Parma’s State of the Nation

[Barham Blitz 653]

I don't disagree with any of that @lake district canary - although perhaps a slightly less confrontational approach with a bit more humour - something along the lines of an acknowledgement of the reasons behind the reaction given the events of the previous week, a brief tactical explanation of the motivation behind the subs and a wry highlighting of the fact that it brought about another couple of goals would have served him better.

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

8 minutes ago, Barham Blitz said:

I don't disagree with any of that @lake district canary - although perhaps a slightly less confrontational approach with a bit more humour - something along the lines of an acknowledgement of the reasons behind the reaction given the events of the previous week, a brief tactical explanation of the motivation behind the subs and a wry highlighting of the fact that it brought about another couple of goals would have served him better.

I think you can forgive him a more emotional reaction straight after the game, and I don't think there's any harm in calling out the fact that booing does affect the players. I'm sure he'll be asked about it in his pre-Cardiff presser and that, to me, would be the time to be more conciliatory.

[shefcanary 2,410]

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

I suspect the answer to that is a surprising - perhaps rather non-Norwich - one.

I think in that scenario a swift acceleration of all corporate planning would occur, with Attanasio openly taking the reins, some SSG glitterati taking further minority (though notable) share investments, plus a raft of new players from a secret dossier in a locked drawer in Knapper’s office. 

Oh and Wagner wouldn’t be there regardless. Knapper would dust off the premium list of phone numbers and some American dollars would see some decent names start answering the calls. 

The problems of success are always to be welcomed. 

Parma 

This has been a much better thread to discuss the happenings of Tuesday than other more emotional threads on here, I'm just sorry I haven't got to it until now. 

This point particularly resonates. Yes, the EFL are taking more than enough time to formally confirm Attanasio's share allotment et al, but you cannot help wondering whether he is waiting for a "big club crisis" before the above happens. Others have pondered on Wagner potentially being a "lucky" manager as well as a streaky one. Perhaps Attanasio has felt close to making the above move (especially after Blackburn), but then that darned bloke got lucky again!

All to play for. Just taking longer than most would like.

[king canary 7,609]

12 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I think you can forgive him a more emotional reaction straight after the game, and I don't think there's any harm in calling out the fact that booing does affect the players. I'm sure he'll be asked about it in his pre-Cardiff presser and that, to me, would be the time to be more conciliatory.

Yes you'd hope so.

I remember when Ipswich and Mick McCarthy were having similar issues and McCarthy was incapable of offering even a basic conciliatory gesture and instead fanned the flames- going as far as to claim he'd be less likely to bring a player off the bench if the fans were chanting for them to come on. 

Hopefully Wagner can do a simple 'tempers were high, I understand fans can get frustrating, I ask for them to trust us.' 

[hogesar 9,676]

43 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy said -

"Your deep-seated psychological tendencies have a habit of finding you out under moments of high stress. You can hide, camouflage, obscure or deny them most of the time. Stress can be good or bad. Highs or lows in effect."

This is so true. Awareness is the key factor, knowing how you react as a person and managing the difficult times.

Wagner is a sensitive guy, passionate about football of course and a people person. You can see the tension in his face - and the emotion.

Imo people are building up what he said too much. The booing at the substitutions needed to be called out imo - and his point was about the need to stick together was right. 

Let's hope people start to wake up to the idea that they might be over reacting with this booing nonsense and actually start to support rather than behave like spoiled brats. 

It's February 2024 and I've agreed with more of your posts in the past week than any other year on this forum. The turns are tabling

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

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

I suspect the answer to that is a surprising - perhaps rather non-Norwich - one.

I think in that scenario a swift acceleration of all corporate planning would occur, with Attanasio openly taking the reins, some SSG glitterati taking further minority (though notable) share investments, plus a raft of new players from a secret dossier in a locked drawer in Knapper’s office. 

Oh and Wagner wouldn’t be there regardless. Knapper would dust off the premium list of phone numbers and some American dollars would see some decent names start answering the calls. 

The problems of success are always to be welcomed. 

Parma 

 

This has been a much better thread to discuss the happenings of Tuesday than other more emotional threads on here, I'm just sorry I haven't got to it until now. 

This point particularly resonates. Yes, the EFL are taking more than enough time to formally confirm Attanasio's share allotment et al, but you cannot help wondering whether he is waiting for a "big club crisis" before the above happens. Others have pondered on Wagner potentially being a "lucky" manager as well as a streaky one. Perhaps Attanasio has felt close to making the above move (especially after Blackburn), but then that darned bloke got lucky again!

All to play for. Just taking longer than most would like.

In my world (now) investors, new CEO, new shareholders, funds and oligarchic figures love to create lines in the sand, delineation from what has gone before, a new benchmarking of a new zero point. 

You can understand it from commercial, ego, calculatory, bonus pot-ery standpoints. 

Putting new money into old problems, that get swallowed without obvious change, recognition, thanks or effect is unattractive on multiple levels. 

‘I want any investment I make to clearly reflect well on me and not be claimed-muddied-confused with what went on yesterday’ would be a common thread. 

The ‘holding pattern’ - financially-sportingly-operationally - that Webber left behind and Wagner inherited (which indeed went against much good that had gone before) was also a transitional firebreak on a higher corporate level. 

Knapper doing nothing much for a bit - including this January window - also fits this logic and narrative. 

Who better than Wagner right now? Or even - if we’re honest - when we were looking pretty poor in November?

If the old guard holding pattern somehow succeeds via the playoffs then you call some SSG friends, share some equity, get a cash injection and have some fun. Fans will feel that its Christmas.

If it doesn’t, you ship out a huge number of players, dump the manager (which you are actually going to do whatever happens), take your data analytics out for a spin, test Knapper’s London Academies contacts book and - in either case - you have drawn a notable corporate line in the sand that ‘this is my regime’ . Judge me from here, This is the benchmark day zero. 

Which is what you wanted all along.

