The Knapper Effect.

[Herman 9,780]

Interesting stats in this post. Knapper arriving (or maybe Webber leaving) has clearly given the club a lift.

 

[essex canary 497]

Probably true. A quieter guy without an ego could be a great result.

[Ulfotto 637]

Or about the time Delia publicly backed Wagner.

[Google Bot 3,278]

Knapper sat in the office, or was it more the effect of the loss and subsequent return of Barnes (Game 17):

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ashley-barnes/leistungsdaten/spieler/63200

And Sarge:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/josh-sargent/leistungsdaten/spieler/393325

We were at a higher average of 2.5 pts/game even when the bogey man (Webber) was here and Sarge first got injured, and at the point of losing both Barnes and Sarge were at the same 1.85 pts/game as we are now.

Not sure why this concept of losing your top players having a negative effect on results, and a positive effect when they return is so hard to grasp.  Clearly, we didn't have the same players during that period to now.

Edited March 18 by Google Bot

[lake district canary 4,537]

It's certainly interesting.  Knapper may be quietly going about his job, encouraging people and having confidence in them - and that can be worth a lot.

It's all good - and that's without Rowe, arguably our biggest weapon, certainly in terms of goals. His speed of thought and focus when in attack are breathless at times - yet without him we still look strong.

So patience has seen rewards - the clamour to get rid of Wagner was resisted - and the injured players returned, Idah sent out on loan - and we look at times unstoppable. That may or may not continue, we'll have to see, but the season is still very much alive - and some credit for that has to go to Knapper.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

4 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

Or about the time Delia publicly backed Wagner.

That isn't quite what happened.  Delia and Michael made a call to tell Wagner that they understood the massive impact the injuries had. If you listen to the whole interview Wagner ends by saying that ultimately it's about the results. Those few words were left out of the clickbait. Also at the famous AGM interviews Rob Butler asked MWJ if he thought we could get amongst the play offs this season. MWJ said why not? The players are good enough we just lack consistence and that's for the manager to get right. Rob just said "ok the optomist"!

🎵C'est la vie say the old folks...

[Fen Canary 834]

More likely we’ve simply got our first choice strikers back from injury (who are key for Wagners preferred style of play) which has led to a significant upturn in results, rather than anything done by a sporting director who didn’t sign anybody of note 

[Yobocop 1,099]

Then introduction of Borja Sainz cannot be understated either

[Google Bot 3,278]

9 minutes ago, Yobocop said:

Then introduction of Borja Sainz cannot be understated either

We lost Gunn Oct/Nov too, was a torrid period.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,822]

Norwich aside, the fact that more than half of the division have been going at one point-per-game or less over a 20+ game period is remarkable. 

I guess that's what happens when you have the top seven on over 1.8, but it's still an incredible stat.

[chicken 2,627]

25 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

More likely we’ve simply got our first choice strikers back from injury (who are key for Wagners preferred style of play) which has led to a significant upturn in results, rather than anything done by a sporting director who didn’t sign anybody of note 

Our best strikers are our best strikers. It's not like we have a vast array to choose from and it's not like we could afford better. The fact that they are so good probably has more to do with it than being something to do with any "preferred" style of play. Not having a go, I just feel that this is the wrong way around. They'd be first choice under any manager that had come in, in January.

I also think Sargent is more tactically versatile than that. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,166]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Our best strikers are our best strikers. It's not like we have a vast array to choose from and it's not like we could afford better. The fact that they are so good probably has more to do with it than being something to do with any "preferred" style of play. Not having a go, I just feel that this is the wrong way around. They'd be first choice under any manager that had come in, in January.

I also think Sargent is more tactically versatile than that. 

I agree with you up to a point, but Wagner very obviously likes his teams to press from the front and Sargent is the best we've got at that, so in that respect I agree with Fen Canary (whilst also agreeing with you that "our best strikers are our best strikers" and that their return would have made a big difference regardless.)

