Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Parma's Tactics Masterclass 4

Recommended Posts

The opposition

Time for us to consider how others view us and what tactics they use against us as a consequence.

Having come down from the premiership there are a number of "football-truths" that are received wisdom akin to housewives tales, but have elements of truth in them.

There is a different style of play and an entirely different tempo and approach to matches that is necessary in the premier league, particularly as sides survive into years 2, 3 and beyond. It can be argued that the further you move away from the 2D 442 school of hard British knocks in the Championship, the better a side you have become.

That this is typically achieved via purchases rather than organic internal development can be observed. This means that in terms of style, character, wage and self-perception players themselves have changed.

Swansea are an exception - and the best of luck to them - it is they who in many ways characterise the principle theme through these threads, namely that tactics, approach and intelligent design can to some degree amortise finance, make players better and improve outcomes over extended periods.

Norwich have arguably - until the £30m spree - followed more of the West Brom model, organically progressing whilst retaining better than Championship players who were nevertheless suited to it.

Our spree raised our expectations above mere survival (mere survival anyone?), a dangerous ambition that we perhaps tried to achieve in one expensive leap.

This has left Norwich with a core of players that believe they are Premiership players. There may be a sense of "on loan to the Championship". This is reinforced by a strategy of going all out to attack and steamroller teams. The implication - both overt and subliminal - is that we are better than you and we are coming after you.

As advised in previous Masterclasses (and touched on in the pre-season thread "why we should sell our best players"), this is a flawed strategy both technically and ultimately psychologically. It plays into opposition hands too easily and makes the impending attack predictable and thus possible to prepare for. Despite hand-wringing and disbelief in the media "how can they win 5-0?one week and lose to a weaker team the next?", this is not merely unsurprising, it is predictable.

In simple context terms, we are in the maelstrom of a classic Shakespearean lurch from one extreme to another, with somewhat mirror-image flaws. The over-correction of previous errors. Hughton defended and kept clean sheets, either winning 1-0, drawing 0-0 or conceding first and losing comfortably. Neil wants to help heal wounds, banish the past and please the stands, so attacks dramatically either scoring first and winning 5-0 or conceding to counter attacks, picked off from two banks of four and fleet feet exposing our over-commitment in midfield.

Phelan comes in and encourages the shut down of the midfield. This is not wrong. It is akin to Hughton coming in and fitting the defenders for carefully-tailored straitjackets and telling the midfielders to always be on hand to re-tie them. It is a start point on the road to reconstruction.

That''s fine. But the reconstruction is the hard bit.

In the meantime opposition managers wind into their lesser paid, lower-tier scarred players and show them their futures. "You think you''re a premier league player? You want the Ferrari? You want to play at Old Trafford and test yourself against the best? As one of them......?.........

......well these prima donnas were in League 1 3 years ago, they''ve got journeymen on £40k a week and they don''t want to be here. They think they''re better than you and will roll you over 5-0....they''re going to come at you, try tricks, look for gaps, play to the crowd, pop it around.....

.....but they don''t want to do the dirty stuff anymore, they don''t want to track back, fill in holes, run, tackle, pick up, scrap for points. They think it''ll be easy...... "

Then you and your coaches look at your eight block, you look for a deep runner off a target player. You wait for the inevitable over-commitment as wingers drift wide and expose the midfield. You wait. You pick your moments. You let the "better" side pick your moment for you...it only takes a little patience, a little restlessness from the stands, a little managerial over-desire to please, a little hubris from a few players wanting to show what they can do...

....remember the original Masterclasses early season on how less strikers can more you more attacking....well what about more attacking making you ultimately less effective going forward?..

There is only one thing worse than giving the fans what they think they want and that is them turning on you when you do. The truth is that the desire to please is over, just as the time to overtly go out to win every game or be better than the opposition before the whistle has been blown is handing an unnecessary tactical advantage to the opposition.

Parma

Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]The opposition

Time for us to consider how others view us and what tactics they use against us as a consequence.

Having come down from the premiership there are a number of "football-truths" that are received wisdom akin to housewives tales, but have elements of truth in them.

