I would suspect that as ever some of our defensive fragility and ability to concede goals is not just because we like to fanny about with the ball at the back (though that has been a contribute), but with not having a settled midfield either due to injuries or stupidity either doesn't cut out attacks or gives us options so when we get pressed when we are fannying about at the back they nick the ball off us and score. I don't mind us passing out from the back, but at times we need far better situational awareness, that isn't just the defenders it is the midfield as well to release pressure.
You do indeed GE, but then look at what you then go on to say: ".............. So only one team makes less long passes than us but every other team makes more incisive passes than us. EVERY OTHER TEAM." These are expressed in the language of absolute numbers. You don't say "only one team makes a smaller percentage of long passes than us but every other team makes a greater percentage of incisive passes than us". What you say is "make less long passes" (= fewer long passes) and "makes more incisive passes" (=a greater number of incisive passes). Hence my polite enqiry as to which of the two you actually meant. For anyone interested, the original post giving rise to this was on Reddit. It was reposted on the Pink'un forum, where it received a thorough going over.
What is "an individual goal" exactly? I'm guessing that a prime example of what people have in mind is Jon Rowe's goal against Hull? But in his post-match interview on Sky, talking about the goal, Rowe said this: "You are in the moment, so when I am dribbling, I am trying to assess my options and I was about to slide Josh Sargent in, but they closed him off. I took matters into my own hands and finished the job." So Sargent was, to borrow a phrase, interfering with play, and Hull's defence had to devote resources to close him off. It's likely that other Norwich players were also interfering with play in one way or another*. Why then does that not qualify as "a team goal"? [Edit]*The club have a video of Rowe's goal on X today. As well as Sargent to the right of him, you can see Sainz and Barnes taking up threatening positions to Rowe's left.
À propos the accusation that we do a lot of "faffing around" to no avail, and following up on Suffolk's rhetorical question "How come, then, we are second highest scorers in the league behind Leeds?", here are some more "b*ll*cks statistics" to irritate 1950 ............ (1) Only two teams in the league have created more big chances than we have, Leeds and Coventry (FotMob). (2) Not surprisingly given our GF, we are third in the table for goal-creating actions (GCA = "the two offensive actions directly leading to a goal"); only Leeds and 'Boro outdo us on this metric (FBref). (3) Despite which we are only 12th in the table for key passes per 90 minutes (8.4;AiScore), a key pass being a pass that creates a scoring opportunity for the receiver, irrespective of whether the receiver scores (if he does score, the pass to him is both a key pass and an assist). Leeds head the table with 12.5/90. How come we are second highest scorers in the league and third best chance creators, but only 12th in terms of key passes? The answer is that fewer of the greater number of key passes made by the teams above us in that table (apart from Leeds) are converted into goals. Put another way, they are passes which create chances, but chances which are not converted. One explanation for such chances being missed is poor striking; but another is chance quality. Some key passes create big chances, others poorer quality chances. The explanation for our 12th spot for key passes is that we focus on the quality of the chance; we don't just aim to create a chance, we aim to create a good chance. That, after all, is what Thorup has said he wants the players to do. xG confirms it; we are 4th in the xG table, which once again is topped by Leeds. Under Wenger, Arsenal were often accused of "wanting to walk the ball into the net"; frustrated fans could be seen/heard on every forum and phone in crying "why won't they f**kin' shoot?". Meanwhile their team marched towards the top of the league and eventually went a whole season unbeaten. Onward, and upward! Finally, re. defence, there is identifiable progress in terms of goals conceded per game. These are the stats for the first three quartiles of the season (less one game in the third quartile, still to be played): Q1 (P12) GA 16 = 1.3 gpg Q2 (P11) GA 19 = 1.7 gpg Q3 (P10) GA 10 = 1.0 gpg So, from approaching 2 goals conceded per game in the second quartile, we have improved post-Christmas to just 1 per game. To put that in perspective, Sunderland, Blackburn and WBA, currently 4th, 5th and 6th in the league, each average between 0.9 and 1.0 for the season so far. Plenty of scope for improvement then, but improvement there has been
It is not so much that all these statistics irritate me but the fact that to me they are irrelevant. What you have put down Robbie is very clever but what purpose does it have to the average supporter who is only interested in the final score and how well City played. It is probably interesting to the coaching staff but to me it is of no interest whatsoever. I am a grumpy buggar - my Mum told me I was a grumpy child - and I am one of the people who turn the sound off on my TV during a game until something interesting happens. When I am at a live game I don't have somebody sitting next to me saying ' Duffy has passed to Fisher who has sent it back to Gunn ' so I don't need it on the TV coverage and I certainly don't need to be told mindless statistics that ' it is the third time in the last 20 seasons that 4 players have been injured in the first 10 minutes. Rant over.
