Ok, sure, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You’ll appreciate, though, that you do have something of the boy who cried wolf in your posts, which is why I am going to generally assume that’s your angle. This is a distraction from my main point, though, that I think some of these statistics are very dodgy and dangerously easy to misread. Also, you’re being a bit paranoid if you think I “jump” on you. When I agree with something you say, I tend to say it.
After today's disastrous performance, I would be tempted to look at the side that beat Bournemouth and build a team around that. OK, I know it was only Bournemouth, and that they played a weakened side, but at least it worked. Also, are Bournemouth - top of the Champs and undefeated - really that much worse than Watford, who made us look like a Division One side? Tzolis and Sargent were great in the Bournemouth game, and yet Tzolis is told he must wait his turn, unlike players from Man U, Liverpool and Chelsea, who it seems get a free pass into the first team. The game against Watford must surely make us doubt again the value of loan players. OK, Skipp was a great success, but look back to the days of Roeder and all those posers who couldn't be bothered to put in a decent day's work. For example, Sorensen played in that Bournemouth game and did well, but it seems that he is unfashionable compared to Gilmour, who, frankly, has been a total failure so far, and, if it wasn't for the fact that he came from Chelsea, would be sitting on his arse on the bench (if he even merited that from his performances). I can't help but feel that the transfer window - which seemed very successful - has led to a situation where there are some players who we have to play irrespective of what they offer the team, even if that means changing the formation and freezing out good permanent signings like Giannoulis and Sorensen. Is Williams better than Giannoulis? Has Gilmour added anything whatsoever to the team? My personal feeling is not yet, and instead of trying to find a long-term blend of permanent players, we seem compelled to include loan players who benefit us little, even if their experience with us will increase their value for their home clubs.
Can’t disagree even slightly about Gilmour. I’ve said it since match one. He’s been disastrous so far.
I gather one of those teams to lose their first 5 games was Palace, and they finished 11th that year. Small little hopes keep me going.
While I share your concerns Gozo, I think our problems are even more complex than you describe. My main concern is that DF is heavily biased towards technical skills rather than battling capabilities and Gilmour is an indication of that, especially as his small stature proved to be a vulnerability against a very physical Watford side. He scores highly on WhoScored because, like Skipp, he makes a lot of short passes but few through passes or defence splitting ones. He reminds me of Leitner, who also failed to set the PL on fire. Would sticking with Lees-Melou have been better? McLean is more the sort of player we need with his ability to make telling passes, win headers and provide a scoring threat as well as good defensive skills. I'm hoping that Normann proves to share these skills but I also don't see why Sørensen doesn't get a chance except in the cup, where he did well. My greater concern is why Kabak came straight into the side when we had 2 other more experienced CBs available who were better suited to play against Watford. Does DF also have a bias towards young players? Kabak playing meant that Hanley had to change sides when we had the left-footed Gibson available. Would Hanley have been out muscled for the first goal? I doubt it. As for attacking players, I still think that Pukki is our best goalscorer. I like Sargent, but there are advantages to his playing WR where he can use his defensive skills as well as well as giving us a two striker capability. I also thought Rashica did well, but I do think Tzolis could have come on sooner. The Liverpool game could be the the chance for those players left out against Watford to stake a claim for inclusion against Everton.
This amusing ACN look at Watford and things in general sums it all up very well: https://www.alongcomenorwich.com/articles/watford-h-the-acn-match-review/
Watching us reminds me of games between the club's Youth and First teams, one side trying to impress and show they can play, the other letting the youngsters do their best then swatting them when they become tiresome!
I don't think Kabak was outmuscled, he was just caught out by the speed and timing of the blind side run -- exactly as Hanley was for the second.
Because he's better than what we've got and DF wants him in the side and up to speed asap. You have to remember that both Normann and Kabak will be with their respective national teams in the next international break, so Farke has limited opportunity to fully integrate them.
