They made the exact same mistake with Zola less than 5 years ago!! They were punching above their weight at 6th, why sack the manager that is doing such a fantastic job and what message does that send to the players…I think that much is obvious now.
I don't think Rooney did badly at Derby under really testing circumstances, DC United and Birmingham haven't been good though!
ACN have an interesting contrarian argument on the Southampton game entitled "In Defence of...Defence". Well worth a read. My comment on it is included below the article. https://www.alongcomenorwich.com/ar...cf3f9aa3558c02c040e9b297ddf35af#comment-11553
Have just seen that City are the 14th most successful club in league positions over the last fifty years, with an average finishing position of 22.1 in that time. That lot are not in the top twenty though.
The irony of referencing our 3:2 win against Man City in 2019--2020 in defence of Monday's setup has clearly been lost. We, Norwich City, this season in the Championship, are to Southampton as we, Norwich City, were to Manchester City that season in the EPL??? Really? I doubt if anyone at the club would agree with that, or admit to it .......
Ben Lee's damning analysis of the Southampton game: https://ncfcanalysis1.wixsite.com/ncfcanalysis/post/norwich-vs-southampton "This piece could have been entirely dedicated to analysing Southampton. Unfortunately, that’s a damning indictment of the disparity between the coaching of the two sides. Yes, Norwich got a point against a great side. Yes, the scoreline could’ve been so much worse. But this wasn’t the only negative strategy of the season, and don’t kid yourself into thinking such setups are sustainable or acceptable long-term at this level. David Wagner described it as a “brave” approach given the possible backlash following a less favourable result. This view reduces football discourse to mere results-based analysis. I invite you not to conform to that view. I invite you to reach your own conclusions based on performances rather than results. Had Josh Sargent’s equaliser bounced an inch to the left, I’d suggest we wouldn’t see a single defence of Norwich’s approach. Would it not have been a more positive form of bravery to press Southampton with aggression from minute one? To galvanise the home crowd with relentless intensity? Instead, somewhat comically, we had the two sides walking out to ‘Welcome to the Jungle’ by Guns N’ Roses, followed by over ninety minutes of the least intimidating approach to a football game you could ever wish to see. Perhaps certain people should ask themselves if this is the type of bravery fans pay to watch; I know which type I’d prefer." Ben quotes Wagner as characterising the defensive approach to the game as "brave ..... given the possible backlash following a less favourable result". If that was the reason, wouldn't a more accurate description be "cowardly"?
I've become disappointed with Ben's latest analyses as what seemed to be objectivity has shifted to a promotion of the tactics he thinks we should be using. My doubts began when he didn't produce an analysis of the Huddersfield game. Perhaps the win didn't fit with his agenda? Whatever the reason I'm steadily losing interest in what he writes.
More likely is that two matches in three days, with Christmas Day in between, was simply more than he could manage. He's a student, not a full-time football analyst or journalist.
It's not only that, as what started as clear analysis in the beginning has now become infused with opinion like this: "This view reduces football discourse to mere results-based analysis. I invite you not to conform to that view. I invite you to reach your own conclusions based on performances rather than results." Clearly Ben's view is that defence is not a "performance" to be valued in the same way that possession percentages or total shots are to be valued. That's a selective view IMO. Contrast that with Nathan Hill's view in ACN: "Yes, it was dull. But Southampton more than contributed to that themselves. After all, they were the team with 75% possession and more than 700 passes. We may have our own issues around playing identity but Russell Martin’s football bores me to tears. For all that dominance in the more meaningless metrics, I’m sure those clamouring for him to become our manager would quickly lose patience with the lack of direction and penetration. Ironically, for all their perceived control they’re not proactive. They’re reactive. They pass and pass and pass and pass to an exceptionally tedious extent, waiting for opponents to gas themselves out and leave gaps. Or commit tired, clumsy fouls or play a hospital pass minutes after chasing shadows. It’s death by a thousand cuts, if allowed to be. Discipline, concentration, and mistake-free football, however, tends to nullify them." I didn't find that boring, rather I found the disciplined performance something to be admired and because of that, I don't appreciate Ben Lee telling me what I should think about it. No I wouldn't want City to play that way all season, but on this occasion the tactics were right. With Sargent and Sainz now available, there should be plenty of attacking football to come and if we can balance that with determined defending there should be much to enjoy over the rest of the season. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but results do matter to me.
