Parma’s State of the Nation

[ged in the onion bag 855]

Kenny McLean plays CDM at the expense of good collective defending as a team.... he's simply not got the defenders intuition and doesn't react to danger or position himself correctly like natural defenders do.   

For that reason, he's not going to transfer to a CB either.    Yes, as a one off and dependent on the opponents attacking threats but he's not a long-term answer..... if he is, it will be to the detriment of our defensive ability. 

The only reason fans are raving about him now is that by dropping deeper than he usually plays, it allows him more free time on the ball and its easier for him to pick a pass.     The fact he's one of our better players reflects on the failure of the manager and his teammates to find decent form.  

For evidence, just check out how many shots we have allowed our opponents throughout this season.   

[Petriix 2,838]

Well I thought he was excellent at center back today, aside from one mental run where he ended up by the left corner flag at the wrong end of the pitch. And our midfield was far more coherent too. Nunez did really well in the deep lying playmaker role; it's a shame the movement in front of him was so poor.

With a little bit more quality than Hernandez and Gibbs I'm sure we'd be winning games like that in style. Let's see what January brings. 

[Unthink road 132]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

Well I thought he was excellent at center back today, aside from one mental run where he ended up by the left corner flag at the wrong end of the pitch. And our midfield was far more coherent too. Nunez did really well in the deep lying playmaker role; it's a shame the movement in front of him was so poor.

With a little bit more quality than Hernandez and Gibbs I'm sure we'd be winning games like that in style. Let's see what January brings. 

Didn't think our midfield was any better frankly. They didn't pressure us in that area. In fact I think it highlighted how poor our midfield is. Slow in possession and lack drive to support/get beyond the forwards. Nunez won his fair share of 50/50, but Sara I thought was lacking when he had anyone near him attacking or defensively. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

So Ben Knapper has his feet under the table now…

Wagner has done well enough to avoid an uncomfortable early bath - much to the benefit of our overall future vision - which has bought time to look, smell, feel and ponder…

So what questions has our sporting due diligence thrown up? What little nuggets of gold has Ben texted Mark with?

Here are some questions that I think any empirically-minded Norwich fan who pays a bit of attention might be asking:

1. Has the increase in experience smoothed out the tendency for erratic performance levels and poor game management?

2. Is it a longer term recipe for asset appreciation?

3. Is the current preferred 442 with two false 9s the best use of Ashley Barnes’ or Adam Idah’s (or Hwang’s for that matter) attributes? Does Barnes look comfortable in deep midfield areas (vid second goal given away in the derby)? Does Idah need simple instruction to run off the back of defenders, sometimes into channels and knock people about a bit to warrant a place in the side? Do we use his attributes or are we shoe-horning him into a role and a pattern he isn’t really suited to? Why?

4. Are we repeatedly too open in the central defensive midfield areas? Is Sara (or Nunez) a CDM? Have we got any CDMs? If we include Sorenson and Gibbs are they suitable? Why has Gibbs gone quiet (he looks a good player to me)? Why do we employ a defined tactic that actively exposes our weakest area? Is this logical strategic coaching with the resources available? Do flying full backs exacerbate the CDM issue? Are our particular personnel in the full back areas worth this tactical trade off?

5. If Kenny MacClean has puppy-dog ball-chasing tendencies is his partnership with the defensively and tactically flaky Sara a good combination or an obvious recipe for trouble? Is his move to Centre back actually quite a cute solution (running about less, being forced to stay in areas, using his desire to put out fires of others constructively)?

6. Are we over-rating the impact and importance of Sargent? Whilst a decent enough championship player, isn’t it true that we just lack a bit of cohesion, quality and weapons having hollowed out our previous young assets and occasional weapons? Do we need to buy a lot of players to add ballast or just one or two to help ‘both boxes’ (for unrealistic flavor say Skipp and Nketiah in a perfect  world)? 

7. I quite like the phrase from Ben Lee that ‘processes create moments, moments decide matches’. Are our processes - the coaching patterns that were very clear from McKenna and less clear from Wagner - a product of the players we have or do we continue to follow a blueprint regardless of available personnel? The ‘inverted 442’ dropping strikers deep to bounce off and inverted wingers going beyond, is sort of interesting and novel when you have 2 awkward,  structural players like Barnes and Sargent. Playing any 2 strikers exposes the midfield somewhere, we don’t have a natural CDM and so we drop our strikers into that area as sort of double protection? Is that the idea? Defending from the middle front? Isn’t it just that Sara isn’t and shouldn’t be played in a deep midfield position? We have stumbled on a good idea in MacClean at Centre back, giving him more time to make good progressive, vertical passes with his left foot and stopping him mindlessly running about shouting ‘Mr Mannering! Mr Mannering!’. So shall we just spend our limited money there, fill that structural gap now and be done with it? 