Parma 

[Barham Blitz 653]

On 15/02/2024 at 13:12, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

If it doesn’t, you ship out a huge number of players, dump the manager (which you are actually going to do whatever happens), take your data analytics out for a spin, test Knapper’s London Academies contacts book and - in either case - you have drawn a notable corporate line in the sand that ‘this is my regime’ . Judge me from here, This is the benchmark day zero. 

So essentially we are back to Webber walking through the door and plucking a fresh new manager from his contacts book and coming up with a five year plan to right the wrongs of a previous regime. There are worse places to start from...

Edited February 17 by Barham Blitz

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

Parma Ham's gone mouldy     2,165

•  
  •  

Posted just now

   On 24/02/2024 at 10:57,  Taiwan Canary said: 

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy Things are looking up and we now look like a team that other teams don't want to play. Do we have any weapons or is it the "collective' threat that causes oppositions to scratch their heads? Big gane today, I hope we are able to drop some bombs!

Hmm….no is the short answer. 

I would suggest that Wagner’s incessant tinkering is - in part - because he wants to create difficulties for opposition coaches due our very absence of weapons. 

Rowe is a good player, Sargent is decent at this level, though neither are weapons. Rowe is ‘simply’ good. 

The only weapons in the side - weaponish - are the horribly flawed Barnes and (pace @PurpleCanary) Hernandez. 

Barnes creates a structural issue for opposition coaches repeatedly. He is awkward in deeper spaces and acts as a repeating fulcrum for other actions. He is hard to stop when he does this and he does it repeatedly. He is a building block. 

He doesn’t score however. He doesn’t really get into dangerous spaces and places either. He certainly facilitates others playing better - which is welcome - though not game-defining.

Hernandez is only a weapon by technical definition. As time goes by, perhaps not even that, as opposition coaches have learned not to worry about him too much. He scares the life out of you once, bursting past players, driving bulldog-like into good areas….then…then…..nothing. He just doesn’t have the football brain or guile to make the right decision at the right moment. He can’t even be coached to ‘just hit the right areas’. It is a critical defect and frustrating.

A weapon is not a ‘good player’ and good players are not necessarily weapons. The definition I like is ‘does something repeatedly to tactically affect the game in your favour that cannot be ignored by the opposition coach and forces him or her to change their preferred methodology to deal with it’ 

This does not mean ‘watch Rowe closely, he’s good’. It means a certain skill, ability, repeated movement or advantage that tips the overall plusvalenza of the game in your favour. You have an area of the pitch that will repeatedly lead to you winning micro battles time and time again (without tactical change).

So Wagner creates deep striker midfield boxes, overloads high central areas with Barnes and Sargent working hard. The inverted wide players come in and out (not so special) and could go beyond (though Mostly don’t as they lack real pace).
 

Full backs go outside and high when midfielders invert, though this often leaves too much central defensive responsibility on the two forwards (nominally) in that area, who are not midfielders - and certainly not defenders - and despite their relative diligence, it often leaves a fairly unconvincing ‘reverse mirror box’ of two centre backs plus Maclean and Sara.

Maclean has often wandered off to cover someone else’s mistake somewhere else, whilst Sara is just…well…somewhere else. So centre backs are exposed and our midfield looks very open and flaky at times. 

It is something of a direct repercussion of trying to create a structural weapon in the absence of a real weapon.

Me? I’m not sure why you don’t just put more faith in Rowe, play for free kicks for Sara and Nunez, solve the midfield issue by playing one striker only,  and fill the gap in the middle by switching out Barnes for a CDM, freeing Sara to be more of a roaming 8-to-10 and back again…

…plus of course behind the scenes I’d be in Knapper’s office every day filtering spreadsheets on weapons that we’d lovingly identified together. Then I’d kick and scream like a toddler until I got what I wanted…

Parma 

Edited just now by Parma Ham's gone mouldy 
🦮🙏🏼👌💪🏼
 

Thanks @Taiwan Canary a nice easy-to-digest summary of where we are tactically at. Why it sometimes works and why it sometimes doesn’t ….

Edited February 25 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
🦮🙏🏼👌💪🏼

[Fen Canary 829]

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

Parma Ham's gone mouldy     2,165

•  
  •  

Posted just now

   On 24/02/2024 at 10:57,  Taiwan Canary said: 

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy Things are looking up and we now look like a team that other teams don't want to play. Do we have any weapons or is it the "collective' threat that causes oppositions to scratch their heads? Big gane today, I hope we are able to drop some bombs!

Hmm….no is the short answer. 

I would suggest that Wagner’s incessant tinkering is - in part - because he wants to create difficulties for opposition coaches due our very absence of weapons. 

Rowe is a good player, Sargent is decent at this level, though neither are weapons. Rowe is ‘simply’ good. 

The only weapons in the side - weaponish - are the horribly flawed Barnes and (pace @PurpleCanary) Hernandez. 

Barnes creates a structural issue for opposition coaches repeatedly. He is awkward in deeper spaces and acts as a repeating fulcrum for other actions. He is hard to stop when he does this and he does it repeatedly. He is a building block. 

He doesn’t score however. He doesn’t really get into dangerous spaces and places either. He certainly facilitates others playing better - which is welcome - though not game-defining.

Hernandez is only a weapon by technical definition. As time goes by, perhaps not even that, as opposition coaches have learned not to worry about him too much. He scares the life out of you once, bursting past players, driving bulldog-like into good areas….then…then…..nothing. He just doesn’t have the football brain or guile to make the right decision at the right moment. He can’t even be coached to ‘just hit the right areas’. It is a critical defect and frustrating.

A weapon is not a ‘good player’ and good players are not necessarily weapons. The definition I like is ‘does something repeatedly to tactically affect the game in your favour that cannot be ignored by the opposition coach and forces him or her to change their preferred methodology to deal with it’ 

This does not mean ‘watch Rowe closely, he’s good’. It means a certain skill, ability, repeated movement or advantage that tips the overall plusvalenza of the game in your favour. You have an area of the pitch that will repeatedly lead to you winning micro battles time and time again (without tactical change).

So Wagner creates deep striker midfield boxes, overloads high central areas with Barnes and Sargent working hard. The inverted wide players come in and out (not so special) and could go beyond (though Mostly don’t as they lack real pace).
 

