Parma's Tactics Masterclass 1

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

A great deal of words are written about tactics much of which is post hoc (after the event) in relation to what should have been done and the effect it would have had.

In terms of Norwich it might be useful to look at what has been done, what occurred and why. It is very important to always bear in mind that what may have failed in one scenario, may be entirely valid in another. It is also important to try to recognise that the result and the performance do not always match (we have evidence of this recently). Let us see if we can convey the key principles that can lead to improving our odds of winning.

Let us start with the first game of the season which saw the DIamond employed. It has been repeatedly stated elsewhere that this system failed in his game and was therefore rejected. This is typically over- simplistic.

Wolves had a great player, Van La Parra, having a super game, with exactly the necessary characteristics to exploit the weaknesses of the system (all systems have flaws). He had direct running, powerful acceleration, a penchant for drifting in to out on a high line and a team that was prepared to cover for many of his defensive duties.

I would characterise The diamond as the best bridge for English football to access the greater tactical flexibility of most European football. Most English players have hitherto been raised and defined into the roles associated with 442. Are you a full back, centre back, central midfielder or striker? These are laughably narrow definitions that we have compressed into our footballers into from a young age. I can immediately think of a further dozen roles in Italian that specify nuances, differences and variations on these roles (without even beginning to discuss tactical variation).

The diamond can give us an introductory lesson in these valuable and important variations, whilst retaining the muscle memory comfort of the nominal 442 ("442 Diamond") in England. In reality the Diamond ensures that the boxy limitations of the rigid English 442 are rather effectively are busted out of (and so done without scaring the players in my experience). First of all - and I would argue most importantly - you have a deep-lying midfielder who acts as a screen and deep pivot between, and just in front of, the centre backs (a "number 6"). This simple piece of positioning has a number of effects that encourage greater fluidity across the pitch. The centre backs feel that they have a protective screen and naturally split a little wider. The number 6 does not advance far tactically and - when in possession - acts as a third centre back. Even with two flat strikers against you, this is enough (English football often ends up with 4, which is excessive). Both full backs can therefore advance 15 yards or so beyond where they their typical average position would be with confidence. This provides an "out" ball whenever required. It should be noted at this point that the team in possession always has one option over (an "out" ball), because the defending side do not defend man for man, as this is too risky. In effect one player beating, out- muscling or running past another would result in an attacking overload "a 4v3 or 3v2" scenario that should - and often does - result in a goal. It is a repeated coaching scenario.

The two players who nominally play "wide" in the diamond, should actually do no such thing. They are typically ball-retaining, tactically aware players who are comfortable tucking in to the centre if the field, though they should ideally favour the foot of the side on which they play, as they will be required to fill in wide areas. The true width should come from The full backs, who are protected by the number 6.

The diamond liberates the player at the tip of the diamond (in holland this is the classic 10, though in Italy the 10 would be a split, deep-lying striker), the Hoolahan role as Norwich fans know it, as there are 3 central players behind him, nominally releasing him from defensive duties ( we can argue about this point in due course). The system is well suited to "playing through the middle", which typically sees tighter combination play (short triangles, small changes of angles) and looks to exploit gaps in the rigid boxes of a 442, feeding balls into he 10 in a pocket of space between the flat 4 midfield and the flat 4 defenders of the opposition. An overload in this space can easily be created by the diamond when the full backs push high, the nominal wide players "tuck in" to the central midfield areas, the number 6 anchors, the Hoolahan player does not advance to the opposition defensive line and may (should in my view) even see one of the nominal "front" 2 drop into the pocket of space in front of the defence and behind the opposition midfield. A further important benefit of the diamond is that it allows two "out and out" strikers to be players, which is a much-desired option in English football. (I would contend that they tend to be forced into wider area to find space, thus splitting and separating, in the search for space and to create angles to receive a pass. This can often result in "flat" forward play and less link up. we will look at this in due course).

It should be noted at this point that arriving in a position is entirely different to being in that position. The act of drifting into area that are not covered by the typical 442 positions is referred to in England as "playing between the lines". In other countries it''s referred to as football. This lack of tactical fluidity and tactical intelligence are key elements that have held England back for a long time. In order to trouble sides you do not need to have the best players, but you do need a clear plan, an understanding of the weak points of the opposition, their typical structure and any pieces in that structure that have flaws. This does not mean playing your best 11.

Ivan Van La Parra had the necessary attributes to (surprisingly) negate an unfit Martin Olsson, who became frustrated at his own inadequacies and quality of his one-to-one opposition. I suspect that Wolves regularly allow Van La Parra licence to stay "high" (not defend much and sit on or beyond the opposition full back). On that day this negated Olsson''s forward momentum, not least because he was fearful and shocked by his his own inadequacies, which meant that Norwich did not have the benefit of supplementary width advancing regularly from the full back positions, which naturally has negative knock-on consequences for the roles of the other players above. It should be noted that the tucked in midfield players are not typically wingers and are not expected to provide wide penetration (the ball will inevitably come from or go wide much less in this system, which is as intended), it should also be noted that Olsson''s playing characteristics are very well suited to the diamond and this is therefore a further good example that a single player over-manning a key player in the opposition can dismantle a perfectly good system.

Parma

[funny old game 1]

No.... It''s much more complicated than that!!!

