Ben Lee’s analysis

[Jim Smith 2,322]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

I’ve read it sometimes, I don’t have to agree. Vs Hull imo we got more right than wrong: that is evidenced by the win that I saw with my own eyes, despite Seaman claiming it somehow relied on huge amounts of luck.

 

Well it kind of did. Our keeper played a blinder, Rowe scored a high quality goal out of nothing and apart from that I thought we defended determinant but were generally sh*te. Hull played  through our midfield with utter ease as usual and had they not been extremely wasteful and Gunn been inspired it would have been very different. The scum game was similar also.

These tactics (if you can even call them that it’s basically sticking everyone behind the ball - pub team stuff) will not consistently win you football matches over the long term. Rowe and Gunn won’t do that every week although I completely accept that good players, playing well is part of what a football team is entitled to rely on. But relying on the opposition not taking chances is luck. 

There has been a consistent trend leading into our downturns in form under Wagner of us conceding close to or over 20 shots a game in matches. We did so again on Friday night. It’s not good tactics it’s stick everyone behind the ball and hope someone produces something out of the ordinary. There is no coherent possession or shape to our play. That is the point the analyst is making. Regardless of the odd scraped win, these players are performing as a unit at nowhere near the level they should be. 
 

As usual, it all comes back to the midfield and the fact Wagner either has a complete blind spot to it or is willing to cede control of that area and turn games into end to end slugfests with last ditch defending. 

 

Edited January 15 by Jim Smith

[hogesar 9,676]

7 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Well it kind of did. Our keeper played a blinder, Rowe scored a high quality goal out of nothing and apart from that I thought we defended determinant but were generally sh*te. Hull played  through our midfield with utter ease as usual and had they not been extremely wasteful and Gunn been inspired it would have been very different. The scum game was similar also.

These tactics (if you can even call them that it’s basically sticking everyone behind the ball - pub team stuff) will not consistently win you football matches over the long term. Rowe and Gunn won’t do that every week although I completely accept that good players, playing well is part of what a football team is entitled to rely on. But relying on the opposition not taking chances is luck. 

There has been a consistent trend leading into our downturns in form under Wagner of us conceding close to or over 20 shots on goal a game in matches. We did so again on Friday night. It’s not good tactics it’s stuck everyone behind the ball and hope for the best. That is the point the analyst is making. Regardless of the odd scraped win, these players are performing as a unit at nowhere near the level they should be. 

 

We created the 3 best chances of the game. None of them were Rowe's goal, either.

[Jim Smith 2,322]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

We created the 3 best chances of the game. None of them were Rowe's goal, either.

And they had about 15 situations in our attacking third where they should have done better but didn’t. They were wasteful. 
 

Great result but there is no world in which I will accept that was a good performance. Until we stop being carved open through the mid field with such ease this team will continue to regularly lose games. We may win some as well I do agree. But we can’t control a match at all. 

 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I quite like Ben's analysis' (shock to everyone on here, I'm sure), with a couple of caveat's.

I think there's a little too much strength put towards the idea that possession = control. That isn't necessarily the case and ultimately you can make a choice to concede some possession for greater structural control.

Secondly, the result influencing the analytics / quality of opposition. Anyone who went to Huddersfield away at the beginning of the season would have had a great time as I did, but it was quite clear that even Huddersfield could transition through the middle of the pitch with little problem. They didn't have the quality to punish but they did get through regularly and we were mostly helped by how aggressive both Gibson and Duffy were at pushing into their forward players and squeezing space.

Yet, a direct quote from the end of that game was:

"Overall, Saturday’s win provided yet more evidence of Norwich’s adaptability under David Wagner, with the German’s side facing a unique challenge against a complete man-to-man press."