8. Jonny Rowe’s agent has us over a barrel. 

9. Gibson wouldn’t be bad if he’d take a 50% pay cut. We could do with a change, though left-footed ball-playing Centre half’s are every FM15’s wet dream on Wyscout. Letting him go looks obvious, though replacing him expensive, tricky or…wait…MacClean you say?

10. What do we want to be? Farke? Wagner-Klopp with a bit of Farke? Klopp with a bit of Dyche? Dyche with a bit of Allardyce? Well….anyone? Arteta with a bit of Arteta for me please….and you Ben? Did you WhatsApp Mertesacker like you said you would?

Parma 

…have a rest about half way through @king canary…🤣💪🏽

Edited December 19, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
🤣🎄🎄💪🏽🤷‍♂️

[Barham Blitz 653]

All good questions although I definitely have a sense that most are largely rhetorical ...

I would say that if we are committed to playing Wagner's evidently preferred system then it doesn't work with anyone bar Sargent up top.  At this level he is a perfectly adequate striker in an attacking sense and his defensive discipline and work rate are absolutely essential.

I also like Kenny at centre back for the reasons you have outlined - both in terms of the distribution advantages and mitigating his positional limitations in midfield. However two things need to happen to make the defensive element of that work. 

Firstly we need pace and aerial prowess in his partner - the former because Kenny - although certainly not a Duffy or a Batth - still isn't actually that quick and the system requires a high line to condense the gaping holes we have in midfield on the counter, and secondly because although Kenny is decent in the air attacking a ball he isn't dominant in the traditional centre back definition.  For all my criticisms of Hanley on the ball, he would certainly be my preference over Duffy for his pace assuming that the injury has no lasting repercussions. Or Warner - but I haven't seen enough of him to really make a judgement and having two players inexperienced in that role would perhaps be a little rash.

Secondly, we need whichever of the pivots that is expected to drop in between the centre backs when the full backs go forward to actually have a proper sense of defensive responsibility and the tools to act as a 3rd central defender as well as some passing range.  A fit Sorensen would seem perfect on paper but he has never quite convinced or indeed strung enough games together to develop into that role.  A dip into the transfer market may be needed here.  This move to a three in possession with the centre halves moving wide into the channels is also why we need pace at centre back.  The signings of Duffy and Batth - particularly given their limitations on the ball in drawing the press - seem bizarre to me for this reason.

For me, Sara should not be one of the pivots.  If we are playing this system and Sargent is fit then he plays the Barnes role for me.  His work rate this season is high enough to take on the pressing duties, and his vision and indeed eye for goal would be better served further forward.

The role of the wide players in Wagner's system inverting ahead of the strikers out of possession - seem perfect for Sainz and Rowe.  I really like what I have seen of Sainz so far - he seems spiky and committed with no little skill.  The other options in the wide positions are basically not really up to making this system work.

So the real question - as always it seems - is central midfield.  I realise we signed Gibbs as an attacking midfielder but I really don't think he is a game changer in a advanced role.  I can see him as one of the pivots.  He can pass, has the engine and seems comfortable receiving the ball under pressure which is vital in this system.  Nunez is probably the other option here but the jury is still out a little for me - a good if occasionally Hollywood - range of passing but another ball chaser and a little lightweight in that role.  Alongside whichever of those would be the Sorenson upgrade.  No idea who that would be, but for me has to have the qualities outlined above and should be the attributes that Knapper feeds in to whatever database he is using.  Perhaps Declan Rice has a younger brother ...

I will caveat all of the above with the fact that I'm not entirely convinced about Wagner's tactical approach, albeit it seemed to work early season (actually more convincingly than the current decent run of results - particularly if we factor in the positional changes outlined and the addition of Sainz which I think would improve it further) but this would seem the best approach to me to get it to work with the players that we (mainly) have in the building.  It also pretty much defines who we should probably be looking to move on if possible.

 

[shefcanary 2,409]

Two good posts as always - I haven't much to say against either of them but would like to pose a question.

Does anyone think Knapper's analytics suggested (or even told) to Wagner that Kenny should be used as a LCB ahead of any of the other CB's. The timing of the switch is appropriate. Is this the first sight of Knapperball?

