Parma’s State of the Nation

[Robert N. LiM 4,367]

35 minutes ago, hogesar said:

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!

Yeah, that's a fair point. The irony of that lockdown season is that, as an exiled fan, I watched more it than I did any of the others: pretty much every game was easily watchable online. So it dominates my memory of the Farke era. We were of course much more seat-of-the-pants in the first Championship-winning season.

[Barham Blitz 653]

16 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Yeah, that's a fair point. The irony of that lockdown season is that, as an exiled fan, I watched more it than I did any of the others: pretty much every game was easily watchable online. So it dominates my memory of the Farke era. We were of course much more seat-of-the-pants in the first Championship-winning season.

That was the tragedy of Farke's second promotion squad - with Skipp and some tweaks in the set up, the game management was so much better than the first promotion season and the whole thing just seemed so controlled in comparison.  It boded so well for another crack at the Premier League.

But then Spurs changed manager and wanted another look at Skipp.  And for whatever reason Emi moved on and suddenly the blueprint was aflame ...

[hogesar 9,676]

29 minutes ago, Barham Blitz said:

That was the tragedy of Farke's second promotion squad - with Skipp and some tweaks in the set up, the game management was so much better than the first promotion season and the whole thing just seemed so controlled in comparison.  It boded so well for another crack at the Premier League.

But then Spurs changed manager and wanted another look at Skipp.  And for whatever reason Emi moved on and suddenly the blueprint was aflame ...

I also think, and the data kind of supports it, that our defence wasn't as much improved as any of us thought. I'll hold my hands up because I was one of them.

But it turned out that Krul had an unbelievable season where he defied all odds in terms of saving the highest amount of expected goals in the league by some margin. The xG table for the league suggested we actually had the 9th or 10th best defence when it came to chances created against us.

So who had the best? Brentford - who of course were the better performing side in the Premier League too!

[Barham Blitz 653]

8 hours ago, hogesar said:

I also think, and the data kind of supports it, that our defence wasn't as much improved as any of us thought. I'll hold my hands up because I was one of them.

But it turned out that Krul had an unbelievable season where he defied all odds in terms of saving the highest amount of expected goals in the league by some margin. The xG table for the league suggested we actually had the 9th or 10th best defence when it came to chances created against us.

So who had the best? Brentford - who of course were the better performing side in the Premier League too!

That's a really interesting stat Hoggy - certainly at odds with my yellow tinted recollection of the season although thinking back Krul did come up with some blinding performances that year.  I'd be interested to compare it with the previous promotion season - perhaps my benchmark was particularly low as a result of that - or indeed the premiership season in between - and any improvement seemed exponential !

We did concede 21 fewer goals than the first promotion season (36 as opposed to 57 which is quite a difference) but equally scored 18 fewer (75 as opposed to 93) for a fairly similar overall points breakdown so perhaps the illusion of control was offered by the fact that we just didn't have as many 5 goal thrillers that year !

Edited February 27 by Barham Blitz

[BigFish 1,987]

11 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

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 ...

I had to Google Lobanovski 😀

[king canary 7,608]

11 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

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 ...

I'd argue you can say similar about any very good Norwich team in my time supporting- one or two exceptional players who elevate and create space for others with the rest almost acting as a platform for them.

03/04 Champions- a relatively average team elevated by an exceptional talent in Huckerby.

The two promotions under Lambert- the diamond formation created specifically to give Hoolahan the platform to do the creative work and to give Holt a strike partner. 

The last successful 'collective' team I can think of was probably the first season under Hughton where the closest we had to a weapon would have been Snodgrass.

[king canary 7,608]

10 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

That was the tragedy of Farke's second promotion squad - with Skipp and some tweaks in the set up, the game management was so much better than the first promotion season and the whole thing just seemed so controlled in comparison.  It boded so well for another crack at the Premier League.

But then Spurs changed manager and wanted another look at Skipp.  And for whatever reason Emi moved on and suddenly the blueprint was aflame ...

I do agree we'd have been better off with Skipp back on loan, keeping Emi and then spending £20m odd on a couple of players to add depth/competition (Sargent maybe?). However I don't think this was ever likely. Skipp always seemed very unlikely to be back here in my view and it always seemed from day one our plan was to sell a crown jewel to fund this remaking of the squad that Webber went for.

[Fen Canary 828]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

I do agree we'd have been better off with Skipp back on loan, keeping Emi and then spending £20m odd on a couple of players to add depth/competition (Sargent maybe?). However I don't think this was ever likely. Skipp always seemed very unlikely to be back here in my view and it always seemed from day one our plan was to sell a crown jewel to fund this remaking of the squad that Webber went for.

