Going back to the shift to a midfield 3, Robin Sainty looks at the possibility of shared responsibility: "In each of City's four competitive games to date, they have operated within a 4-3-3 system. The midfield has been relatively flat in terms of average positions across those four fixtures, almost to negate the lack of outright defensive option. Chelsea loanee Gilmour is a defensive midfielder in terms of position but perhaps should be seen more as an orchestrator. Whereas Skipp's role last year was primarily focused on retrieving possession and offering protection, Gilmour's is more about beginning attacking phases and getting City on the front foot. He speculates that Gilmour will remain in the centre in that regista type role to progress the ball out of defence assisted by two others from Normann, Lees-Melou, McLean, Rupp or Sørensen. Arsenal will be the next test of this development. https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwic...athias-normann-billy-gilmour-midfield-8304166
Interesting to note that Leeds, the darlings of the press, lost 3-0 at home to Liverpool just as we did. I think it puts things in some perspective. We just need to do well enough in our sub-league and not worry about poor results against the top 6. A more cohesive defensive unit, as RiverEndRick suggests, is what we need to develop as a foundation and then turn better performances into points.
Our 9 new players are only now beginning to gel and show what a difference they can make. Rashica, Gilmour and Lees-Melou are the furthest forward but DF's changes against Arsenal gave more game time to Willams, Tzolis and Omobamidele and hopefully we'll have close to a full squad to choose from for Watford, which is now a virtual 6 pointer to kick start our season before going to Everton the week after.
We may now be close to having the full squad available, but has anyone a clue about how they are going to play? The normal pattern for a yo-yo team is to strengthen a squad already playing in a well-established style, each time injecting two or three better quality players without destabilising the whole. Which is exactly what we haven't done. Farkeball is dead, long live ......... er, um, what?
I don't think that "Farkeball is dead", it's evolving for the PL. Rashica and Tzolis are upgrades on Placheta and Hernandez, who's now gone out on loan. Sargent is an upgrade on Hugill and can also provide an Emi replacement option at WR. Normann, Lees-Melou and Gilmour offer new options in an expanded 3 man midfield which can more effectively screen the defence while also progressing the ball through the thirds to the attacking players. Kabak provides a 5th option at CB and Williams is a quality FB option in a squad with quality depth at every position. The 'whole' isn't destabilised, it has evolved to a new level, as Watford will find out on Saturday.
Yeah, I don't get this repeated refrain of Farkeball being dead either. There is evolution, sure, particularly in personnel of course but to a degree formation too, also attacking focuses etc. But the essence, the main mentalities (possession-based, ball to ground, patient football) have remained consistent throughout and I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that will change.
Agree with that Rob, but another tweak is to develop our existing counter-attacking capabilities through pacey new players like Rashica, Tzolis and Sargent and new midfield players who can provide the diagonal and through ball passing they need.
Farkeball Mk II - with a faster engine, tighter turning circle and hopefully less kamikaze tappy tappy and only sensible tappy tappy
https://www.canaries.co.uk//content/important-update-on-covid-19-certification Anyone attending Saturday, should read this
We've created two "Big Chances" this season. One was Pukki's penalty shot. Obviously we didn't score the other one. If Rashica keeps putting in crosses, we have to have someone to get on the other end of them. I also want another brave buccaneer like Todd - maybe Tzolis can do that.
Re. a faster engine, I'm afraid the Farkeball chassis doesn't allow for that. Michael Bailey recently wrote a piece in The Athletic marking DF's 200th game in charge. He compared last season's Championship winning performance with Farke's first season in charge (2017--18). What's interesting are the constants, since they are what specifically characterises Farkeball. Prominent among those is our uniquely slow speed of attack, which actually got slower over the four years! (The numbers, for those interested, were 1.5 m/s in 2017--18 (ranked 22nd in the league), and 1.2 m/s in 2020-2021 (ranked 24th). A comment on MB's article suggested that this slow speed of attack was a principal factor in our dismal showing last time round in the EPL, which seems very plausible. If you give defensively well-organised teams all the time in the world to get behind the ball and into good defensive shape, you are making life difficult for yourself when it comes to putting the ball in their net. It seems pretty clear from our recruitment this summer that this is one lesson that has been learnt, but the implied change of emphasis in terms of speed of attack is no tweak to Farkeball, it's an abandonment of one fundamental aspect of Farkeball.
We seemed to be launching faster counter attacks last week. Trying to draw the opposition towards us then pass around them. Do your stats take into account the tappy tappy to try and pull them out of position, because perhaps they are relating more to possession rather than the attacking phase? Though I admit we try to slowly walk the ball through the opposition.