Full backs go outside and high when midfielders invert, though this often leaves too much central defensive responsibility on the two forwards (nominally) in that area, who are not midfielders - and certainly not defenders - and despite their relative diligence, it often leaves a fairly unconvincing ‘reverse mirror box’ of two centre backs plus Maclean and Sara.

Maclean has often wandered off to cover someone else’s mistake somewhere else, whilst Sara is just…well…somewhere else. So centre backs are exposed and our midfield looks very open and flaky at times. 

It is something of a direct repercussion of trying to create a structural weapon in the absence of a real weapon.

Me? I’m not sure why you don’t just put more faith in Rowe, play for free kicks for Sara and Nunez, solve the midfield issue by playing one striker only,  and fill the gap in the middle by switching out Barnes for a CDM, freeing Sara to be more of a roaming 8-to-10 and back again…

…plus of course behind the scenes I’d be in Knapper’s office every day filtering spreadsheets on weapons that we’d lovingly identified together. Then I’d kick and scream like a toddler until I got what I wanted…

Parma 

Edited just now by Parma Ham's gone mouldy 
🦮🙏🏼👌💪🏼
 

Thanks @Taiwan Canary a nice easy-to-digest summary of where we are tactically at. Why it sometimes works and why it sometimes doesn’t ….

Would that not nullify Sargent though? He’s incredibly effective with Barnes running around doing all the donkey work (much like Heskey did years ago), him being there makes it easier for those more technically gifted players to shine.

If you take him out of the side than those others will have to step up and perform the more defensive/physical role, would that mean you get less out of them in an attacking sense? 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

9 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Would that not nullify Sargent though? He’s incredibly effective with Barnes running around doing all the donkey work (much like Heskey did years ago), him being there makes it easier for those more technically gifted players to shine.

If you take him out of the side than those others will have to step up and perform the more defensive/physical role, would that mean you get less out of them in an attacking sense? 

A perfectly valid counter point @Fen Canary. One that Wagner would definitely make.

I think the counter counter point (!) would certainly be the cost of this tactical gain. Remember it is all about overall plusvalenza. We do not just play our own pieces, we must play the black moves against us in our head too.

Wagner has decided that the combination you refer to is the tactical weapon we will build around, Though he must ask quite contorted tactical play from others for this as we have identified in the analysis above. 

Our recent successes - and I would suggest more balanced, pleasing, fluid play according to ‘the eye test’ - playing with one striker and freeing others more, filling the centre of the field more naturally, showing  greater defensive solidity in a simpler (more controlled) way, indicate that the ultimate plusvalenza of the two strikers is quite possibly net negative.

Parma 

 

Edited February 26 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

One obvious tactical compromise of the striker midfield box under the Wagner method is that the inverting wide players have a notable defensive role. This is understandable in the circumstances, though the way Wagner operates it greatly limits how much they can go in behind. You have rather created interesting tactical space and threat that you arguably then cannot - or do not - use. 

As noted this is where selection, recruitment and ‘choice of type’ of player comes in. Wagner wants Fassnacht for his diligence, structure and eye for goal late at the back post for example.

This is fine, though if you have two strikers dropping deep into a midfield box, doesn’t it open up a nice opportunity for a flyer out-to-in going in behind? 

The answer is of course yes and no. The opportunity is there, but you’ve ‘spent’ your (over?) maximum attack-defence balance on the two strikers…….

You can’t open up more as the risk of counters - there would for sure be critical overloads against you elsewhere - is far too high.

This is one of the ‘tactical contortions’ of. I think we are erratic because we are -deliberately - structurally unbalanced. Deliberately of course. To make that structural weapon. Because we don’t really have one. 

Though the questions might be:

1. ‘who does at this level?’

2. ‘Do we have enough good players to compete anyway?’

3. ‘Are the tactical compromises in creating this structural weapon worth it?’

4. ‘Can the players do it (and understand what I mean)’

5. ‘Does it work on grass better than other ideas?’

I think we have seen that for much of the season it was flaky, unconvincing, erratic and not fully understood. As time has gone by it has got better and clearer. 

Though when simpler patterns are seen - with one striker - doesn’t it look equally as good and more natural to the players with better balance?

Parma 

Edited February 26 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
Just to clarify: added ‘ under the Wagner method’. Two strikers dropping deep into a midfield box could certainly be augmented by (say) out-to-in wide players going beyond, obviously including the vacated 9 space should one choose.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

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

One obvious tactical compromise of the striker midfield box is that the inverting wide players have a notable defensive role. This is understandable in the circumstances, though the way Wagner operates it greatly limits how much they can go in behind. You have rather created interesting tactical space and threat that you arguably then cannot - or do not - use. 

As noted this is where selection, recruitment and ‘choice of type’ of player comes in. Wagner wants Fassnacht for his diligence, structure and eye for goal late at the back post for example.

This is fine, though if you have two strikers dropping deep into a midfield box, doesn’t it open up a nice opportunity for a flyer out-to-in going in behind? 

The answer is of course yes and no. The opportunity is there, but you’ve ‘spent’ your (over?) maximum attack-defence balance on the two strikers…….

You can’t open up more as the risk of counters - there would for sure be critical overloads against you elsewhere - is far too high.

This is one of the ‘tactical contortions’ of. I think we are erratic because we are -deliberately - structurally unbalanced. Deliberately of course. To make that structural weapon. Because we don’t really have one. 

Though the questions might be:

1. ‘who does at this level?’

2. ‘Do we have enough good players to compete anyway?’

3. ‘Are the tactical compromises in creating this structural weapon worth it?’

4. ‘Can the players do it (and understand what I mean)’

5. ‘Does it work on grass better than other ideas?’

I think we have seen that for much of the season it was flaky, unconvincing, erratic and not fully understood. As time has gone by it has got better and clearer. 

Though when simpler patterns are seen - with one striker - doesn’t it look equally as good and more natural to the players with better balance?