There is a different style of play and an entirely different tempo and approach to matches that is necessary in the premier league, particularly as sides survive into years 2, 3 and beyond. It can be argued that the further you move away from the 2D 442 school of hard British knocks in the Championship, the better a side you have become.

That this is typically achieved via purchases rather than organic internal development can be observed. This means that in terms of style, character, wage and self-perception players themselves have changed.

Swansea are an exception - and the best of luck to them - it is they who in many ways characterise the principle theme through these threads, namely that tactics, approach and intelligent design can to some degree amortise finance, make players better and improve outcomes over extended periods.

Norwich have arguably - until the £30m spree - followed more of the West Brom model, organically progressing whilst retaining better than Championship players who were nevertheless suited to it.

Our spree raised our expectations above mere survival (mere survival anyone?), a dangerous ambition that we perhaps tried to achieve in one expensive leap.

This has left Norwich with a core of players that believe they are Premiership players. There may be a sense of "on loan to the Championship". This is reinforced by a strategy of going all out to attack and steamroller teams. The implication - both overt and subliminal - is that we are better than you and we are coming after you.

As advised in previous Masterclasses (and touched on in the pre-season thread "why we should sell our best players"), this is a flawed strategy both technically and ultimately psychologically. It plays into opposition hands too easily and makes the impending attack predictable and thus possible to prepare for. Despite hand-wringing and disbelief in the media "how can they win 5-0?one week and lose to a weaker team the next?", this is not merely unsurprising, it is predictable.

In simple context terms, we are in the maelstrom of a classic Shakespearean lurch from one extreme to another, with somewhat mirror-image flaws. The over-correction of previous errors. Hughton defended and kept clean sheets, either winning 1-0, drawing 0-0 or conceding first and losing comfortably. Neil wants to help heal wounds, banish the past and please the stands, so attacks dramatically either scoring first and winning 5-0 or conceding to counter attacks, picked off from two banks of four and fleet feet exposing our over-commitment in midfield.

Phelan comes in and encourages the shut down of the midfield. This is not wrong. It is akin to Hughton coming in and fitting the defenders for carefully-tailored straitjackets and telling the midfielders to always be on hand to re-tie them. It is a start point on the road to reconstruction.

That''s fine. But the reconstruction is the hard bit.

In the meantime opposition managers wind into their lesser paid, lower-tier scarred players and show them their futures. "You think you''re a premier league player? You want the Ferrari? You want to play at Old Trafford and test yourself against the best? As one of them......?.........

......well these prima donnas were in League 1 3 years ago, they''ve got journeymen on £40k a week and they don''t want to be here. They think they''re better than you and will roll you over 5-0....they''re going to come at you, try tricks, look for gaps, play to the crowd, pop it around.....

.....but they don''t want to do the dirty stuff anymore, they don''t want to track back, fill in holes, run, tackle, pick up, scrap for points. They think it''ll be easy...... "

Then you and your coaches look at your eight block, you look for a deep runner off a target player. You wait for the inevitable over-commitment as wingers drift wide and expose the midfield. You wait. You pick your moments. You let the "better" side pick your moment for you...it only takes a little patience, a little restlessness from the stands, a little managerial over-desire to please, a little hubris from a few players wanting to show what they can do...

....remember the original Masterclasses early season on how less strikers can more you more attacking....well what about more attacking making you ultimately less effective going forward?..

1) There is only one thing worse than giving the fans what they think they want and that is them turning on you when you do.2) The truth is that the desire to please is over, just as the time to overtly go out to win every game or be better than the opposition before the whistle has been blown is handing an unnecessary tactical advantage to the opposition.

