The other side of Emi Marcondes: ‘Looking forward to celebrating after’ - Marcondes on Wrexham and mental health https://www.pinkun.com/sport/interviews/25477906.norwich-city-emi-marcondes-wrexham-mental-health/
I believe (read somewhere) wage bill has the closest correlation with league position - not perfect, but a good proxy. I actually don’t think there’s too much wrong with the squad. Fifth in the league sounds about right. The issue is the structure and teamwork
Pinkun report on Mattsson's debut: "Mattsson displayed energy and showed flashes of composure with the ball, the kind that initially attracted the attention of Norwich's recruitment team. For any player from overseas, being thrown in at the deep end in the Championship can prove testing. It is unique in its nature and physicality, hence why so many from the continent require a real period of adaptation to grapple with its challenges. The most pleasing aspect is that Mattsson didn't seem phased by the physicality and intensity that often catches many new players out. It wasn't just his running capacity but also his ability to stick a foot in or make an interception - no Norwich player made more of either than Mattsson on his first City start. Two blocks also ranked above everyone else in yellow and green. Equally with the ball, Mattsson completed all of his passes between 15 and 30 yards - playing the ball into Wrexham's final third on five occasions. Two of his passes led directly to shots on goal for Norwich. Mattsson was thrown into a baptism of fire and proved that, with time, he could emerge as an important player for Norwich. Crucially, he looks ready to hit the ground running and deliver immediately." https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwic...city-pelle-mattsson-shows-fight-baptism-fire/
I thought the whole point of having a SD was to provide continuity. Farke - Smith - Wagner -Thorup - Manning looks more like an unholy mess to me than anything resembling continuity. A new 'philosophy' each season. No wonder the squad looks such a disjointed rabble.
Indeed, and I thought that Attanasio's takeover, and the appointment of Knapper as SD, heralded a period of stability and continuity, with commitment to a club-wide Norwich style of attacking football, an emphasis on developing and bringing through young players, and an end to short-term thinking. Attanasio was on record as saying that he couldn't understand the hire-then-shorty-afterwards-fire managerial merry-go-round of Bitish football. The appointment of Thorup and the time-scale under which he clearly thought he was working (consistent with Attanasio's comment after the AGM that "if we aren't in the EPL after 5 years are up, I will have failed"), reinforced my expectations. All shattered by Knapper's sacking Thorup and appointment of Manning.
The biggest element of short sightedness with this for me is the failure to be cultivating the next manager from within. Surely someone working with Farke closely, managing the U21s would have given it the best chance, like a Mike Walker. Smith and Wagner were too far removed from the philosophy, Thorup with Wilshere should have been that plan in action. Now Thorup gave them a problem with that run of results second half of last season, should he have been sacked though? Realistically Wilshere had no time to really prove he was ready to take over, but should he have been so hasty to leave? Could he have worked with Manning and continued his education for the managers job? Would manning want him? Has it worked out well for Wilshere walking away? Bah!
Agreed - I think we all (or nearly all!) agree that the sacking of Thorup made some sense in the context of the run of results, but no sense in the context of their strategic failure to have a plan/alternative to him or in the context of the supposed three year plan. But once they have been ruthless and done it, it’s done and we move on. I’d like them to be equally ruthless now and I don’t see the similarity with Watford - if a manager and structure isn’t working, why persist?
Because 7 games isn't enough to judge. On that basis Thorup could have been sacked at the same stage when we were 15th. There have been too many changes due to injury. Forson was looking really good before he was injured, as was Kvistgaarden, who looks to be just the player to link up with Sargent and create a double threat up front (something Crnac has struggled to do). Mattsson has looked good in his first two games and Makama also looks promising, but they both need more time. Darling and Medić have settled into a good defensive partnership and Mahovo returning can make a big difference at LB. The players are playing well enough individually, but they haven't gelled enough yet. Given time, I think they will.
Thorup was brought in as part of a 3 year transition plan so nobody expected too much after 7 games - Manning was supposed to be a quicker fix. The style of play improved under Thorup and has gone backwards under Manning. You apparently see encouraging signs and think the individual players are playing well enough - I and many others don't. A double threat up front is no use if the Coach sticks to a philosophy where getting the ball forward quickly is not in the plan. I have never heard our travelling support so disillusioned and they are the ones we need to listen to. The Bristol City supporters warned us that Manning sticks rigidly to his defensive negative passing plan which bored the pants off them and they were quite pleased to see him go. First Smith, then Wagner and now Manning. It just reminds me of the 1960's where we endured season after season of dross under a series of lacklustre Managers until Ron Saunders arrived. The biggest mistake we have made in recent years was sacking Farke but, like Thorup, it is history and nothing we can do about it. What we can do is get rid of Knapper first and, unless things rapidly improve on the pitch, Manning to be replaced by a more experienced Director of Football and a Head Coach who understands that a major part of the game is to attack and score goals.
See this is the bit I don’t agree with. Manning wasn’t brought in with Thorup’s mandate of a project (to my knowledge). And Thorup may have achieved the same or fewer points, but that’s irrelevant to my mind because as I said, this is about stylistic approach and long term possibility. Thorup’s early games were marked with lots of reasons to be positive, just like Farke’s were - so appealing for patience there makes sense. But just because Thorup got treated with patience doesn’t mean Manning should be. Which goes back to my previous question on the Stoke City thread - if 7 games isn’t enough to assess Manning, how many games is? I said 10 games back at the beginning of the season (which meant 11 if we include the cup!) I’d accept that answer now - albeit I have backtracked and made my mind up!! But happy to be persuaded if there is a turnaround in performance over the next three games - I think it’s unlikely. I know you answered that question with “half a season, at least”. Fair enough. For me, that’s way too long as our season could easily be over after half of it is done, if we persist with an obviously failing project. The bit that worries me is that I think (albeit not wholly sold) our transfer activity in the summer was hugely positive - not perfect in terms of profile of players/style, but there have been some really useful additions to the squad. If we waste half a season of their contribution and then clearly we won’t get promoted, we will next Summer undoubtedly lose Sargent and others, so we will be even further off strength. For me, with the Summer investment, we should be decisive in the strategy. If the manager is clearly failing, get rid. If the club decide the new strategy is to be patient with the new manager then great - but that’s not the idea with Manning