Parma 

 

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

One obvious tactical compromise of the striker midfield box is that the inverting wide players have a notable defensive role. This is understandable in the circumstances, though the way Wagner operates it greatly limits how much they can go in behind. You have rather created interesting tactical space and threat that you arguably then cannot - or do not - use. 

As noted this is where selection, recruitment and ‘choice of type’ of player comes in. Wagner wants Fassnacht for his diligence, structure and eye for goal late at the back post for example.

This is fine, though if you have two strikers dropping deep into a midfield box, doesn’t it open up a nice opportunity for a flyer out-to-in going in behind? 

The answer is of course yes and no. The opportunity is there, but you’ve ‘spent’ your (over?) maximum attack-defence balance on the two strikers…….

You can’t open up more as the risk of counters - there would for sure be critical overloads against you elsewhere - is far too high.

This is one of the ‘tactical contortions’ of. I think we are erratic because we are -deliberately - structurally unbalanced. Deliberately of course. To make that structural weapon. Because we don’t really have one. 

Though the questions might be:

1. ‘who does at this level?’

2. ‘Do we have enough good players to compete anyway?’

3. ‘Are the tactical compromises in creating this structural weapon worth it?’

4. ‘Can the players do it (and understand what I mean)’

5. ‘Does it work on grass better than other ideas?’

I think we have seen that for much of the season it was flaky, unconvincing, erratic and not fully understood. As time has gone by it has got better and clearer. 

Though when simpler patterns are seen - with one striker - doesn’t it look equally as good and more natural to the players with better balance?

Parma 

Really interesting read as always. Is it correct to say you're saying Wagner has adopted a one-striker approach that's simple, fluid, and effective, alongside a more convoluted, confusing, not-so-effective but gradually becoming more effective two-striker approach?

The other thing I take from what you're saying is that none of our players are really weapons of any sort? My immediate question on the back of that is whether the free kicks from Nunez and Sara count as weapons or do you think they flatter to deceive on that score?

Overall, if I understand you correctly and our raw material simply isn't of a standard to attain promotion on its own merits, then what Wagner's doing is creating a weapon through strategic diversity? If we were to simply pursue the simple approach all of the time, surely the end result of that would just be opposing teams well-drilled to nullify that approach and Norwich becoming an overall less challenging opponent?

Edited February 26 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 829]

27 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

Really interesting read as always. Is it correct to say you're saying Wagner has adopted a one-striker approach that's simple, fluid, and effective, alongside a more convoluted, confusing, not-so-effective but gradually becoming more effective two-striker approach?

The other thing I take from what you're saying is that none of our players are really weapons of any sort? My immediate question on the back of that is whether the free kicks from Nunez and Sara count as weapons or do you think they flatter to deceive on that score?

Overall, if I understand you correctly and our raw material simply isn't of a standard to attain promotion on its own merits, then what Wagner's doing is creating a weapon through strategic diversity? If we were to simply pursue the simple approach all of the time, surely the end result of that would just be opposing teams well-drilled to nullify that approach and Norwich becoming an overall less challenging opponent?

It’s trying to strike a balance. At the moment I think we’re 5th highest scorers but bottom 8 in terms of conceding. It’s incredibly frustrating at times watching the opposition waltz through the midfield, but if you pack the midfield and make yourself more solid defensively is that enough to compensate what you’d lose going forward? Which is going to get you more points over the course of a season?

If we are looking at trying to go up and have a sustained run in the top flight then I think we do have to choose the solidly defensive options, as playing expansive football in the top flight is suicidal as we’ve found out to our cost 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

Really interesting read as always. Is it correct to say you're saying Wagner has adopted a one-striker approach that's simple, fluid, and effective, alongside a more convoluted, confusing, not-so-effective but gradually becoming more effective two-striker approach?

The other thing I take from what you're saying is that none of our players are really weapons of any sort? My immediate question on the back of that is whether the free kicks from Nunez and Sara count as weapons or do you think they flatter to deceive on that score?

Overall, if I understand you correctly and our raw material simply isn't of a standard to attain promotion on its own merits, then what Wagner's doing is creating a weapon through strategic diversity? If we were to simply pursue the simple approach all of the time, surely the end result of that would just be opposing teams well-drilled to nullify that approach and Norwich becoming an overall less challenging opponent?

I love playing for free kicks. Having dangerous free kick specialists is an absolute must for any side. A ‘strike one’ (Sara) from 25 yards and a ‘flip and spin one’ (SVH it seems, though Nunez had a nice ‘hybrid’ version at the weekend). They are different techniques and very few can do both. The ‘strike feeling’ (and technical dynamic delivery) is very different. 

Here is a stat for you from Samuel Seaman’s article today. A good warning for your confirmation bias: 

‘Norwich City didn’t score direct from a free-kick for 552 days between August 14, 2022 and February 17, 2024’

Parma

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

It’s trying to strike a balance. At the moment I think we’re 5th highest scorers but bottom 8 in terms of conceding. It’s incredibly frustrating at times watching the opposition waltz through the midfield, but if you pack the midfield and make yourself more solid defensively is that enough to compensate what you’d lose going forward? Which is going to get you more points over the course of a season?

If we are looking at trying to go up and have a sustained run in the top flight then I think we do have to choose the solidly defensive options, as playing expansive football in the top flight is suicidal as we’ve found out to our cost 

Indeed. Lots of good points here. And nicely nuanced, clearly indicating the imperfect trades that occur.

Parma 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

4 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

It’s trying to strike a balance. At the moment I think we’re 5th highest scorers but bottom 8 in terms of conceding. It’s incredibly frustrating at times watching the opposition waltz through the midfield, but if you pack the midfield and make yourself more solid defensively is that enough to compensate what you’d lose going forward? Which is going to get you more points over the course of a season?

If we are looking at trying to go up and have a sustained run in the top flight then I think we do have to choose the solidly defensive options, as playing expansive football in the top flight is suicidal as we’ve found out to our cost 

 

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

Indeed. Lots of good points here. And nicely nuanced, clearly indicating the imperfect trades that occur.