Parma

Sent from my iPhone[/quote]Parma, I understand these points, and their potential validity, but if they are valid then they raise serious questions, because of the crucial difference between the amateur and the professional.It is far worse for the professional to give fans what - presumably erroneously - they want than it is for the amateur fans then to complain. It can be that amateurs are sometimes right (the idea that professionals always know best is arrant nonsense) but if the argument here is that Adams has been pandering to public opinion against his better judgment then that is really a black mark against him.  In the profession in which I worked I took no notice at all of views - amateur or even professional - that made no sense.2) To emphasise this point, if what has been going on really has been motivated by a desire to please amateur opinion by a policy of attack, attack, attack then that is unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The club announced when appointing Adams that we were going to do things "the Norwich way."I see us currently underachieving with pretty but occasionally ineffective attacking play while unable to defend manfully.  On the basis of the last thirty years, it looks to me like Adams is nailing the objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When we were winning at the start of the season we were playing a clear 4231 formation which was working well up to a point.  The emphasis on attack was there, we had good possession of the ball and results overall were good. The odd goal against wasn''t a real issue, but alarm bells began to ring for me at Blackpool where we looked inept for the first 45 minutes, despite lots of posession. The 4231 had been abandoned after the 3-0 away victory at Brentford and the formation at Blackpool looked frankly apalling, with huge gaps appearing, particularly on the left hand side. 

So it took a few weeks to go by where we persisted with a 442, lots of attacking and few goals and not many points won - with 442.  At no stage (as far as I am aware) has Adams tried to revert to the successful 4231.   Instead we have reverted to 442 - usually with less creativity - in an attempt to stem the flow of goals against and tighten up.   It has only been partially successful.   Still some parts of games - all the game appa rently yesterday - we are shipping goals or looking inneffective. 

I understand what Parma is saying here - and as a Norwich supporter it is frustrating to witness such a hotch potch of a season where one day you win by 5 or 6, the next day you are looking inept.  So why oh why can''t the management try and go back to the 4231 that was successful in getting us consistenty good results earlier in the season.  We may have shipped the odd goal, but we were winning nearly every week.   Onlyu since introducing 442 have results been poor overall.      The 4231 worked. It got consistent results.  It gave us better balance. 

Some say "we had been sussed out".  I think that is not true.  If anything we were turning up to matches thinking we were superior and simply going to outscore the opposition, whatever happened. 

4231 worked.   As Parma says - less can be more.  Playing any formation with one striker gives us more options tactically than 442.   451, 4231 - even 4411.  It gives us the chance to play the extra creative player without compromising defence and you can always bring on an extra striker late in a game if necessary.  

Look at results with 4231 - 13 points out of 18. Approx 70%  return. With 442 -  21 points out of  48. Approx 45% return.  I''m no stats man, but one result changed the season - the 3-0 away match at Brentford because we went 442 from then on. But it changed the season for the worse, not better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is one problem with playing with 1 up top - what does Adams do with all the strikers he has brought ?

& yes one up top is our best formation - it also allows u to start with Hooly & Redmond

Adams a man on a mission without a clue ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Newton"]There is one problem with playing with 1 up top - what does Adams do with all the strikers he has brought ?

& yes one up top is our best formation - it also allows u to start with Hooly & Redmond

Adams a man on a mission without a clue ?[/quote]

Do you know if starting with Hoolahan and Redmond has produced our best results this season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated PC, there was/is an understandable desire on the part of the club to heal wounds from a period of division at the end of the Hughton era.

Giving the fans what they want - attacking football, going all out to win - as repeatedly outlined, is considered a remedy, a way to bring the customers back on side. Neil''s deep understanding of -and sensitivity to - what the fans feel feeds into this.

Being respectful and understanding of the fans is lovely. Pre -defining tactics publicly, de-facto dismissing the opposition and Simply producing the photo negative of previous flaws is flawed in football terms as outlined above, despite it being done with the best of intentions.

There are times when going all out to attack is the best strategy, just as there are times when all out defence is entirely appropriate. There are times to unleash all your most creative, forward-thinking, fan-pleasing players and there are occasions when prosaic, dogged, destructive, unattractive players are precisely what is required.

My experience is that fans respond to endeavour and soul on the pitch. Quality and goals are wonderful, but few teams can produce this to order on a weekly basis. If it were so simple to "be better", or to "go out and score goals and win games" simply by attacking more, don''t you think everybody would be doing it?

We are healing the perceived scars off the pitch, with 2D crowd-pleasing tactics on the pitch. That using that standpoint as a basis for professional strategy is erratic and flawed is evident.