Nobody knows what was agreed with Emi behind the scenes though, for all we know there could have been a gentleman’s agreement to give us one more year after the first relegation then he could move on if a decent offer came in. We can all guess but ultimately very little genuine info ever gets out into the public 

[king canary 7,608]

16 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Nobody knows what was agreed with Emi behind the scenes though, for all we know there could have been a gentleman’s agreement to give us one more year after the first relegation then he could move on if a decent offer came in. We can all guess but ultimately very little genuine info ever gets out into the public 

No but this debate has been done to death 1000 times. The only facts we have are that Emi was a Norwich player with another 3 years on his contract so we had a choice not to sell him.

It was very clear to me that we were willing to sell someone- we briefed to the press almost as soon as we were promoted that we were open to selling Aarons, Webber gave his now infamous 'the number would have to start with a 3' interview about selling one of Max, Todd or Emi. That it was Emi who ended up going was the worst possible scenario because he was both the most influential of these three in how we played and also the most difficult to replace.

[Fen Canary 828]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

No but this debate has been done to death 1000 times. The only facts we have are that Emi was a Norwich player with another 3 years on his contract so we had a choice not to sell him.

It was very clear to me that we were willing to sell someone- we briefed to the press almost as soon as we were promoted that we were open to selling Aarons, Webber gave his now infamous 'the number would have to start with a 3' interview about selling one of Max, Todd or Emi. That it was Emi who ended up going was the worst possible scenario because he was both the most influential of these three in how we played and also the most difficult to replace.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing though isn’t it. We could have kept him and then have him suffer an injury like he has this season, then we’d all be ranting at Webber for stretching the squad too thin. A club our size will always need a healthy dollop of luck unfortunately, or an owner willing to burn through obscene amounts of cash in vain bid for personal glory 

[hogesar 9,676]

9 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

That's a really interesting stat Hoggy - certainly at odds with my yellow tinted recollection of the season although thinking back Krul did come up with some blinding performances that year.  I'd be interested to compare it with the previous promotion season - perhaps my benchmark was particularly low as a result of that - or indeed the premiership season in between - and any improvement seemed exponential !

We did concede 21 fewer goals than the first promotion season (36 as opposed to 57 which is quite a difference) but equally scored 18 fewer (75 as opposed to 93) for a fairly similar overall points breakdown so perhaps the illusion of control was offered by the fact that we just didn't have as many 5 goal thrillers that year !

Yep. I'm exactly the same, I *felt* we were considerably better balanced that season but I think it can be explained by the lack of 5 goal thrillers and the slight emotional disconnect from not actually being at games and players not having fans that sometimes results in emotional decision making.

Upon review it turns out we had the highest xG in the league at 1.95 - that's higher than the best this season which is Southampton at 1.86. So we were certainly quite an exceptionally creative side that season. For reference, Leicester average 1.61 so far this season and Farke's Leeds 1.73

For xGA, I was actually overly optimistic. We were actually 12th in the table for that. Millwall, Watford, Bournemouth, Blackburn, Swansea, Birmingham, Reading, Derby, Stoke, Brentford, Middlesbrough and Barnsley were all arguably better defensively that season. Perhaps that should have been a sign of things to come. Perhaps it was, and the selling of Emi was to fund a more solid base and sacrifice some of that creativity....

For context, we did only concede 36 goals but our xGA for the season was 52. What's a little crazy is our xGA for that first title win, where we conceded 57 goals - was that our xGA in 18/19 was only 47.5 - arguably we got worse defensively!

That 20/21 season Krul had a + 9.6 for xG saved - so basically he saved 10 more goals than anyone would reasonably expect him to. Compared to our first title win, he was MINUS 9.7!

For comparisons on just how good Krul was that season, I think everyone would agree that Gunn has saved us on multiple occasions this season, yet he is only + 3.0 for xG saved!

 

 

 

 

[Barham Blitz 653]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

I had to Google Lobanovski 😀

If you are in to the evolution of football tactics have a look at Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson.  Really interesting book and not as dry as it sounds ...

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

11 minutes ago, Barham Blitz said:

If you are in to the evolution of football tactics have a look at Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson.  Really interesting book and not as dry as it sounds ...

Behind The Curtain was also an excellent book from Wilson, I hasten to add.

[king canary 7,608]

19 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Behind The Curtain was also an excellent book from Wilson, I hasten to add.

Angels with Dirty Faces too.

Just an excellent football writer really.