[Soldier on 160]

7 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Two good posts as always - I haven't much to say against either of them but would like to pose a question.

Does anyone think Knapper's analytics suggested (or even told) to Wagner that Kenny should be used as a LCB ahead of any of the other CB's. The timing of the switch is appropriate. Is this the first sight of Knapperball?

Doubtful Wagner used him as CB lots of times late in games prior to Knapper’s arrival.

[repman 635]

54 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Two good posts as always - I haven't much to say against either of them but would like to pose a question.

Does anyone think Knapper's analytics suggested (or even told) to Wagner that Kenny should be used as a LCB ahead of any of the other CB's. The timing of the switch is appropriate. Is this the first sight of Knapperball?

I think the main switch was us playing a much younger side, as opposed to the much older side that had started vs QPR. The Watford game was bad on two levels, the first obviously being that we lost but the second was that it was an experienced side on the pitch. I think it was made clear to Wagner that we can't go on performing poorly with an old team, there's no upside there at all. The other thought that crossed my mind is that Knapper has done a survey of the squad and decided who's likely to be here next season and who's not. If Wagner intends to stay here then he's got to get on board and not use the players who aren't going to be here much longer. I'd be shocked if we ever see a Hwang/Barnes partnership up front, or Hernandez/Fassnacht on the wings. I guess the same applies at the back, Kenny is contracted here for another 4 years or so. As everyone on here agrees, he's not the DM required, and he's already second fiddle to Sara (and possibly Nunez) in the other midfield role. Why not try him out at a position where we're lacking, Gibson is the only left footed CB we have and he's not going to be here beyond next season. All the young CB's coming through are all right footed too as far as I'm aware.

[dylanisabaddog 4,930]

@repmanmany coaches would say that left and right footed centre halves is a recipe for disaster. It leaves a bit of a hole in the middle on their weak foot

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

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

 

7. I quite like the phrase from Ben Lee that ‘processes create moments, moments decide matches’. Are our processes - the coaching patterns that were very clear from McKenna and less clear from Wagner - 

This jumped out to me. The old and the new. 
 

When I did my first badges based on our old friend Charles Hughes’s book we were taught that moments change games. Now moment are created by processes . Not always I would say. The moment the ball hit the ref and Phil Mulryne volleyed it home was part process (a long throw?) and more part execution. 
 

Processes and systems are what they are , but only successful when applied and implemented  by able players. The same system would look better with Man City than Mansfield. 
 

The inference is that McKenna is a better coach. Hard to argue but it seems to be a long winded method to prove this point . What is clear is that he overloads areas around the ball which we struggle to do. We also struggle to move the ball through lines or quickly to areas that are underloaded. 
 

McKenna has his own players playing his way. I’m still not sure Wagner knows what his best side is which hasn’t been helped by injury. 
 

All seemed a bit simplistic to me - shrouded in a very complex method. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

44 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

This jumped out to me. The old and the new. 
 

When I did my first badges based on our old friend Charles Hughes’s book we were taught that moments change games. Now moment are created by processes . Not always I would say. The moment the ball hit the ref and Phil Mulryne volleyed it home was part process (a long throw?) and more part execution. 
 

Processes and systems are what they are , but only successful when applied and implemented  by able players. The same system would look better with Man City than Mansfield. 
 

The inference is that McKenna is a better coach. Hard to argue but it seems to be a long winded method to prove this point . What is clear is that he overloads areas around the ball which we struggle to do. We also struggle to move the ball through lines or quickly to areas that are underloaded. 
 

McKenna has his own players playing his way. I’m still not sure Wagner knows what his best side is which hasn’t been helped by injury. 
 

All seemed a bit simplistic to me - shrouded in a very complex method. 

I like overloads. They are the essence of the game. 

Then you need weapons to do something with it.

’Both boxes’ remains pretty good.

Parma 

[hogesar 9,676]

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy A huge amount of Sara's good play has come from deep.

Not defensively but offensively. He has time to pick up the ball and drive with it. He also has time to look up and play balls He otherwise wouldn't have time to. It's an opportunity to turn something as boring as recycled possession on the edge of our area into attack. I.e moments and weapons.

Our inherit structural weakness comes from a seemingly relaxed view on when Sara can occupy the 10 space. This has been reduced in recent games and he's been more disciplined. His goal output has dropped but certainly our team chance creation hasn't. Two Sara's would be nice but every club at this level at least would say the same. 

Putting Sara at more of a 10 / false 9 certainly hides his weaknesses but I'm not sure it encourages his strengths. Certainly if we are to do that I can't help but think we need another midfield signing first.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

23 minutes ago, hogesar said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy A huge amount of Sara's good play has come from deep.