[The Bunny 310]

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Edited March 19 by The Bunny

[Worthy Nigelton 1,055]

8 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Knapper sat in the office, or was it more the effect of the loss and subsequent return of Barnes (Game 17):

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ashley-barnes/leistungsdaten/spieler/63200

And Sarge:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/josh-sargent/leistungsdaten/spieler/393325

We were at a higher average of 2.5 pts/game even when the bogey man (Webber) was here and Sarge first got injured, and at the point of losing both Barnes and Sarge were at the same 1.85 pts/game as we are now.

Not sure why this concept of losing your top players having a negative effect on results, and a positive effect when they return is so hard to grasp.  Clearly, we didn't have the same players during that period to now.

Yep. The lack of patience with Wagner from some on here when we had horrendous injuries was farcical.

[Capt. Pants 4,252]

Highly likely it's not due to one particular thing. We don't know what interactions Knapper has with Wagner and what objectives he sets him, but it's reasonable to assume he 'got in to him a bit' when he first arrived.

Likewise we have seen players return from injury, others like Sainz, Sara and Stacey show amazing form. However, we've also lost Rowe now but we seem to be playing better than ever. Has Knapper had input into that? Playing Sara further right seems a masterstroke, at the moment.

Success is never down to one particular thing but more often many facets just happening to click at the same time. We're heading in the right direction, perhaps making up for lost time, but it's a damn sight better than it was before Knapper arrived.

[BroadstairsR 2,179]

The ship seems to have steadied all-round, and clearly Ben Knapper must have had some influence. It all got rather heated during Webber's last few months, and the projected handover issue caused confusion.

Vital players have returned from injury and Wagner seems to have found the right medication, with his tactical awareness improved and his disagreeable team-selections and substitutions largely a thing of the past.

Roll on ITFC.

[hogesar 9,692]

The only benefit so far of Webber leaving and Knapper coming in is that it gave Wagner a few weeks without aggressive calls for his head from fans as they gave Knapper a bit of time.

Although, we do all remember posters on here who were certain that Knapper was just acting as a puppet for Webber who was still controlling everything. So I think that conspiracy bought some valuable time for the club to get players back fit. 

Other than that, Knapper loaned out Idah and brought in SvH - so there's certainly a lot of room for improvement.

[shefcanary 2,410]

Wagner now employs Nunez in a midfield pivot. Kenny, when Gibson is unfit, plays as a LCB. This only started since Knapper was appointed. Knapper is a data man. It is possible that he saw something in the data that other analysts had not been able to convince Wagner of. 

I agree however that having our two "best" strikers back is certainly a key factor.

The biggest unanswered question for me however is why didn't Wagner change the approach to matches without the injured strikers - he had long enough to experiment with the set-up but continued to set the team up as if the two best strikers were on the pitch - an abysmal failure. If Knapper had arrived before the return of the strikers would some pressure have been applied to Wagner to "try something different in terms of set up"? 

As people are more regularly stating on here - everything is not binary. 

 

[Google Bot 3,278]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

The biggest unanswered question for me however is why didn't Wagner change the approach to matches without the injured strikers

The decisions are not Wagner's alone to make, those kind of decisions are formed through the entire coaching staff and overlooked by the SD.  I don't get why Wagner is pointed out for negative aspects and then Knapper is pointed out for positives, they're a collective.

If Wagner was working to the remit of developing and sticking to a system then he's simply doing the job he's being paid to do, and it's now paying us back, right?

Not saying that's the truth of the matter, but it's a perfectly viable scenario to me.  The club were lambasted because of lack of system and the breakdown under Smith, I think the two elements Webber sought to address with Wagner's appointment was fan relation and developing a system, and that's what he's delivered.

Edited March 19 by Google Bot

[Capt. Pants 4,252]

I'm seeing Sara now in more of an Odegaard role, is that a Knapper influence?

[hogesar 9,692]

49 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

I'm seeing Sara now in more of an Odegaard role, is that a Knapper influence?

No, I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest Knapper has told Wagner what positions to play players in that he's been coaching all season. Wagner has talked about Sara's versatility since he joined.

Now don't get me wrong, Knapper having suddenly dictated tactics, players, styles and everything is really convenient for those fans who claimed Wagner was a non-league manager at best a few months ago, but it's nothing more than that. Convenient.