[Robert N. LiM 4,367]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

That it was Emi who ended up going was the worst possible scenario because he was both the most influential of these three in how we played and also the most difficult to replace.

Have probably said this before but selling Emi meant that we really would have had to sell one of the other two as well in order to replace what Emi gave us. Unfortunately Max steadfastly refused to grow another foot of height, limiting our chances of getting big money for him, and Todd, well, I'm not opening that can of worms again... What is it, nearly three years ago? Still hard to think of without an enormous what-might-have-been sigh.

[Barham Blitz 653]

3 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Behind The Curtain was also an excellent book from Wilson, I hasten to add.

Thanks - not read that one so I shall fire up the Kindle this evening ...

[hogesar 9,676]

4 hours ago, hogesar said:

Yep. I'm exactly the same, I *felt* we were considerably better balanced that season but I think it can be explained by the lack of 5 goal thrillers and the slight emotional disconnect from not actually being at games and players not having fans that sometimes results in emotional decision making.

Upon review it turns out we had the highest xG in the league at 1.95 - that's higher than the best this season which is Southampton at 1.86. So we were certainly quite an exceptionally creative side that season. For reference, Leicester average 1.61 so far this season and Farke's Leeds 1.73

For xGA, I was actually overly optimistic. We were actually 12th in the table for that. Millwall, Watford, Bournemouth, Blackburn, Swansea, Birmingham, Reading, Derby, Stoke, Brentford, Middlesbrough and Barnsley were all arguably better defensively that season. Perhaps that should have been a sign of things to come. Perhaps it was, and the selling of Emi was to fund a more solid base and sacrifice some of that creativity....

For context, we did only concede 36 goals but our xGA for the season was 52. What's a little crazy is our xGA for that first title win, where we conceded 57 goals - was that our xGA in 18/19 was only 47.5 - arguably we got worse defensively!

That 20/21 season Krul had a + 9.6 for xG saved - so basically he saved 10 more goals than anyone would reasonably expect him to. Compared to our first title win, he was MINUS 9.7!

For comparisons on just how good Krul was that season, I think everyone would agree that Gunn has saved us on multiple occasions this season, yet he is only + 3.0 for xG saved!

 

Bit scary when you consider the above was with Skipp in the side, the most traditional DM we've had for a while. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,367]

5 hours ago, hogesar said:

Yep. I'm exactly the same, I *felt* we were considerably better balanced that season but I think it can be explained by the lack of 5 goal thrillers and the slight emotional disconnect from not actually being at games and players not having fans that sometimes results in emotional decision making.

Upon review it turns out we had the highest xG in the league at 1.95 - that's higher than the best this season which is Southampton at 1.86. So we were certainly quite an exceptionally creative side that season. For reference, Leicester average 1.61 so far this season and Farke's Leeds 1.73

For xGA, I was actually overly optimistic. We were actually 12th in the table for that. Millwall, Watford, Bournemouth, Blackburn, Swansea, Birmingham, Reading, Derby, Stoke, Brentford, Middlesbrough and Barnsley were all arguably better defensively that season. Perhaps that should have been a sign of things to come. Perhaps it was, and the selling of Emi was to fund a more solid base and sacrifice some of that creativity....

For context, we did only concede 36 goals but our xGA for the season was 52. What's a little crazy is our xGA for that first title win, where we conceded 57 goals - was that our xGA in 18/19 was only 47.5 - arguably we got worse defensively!

That 20/21 season Krul had a + 9.6 for xG saved - so basically he saved 10 more goals than anyone would reasonably expect him to. Compared to our first title win, he was MINUS 9.7!

For comparisons on just how good Krul was that season, I think everyone would agree that Gunn has saved us on multiple occasions this season, yet he is only + 3.0 for xG saved!

 

 

 

 

Have you considered the possibility that xG is just a load of böllocks?

Edited February 27 by Robert N. LiM
Warning: may contain sarcasm

[Monty13 2,235]

6 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Nobody knows what was agreed with Emi behind the scenes though, for all we know there could have been a gentleman’s agreement to give us one more year after the first relegation then he could move on if a decent offer came in. We can all guess but ultimately very little genuine info ever gets out into the public 

Michael Bailey specifically confirmed there was no gentleman’s agreement. 

[Monty13 2,235]

6 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing though isn’t it. We could have kept him and then have him suffer an injury like he has this season, then we’d all be ranting at Webber for stretching the squad too thin. A club our size will always need a healthy dollop of luck unfortunately, or an owner willing to burn through obscene amounts of cash in vain bid for personal glory 

There’s a distinct difference between being unlucky and self destructive. That’s not hindsight.

