Time to accept that Wagner is doing a good job

[king canary 7,705]

48 minutes ago, Conrad said:

I think people, In the main, recognise the injury problems that we have had. Although, probably, other Club's may have had similar issues.

 

The problem that I have with Wagner is that 18 game (or whatever it was) sequence before Christmas when he seemed unprepared to change his tactics and system despite the players required to play that way being injured.

There was little doubt in my mind that when those players regained fitness (or had remained fit) we had a squad and team capable of competing at the top end of the league.

 

Yes- injuries are an excuse to an extent but even without those players we shouldn't have been in the kind of form we were for a period this season.

[hogesar 9,817]

5 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Neither of us have any idea whether keeping hold of Idah would have been a good or bad thing, as we don't know what the impact of his unhappiness would have had on the dressing room, and whether it would or wouldn't have been fully negated by further goal contributions. He clearly didn't buy into Wagner or sufficiently believe in his team mates if he was desperate to leave.

Even if we pretend that it's a fact that Idah was "desperate to leave" and we then go further and pretend that he'd have been some menace all of a sudden in the dressing room...

Then don't sign a completely unsuited player who quite clearly, even if you ignore his diabolical fitness, doesn't look anything close to suited to our counter-pressing from forward players anyway.

 

 

[hogesar 9,817]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes- injuries are an excuse to an extent but even without those players we shouldn't have been in the kind of form we were for a period this season.

I agree, but on the flipside I also think it's a bit of an over-performance to be generating the sort of form we have done in recent months. Our last 10 has us 3rd, for example. 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 552]

7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Even if we pretend that it's a fact that Idah was "desperate to leave"

I tend to try and take people at their word and would rather believe that Adam Idah wanted to leave than to believe that David Wagner is a dishonest person, not least because if Wagner did lie about Idah wanting to leave then I strongly suspect that Adam Idah would have called him out on it! 

“We have to say after Adam made his point clear that he likes to go on loan, for me, what was clear, that when we can find an alternative, it makes no sense to keep someone who is desperate to go on loan. I totally respect Adam’s decision and his thoughts.

“At the right moment I backed this because our aims and targets are too high and we have to have a group who’s committed 100 percent. The chance popped up quite late to get Sydney on loan, and then with an option to buy as well, so it was the perfect scenario.

“I got Adam’s point. And this is why I backed this decision. Even if I would have been fine if he wanted to stay and fight for his spot.”

Edited April 8 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[Daz Sparks 1,204]

Back in October and November I was down on the whole situation. I never felt that sacking Wagner  was the answer though,  the injuries made it really difficult to field a consistent 11 and we just couldn't seem to get going.

I am really pleased and somewhat surprised that we have the play offs in our own hands with 5 to go, and of course I'm ecstatic that we beat the binners. Whatever happens this season, I cannot see Wagner getting sacked, nor do I believe he was ever in danger of it. 

 

[S_81 925]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Even if we pretend that it's a fact that Idah was "desperate to leave" and we then go further and pretend that he'd have been some menace all of a sudden in the dressing room...

Then don't sign a completely unsuited player who quite clearly, even if you ignore his diabolical fitness, doesn't look anything close to suited to our counter-pressing from forward players anyway.

 

 

Yes, that’s the point. Idah going on loan at least has the upside of raising his market value (hopefully) - given he’s doing a decent enough job. 
But he was doing a decent enough job in a bench role for us. Therefore whoever came in either had to offer more from the bench or ideally be that good they’d push to be a starter. 
It remains perplexing that we instead have someone who we are unwilling to even bring off the bench. Is that because the DoF and Manager weren’t in alignment? Or did they both buy in only to find out he’s not been as good in the flesh? Or did the Manager not want him all along? We’ll never know. But we certainly know that unless Sydney steps up suddenly, we’ve weakened our goal threat at the business end of the season. And we have to pray more than ever that Josh doesn’t take another knock. 

[king canary 7,705]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I agree, but on the flipside I also think it's a bit of an over-performance to be generating the sort of form we have done in recent months. Our last 10 has us 3rd, for example. 