So I do think that nowadays the analysis sort of goes into the game from a certain angle to begin with, if that makes sense. A lot of what he said was of course right, but I do think there's an "obsession with possession". 🙂

 

Yep, if you can't control possession, then at least control where the opposition play. That's basically what Wagner's got the team to do. The net result from both the Hull and Southampton matches was that we didn't keep the ball very well and we were vulnerable if losing the ball in our half, but on the other hand, both teams very rarely turned us around and were mainly pot-shotting from distance. So it looked like we conceded a lot of shots, but in reality they weren''t particularly good chances as far as xG or the eye test would have it. The one that beat Gunn against Hull was a cracking strike from distance, and the one Southampton scored came from at least two defensive errors, if not three.

Obviously, the standard is nowhere near as high, but think of it as an early Simeone Athletico Madrid. They often didn't keep the ball much either, but they did control where the opposition played. Namely dead in front of them.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

26 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Well it kind of did. Our keeper played a blinder, Rowe scored a high quality goal out of nothing and apart from that I thought we defended determinant but were generally sh*te. Hull played  through our midfield with utter ease as usual and had they not been extremely wasteful and Gunn been inspired it would have been very different. The scum game was similar also.

These tactics (if you can even call them that it’s basically sticking everyone behind the ball - pub team stuff) will not consistently win you football matches over the long term. Rowe and Gunn won’t do that every week although I completely accept that good players, playing well is part of what a football team is entitled to rely on. But relying on the opposition not taking chances is luck. 

There has been a consistent trend leading into our downturns in form under Wagner of us conceding close to or over 20 shots a game in matches. We did so again on Friday night. It’s not good tactics it’s stick everyone behind the ball and hope someone produces something out of the ordinary. There is no coherent possession or shape to our play. That is the point the analyst is making. Regardless of the odd scraped win, these players are performing as a unit at nowhere near the level they should be. 
 

As usual, it all comes back to the midfield and the fact Wagner either has a complete blind spot to it or is willing to cede control of that area and turn games into end to end slugfests with last ditch defending. 

 

It's worse than that we're dead Jim.

If it wasn't for our goalkeeper, our defenders, our midfield, our strikers and our subs we'd have comfortably lost that game, and those against Southampton and the binners.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

The thing is, there are three sore points that frequently crop up and deserve criticism.

Firstly, we don't keep possession too well after we get it. I accept there's a lot to be said for letting the other team have possession, gum up the works and challenge them to play their way through. Southampton, for their splendid form, hardly turned us around. Hull huffed and puffed but created very little. But we could have eased the pressure on ourselves more if we'd been better on the turnover and more precise on the counter.

Secondly, linked to number one, is that in addition to not keeping the ball too well, we are prone to losing it in dangerous places so have to cede ground to reorganise. Misplaced passes out of defence have been a rather unwelcome hallmark of this season, seemingly even more so than usual.

Thirdly, our midfield structure. Putting Kenny into LCB resolved this a bit as it gave us a centre-half who can stride out with the ball and enable the actual midfielders to push up and make themselves available (Wagner deserves some real credit for that move for Kenny). McLean is not an incisive passer like Vrancic, Buendia, Cantwell or even Stiepermann was, he's closer to Lukas Rupp in that he's more about passes that keep an opposing defence moving or just keeping the ball.

But as we have those issues, I understand why Wagner's decided "need to tighten up, let's turn things into a grind".

[Ulfotto 635]

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

I don’t think they’ve been pushing he’s a spent force, they’ve been largely pointing out how streaky he is and how poor some of our play is despite some of the results. We are relying on individual quality like Rowe and Gunn and that’s not sustainable. I don’t think they are wrong in that conclusion personally.

Also pointing out how poor quality the Championship is which considering our recent run to still be just outside the playoffs tells its own story.

I agree but I think he is being held to pretty high standards. Everyone  predicted just outside the playoffs and here we are just outside the playoffs. The team does not seem to greater than the sum of its parts which I get that is what the coach is supposed to add. I do though question sometimes the narrative that we have better players than other teams in and around us given the performances over the last 2 and a half seasons. 
 