[hogesar 9,676]

3 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Have you considered the possibility that xG is just a load of böllocks?

Ha! I think what followed the next season sort of proved those xG concepts right. I remember a Brentford fan upon their promotion telling me they'd looked at this data and they'd do so much better than us the next season. Of course I told them they were being silly we were 20 points better than them or whatever...

Of course, he had the last laugh!

[Monty13 2,235]

What’s your thoughts on our January transfer window given our current squad situation @Parma Ham's gone mouldy?

I’ll be honest I thought Knapoer had done pretty well, some deadwood gone, youth out on loan and a striker at a cut price with a very decent pedigree and lots of potential.

The Idah situation was a weird one short term, but long term it made sense to me as you get regular games and goals for Idah plus get a close look at a good target at a good price without making it permanent yet.

Also Placheta made some sense to reduce costs, but Wagner was warning in press conferences that bodies could become an issue.

Springett scored the other day, a guy who desperately needs some confidence and experience from first team football but another winger who was in the first team squad.

Everything’s always easier with the benefit of hindsight but my only real personal criticism of January at the time was the lack of any signing to push for promotion, I was really surprised Knapper didn’t have an Arsenal youngster lined up to inject another quality option.

If Sainz card isn’t overturned we are looking threadbare at the critical point of the season. I guess it’s never easy being a Sporting Director but I can’t help feeling sorry for Wagner, he was warning against this very scenario. It also feels more and more like it could be a missed opportunity, we are genuine playoff contenders and while I’m still hopeful, another signing or two in January could turn out to have been the difference.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

Stuart Webber:

“If I’m going to go back into football, it needs to be a club where if they’re not in the Premier League already, and you’ve got to get there, I’ve got the resources to help stay there. I don’t want to go through what I’ve been through twice here, which is the first Premier League season we spent £750,000 on Sam Byram, then after relegation we had to sell (Ben) Godfrey and (Jamal) Lewis due to the impact of Covid. 

“Then we go back up and have to sell (Emi) Buendia to try and add to the squad. It is so hard and you get no thanks at the end. 

“Burnley look like they will get relegated, same as us, and they have spent maybe £100m. I’d say give me a scenario where I had £100m and didn’t have to sell our best player, which was Buendia, and I wouldn’t say we would have stayed up, because the level of the Premier League is outrageous, but we would have given it a good shot.”

So anyone left that was in any doubt now knows that our model, our circumstances and our own decision-making chose to sell Buendia.

And that it was undesirable, imperfect, destructive and an act of sporting self-harm due to our financial constraints and absolutely nothing to do with any behaviour - good, bad or indifferent - by Buendia. 

The Shakespearean fulcrum indeed. And there the action pivoted.

In so many senses. 

Parma 

@Monty13

Edited March 22 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Monty13 2,235]

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

Stuart Webber:

“If I’m going to go back into football, it needs to be a club where if they’re not in the Premier League already, and you’ve got to get there, I’ve got the resources to help stay there. I don’t want to go through what I’ve been through twice here, which is the first Premier League season we spent £750,000 on Sam Byram, then after relegation we had to sell (Ben) Godfrey and (Jamal) Lewis due to the impact of Covid. 

“Then we go back up and have to sell (Emi) Buendia to try and add to the squad. It is so hard and you get no thanks at the end. 

“Burnley look like they will get relegated, same as us, and they have spent maybe £100m. I’d say give me a scenario where I had £100m and didn’t have to sell our best player, which was Buendia, and I wouldn’t say we would have stayed up, because the level of the Premier League is outrageous, but we would have given it a good shot.”

So anyone left that was in any doubt now knows that our model, our circumstances and our own decision-making chose to sell Buendia.

And that it was undesirable, imperfect, destructive and an act of sporting self-harm due to our financial constraints and absolutely nothing to do with any behaviour - good, bad or indifferent - by Buendia. 

The Shakespearean fulcrum indeed. And there the action pivoted.

In so many senses. 

Parma 

@Monty13

It’s been so obvious that’s what happened based on the chain of events, but at least Webber now confirms it.

I understand his frustration but he clearly wanted to spend the cash, if the cash wasn’t there that’s just an unfortunate reality of our situation, there was no changing it.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

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

Stuart Webber:

“If I’m going to go back into football, it needs to be a club where if they’re not in the Premier League already, and you’ve got to get there, I’ve got the resources to help stay there. I don’t want to go through what I’ve been through twice here, which is the first Premier League season we spent £750,000 on Sam Byram, then after relegation we had to sell (Ben) Godfrey and (Jamal) Lewis due to the impact of Covid. 