[canarybubbles 1,923]

If the upturn in form since Knapper's arrival is anything more than coincidental, I don't believe it's anything to do with influencing tactical selections and formations. It may be related to a happier atmosphere all round since Webber left, but equally it may just be a correlation which is purely coincidental. 

Let's just be happy it's happened and hope it continues.

[shefcanary 2,410]

1 hour ago, Google Bot said:

The decisions are not Wagner's alone to make, those kind of decisions are formed through the entire coaching staff and overlooked by the SD.  I don't get why Wagner is pointed out for negative aspects and then Knapper is pointed out for positives, they're a collective.

If Wagner was working to the remit of developing and sticking to a system then he's simply doing the job he's being paid to do, and it's now paying us back, right?

Not saying that's the truth of the matter, but it's a perfectly viable scenario to me.  The club were lambasted because of lack of system and the breakdown under Smith, I think the two elements Webber sought to address with Wagner's appointment was fan relation and developing a system, and that's what he's delivered.

I'm sure they are not just Wagner's alone, as I said these things are not binary. But I still want an answer why Wagner did not adapt his team's set up when he was without two key players to deliver that, without adequate replacements. I want this to determine how much faith or not I can place in him in the future. Without it, I'll shrug my shoulders and say whatever will be, will be. 

I've said it many times now, a manager who cannot adapt in adversity is a poor manager. If he allows himself to be dictated to by a SD, I'm still of that view. 

So, why did Wagner not adapt his tactics during that period September to November? I really am seeking an answer here, and without it I'm afraid I lay the issue squarely at his door as he was the guy in the dressing room and on the touchline, closest to the players on the pitch.

Edited March 19 by shefcanary

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

Clearly Knapper has not upset the apple cart with the expedited change from Webber, who had become slightly toxic, and enabled the club to turn the page and move on. Deserves credit. 

Then we had the return of our preferred strikers who had started the season so well, coupled with others returning. It allowed Wagner to return to his preferred modus operandi.

Lastly, as much the same with Farke,  he has had his hand forced discovering Sara as an 'inside right' with Sainz on the left, got Nunez in the mix and an all round team that now appears much greater than the sum of its parts. Is that luck or judgement? Whatever you answer has to apply to Farke as well when he swapped in Vrancic, Lewis, Godfrey etc! 

[Google Bot 3,278]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

I've said it many times now, a manager who cannot adapt in adversity is a poor manager. If he allows himself to be dictated to by a SD, I'm still of that view. 

To be fair, this isn't' traditional manager model and I don't think it's fair that you're trying to judge and isolate one man on that basis.

It's a model all German coaches know well,  and the same model that saw us dominate this league under Farke.  We win as a collective and we lose as a collective.

Smith was more akin to the old school manager, where he had more leeway, the idea being that the pragmatic/reactionary approach would be as shorter term fix and he very much carried the ego of being the main man.

We know that he was more primarily involved in signings as we heard that he was the one contacting certain players to bring them into the club.  So the reverse example is no better, as both managers had their injuries and morale issues to deal with, but the lack of direction and perceived ego of Smith broke this club.

I'm not saying for sure this is the case with Wagner, as we just don't know.   But, if you're looking for a reason I think this overall plan of developing and sticking with a system was top remit.   Webber knew the backroom staff we had already worked with Wagner at Huddersfield and were already on the same page, so it would be quick to employ.

Let's also remember that Farke was also labelled as stubborn when it wasn't going well, and praised when it was - the difference is he was not blighted with the level of injuries we've endured the past 2 seasons, so his progression was less impeded... As is Wagner's right now.

I'm trying to think of a business equivalent of this scenario.  i.e. If you were brought into a company, low on morale, poorly performing and tasked with bringing in a clear structure.

Would you change the procedures that you had put in because of a few key absences which you knew were temporary?  And more importantly if you had sat with upper management and agreed to not undermine the procedures in place, would that make you a poor manager?