Yeah totally agree- which is why I think where we are is about par for the course. 

However if we finish 7th for example and we miss out on the top 6 by a point or two, I don't think Wagner could feel hard done by if he got the boot. Yes we've finished strong but if we miss out it'll be because of performances like Rotherham and Plymouth away, or throwing away a two goal lead against Watford, all of which are partly on him.

[MrBunce 245]

Hogesar: I know Idah/SvH is your pet topic but stepping back has it really made any difference. Looking at the results, I can't see how any of them would have been different with Idah. The team were well beaten against Leicester and Boro. The draws away at QPR and Blackburn are decent points on the road where leads were let slip. Besides, Idah hadn't scored in nearly two months by the time he left and only twice in five months - despite a lot of game time. 

I'm willing to trust Knapper's and Wagner's strategic judgement on this, even if short-term it doesn't seem to have 'paid off'. 

 

All: Back to the topic at hand, a hypothetical question: looking at the other teams at the top of the table, which of those would you take over Wagner? (i.e. Maresca, Farke, McKenna, Martin, Corberan, Robins and Rosenior) 

[SwindonCanary 455]

having lived on a nuke (before woman were allowed  on a boat, )  I can see no reason why femails  go the subs !

[king canary 7,705]

4 minutes ago, MrBunce said:

Hogesar: I know Idah/SvH is your pet topic but stepping back has it really made any difference. Looking at the results, I can't see how any of them would have been different with Idah. The team were well beaten against Leicester and Boro. The draws away at QPR and Blackburn are decent points on the road where leads were let slip. Besides, Idah hadn't scored in nearly two months by the time he left and only twice in five months - despite a lot of game time. 

I'm willing to trust Knapper's and Wagner's strategic judgement on this, even if short-term it doesn't seem to have 'paid off'. 

 

All: Back to the topic at hand, a hypothetical question: looking at the other teams at the top of the table, which of those would you take over Wagner? (i.e. Maresca, Farke, McKenna, Martin, Corberan, Robins and Rosenior) 

I think there are two ways of looking at it.

1- are we weaker when looking for players to come off the bench? I think clearly, because Idah was a body you could throw on when chasing games and he was trusted and able to do this.

2- are we weaker when looking at starters? Probably not. SVD isn't great but Idah also struggled as a starter under Wagner and was regularly dropped for Hwang. So we've swapped one striker Wagner who didn't fit as a starter in Wagner's tactics for another who also doesn't fit. 

Re your list of managers- I'd take Farke, McKenna, Maresca and Corberan for sure. Robins, Rosenier and Martin I'm less convinced by. 

[king canary 7,705]

2 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

having lived on a nuke (before woman were allowed  on a boat, )  I can see no reason why femails  go the subs !

....ok.

[MrBunce 245]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

Re your list of managers- I'd take Farke, McKenna, Maresca and Corberan for sure. Robins, Rosenier and Martin I'm less convinced by. 

I broadly agree. I'd 100% take Farke over Wagner. I'd very likely take McKenna, Corberan and Robins. I haven't seen enough of Maresca and Rosenior. I'm unconvinced on Martin. 

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Here are a couple of questions - wasn't it a fair degree of player power that saw the end of Dean Smith? IIRC didn't Kenny McLean have a go at Smith by saying if he spent more time on the training ground the team would be in a better position?

If those two are indeed true, then I think it shows the impact Wagner has had on getting a functional team out of them, even if the style of football is far less purely aesthetic than under Farke.

Smith was the worst managerial appointment the club has made since Roeder. Ok Grant and Gunny weren't much cop, but the former realised being a manager in the game wasn't his forte and Gunny brought in Grant Holt at least.

Smith did more damage by wasting opportunity after opportunity by getting the very worst from that team who had at least some PL quality at the wrong time. To replace Farke with that clown is, looking back, nothing short of an hysterically mad decision.

