Parma’s State of the Nation

[Robert N. LiM 4,482]

@Barham Blitz have a like just for 'skill-gnome'. I might read the rest later

[Barham Blitz 661]

2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

@Barham Blitz have a like just for 'skill-gnome'. I might read the rest later

Sadly I can't claim the credit for that one as it was flagrantly stolen from a Barney Ronay article a few years ago on Wenger era Arsenal.  But I feel equally wonderfully applicable to Farke era Norwich.

[Robert N. LiM 4,482]

5 minutes ago, Barham Blitz said:

Sadly I can't claim the credit for that one as it was flagrantly stolen from a Barney Ronay article a few years ago on Wenger era Arsenal.  But I feel equally wonderfully applicable to Farke era Norwich.

Have removed the like.

[shefcanary 2,449]

12 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

I take your point, but wasn't Farke's defensive strategy largely based on the fact that if the opposition didn't have the ball they were unlikely to score ?  Or would at least be too knackered after running around after it ?

Ha, this struck home.

Yes, we were pretty good at finishing teams off in the final 15 minutes of a match. Which was why I am so upset about NYD's set-up.

It was inevitable we would run our of steam in defence, especially with the number of 30 year olds in that line-up. As I have explained on another thread Kenny and Hanley, say 20 minutes earlier, would never have allowed that ball to get across to Armstrong but they were running on empty after constantly surrendering space and ball to Soton for the best part of 25 minutes (Hanley's substitution minutes later confirms this).

However, the fact Soton were unable to "finish" us off in the final 15 minutes underlines another contention I made, that Soton aren't that good really - opposition (and in this respect Wagner) seem to be mesmerised with the fact Martin's side being so wonderful in possession they must be brilliant. But for all the ball they didn't produce much of merit in front of goal, which is what really counts.

The negativity at the Carra at present has to be blown away with a new wave of positive energy, which needs to be generated from all aspects of the organisation. from Board, to executive, to supporters but especially to how we approach matches on the pitch - we are a good side, honest!

Positivity!

[shefcanary 2,449]

But more seriously, in a nutshell @Barham Blitz you overall conclusion appears to be Wagner is moving in the direction of the right set-up to survive in the EPL, should he get us going in the Champs, but up to now he has been woefully served by the recruitment over the past two years or so to fit this system. Knapper has a big challenge to provide some ammo for him this January to see if your proposition can come true. 

[Barham Blitz 661]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

But more seriously, in a nutshell @Barham Blitz you overall conclusion appears to be Wagner is moving in the direction of the right set-up to survive in the EPL, should he get us going in the Champs, but up to now he has been woefully served by the recruitment over the past two years or so to fit this system. Knapper has a big challenge to provide some ammo for him this January to see if your proposition can come true. 

Sort of.  I personally dislike the gegenpress elements of Wagner's approach as well as the central midfield set up and the related demands on the full-backs as I think each massively over-commits personnel and leaves us so vulnerable to the counter.  The emphasis on pressing also seems to result in a lack of proactive creativity either through limitations of personnel or system - we seem so focused on trying to force errors and high turnovers that we don't really seem to have a plan for what we do with the ball once we do get it beyond 'give it to Gabby.'  And I might add we remain not particularly effective at the pressing bit either.

It all just seems a bit manic out of possession whilst simultaneously being too ponderous in possession.  I'm not against pressing - indeed one of the principal criticisms of the Farke side for me was the lack of pressing - but Wagner seems to be making it an end in itself with the tactical setup rather than the means.

It sounds perverse given my many criticisms of this side, but with a couple of additions and a tactical tweak or two I don't think we are a million miles away from being an effective side in this division.  I've outlined in a post on this thread a couple of days ago how I'd go about it in terms of roles and personnel so I won't reiterate all that again you'll all be delighted to hear.

Then ask me again if we get promoted ... 

 

 

Edited January 3 by Barham Blitz
Two left thumbs.

[repman 635]

14 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

I take your point, but wasn't Farke's defensive strategy largely based on the fact that if the opposition didn't have the ball they were unlikely to score ?  Or would at least be too knackered after running around after it ? 

