Parma’s State of the Nation

[Barham Blitz 839]

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

Some excellent recent posts from @BigFish, also really liked @king canary ‘s one above and of course marvellous input from the @Don J Demorr 👍

Following King’s post - and thinking of Don’s interest in the fundamental lines of demarcation between the sporting Director and Head Coach  -  I certainly think that Knapper will be using Socratic method to judge Wagner’s tactical approach. 

I would imagine that the following questions loom large:

1. Is the 2 x false nine, deep striker box well-suited to Barnes and Sargent as a pair?

2. Is it well suited to any of our other strikers or players?

3. If not, why was it persisted with without Sargent and-or Barnes?

4. Does playing 2 strikers compromise the shape of the rest of the team regardless of who plays it? 

5. Who are the fixed points that should be tactically built around?

6. Does the current system suit Sara?

7. If Sara and Rowe are key assets in disrupting the opposition are there better ways to deploy them?

8. Can 7 be done playing two strikers?

9. If the aim is to bring down the average age of the squad, why are we currently deploying 7 players over 30?

10. We have spent most money on Sara and Nunez. To appreciate these asserts they must play. To increase as assets they must play in the position and system most suited to them: Are they good enough to deserve this? Is this what the current coach is doing?

11. Are we repeatedly exposed in the CDM area because of the system?

12. If you were the opposition, would the deep box double striker system scare you more than playing Barnes high and others running beyond? (For example)

13. If you use the inverted wide players to go beyond as your strikers drop into the box, do you get repeatedly exploited and overloaded wide and 3/4 wide and get exposed to a large volume of unchallenged crosses?

14. You have good headers of the ball, experienced, dominant defenders, a high quality goalkeeper for this level, are comfortable from crosses and are happy to concede wider areas as it stretches the opposition (as they attack). Is this counter-punching tactic suited to deep strikers and inverted wingers asked to work hard in deep areas? Where is the cheap counter-attack ball (say to a Vardy)? So where is the counter-threat?

15. Sara plus MacClean does not look at all balanced or positionally-disciplined (as @king canary notes). MacClean’s vertical delivery from Centre back and ability to step into midfield areas looked a neat find. Why did you revert?

16. With full backs high and no natural CDM, is the area in front of the Centre backs strongly enough protected?

17. Is a midfield of Sainz, Rowe, Sara, Nunez (say) plus playing two strikers - solid enough as a structure? 

18. Teaching new skills to players skills is excellent, though players tend to revert to their natural tendencies under pressure. Is this a valid gamble with a limited squad or is there an element of unnecessary shoe-horning into fixed blueprint?

19. Idah has finally had a run. What have we learned?

20. Do we have any weapons? 

Parma

It's a slow afternoon and the family have gone out so ignoring the rhetorical elements of the Knapper Socratic method element for the moment to take the questions literally, let's have a go at this.  Apologies for the length of replay but Parma's questions are incorporated as without them it looked more of a ramble than it even is ...

 

1. Is the 2 x false nine, deep striker box well-suited to Barnes and Sargent as a pair?

Yes to an extent.  Although I would argue that actually Barnes lacks a little of the mobility requires to carry off the role perfectly, both offensive and defensively.  He does offer a decent focal point for counters though - both in terms of ball-retention and winning free kicks through 'experience' - but oddly lacks as much of a goal threat as a former #9 should offer.  I could see Sara in this role for all of the above reasoning.

2. Is it well suited to any of our other strikers or players?

Generally no - although it does allow Rowe and potentially Sainz to get beyond the strikers when the box is inverted which plays to some of their strengths.  As indicated above, it (or a variation thereof as suggested below) could suit Sara in the Barnes role.

3. If not, why was it persisted with without Sargent and-or Barnes?

It shouldn't have been IMO - it does smack of a rather single minded / blinkered tactical approach from Wagner.

4. Does playing 2 strikers compromise the shape of the rest of the team regardless of who plays it? 

Absolutely.  Particularly with two high fullbacks and two predominantly attack minded central midfielders.  And most importantly a lack of pace at centre back which means that the high line required to condense the space in midfield on the counter is largely unworkable. The key issue for me is the Wagnerian insistence on winning the ball back with a high press with two fullbacks high - if it works then great.  If not, it leaves a gaping hole in midfield.  To take a boxing analogy, it is basically a fighter flailing a series of haymakers - against inferior opponents you can often land a knockout punch.  Against better opponents they will wait for you to be off balance and overcommit before picking you off and I'm not convinced that our knockout punch (weapons) is quite as devastating as this approach would need it to be to make the gamble worthwhile.  I quite like the wingers inverting ahead of Sarge as a false 9 out of possession both because Sargent isn't a traditional target man able to play with his back to goal and because our wide attackers are more inside forwards than wingers but something has to give somewhere else just in terms of basic maths.  Two central midfielders goal side of the ball at all times is one possibility.  One of the fullbacks tucking in to form a defensive 3 with the CMs ahead whilst the other bombs on could be another.  There are lots of compromises which could / should be made to occupy that no man's land between the forwards and the defence that we concede so readily in Wagnerball when nearly 3/4 of the outfield players are committed to the press in the final third.

5. Who are the fixed points that should be tactically built around?

In terms of weaponish points, Sargent, Sainz, Rowe and Sara.  Arguably CB Kenny in this system.   

6. Does the current system suit Sara?

He has strengths in his current role but they are more than offset by his weaknesses in the tactical requirements laid on him defensively IMO.