Edited April 8 by BroadstairsR

[TheGunnShow 6,095]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

Smith was the worst managerial appointment the club has made since Roeder. Ok Grant and Gunny weren't much cop, but the former realised being a manager in the game wasn't his Forte and Gunny brought in Grant Holt at least.

Smith did more damage by wasting opportunity after opportunity by getting the very worst from that team who had at least some PL quality at the wrong time. To replace Farke with that clown is, looking back, nothing short of an hysterically mad decision.

Would say Gunny also realised being a manager wasn't his forte either, just after he went.

But it's not answered my question - was player power part of the reason Smith went?

[Ulfotto 664]

I would a few points:

What Wagner has done is ensure he will get another crack at the championship with or without Norwich. Basically if he was sacked in October that was his managerial career well and truly over. What he has done is ensure he gets another go either if we stick with him or I’m sure another championship team will take a punt on him.

I wonder if the svh situation is more around Barnes than anything else. Idah can do the job Sargent does to an extend but can’t really do the link role Barnes does. Granted though I see do evidence that svh can do it either.

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

Would say Gunny also realised being a manager wasn't his forte either, just after he went.

But it's not answered my question - was player power part of the reason Smith went?

Yes, seems like it .... and with reason if these stories are true. If not then our rapid decline under Smith suggests that there was a lot lacking in the man and his fit at Carrow Road. Awful football.

[TheGunnShow 6,095]

Just now, BroadstairsR said:

Yes, seems like it .... and with reason if these stories are true. If not then our rapid decline under Smith suggests that there was a lot lacking in the man and his fit at Carrow Road. Awful football.

Aye, and if that's so, I would say that's a pretty compelling reason for keeping Wagner in for the foreseeable, as it's clear the players are very much committed and playing for him. Even if sometimes the playing style is a bit schizophrenic and non-discernible, but their commitment to the cause cannot be doubted.

[Ulfotto 664]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yes, seems like it .... and with reason if these stories are true. If not then our rapid decline under Smith suggests that there was a lot lacking in the man and his fit at Carrow Road. Awful football.

Surely it was the fan reaction. The home game against Luton in particular. Carrow Road was a poisonous place. That could not continue with over half the season left. Just a reminder if we had beaten Luton we would have gone 2rd if my memory holds and he sacked with the team in 5th. I feel the club has and to extent still in a short term cycle where they are only planning a season at a time. 

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Aye, and if that's so, I would say that's a pretty compelling reason for keeping Wagner in for the foreseeable, as it's clear the players are very much committed and playing for him. Even if sometimes the playing style is a bit schizophrenic and non-discernible, but their commitment to the cause cannot be doubted.

The players should be very much committed in any case. It is their apparent lack of faith in Smith that has been the point.

[king canary 7,705]

15 hours ago, hogesar said:

 

"if we praise Wagner too much, we might look wrong about Wagner. But if we criticise Wagner so much and make out the squad is really good, we'll be praising Webber"

I mean this kindly but I think you've become a bit 'forum brained' of late. You've become notably more hostile to those who disagree with you, in part driven by the sort of attitude this post shows- essentially that those who disagree with your views on Webber and Wagner must have an agenda/be insincere in how they've reached those opinions. I get some are like that but the vast majority aren't.

From a Webber perspective, I'd suggest assembling a squad capable of the top 6 should have been the minimum expectation for his season and Wagner getting that squad into the top 6 would be his expectation. Right now we're just about hitting that target.

The squad Webber has assembled is, in my view, pretty flawed and unbalanced. We've arguably got three players who are top 3 for their position in the division- Sargent, Sara and Gunn. Two of those players were signed with Premier League money to be Premier League players. The fact he used that money to find very good Championship players isn't for me a huge vindication of his recent time here. 

The rest of the squad is an odd mix- we have no functional central defenders under the age of 30, two left backs who are deeply inconsistent with a habit of switching off defensively and still no proper defensive midfielder.

Wagner has shown himself to be able to get good performances out of this team but also incapable of handling an injury to Sargent. Tactically he's done well to create a system that doesn't need a defensive midfielder but he's also created a system that only works with two very specific strikers and, for a long period, asked our best creative player to play as holding midfielder. 