[funny old game 1]

No..... It''s much more complicated than that!!

[Molly Windley 76]

To sum up...............A diagonal ball into the space left on the flanks behind the advancing fullbacks will expose the defense.

[Holtcantshoot 0]

Or to describe this in the average football fan''s terms (i.e. a lot of swearing): If your f**king sh*t for 3 games in a row and go behind to three tinpot sh*thole football teams like Birmingham, Charlton and f**king Blackpool only to get back in the game when you switch tactics you''d have to be a m*r*nic f**king id**t to expect the same lopsided sh*tstorm of a formation work in the fourth f**king game.

[The Bristol Nest 568]

Sorry parma but thats the wolves games dissected. The rest is the usual sucking eggs stuff.

[Lets be aving you! 0]

Vielen dank fur ze ''post hoc'' explanation.

Had zought it vas zomefing to do vith zending wein beck from ze Vaderland. Gut for a handy hock.

[lake district canary 4,778]

Parma - "I would characterise The diamond as the best bridge for English football

to access the greater tactical flexibility of most European football.

Most English players have hitherto been raised and defined into the

roles associated with 442. Are you a full back, centre back, central

midfielder or striker? These are laughably narrow definitions that we

have compressed into our footballers into from a young age." We seem to discuss formations quite a lot.   Diamonds, 442, 433, 451, 4411, etc etc.   Parma is as astute am analyst of these things that I have seen on here and he makes good points here.    Are we still that backward or unintelligent that we can''t cope with more sophisticated ways of playing?  Maybe he''s right that British players are brought up in a philistine way. 

Lafferty, however, looks to me to be a player who has gone abroad and learned his trade and seems to understand what is required.  So which of our home grown players aren''t up to being more adaptable?  Johnson? Jerome?  Wes?   At Norwich we have seen two extreme ways of playing in the last five years - an approach that relies on players being wound up and sent on the pitch with a positive attitude and an approach that tries to control events to the extent that it ended up stifling us.   Now we have Adams who appears to be more like the first manager - but with arguably better players at his disposal.  

It appeared in the first few games that Adams learned quickly, the Wolves diamond experiment didn''t work well and as soon as Lafferty was introduced, we had more purpose and shape to the team.  The team shape against Watford and Blackburn were brilliant once we got going in those matches.  Two defensive midfield players ruling the roost with so much movement and options in front of them that goals looked inevitable.  The space they had also allowed them to get forward too.   That looked like a 4231 with Lafferty supporting Garrido and Redmond supporting Whittaker/Martin to the extent that we dominated all over the pitch. 

So why did we change that?  Because Jerome scored goals and couldn''t be left out?  But why change the shape of the team to accomodate him? Why not keep a successful team shape and rotate him with Grabban?   At the Blackpool game the team shape looked frankly awful in the first half.  The team looked so unbalanced and devoid of any shape.   Luck played its part in getting us back in that match and once we scored we looked unstoppable, but why can''t we stick to a shape that works and work within that to start with?  Class will out eventually and we have some super players in Murphy and Redmond etc etc and we should have enough to beat most teams - but the last two matches may be showing that 442 is not working.    Yes we had plenty of chances and should have scored enough - but we didn''t.   

And on Saturday we dropped/rotated Tettey - one of our best players - and one who when substituted against Charlton was immediately missed - they scored in the gap that was left by his substitution.    Now Howson might be an excellent player but he is not as good as Tettey in defending - leaving Johnson with more responsibility in that area - maybe too much.  

I suppose the simple facts are that Adams is still trying to find the best way of using the players he has, but I am concerned that he is falling into the trap of thinking that 442 is the way forward, whereas as Parma points out, tactically, a British style 442 is not good enough.  With one of the front two running a channel such as Lafferty does so effectively, yes - but then that is more like the 4231 that worked so well before.  Jerome and Grabban up front as a pair if strikers may work late in a game when we are pushing for goals, but from the start of a match, an attacking and flexible 4231 would imo work better.......a lot better. 

[Indy 3,448]

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"]Or to describe this in the average football fan''s terms (i.e. a lot of swearing): If your f**king sh*t for 3 games in a row and go behind to three tinpot sh*thole football teams like Birmingham, Charlton and f**king Blackpool only to get back in the game when you switch tactics you''d have to be a m*r*nic f**king id**t to expect the same lopsided sh*tstorm of a formation work in the fourth f**king game.[/quote]

I love this, made me chuckle.....good stuff.

[Indy 3,448]

Isn''t this why Adams is beibg paid huge sums of money....tactics, staff & players to learn best positions tactics & formations?

For me Adams found a winning formula for a short time and has stuck with it & the core of the starting 11....it''s now showing some holes as teams have worked us out a little.

But we have had chances to put more points on the board, so is it so bad ?