7. If Sara and Rowe are key assets in disrupting the opposition are there better ways to deploy them?

Yes - again IMO the current system could be tweaked slightly by playing Sara in the Barnes role albeit with the option to come slightly deeper to create. It becomes very difficult to reduce this to a numbered formation but almost a 4-3-1-2 with Sargent almost playing as a false 9 out of possession and the wingers playing the channels ahead of him.   4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 in possession.  Rowe has to be kept in that channel position - he isn't a traditional winger looking to assist nor a player that could start centrally as a #10 but seems more of an inside forward.   What seems clear to me is that (since bulking up which to be fair seems to have added much to his game) he just isn't fit enough to combine much defensive work - this approach removes some of the defensive workload, gives the Vardyish outball and potentially either occupies one or both fullbacks or splits the centre backs wider to allow Sargent and / or Sara to exploit space though the centre.

 

8. Can 7 be done playing two strikers?

Not two out and out strikers.  The defensive compromise is too great IMO.  See above.

9. If the aim is to bring down the average age of the squad, why are we currently deploying 7 players over 30?

Because that's who Wagner / Webber for the most part have signed.  We don't really have a lot of other options.

10. We have spent most money on Sara and Nunez. To appreciate these asserts they must play. To increase as assets they must play in the position and system most suited to them: Are they good enough to deserve this? Is this what the current coach is doing?

In the current system I don't think we can play both at CDM.  Neither has natural defensive tendencies in a positional sense - although both do work hard and can put a tackle in - and both have a tendency for the Hollywood ball which doesn't actually have much to aim at in the current system and which isolates the recipient if they do find him.  I could see Nunez as one part of a double pivot alongside maybe Gibbs with Sara ahead in the Barnes type role.  But if we weren't concerned with resale values there is no way we should be playing both as a central midfield duo.  As I suggested in a nother thread, both were signed to play in a 3 and both would benefit from doing so.  Sara is probably good enough (or at least eye-catching enough) to justify having the team largely built to accommodate him.  I'm not sure that Nunez is at present, although it could be that we do the same with him once Sara moves on.  Playing Sara further forward and Nunez in the quarterback / one half of a double pivot could be the best compromise.  I'm not sure anyone in the Premier League would be looking to pay decent money for either Sara as a deep lying playmaker or Nunez as an attacking midfielder.

11. Are we repeatedly exposed in the CDM area because of the system?

Absolutely.

12. If you were the opposition, would the deep box double striker system scare you more than playing Barnes high and others running beyond? (For example)

I don't think Barnes would win enough to play high as a #9 and make that approach work.  I think Sainz and Rowe running beyond a #9 does potentially work but I don't see that it has to be the traditional big lad (or indeed that the big lad could or should be Barnes.)  I could see a combination of Sargent and Sara in the Kane role for England, dropping deep and drawing centre backs out with Rowe and Sainz taking the Saka / Rashford / Sterling roles in running beyond.  But that is less the deep box double striker system than a false 9 and Sara as an attacking midfielder.

13. If you use the inverted wide players to go beyond as your strikers drop into the box, do you get repeatedly exploited and overloaded wide and 3/4 wide and get exposed to a large volume of unchallenged crosses?

Yes if you also play two strikers with two simultaneously high fullbacks.  Basic maths !

14. You have good headers of the ball, experienced, dominant defenders, a high quality goalkeeper for this level, are comfortable from crosses and are happy to concede wider areas as it stretches the opposition (as they attack). Is this counter-punching tactic suited to deep strikers and inverted wingers asked to work hard in deep areas? Where is the cheap counter-attack ball (say to a Vardy)? So where is the counter-threat?

I suspect that this is largely rhetorical, but I'll play.  As the system stands, I'm not sure that the wingers are supposed to be working hard in deep areas out of possession.  If they are, then no I agree that there is no counter threat.  Working on the assumption that any (other / normal) team likes to have a spare man at the back, however, I would suggest that it should be Rowe and Sainz providing the out ball on the counter which should occupy some combination of three out of two centre backs, two fullbacks and / or possibly a CDM.  Which would mean that worst case one of the wide attackers may have to work as hard as their fullback counterpart defensively.  This is another reason for playing Sara over Barnes as he can drop in to a 3 as a more natural (and mobile) midfielder with Sargent dropping in ahead of him.

15. Sara plus MacClean does not look at all balanced or positionally-disciplined (as @king canary notes). MacClean’s vertical delivery from Centre back and ability to step into midfield areas looked a neat find. Why did you revert?

Excellent question.  I absolutely agree and can only assume that Maclean's greater physicality (compared to Nunez) was anticipated to be required in midfield - and Gibson does offer (a degree of) ball-playing ability.  It was a mistake in my view however (see below.). A cynic might also suggest that getting Gibson playing before the opening of the last transfer window before his contract expiry might be an idea in order to get him off the wage bill if only for a nominal fee.  Duffy, Batth, Gibson, Warner and now MacLean could definitely be seen to be too many options (even if one might question the ability of many of them ...)

16. With full backs high and no natural CDM, is the area in front of the Centre backs strongly enough protected?

Not at all in the current set up.  Exacerbated by the lack of pace at centre back which means we cannot play a high enough defensive line without being exposed.  Which wouldn't be enough in itself anyway, but it does make things worse.

