Match Day Thread Canaries vs Seagulls

For me, I don’t think there are questions in Farke’s head over Sargent. Yes, we all are thinking about the horror miss and a couple of other shanked final passes/opportunities, but I reckon Farke will be more interested in the huge endeavour from Sargent - his pressing (with Pukki, to be fair, and Lees-Melou) directly or indirectly created several turnovers for us from which we got into dangerous positions. He’s young and that composure in front of goal should come with time and experience. Pukki arguably had the better chances overall and didn’t score.

I would add Gibson along with McLean. Maybe Farke sees it differently but I think Gibson has been our weak link defensively and I am not sure whether it’s McLean’s lack of faith in Gibson that is causing the problems or what.

 

I don't think Sargent has very good control with the ball. I would give him 30 minutes every day to practice dribbling long runs and close control because he doesn't look comfortable on the ball.

I agree with that Rob, I think of Josh almost as a forward defender.

 

Gilmour can't play against his parent club DH, but would like to see Dowell given a chance.

 

Gibson does lack pace, but that is less of a problem in a back 3. He is our only left-footed CB though, which makes it easier for him to clear balls without conceding corners which is especially important in the PL. Much the same for McLean, who is our only left-footed CM. DF has to decide whether to keep things the same for continuity or bring others in.

The defence has been solid though and Cantwell or Dowell in midfield would weaken that. As I said above, Rupp or Sørensen could replace McLean with Normann moving forward, but that's really for DF to decide. Our best chance at Chelsea is on the counter and Pukki and Sargent are well suited to that with Rashica and Tzolis as other options from the start, or as impact subs.

 

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.

 

There will always be an Achilles heel of some sort even with an 8 man low block, which would also severely limit chances to score goals. It's a balancing act and DF has to choose. If the CBs spread out, the Achilles heel becomes the inside spaces with attacking players wrong siding the CBs. The Xg factors on those attacks will be higher than crosses from the flanks. The two clean sheets suggest that the formation we are using is improving us defensively. You could say that Brighton was forced out wide because they couldn't exploit the inside spaces.

 

please log in to view this image

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

 

Normally that would be Bissouma, who was unavailable on Saturday.

I predicted that this midfield "pass the parcel" approach would create problems. It's another instance of DF trying to have us play as though we have a squad of Man City-quality players. Potter has better players at his disposal than we do, but still recognises their limitations and sets them up accordingly.

 

We're still learning what we do have. Lees-Melou and Normann are improving game by game and we've only used a 3-5-2 for 3 games whereas Brighton have been doing so for much longer. Mistakes against Everton cost us the game, but we've cut those out in the Burnley and Brighton games. Chelsea will be a big ask, but at least we have a stronger defence to stand up to them with.

 

Well, quite. But why? As you pointed out on the Season thread, 8 of the 14 EPL teams on Saturday played with a back three. It's not just the current fashion; there must be reason.

 

I was advocating 3 at the back before the season began, but DF had other problems. Kabak was only a hopeful possibility at that stage and didn't sign until the end of the window. Zimmerman was injured. Hanley had missed the pre-season and Gibson had also had an injury. There was Omobamidele, but that seemed a big ask against Liverpool and ManCity, neither of whom use a back 3, so there could have been a tactical consideration as well. In hind sight, it might have been better to play him in a back 3, but that's hind sight, where decisions are far easier.

As it was, DF decided to go for a midfield 3, which in itself was a major departure from the past. The turning point came against Watford where Sarr terrorised our left flank, Williams in particular. It was also Kabak's first game, thrown in at the deep end. My guess is that if DF could have that game over again he would play the present formation. As it is, we have played a 3-5-2 ever since and to good effect, but there are still many people crying out for a return to a 4-2-3-1 formation and attack as the best form of defence, in spite of the 15 goals we conceded in those first 5 games.

 

I don't myself think DF ever regarded 3 at the back as anything more than a useful string to our bow, to be deployed if needed in-game depending on the state of play in a particular match. I doubt if the idea that it should become our base formation ever seriously entered his mind -- until it became imperative to arrest that awful, ever-expanding, run of defeats.

 

The fact that we now have 5 CBs suggests that it's part of long term planning rather than just a reaction to results. DF is more experienced and adjusting to our circumstances, which is a good thing. I thought he might go to a 4-3-2-1 or a 3-4-2-1, but the 3-5-2 is beyond both of those and has achieved results.

We will see some variations in starting lineups and during matches as well given the attacking players we've recruited, but much will depend on the new players settling in and developing a rhythm as each game we get closer to that. With a fully fit Normann, the next test will be Chelsea and I'm actually looking forward to that now.