I guess this is true but I don't think that makes up for the fact that we weren't good defensively in the periods when we didn't have the ball. It certainly helped that we had more of the ball as that meant we had to do less defending but you'd have to be a massive idealist if you're expecting to have 100% possession in order for your defensive strategy to succeed. Even Farke, who is a bit of football purist and has often be labelled naive as a result, has organised his current Leeds side so much better than anything we saw under him here. 

[king canary 7,673]

@Barham Blitz, excellent summary.

I mentioned elsewhere that nobody else on promotion has successfully made a Farkeball style of play work and most haven't even attempted. Burnley have tried with a significantly larger budget and it isn't going much better than our attempt.

You've got to recognise that having the players to outplay most of the Premier League is highly unlikely, even with a good budget. A slow build up doesn't work if you're both vulnerable to pressing and not good enough to take advantage if the press is beaten. People remember the hammerings we got under Farke in the top flight but for me the writing was on the wall when teams like Palace and Burnley were able to handle us with relative ease because they knew they just had to do a bit of pressing and wait for an error or a long ball because we had no out ball.

Counter attacking makes sense because the best chance a team of largely Championship players has of taking apart Premier League defences is in transition when they are out of position. Pressing makes sense because while you likely can't be more talented then them you can be as fit as humanly possible and try and force those turnovers higher up the pitch.

This isn't to say I think Wagner is building a Premier League capable system- the 4-2-2-2, 2 false 9 set up would likely be demolished with relative ease. But if we want to actually compete in the top flight (and if we don't whats the point?) then a manager and SD need to recognise the type of players we need- basically more Josh Sargent's and less Moritz Leitners. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,482]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

People remember the hammerings we got under Farke in the top flight but for me the writing was on the wall when teams like Palace were able to handle us with relative ease because they knew they just had to do a bit of pressing and wait for an error or a long ball because we had no out ball

Yes. I was going to say this. I went to the Palace and Brighton away games in the first Farke PL season and was very discouraged by how easily they both dealt with us. 

[king canary 7,673]

2 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Yes. I was going to say this. I went to the Palace and Brighton away games in the first Farke PL season and was very discouraged by how easily they both dealt with us. 

I think they often get thrown in as being due to injuries but if you look at the line ups, particularly v Palace it really isn't too bad- only Amadou at centre back looks out of place and he'd played there before. 

Both those games also followed a very similar pattern- we dominated possession, touches, passes etc but we didn't really threaten and those teams were largely happy to let us have it because we were doing nothing with it. I remember during the final years of Wenger Arsenal were described as often having 'sterile domination' which is exactly what we had in a number of games that season. Lots of slow passing between defence and midfield that didn't lead anywhere, didn't move the opposition and didn't create spaces for us to exploit. Very easy for a reasonably well organised Premier League team to exploit. 

[shefcanary 2,449]

9 minutes ago, king canary said:

Both those games also followed a very similar pattern- we dominated possession, touches, passes etc but we didn't really threaten and those teams were largely happy to let us have it because we were doing nothing with it. I remember during the final years of Wenger Arsenal were described as often having 'sterile domination' which is exactly what we had in a number of games that season. Lots of slow passing between defence and midfield that didn't lead anywhere, didn't move the opposition and didn't create spaces for us to exploit. Very easy for a reasonably well organised Premier League team to exploit. 

Sounds a bit like Soton against us on NYD! Oh gawd ....

[Robert N. LiM 4,482]

15 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think they often get thrown in as being due to injuries but if you look at the line ups, particularly v Palace it really isn't too bad- only Amadou at centre back looks out of place and he'd played there before. 

Both those games also followed a very similar pattern- we dominated possession, touches, passes etc but we didn't really threaten and those teams were largely happy to let us have it because we were doing nothing with it. I remember during the final years of Wenger Arsenal were described as often having 'sterile domination' which is exactly what we had in a number of games that season. Lots of slow passing between defence and midfield that didn't lead anywhere, didn't move the opposition and didn't create spaces for us to exploit. Very easy for a reasonably well organised Premier League team to exploit. 