Not defensively but offensively. He has time to pick up the ball and drive with it. He also has time to look up and play balls He otherwise wouldn't have time to. It's an opportunity to turn something as boring as recycled possession on the edge of our area into attack. I.e moments and weapons.

Our inherit structural weakness comes from a seemingly relaxed view on when Sara can occupy the 10 space. This has been reduced in recent games and he's been more disciplined. His goal output has dropped but certainly our team chance creation hasn't. Two Sara's would be nice but every club at this level at least would say the same. 

Putting Sara at more of a 10 / false 9 certainly hides his weaknesses but I'm not sure it encourages his strengths. Certainly if we are to do that I can't help but think we need another midfield signing first.

Many football fans see the good things players do. 

Coaches must focus on the things that could happen if scenarios are repeated multiple times.

Good moments burn memories much deeper for fans or invested stakeholders. This is great, though not empirical. 

Sara makes huge amounts of technical positional errors in any single game.

We need him, we must find a place for him, though ‘shielding’ him in the CDM area is a flawed and unnecessary tactic in my view.  

One must calculate the ‘plusvalenza’ of course. What you gain versus what you lose (or could gain, or could lose). You want that equation to be a positive number. 

Costing a goal or a good chance is a pretty easy technical mistake to make. Creating or scoring one significantly harder (and rarer).

There is just no need to do this with Sara. 

Parma 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Mutley 76]

Personally I would like Sara to be able to play beside a proper CDM who will win the ball and protect the back four at all times freeing him even more to roam forward. Sadly, I cannot remember Sara having a shot on goal for a number of games and since he has been played in that pivot role with Nunez. Yes, he’s certainly created chances and had assists but he is an excellent striker of the ball from the edge of the box that we are missing out on in our current set up. 

[king canary 7,607]

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

Many football fans see the good things players do. 

Coaches must focus on the things that could happen if scenarios are repeated multiple times.

Good moments burn memories much deeper for fans or invested stakeholders. This is great, though not empirical. 

Sara makes huge amounts of technical positional errors in any single game.

We need him, we must find a place for him, though ‘shielding’ him in the CDM area is a flawed and unnecessary tactic in my view.  

One must calculate the ‘plusvalenza’ of course. What you gain versus what you lose (or could gain, or could lose). You want that equation to be a positive number. 

Costing a goal or a good chance is a pretty easy technical mistake to make. Creating or scoring one significantly harder (and rarer).

There is just no need to do this with Sara. 

Parma 

I think there is an assumption that playing him further forward means being a 10. It doesn't have to. He just needs a base behind him to provide him with freedom and to take defensive duties off his plate. Sara is by far our best player and we need to put him in a position where his strengths are maximised and his weaknesses hidden which is almost the opposite of what we do now.

[Mason 47 1,379]

I think the one thing that links most of these discussions is the 'Barnes' role, which seems designed entirely with him in mind and exists seemingly to supervise the center of the pitch. Perhaps whatever the Italian for 'hallway monitor' is? For Sara to play in a role that accesses his better attributes, I think this position would have to be dissolved.

It doesn't seem to me to be a highly effective use of a player, albeit we've looked better with Barnes returning to it (Idah, Gibbs, Hwang and Nunez all tried with no avail). And as seen at the weekend, player + role are still an awkward fit.

Ironically, I think what Smith was attempting to put together a better fit for the players we currently have. God help us.

[hogesar 9,676]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think there is an assumption that playing him further forward means being a 10. It doesn't have to. He just needs a base behind him to provide him with freedom and to take defensive duties off his plate. Sara is by far our best player and we need to put him in a position where his strengths are maximised and his weaknesses hidden which is almost the opposite of what we do now.

I agree...however..

Of course there are lots of caveats with injuries and Wagner himself but our worst run of results this season coincided with Sara's heat map reflecting him spending most of the time in the attacking false 9/ 10 position as well as in the wide right position oddly.

I'm not saying don't play Sara there but there is an argument that he is where he is currently because we've not found a midfield solution which probably points to a recruitment issue to solve.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

58 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think there is an assumption that playing him further forward means being a 10. It doesn't have to. He just needs a base behind him to provide him with freedom and to take defensive duties off his plate. Sara is by far our best player and we need to put him in a position where his strengths are maximised and his weaknesses hidden which is almost the opposite of what we do now.

Exactly that. There is a tendency for binarism and polarity on this forum.