17. Is a midfield of Sainz, Rowe, Sara, Nunez (say) plus playing two strikers - solid enough as a structure? 

No.  Which is one of the reasons why I feel Sara should be deployed instead of one of the strikers (Barnes.)

18. Teaching new skills to players skills is excellent, though players tend to revert to their natural tendencies under pressure. Is this a valid gamble with a limited squad or is there an element of unnecessary shoe-horning into fixed blueprint?

I'm not sure that players learn new skills per se - rather deploying them in different roles can utilise their existing skills in different ways.  Kenny at CB being a excellent example of this (and one which I believe should be continued, with Gibson as his understudy for the time being.)  Oddly they are very similar players in that role with Kenny offering a little more creativity and pace which are essential given the limitations of the other CB options.  On current form I'd only play Gibson if Kenny was unavailable at CB and only with Warner or Hanley as a pacier partner.  Gibson and Duffy are too slow as a pair, Kenny and Gibson too left sided and not dominant enough in the air.  So a valid gamble in certain situations but there is definitely an element of shoe-horning given Wagner's stoic adherence to his preferred formation in the face of much evidence against it ...

19. Idah has finally had a run. What have we learned?

That he has all of the tools bar a footballing brain or a striker's instinct. You can hear the cogs turning when following tactical instructions and so seems better suited to chasing a game as a impact sub where the requirements are clear and he doesn't have to think. At which point he looks half decent.  Badly needed a loan two seasons ago.  Has a really weird running style (reminds me of a cross between a distance walker and Riverdance.)  So I think we are pretty much where we were two years ago.  In 2035 he will probably be the leagues oldest striker with potential.  Still needs a loan IMO.

20. Do we have any weapons? 

Some.  Sara passing range, shooting from range, set pieces. Sargent suggested some weaponish attributes earlier in terms of his mobility and aerial ability as well as being difficult to pick up from deep.  Sainz has hinted at creativity between the lines and shooting from distance.  Rowe in that 3/4 channel cutting inside.  But most are compromised by being played too deep or isolated or having too many defensive responsibilities.

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

1 hour ago, Barham Blitz said:

It's a slow afternoon and the family have gone out so ignoring the rhetorical elements of the Knapper Socratic method element for the moment to take the questions literally, let's have a go at this.  Apologies for the length of replay but Parma's questions are incorporated as without them it looked more of a ramble than it even is ...

 

1. Is the 2 x false nine, deep striker box well-suited to Barnes and Sargent as a pair?

Yes to an extent.  Although I would argue that actually Barnes lacks a little of the mobility requires to carry off the role perfectly, both offensive and defensively.  He does offer a decent focal point for counters though - both in terms of ball-retention and winning free kicks through 'experience' - but oddly lacks as much of a goal threat as a former #9 should offer.  I could see Sara in this role for all of the above reasoning.

2. Is it well suited to any of our other strikers or players?

Generally no - although it does allow Rowe and potentially Sainz to get beyond the strikers when the box is inverted which plays to some of their strengths.  As indicated above, it (or a variation thereof as suggested below) could suit Sara in the Barnes role.

3. If not, why was it persisted with without Sargent and-or Barnes?

It shouldn't have been IMO - it does smack of a rather single minded / blinkered tactical approach from Wagner.

4. Does playing 2 strikers compromise the shape of the rest of the team regardless of who plays it? 

Absolutely.  Particularly with two high fullbacks and two predominantly attack minded central midfielders.  And most importantly a lack of pace at centre back which means that the high line required to condense the space in midfield on the counter is largely unworkable. The key issue for me is the Wagnerian insistence on winning the ball back with a high press with two fullbacks high - if it works then great.  If not, it leaves a gaping hole in midfield.  To take a boxing analogy, it is basically a fighter flailing a series of haymakers - against inferior opponents you can often land a knockout punch.  Against better opponents they will wait for you to be off balance and overcommit before picking you off and I'm not convinced that our knockout punch (weapons) is quite as devastating as this approach would need it to be to make the gamble worthwhile.  I quite like the wingers inverting ahead of Sarge as a false 9 out of possession both because Sargent isn't a traditional target man able to play with his back to goal and because our wide attackers are more inside forwards than wingers but something has to give somewhere else just in terms of basic maths.  Two central midfielders goal side of the ball at all times is one possibility.  One of the fullbacks tucking in to form a defensive 3 with the CMs ahead whilst the other bombs on could be another.  There are lots of compromises which could / should be made to occupy that no man's land between the forwards and the defence that we concede so readily in Wagnerball when nearly 3/4 of the outfield players are committed to the press in the final third.

5. Who are the fixed points that should be tactically built around?

In terms of weaponish points, Sargent, Sainz, Rowe and Sara.  Arguably CB Kenny in this system.   

6. Does the current system suit Sara?

He has strengths in his current role but they are more than offset by his weaknesses in the tactical requirements laid on him defensively IMO.

7. If Sara and Rowe are key assets in disrupting the opposition are there better ways to deploy them?

Yes - again IMO the current system could be tweaked slightly by playing Sara in the Barnes role albeit with the option to come slightly deeper to create. It becomes very difficult to reduce this to a numbered formation but almost a 4-3-1-2 with Sargent almost playing as a false 9 out of possession and the wingers playing the channels ahead of him.   4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 in possession.  Rowe has to be kept in that channel position - he isn't a traditional winger looking to assist nor a player that could start centrally as a #10 but seems more of an inside forward.   What seems clear to me is that (since bulking up which to be fair seems to have added much to his game) he just isn't fit enough to combine much defensive work - this approach removes some of the defensive workload, gives the Vardyish outball and potentially either occupies one or both fullbacks or splits the centre backs wider to allow Sargent and / or Sara to exploit space though the centre.