Again I would say that this is evolution more than radical change. Since DF arrived we have had pacey players like Hernandez and Placheta, but they haven't really been up to PL levels enough for us to counterattack more. Pukki has the advantage of being on the shoulder of defenders when he breaks forward, but that's more difficult against PL quality defenders, especially on his own. Much will now depend on how effective Rashica, Tzolis and Sargent are in enhancing our counterattacking capabilities, but it seems to have been an important part of our recruitment strategy. The other key element will be how well our midfielders can get the ball forward to Pukki and the other attacking players but we seem to have recruited for this as well with Lees-Melou, Gilmour and Normann all being able to progress the ball forward through quicker passing and through balls. Watford should be a better chance to apply these skills
My guess is that Pukki, Cantwell and Rashica will start up front, though Tzolis and Dowell have both made a good case for inclusion. McLean and Lees-Melou have been doing well in midfield so it could be either Gilmour or Normann for the third midfielder. Sarr is a big threat for Watford and it will be a big test for Williams or Giannoulis at LB. It could be that DF thinks Gibson could struggle for pace against Sarr so either Omobamidele or Kabak starts instead. It's good that we have so many quality options to keep the opposition guessing.
In simple terms (the precise definitions applied by companies like Opta being far from simple), Attack speed measures the time taken by a sequence starting with gaining possession (in open play) and ending with a shot. So a period of inter-passing deep in your own half, designed to draw the opposition out, would be included. It is, after all, as much part of "the attacking phase" as the later stages when the ball is moved forward. The graphic below is of a famous Man City goal involving 44 passes, culminating in a goal by No.8 (Gundogan), against Man Utd in November 2018; the Attack speed was 0.38 m/s. please log in to view this image While this is an extreme example, the general pattern will be familiar to anyone who regularly watches Man City. We aren't called "the Man City of the Championship" for nothing.
It’s a bad measure then, because it overrates hoofball (or maybe that’s what you want?) It needs to be more nuanced - as Zog says, it’s about picking your moment to move forwards quickly. So the measure should focus on something like speed of moving forward, legitimate passing rather than hoofing, when there is a turnover of possession in open play. I am pretty sure we won’t score highly on that either, but that would be more attuned to what we know are truly dangerous positions which need to be capitalised upon, whereas possession-based football is inherently going to involve some periods of stasis where the ball is knocked around in midfield without going forward in an attempt to draw the opposition out. I’d be interested to know what Man City’s break speed in that sequence was from the moment number 25 (Fernandinho?) picks it up in the centre circle, four passes before it ends up in the net… It’s about picking your moment to attack quickly.
It doesn't "overrate" anything. It is simply a measure allowing comparison of teams in terms of Attack speed as defined. It doesn't say "Fast is good, slow is bad". It simply captures something about how Man City play, and how we have played (at least up to now) under DF.
That slow Attack speed is only one of several definitive features of Norwich's football under Daniel Farke, from his arrival at the start of the 2017--18 season, to the end of last season's Championship title win (which DF himself has said was the culmination of "Norwich's best ever season"). The pursuit of "domination through possession" was already clearly in evidence back in 2017--18, when our "raw" possession averaged 54.7% (ranked 4th in the league). More telling, though, is the figure for Field tilt, i.e. possession in the attacking third, showing the extent to which a team turns ball possession into meaningful territorial possession. In that first season we averaged 50%, 9th best in the league; come 2020---21, that had improved to 55%, 2nd best in the league (I'm guessing Brentford shaded it), while "raw" possession also improved to 60.3% (1st in the league). A third distinctive (but related) feature clearly documented by Bailey's analysis is the ratio of short to long passes. DF's insistence on short passing has been evident from the start; even in 2017--18, only 13% of our passes were long (only one team had a lower percentage), and by last season we were claiming 24th spot in the league with just 11.1%. And not surprisingly given those Field tilt figures, our territorial domination manifested itself in shots, even back in 2017--18 when we averaged 14.1 shots per game (2nd in the league). Last season, when we were even more dominant, that was upped to 15.6 (ranked 1st). At the same time, again not surprisingly given the squad's development over the period, we were creating better quality chances last season than four seasons ago.
Ok, but you seemed to be implying quicker was better and it skews it for hoofball style, so you can play the game “oh I was just giving the statistic” but you sure sounded like you were being critical. I’m pointing out it’s far too simplistic a statistic as to be virtually meaningless.
Since I point out that this is a characteristic we share with Manchester City, I suppose you think I was being critical of them too? The truth is, Rob, in your eagerness to jump on anything I post, you read something into it that wasn't there at all.