Tactics are also a spectrum. Nothing is what it seems on paper. What you gain in one area, costs you in another. 

’Don’t start where you finish, don’t finish where you start’ is a classic striker’s instruction for example.

Parma 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Barham Blitz 653]

My comments re. Sara as a 10 were predicated on the way in which we are currently set up to play - ie. with two central midfielders one of whom is expected to drop in to CB when we are in possession and one who is more of a traditional 8, behind two central strikers who drop back behind two inverted wingers out of possession.  Sara for me - and I actually think he has massively improved in this respect - still lacks the positional awareness and the nose for danger and is too often caught the wrong side of a breaking midfield in transition because his first instinct is to seek space and create.

I agree that he does a lot of good creative work from deep but I think his strengths would be better served further forward and his weaknesses masked slightly.  Indeed he may even offer a bit more mobility for the defensive elements of the Barnes role as a false 10 or whatever you want to call it.   He has certainly been putting a shift in this season even if it is occasionally - in my view - in the wrong areas for the structural requirements of his role.

This is of course entirely based on us maintaining the current system which seems to be the settled  Modus Opperendi for better or worse.  There are many other ways of setting the team up to get the best out of him and others as others have referenced above.  As I have said, I'm not entirely sold on the system anyway which I think has fundamental structural issues - my comments were largely musings as to how it could be made to work as best it can.  And as I indicated it would require both of the CMs to have a decent passing range - we couldn't just have a purely destructive CDM if we are to persist with it.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Barham Blitz

[Barham Blitz 653]

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

I like overloads. They are the essence of the game. 

This is in essence what Wagner is attempting to create with the box of two central attackers dropping and the two wingers coming inside when out of possession with the press attempting to win the ball back high up.  At which point the issue remains that if that press doesn't work then with Sara and both full backs upfield there is basically nothing between the ball and the two centre halves and a dropped in CDM on the break.

So in the current system we either need the Sara role to remain a little deeper behind the ball (which is largely what he has been doing of late) or the full backs to be a little less gung ho - perhaps even moving inside a la Pep although that does further diminish the overload opportunities.  We also cannot afford a lack of pace in central defence as we absolutely have to play a high line to condense that midfield space.  But it all still depends on that forward press which is why Sargent is so critical.

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

What a refreshingly fantastic thread this is - full of really excellent viewpoints based on well reasoned opinions with sensible, reasonable discussion where contrary views are held. 

Bravo.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

I would be interested - seriously - to know what posters make of what seems, just from watching on Canaries TV, to be Nunez's new and more defensive position. From an amateur point of view it looks the opposite of the role I suspect he was bought to play, but so far appears to suit him. But I may well be missing some personal failings and structural drawbacks. If Parma could keep his explanation down below three thousand words and without analogies involving Italian sports cars that would be appreciated.🤩

Edited December 20, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[Number9 272]

10 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

What a refreshingly fantastic thread this is - full of really excellent viewpoints based on well reasoned opinions with sensible, reasonable discussion where contrary views are held. 

Bravo.

Binner

[king canary 7,607]

11 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

My comments re. Sara as a 10 were predicated on the way in which we are currently set up to play - ie. with two central midfielders one of whom is expected to drop in to CB when we are in possession and one who is more of a traditional 8, behind two central strikers who drop back behind two inverted wingers out of possession.  Sara for me - and I actually think he has massively improved in this respect - still lacks the positional awareness and the nose for danger and is too often caught the wrong side of a breaking midfield in transition because his first instinct is to seek space and create.

I agree that he does a lot of good creative work from deep but I think his strengths would be better served further forward and his weaknesses masked slightly.  Indeed he may even offer a bit more mobility for the defensive elements of the Barnes role as a false 10 or whatever you want to call it.   He has certainly been putting a shift in this season even if it is occasionally - in my view - in the wrong areas for the structural requirements of his role.

This is of course entirely based on us maintaining the current system which seems to be the settled  Modus Opperendi for better or worse.  There are many other ways of setting the team up to get the best out of him and others as others have referenced above.  As I have said, I'm not entirely sold on the system anyway which I think has fundamental structural issues - my comments were largely musings as to how it could be made to work as best it can.  And as I indicated it would require both of the CMs to have a decent passing range - we couldn't just have a purely destructive CDM if we are to persist with it.

Yes, how best to use Sara and how best to use him in this system are very different questions.

I'm not sure he'd suit stepping into the role we ask Barnes to play simply because he spends an awful lot of time with his back to goal playing the ball to his deeper team mates rather than looking forwards.