Parma

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]As stated PC, there was/is an understandable desire on the part of the club to heal wounds from a period of division at the end of the Hughton era.

Giving the fans what they want - attacking football, going all out to win - as repeatedly outlined, is considered a remedy, a way to bring the customers back on side. Neil''s deep understanding of -and sensitivity to - what the fans feel feeds into this.

Being respectful and understanding of the fans is lovely. Pre -defining tactics publicly, de-facto dismissing the opposition and Simply producing the photo negative of previous flaws is flawed in football terms as outlined above, despite it being done with the best of intentions.

There are times when going all out to attack is the best strategy, just as there are times when all out defence is entirely appropriate. There are times to unleash all your most creative, forward-thinking, fan-pleasing players and there are occasions when prosaic, dogged, destructive, unattractive players are precisely what is required.

My experience is that fans respond to endeavour and soul on the pitch. Quality and goals are wonderful, but few teams can produce this to order on a weekly basis. If it were so simple to "be better", or to "go out and score goals and win games" simply by attacking more, don''t you think everybody would be doing it?

We are healing the perceived scars off the pitch, with 2D crowd-pleasing tactics on the pitch. That using that standpoint as a basis for professional strategy is erratic and flawed is evident.

Parma

Parma[/quote]Quite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma, looking at things after the event is interesting. We all like to do it. However, given the considerable thought that you have put into threads such as this, one would think it would be much more beneficial to understand how to project your thoughts forward, rather than backward. Presumably, you are aware of merits or otherwise of the players Norwich has at its disposal. Further, I am assuming you have been able to witness the Bournemouth style of play. So how would you tackle things ( line-up and style of play ) if you were the Norwich manager to give us the best chance of a positive outcome in our next league encounter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yankee, understanding the motivations behind an action is the first step to addressing the problem.

That the problem is current - and the analysis relevant to today and tomorrow for Norwich - is emphasised by the back page of today''s EDP, which I am advised focuses on how the Reading Management and players used our approach, words and tactics against us, both in psychological and practical terms in order to win yesterday''s game.

Precisely the assessment in this thread, written in advance, predicting such an outcome.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Yankee, understanding the motivations behind an action is the first step to addressing the problem. That the problem is current - and the analysis relevant to today and tomorrow for Norwich - is emphasised by the back page of today''s EDP, which I am advised focuses on how the Reading Management and players used our approach, words and tactics against us, both in psychological and practical terms in order to win yesterday''s game. Precisely the assessment in this thread, written in advance, predicting such an outcome. Parma[/quote]

 

Yes, of course, but both written after the match. That''s history. Let''s assume it''s a given that we won''t make the same kind of psychological mistakes against Bournemouth for obvious reasons. My question is, tactically, given what you know of ourselves and Bournemouth, how would you line us up and what style of play would you suggest we adopt against Bournemouth to give us the best chance of a positive outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yankee it''s not history. It happened again yesterday as it has happened previously. The words and the approach are repeated.

Dealing with problems requires identification, acknowledgment and change. Far from being in the past, they remain current if left unresolved.

As for marshalling Norwich resources, these tactics threads have repeteadly indicated that as a coach and Manager I prefer methodology and the identification and maximisation of key weapons over rigid systems and individual players.

To emphasise this and answer your question - with coaching information written months ago and thus not in any way post hoc - the following was written when LDC asked a similar question:

"Good LDC.

Let us look at what we have in the context of 3.

Where are our weapons? What weaknesses do our weapons have and how can we best cover them? What isn''t working and why? How can tactical wit improve our odds with the same resources?

Let us lay down some current parameters (you are welcome to question these):

We want to pass the ball and maintain a measure of control via possession

We want to be a positive, attack-minded side, as scoring volumes of goals in this league gets you promoted

We want to bring entertaining, flowing football and give the fans what they want to see.

OK, but what have we got to work with and does it fit our parameters?

Firstly we have a good, strong goalkeeper, with good back up. Fine. If we are dominant, he may have time to think, so Can we get the goalkeeper involved in fast, early distribution to feet. Work on his touch and swift release with both feet and hands.