Parma 

Will the fans put up with that though? Will it pass the 'eye test'? Is the general reaction to anything that's not perceived as sufficiently swashbuckling influencing the decisions away from this?

Edited February 26 by littleyellowbirdie

[Barham Blitz 653]

I remember jokingly suggesting after a couple of weeks of him being here that Wagner seemed to be trying to implement the "old up and at 'em" WM formation much beloved by Hebert Chapman in the 1930s but humour aside, it isn't actually wildly removed.

It seems to me just a really crude method of creating overloads - essentially almost (and yes, I do "get" the boxes / inverting / pressing elements of Wagnerball) a case of "if more of you go and stand over there we'll outnumber them."  Which is fine until the opposition has control of the situation (ie. the ball) at which point they go and do pesky things like put the ball behind our overload and create one of their own.

At it's best, we occasionally look fluid and dangerous and adventurous as we transition quickly and effectively swarm the opposition by weight of numbers.  Plus, some very good players at this level - or at least players capable of the eye-catching in this setup - Rowe / Sara / Nunez / Sargent / Sainz.  But as I've said before it is very much the footballing equivalent of a boxer flailing haymakers in an all out attack - against weaker opponents we may land a knockout punch but there is a significant risk against a more technical counterpuncher of leaving ourselves wildly vulnerable (as @Fen Canary has demonstrated.) 

It is also significant that we seem to veer wildly to the other defensive extreme when faced with an opponent that we feel is threatening - the lowest of low blocks, midfield camped in front of our back four, no passing through midfield, draw the press on to our defence before playing out etc.  Wagner knows that his standard approach is a massive throw of the dice / All-in numbers based gamble and that it would be picked apart by a team with even a semblance of control, hence the plan B yin to his plan A yang.

So we have two tactical extremes which seem largely pre-determined before kick off - and nothing much between that could be considered to represent an attempt at in game control (although to be fair. there do seem to have been some signs in the last month or so that we are developing a little in this respect.)  As you'd hope / expect, it seems to be working more effectively with our first choice XI out there, and it looks as if it may even squeak us in to the playoffs, but for me @Parma Ham's gone mouldy has summed up my doubts in the following two questions -

2. ‘Do we have enough good players to compete anyway?’

3. ‘Are the tactical compromises in creating this structural weapon worth it?’

At this level, my answers would be (probably) Yes and No - on both counts it is actually pretty telling how many of our goals this season have been individual moments of brilliance rather than something inexorably crafted from systematic pressure.  At a higher level, even with this approach we would need to develop some method of joining the two plans together beyond the current crude numbers game (at both extremes) as otherwise we'll be looking back on the Hughton era as a halcyon dream of free-flowing attacking football.

 

Edited February 26 by Barham Blitz

[BigFish 1,988]

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

This is one of the ‘tactical contortions’ of. I think we are erratic because we are -deliberately - structurally unbalanced. Deliberately of course. To make that structural weapon. Because we don’t really have one. 

 

42 minutes ago, Barham Blitz said:

2. ‘Do we have enough good players to compete anyway?’

3. ‘Are the tactical compromises in creating this structural weapon worth it?’

Well this is the key when posters post that Wagner doesn't know what he is doing. His choices are deliberate, he does know why he is doing what he is doing. That is not to necessarily say it works, or it is our best option - just that it is deliberate.

Now both @Barham Blitz and @Parma Ham's gone mouldy are thoughtful posters, but it appears on this they disagree on point 2. For my money I agree with Parma that we have sold or lost our weapons and haven't replaced them. We do have an expensive squad of capable players but it is spread too wide, too shallow. I think on 3 Wagner is desperately trying to mitigate the situation with tactics, injuries and individual mistakes have cost us. We don't have the players to play in Farke's preferred 4231 or the 433 we tried to switch too (I am aware of in-game rotations) - despite Rowe and Sargeant's heroics it is often difficult to see where a goal is coming from.

If you were building a team for promotion you wouldn't start from here, let alone a team to stay in the EPL.

[C.I.D 302]

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

It’s trying to strike a balance. At the moment I think we’re 5th highest scorers but bottom 8 in terms of conceding. It’s incredibly frustrating at times watching the opposition waltz through the midfield, but if you pack the midfield and make yourself more solid defensively is that enough to compensate what you’d lose going forward? Which is going to get you more points over the course of a season?

If we are looking at trying to go up and have a sustained run in the top flight then I think we do have to choose the solidly defensive options, as playing expansive football in the top flight is suicidal as we’ve found out to our cost 

There's the dilemma though ...............near-exceptional midfield and strike options would be essential if concentration on solid defence is our salvation to survival in the EPL 😔

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,138]

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy Does everyone in professional football think along these lines and think in terms of a plusvalenza outcome when setting up a team and when signing players consider "weapons" extremely valuable or is this just something you've learned from the specific clubs you've worked at? What I mean is are there managers and sporting directors who just think better players=better results and don't take the same approach to setting up teams and signing players and do you think the important people at our club would understand and agree with your posts if they read them? Or do you think they'd rubbish them and think no we just need better players all over the pitch and that football isn't that complicated?

I know you've often said that coaches look for certain things and when talking about Wagner you've referenced your own posts when talking about your interpretation of what you see he's trying to do so you've alluded to the fact that people at our club do think in these terms but I'm just wondering if this is the widely accepted way of thinking within football that you're educating us on or if it's more of a niche way of thinking that you've picked up from working in Italy? We don't know much about Knapper obviously by this point and I know we have budgetary restrictions but in the past looking at some of our signings we often seem to go for neat and tidy players who don't have one outstanding attribute and don't really cause the opposition many problems and if the people in charge of our transfers thought about football like you do I don't see the sense in a lot of those signings. 

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

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

This is one of the ‘tactical contortions’ of. I think we are erratic because we are -deliberately - structurally unbalanced. Deliberately of course. To make that structural weapon. Because we don’t really have one. 