Part of me wonders if giving him the role Sainz has played these last two weeks could work. It may seem odd to put him out wide but those positions are nominal in this system and the fact we ask those players to get beyond and often play quite centrally could suit Sara a bit more.

Overall though I don't see a role in this system that isn't a forcing the square peg of Sara into a round hole.

[BigFish 1,987]

12 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

My comments re. Sara as a 10 were predicated on the way in which we are currently set up to play - ie. with two central midfielders one of whom is expected to drop in to CB when we are in possession and one who is more of a traditional 8, behind two central strikers who drop back behind two inverted wingers out of possession.  Sara for me - and I actually think he has massively improved in this respect - still lacks the positional awareness and the nose for danger and is too often caught the wrong side of a breaking midfield in transition because his first instinct is to seek space and create.

I agree that he does a lot of good creative work from deep but I think his strengths would be better served further forward and his weaknesses masked slightly.  Indeed he may even offer a bit more mobility for the defensive elements of the Barnes role as a false 10 or whatever you want to call it.   He has certainly been putting a shift in this season even if it is occasionally - in my view - in the wrong areas for the structural requirements of his role.

This is of course entirely based on us maintaining the current system which seems to be the settled  Modus Opperendi for better or worse.  There are many other ways of setting the team up to get the best out of him and others as others have referenced above.  As I have said, I'm not entirely sold on the system anyway which I think has fundamental structural issues - my comments were largely musings as to how it could be made to work as best it can.  And as I indicated it would require both of the CMs to have a decent passing range - we couldn't just have a purely destructive CDM if we are to persist with it.

One thing that is missed in this debate is the system absolutely maximises what we get from Rowe. Playing as an inverted winger has turned him from a prospect to a weapon. Now Sainz has made the team, if he could make the same progress we really wouldn't have any attacking issues.

Defensively, the last thing we need is a purely destructive CDM. OOP We need to be able to press the oposition CB/Pivot and to avoid our Pivot/CB getting overloaded. It is stating the bleeding obvious but it is the latter of these two that has been the root of our defensive issues.

Edited December 20, 2023 by BigFish

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I would be interested - seriously - to know what posters make of what seems, just from watching on Canaries TV, to be Nunez's new and more defensive position. From an amateur point of view it looks the opposite of the role I suspect he was bought to play, but so far appears to suit him. But I may well be missing some personal failings and structural drawbacks. If Parma could keep his explanation down below three thousand words and without analogies involving Italian sports cars that would be appreciated.🤩

I too have reached this conclusion, I might be wrong along with you though. However he does seem to have strengthened a bit, he also seems a bit more disciplined as well - Narcis Pelach working with him closely I would assume given their common first language? So Parma, are we right?

[Captain Holt 522]

16 hours ago, hogesar said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy A huge amount of Sara's good play has come from deep.

Not defensively but offensively. He has time to pick up the ball and drive with it. He also has time to look up and play balls He otherwise wouldn't have time to. It's an opportunity to turn something as boring as recycled possession on the edge of our area into attack. I.e moments and weapons.

Our inherit structural weakness comes from a seemingly relaxed view on when Sara can occupy the 10 space. This has been reduced in recent games and he's been more disciplined. His goal output has dropped but certainly our team chance creation hasn't. Two Sara's would be nice but every club at this level at least would say the same. 

Putting Sara at more of a 10 / false 9 certainly hides his weaknesses but I'm not sure it encourages his strengths. Certainly if we are to do that I can't help but think we need another midfield signing first.

very good.

[hogesar 9,676]

13 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

My comments re. Sara as a 10 were predicated on the way in which we are currently set up to play - ie. with two central midfielders one of whom is expected to drop in to CB when we are in possession and one who is more of a traditional 8, behind two central strikers who drop back behind two inverted wingers out of possession.  Sara for me - and I actually think he has massively improved in this respect - still lacks the positional awareness and the nose for danger and is too often caught the wrong side of a breaking midfield in transition because his first instinct is to seek space and create.

I agree that he does a lot of good creative work from deep but I think his strengths would be better served further forward and his weaknesses masked slightly.  Indeed he may even offer a bit more mobility for the defensive elements of the Barnes role as a false 10 or whatever you want to call it.   He has certainly been putting a shift in this season even if it is occasionally - in my view - in the wrong areas for the structural requirements of his role.