That may be the case in future, but at present we seem to be building a plane and trying to fly it at the same time as coordination between players is sketchy at critical times. We had 6 new players starting. Some, like Rashica, Gilmour and Sargent have had time to assimilate but Kabak and Normann, like Williams when he arrived, were thrown in straight away while Tzolis has to settle for cameo appearances. The lack of coordination made us very vulnerable against Watford's much more settled side and we paid the price in a critical match which leaves us in desperate straights with two very difficult away games to follow. It's hard to see where the points are going to come from.
The obvious place to introduce Kabak was the Cup game which was only a few days ahead, and, since Farke is usually so cautious about introducing new players, I really don't understand why Kabak got the immediate go-ahead against Watford.
A rare excellent (IMO) post on the PinkUn message board pointing out that you can't have our business model based on finding young players and making a big profit on them and also be Burnley. We develop our players rather than just teach them how to hoof it up to the big guy and if we didn't do that, the model would collapse.
Can't get this down on Kabak. I was at the game, and everyone I spoke to was really impressed with him. He was marshaling the back 4 from minute 1,and was my MOM.
Interesting, Bure, from someone who was actually at the game. Watching on screen does not give as good an overall picture as being there, and obviously would tend not to pick up things like marshalling the defence.
My comments weren't against Kabak, who I'm very glad we signed as he has brilliant potential for development, but rather about him coming straight into the side in the same manner as Williams and Normann. They may have played well overall, but they were also involved in conceding the goals which condemned us to a fifth straight defeat in a critical match we might have drawn or even won had we been a coordinated team rather than individual players trying to play as a team.
I agree totally. And the fact that the changes particularly unsettled the defensive side of our game was crucial. Probably/possibly the first reason why it all went so badly last time was the fact that defensive injuries meant we could never play a settled back four. Good defending happens as a unit, not as individuals. EDIT: And I'm not down on Kabak either. Far from it.
I disagree that the changes "particularly unsettled the defensive side of our game" last Saturday. All the goals we conceded exploited weaknesses that have been there all season. The blame for the first goal, for instance, lay not with Kabak but, principally, Rashica who, having done half his job by tracking back, made no attempt to shut down the cross. We had three against two out wide, but no pressure at all on Femenia. Same with the second goal: to quote Michael Bailey: "[Sarr's first goal] came despite Norwich players visibly retreating in preparation for Watford’s counter, yet failing to engage with the actual situation." DF made the point that none of the goals came from situations in which we were defensively under-manned. That's an improvement in itself, but means nothing without "engagement" by those concerned. Blame for the third goal lies squarely with Maclean. He was in acres of space, with time to control the ball and deliver a well-directed forward ball, or even better, a reset ball back to Krul, to then be cleared long. Maclean's shank illustrated the imbalance in thought coached into our players' minds -- first thought always offence, defence only an after-thought.
DF seems to be heavily influenced by his optimism and idealism, as well as a strong attraction to the attacking side of the game, which is natural for an ex-striker, I suppose. Steve Bruce and Chris Hughton are the opposite, having been defenders. Here's DF's description of Normann: “He might not be the same player as Oliver, in terms of his tactical awareness of the defensive part of that role, but he also has that offensive capability. He can initialise attacks, he can play key passes, he can deliver goals and assists. He takes a really good set piece." Does that really sound like a DM, or is DF just more excited about his attacking potential? Even Kabak was praised for his ability to bring the ball out of defence rather than his defensive skills. This isn't a criticism, it's an attempt to understand DF's thinking about the game. Normann scored 7.3 against Watford, boosted by his assist, whereas Skipp has averaged 6.55 in his 4 starts for Spurs (he averaged 6.78 in the Championship). DF has removed one attacking player to enable a 3 man midfield, which indicates a shift in thinking, but is that also because Normann isn't as strong defensively as Skipp? Much will depend on how he and the other new players develop as the season goes on.