This I absolutely agree with. There was a time when supporters not at the game relied solely on radio commentary. The commentators of that era did their best to describe play in such a way that listeners could visualise what was happening on the pitch "as if" at the match. Now, if you shut your eyes and just listen, you have no chance of visualising the ongoing play, and for the greater part of the time you'll not hear anything about actual play at all*. This disease has even spread to cameramen and producers, who insist on switching to shots of e.g celebrities in the directors' boxes, crowd shots, and so on. We were lucky we saw anything of Sargent's goal in real time on Saturday given the focus on the squirrel. The conclusion I've come to is that the media people think fans are incapable of watching 90 minutes of pure football, or if not incapable, don't want to do so. I'd like to think they (the media) are wrong about this, but sometimes I wonder ......... To quote you 1950: "Rant over". * Our own Chris Goreham is much better than most, but even he has been tainted by media group think in this regard.
Given the quality, or lack thereof, in the Hull commentary team I turned the sound off once I had a grasp of who the Hull players were. I did, however, sympathise when he finally stopped saying 'Gunn passes to Duffy, who passes to Doyle, who passes back to Duffy..' and said instead, 'Norwich are doing their possession thing in their own area'. In the entertainment stakes, that sort of repetitive passing doesn't even warrant a rating.
Speaking for myself, I find watching us playing out from the back far more interesting and entertaining than watching Gunn or Duffy boot the ball long, in Gunn's case frequently straight out of play, alternatively straight to an opposition player, in both cases surrendering possession. Successfully playing out from the back involves the entire team in co-ordinated movement, manipulating the opposition, opening passing lanes, and a succession of players freeing themselves to receive and then release the ball to a teammate. Done well it's beautiful to watch. Not only that, done well it is highly effective in creating opportunities for our attacking players. We are currently a long way from being able to do it well every time; but that's not a reason to stop trying or abort the process of getting better at it. When next season kicks off, I expect a first choice back five better equipped for it, with (at the very least) a new keeper and new first choice RCB.
I absolutely agree and I think we had a period where we started to see the team get to grips with it and it was working, but unfortunately the injuries hit and with the lack of consistency in midfield partnerships it has been hard for the team to develop a proper understanding
Re-posted from yesterday's Today's Games thread: Norwich City Women today moved into top spot in their league (FA Women's National League, Div. 1 SE) with a 1:0 win over Chesham Utd at the Nest. Likely to be only temporary because the teams in 2nd and 3rd are just two points behind and have at least one game in hand on them. But it's a thoroughly deserved reward for a run of six successive home victories. Well done NCW
With the Stoke win lifting confidence, City now face a run of games likely to shape the rest of this season, as Connor Southwell points out: "It starts next weekend when City travel to sixth-placed Blackburn Rovers, who currently sit four points ahead of them. Defeat and a gap of seven points, whilst not insurmountable - would feel like a tough gap to bridge. A home clash against much-improved Oxford United follows before back-to-back-to-back fixtures versus Sheffield Wednesday, who are two points behind them, a trip to Bristol City, currently eighth and two points ahead before West Brom arrive at Carrow Road with victory this weekend moving them to fifth. If Norwich wants to crash the top-six party, this does feel like a defining run in their Championship campaign - especially with three of those matches to come at Carrow Road, where they've played their best football. Nobody is getting carried away - but this run will be the ultimate test."
Just put this together as a bit of analysis for the amount of games each player has missed this season due to injury and suspension. Unsurprising quite a few. This is just championship matches. SQ - In the squad M - Missing due to injury/suspension P - Percentage of games missed
I was just drafting a reply to Rob's post about Kenny's importance to the team, not to dispute the conclusion (that he's important), but to make the point that the supporting stats are flawed due to the existence of confounding variables, such as who else was missing along with McLean, crucially, and for the most matches, Sargent, but also at various times, e.g. Núñez, Gunn, Sainz and other likely starters (e.g. Slimane). If I had to name one player whose presence is most important to the success of the team, it would be Sargent. But, given the age profile of the squad, more important than any individual are the five experienced players who constitute the spine -- Sargent, McLean, Núñez, Duffy and Gunn. With those five in the starting eleven, I think we can compete with anyone in the league; but how often have all five played together? Finally, this just goes to emphasise what a stalwart Duffy has been. Adapting the words of the philosopher Spinoza, to understand that (i.e. what a pillar he's been), is surely to forgive the occasional mistake and stylistic shortcoming.
Thanks Suffolk. Just a glance at the list of "% of games missed" of those midfielders tells a story itself.