This is of course entirely based on us maintaining the current system which seems to be the settled  Modus Opperendi for better or worse.  There are many other ways of setting the team up to get the best out of him and others as others have referenced above.  As I have said, I'm not entirely sold on the system anyway which I think has fundamental structural issues - my comments were largely musings as to how it could be made to work as best it can.  And as I indicated it would require both of the CMs to have a decent passing range - we couldn't just have a purely destructive CDM if we are to persist with it.

Good post and I think you've possibly hit the nail on the head in the differences of opinion. I too am basing my thoughts on maintaining the current system.

And like you say, and as I've said all season, it wouldn't work with a purely destructive CDM that everyone's been crying for. It may help a little defensively but then cost us massively in transition. Of course, if Wagner was willing to change system then it opens up plenty more possibilities.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

‘Some people are right and everyone else isn’t’….….is one of my wise Father’s sayings.

As with many things in life - and tessellating neatly with the analysis of coaching plusvalenza  - it is not what it appears to be on paper. It is understood as one thing, though means something else. 

‘Coaching is a series of imperfect trade-offs. What you gain with one move, you lose somewhere else’ is an increasingly understood concept and some of you are starting to point out and understand that no decision exists in isolation. 

I am conscious that I am going to descend into Alice’s rabbit hole here, so definitely stop reading now if you don’t want a bit of the coaching mad hatter…

Fans focus very strongly on results. Coaches focus very strongly on processes. Fans win a game and go home happy. Coaches can win a game and go home unhappy. Fans lose a game and go home unhappy. Coaches can lose a game and go home happy.

It is not just an ego-driven desire to see your coaching ‘fingerprints’ all over the pitch, in the patterns of play, the movements, the fixed point structures, the in-game tendencies, the questions you pose to the opposition coach, the on-the-fly solutions you find to the tactical  questions you get asked. Who wins the chess match of likelihood? Who does best with the resources, advantages and limitations they have?

And this where we are going somewhere. Maybe somewhere new for some of you. Some of you won’t like it. Some of you won’t get it. Some will, but can’t handle it on a losing Saturday night. Others maybe can, or will…

It also highlights many of the - sometimes cryptic or elliptical - questions that have been posed of the board, manager, sporting director, head coach, players on this thread. The question of why Farke was sacked, why Buendia was sold, why we failed at the top level, how we set up tactically now, whether Wagner should be kept on, why he might be, why he won’t be,  why MacClean plays Centre back, why Nunez is being trained into a different role, why our strikers play in a way that makes it harder for them to score as often as one might expect…

As a coach you must make the best of what you have. You must identify what your weapons are. What does or could hurt the opposition. 

This does not necessarily mean scoring goals, or even creating chances. 

It means creating repeating patterns of play on the field that the opposition coach is forced to address and adjust his or her own preferred methodology for. 

Barnes coming down into the midfield area and linking play with his back to goal, feeding inverted wingers coming off the line repeatedly is hard to deal with. Barnes is good at it (pace Ipswich’s second goal). He’s awkward. He’s a ‘structural player’. He’s creating a particular repeatable pattern on the field that can be built around. It can be built around because as a coach we can be sure 8 or 9 times out of ten that he can and will do it.  This is also why managers often take certain players to new clubs with them. It is not that they are necessarily brilliant, but that they are structural (in some way).

We are very limited within our squad at the moment where weapons are concerned. The ones we have - like Barnes above - are worthy, though not game changing. They are small factors in our favour in a huge menu of two-directional examples - from both teams never forget!! - in every game. If we have 3 mini-weapons and the other team has 6, we are already likely to lose more than we win if we play 100 times.

This is what sporting directors should be fixated on and report upwards to Board. 

Has your head coach set up in such a way as to maximize the outcome?

Now careful here. 

This is absolutely not what fans often mistake this for: it does NOT mean ‘has he set us up in the best way to win?’

I’m going to repeat that. It does not mean setting us up in the best way to win. 

Confused? You shouldn’t be.

Why did Lambert do so incredibly well at Norwich and then never come close to repeating it anywhere else?

Why do bookmakers fear me creating an algorithm for PUPs picks that returns a small  amount year-after-year and not someone who makes a huge return one season? (nota bene: it is a long way from merely choosing the shortest odds). 

Why did I get thrown out of an American casino playing multiple tables of a kind of 3 card brag for relatively low stakes, repeatedly turning minimum stakes into $500 returns? (I’m not a gambler by the way, it was for demonstration purposes to clients) 

Why did sacking Farke because he failed to get results in the 2021 Premier League prove almost absolutely nothing about his suitability for the Norwich job?

Think of results as a spectrum. Think of a binary  graph with 0 at one end and 100 at the other. Easy. I want to win! I’ll choose 100! 