Part of me thinks they must be pretty bored of writing it and are longing for some sort of new copy to arrive.

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Hi, can you help me out here, why is the analysis "largely garbage", I put quite a bit of store by it. Honestly, looking for a reasoned argument here?

The frustration Lee has with the current situation is building week by week. 

I think it's consistently excellent. It goes into a level of detail that is unnecessary for the common man, but I've learnt so much about tactical construction and theory reading these articles. 

And as for Sam Seaman, I think his stuff is improving too. 

Look this is Norwich City. Our fans (who are mostly old, entirely controlled by their partners and have no one to whom their opinion actually matters) don't survive unless they have something to moan at. That is the role NCFC plays and why so many feel the need to go every week even if they say they don't enjoy it.

They secretly do because it's only area of their lives they get the satisfaction of complaint.

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

18 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

I think it's consistently excellent. It goes into a level of detail that is unnecessary for the common man, but I've learnt so much about tactical construction and theory reading these articles. 

And as for Sam Seaman, I think his stuff is improving too. 

Look this is Norwich City. Our fans (who are mostly old, entirely controlled by their partners and have no one to whom their opinion actually matters) don't survive unless they have something to moan at. That is the role NCFC plays and why so many feel the need to go every week even if they say they don't enjoy it.

They secretly do because it's only area of their lives they get the satisfaction of complaint.

Speak for yourself!

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, Branston Pickle said:

Speak for yourself!

Aw, shucks, you beat me to it! 😄

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

3 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Speak for yourself!

Lol and the first example of my point comes to the fore.

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Aw, shucks, you beat me to it! 😄

Shortly followed by the second.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Shortly followed by the second.

Shame none of what you wrote actually applied to me but you can always convince yourself that somehow it does, I suppose!

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Shame none of what you wrote actually applied to me but you can always convince yourself that somehow it does, I suppose!

Indeed - wrong on many counts and I don’t think anyone has ever said that I moan about NCFC.  

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

Indeed - wrong on many counts and I don’t think anyone has ever said that I moan about NCFC.  

I don't think anyone's ever accused me of being a miserablist, that's for sure!

[Robert N. LiM 4,376]

So, I didn't see the game, and haven't read the article. But this is the internet, so I'm going to comment anyway...

Based on the twitter thread, which I have read, and I'm assuming is similar to the article, I have a couple of comments.

Agree with @hogesar that Ben Lee perhaps puts a bit too much emphasis on possession, though others' comments that we don't use the ball well when we have it also seems fair.

I think it might be possible that Lee is specifically looking for flaws in our tactical set-up: he gives lots of examples of those, and few or none of where our set-up did work. Might be a bit of confirmation bias at work here.

But: the evidence he gives is very specific, which in itself gives a fair bit of confidence in his conclusions. And his conclusions seem to tally with what most of us have seen all season:

• our defensive shape (here I mean the whole team, not just the back four) is far too easy to play through, especially in transition
• we don't use the ball well enough when we have it
• we rely too much on individual moments of brilliance

It all adds up to a fairly compelling argument that a better coach would have this team playing better, in my view.

[Midlands Yellow 3,994]

We’re grinding out results but certainly not pleasing on the eye. If we continue with this way of playing it’s a top ten finish at best. 

[Jim Smith 2,322]

1 hour ago, Ulfotto said:

I agree but I think he is being held to pretty high standards. Everyone  predicted just outside the playoffs and here we are just outside the playoffs. The team does not seem to greater than the sum of its parts which I get that is what the coach is supposed to add. I do though question sometimes the narrative that we have better players than other teams in and around us given the performances over the last 2 and a half seasons. 
 

Part of me thinks they must be pretty bored of writing it and are longing for some sort of new copy to arrive.

The problem is more that the team is less than the sum of its parts though. Leaving aside league position, we can all see it. 