Our centre backs are strong, dominant, but lack passing quality and the technical confidence to step into midfield. Martin is the most fluid, when we are dominant, he must play centrally and begin movement with early balls into midfield. Turner is a great dominator of 2D forwards and a powerful presence. He is ideal for this level, but we only want or need done of him. He is not quick, nor is his passing confident, crisp or early, so we need pace near him. Martin is capable of drifting into full or semi-full back positions, so we can push our right back on a little when on top, provided our midfield pivot is always disciplined. Our left back cannot leave Turner so exposed, so Olsson''s gifts are a little restricted sadly (shame he can''t play right).

This brings us to the most important position of our central midfield pivot, designed to shield - and even drop between - our centre backs. His key gift must be positional awareness and the discipline never to leave his station. He often does his job standing still and doing nothing. The fans won''t like him, rate him of perhaps even notice him, but the coaches will. This has to be Johnson. He works hard and fast, but composure is not his forte, so other players need to make an available angle for him before he needs it. Bad passes are not always the fault of the passer. Just as Pirlo "puts a message on the ball", so Xavi puts a message on a movement into space (even when he doesn''t expect - or even want - to receive it). We always need 3 in the middle if the field, so we fill our other (tight) central slots with Howson right and o''Neil left of Johnson for balance. Let''s now touch on what LDC observed and work out what our weapons really are, how we''re going to use them and protect them from their own weaknesses.

I think Redmond is a key weapon at this level. I also think he remains a liability, not as much as at the top level, but more than I would have expected. Playing him wide in a 442 simply ends up exposing our central 2, who can end up a flat screen and leave us surprisingly vulnerable to direct - even 2D central - counters. Johnson is now deepest, he is central and he''s not moving. He is going to allow us to build our attacking game plan.

Really upsetting teams in an attacking sense does not come from more forwards. Unless you play direct and long, knocking down from a crouch and bypassing midfield. We might do this from a losing position with minutes to go, but we will concede too much possession this way and expose our own defence to the same tactic through lack of numbers. We have more money and better players at this level, so why even the odds?

Goals are more often scored - and pace often better used - from attacking the spaces between opposition midfield and defence and the space between wide midfield and central defence. This is the space we leave open when we attack. We are not going to do this anymore.

Teams may have big centre backs is this league, they may even have big powerful forwards. What they don''t have is pace, allied with dribbling ability, youthful fearlessness and shooting ability. So let''s look at Redmond and Murphy (x2?).

Redmond isolates himself, drifts wide and loses possession (often unsurprisingly) when faced with two banks of four and a lack of space. He often becomes passive playing wide, a wingers complaint of not getting fed. We are going to put him at the centre of the game and have him running at the big centre backs of the opposition from deeper positions. Murphy is going to be stationed alongside him, both will have the intention of running past our central striking pivot, who needs to be a tactically aware, fluid player who knows when to drop out of the space and expose the centre backs or the space between them and the full backs. Lafferty is ideal. We are going to become more penetrative with less strikers.

Our key weapons are now set up to play between the lines, to move from in to out, and not provide the opposition with formulaic lines and patterns to defend against. We have a fluidity of position, with players that are not defined by typical roles and who are therefore harder to assign single markers to. We are overloading central areas, but with key weapons who can dart and drive into wider areas with the confidence of structure behind them. Our key weapons can take risks without exposing us to unnecessary risks".

As stressed, precise individuals concern me less than methodology. Who play is less important than how they play.

Thus exchanging Turner for Cuellar or Hooiveld is fine. Exchanging Murphy for Hoolahan (who was injured at the time) could be valid. Replacing Lafferty for Jerome or even Grabban could be effective, provided some strategic adjustment is made to accommodate their keys skills and minimise our weaknesses.

Playing to the media, implying we are too good and approaching games as if we have no weaknesses is not the future against Bournemouth or anyone else.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes sense what Parma says.

