I agree with your analysis of the errors, but I am not sure they necessarily contradict the idea that the changes unsettled the defence. Other than the McClean shank, my reading of "failing to engage" and "no attempt to shut down the cross" could be individual (or even tactical) errors, but having watched the game it came across as just as much a failure of communication and awareness of where teammates, which could very well (or even arguably likely to) be down to unfamiliarity with each other as a team. It's impossible to be certain, sure, but it is a clear theme in the Premier League that settled defences perform better. I also think you're reading way too much into the McLean incident. He just mishit it, nothing more. It was bad luck as he's usually pretty good, but it happens. The problem is we then got stung.
In summary from watching the match on TV the first goal- how many crosses will we allow them until they score? The second goal was one of our famed collective team switch off. Hooton might be free to give Farke some tips in the defence coaching. Is the issue we need better defence coaching or the team needs more time to gel?
I think it's time to gel, Zog. Rashica and Sargent seem to be developing a rapport with Pukki given the time they've had. Lees-Melou and Godfrey are also settling in as will Tzolis, Williams, Normann and Kabak with more playing time. Tonight will be another chance depending on who DF starts, though Gunn is likely to be in goal so that's yet another change. I just hope it all comes together before long so we can start picking up points.
It's no good bringing in a defensive coach if the Head Coach won't listen to him. At Arsenal, when the long serving Pat Rice retired, Wenger appointed Steve Bould as Assistant Manager. Given Bould's defensive nous and experience, everyone expected Arsenal defensive woes to be addressed, but not a bit of it. The reason was that addressing the defensive issues meant reining back some of Wenger's core beliefs about how football should be played.
Well it seems that DF is now considering playing 3 at the back: “Yes, it's definitely also an option (to play a three). We are flexible and we want to be more flexible during the season. This was also the reason why we opted to play half of our pre-season games with a three man formation, and within games several times in the past when we are chasing the game we have gone to three at the back. There were a few reasons why so far we haven’t tried it. But if it is going to help defend our goal then I am willing to do it." https://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwi...-premier-league-formation-explanation-8342078
I know it's dangerous to read too much into language from a non-native speaker, but 'I am willing to do it' does not sound enthusiastic or as if he is seriously considering doing it. It sounds more like saying the convenient thing without meaning it.
Well he did play a back 3 in the cup and it'll be interesting to see whether he follows that up at Everton, possibly including Kabak this time. Meanwhile the fee we're committed to pay for Kabak if we do survive might be less than we first thought. http://sportwitness.co.uk/norwich-p...-lower-reported-significant-bargain-canaries/
Well, at least that got better with Leeds losing at home to West Ham, Burnley drawing at Leicester and Newcastle drawing at Watford.
Positives: If xG is a decent measure, on a blended average, we should have scored six goals and “only” conceded fourteen. We would be 19th in the league, but much closer to safety, and that’s having played the top two, plus (in Everton, Leicester and Arsenal) three clubs who ought to be comfortably top ten by the end of the season. Only really one aberration of a result against Watford, but they’ve started strongly. I’m calling it now: we’re going to survive in fifteenth place.
Watford and Brentford (via play offs) were promoted with us this season. We lost to Watford both home and away last season, but drew and beat Brentford. We still can’t beat Watford and have yet to play Brentford. Both these teams have had a good start to their PL season whereas we have been abysmal. So, what are Watford and Brentford doing that we aren’t? Do they have a more settled side (only changing some personnel) whereas we have made several changes? Do they possess players that are likely to make an impact in the PL, whereas some of our players are now beyond their best (Pukki fo example)? Do they possess a more potent strike force or a better organised defence? Today Brentford draw at home 3 - 3 with Liverpool, a team that beat us 0 - 3 earlier in the season.
No consistency in referee decisions this season, surprisingly against one of the big teams this week. Oli Watkins tangling with and blocking De Gea’s view but the goal is given. Shows Leicester’s goal that was disallowed last week, similar to Cantwells. Shearer argues both goals should have stood, bet he wasn’t saying that about our goal.
It's hard to overcome the emotions from the disappointment of yet another defeat, but in the cold light of the day after my hope is we're still integrating 9 new players to a complex tactical system. I thought the 3 at the back formation yesterday was the right one for an away game against a team like Everton. We made them look very ordinary for most of the game and that was an accomplishment. The penalty was unfortunate and it let them off the hook, but their play didn't really improve. The disappointment was that we didn't take some good chances with both Pukki and Sargent failing to pick up excellent through balls in dangerous positions. The one from Lees-Melou was really excellent and should have produced a shot on target from Sargent, but that's perhaps where new players are still getting used to each other. Hopefully that will happen soon and the Burnley game has now become a crucial one if we are going to turn this around.
The biggest disappointment from the game was that Kabak didn’t rifle into the top corner after that mazy run where he took it from nearly the halfway line then passed three players
Phew! Thank goodness you didn't impute any responsibility to DF. Brentford and Watford are not doing anything that we aren't; it's just that they don't have our unceasing bad luck and VAR isn't biased against them .........
I still think it's down to having 9 new players to integrate and get up to match fitness. Under Alex Neil, we had a settled team and 8 points at this stage but we were then found out and struggled until we were relegated. The 9 new players offer both potential for development, tactical variation and squad depth to deal with injuries throughout the season. Paddy Davitt sees that in Sargent for example: https://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwi...osh-sargent-usmnt-daniel-farke-praise-8366840 The ability to rotate is also an advantage we lacked two years ago. Playing a 3-5-2 against Everton allowed us to play both Pukki and Sargent up front and then bring on Rashica and Tzolis as impact subs. That didn't work at Everton but given time could prove to be a very effective tactic, especially for away games. I'd like to see the same again against Burnley.
Two years ago, a lot was made of not following the example of Fulham who, promoted the previous season, more or less dismantled their Championship team and spent a lot of money bringing in an assortment of "better quality" players recruited from various European leagues (Premier League, La Liga, Ligue Un, Bundesliga, Turkish Super Lig etc.). In so doing they destroyed the togetherness that had built up and spent the first months of the season trying to create a team from the motley collection of players making up the squad, and find a way of playing that suited them, at least to a degree. Three managers later, they were relegated in 19th place. Lack of money meant of course that we couldn't follow their example even if we'd wanted to, but it's always good to make a virtue of necessity -- until, two years later, the situation changed and suddenly we had money to spend. So what did we do? We spent a net £50M recruiting "better quality" players from various European leagues etc. etc. and are currently spending the first months of the season trying to create a team and find a way of playing that suits them, at least to a degree (doesn't suit Pukki, that's for sure). It's a funny world.
What 'old' players would you have retained Robbie? I can't think of any other than Buendia and Skipp, both of whom we had little choice about. I don't think we've done a 'Fulham' at all and we certainly haven't "destroyed the togetherness" of the squad. Instead we have enhanced it with quality players who allow us to use different tactics and formations. The outcome of this will be proven over the whole season, not the first 6 games but I'm certain the performances will improve as the new players continue to settle in.