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]A great deal of words are written about tactics much of which is post hoc (after the event) in relation to what should have been done and the effect it would have had. In terms of Norwich it might be useful to look at what has been done, what occurred and why. It is very important to always bear in mind that what may have failed in one scenario, may be entirely valid in another. It is also important to try to recognise that the result and the performance do not always match (we have evidence of this recently). Let us see if we can convey the key principles that can lead to improving our odds of winning. Let us start with the first game of the season which saw the DIamond employed. It has been repeatedly stated elsewhere that this system failed in his game and was therefore rejected. This is typically over- simplistic. Wolves had a great player, Van La Parra, having a super game, with exactly the necessary characteristics to exploit the weaknesses of the system (all systems have flaws). He had direct running, powerful acceleration, a penchant for drifting in to out on a high line and a team that was prepared to cover for many of his defensive duties. I would characterise The diamond as the best bridge for English football to access the greater tactical flexibility of most European football. Most English players have hitherto been raised and defined into the roles associated with 442. Are you a full back, centre back, central midfielder or striker? These are laughably narrow definitions that we have compressed into our footballers into from a young age. I can immediately think of a further dozen roles in Italian that specify nuances, differences and variations on these roles (without even beginning to discuss tactical variation). The diamond can give us an introductory lesson in these valuable and important variations, whilst retaining the muscle memory comfort of the nominal 442 ("442 Diamond") in England. In reality the Diamond ensures that the boxy limitations of the rigid English 442 are rather effectively are busted out of (and so done without scaring the players in my experience). First of all - and I would argue most importantly - you have a deep-lying midfielder who acts as a screen and deep pivot between, and just in front of, the centre backs (a "number 6"). This simple piece of positioning has a number of effects that encourage greater fluidity across the pitch. The centre backs feel that they have a protective screen and naturally split a little wider. The number 6 does not advance far tactically and - when in possession - acts as a third centre back. Even with two flat strikers against you, this is enough (English football often ends up with 4, which is excessive). Both full backs can therefore advance 15 yards or so beyond where they their typical average position would be with confidence. This provides an "out" ball whenever required. It should be noted at this point that the team in possession always has one option over (an "out" ball), because the defending side do not defend man for man, as this is too risky. In effect one player beating, out- muscling or running past another would result in an attacking overload "a 4v3 or 3v2" scenario that should - and often does - result in a goal. It is a repeated coaching scenario. The two players who nominally play "wide" in the diamond, should actually do no such thing. They are typically ball-retaining, tactically aware players who are comfortable tucking in to the centre if the field, though they should ideally favour the foot of the side on which they play, as they will be required to fill in wide areas. The true width should come from The full backs, who are protected by the number 6. The diamond liberates the player at the tip of the diamond (in holland this is the classic 10, though in Italy the 10 would be a split, deep-lying striker), the Hoolahan role as Norwich fans know it, as there are 3 central players behind him, nominally releasing him from defensive duties ( we can argue about this point in due course). The system is well suited to "playing through the middle", which typically sees tighter combination play (short triangles, small changes of angles) and looks to exploit gaps in the rigid boxes of a 442, feeding balls into he 10 in a pocket of space between the flat 4 midfield and the flat 4 defenders of the opposition. An overload in this space can easily be created by the diamond when the full backs push high, the nominal wide players "tuck in" to the central midfield areas, the number 6 anchors, the Hoolahan player does not advance to the opposition defensive line and may (should in my view) even see one of the nominal "front" 2 drop into the pocket of space in front of the defence and behind the opposition midfield. A further important benefit of the diamond is that it allows two "out and out" strikers to be players, which is a much-desired option in English football. (I would contend that they tend to be forced into wider area to find space, thus splitting and separating, in the search for space and to create angles to receive a pass. This can often result in "flat" forward play and less link up. we will look at this in due course). It should be noted at this point that arriving in a position is entirely different to being in that position. The act of drifting into area that are not covered by the typical 442 positions is referred to in England as "playing between the lines". In other countries it''s referred to as football. This lack of tactical fluidity and tactical intelligence are key elements that have held England back for a long time. In order to trouble sides you do not need to have the best players, but you do need a clear plan, an understanding of the weak points of the opposition, their typical structure and any pieces in that structure that have flaws. This does not mean playing your best 11. Ivan Van La Parra had the necessary attributes to (surprisingly) negate an unfit Martin Olsson, who became frustrated at his own inadequacies and quality of his one-to-one opposition. I suspect that Wolves regularly allow Van La Parra licence to stay "high" (not defend much and sit on or beyond the opposition full back). On that day this negated Olsson''s forward momentum, not least because he was fearful and shocked by his his own inadequacies, which meant that Norwich did not have the benefit of supplementary width advancing regularly from the full back positions, which naturally has negative knock-on consequences for the roles of the other players above. It should be noted that the tucked in midfield players are not typically wingers and are not expected to provide wide penetration (the ball will inevitably come from or go wide much less in this system, which is as intended), it should also be noted that Olsson''s playing characteristics are very well suited to the diamond and this is therefore a further good example that a single player over-manning a key player in the opposition can dismantle a perfectly good system. Parma[/quote]

 

I missed your tenure as England Manager...

[gabba 0]

Who would be the number 6 at the base of the diamond? I can''t see either of Johnson or Tettey being able to play the role. It''s all very well talking about systems and formations, but you have to remember we have a manager who plays a typical 100mph British style. He seems to value workrate and outmuscling the opposition over tactical nous, which saw him outfoxed on Saturday by a very ordinary team. Time and again he''s had his pocket picked by more experienced managers.

[Lets be aving you! 0]

Thanks Waveney, sorry Itouch.