Remember Brazil vs Germany at the World Cup. The Germans could walk over the Brazilians while struggled against Algeria not because the Algerians had a better team than Brazil, but because the Brazilians were set to fulfill the dreams of their fans, playing uncompromising attacking football even without Neymar, while the Algierians were set to make it dalways ifficult to the Germans. (See also Costa Rica vs. The Netherlands and the Netherlands vs Brazil).

What we need is a manager bigger than the players (Pulis?) to cut them to size and make them do what gets the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent as ever Parma.

However, one item I would take (violent) issue with is your assessment of Johnson. He is not a DM. He is a powerful player, both with head & foot, who likes a tackle. Unfortunately he''s all too often not very good at it. What he has demonstrated is an eye for goal, which is excellent, but not the main requirement of a DM.

You do not even mention Tettey, yet I have always seen him operate with far more discipline. Earlier on in the season he had clearly been told to get forward more (compare his performances to last season), but has lately been used much more as previously. His ability to intercept, harry, close down opposition & generally break up play, all done with great energy, is second to none. He is the epitome of an under appreciated player.

Johnson is a useful squad player who can be very good on his day but abysmal when he''s off form. A DM has only fractionally more leeway than a CB for errors. He makes too many mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, we discussed Johnson and Tettey in 3 and your point has validity, though it is the pivot role that is important, not the individual.

Johnson is one of those players that coaches see more in than fans do.

Truthfully, I advocated the inclusion of O''Neil before he was used and I would likely advocate him as pivot ahead of Tettey also. Here''s what we discussed previously:

Ron, I don''t say you''re wrong. In fact in a "scoring system" Tettey would likely come out on top.

Under a succession of managers, playing different styles, different formations and different levels, he has consistently played a high proportion of the games.

He is what I would call a "structural" player, who allows other tactics and approaches to be created because what he can do, he does do........It is the role that is the important thing for me, not the individual. I don''t want someone good in the role, I want someone limited.... "

Tettey is a good box to box player who lacks tactical discipline and does not always do the dirty work. He occasionally hides and has been tactically culpable for goals (although in the stands it appears others have made the mistakes, his occasional dereliction of duty has caused it)

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Parma, that''s fascinating. It would be brilliant to have you provide an in-depth post-match dissection of games, with all the video evidence to back it up.

I''m not being sarcastic. It''s not often you get someone in football with the intellectual equipment to properly analyse what is happening during a match; for me, football (played properly) is akin to 3-D chess played at blistering speed, where the protagonists have no time to think but can only react intuitively. Only afterwards is it possible to see what was really going on.

Not going to happen in this life unfortunately!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Parma, to summarize, ( for my own sanity ) if I''ve digested your input correctly and, if you had your druthers, this is the line-up that would face Bournemouth:

 

                                                                        Ruddy

 

                              Whittaker            Martin                  Turner            Olsson

 

                                             Howson             Johnson              O''Neil  

 

                                         Redmond                 Lafferty               Murphy 

 

Whittaker would have the flexibility to move up into attack when warranted ( because Martin can slide right if need be ) whereas Olsson would not have such freedom because it would leave Turner too exposed.. Johnson would basically remain stationary as the pivot and other players would create better passing angles for Johnson to ensure he had optimum passing success rate. Not quite sure what you intended for Howson and O''Neil with respect to flexibility? Redmond and Murphy would have the flexibility to either dart down the channels or slide to the outside when warranted to mix things up. Lafferty could either be a deep release option or tuck back in behind Redmond and/or Murphy when they accelerate through the middle. Of course, as you have stated, other individuals could be substituted for one or two positions in this line-up as long as the basic approach you advocate is adhered to.

Now, a question you did not answer is whether or not you have seen Bournemouth play this season and, if you have and to add to what I asked earlier, how do think their key weapons would fare against the approach you are suggesting and where, in your opinion would we be most vulnerable?               

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its simple, we have a great squad who are being led by a honest manager, but one who simply is not getting the squad to perform anywhere near to their potential, even with a top coach alongside him.

Solution = change the Manager to one who can!

Then he can decide on what tactics to deploy......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Ron, we discussed Johnson and Tettey in 3 and your point has validity, though it is the pivot role that is important, not the individual.