[king canary 7,609]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

I like Ben Lee's analysis, if I wished to challenge his analysis, which I don't really, I would point to the fact that we won quite comfortably on xG (0.97 to 1.4).*

 

*I haven't read tne full article, just what was on Twitter

He does kind of address this in what he said on twitter though- mainly that Hull were a bit impatient in their build up and thus were taking long range pot shots rather than letting the play develop to try and get a bit closer and play through our defenders, which many teams have managed.

The counter to this obviously is were we too solid to play through in this game and thus limited them to longer efforts but I do see his point that Hull seemed very willing to take shots from distance.

[lake district canary 4,533]

Stats or analysis can say what they like, the feeling I got after Hull was that we are on a better course. 

Nothing ever remains the same in football and we are either improving or we are regressing - and I my mind there is no doubt we are improving. The performance against Hull was good, to the point of  everything working well and individual players performing well within the whole team. Even the subs worked with Argos and Fassnacht combining for what turned out to be the winning goal. 

You can't even say Wagner isn't getting the best out of players with several excellent individual  performances at Hull and a team win. What that result should do is build confidence within the group.

A couple of weeks ago, I was scathing in my criticism of Wagner, but I must say, I am full of praise for him after Hull. Its seems that this will be the way of it with this manager - ups and downs. 

What we need of course is a good run of results - and after the Hull match, the confidence should be there to do better in possession and help improve those areas that need improving. Unfortunately for analysts and statisticians, you can't measure confidence statistically! 

[Jim Smith 2,322]

2 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Stats or analysis can say what they like, the feeling I got after Hull was that we are on a better course. 

Nothing ever remains the same in football and we are either improving or we are regressing - and I my mind there is no doubt we are improving. The performance against Hull was good, to the point of  everything working well and individual players performing well within the whole team. Even the subs worked with Argos and Fassnacht combining for what turned out to be the winning goal. 

You can't even say Wagner isn't getting the best out of players with several excellent individual  performances at Hull and a team win. What that result should do is build confidence within the group.

A couple of weeks ago, I was scathing in my criticism of Wagner, but I must say, I am full of praise for him after Hull. Its seems that this will be the way of it with this manager - ups and downs. 

What we need of course is a good run of results - and after the Hull match, the confidence should be there to do better in possession and help improve those areas that need improving. Unfortunately for analysts and statisticians, you can't measure confidence statistically! 

I think you can undoubtedly say he’s not getting the best out of the players. He may be getting decent performances out of some of them individually but as a team they are functioning well below par 

[hogesar 9,676]

47 minutes ago, king canary said:

He does kind of address this in what he said on twitter though- mainly that Hull were a bit impatient in their build up and thus were taking long range pot shots rather than letting the play develop to try and get a bit closer and play through our defenders, which many teams have managed.

The counter to this obviously is were we too solid to play through in this game and thus limited them to longer efforts but I do see his point that Hull seemed very willing to take shots from distance.

It does seem very convenient though, to make the claim that Hull were impatient and simply willing to take shots from distance, rather than the fact they weren't able to play through us and our low block.

Especially when the tables are turned and we are restricted to long shots, it's always because "we didn't have the quality to break them down" - in his view.

[Robert N. LiM 4,376]

2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I think it might be possible that Lee is specifically looking for flaws in our tactical set-up: he gives lots of examples of those, and few or none of where our set-up did work. Might be a bit of confirmation bias at work here.

 

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

It does seem very convenient though, to make the claim that Hull were impatient and simply willing to take shots from distance, rather than the fact they weren't able to play through us and our low block.

Especially when the tables are turned and we are restricted to long shots, it's always because "we didn't have the quality to break them down" - in his view.

Nice concrete example of what I suspected here. Cheers, Hoggy.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

It does seem very convenient though, to make the claim that Hull were impatient and simply willing to take shots from distance, rather than the fact they weren't able to play through us and our low block.

Especially when the tables are turned and we are restricted to long shots, it's always because "we didn't have the quality to break them down" - in his view.