 

2 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

At it's best, we occasionally look fluid and dangerous and adventurous as we transition quickly and effectively swarm the opposition by weight of numbers.  Plus, some very good players at this level - or at least players capable of the eye-catching in this setup - Rowe / Sara / Nunez / Sargent / Sainz.  But as I've said before it is very much the footballing equivalent of a boxer flailing haymakers in an all out attack - against weaker opponents we may land a knockout punch but there is a significant risk against a more technical counterpuncher of leaving ourselves wildly vulnerable (as @Fen Canary has demonstrated.) 

Great posts.

I'm beginning to realise that I think this is why this feels like such an odd season. Without such in-depth analysis, what you (I?) tend to see in games is that we swing wildly from looking like a really good side who should be comfortably in the top six to looking like an incredibly vulnerable one who could fall apart at any moment. When the truth is that, because of they way we set up, we're both, and it seems like Wagner has decided that being both is fine, it's going to win us more games than it loses, and it's better than being neither. And with most of our players fit, he's just about right. Why he persisted with similar tactics when we were short of the players that make it (just-about) work, I'm less sure.

Probably worth saying that this is another way in which we were spoiled by The Blessed Daniel. In the last two away games I was very frustrated by our failure to control those games once we'd taken the lead. We used to do it all the time under DF and it's probably worth remembering that doing so is actually quite rare. Oh my Vrancic and my Emi long ago...

[Mason 47 1,381]

I'd like to propose the possible emergence of a half-weapon in Borja Sainz' cutting in from the left. He's repeated this trick several times to goalscoring ends already, often spectacularly, and has gone close several more times. 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

48 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

 

Great posts.

I'm beginning to realise that I think this is why this feels like such an odd season. Without such in-depth analysis, what you (I?) tend to see in games is that we swing wildly from looking like a really good side who should be comfortably in the top six to looking like an incredibly vulnerable one who could fall apart at any moment. When the truth is that, because of they way we set up, we're both, and it seems like Wagner has decided that being both is fine, it's going to win us more games than it loses, and it's better than being neither. And with most of our players fit, he's just about right. Why he persisted with similar tactics when we were short of the players that make it (just-about) work, I'm less sure.

Probably worth saying that this is another way in which we were spoiled by The Blessed Daniel. In the last two away games I was very frustrated by our failure to control those games once we'd taken the lead. We used to do it all the time under DF and it's probably worth remembering that doing so is actually quite rare. Oh my Vrancic and my Emi long ago...

Looking at games through your tears, Robert?😍

[Petriix 2,839]

It's interesting that this conversation is happening now when we've actually seen (probably for the first time under Wagner) 'the plan' working properly. I'd argue that our biggest weapon has become... 

Kenny McLean... but... only when he plays at centre back. It's been mentioned elsewhere but bears repeating that he causes real problems for our opponents when he steps into midfield from defence. Every time he plays in defence the team looks better balanced.

I'd argue that for two thirds of the Watford game and for almost all of the match against Cardiff we could actually see a comprehensive system in place where we were able to dictate the game and repeatedly hurt the opposition and create chances. Patterns of play, not just the moments of individual brilliance we've become dependent on.

I didn't watch the Blackburn game so can't really comment on what went wrong but the overall recent picture is one of improvement and success. 

The real issue is that we've left it late to come to the party and other teams are continuing to pick up points so it requires a very strong end to the season to make up for the awful run up to November. Yes, there's still a defensive frailty, but we don't seem to have the structural issues we previously had. 

I only wish that Wagner would stick with that winning system rather than continually chopping and changing. It drives me mad. 

[Monty13 2,235]

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

I love playing for free kicks. Having dangerous free kick specialists is an absolute must for any side. A ‘strike one’ (Sara) from 25 yards and a ‘flip and spin one’ (SVH it seems, though Nunez had a nice ‘hybrid’ version at the weekend). They are different techniques and very few can do both. The ‘strike feeling’ (and technical dynamic delivery) is very different. 

Here is a stat for you from Samuel Seaman’s article today. A good warning for your confirmation bias: 

‘Norwich City didn’t score direct from a free-kick for 552 days between August 14, 2022 and February 17, 2024’

Parma

Jesus I had no idea it had been that long, that’s crazy. 

I always forget a weapon by your definition is not a good player that produces something, goals and assists etc. but someone that creates a specific problem to be countered.

It’s super interesting in those terms so few players fit the criteria.

[Monty13 2,235]

2 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy Does everyone in professional football think along these lines and think in terms of a plusvalenza outcome when setting up a team and when signing players consider "weapons" extremely valuable or is this just something you've learned from the specific clubs you've worked at? What I mean is are there managers and sporting directors who just think better players=better results and don't take the same approach to setting up teams and signing players and do you think the important people at our club would understand and agree with your posts if they read them? Or do you think they'd rubbish them and think no we just need better players all over the pitch and that football isn't that complicated?

I know you've often said that coaches look for certain things and when talking about Wagner you've referenced your own posts when talking about your interpretation of what you see he's trying to do so you've alluded to the fact that people at our club do think in these terms but I'm just wondering if this is the widely accepted way of thinking within football that you're educating us on or if it's more of a niche way of thinking that you've picked up from working in Italy? We don't know much about Knapper obviously by this point and I know we have budgetary restrictions but in the past looking at some of our signings we often seem to go for neat and tidy players who don't have one outstanding attribute and don't really cause the opposition many problems and if the people in charge of our transfers thought about football like you do I don't see the sense in a lot of those signings. 

 

I mean, we know Webber didn’t.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

3 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy Does everyone in professional football think along these lines and think in terms of a plusvalenza outcome when setting up a team and when signing players consider "weapons" extremely valuable or is this just something you've learned from the specific clubs you've worked at? What I mean is are there managers and sporting directors who just think better players=better results and don't take the same approach to setting up teams and signing players and do you think the important people at our club would understand and agree with your posts if they read them? Or do you think they'd rubbish them and think no we just need better players all over the pitch and that football isn't that complicated?