 

8. Can 7 be done playing two strikers?

Not two out and out strikers.  The defensive compromise is too great IMO.  See above.

9. If the aim is to bring down the average age of the squad, why are we currently deploying 7 players over 30?

Because that's who Wagner / Webber for the most part have signed.  We don't really have a lot of other options.

10. We have spent most money on Sara and Nunez. To appreciate these asserts they must play. To increase as assets they must play in the position and system most suited to them: Are they good enough to deserve this? Is this what the current coach is doing?

In the current system I don't think we can play both at CDM.  Neither has natural defensive tendencies in a positional sense - although both do work hard and can put a tackle in - and both have a tendency for the Hollywood ball which doesn't actually have much to aim at in the current system and which isolates the recipient if they do find him.  I could see Nunez as one part of a double pivot alongside maybe Gibbs with Sara ahead in the Barnes type role.  But if we weren't concerned with resale values there is no way we should be playing both as a central midfield duo.  As I suggested in a nother thread, both were signed to play in a 3 and both would benefit from doing so.  Sara is probably good enough (or at least eye-catching enough) to justify having the team largely built to accommodate him.  I'm not sure that Nunez is at present, although it could be that we do the same with him once Sara moves on.  Playing Sara further forward and Nunez in the quarterback / one half of a double pivot could be the best compromise.  I'm not sure anyone in the Premier League would be looking to pay decent money for either Sara as a deep lying playmaker or Nunez as an attacking midfielder.

11. Are we repeatedly exposed in the CDM area because of the system?

Absolutely.

12. If you were the opposition, would the deep box double striker system scare you more than playing Barnes high and others running beyond? (For example)

I don't think Barnes would win enough to play high as a #9 and make that approach work.  I think Sainz and Rowe running beyond a #9 does potentially work but I don't see that it has to be the traditional big lad (or indeed that the big lad could or should be Barnes.)  I could see a combination of Sargent and Sara in the Kane role for England, dropping deep and drawing centre backs out with Rowe and Sainz taking the Saka / Rashford / Sterling roles in running beyond.  But that is less the deep box double striker system than a false 9 and Sara as an attacking midfielder.

13. If you use the inverted wide players to go beyond as your strikers drop into the box, do you get repeatedly exploited and overloaded wide and 3/4 wide and get exposed to a large volume of unchallenged crosses?

Yes if you also play two strikers with two simultaneously high fullbacks.  Basic maths !

14. You have good headers of the ball, experienced, dominant defenders, a high quality goalkeeper for this level, are comfortable from crosses and are happy to concede wider areas as it stretches the opposition (as they attack). Is this counter-punching tactic suited to deep strikers and inverted wingers asked to work hard in deep areas? Where is the cheap counter-attack ball (say to a Vardy)? So where is the counter-threat?

I suspect that this is largely rhetorical, but I'll play.  As the system stands, I'm not sure that the wingers are supposed to be working hard in deep areas out of possession.  If they are, then no I agree that there is no counter threat.  Working on the assumption that any (other / normal) team likes to have a spare man at the back, however, I would suggest that it should be Rowe and Sainz providing the out ball on the counter which should occupy some combination of three out of two centre backs, two fullbacks and / or possibly a CDM.  Which would mean that worst case one of the wide attackers may have to work as hard as their fullback counterpart defensively.  This is another reason for playing Sara over Barnes as he can drop in to a 3 as a more natural (and mobile) midfielder with Sargent dropping in ahead of him.

15. Sara plus MacClean does not look at all balanced or positionally-disciplined (as @king canary notes). MacClean’s vertical delivery from Centre back and ability to step into midfield areas looked a neat find. Why did you revert?

Excellent question.  I absolutely agree and can only assume that Maclean's greater physicality (compared to Nunez) was anticipated to be required in midfield - and Gibson does offer (a degree of) ball-playing ability.  It was a mistake in my view however (see below.). A cynic might also suggest that getting Gibson playing before the opening of the last transfer window before his contract expiry might be an idea in order to get him off the wage bill if only for a nominal fee.  Duffy, Batth, Gibson, Warner and now MacLean could definitely be seen to be too many options (even if one might question the ability of many of them ...)

16. With full backs high and no natural CDM, is the area in front of the Centre backs strongly enough protected?

Not at all in the current set up.  Exacerbated by the lack of pace at centre back which means we cannot play a high enough defensive line without being exposed.  Which wouldn't be enough in itself anyway, but it does make things worse.

17. Is a midfield of Sainz, Rowe, Sara, Nunez (say) plus playing two strikers - solid enough as a structure? 

No.  Which is one of the reasons why I feel Sara should be deployed instead of one of the strikers (Barnes.)

18. Teaching new skills to players skills is excellent, though players tend to revert to their natural tendencies under pressure. Is this a valid gamble with a limited squad or is there an element of unnecessary shoe-horning into fixed blueprint?