Great post Hoggy.

This is exactly how I feel. We get the pantwetting about how the binners/Southampton/Hull will be too good for us, then when they're not we get nonsense about how them not beating us was through their failings. Or in the case of Hull our players played well which somehow isn't down to us.

[Monty13 2,235]

6 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Can you not same the same with England and Kane, though?   Also, Pukki and Buendia. 

Isn't that just how some teams operate?  Successful or not.  Smith's concept was very much about providing the foundations and he clearly put a lot of hope in Rowe too based on our transfer dealings, but as we know injuries took a tool for him on that initial plan.

Behind the scenes they know what Rowe is capable of, I don't think it's luck as people suggest.

I find a lot of the pinkun content to be playing to the gallery right now, and they have sadly shown a very intent bias.  I don't like it personally.  But then again, I don't know how you can express an opinion and remain neutral either - you get the same with Butler on Norfolk.

I think the difference with Pukki and Buendia is we had a system designed around getting the best out of them, not sure the same can be said about the current system. Every side has a few key players that elevate the system and who they struggle without.

If we knew Rowe was this big a talent the failure to tie him down to a new longer contract like Idah and Sargent seems a massive error.

There’s a fine line between reporting and understanding the supporter sentiment and playing to it. I don’t think they’ve crossed it personally. In fact I’d say they are more in tune with supporters than the club leadership is and that’s really what is coming across as bias.

[Monty13 2,235]

4 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

I agree but I think he is being held to pretty high standards. Everyone  predicted just outside the playoffs and here we are just outside the playoffs. The team does not seem to greater than the sum of its parts which I get that is what the coach is supposed to add. I do though question sometimes the narrative that we have better players than other teams in and around us given the performances over the last 2 and a half seasons. 
 

Part of me thinks they must be pretty bored of writing it and are longing for some sort of new copy to arrive.

The club have set the standard he and they have failed so far to meet, think that’s a pretty important point.

[king canary 7,609]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

It does seem very convenient though, to make the claim that Hull were impatient and simply willing to take shots from distance, rather than the fact they weren't able to play through us and our low block.

Especially when the tables are turned and we are restricted to long shots, it's always because "we didn't have the quality to break them down" - in his view.

Maybe but I don't think that makes him wrong per se. I'd have to go back and watch the game in depth which I'm going to assume he has and most of us haven't so I'm willing to defer to him. I think writing it off as bias is a bit unfair without anything to actually back it up. 

 

[Fen Canary 828]

Anybody who’s watched us knows we’re a bit too easy to play through in the midfield at the moment, which leaves our defenders busier than they should be and more likely to make the odd mistake. Whether that’s tactics or personnel available is up for debate.

In my opinion a Gary Holt type player who can just add some bite and energy into midfield to give the defenders some respite now and again would help our creative players like Rowe and Sara no end 

[lake district canary 4,533]

3 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I think you can undoubtedly say he’s not getting the best out of the players. He may be getting decent performances out of some of them individually but as a team they are functioning well below par 

I'm looking for signs of progress and although we were up against it at Hull, we still had enough class to see it through to victory.  Imo, unlike other matches where we scraped a point or in some cases won, this performance and result had a little bit more about it. Imo it ought to be a genuine confidence builder for the whole squad - and fans for that matter.

It was the first time in two seasons where I have watched a match and had a real sense of involvement. I think we've turned a corner. 

Edited January 15 by lake district canary

[Midlands Yellow 3,994]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I'm looking for signs of progress and although we were up against it at Hull, we still had enough class to see it through to victory.  Imo, unlike other matches where we scraped a point or in some cases won, this performance and result had a little bit more about it. Imo it ought to be a genuine confidence builder for the whole squad - and fans for that matter.

It was the first time in two seasons where I have watched a match and had a real sense of involvement. I think we're turned a corner. 

We are going to be tested by some very good teams in the nest 5 league matches. 9 points or more and maybe we have turned that corner.