Premier League season, 2021 / 2022

It's not easy preaching about being a righteous family friendly LGBTQ+ supporting socially responsible football club if you are supporting over 18s Online gambling.

Betting firms are allowed raunchy advertising as gambling is for adults not children.

I'm more disappointed we are being sponsored by a gambling company.

Pretty much all football sides are sponsored by betting companies, how badly do we need that dodgy money ?

 

The MFW article below poses a different approach to dealing with Emi's departure:

https://norwichcity.myfootballwrite...ef-up-that-midfield-is-3-4-2-1-the-way-ahead/

I don't agree with many of the player assessments but the issue as to whether we can afford to implement a 4-2-3-1 formation is an interesting one. A 3-4-2-1 would be cheaper to operate and might just keep us from being overrun by streetwise PL teams.

 

Well said!

 

It's China money. That's serious cash, and if everyone else is getting it we need to as well to not be disadvantaged sadly. I mean Emi is going to earn 75k a week at Villa. The amounts of money to be in the top league are ridiculous.


So we have to try for every penny we can. Even if that means Delia getting involved in the odd iced popsicle tasting session, or a bit of wet t-shirting every now and then.

 

Steady on, Busan!

 

I think the biggest surprise to me, is that (according to The Athletic) the BK8 deal is worth a little less than the Dafabet deal it replaces (both around the £5m mark).

Obviously it's now a CoVid-effected market, and nobody else was putting that kind of money on the table (and there must be a reason why we would ditch Dafabet for a deal worth less)

But either way, £5m isn't a massive sum for a Premier League club, and the club have destroyed their reputation for even less than that.

 

No need, however great, justifies taking dodgy money; principle doesn't bend in the face of utility. We're about to find out just how principled NCFC really is. Not looking great at the moment.

 

It's not as if it's the first time that issue has been raised. I remember someone on here making exactly that point as we cemented our 20th place playing "the best football" of any doomed EPL side. If I recall correctly, "if you want to play like Man City, you need Man City quality players" was how it was put.

 

I realise that Robbie, but the difference here is the argument that a 4-2-3-1 formation requires more expensive players than a 3-4-2-1 formation and it needn't be less attacking if the CBs move forward in possession to allow a midfielder like McLean to support the attack, all of them dropping back when the ball is lost.

 

I posted this on MyFootballWriter initially, but seems they don't like criticism over there as it never cleared moderation....


Changing the formation is certainly a topic for debate, but I think the argument in favour of 3-4-2-1 is weaker than presented here.

In any formation, Krul, Giannoulis, Hanley Gibson, Aarons, McLean, Cantwell, Dowell and Pukki are all probably considered starters (as per the article). The remaining two players are to be the "two influential signings". In a 4-2-3-1 that's a DM and attacking midfielder, in a 3-4-2-1 it's a DM (see below) and CB. Given an arbitrary budget of £10m we can probably get a better CB than attacking midfielder, but I think there's issues with the 3-4-2-1 which are underplayed here.

• Our fullbacks may play like wingbacks, but we've never seen them in that system to know they suit it. Aarons and Giannoulis had plenty of freedom to attack as fullbacks in the Championship, arguably as much as they would as wing backs in the Prem, yet neither delivered a meaningful number of goals or assists this season. It's unlikely they'd contribute enough between them in attacking areas to compensate for the attacking midfielder removed from the formation.

• At CB, the article suggests we have the quality to play 3 at the back. Yet Zimmerman hasn't been fully fit for 18 months and hasn't looked the same player since Haller's assault. Omobamidele has played just 9 senior games. None of our CBs have regularly played in a 3 CB system. We'd need at least one of our "influential" signings to be in this position should we adopt a 3-4-2-1.

• If we put McLean in a 2 man central midfield, his partner needs to be a very strong DM in either formation. Brighton have the £50m-rated Bissouma, Wolves have Neves, Sheffield United Berge. The suggestion of a box-to-box midfielder next to a playmaker in a 3-4-2-1 is not seen in any successful Premier League team deploying that formation. It would be as suicidal as the 4-2-3-1 with Trybull and McLean criticised here. We need fundamentally the same player for a 4-2-3-1 or 3-4-2-1.

• An attacking trio of Pukki, Cantwell and Dowell is proposed here, dismissing the idea of adding a Perreira-type player on the basis of not adding height and strength, in favour of adding nothing at all. The fact Webber has also mentioned adding pace in these areas is not mentioned - something a winger would add.

For me, a 3-4-2-1 adds a great deal of uncertainty and unfamiliarity, only marginally improves the transfer situation, and may leave us impotent in attacking areas.


To throw another formation into the mix (and to be criticised!), a 4-3-2-1 appears to me to offer some of the best features of both.

• We maintain continuity with a back 4. Perhaps there's no new signing needed here.
• We have the same Pukki, Cantwell, Dowell trio up top as the 3-4-2-1, so no real difference there to discuss.