[Nuff Said 5,868]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]A great deal of words are written about tactics much of which is post hoc (after the event) in relation to what should have been done and the effect it would have had. In terms of Norwich it might be useful to look at what has been done, what occurred and why. It is very important to always bear in mind that what may have failed in one scenario, may be entirely valid in another. It is also important to try to recognise that the result and the performance do not always match (we have evidence of this recently). Let us see if we can convey the key principles that can lead to improving our odds of winning. Let us start with the first game of the season which saw the DIamond employed. It has been repeatedly stated elsewhere that this system failed in his game and was therefore rejected. This is typically over- simplistic. Wolves had a great player, Van La Parra, having a super game, with exactly the necessary characteristics to exploit the weaknesses of the system (all systems have flaws). He had direct running, powerful acceleration, a penchant for drifting in to out on a high line and a team that was prepared to cover for many of his defensive duties. I would characterise The diamond as the best bridge for English football to access the greater tactical flexibility of most European football. Most English players have hitherto been raised and defined into the roles associated with 442. Are you a full back, centre back, central midfielder or striker? These are laughably narrow definitions that we have compressed into our footballers into from a young age. I can immediately think of a further dozen roles in Italian that specify nuances, differences and variations on these roles (without even beginning to discuss tactical variation). The diamond can give us an introductory lesson in these valuable and important variations, whilst retaining the muscle memory comfort of the nominal 442 ("442 Diamond") in England. In reality the Diamond ensures that the boxy limitations of the rigid English 442 are rather effectively are busted out of (and so done without scaring the players in my experience). First of all - and I would argue most importantly - you have a deep-lying midfielder who acts as a screen and deep pivot between, and just in front of, the centre backs (a "number 6"). This simple piece of positioning has a number of effects that encourage greater fluidity across the pitch. The centre backs feel that they have a protective screen and naturally split a little wider. The number 6 does not advance far tactically and - when in possession - acts as a third centre back. Even with two flat strikers against you, this is enough (English football often ends up with 4, which is excessive). Both full backs can therefore advance 15 yards or so beyond where they their typical average position would be with confidence. This provides an "out" ball whenever required. It should be noted at this point that the team in possession always has one option over (an "out" ball), because the defending side do not defend man for man, as this is too risky. In effect one player beating, out- muscling or running past another would result in an attacking overload "a 4v3 or 3v2" scenario that should - and often does - result in a goal. It is a repeated coaching scenario. The two players who nominally play "wide" in the diamond, should actually do no such thing. They are typically ball-retaining, tactically aware players who are comfortable tucking in to the centre if the field, though they should ideally favour the foot of the side on which they play, as they will be required to fill in wide areas. The true width should come from The full backs, who are protected by the number 6. The diamond liberates the player at the tip of the diamond (in holland this is the classic 10, though in Italy the 10 would be a split, deep-lying striker), the Hoolahan role as Norwich fans know it, as there are 3 central players behind him, nominally releasing him from defensive duties ( we can argue about this point in due course). The system is well suited to "playing through the middle", which typically sees tighter combination play (short triangles, small changes of angles) and looks to exploit gaps in the rigid boxes of a 442, feeding balls into he 10 in a pocket of space between the flat 4 midfield and the flat 4 defenders of the opposition. An overload in this space can easily be created by the diamond when the full backs push high, the nominal wide players "tuck in" to the central midfield areas, the number 6 anchors, the Hoolahan player does not advance to the opposition defensive line and may (should in my view) even see one of the nominal "front" 2 drop into the pocket of space in front of the defence and behind the opposition midfield. A further important benefit of the diamond is that it allows two "out and out" strikers to be players, which is a much-desired option in English football. (I would contend that they tend to be forced into wider area to find space, thus splitting and separating, in the search for space and to create angles to receive a pass. This can often result in "flat" forward play and less link up. we will look at this in due course). It should be noted at this point that arriving in a position is entirely different to being in that position. The act of drifting into area that are not covered by the typical 442 positions is referred to in England as "playing between the lines". In other countries it''s referred to as football. This lack of tactical fluidity and tactical intelligence are key elements that have held England back for a long time. In order to trouble sides you do not need to have the best players, but you do need a clear plan, an understanding of the weak points of the opposition, their typical structure and any pieces in that structure that have flaws. This does not mean playing your best 11. Ivan Van La Parra had the necessary attributes to (surprisingly) negate an unfit Martin Olsson, who became frustrated at his own inadequacies and quality of his one-to-one opposition. I suspect that Wolves regularly allow Van La Parra licence to stay "high" (not defend much and sit on or beyond the opposition full back). On that day this negated Olsson''s forward momentum, not least because he was fearful and shocked by his his own inadequacies, which meant that Norwich did not have the benefit of supplementary width advancing regularly from the full back positions, which naturally has negative knock-on consequences for the roles of the other players above. It should be noted that the tucked in midfield players are not typically wingers and are not expected to provide wide penetration (the ball will inevitably come from or go wide much less in this system, which is as intended), it should also be noted that Olsson''s playing characteristics are very well suited to the diamond and this is therefore a further good example that a single player over-manning a key player in the opposition can dismantle a perfectly good system. Parma[/quote]

 

I missed your tenure as England Manager...

[/quote]Parma is Graham Taylor and I claim my £5.