Johnson is one of those players that coaches see more in than fans do.

Truthfully, I advocated the inclusion of O''Neil before he was used and I would likely advocate him as pivot ahead of Tettey also. Here''s what we discussed previously:

Ron, I don''t say you''re wrong. In fact in a "scoring system" Tettey would likely come out on top.

Under a succession of managers, playing different styles, different formations and different levels, he has consistently played a high proportion of the games.

He is what I would call a "structural" player, who allows other tactics and approaches to be created because what he can do, he does do........It is the role that is the important thing for me, not the individual. I don''t want someone good in the role, I want someone limited.... "

Tettey is a good box to box player who lacks tactical discipline and does not always do the dirty work. He occasionally hides and has been tactically culpable for goals (although in the stands it appears others have made the mistakes, his occasional dereliction of duty has caused it)

Parma[/quote]
I literally don''t think I could agree with this any more than I do.
100% Parma!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron, Yankee

I have shelves of coaching dossiers and analysis that would be very dry to many.

The assessment of opposition and the production of game master plans is a huge exercise in research and manpower. Technology has greatly improved some aspects of it, but much boots on ground work is still required.

Reducing precise game plans to forum posts is pointless and inappropriate, it simply doesn''t and can''t take account of the many parameters involved, much of which is not (deliberately) visible to the public, nor possible to share.

A week ago I received an invite from a friend who has just been appointed to an interesting position at the FA to help with training at a respected European Club (where he has links). Observing such a process at a third party club - where you would have no emotional attachment - would be a good insight into what you are both talking about. You would see the process through from planning to training to potential match effect, in a dispassionate, professional way.

This would help to clarify why simplified answers are not appropriate or possible without all the unfiltered information to hand. Once you are on the inside it is had to remain an untarnished, loving fan however. So be careful what you wish for...

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Parma, respectfully, you would make a wonderful politician, saying so much that sounds profound but never answering the question that is asked.

 

Okay, I''ll take a stab at answering my own question. I have seen Bournemouth play a number of times this season. With respect to just one of the elements discussed, if we allow Whittaker to get a little adventurous down the right side against Bournemouth their weapons down the left side will do us in handily. That''s without even giving consideration to how well we execute responsibilities in other areas of the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parma firstly thanks for all of these, I really enjoy reading them and gaining a deeper insight into the game ..anyway

I love the sound of the 4-3-3 you described, to me it sounds exactly like what Derby are doing with Martin as the pivot. I don''t think anything as sophisticated as that has ever crossed Adams'' mind though, he seems hell bent on some variation of 442 with slow sideways passing in our half and almost ''kick and rush'' as we get the ball forwards.

I know you''ve been involved with the game so you know what you''re talking about but (no disrespect!) I don''t remember you posting that you''ve been involved as high up as the English second tier or equivalent so how is it that you can identify where we''re going wrong and can offer a seemingly very sensible solution (or at least first step) in fully utilising our assets then why can''t a supposedly progressive coach like Adams grasp these concepts or even try to set us up less two dimensionally as you put it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth,

It''s as well not to get limited by paper formations. This is particularly limiting with English players who are prone to fixed movement according to nominal formations. The important thing positionally is to not finish where you start and not to start where you finish (excepting -say- the central midfield defensive pivot and the structural 9 as the Dutch would play it).

Our (Norwich and England) problem is that our formation dictate the way the players play, the positions they take up and therefore how they can be defended against .

What I try to establish is a team where the players selected have natural fluidity and their natural games takes them away from the feed positions. I allow and encourage this as a coach, indeed it is this that will cause the opposition the problems.

What does the big, dominant centre back do when the centre forward isn''t there? What do the full backs do when the "wingers" Redmond and Murphy aren''t anywhere near the wings? What does the central midfielder do when Johnson drops between the our own centre backs and the full backs are in midfield? What about when this is augmented with Howson and O''Neil drifting into their favoured sides?

What about when Redmond and Murphy don''t stand on anyone''s toes and attack the goal, but just attack the space and play for free kicks?