I'm not sure that players learn new skills per se - rather deploying them in different roles can utilise their existing skills in different ways.  Kenny at CB being a excellent example of this (and one which I believe should be continued, with Gibson as his understudy for the time being.)  Oddly they are very similar players in that role with Kenny offering a little more creativity and pace which are essential given the limitations of the other CB options.  On current form I'd only play Gibson if Kenny was unavailable at CB and only with Warner or Hanley as a pacier partner.  Gibson and Duffy are too slow as a pair, Kenny and Gibson too left sided and not dominant enough in the air.  So a valid gamble in certain situations but there is definitely an element of shoe-horning given Wagner's stoic adherence to his preferred formation in the face of much evidence against it ...

19. Idah has finally had a run. What have we learned?

That he has all of the tools bar a footballing brain or a striker's instinct. You can hear the cogs turning when following tactical instructions and so seems better suited to chasing a game as a impact sub where the requirements are clear and he doesn't have to think. At which point he looks half decent.  Badly needed a loan two seasons ago.  Has a really weird running style (reminds me of a cross between a distance walker and Riverdance.)  So I think we are pretty much where we were two years ago.  In 2035 he will probably be the leagues oldest striker with potential.  Still needs a loan IMO.

20. Do we have any weapons? 

Some.  Sara passing range, shooting from range, set pieces. Sargent suggested some weaponish attributes earlier in terms of his mobility and aerial ability as well as being difficult to pick up from deep.  Sainz has hinted at creativity between the lines and shooting from distance.  Rowe in that 3/4 channel cutting inside.  But most are compromised by being played too deep or isolated or having too many defensive responsibilities.

 

Beautiful @Barham Blitz 👌

…am thinking about the rest @BigFish @Monty13 @repman @Morph…..

Parma 

[Robert N. LiM 5,944]

3 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

It's a slow afternoon and the family have gone out so ignoring the rhetorical elements of the Knapper Socratic method element for the moment to take the questions literally, let's have a go at this.  Apologies for the length of replay but Parma's questions are incorporated as without them it looked more of a ramble than it even is ...

Love it when someone else takes ages just to type out what I think.

[king canary 8,644]

4 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

It's a slow afternoon and the family have gone out so ignoring the rhetorical elements of the Knapper Socratic method element for the moment to take the questions literally, let's have a go at this.  Apologies for the length of replay but Parma's questions are incorporated as without them it looked more of a ramble than it even is ...

 

Excellent answers that I struggle to disagree with.

The only one I'd something to is question 9- I think if we bought in a new coach and said 'no pressure to go up this season' then they may be more willing to give some of the younger players a go in a few positions.

I'd suggest a coach without the pressure of a short term goal might gain something by playing a team of...

                  Gunn

Fisher, Duffy, McLean, Giannoulis

                  Gibbs

Rowe, Nunez, Sara, Sainz

            Sargent/Idah (depending on fitness).

I'm not suggesting playing youngsters just because they are young- Warner for instance looked out of his depth when called upon- but this team at least has only one regular starter in his 30's and gives Gibbs, Fisher and Nunez the minutes they need.

There is nothing to be gained right now by giving minutes to players like Foreshaw, Barnes , Hwang and Batth who aren't a part of our future. 

[Barham Blitz 839]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Excellent answers that I struggle to disagree with.

The only one I'd something to is question 9- I think if we bought in a new coach and said 'no pressure to go up this season' then they may be more willing to give some of the younger players a go in a few positions.

I'd suggest a coach without the pressure of a short term goal might gain something by playing a team of...

                  Gunn

Fisher, Duffy, McLean, Giannoulis

                  Gibbs

Rowe, Nunez, Sara, Sainz

            Sargent/Idah (depending on fitness).

I'm not suggesting playing youngsters just because they are young- Warner for instance looked out of his depth when called upon- but this team at least has only one regular starter in his 30's and gives Gibbs, Fisher and Nunez the minutes they need.

There is nothing to be gained right now by giving minutes to players like Foreshaw, Barnes , Hwang and Batth who aren't a part of our future. 

I'd pretty much agree with that - I'd play Nunez deeper with Gibbs as the double pivot and desperately look for an alternative to Duffy but aside from that pretty much the same.  The only real points of difference could be at Full Back - Stacey started the season well before tailing off and is still only 27.  McCallum isn't a Wagner full back - basically shuttling the length of the pitch at a sprint for 90 mins - but could move inside to cover in a 3 if the full back remit went a little less gung ho in a way Dimi probably couldn't.  As could Stacey.  But either Dimi or Fisher would be fine depending on the actual role.

[Midlands Yellow 4,672]

It’s New Years Eve and people are still posting at this hour on this exciting subject. That’s said I haven’t got a life so it’s nice to keep company with like minded souls. 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Midlands Yellow

[king canary 8,644]

4 minutes ago, Barham Blitz said:

I'd pretty much agree with that - I'd play Nunez deeper with Gibbs as the double pivot and desperately look for an alternative to Duffy but aside from that pretty much the same.  The only real points of difference could be at Full Back - Stacey started the season well before tailing off and is still only 27.  McCallum isn't a Wagner full back - basically shuttling the length of the pitch at a sprint for 90 mins - but could move inside to cover in a 3 if the full back remit went a little less gung ho in a way Dimi probably couldn't.  As could Stacey.  But either Dimi or Fisher would be fine depending on the actual role.

Yeah I can see arguements for those.

Largely I think we should be avoiding giving minutes to players like those I mentioned along with Onel, Fassnacht and potentially even Gibson. The rest is open to interpretation.

[king canary 8,644]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

It’s New Years Eve and people are  still posting at this hour on this exciting subject. That’s said I haven’t got a life so it’s nice to keep company with like minded souls. 