I know you've often said that coaches look for certain things and when talking about Wagner you've referenced your own posts when talking about your interpretation of what you see he's trying to do so you've alluded to the fact that people at our club do think in these terms but I'm just wondering if this is the widely accepted way of thinking within football that you're educating us on or if it's more of a niche way of thinking that you've picked up from working in Italy? We don't know much about Knapper obviously by this point and I know we have budgetary restrictions but in the past looking at some of our signings we often seem to go for neat and tidy players who don't have one outstanding attribute and don't really cause the opposition many problems and if the people in charge of our transfers thought about football like you do I don't see the sense in a lot of those signings. 

 

This is such an excellent post. Lots of extremely important questions that are important to ask. 

Previous to Sporting Directors, Managers pushed trustee owners to buy any players that might buy them an extra 6 months in the job. 

The rather self-serving I’m-not-picking-up-the-tab phrase ‘only 1 in 4 transfers work out’ rather created a low-threshold-low-responsibility gravy train of transfer confetti money being thrown around. 

Sporting Directors should be working to avoid or at least minimise this kind of washing machine short-termism. It really shouldn’t happen anymore…

…However pressures are pressures and football is football. A phrase I have repeated is ‘solving yesterday’s problems’. We’re a bit flaky? Quick, buy experience!

Experience has steadied the ship, but we’re not doing as well as we’d hoped? Youth is the answer, bring down the average age! We want to play positional play possession football! We want heavy-metal gegenpressing!

A bit like the intended benefits of the Sporting Director role, weapons transcend managers, they transcend philosophies of play, they transcend instructions. They are what they are and they are going to do what they are going to do.

Every coach should understand weapons. Every Sporting Director should try to identify them and get hold of them. 

‘Events, dear boy, events’ has a habit of taking over though. We need a left back, we need experience, we need a goalkeeper…nowish…so you do the best you can with what you’ve got. You buy from what’s available. In your price range. Who will actually come to you. Almost a race-to-the-middle if you like. It’s not often a wide choice pool for a club like Norwich. 
 

So you must look for flawed weapons: Wes, Holty, Crouch, Huckerby….even at a push Pukki and Emi (though I’d argue it was clear what Pukki could and couldn’t do, and Emi was just young, frustrated and needed a bigger stage - he knew he was better, could be better, should be better and we found him. Brilliant. Perfect).

You should notice pretty quickly that these players represent the difference-making drivers of almost all of our recent successes and promotions. 

They were of course augmented, supported, protected and amortised by other good players (some sides had quite a lot of good, balanced players, the Worthington squad was contextually very strong in this regard I’d say), though without the weapons much play would be prosaic and not result-defining. 

Conversely I think I’d argue that Farke did fantastically well via philosophy, methodology coaching, charisma and raised levels across the board. It’s why I liked and respected him most as a Norwich coach in my lifetime. 

Nevertheless I think I’d have to concede he probably had the most powerful weapons and weapon combination in Emi and Pukki. I think anybody extracting data can see a massive drop off in results without one or both of them during that period. I would concede that point about Farke, though it concurrently only goes to further emphasise the power of weapons versus good players. 

Something you maybe hint at @Christoph Stiepermann is whether people can see weapons, whether they can visualise how to use them, their particular skill, how it tessellates with what they have, what they don’t have, how it fits current players, methodologies, philosophies. Sporting Directors should be doing this every day, all day, in their spare time..it is game-changing. 

Nobody in Finland needed telling how good a finisher Pukki was and is. Can he win headers? No. Can he lead the line? No. Does he link the play well? It’s ok.

So then it becomes about whether you are prepared to make the compromises for that particular player’s skills. The phrase ‘building the team around them’  can come into play with weapons. 

What happens if they get injured? What do you do then? What if other players are bought in to work with your weapon? Are they also then neutered and not ideally suited to playing with others or in other ways? I never said that there was no compromise for weapons. 
 

Everything comes down to plusvalenza. Does the maths trotdem favour you? Can any lower level, poorish club afford great back up for any of its weapons or even just its good players? No. Not really. That’s a mirage anyway isn’t it?

This is where the wheel is come full circle and we refer back to the old boys, the gnarled fag-end coaches who said ‘both boxes lad’. 

Football is a low scoring game. Goals and assists have a hugely disproportionate effect on games. On how playing styles are viewed. How managers and players are viewed. On memories themselves. 

Others don’t know about it in football? Impossible.
 

It is football. 
 

Parma 

Edited February 26 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Barham Blitz 653]

4 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Now both @Barham Blitz and @Parma Ham's gone mouldy are thoughtful posters, but it appears on this they disagree on point 2. For my money I agree with Parma that we have sold or lost our weapons and haven't replaced them. We do have an expensive squad of capable players but it is spread too wide, too shallow.

I rarely find myself disagreeing with Parma - and in this instance rather than outright disagreeing, I'd suggest that my my point is a little more nuanced (as indicated by the parenthesised (if that's a word) "probably" in my reply if nothing else !)

I absolutely agree that we have sold our Farkeball "weapons" - but really in that era what were the weapons in Parma's definition ?  Buendia ? Pukki to an extent ? maybe even Vrancic ?  I'd actually argue that rather than individual players, the overall possession based system / approach was the actual weapon - the thing that forced the big tactical switches from the opposition, at least at this level.  I'm not sure that opposing Championship teams altered their tactical plan to counter specific players particularly in that era which was at least part of his definition.  But your point still stands - whatever it was, we no longer have it.

To be clear, my point was more a response to the "anyway" element of the question "‘Do we have enough good players to compete anyway?’"  which i took to interpret as would a tactical approach without the deliberate structural imbalances achieve a similar or better outcome than the current squad / approach has managed.  Which on the face of it is a borderline playoff position, albeit one achieved with some unfortunate injuries (plus ca change.)  I'd also suggest that in our hypothetical world, different signings would (or at least should) have been made to fit a non-Wagnerian tactical plan (and yes, i can cherry-pick Sainz as fitting my brave alternative vision and leave out Duffy and Batth if i want to ...) 