So it is hardly beyond the realms of reason to be highly critical of Webber and still be unconvinced by Wagner. It isn't some weird triangulation we're all doing so we don't look too wrong on the Pinkun.

[hogesar 9,817]

14 minutes ago, king canary said:

I mean this kindly but I think you've become a bit 'forum brained' of late. You've become notably more hostile to those who disagree with you, in part driven by the sort of attitude this post shows- essentially that those who disagree with your views on Webber and Wagner must have an agenda/be insincere in how they've reached those opinions. I get some are like that but the vast majority aren't.

From a Webber perspective, I'd suggest assembling a squad capable of the top 6 should have been the minimum expectation for his season and Wagner getting that squad into the top 6 would be his expectation. Right now we're just about hitting that target.

The squad Webber has assembled is, in my view, pretty flawed and unbalanced. We've arguably got three players who are top 3 for their position in the division- Sargent, Sara and Gunn. Two of those players were signed with Premier League money to be Premier League players. The fact he used that money to find very good Championship players isn't for me a huge vindication of his recent time here. 

The rest of the squad is an odd mix- we have no functional central defenders under the age of 30, two left backs who are deeply inconsistent with a habit of switching off defensively and still no proper defensive midfielder.

Wagner has shown himself to be able to get good performances out of this team but also incapable of handling an injury to Sargent. Tactically he's done well to create a system that doesn't need a defensive midfielder but he's also created a system that only works with two very specific strikers and, for a long period, asked our best creative player to play as holding midfielder. 

So it is hardly beyond the realms of reason to be highly critical of Webber and still be unconvinced by Wagner. It isn't some weird triangulation we're all doing so we don't look too wrong on the Pinkun.

1) I think the squad is unbalanced and lacks depth in key areas but should be good enough for top 6. But with the injuries we've had this season we've not had a top 6 squad for large parts of it.

2) My post was targeted at those who'd decided in the Wagner discussions that our squad was actually top 2 and we were underperforming with Wagner still (hence they were still right Wagner was bad) - but if we had built a top 2 squad with Leeds, Leicester and Southampton in this league it'd mean Webber had done an unbelievable job - only some of those same posters had argued the opposite.

If it wasn't for the fact it's you, I wouldn't have even bothered replying because it doesn't take too much searching on here to realise who my post was aimed at.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I mean this kindly but I think you've become a bit 'forum brained' of late. You've become notably more hostile to those who disagree with you, in part driven by the sort of attitude this post shows- essentially that those who disagree with your views on Webber and Wagner must have an agenda/be insincere in how they've reached those opinions. I get some are like that but the vast majority aren't.

From a Webber perspective, I'd suggest assembling a squad capable of the top 6 should have been the minimum expectation for his season and Wagner getting that squad into the top 6 would be his expectation. Right now we're just about hitting that target.

The squad Webber has assembled is, in my view, pretty flawed and unbalanced. We've arguably got three players who are top 3 for their position in the division- Sargent, Sara and Gunn. Two of those players were signed with Premier League money to be Premier League players. The fact he used that money to find very good Championship players isn't for me a huge vindication of his recent time here. 

The rest of the squad is an odd mix- we have no functional central defenders under the age of 30, two left backs who are deeply inconsistent with a habit of switching off defensively and still no proper defensive midfielder.

Wagner has shown himself to be able to get good performances out of this team but also incapable of handling an injury to Sargent. Tactically he's done well to create a system that doesn't need a defensive midfielder but he's also created a system that only works with two very specific strikers and, for a long period, asked our best creative player to play as holding midfielder. 

So it is hardly beyond the realms of reason to be highly critical of Webber and still be unconvinced by Wagner. It isn't some weird triangulation we're all doing so we don't look too wrong on the Pinkun.