[Nexus_Canary 1,183]

I find using a either Inside Wingers with a Target Man or a Triad of False Nine, Poacher , Shadow Striker works best.We are talking about Footy Manager right?

[lake district canary 4,778]

[quote user="Nexus_Canary"]I find using a either Inside Wingers with a Target Man or a Triad of False Nine, Poacher , Shadow Striker works best.We are talking about Footy Manager right?[/quote]

No we''re talking about what fans see when they watch their team.    No team or system is perfect.   Under Lambert we watched and marvelled out how time after time the team weathered the storm and came back through resilience and determination to get points from matches.   We watched time after time how Hughton''s teams tried to match opposing teams, quite often doing so and then failing to score to capitalise.  This season we are already seeing in matches a pattern of a poor start, followed by attempts at a comeback in most matches.  Wolves, Blackburn, Blackpool, Cardiff, Birmingham, Charlton and Rotherham.    Seven matches where we''ve been poor to start with and going behind.  Brentford away we struggled in the first half, struggled against Bournemouth.  Watford was the only game where we looked good from the off - and that maybe due to the fact that Watford only had ten men most of the match..............

We are top, but the team - whatever system we use - could do better - and that is a good thing.   What we need is for strikers to be more clinical in front of goal - Jerome was imo trying to be too clever with his headers in the last three matches - too "cute".   In the positions he gets into, he needs to be powering headers downwards and on target.  The little flicks he tries with his head are not working and go wide more often than not.  We need the midfield to keep a better shape with Wes pulling the strings in the middle and not on the left and we need the wide defenders to work better with the wide midfield players to offer support in attack and covering when without the ball.    

If 442 isn''t working as well as it needs to - and on the evidence of the last three matches it isn''t - we were dire in the first half against Blackpool and one point from two home matches speaks for itself - then it has to change.  Doesn''t it?   Either players have to sort themselves out or the formation has to be tweaked - or both.   Sticking to your guns and just hoping that the goals will start going in is rather like things under the last manager.    We are top, but to stay top, we will have to do better.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Nexus_Canary"]I find using a either Inside Wingers with a Target Man or a Triad of False Nine, Poacher , Shadow Striker works best.
We are talking about Footy Manager right?
[/quote]



If 442 isn''t working as well as it needs to - and on the evidence of the last three matches it isn''t - we were dire in the first half against Blackpool and one point from two home matches speaks for itself - then it has to change.  Doesn''t it?   Either players have to sort themselves out or the formation has to be tweaked - or both.   Sticking to your guns and just hoping that the goals will start going in is rather like things under the last manager.    We are top, but to stay top, we will have to do better.



[/quote]

 

You keep trying to spin Lakey and, eventually, you may be able to convince yourself. In the games I''ve watched what is occurring is not even remotely like things under the last manager. It''s chalk and cheese.

[lake district canary 4,778]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Nexus_Canary"]I find using a either Inside Wingers with a Target Man or a Triad of False Nine, Poacher , Shadow Striker works best.We are talking about Footy Manager right?[/quote]If 442 isn''t working as well as it needs to - and on the evidence of the last three matches it isn''t - we were dire in the first half against Blackpool and one point from two home matches speaks for itself - then it has to change.  Doesn''t it?   Either players have to sort themselves out or the formation has to be tweaked - or both.   Sticking to your guns and just hoping that the goals will start going in is rather like things under the last manager.    We are top, but to stay top, we will have to do better. [/quote]

You keep trying to spin Lakey and, eventually, you may be able to convince yourself. In the games I''ve watched what is occurring is not even remotely like things under the last manager. It''s chalk and cheese.[/quote]

Again, you''re barking up the wrong tree. Whatever the style of football,the effect of the last two home games has been to see a loss and a draw, only one goal in two matches and also the Blackpool game showed the limitations of our tactics in the first half.  Sticking with a formula that is not getting the required results IS what the last manager was castigated for.   Stick to the 442 in the hope that goals will come?  Time will tell and we will have to wait to Fulham to see what Adams does.    For my money, we should return to a system that works,  not try and shoehorn players in. 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Nexus_Canary"]I find using a either Inside Wingers with a Target Man or a Triad of False Nine, Poacher , Shadow Striker works best.
We are talking about Footy Manager right?
[/quote]

If 442 isn''t working as well as it needs to - and on the evidence of the last three matches it isn''t - we were dire in the first half against Blackpool and one point from two home matches speaks for itself - then it has to change.  Doesn''t it?   Either players have to sort themselves out or the formation has to be tweaked - or both.   Sticking to your guns and just hoping that the goals will start going in is rather like things under the last manager.    We are top, but to stay top, we will have to do better.
[/quote]

You keep trying to spin Lakey and, eventually, you may be able to convince yourself. In the games I''ve watched what is occurring is not even remotely like things under the last manager. It''s chalk and cheese.[/quote]

Again, you''re barking up the wrong tree. Whatever the style of football,the effect of the last two home games has been to see a loss and a draw, only one goal in two matches and also the Blackpool game showed the limitations of our tactics in the first half.  Sticking with a formula that is not getting the required results IS what the last manager was castigated for.   Stick to the 442 in the hope that goals will come?  Time will tell and we will have to wait to Fulham to see what Adams does.    For my money, we should return to a system that works,  not try and shoehorn players in. 