But in midfield:

• We still need a DM signing
• The second influential addition to the team is a deep lying playmaker or box to box midfielder. It's a good opportunity to add physicality to the midfield, and an additional player screening the defence.
• McLean is more free to go box-to-box, but can also cover others doing the same. There's also the opportunity to switch to a 4-2-3-1 on the fly depending on game state, with McLean taking the CAM role. We're already fluent in that formation so it would be a shame to discard it.
• 3 central midfielders gives us more scope for tailoring the middle of the park to suit the opposition. Sorensen can offer a more defensive presence for example.

Either way, it's clear the squad needs some big additions, and it offers an opportunity to reshape the team as necessary. It'll be interesting if the club identify significant value in a particular signing, and shape the team to maximise said player.

 

Good effort DHC. You've thought about this!! Where you've highlighted our flexibility to change structure is probably key for next season. Either way it's highlighting how important it's going to be to get our midfield hiring right over the next few weeks.

 

This is well argued, DH, and I also feel the MFW writer is underestimating the difficulties in making a complete change to a 3-4-2-1 formation. In the past I've suggested that it's a formation we could consider for the toughest games, particularly those away from home. DF has used it on occasions, like when we're protecting a lead to close out a game.

As for the players, I feel that our FBs already play as WBs, with McLean and Skipp (or Sørensen or Rupp) dropping back to cover if either FB/WB is late recovering his position after the ball is lost. This worked well last season, helping to make us better defensively. Neither midfielder plays as a traditional box to box midfielder or a DM, as they share those responsibilities and respond situationally to opposing attacks.

The weakness of the 3-4-2-1 is the loss of one of the attacking players behind Pukki., which requires another solution. You suggest a 3 man midfield, which could work quite well and I like the idea, but there is another possibility - recruit a CB who can also play as a DM. When we have the ball he moves up into midfield to become an 'acting DM', allowing one or both midfielders to support the attack. When the ball is lost he drops back into the back 3 as a CB. The rumoured CB recruit Ajer just happens to be able to play as a CB and a DM. I wonder if we might start developing Omobamidele into that role as well. Varying the formation occasionally would also make us less predictable to PL teams looking to exploit any weakness, as they did all too often last season.

 

We went the entire season with the same formation and when Farke decided to tinker 2019-20 it didn't work.
We need a plan B but more importantly we need to play to our strengths and not set up to counter what Liverpool or Man United do because we will be underdogs in every game pretty much

 

Same as you on MFW. A couple of weeks ago I criticised an aspect of an article, and it never appeared in print. DF is said to like the 3-5-2/3-4-3 line ups but we have never had the players available to implement the system.

 

It was said when he first arrived that DF favoured a 4-1-4-1, but that may have been abandoned because of the players available. The difficulty of replacing EMi may well lead to a rethink.

 

To be fair to them, it has now appeared and the author responded well and in detail. It just took a while to clear the filter whilst other comments went through.

 

Formation, IMO, is a red herring. For one thing, as DF himself has pointedly said, he changes the team formation several times in the course of a game. For another, it isn't 4:2:3:1 which defines our wanting to play like Man City. What defines it is the philosophy, setting out to control the game by "owning the ball", i.e. dominating possession. It's that which, in the EPL, is achievable only with Man City quality players.
Saying that playing 3:4:2:1 "needn't be less attacking" is true, but misses the point. Trying to keep play in the opposition half is built in to the philosophy. That's basically a question of numbers, i.e. getting sufficient numbers of players forward to maintain possession high up the pitch. For us, in the Championship, against mostly Championship quality players, "sufficient numbers" standardly means six, 2 FBs + 3 AMs + Pukki. That leaves a defensive shield of four in front of Krul. It doesn't matter whether that covering four are e.g. 2 CBs + 2 DMs, 3 CBs + 1 DM, or 1 FB + 2 CBs + 1 DM.
Perm formations as you will, e.g. 4:3:2:1, it makes no difference to the possession-determined fundamentals.
Last time in the top tier, we came unstuck because, at that level, the way we play requires more quality all over the pitch than we have or can afford. We played nice "attacking" football on our way to 20th and relegation. I see no sign that the philosophy has changed; hence I have no expectation that the outcome this time will be different.

 

please log in to view this image

 

The massive hole in your point, Robbie, is that it was injuries that disrupted our form in the Premier League two seasons ago. We were actually not just playing nice football, but also getting points for stints - especially when we had a complete, fit, squad.

We were then stitched up royally by Covid.

On injuries next season - always a risk, I just have to cross fingers it won’t happen. As for Covid, who knows. It definitely hit us harder than most though.

 

Those "Big 6 " clubs that attempted a breakway super-league earlier on this year alomg with clubs from Europe have been fined a total of over £20m and will face a further £25m fine and 30 points deduction if they try to a similar project again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57414151