My memory is that the Palace game was pretty early on and I left it thinking  "We're going down," even though we'd recently beaten Man City...

[Petriix 2,853]

49 minutes ago, king canary said:

But if we want to actually compete in the top flight (and if we don't whats the point?) then a manager and SD need to recognise the type of players we need- basically more Josh Sargent's and less Moritz Leitners.

I'm with you up to this point. We've signed too many Barnes and Onels and let too many Vrancics go. I think Rowe might be the best of both worlds and (if we can keep him) we need to find a few more. Sargent was a poor signing for what was required at the time but looks great now.

We need to be using the back end of this season to get up to speed ready to mount a promotion challenge next year. One or two key signings and some promising youngsters ready to step up, then work on refining a system based on rapid attacking transitions. 

[king canary 7,673]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

I'm with you up to this point. We've signed too many Barnes and Onels and let too many Vrancics go. I think Rowe might be the best of both worlds and (if we can keep him) we need to find a few more. Sargent was a poor signing for what was required at the time but looks great now.

We need to be using the back end of this season to get up to speed ready to mount a promotion challenge next year. One or two key signings and some promising youngsters ready to step up, then work on refining a system based on rapid attacking transitions. 

I agree to an extent. I actually think there were a few players who played under Farke that would also thrive in a counter attacking, high pressing team- Buendia and Aaron's for example but I actually think Vrancic with his ability to hit accurate longer balls could have done well with the correct support in midfield. Leitner is a very different kettle of fish- lots of short passes to keep play moving which is great when you have 60% possession and teams are scared to close you down, not so much when you're the underdog.

Barnes and Hernandez make sense in concept- Barnes the physical nuisance who can press high and provide an outball with his back to goal when needed, Onel the pacey runner who either exploits space behind or keeps teams honest due to the concern of it. However both of them are well past being useful and living up to those concepts.

I'm not suggesting Webber got it right this summer or this direction is the right way- I'm more pushing back on the idea of returning to a Farke all style that is doomed to failure outside of this league.

[king canary 7,673]

2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

My memory is that the Palace game was pretty early on and I left it thinking  "We're going down," even though we'd recently beaten Man City...

Burnley and Palace were the games after Man City and I felt the same. The high of that improbable win wore off quickly when we were easily kept at arms length by lower midtable teams that we needed to take points off.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Just saw the Pink’un out of contract in the summer article.
 

According to that article we spent:

£20.3m on transfers fees

Plus wages of (say) another £12m (avg £20k pw x 3 years which is likely an underestimation)

So c£32.3m on:
Placheta
McCallum
Gibson
Giannoulis

One could of course sneakily add non-playing ‘assets’ like:

Rashica (what £10m?)

Tzolis (what 9m?)

Plus wages of (say) another £6m (avg £20k pw x 3 years already deducting amounts paid by other clubs, also quite possibly an under-estimation. Current Top earners could be double that)

So c£25m

Does that really all add up to £57.3m?

@essex canary has often banged the drum about our excessive wage spend versus peers. I must say I find it hard to argue with him here. 

‘Pissed up the wall’?

’Had to sell Buendia’?

Yes I suppose we did. 

Parma 

 

Edited January 4 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Just now, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

 

Edited January 4 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[king canary 7,673]

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

Just saw the Pink’un out of contract in the summer article.
 

According to that article we spent:

£20.3m on transfers fees

Plus wages of (say) another £12m (avg £20k pw x 3 years which is likely an underestimation)

So c£32.3m on:
Placheta
McCallum
Gibson
Giannoulis

One could of course sneakily add non-playing ‘assets’ like:

Rashica (what £10m?)

Tzolis (what 9m?)

Plus wages of (say) another £6m (avg £20k pw x 3 years already deducting amounts paid by other clubs, also quite possibly an under-estimation. Current Top earners could be double that)

So c£25m

Does that really all add up to £57.3m?

@essex canary has often banged the drum about our excessive wage spend versus peers. I must say I find it hard to argue with him here. 

‘Pissed up the wall’?

’Had to sell Buendia’?

Yes I suppose we did. 