“Then we go back up and have to sell (Emi) Buendia to try and add to the squad. It is so hard and you get no thanks at the end. 

“Burnley look like they will get relegated, same as us, and they have spent maybe £100m. I’d say give me a scenario where I had £100m and didn’t have to sell our best player, which was Buendia, and I wouldn’t say we would have stayed up, because the level of the Premier League is outrageous, but we would have given it a good shot.”

So anyone left that was in any doubt now knows that our model, our circumstances and our own decision-making chose to sell Buendia.

And that it was undesirable, imperfect, destructive and an act of sporting self-harm due to our financial constraints and absolutely nothing to do with any behaviour - good, bad or indifferent - by Buendia. 

The Shakespearean fulcrum indeed. And there the action pivoted.

In so many senses. 

Parma 

@Monty13

Short of there being a legal document saying we had to let Buendia go, and I have never seen that suggested, then indeed we had a choice, to keep or to sell. The problem with claiming selling Buendia was a massive act of self-harm is that it rests on the absolute certainty that if we had kept him (and so not had that £33m extra to spend) then we would have performed better that season. But I know of no way of demonstrating that as a probability, let alone proving it as a certainty.😍

Edited March 23 by PurpleCanary

[essex canary 496]

6 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Short of there being a legal document saying we had to let Buendia go, and I have never seen that suggested, then indeed we had a choice, to keep or to sell. The problem with claiming selling Buendia was a massive act of self-harm is that it rests on the absolute certainty that if we had kept him (and so not had that £33m extra to spend) we would have performed better that season. I know of no way of demonstrating that as a probability, let alone proving it as a certainty.

Burnley were far more flexible about transfers but far more economic with their wages. In that sense the problem was the rigid nature of our model rather than the overall resource constraint. Stu is being a little economical with the truth.

[chicken 2,627]

On 27/02/2024 at 09:15, king canary said:

I do agree we'd have been better off with Skipp back on loan, keeping Emi and then spending £20m odd on a couple of players to add depth/competition (Sargent maybe?). However I don't think this was ever likely. Skipp always seemed very unlikely to be back here in my view and it always seemed from day one our plan was to sell a crown jewel to fund this remaking of the squad that Webber went for.

Webber AND Farke went for. May not have been their first choices - either of them, but they went for it. Rashica was certainly high on that list.

[Captain Holt 522]

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

Stuart Webber:

“If I’m going to go back into football, it needs to be a club where if they’re not in the Premier League already, and you’ve got to get there, I’ve got the resources to help stay there. I don’t want to go through what I’ve been through twice here, which is the first Premier League season we spent £750,000 on Sam Byram, then after relegation we had to sell (Ben) Godfrey and (Jamal) Lewis due to the impact of Covid. 

“Then we go back up and have to sell (Emi) Buendia to try and add to the squad. It is so hard and you get no thanks at the end. 

“Burnley look like they will get relegated, same as us, and they have spent maybe £100m. I’d say give me a scenario where I had £100m and didn’t have to sell our best player, which was Buendia, and I wouldn’t say we would have stayed up, because the level of the Premier League is outrageous, but we would have given it a good shot.”

So anyone left that was in any doubt now knows that our model, our circumstances and our own decision-making chose to sell Buendia.

And that it was undesirable, imperfect, destructive and an act of sporting self-harm due to our financial constraints and absolutely nothing to do with any behaviour - good, bad or indifferent - by Buendia. 

The Shakespearean fulcrum indeed. And there the action pivoted.

In so many senses. 

Parma 

@Monty13

Doesn’t excuse the fact he spent £60m on absolute shlt though does it? The man is an absolute shyster.

[essex canary 496]

5 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

Doesn’t excuse the fact he spent £60m on absolute shlt though does it? The man is an absolute shyster.

Some of that is probably down to the over rigid nature of the model. It is that he should have challenged because it could have been tweaked with spending less on Wages which is where Burnley were under their previous ownership which was a tight ship like ours. The question is why didn't he secure that change?

[king canary 7,608]

12 hours ago, Monty13 said:

It’s been so obvious that’s what happened based on the chain of events, but at least Webber now confirms it.

I understand his frustration but he clearly wanted to spend the cash, if the cash wasn’t there that’s just an unfortunate reality of our situation, there was no changing it.

Yes, I wonder if those who argued the opposite will hold their hands up. Feels unlikely.