Edited March 19 by Google Bot

[The Bunny 310]

 

5 hours ago, hogesar said:

Other than that, Knapper loaned out Idah and brought in SvH - so there's certainly a lot of room for improvement.

The jury is still out on SvH (agreed that he hasn't set the world alight yet), but Idah was desperately in need of a loan. The fact that he spent so many seasons without regular football was borderline negligence on the part of the previous SD. 

[shefcanary 2,410]

45 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Would you change the procedures that you had put in because of a few key absences which you knew were temporary?  And more importantly if you had sat with upper management and agreed to not undermine the procedures in place, would that make you a poor manager?

Again, I can't argue directly against you, but if Wagner didn't adapt his team set up because he was under orders to play a certain way irrespective of the playing squad and their competencies, I personally would like to hear that. I know you can argue there are in business terms commercial, and in sporting terms, competitive advantage reasons for not disclosing this publicly, but I'd still personally like to know.

And whilst I do not have such a definitive answer I cannot trust Wagner 100% to get things right in the future. That's my personal beef I guess, but it will mean I will be quick to criticise if / when we are faced with a similar lack of adaption in the face of key players being injured and unavailable. It's my way to vent my frustration.

[repman 635]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Wagner now employs Nunez in a midfield pivot. Kenny, when Gibson is unfit, plays as a LCB. This only started since Knapper was appointed. Knapper is a data man. It is possible that he saw something in the data that other analysts had not been able to convince Wagner of. 

I agree however that having our two "best" strikers back is certainly a key factor.

The biggest unanswered question for me however is why didn't Wagner change the approach to matches without the injured strikers - he had long enough to experiment with the set-up but continued to set the team up as if the two best strikers were on the pitch - an abysmal failure. If Knapper had arrived before the return of the strikers would some pressure have been applied to Wagner to "try something different in terms of set up"? 

As people are more regularly stating on here - everything is not binary. 

 

I agree with most of this, I think there's probably been an impact in the sense that it benefits to have a new voice and someone to challenge current thinking. The other example for me would be finally seeing Sainz start, he had been injured but he spent nearly 2 months sitting on the bench until he finally got a chance to start.

I'm not sure I agree though about the change of approach, or lack thereof. He kept the shape for sure but the difference in mentality was clear post-Plymouth. I guess this probably applies more to away games but there were certainly some dreary home games in that time too. I think Middlesbrough the other week was the first time since Plymouth that we'd looked like we wanted to win the game convincingly, as opposed to snatching a goal and hanging on for dear life. The period that led to Knapper's arrival being sped up was really bad, and perhaps luckily we then nicked a win away at Bristol City out of nothing which allowed Knapper to take more time with any possible decision.

It's why I said on here a couple of months ago I think that it could probably be best that if Wagner was going at the end of the year we announce it now, in the hope we release the shackles and just give it a go. For all we know this could've already been said internally, but even so it's clear Wagner is here until the end of the year so there isn't as much pressure riding on each result.

[Google Bot 3,278]

35 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Again, I can't argue directly against you, but if Wagner didn't adapt his team set up because he was under orders to play a certain way irrespective of the playing squad and their competencies, I personally would like to hear that.

You shouldn't need it explaining as we know that the model involves the sporting director calling the shots and the head coach working to that remit.

The idea that we would have this structure in place and yet allow the coach to do as he pleases without intervention would be a deviation, not the default.  Would it not?

Quite some presumption of course, but you asked for a reason and that's the belief i've always held since the day Wagner came into this club and it still rings true today for me.  I have no problem in explaining the changes in morale, the drop in form losing players, the rise in form gaining them back, and the subsequent achievement of us being one of the most in-form teams in this league today.

I do not see a poor manager, A stubborn jobsworth head coach, yes, probably! 😉   ...But we all loved the previous one when we had Emi and Pukki continually fit, right?

Edited March 19 by Google Bot

[shefcanary 2,410]

I guess I'm longer in the tooth and still appreciate the days of Clough and Revie (and Bond and Saunders closer to home), who wouldn't do what they were told but would only do what they thought would get them a result. Let's see what the future brings.