Parma 

 

Some of the reporting on our wage spend has made it very difficult to understand what is going on.

Accounts say we spent £118m in wages in the Premier League.

MB said post relegation only one player was on more than £20k p/w but we were apparently still spending £56m on wages.

Something doesn't stack up if we're spending over £1m a week on wages but only one player earning over £20k p/w.

[shefcanary 2,449]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

MB said post relegation only one player was on more than £20k p/w but we were apparently still spending £56m on wages.

Eh? We have been told Pukki's salary remained at £50K per week on relegation - I'm sure MB himself stated that on numerous occasions. We also know Gibson is still on £40K per week.

Anyway, from the accounts last season compared to the last EPL season:

I've made some broadbrush assumptions here regarding non-football staff, assuming on average they get paid something like the national average. In addition, Pukki & Gibson wages is based on hearsay, but likely not to be too far out. 

The conclusion TBF, and I have complemented them on this before, is the reduction in the wage bill on relegation has been exemplary. Still a way to go to reflect the loss of parachute payments but knocking back average salaries of football staff by nearly 65% or c. £55m is actually very good. The problem going forward now, if as is likely we don't go up, is that the football staff headcount will have to reduce, as will staff elsewhere in the club to match the new income normal.

 

[king canary 7,673]

14 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Eh? We have been told Pukki's salary remained at £50K per week on relegation - I'm sure MB himself stated that on numerous occasions. We also know Gibson is still on £40K per week.

It was reported by Bailey initially after relegation that only one player was on north of £20k p/w which always smelt a bit fishy to me.

I'm also not sure how we 'know' Gibson's wages- has this been confirmed anywhere?

I do agree though that the wage control piece was very good- I guess the benefits of well negotiated contracts and looking to loanees. Shame they were almost all crap though.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

So Circa £60 million on:

Placheta
McCallum
Gibson
Giannoulis

Rashica

Tzolis

That’s quite a lot for not a lot isn’t it? 

What do we think the return on our £60m investment will be? 

Parma 

Edited January 4 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[shefcanary 2,449]

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

So Circa £60 million on:

Placheta
McCallum
Gibson
Giannoulis

Rashica

Tzolis

That’s quite a lot for not a lot isn’t it? 

What do we think the return on our £60m investment will be? 

Parma 

I'll play:

• Placheta (£2m, in demand in Poland this transfer window, so will get a notional, though not for Poland, fee),
• McCallum (I'm being positive here, he'll come good and sign for an EPL side eventually as a LCB for £10m),
• Gibson (£0m - he'll slip away at end of contract, no takers as any club he signs for will have to have all the money for his wages),
• Giannoulis (free - we'll let him go at end of contract as no-one will agree a fee with us whilst in contract),
• Rashica has gone (so assume we did get £3m for him but with no add-ons, as I've not heard he's performing well),
• Tzolis (still might capture an option fee as apparently putting in a turn - £2m).

That's £17m back at best, a net decrease on our outlay of £43m. Shocking. Still, Rowe and Sara should mop up the difference, hey? 😉 

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

@shefcanary playing devil’s advocate and giving yourself £10m for McCallum (!) you managed to find £17m return out of c£60m spent. 

Goodness me that is awful, awful business. 

I would probably ‘give you’ the £10m you have stolen for McCallum as fair amortised value for Gibson and Giannoulis, though truly neither were better than ok (though Gibson really should have done better and I liked him).

The above is all firmly in the realm of the Sporting Director and looks an absolutely huge outlay of limited funds on not very much. 

Several ‘maybe one day’ punts, a couple of ruinously expensive outright failures and a couple of fair average players. 

That is a frighteningly poor return for £60m that is incredibly hard to come by in a self-sustaining model. 

I suspect Attanasio will have a much closer eye on proceedings and Knapper a much tighter set of ring-fenced guidelines handed down to him - wouldn’t you say @Don J Demorr?

Parma 

Edited January 4 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[BigFish 1,988]

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

I suspect Attanasio will have a much closer eye on proceedings and Knapper a much tighter set of ring-fenced guidelines handed down to him - wouldn’t you say @Don J Demorr?