[/quote]

 

Forget the tree and the barking Lakey. Just stick to the facts. The fact is that Norwich are at the top of this division. The fact is they have scored more goals than any other team in this division. The fact is they have scored three goals or more five times in this short league campaign to date. The fact is they are scoring at a rate that is three times higher than they did over the whole of last season. The fact is that in eleven league matches they are only seven shy of the total they produced for the whole of last season. Of course that was the Premiership but the most important fact is they now look like a team that wants to score goals. For you to bring the previous manager into the situation is both unnecessary as well as misguided. You made it your personal mission to defend that regime to a fault. You appear to be equally determined to go in the opposite direction with the current regime at a time when the facts staring you in the face suggest if Norwich has a problem, then each and every other club in this division below us have a bigger one.

 

P.S: By the way, my comments on the Ipswich thread were dead on the money.   

[nutty nigel 7,870]

Thanks for posting Parma. It''s an interesting thread.

 

As regards to the differences between Adams and Hughton what I see this season is a more varied attacking intent. Under Hughton I thought it seemed all important to keep our shape throughout the game. When attacking players were disciplined in holding positions so the attack appeared slow and laboured. I guess the idea was if we lost the ball we''d immediately be in a defensive shape. We still conceded goals on the break though! I see this as more like Worthy''s Championship team with players more fluid in attack but striving to get into shape when we lose the ball. A lot is made of formations but sticking to them rigidly gives us Hughton football.

 

We are 11 games in and people are judging the effectiveness of the team/formation by the results. That''s fair enough but in a small sample we may not always have got the results we deserved. In reality the performances haven''t been that much better in games we won than games we drew. Especially the home games. For example the Watford game saw us have 30 shots with 8 on target. The Birmingham game was 28 - 4 and Rotherham was 27 - 6.

 

For other home games Blackburn was 17 - 11, Bournemouth 13 - 5,  and Charlton 15 - 4. For away games Wolves was 12 - 1, ipswich 17 - 8, Cardiff 26 - 6, Brentford 13 - 7 and Blackpool 15 - 6.

 

The stats for the shots on our goal don''t vary too much either. The hardest game we had was Brentford away where they had 22 - 6 on our goal.

 

The stats are from the trusty old Beeb.

 

 

[lake district canary 4,778]

What am I trying to spin Yankee?  What am I trying to convince myself of?  You miss the point of my comparison - as you did on the other thread - and its not wrong to compare previous managers, whether its Lambert or Hughton or anyone else.  My comparison is in manager''s results and the ability to change things when they are not happening and that is something every manager has to respond to, whether its to try more of the same - which Hughton did and it ended up stifling us, or change more - as Lambert used to change things around on a regular basis.   The truth is that the pressure is on  Adams to get results and we can''t afford too many of these dropped home points if we are going to stay top, or near the top - so his response is quite important.   

Nutty is of course right when he says we are more attacking and the stats bear this out.  The amount of chances we are creating suggests we  are on the right track - but goals ain''t happening at the moment.   Carry on as we are and the goals will come seems to be the message - but there is a strong argument to say that the formation/personnel is not quite right and that is not helping.   Jerome was fantastic for a game or two, but wasn''t great against Blackpool, and missed several glaring opportunities in the next two matches.   Grabban hasn''t been as effective as he was when up front alone.  So things need to be questioned and addressed. 

So please Yankee, stop trying to read into my posts things that aren''t there.  Thank you.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

Nutty, PC and I had some correspondence on those lines. As I stated at the time, I think much of what Chris did on the coaching side was excellent. I think it only fair to also state that - excepting year one of promotion (which has it''s own psychological effect on players and a momentum and mindset that is hard to replicate from a "standing start") - anybody would have struggled and a clear and defined plan was a good and necessary approach.

I think it only fair to explain what the idea was and where it did clearly work. Chris was anything but "clueless", though ultimately he (we all) revert to what is grained in us, and in very simplistic terms I would argue that at his core he was more coach than manager.

I am not at all sure that the players we had were as good as many believed, plus I feel that many other teams had weapons that we simply didn''t have. Hence a defined strategy was necessary to upset the odds. Chris''s way wouldn''t have been exactly mine, though his defensive precision and clarity was in advance of my own. His advance midfield and particularly attacking awareness perhaps a little less. Nevertheless he didn''t fall far short and pounds for points actually did well.

Sent from my iPhone

Chris certainly ended as the lightning rod for all if the ills of the company (often the way when an employee leaves).Not all of the decisions or the contributory factors in relegation were his.

The assessment by all - including myself - is that we would just stay up. Chris''s methodology was defined and heavily drilled. Whether players (or fans) - in retrospect say they didn''t like it, felt restrained, etc - this is not as relevant in football as you might imagine. It fills message boards with simplistic rage, but keeping 30 senior players focused, in line, content (if they don''t play, aren''t lined by others, are popular with others -whether they are good enough or not - whether cliques are formed, bad examples are set, etc) is not done with pub level platitudes.

Neil was a gamble on a bounce win. My own personal view is that (at that moment in time) Chris''s methodology was likely the best odds for the final games. You don''t beat much better sides without an angle.