Late runner for most pointless post of the year I guess.

[Midlands Yellow 4,672]

Just now, king canary said:

Late runner for most pointless post of the year I guess.

Thank you. 

[BigFish 2,257]

Nice one @Barham Blitz, would agree will all except 19. I think Idah is easy to play against with his back to goal but terrifies defenders at this level if you give him something to chase.

[Morph 31]

Not wishing to be negative on this excellent thread given the preponderance of those in the forum, but we have a number of knowledgeable posters on here identifying issues with the setup of the playing side of the organisation yet such issues, and potential remedies seem to not be apparent to the people in post.

Where are the checks and balances against such an oversight?

Do we have a dogged adherence to one way of playing that ignores its shortcomings in light of the players we have available?

[Petriix 3,143]

1 hour ago, Morph said:

Do we have a dogged adherence to one way of playing that ignores its shortcomings in light of the players we have available?

Playing devil's advocate (or Wagner's if you will) I imagine the theory is that the plan absolutely works on paper and it's simply down to the players not quite executing it correctly on the pitch and, with sufficient repetition, it will come good. It's not such a leap of the imagination to see how this could be the prevailing view from within the club. 

To be fair, I've witnessed 'the plan' working pretty well for brief spells throughout the season with the obvious flaw being that we've consistently lacked the ability to create goals from early turnovers and we've left gaping holes behind the initial press. I imagine these are the minor details they try to iron out in training. 

I suspect there was a genuine lack of oversight under Webber and Knapper simply hasn't had sufficient time to change things and doesn't want to rip things up while he figures out the best solutions. Contrary to popular belief, it's generally a bad idea to walk into a new workplace and start telling everyone they're crap at their jobs. The issues at the club run a little deeper and will take careful surgery to root out rather than just swinging an axe.

I suspect (and hope) we'll see some positive changes in the coming weeks. We've already become much less porous in defence. I think patience is required. 

[Don J Demorr 165]

21 minutes ago, Petriix said:

 Knapper simply hasn't had sufficient time to change things and doesn't want to rip things up while he figures out the best solutions. Contrary to popular belief, it's generally a bad idea to walk into a new workplace and start telling everyone they're crap at their jobs. The issues at the club run a little deeper and will take careful surgery to root out rather than just swinging an axe.

 

Exactly, @Petriix

Looking at Ben Knapper's bio he is clever, savvy and is well repected, loved even, wherever he has worked. He obviously has many friends and no reported or hinted problems. Thirteen years at Arsenal says a lot. All the indications are that his is an excellent appointment but will take time to mature. He and you all will need to be patient and supportive. I guess "swinging the axe" refers to the future of David Wagner. Think about the position BK is in. As Petriix says, he is still feeling the walls in his new post. With respect to the  call on possible termination, his options are

• He doesn't want to
• He doesn't need to
• He can't

He probably doesn't know yet whether or not he wants to.

If the threat of relegation is non-existent he doesn't need to until he is sure he wants to. Take your time, young man.

If the story of the main shareholder phone call to DW is true, he can't. Unless BK knew beforehand he is now banjaxed and must already see that that particular wall is a block stop. He must be concerned that there are others yet to discover. Hmmmmm.

Best to all for 2024,

Don.

[Robert N. LiM 5,944]

1 hour ago, Don J Demorr said:

If the story of the main shareholder phone call to DW is true, he can't

Would add to this that Mark Attanasio at the AGM made a point of saying that he felt continually changing the coach was a bad sign. So he might well have set quite a high threshold in terms of BK convincing him that DW should be replaced.

[Jim Smith 2,540]

4 hours ago, Morph said:

Not wishing to be negative on this excellent thread given the preponderance of those in the forum, but we have a number of knowledgeable posters on here identifying issues with the setup of the playing side of the organisation yet such issues, and potential remedies seem to not be apparent to the people in post.

Where are the checks and balances against such an oversight?

Do we have a dogged adherence to one way of playing that ignores its shortcomings in light of the players we have available?

Yes. That is exactly what we have and what we’ve had all season 

[Jim Smith 2,540]

1 hour ago, Don J Demorr said:

Exactly, @Petriix

Looking at Ben Knapper's bio he is clever, savvy and is well repected, loved even, wherever he has worked. He obviously has many friends and no reported or hinted problems. Thirteen years at Arsenal says a lot. All the indications are that his is an excellent appointment but will take time to mature. He and you all will need to be patient and supportive. I guess "swinging the axe" refers to the future of David Wagner. Think about the position BK is in. As Petriix says, he is still feeling the walls in his new post. With respect to the  call on possible termination, his options are

• He doesn't want to
• He doesn't need to
• He can't

He probably doesn't know yet whether or not he wants to.

If the threat of relegation is non-existent he doesn't need to until he is sure he wants to. Take your time, young man.

If the story of the main shareholder phone call to DW is true, he can't. Unless BK knew beforehand he is now banjaxed and must already see that that particular wall is a block stop. He must be concerned that there are others yet to discover. Hmmmmm.

Best to all for 2024,

Don.

Not challenging for promotion is just as relevant as the threat of relegation. He should be doing all he can to achieve top 6. This notion that we can just afford to write off this season and plan for next is ludicrous. 

[Mason 47 1,855]

I suppose an interesting question here-running off what RLM talks about above- is in our situation, are we better off trying to find a better manager for this squad or better players for this manager?