Probably, and probably quite right too. Although I don't expect it will popular (subject to results) as is seen by Mowbrey's response to the constraints of the Sunderland model.

[Don J Demorr 162]

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

I suspect Attanasio will have a much closer eye on proceedings and Knapper a much tighter set of ring-fenced guidelines handed down to him - wouldn’t you say @Don J Demorr?

Parma 

Parma, I have to say that I would be aghast at any arrangement in which a single member of an organisation at any level should, regardless of guidelines, have the authority to make decisions that have the potential to seriously damage or even ruin the business. I would expect that the originator of any proposal must be required to prepare and present a formal report in which the fully analysed cost and risk assessment are formulated; this to be presented, discussed and agreed by those responsible for the fate of the business – the owners and Board of Directors. Two points arise from this: -

1)      If the previous Director of Football was not challenged in this way, the failure is not his. It is with those who set it up this way. His was a lonely and soul-destroying mission, poor man. That is what I would expect Mr Attenasio to fix.

2)      @BigFish will no doubt say that this means that at least one of the Board should be a “Football person”. Well, maybe, but these are not entirely or even mainly football decisions, they are financial and risk management decisions.

Had this been done the disturbing mistakes described above would maybe still ocurred, but they would have been  a disappointment but not such a shock. They would have been seen as  potential losses and contingency measures would have been taken when necessary.

Best to all for 2024

MogaDon

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Entirely agreed @Don J Demorr.

Much as I love Delia, the proudly worn self-pinned badge of  ‘We let the Managers manage’ was always a flawed, ill-conceived concept and - as you so eloquently point out - actually a dereliction of corporate duty. 

An abysmally spent £60m is nothing to Abu Dhabi. It is a lifetime’s work for Norwich City.  

Parma 

Edited January 4 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[essex canary 506]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

 

The conclusion TBF, and I have complemented them on this before, is the reduction in the wage bill on relegation has been exemplary. Still a way to go to reflect the loss of parachute payments but knocking back average salaries of football staff by nearly 65% or c. £55m is actually very good. 

 

Isn't that because the Premier League Wages were £30 to £50 million too high in the first place?

[essex canary 506]

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

Entirely agreed @Don J Demorr.

Much as I love Delia, the proudly worn self-pinned badge of  ‘We let the Managers manage’ was always a flawed, ill-conceived concept and - as you so eloquently point out - actually a dereliction of corporate duty. 

An abysmally spent £60m is nothing to Abu Dhabi. It is a lifetime’s work for Norwich City.  

Parma 

Exactly. It seems that just because the pandemic blew a hole in self-funding the response was then just to let Stu let rip to salvage his reputation. Beyond belief. The pandemic hole could also have been better managed.

[Monty13 2,251]

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

@shefcanary playing devil’s advocate and giving yourself £10m for McCallum (!) you managed to find £17m return out of c£60m spent. 

Goodness me that is awful, awful business. 

I would probably ‘give you’ the £10m you have stolen for McCallum as fair amortised value for Gibson and Giannoulis, though truly neither were better than ok (though Gibson really should have done better and I liked him).

The above is all firmly in the realm of the Sporting Director and looks an absolutely huge outlay of limited funds on not very much. 

Several ‘maybe one day’ punts, a couple of ruinously expensive outright failures and a couple of fair average players. 

That is a frighteningly poor return for £60m that is incredibly hard to come by in a self-sustaining model. 

I suspect Attanasio will have a much closer eye on proceedings and Knapper a much tighter set of ring-fenced guidelines handed down to him - wouldn’t you say @Don J Demorr?

Parma 

This was always the root of Webbers failure and his legacy, we (and him) are lucky we have Attanasio cushioning the worst of it.

The failure on the pitch is almost nothing compared to what’s happened off it. Very, very little went right since we won that second title and as you say we can’t afford that, it’s been a disaster.

[shefcanary 2,449]

45 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Isn't that because the Premier League Wages were £30 to £50 million too high in the first place?

Not for an established EPL side, but yes, Norwich should have built up more slowly to that level of expenditure. But at least the salaries were reduced quickly.