 

On the one hand you've pointed out the squad's unbalanced in your view, citing only three players, including Sargent, who are top 3 calibre, then on the other hand criticising the manager for not having a magic answer when arguably the most important of the troika you mentioned, the centre forward, is long-term injured. Either your point about Webber is true and that merits cutting Wagner some slack for the poor period, or the point about Webber is not true, a good SD was villified and left, leaving us with a meh manager who really should have been doing better earlier in the season. Trying to reconcile holding the strong view that Webber was failing and Wagner is also no good seems like major mental gymnastics given the turnaround since Sargent's return.

Edited April 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[Monty13 2,280]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

On the one hand you've pointed out the squad's unbalanced in your view, citing only three players, including Sargent, who are top 3 calibre, then on the other hand criticising the manager for not having a magic answer when arguably the most important of the troika you mentioned, the centre forward, is long-term injured. Either your point about Webber is true and that merits cutting Wagner some slack for the poor period, or the point about Webber is not true, a good SD was villified and left, leaving us with a meh manager who really should have been doing better earlier in the season. Trying to reconcile holding the strong view that Webber was failing and Wagner is also no good seems like major mental gymnastics given the turnaround since Sargent's return.

Except the point people continue to make about the injury period is not that we should have been maintaining top 6 form without these players, but that it shouldn’t have resulted in us producing relegation form.

[king canary 7,705]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

Except the point people continue to make about the injury period is not that we should have been maintaining top 6 form without these players, but that it shouldn’t have resulted in us producing relegation form.

Beat me too it.

@littleyellowbirdie I did actually address this in a previous post.

If we'd have gone from top 6 form to midtable form without Sargent that would have been understandable if a bit annoying. But as Monty says we fell off a cliff and Wagner seemed determined to persist with a system that needed Josh to work even when his replacements weren't capable of filling in.

[Robert N. LiM 4,664]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Beat me too it.

@littleyellowbirdie I did actually address this in a previous post.

If we'd have gone from top 6 form to midtable form without Sargent that would have been understandable if a bit annoying. But as Monty says we fell off a cliff and Wagner seemed determined to persist with a system that needed Josh to work even when his replacements weren't capable of filling in.

Not a massive tariff required for mental gymnastics there. 4.2 at most, I'd say.

[TheGunnShow 6,095]

Didn't Ipswich show something close to relegation form after a few injuries, but then corrected it with some loan signings?

[Monty13 2,280]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Didn't Ipswich show something close to relegation form after a few injuries, but then corrected it with some loan signings?

They had a run of 1 win in 9 same as us, difference is they picked up 6 draws in that period and we got 1.

[king canary 7,705]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Didn't Ipswich show something close to relegation form after a few injuries, but then corrected it with some loan signings?

Looking back they did have a run of one win in 9 from our first draw with them to mid Feb. They did draw 6 of those games though, so still took 9 points from that run. The fact they are still on 87 points at this stage of the season does rather show how good their form was outside of those games though.

[king canary 7,705]

11 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Not a massive tariff required for mental gymnastics there. 4.2 at most, I'd say.

I'd also add that if someone truly believes that entire difference is due to Sargent then how much credit does the manager really deserve for the turnaround.

To me there is just as much mental gymnastics involved in saying Wagner is doing a great job if that form is apparently entirely down to Sargent being available. 

[TheGunnShow 6,095]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

Looking back they did have a run of one win in 9 from our first draw with them to mid Feb. They did draw 6 of those games though, so still took 9 points from that run. The fact they are still on 87 points at this stage of the season does rather show how good their form was outside of those games though.

That's the thing, they also had a fair hiccup, but they also had new players coming in during the window - Sarmiento and Moore, and both have been reasonable contributors. On top of that, they bought Al-Hamadi who's bagged a couple. We got SvH in, and he's not really done much yet, and that's being generous.

Ipswich struggled, but then got some new players in and rediscovered form. Wagner needed players to come back from injury as he didn't get any that hit the ground running, and had that skid outside the transfer window so couldn't really get much fresh blood in either.

I agree that he could have set the team up more circumspect (indeed he did at home to Southampton, much to the irritation of many) during that period, but I'm simply saying that periods of poor form will happen when the best player's out.