Ok, but 51 is still a win isn’t it? And 49 is a loss! There is 2% difference between those and yet one makes everything perfect and the other is a disaster.

Now what if your tactical on field plusvalenza - your lack of weapons and rather hollowed out, much-of-a-muchness squad - can only be configured to achieve 40%?  
 

You are going to lose 60% of the time. Though you have actually optimized everything that you have. 

4 out of 10 is pretty poor the fans bay!…we are losing! ….….yes but 4 out of 10 is markedly better than 2 out of 10…that was the choice in front of you. Perfection was not on offer. 
 

Now we are getting somewhere.

This is what coaches are constantly evaluating, monitoring and judging each other on. What did you do with what you had? What cute ideas did you come up with to hide your deficiencies and maximize your odds?

Winning one year - as Lambert did for a while - because you go on a Glasgow gambler’s hot streak, is loved, enjoyed and patted-on-the- back, but it is not respected in the way that constantly beating the bookmakers odds through calculation, analysis, marshalling, planning and algorithmic deviousness is viewed as professional alchemist’s gold and hugely admired and respected. 

Though of course it can also lead to a rather mad scientist’s tinkering and a fool’s gold cauldron of coaching trying-too-hard. Is this Wagner? 

Football is a maddeningly incoherent, fluid game of small margins. ‘Both boxes’ the old boys say. 

Control the middle bit, have brilliant processes, beautifully-constructed patterns……then Michael Owen - who has done nothing much all game and not troubled anyone - just gambles that a defender might lose concentration and misjudge a fairly nothing ball (and he does it 109 times, for the 1 time it actually happens), and he does. And he scores. And you lose. 

So. Weapons. 

Things you can’t ignore. Someone who just loves scoring and is prepared to waste 98% of their effort for one moment. 

Someone who can score direct from free kicks. Win penalties. Confidently score penalties . Win free kicks. Take good corners. Long awkward throws (Nunez?). 

Wagner had no real weapons so he had to make patterns that were mini strategic pattern-of-play weapons. Barnes and Sargent coming into midfield as a double-false-9-box-lay-off team that couldn’t be ignored, but had to involve complicated handing on of players into certain unusual areas. I deliberately left that unpunctuated as it is breathless, though not in itself very damaging to the opposition yet. 

You need to get Sara into places he can shoot from. Nunez into places he can shoot from. Use their set pieces, free kicks, long throws. Though they don’t know how to defend. Where to position themselves defensively in a fluid game. 

The opposition has excellent teams of analaysts too of course. They spent all week finding out our plans and countering them. Setting up problems for us too. Counter-punching. 

So now think differently. Completely differently. 

Think how you’d set up against Norwich.

Think what you’d do to undermine Sara, to exploit Nunez, to calculate that Norwich might play 2 strikers plus a midfield with Rowe, Sainz, Sara and Nunez in???? 

Spend an hour calculating how you’d cut holes in the way we operate, then come back to me and tell me how good we are again…

..then tell me how important it is to get Sara, Nunez, Rowe, Sainz on the pitch together …all focused on scoring more goals!!…..or?…….

Almost nobody plays with 2 strikers anymore. It exposes the midfield too much. You might do it with 352 of course, though most Italian sides would think of 4411 with a Holt and a Wes and then a pretty prosaic 8 block behind. 

So next time you draw a team on paper, draw another team to play against it and beat it. 

Then go back and re-draw your first team.

Parma

Edited December 27, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[shefcanary 2,409]

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

The opposition has excellent teams of analaysts too of course. They spent all week finding out our plans and countering them. Setting up problems for us too. Counter-punching. 

I always desperately try to remember this after a bad "performance", but often forget in the heat of disappointment. Football is such, a true game of passion. But how far do you take it?

We set up like this, we know the opposition knows we set up like this, so let's try something different?

The other side thinks, well they always set up like this, but they have done that so much surely they'll know we'll try to stop them being effective with such a set-up - what others ways could they set-up in that might hurt us? Do we prepare for a plan B?

And maybe, just maybe, that is where the current criticism of Wagner (and Smith before him) has been poured out by many on here. Why don't we have a plan B or plan C? Just why does Wagner stick to 60 minutes for at least 2 substitutions whatever the game state? This seeming focus on our own process at all costs, despite what the opposition are doing and what our squad is potentially capable of doing, in reaction to what the opposition is doing. I'm sure there are adjustments being made by Wagner, but they seem miniscule.

Is all this part of the agreed plan?