Last season after half a season of Smith (5th - but only 3 points off 16th) and just under half a season of Wagner we finished 13th with 62 points so I'm not sure that the bar is set too high - particularly given that more or less the entire season saw Teemu chasing around after lost causes again in a spectacular case of the wrong tactical horse for the wrong tactical course.  If we aren't Farkeballing, Sargent is a more effective all round front man - and his goals per minute ratio in a team that hasn't been without it's struggles is an absolute bonus.

It is however very difficult to explain how I'd do things in a post without writing War and Peace !  I can probably bullet point it if challenged.  The key difference would be to avoid the current situation of sometimes finding ourselves with 6 men on or ahead of the ball - both full backs, at least one of the central midfield, two widish players and two strikers.  The maths just doesn't add up in transition. particularly with two slow centre-backs.  

Overall, I'd not be quite as kamikaze with both full backs playing as auxiliary wingers for 90 minutes - one (the non-active side in any move) needs to either make a back three or tuck in as a second pivot if we have a (god-forbid) CDM / single pivot Deep Playmaker (the Kenny QB role) dropping into defence.  The fullbacks can rotate back as play switches.  Basically anything to avoid being countered with the 3-1-6 formation that we seem to have adopted when on the attack. If that involves a single striker and a more "midfieldy" Barnes alternative then I'm more than fine with that.  No reason not to be a bit more fluid about the whole thing, whilst retaining basic principles.

I like Kenny as a CB.  I don't mind Gibson as a CB but they do essentially the same job (progressive ball playing defender) with different emphases and the same relative weaknesses (aerial ability, pace, very much left-footedness.)  So one should play alongside either Hanley or Duffy (much as I would personally move them both on as both lack the necessary composure on the ball) as a complementary pairing.  The fullbacks are mainly ok to decent at this level so no real issues if no real strengths there.  Gunn has developed into a top end Champs keeper.

We sort of assume that we don't have the players to play a more possession based system and that rather than the Farke-esque probing and quick give and goes to pull the opposition of of their defensive shape we need to storm into attack in overwhelming force.  I'm not sure that is the case (although I'm not necessarily angling for a return to pure Farkeball either) - Sara, Nunez, Rowe, Sainz, Gibbs and even Fassnacht would all be more than capable from the current squad.

I'm all for quick transitions - indeed it was something that we were really good at times with Pukki's channel runs - we have the personnel to achieve that, and it should absolutely remain a focus, but even now there aren't any real technical duffers in the midfield / attacking areas so there is no reason why we can't play a more patient / structured game if the initial foray doesn't present a chance.  At the moment, if a move slows we often just look a bit confused and uncomfortable in possession, essentially trying to force things, essentially by throwing more attackers at the problem which is where the problems start.

The urge to create space behind the opposition press through the slightly flawed medium of having the least technical players in the team pass it amongst themselves before making a long pass - as opposed to passing into a player capable of receiving it under pressure and finding the run of a team mate with a short pass into space - is another manifestation of this, not helped by having Sargent and Barnes dropping in as the de facto midfield outlets.  As Parma has identified, it creates a really interesting space that as a result of the defensive obligations of the wide attackers, we currently don't have anybody moving in to - surely absolutely perfect for a Rowe or a Sainz if they are slightly freed from their defensive obligations by having their full back and a least a couple of midfielders behind them.

In any event, for all that overloads are catnip to managers, as my old coach used to tell me, you can always support an attack from behind the ball - a simple approach but one i think might make the world of difference to this team with a structural tweak or two, and one which i think could be achieved by this group if they were asked to.

 

 

[Barham Blitz 653]

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

Conversely I think I’d argue that Farke did fantastically well via philosophy, methodology coaching, charisma and raised levels across the board. It’s why I liked and respected him most as a Norwich coach in my lifetime. 

Nevertheless I think I’d have to concede he probably had the most powerful weapons and weapon combination in Emi and Pukki. I think anybody extracting data can see a massive drop off in results without one or both of them during that period. I would concede that point about Farke, though it concurrently only goes to further emphasise the power of weapons versus good players. 

That's both the strength and the weakness of Farke though isn't it ?  To an extent, his approach was almost Lobanovskian - players knew where their teammates would be at any given moment and could play simple or no look one-touch passes: the collective effect was certainly greater than the sum of the collective parts and where that didn't suffice there was the vision and touch of Emi combined with the movement and finishing of Pukki available to add the necessary stardust if required.

But without that weaponish ability to unlock a defence or create and finish a half chance it can appear a little sterile or one dimensional and be relatively easily defended - just remain disciplined and sit narrow and deep and wait for the misplaced pass. 

I think it is one of the reasons why so many of those relatively recent players have been less successful after leaving (with the obvious exceptions of the star-dust sprinklers Buendia and Maddison if you can count him in this context) - success was less about their individual ability and more about their fit in the collective.  We had a lot of average players in a side that performed beyond itself as a whole - particularly in the championship - because with Emi and Pukki (as a gross over-simplification) all the rest needed to do was to make a run, control a ball, make a short pass and repeat.  And you didn't need to be a world beater to fit in doing that.  Whereas now we are asking Grant Hanley to pick out a winger from 40 yards under pressure with predictable results ...

[hogesar 9,676]

4 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

 

Great posts.

I'm beginning to realise that I think this is why this feels like such an odd season. Without such in-depth analysis, what you (I?) tend to see in games is that we swing wildly from looking like a really good side who should be comfortably in the top six to looking like an incredibly vulnerable one who could fall apart at any moment. When the truth is that, because of they way we set up, we're both, and it seems like Wagner has decided that being both is fine, it's going to win us more games than it loses, and it's better than being neither. And with most of our players fit, he's just about right. Why he persisted with similar tactics when we were short of the players that make it (just-about) work, I'm less sure.

Probably worth saying that this is another way in which we were spoiled by The Blessed Daniel. In the last two away games I was very frustrated by our failure to control those games once we'd taken the lead. We used to do it all the time under DF and it's probably worth remembering that doing so is actually quite rare. Oh my Vrancic and my Emi long ago...

Not only is it quite rare, it's also a bit of a misconception of Farke's era that was only ever really partially true during a season where there were no fans in stadiums and the home / away difference was much less than it is now!