basic template for you to see in your mind, though nota bene  - as that system itself is designed - it basically morphs into any other tactical system you can think of. Its fluidity is its point when operated correctly. 

I don’t propose to bore you all with a technical explanation of what the classic movements and patters are - or can be - within this system, suffice it to say that to create fluidity you need fluid minded thinkers and movers. Everything is a function of space, ball and the positioning of others. Your own team and the opposition.

Farke embraced many of these concepts. I believe it is a fundamental education for any and every young player to learn. If you learn classical French cooking techniques, you can generally adapt well to making hamburgers. 

However using show don’t tell, let us visualize this theoretical 343 and show how the same tactics, system and basic shapes can be radically amended via the kind of players you have. 

We will start with the number 9. 

If you have Crouch, you would likely either use him playing high, stretching the play, creating acres of space for us to use. We might ask him to possibly drop sometimes into a deep 9 (Dutch 10) position, using that nice bit of thigh control he has with gangly limbs preventing defenders reaching the ball and linking from there. 

Now think about your 7s and 11s. What kind of players would you want for the first scenario and which for the second?

If he’s high, the defense is deep and there isn’t great space to run into behind. He might well have the beating of his defender in the air, so a Snodgrass type - no pace, excellent delivery, good positional awareness, defensive discipline against counters also - could be ideal. 

Alternatively if you ask him to drop deeper - think Wagner’s idea with the central deep striking ‘box’ to play and bounce off - then surely you want speed running beyond into the space created as defenders are forced to come deeper  to police? You could imagine a very simple tactic instructing a - very limited - Placheta to endlessly run off him. You can’t ignore that as an opposition coach can you?

Now replace Crouch with Jamie Vardy. You want to get the opposition defensive line high, you need the space in behind. 

Your 11s and 7s don’t have to go beyond now. You probably don’t need aerial crosses. You perhaps want more inverted players, cute heads-up players with an eye for rolling the ball down the sides of the centre backs, very likely coming well away from the full back area, overloading the ‘side central’ areas, getting into the 3/4 space pockets.  

If you draw these scenarios they look very different ‘in live motion’ yet on paper they are identical.

For the FPA’s amongst you it is very much like Statutory Accounts versus Management Accounts. Statutories are ‘true’ in that they show a Polaroid snapshot of a fixed moment in time, though MA’s show a live video of constant motion.

We haven’t actually moved from a 343, yet we have totally different players, doing different things and making entirely different patterns and shapes on the pitch because of their particular skills and tendencies.  

The true question therefore is how do players naturally move, what patterns do they naturally make, what can you encourage them to do, what will they inevitably do under pressure?

What can you do as a coach - with what you have - to maximize the resources at your disposal, make life as uncomfortable as possible for any opposition (some will ‘suit’ the way you play better, some opposition will be awkward and perhaps even ‘luckily’ fit against you naturally of course)?

If coaches try to force shapes, they are destined to fail in my view. Work with natural tendencies, look to fit what you have into the most effective version of what you’d ideally like to see. Most of all recognise your weapons. A weapon is anything  - a player, a skill, a movement - which the opposition cannot ignore and which they must alter their own preferred tactical blueprint for.  One weapon can be worth a bucketful of ‘good’ players in my view. 

In the simplest terms you are looking for ways to move the odds of you winning the game in your favour. There are so many little games within games. At the highest level it is often only your weakest point that matters. A small edge is enough. 

Negating is easier than creating. You have to create a little chaos to create and attack. It inevitably opens your structure a little. 

Going back to Cruyffian ideals, if you can educate, understand and - as a cohort - feel free enough to move according to space, ball, position of teammates, position of opponents, then you can do something akin to ‘constructive bunching’ where you leave your proscribed paper stations and create strategic overloads across the pitch in a swirling mass of purposeful honeycombed beauty that is so difficult to contend with.

But that’s all for another day…

Parma 

This is why I enjoy sitting with you at games buddy.

But I doubt there's many like you in the ground. Maybe a few in and around the dug outs. However the 'coaches' behind me in the blankets don't go far beyond "stop fannying about with it", "get rid" or "launch the ducker".

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

8 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This is why I enjoy sitting with you at games buddy.

But I doubt there's many like you in the ground. Maybe a few in and around the dug outs. However the 'coaches' behind me in the blankets don't go far beyond "stop fannying about with it", "get rid" or "launch the ducker".

This is going back quite a few years, but not far from where I was in the old South Stand was a man - out of sight- who every so often would intone in a deep voice ‘Keep going forward, Norwich.’ Heavens knows what he would make of the fannying around at the back and free kicks in the opposition half that end up back with the goalie…

[Mengo 825]

59 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This is why I enjoy sitting with you at games buddy.

But I doubt there's many like you in the ground. Maybe a few in and around the dug outs. However the 'coaches' behind me in the blankets don't go far beyond "stop fannying about with it", "get rid" or "launch the ducker".

Nutty from a distance , just get rid now of this fake person webber. SURELY , it's obvious to everybody what he is . Get gone and press the reset button. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,030]

9 hours ago, Mengo said:

Nutty from a distance , just get rid now of this fake person webber. SURELY , it's obvious to everybody what he is . Get gone and press the reset button. 

That’s been clear for a year or more  unless you’re related to the man or as thick as pig ****. 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Midlands Yellow