As Potter commented post-match, our Achilles heel is the space behind the wingbacks, especially left side behind Giannoulis (though it was on the other side that March created the chance for Maupay that should have won Brighton the game). In theory, it's the job of the L and R CBs to defend that space, but DF insists on them playing narrow and hence the need for the additional cover in the shape of McLean. If Normann was tasked with operating purely as a DM, the need for McLean would be obviated, but that's not the role Normann has been brought in to play.
You must log in or register to see images
You can kind of see that here in the average positions. We lined up in a 3-5-2 and it was a very "linear" 3-5-2, with those lines all very obvious. McLean actually the deepest midfielder on average, and very clearly making more effort to cover Giannoulis.
In contrast, Brighton's 3-5-2 was barely that. Cucurella the LWB was very advanced, almost a third forward, with Dan Burn essentially playing LB in a back 4 to cover that. So rather than dragging a midfield into the LB role, Potter used a mobile CB there. Veltman, the RWB was about as advanced as Burn, a CB, creating a lopsided attacking threat whilst maintaining the solidity of a back 4.
The roles of the Brighton midfielders are also much more clearly defined. Lallana, somewhat surprisingly, sits as a clear DM (or more a deep-lying playmaker), allowing Moder and Gross to get forward. Whilst the Norwich midfielders all appear tasked with doing a similar amount of pushing on and holding back, which creates a decision for our midfielders to make every time we're attacking. Lees-Melou needs to check whether Normann and McLean are committing or not, or communicate his intention to.
The end result is that Norwich have a very isolated front 2, whilst Brighton's are supported by a LWB and central midfielders. There were several moments where Cucurella was waiting in the box for a delivery from the right side. It's impressive how well he's been able to adapt to that role in Brighton's system, given he was a late summer signing.
Could Norwich play like Brighton?
I think in Aarons and Giannoulis, there are wing backs who could attack more than they have been. We saw that in the Championship, and Giannoulis has played a much more advanced role in/for Greece. But only one of them should have the license that Cucurella had, not both. It can be an option, like the introduction of Lamptey was for Potter, but the Brighton system benefits from more defined roles, rather than Farke's freedom. Not knowing whether Aarons, Giannoulis, or both are going to commit to an attack makes it harder to defend the wide areas, making it more sensible for the CBs to stay central and midfielders cover the space.
If Aarons attacks, Kabak should move out to RB. If Giannoulis attacks, Gibson to LB. Based on the mobility of each CB, I think it has to be Kabak playing the "Dan Burn" role. That means Giannoulis playing more like a LB than a LWB, which perhaps wastes some of his talent, but also means McLean isn't forced to cover wide.
I think it's clear that in midfield, Normann and Lees-Melou offer more going forwards than McLean is in his current role, so I can see why Farke doesn't want to shackle them. It's interesting that Brighton use a ball-playing rather than physical DM as the holding player (Lallana), which with the Norwich squad would point to Gilmour (although as suggested by Rob(?) Sorensen also an option).
If we were to play with a winger+Striker up top, perhaps that would point to Tzolis? He's left sided, so wouldn't occupy the same spaces as Aarons.
So, a "Norwich playing Brighton's system" would look like:
...............................Krul
.......................Hanley Gibson
.......Kabak Gilmour/Sorensen Giannoulis
Aarons Lees-Melou Normann
...............................Tzolis
........................Pukki