In other words, is Wagner utterly irredeemable?

Are we better replacing the manager and likely a large chunk of the squad to try a new direction? Or do we feel the squad is close enough to making Wagners plan viable to keep him in and try 'keyhole surgery' on personnel?

The latter would dovetail with Petriix' previous talk of patience. That being said, I don't think 2 strikers will ever be properly viable in modern football and it doesn't look like DW is willing to switch that up.

[Jim Smith 2,540]

Better balanced team today at least 

[Petriix 3,143]

25 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

I don't think 2 strikers will ever be properly viable in modern football and it doesn't look like DW is willing to switch that up.

I couldn't agree more, especially when your strikers are bang-average at best. I can understand finding a formation to fit your world-class players but we've had several strikers out injured and would really have been better packing the midfield. 

[shefcanary 2,901]

16 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

I'd pretty much agree with that - I'd play Nunez deeper with Gibbs as the double pivot and desperately look for an alternative to Duffy but aside from that pretty much the same.  The only real points of difference could be at Full Back - Stacey started the season well before tailing off and is still only 27.  McCallum isn't a Wagner full back - basically shuttling the length of the pitch at a sprint for 90 mins - but could move inside to cover in a 3 if the full back remit went a little less gung ho in a way Dimi probably couldn't.  As could Stacey.  But either Dimi or Fisher would be fine depending on the actual role.

The more I see of McCallum, the more convinced I am he will end up as a CB. But not necessarily at Norwich.

Edited January 1 by shefcanary

[shefcanary 2,901]

5 hours ago, Morph said:

Not wishing to be negative on this excellent thread given the preponderance of those in the forum, but we have a number of knowledgeable posters on here identifying issues with the setup of the playing side of the organisation yet such issues, and potential remedies seem to not be apparent to the people in post.

Where are the checks and balances against such an oversight?

Do we have a dogged adherence to one way of playing that ignores its shortcomings in light of the players we have available?

I'd say, and it has been my personal gripe for years, it is the lack of a real football person on the Board challenging both the Board and the executive. So, yes, you have identified a major issue. Will Attanasio correct this?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I'd say, and it has been my personal gripe for years, it is the lack of a real football person on the Board challenging both the Board and the executive. So, yes, you have identified a major issue. Will Attanasio correct this?

Now that’s a role I would take.

Parma

Edited January 1 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Better balanced team today at least 

I do not ‘play the result’

24% possession at home is utterly shameful in my view. 

Parma 

Edited January 1 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[king canary 8,644]

Of late I think the most interesting question for Wagner is the long term future of Kenny Mclean.

I ridiculed Wagner when McLean was started in central defence and yet I believe that our midfield looks better without him in it and our defence looks better with him in it. The more I see of it the more I'm of the opinion it could be a long term career extender for Kenny, especially when we set up with three central defenders such as today. His range of passing is great, his positional weakness is seemingly less exposed when he's not asked to cover so much space and he is good enough on the air for it to not be a downgrade.

I hope Wagner, if he remains, has the guts to stick with it rather than revert to type with Hanley and Gibson returning to fitness.

[sonyc 6,143]

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

I do not not ‘play the result’

24% possession at home is utterly shameful in my view. 

Parma 

I have to agree with this Parma. I can see the views of posters stating that at least we have a Plan B and defended deep against a team which plays a possession game. Yet....it's the set up and style that endures over the course of a season. In other words, the underlying structure. Southampton today have a manager who learned his trade with us, has a clear plan for his teams, whereas we don't really look coherent as a 'team'. We have the strengths (your word may be weapons) in Josh and thank goodness for Angus. Yet, you cannot say we look a team in waiting, a team that is emerging, a team that is going to crash the play offs. At home too, there ought not to be such a gulf. Southampton are NOT Manchester City. They are well coached. And they look good enough to at least compete for a top two slot.

What a waste of a season this has been really. Please Mr Knapper, instill your ideas for our team and future quickly.

Edited January 1 by sonyc

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Of late I think the most interesting question for Wagner is the long term future of Kenny Mclean.

I ridiculed Wagner when McLean was started in central defence and yet I believe that our midfield looks better without him in it and our defence looks better with him in it. The more I see of it the more I'm of the opinion it could be a long term career extender for Kenny, especially when we set up with three central defenders such as today. His range of passing is great, his positional weakness is seemingly less exposed when he's not asked to cover so much space and he is good enough on the air for it to not be a downgrade.

I hope Wagner, if he remains, has the guts to stick with it rather than revert to type with Hanley and Gibson returning to fitness.

I was going to include this in a more general point about one-footedness, but if I were Knapper, brought up on the way Arsenal play football, I would be horrified that because McLean is so one-footed when he plays in midfield he has to perform absurdly clumsy gyrations to avoid using his right foot. This is less a problem when playing on the left side of the defence, and doing those forward breaks but obvious and debilitating in midfield.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

I was pretty horrified by that. 24% possession at home is shameful.

That was either unnecessary and a dreadful look, or it was necessary and our standards and expectations have fallen a frightening distance.

One team looked like a modern footballing side and it wasn’t us. I very, very much doubt that Knapper enjoyed that. 

I had plenty of flashbacks of Farke, though it was all watching Southampton (pace our very nice goal). The odds and stats and optics were so horribly against us today that the result feels utterly irrelevant to me. Never was such a hollow point achieved. It says far, far too much if that is an accurate summary of the Norwich City status quo. 