I thoroughly supported Neil Adams'' appointment, in fact I was delighted for him and the club (see thread "Why Neil Adams is the exception to the rule" written pre-season)

Behind closed doors - and in retrospective from fans - the interesting question is could he have been appointed sooner. Where the fans (customers) were I didn''t think it was a realistic option at that time, nor did anyone else.

Chris did regularly get points. Go back to the start if that season and look at the fixture list. Get 40 points from it. Not at all easy (for anyone).

That Chris would have been replaced in the summer is now known publicly. Many of Chris''s signings have increased in value, no mean feat. RVW and Hooper were the investments and the forward line was the clear area to improve. I was unconvinced they were suited to the model. The step from lower tier premier club to safer (almost) established middle takes big money. That step carries risk in that you have to Neil yourself to the new players, though the bridge is wide. It takes significant money in the forward areas.

Parma

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]What am I trying to spin Yankee?  What am I trying to convince myself of?  You miss the point of my comparison - as you did on the other thread - and its not wrong to compare previous managers, whether its Lambert or Hughton or anyone else. 

My comparison is in manager''s results and the ability to change things when they are not happening and that is something every manager has to respond to, whether its to try more of the same - which Hughton did and it ended up stifling us, or change more - as Lambert used to change things around on a regular basis.   The truth is that the pressure is on  Adams to get results and we can''t afford too many of these dropped home points if we are going to stay top, or near the top - so his response is quite important.   


Nutty is of course right when he says we are more attacking and the stats bear this out.  The amount of chances we are creating suggests we  are on the right track - but goals ain''t happening at the moment.   Carry on as we are and the goals will come seems to be the message - but there is a strong argument to say that the formation/personnel is not quite right and that is not helping.   Jerome was fantastic for a game or two, but wasn''t great against Blackpool, and missed several glaring opportunities in the next two matches.   Grabban hasn''t been as effective as he was when up front alone.  So things need to be questioned and addressed. 


So please Yankee, stop trying to read into my posts things that aren''t there.  Thank you.


[/quote]

 

My responses are SPECIFICALLY directed to exactly what you post, whereas not one word of your reply acknowledges the facts that I presented to you. Norwich are doing fine in the goal scoring department in this division .....better than any other team. If you believe your point is valid for two or three games ( but goals ain''t happening at the moment ) then, as you spent more than a year repetitively telling everyone to be patient with Chris Hughton''s approach, perhaps you won''t mind me telling you to be patient with Neil Adam''s approach after a couple of disappointing outings, particularly when we obviously this season we have done it better than almost everyone we are competing with in this division. Perhaps others are also having difficulties changing things up when required. Incidentally, if your patience level with a manager has really decreased that significantly from the Hughton days and you insist on using 2 or 3 games as your yardstick then let''s look at the goals scored by the top seven teams over the past three games:

Norwich - 4,  Notts Forest - 4,  Watford - 5, Derby - 4, Middlesbrough - 5, Ipswich - 4, Charlton - 2

 

Not exactly panic stations yet, is it? There will be results we don''t expect. Neil Adams will learn how to adjust as the season progresses. So far, Norwich doesn''t have to take a back seat to anyone on the positive front. On the negative side, all teams are experiencing upsets. Only Notts Forest and Charlton remain unbeaten but they trail Norwich in the "wins" column. 

[lake district canary 4,778]

I''m one of the most patient people around, so I''m told - so I''ll try again for you.  We are top.  We want to stay top. If you had been to Blackpool you might have seen the gaping holes in our teamshape on the left hand side as Jerome stayed further forward in our 442 and Wes disappeared off around the pitch.  We were unbalanced and looked dire for 45 minutes and although we pressed in the second half it took an own goal and a deflection to get ahead.  That was before two home games where we missed plenty of chances - something that happened last year in certain matches (cardiff at home to name one).   If we want to go up, we can''t afford many of those kinds of matches, same as last season we couldn''t afford too many matches like the Cardiff one.

Incidentally, I am neither patient or impatient with Adams - he has to run the team and I am only commenting on what I see at matches and can glean from reports of matches I haven''t seen.  I''m happy with him in charge and he has to make decisions.   I hope he makes good ones.

As you keep bringing up me mentioning Hughton - which I do occasionally - he was our last manager after all - again I''ll explain it to you - I wanted Hughton to succeed last season but the week in Manchester was just awful. Once we got past that awful spell in Novemember with him still in charge it was plain the board intended to keep him for the season and I simply supported that.   If I asked others to be patient, it was because to me, the board had decided - and there was no point in people carrying on bellyaching because the decision had been made. There were improvements too for a while after Christmas and our home form was ok.  A little more recognition of that might have helped. But that is history and I don''t see the point in raking it up again. 

You might find the "goals ain''t happening" phrase a little premature - well one point out of six in two home games means "points ain''t happening" either.  You can call me patient or impatient, but it doesn''t change the facts.  More to the point, team shape has been a struggle since we went with two strikers and  Adams has to decide whether to persevere with that or revert to a 451 or 4231.  I hope he reverts. Its my opinion that is better for us.  That is the point of this thread - to discuss tactics.  That is all I''ve tried to do. Maybe you could do the same,  instead of trying to catch me out on Hughton and past history. 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]I''m one of the most patient people around, so I''m told - so I''ll try again for you.  We are top.  We want to stay top. If you had been to Blackpool you might have seen the gaping holes in our teamshape on the left hand side as Jerome stayed further forward in our 442 and Wes disappeared off around the pitch.  We were unbalanced and looked dire for 45 minutes and although we pressed in the second half it took an own goal and a deflection to get ahead.  That was before two home games where we missed plenty of chances - something that happened last year in certain matches (cardiff at home to name one).   If we want to go up, we can''t afford many of those kinds of matches, same as last season we couldn''t afford too many matches like the Cardiff one.