Focusing on scoring goals is a red herring and can''t be fully controlled (sorry). What can be is a system that causes structural problems and asks uncomfortable questions of the opposition.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for the reply and it''s an interesting point. When I say 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 I''m also including all of the individual responsibilities and roles players typically have within those formations. I agree that too much emphasis is put into team shape and unless we''re absolutely sticking to a rigid structure like we did with Hughton formation is mostly irrelivent. What I''ve been wanting to see is what you proposed, I don''t like the idea of out and out strikers and isolated wingers, I want something similar to what we had at the start of the year but with Lafferty as our spearhead and Jerome/Grabban can compete with Redmond and Murphey for those two inside attacking midfield positions.

I''m a fan of Hooper and if this was L1 or the SPL I''d base my attack around him but for me he''s just not good enough at any one thing ie finishing or aspects of his overall contribution to the play to warrant a place in a set up like this. I''m not singling him out or anything but as you say we need to move the opposition more and play less orthodoxly, between the lines and attack the gaps between defenders and for me Hooper offers nothing in terms of that.

I want to see Lafferty get more game time because as others have alluded to, one of our problems is we seem to lack a lot of footballing intelligence (or whatever you want to call it) hence why we often appear sloppy/dozy/one dimensional and as you vouch for his tactical awareness I think he''d be very useful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The nominal "formation",would be a variation on 4321, 3421, 3412, 3241, 3223, 343 or 370.....

The defensive three would often de-facto include Johnson, rather than the full backs.

The pace of Redmond and Murphy would be released in the example given and their tactical naïveté is used to our advantage. Maximising what they can do - and what the opposition would least like to defend against - and hiding their weaknesses as far as possible, indeed twisting their weaknesses into positives (Redmond losing position or drifting wide is a problem in 442, but from a 4321 designed to let him do it, the opposition have the problem and we would be set up to protect the spaces behind him).

The opposition should dictate some of what you do, who you play, what areas of the field and specific movements and passing combinations would be particularly effective.

Against a team like Bournemouth who are trying to do some of things we discuss above, I would certainly modify my game plan (and certainly ignore the rather stupid "we just focus on our own game" statements, which would be laughed at in Italy..."what? You''ll ignore the fact your playing against Pirlo? Or the fact Verona only have 1centre back? Or that Milan play 424?)

I quite like Bournemouth''s links between areas of the pitch. They have a nice unity and connection between the phases.

I would likely re-introduce Wes and look to disrupt their supply routes in the three quarter areas.

This would involve a change in our forward play, but I think that wib a large squad a little more Lambert-esque squad horses for courses and less automatic possession of the shirt is a positive, particularly in the attacking third.

Hoolahan would roam deeper, focusing on linking rather than attacking. Expecting anything else of him his pointless, so harness what he brings rather than being frustrated with what he can''t. Playing Redmond beside him fairly centrally, with a licence to drift (Hoolahan is clever enough to fill spaces), but with an eye to regularly go beyond the striker is key. The best foil for this is Grabban who would be tasked with stretching the opposition defence. He is mobile, hard working and still presents enough danger in behind to ensure that 3/4 space is created for Redmond and to a lesser degree Redmond.

On the negative side, Howson is a little restricted tactically and positionally, though the same won''t bother O''Neil, both of whom will play as deeper registas.

These broad outlines are intended to show that the tactics employed should never - and can never - merely be about what we do, what is best for us. Not can it be a fixed formation, formula or approach. It must take into account what suits us best and the opposition least from game to game. It can focus in very specific in-game patterns and movements that you hope to repeat to the opposition''s detriment..though never forget, they are doing the same to you...

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus ca change....

Have we not learnt from the strikingly similar repeating structural and psychological problems post-relegation identified here from 2014 or are they somewhat unavoidable?

Is change for change''s sake thus the solution (replacing Adams with Neil) or is it just a matter of it organically recalibrating itself over time (sticking with the manager and working through it)?

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe its down to Adams and Neil both being very inexperienced managers who had not been in this situation before.

I am not sure if Benitez has a relegation on his CV but his experience meant that he did not make the same mistake at Newcastle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...