I don't think he's saying that at all. By "performance" he means what the team does on the pitch from a tactical point of view and how well it does it, of which stats are an imperfect representation. So understood, "performance" obviously includes a team's defensive actions. His contrast is between performance-based and results-based match analysis, not offence and defence.
And here is Ben Lee's analysis of the draw with Bristol Rovers: https://ncfcanalysis1.wixsite.com/ncfcanalysis/post/norwich-vs-bristol-rovers
"Ultimately, Norwich lacked ideas in possession...." whether or not you agree with Ben's previous analyses, those 6 words sum-up story of the season so far. Players are far too pedestrian in the transition phase, the formation leads to predictability of passing side-to-side-to-side and then backwards when there's no option up top, Onel/Idah & Rowe's movement with the ball cutting in and rarely busting a gut to beat the FB/WB at the by-line. Sargent is great at chasing down the channels to win the ball high up, which obviously leads to a lack of bodies in the box. Whether you think that's coached by the management team or down to a lack of ability of the players is a separate debate, however we desperately need a different formation, even just to give the opponents something else to think about.
For me, it's about the pace of movement as we progress the ball up the pitch. When we broke away for Sargent's goal the passing was direct from Sara to Rowe and quickly on to Sargent who timed his shot perfectly to beat both the keeper and defender. Too often we slow it down too much, letting the defence set up.
Couldn't agree more Rick. The pace of the attack when the opportunity is there so often turns pedestrian. And as you say when we progressed quickly against Southampton, it yielded a goal scoring opportunity which fortunately was well taken. I've sat at too many games of late where those around me and myself are clearly frustrated as what starts out with an opportunity to attack, turns into a pass backwards where everything slows up and the opportunity is lost....a bit like the patience of those paying lots of money to watch it.
Is the " pace of attack " caused more by individual lack of incisivness or even intelligence, or more by training ground instruction? When I watch our games it seems apparent that too many players are unable, or are unwilling, to make an instant offensive decision. Thus our play is stagnated and is easily rebuffed.
I believe that the problem is that we are just not coached properly, and also the majority of players have average ability.
Fully agree Bure. I have said it so many times but I will say it again - the players do not seem to know what they are supposed to do. Yes, good players do help but Saunders did not have a squad of all good players nor did Lambert but they drilled a system into them and got success. Wagner for some unknown reason is not getting through to them and things will not change as long as he stays in post.
Farke too for that matter. He was aided by his contingent of Germans, who understood the style of play and what it took to make it work. Which in turn helped the others in the squad to learn Farkeball.
Many of our goals have been counter-attack goals; they couldn't have been scored without quick progression. The key element in virtually all of them is a turn over; when that happens, whether deep in our half, or higher up, the opposition is on the front foot and out of defensive shape. Sargent's goal against the Saints was a classic example, as was the move prior to it, which ended with Sainz firing into the side netting. The pedestrian pace is most evident when we are the side in possession, having to engineer an opposition mistake rather than having the opposition make one for us.
Just for a bit of balance - and not because I’m a Wagner fanatic, I’m not I think we should have parted ways in late November/December - we are just two points off the play-offs now and fully in the mix because the league has splintered into a top four and then roughly another eight teams vying for the last two spots (though admittedly West Brom look comfortable, so maybe seven for the last spot). And with only two points in it, why shouldn’t it be us? Despite the fact that we have had an appalling middle section of the season, a host of injuries and a team which frankly I think most fans agree is pretty disjointed and malfunctioning. It doesn’t take much to change in football. If we think we’ve been that bad and yet are still so close, imagine where we could be if that little bit of luck combined with a bit of togetherness and synergy in the team! We have the leagues most ruthless striker just back from injury, the most creative midfielder in terms of chances created and the most inspirational attacking midfielder, along with arguably the strongest or at least top three goalkeepers. That’s a recipe for the playoffs if it clicks. Just a thought. Not sure I believe it myself, but I don’t think it’s so far wrong.