Incidentally, I am neither patient or impatient with Adams - he has to run the team and I am only commenting on what I see at matches and can glean from reports of matches I haven''t seen.  I''m happy with him in charge and he has to make decisions.   I hope he makes good ones.


As you keep bringing up me mentioning Hughton - which I do occasionally - he was our last manager after all - again I''ll explain it to you - I wanted Hughton to succeed last season but the week in Manchester was just awful. Once we got past that awful spell in Novemember with him still in charge it was plain the board intended to keep him for the season and I simply supported that.   If I asked others to be patient, it was because to me, the board had decided - and there was no point in people carrying on bellyaching because the decision had been made. There were improvements too for a while after Christmas and our home form was ok.  A little more recognition of that might have helped. But that is history and I don''t see the point in raking it up again. 


You might find the "goals ain''t happening" phrase a little premature - well one point out of six in two home games means "points ain''t happening" either.  You can call me patient or impatient, but it doesn''t change the facts.  More to the point, team shape has been a struggle since we went with two strikers and  Adams has to decide whether to persevere with that or revert to a 451 or 4231.  I hope he reverts. Its my opinion that is better for us.  That is the point of this thread - to discuss tactics.  That is all I''ve tried to do. Maybe you could do the same,  instead of trying to catch me out on Hughton and past history. 


[/quote]

You want to discuss current tactics with other posters Lakey  ( particularly with people who go to the games ).....go right ahead. You''ll get no argument from me. However, when you start dragging up Chris Hughton again in the context that you did ( he was castigated for doing the same things that Neil Adams is doing now ), then follow that up with the comment "but scoring goals we ain''t", after a couple of disappointing results when, as I stated repetitively that Norwich are better in that department than all other teams in the division, then you are no longer restricting your comments to tactics but, rather, attempting to put a negative slant on what Norwich has accomplished to date, while holding your hands up innocently and saying "We''re top...I want us to stay top." In the past even when things have been dire over a sustained period of time you have initiated thread after thread saying things like "we must be positive "...."we can beat anyone on the day"...."there were some good things from that last disappointing result" etc etc. Yet here we are, top of the table, scoring more goals than any other team this season and I''m seeing very little from you that''s projecting the positives. Why is that?

Oh, by the way, don''t waste your time ( as you have done above ) by explaining to me ( again ) what your position was on Chris Hughton.  It''s not necessary and the way you have characterized it above is an attempt on your part to re-write your history on the matter. Everyone who read your incessant posts knew your position in support of Chris Hughton over all of 2013 and beyond while making comments like "improvements are just around the corner" and castigating anyone who felt a change needed to be made, Time to move on Lakey. You were wrong on that one. Let''s see if you can make more astute judgments in the future.

 

[lake district canary 4,778]

You are so wrong - and I have been to games this season - ask Tilly, as we spoke at two of them.  I do want to discuss tactics and I do want to mention past managers if I so wish, either as a comparison or as a reference point.     You totally miss the tenor of my posts as usual, picking only on points that you regard as a way of discrediting me, without taking into account  the wider view being offered.    The present season has nothing to do with last season, but there are always going to be parallels to with past managers.  Adams is fairly new to the management game and the jury is out as to how good he will be.  So far so good, but there are issues - the formation for one, which you like to ignore. 

As for being positive or negative, the whole point is to have some kind of balance and if things seem too negative I will push for more positivity.   If things get too positive as in "we''re going to walk the league" "we''re doing really well" I will err on the cautious side and try to encourage people to keep their feet on the ground.    Things are not all rosy and to stay at the top  the team has to improve imo.  Nothing controversial there, just a question of balance.   

Your pontificating about being right or wrong about Hughton is also way off the mark.  Its irrelevant.  I tried to encourage support for a manager going through a tough time that''s all.   Others chose to try and run everything he did down, regardless of any good results/performances.  That really helped a lot, didn''t it...

[Nexus_Canary 1,183]

Ah so its the old Bradley Johnson is crap and Wes Hoolhan is a luxury player thread again :)

[Canary On The Wire 0]

Fantastic piece Parma. Explains basic principles in an easy to grasp way, and for those who wish to take more from football than ''that Lewis Grabban runs around a lot ''e do'' this is a must read.

[nutty nigel 7,870]

[quote user="Nexus_Canary"]Ah so its the old Bradley Johnson is crap and Wes Hoolhan is a luxury player thread again :)[/quote]

 

Well not for me Nexus. I see Bradley Johnson as vital when we lose our shape helping us get the best out of Wes. Very similar to Gary Holt in Worthy''s team I see him as the glue that holds us together. Wes is still our most creative player. He''s a joy to watch and I think most of the crowd are disappointed if he doesn''t start.