There were a number of possibilities Knapper had in front of him upon arrival:

1. He had a pet candidate in his back pocket ready for deployment

2. He had a list of possible candidates that he knew would take the job

3. He had a list of candidates that had expressed quiet interest, though no final commitment

4. He has a database of interesting options some of which he knows well enough to chat with

5. He has a database of options interesting to him and will explore them at the right moment 

As the @Don J Demorr says, it would have been daft - and rather unprofessional - to fire any of his guns quickly. Wagner performing abysmally might have forced his hand, though thankfully - and as multiple posters have pointed out it is thankfully - Wagner did well enough to stay execution and allow for good internal due diligence. 

Don’s ‘can’t’ Point is interesting. Attanasio did say at AGM time that he can’t understand multiple firings of Head Coaches. I suspect he likes more control over controllable events to be held higher up the chain - somewhere pretty near his chequebook I would imagine. 

Wagner is definitely playing his hand quite hard. That was a damning ‘my team aren’t good enough’ message upstairs. I suppose he can point to the neat counter goal, though goodness me watching Farkeball played against us as we run around like pigeons is almost too much for me. As a coach they are not fingerprints I would be proud of. 

As a Sporting Director I’m afraid I wouldn’t stand for it. 

Parma 

Edited January 1 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[shefcanary 2,901]

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

Now that’s a role I would take.

Parma

I'd love to see you and Attanasio discussing this! 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

@BigFish…

….I think you know that I don’t put a lot of store by paper formations. They are at best misleading. What happens on the pitch can only be identified in such a way in occasional fixed fits and starts. 

For the FPA’s out there I would categorise it as the difference between Statutory Accounts and Management Accounts. One is a static Polaroid snapshot of a truth, whilst the other is a rolling live video feed showing much more clearly the movement and flow of the business. 

However I can pass on to you what I was taught by Ajax acolytes of Cruyff who were on sabbatical at Parma when I was there.  

They did indeed start at the very beginning with a paper formation - and it was indeed your 343 - though it was done to counterpoint the prevailing English-way 442. 

If you can see both in your mind, the teacher simply took a pen and connected all the player points on the page. One resulted in boxes, the other triangles. 

The point was not the superiority of the paper system - Brazil 1970 are nominally referred to as playing 442 after all - but the nature of support for the player on the ball, the provision of rotating options, the use of space, the need to create angles at all times, the preeminence of those without the ball. The understanding of how one pass informs the next, the fluid honeycombing of the whole side in relation to decisions made and passing options taken. All must move when one moves. All must therefore understand where to move and why.  

Both attacking and defending. This takes education. 

In my dream Norwich world of a few years ago we took on Juanma Lillo and he revolutionised our world. He is known now of course because Guardiola plucked him away and holds him close to his bosom. For those who do not know what his history is, think of him this way: he is the man who taught the man, who taught the man, who taught the man who taught Farke.

His deep understanding of positional play: of where to be in relation to the positioning of the ball,  the opposition players, your own teammates, is so utterly fundamental, that anyone interested at all in tactics must study it and try to understand it. 

Now let’s bring it into our world of today and try to work out how it fits into what we do do, could do, don’t do.

Your 343 utterly depends on its structure by who plays it and how they play it. What tendencies each player has, how they move, why they move there, why they think they should move there (right or wrong).

The defensive three could be 3 Centre backs (think Gibson), or it could include a dropping CDM (think MacClean), or it equally could include 2 full backs that could play Centre back (think Godfrey).

The middle four could include two full backs (think of the ‘W’ formation beloved by Nottingham Forest and often used in conjunction with the dropping CDM into the back 3 hence W), one central midfielder could be a classic 8 roaming all over (think MacClean again), the other could be a proper Dutch 10 (not what you might think à la Wes, but more like a Litmanen coming from deep finishing high as a support striker, though returning deep into the heart of the game as a midfielder). The middle two could instead be two CDM pivots either side and ahead of a ‘real’ Centre back. But I suppose he could be a  libero… 

The front three might not be a front three at all. The 9 could be a high pivot (creating space for our late arriving  Dutch 10) or could be a rangy 9 occupying both Centre backs, or could be a false 9. If a false 9 the outside prayers in the front three could be more attacking, if you want your 10 to get high more often you might have them going inside out and getting crosses in, if your wide players in your middle four can do this, you might want them as inverted link players, particularly if your 9 is a flyer and your 10 a creator. Or if your wide-of-the-fours were full back like and you deployed two CDM pivots, then you might be able to structurally afford  your non-9 front-of-three players to go in-to-out….

Now draw all of those permutations and note

how quickly 343 can be 352, or 451, or 3421, or 442…or….with just a few minor movement of some - or ideally all - players. 

I think in fluid movements in relation to where the ball is, where the danger is, where the opportunity is, where the overloads are - these are always my real goal - where the opposition has over-committed, where the opposition has boxed itself into limited shapes, where the odds are in my favour, where I must act to contain, negate or otherwise amortise the weapons of the opposition, how I can create repeating micro-scenarios that maximize the odds of my weapons being able to engage…

…and it of course entirely depends on who you have, what they can do and what they can’t. 

Parma

 

Edited January 2 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Morph 31]

Gosh @Parma Ham's gone mouldy I would have said that post was almost prescient.

I was going to ask you, if Norwich could play like any team through history who would it be and why?

Give us your top 3