Match Day Thread Norwich City -19:45 - Queens Park Rangers, Tuesday Dec 29th

Two goaless draws would do nicely.

 

Swans look like a form team.

 

This is the lead up immediately before the QPR penalty is conceded. Norwich players from right to left :
Buendia walking back; Vrancic, who had just (fatally) missed/pulled out of the tackle; Sorensen, McLean (busy gesticulating rather than covering back), Skipp, in the left back position which Sorensen had vacated, Hanley, Aarons, who had followed Sorensen upfield and was now out of the play, Zimmermann. So, leading 1:0, and with under 10 minutes to go, we engineer a situation in which both FBs are up the field, our DM is covering the empty LB space, and our CBs are left exposed one-on-one with no cover. This came about because, instead of focussing on staying solid and seeing the game out with 3 points in the bag, we went looking for the second goal. We gave away 2 points, and but for a horrendous late miss by Bright Samuel, would have finished empty handed.

 

Actually, Barnsley, our next opponent, top the form table, but there's not much in it. Considering the fine margins of our last two matches, I'm not sure how significant that is. Tonight's results will have an effect. (Tap on the image to display).

 

Over the last 6 games, Barnsley top the form table according to SoccerStats.

 

Yes, I just edited my post Robbie. My first thinking was the top six teams then I looked further.

 

Hate to say it but Barnsley are the in form team

 

Lasts nights game did nothing to change my view that

Vrancic is much better as an impact sub than a starting player.

Hanley & Gibson as our best CB partnership.

Skipp is showing signs of wear and needs a break

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Nothing like taking a snapshot and reading what you want into it. If I'd taken a snapshot a moment before yours when we were in possession and we'd gone on and scored a second goal, putting the game to bed. Would you still be moaning ?, probably in your case. DF was just about to bring Tettey on to do exactly what you advocate, but had to change his mind when QPR got their penalty.

No one was expecting Vrancic to give the ball away, he needed to prevent QPR playing it forward even if that meant giving a foul.

The position the players are in are pretty much, the positions they should be in under the 4-2-3-1 formation, when the team is in possession. It takes time for players to react when the ball is in transition.

We conceded the penalty because Zimmerman was too slow and defended poorly thereby give the ref a decision to make, which not surprisingly considering the refs performance in the rest of the game went QPR's way.

 

I agree with all of the above, and fitness permitting, would like to see Gibson , Rupp and Stieps starting against Barnsley ( and Krul of course, but don't think he is ready yet !)

 

It's not "hindsight". It's trying to analyse how we came to concede the penalty. Sorensen gave the ball away, not Vrancic. You say "the players are in pretty much the positions they should be." That ignores the state of the game. Leading, with less than 10 minutes to go, the focus should be on staying solid, not trying to score the second goal.
The penalty was not conceded "because Zimmermann was too slow"; it was conceded because Zimmermann was left completely exposed against Samuel; and that situation arose because, instead of making sure we kept possession, we went in search of the second goal.

 

Skipp isn't "showing signs of wear". He has played a different role in the last two or three games. He's at his best when he sits in front of the back line and operates as DM in more of a 4:1:4. With McLean in the team he plays much more adventurously, with McLean supposedly slotting in at DM. I hope we see Skipp back where he's at his best on Saturday, preferably with Rupp taking over from McLean.

 

Whilst I see your point, Robbie, there are still elements of 'hindsight' in your interpretation. It could equally be argued that a lead can best be protected by keeping the ball at the opposition end, rather than sitting back to defend in our own territory. I'm also not convinced by the comment that "Zimmermann was left completely exposed against Samuel". CBs should be able to defend one on one against attacking players - it's just that in this case he did so badly, giving a dubious ref a decision to make. There wasn't sufficient danger to warrant risking a penalty. Zimbo had to make that decision in a split second, but unfortunately he made the wrong one. What I don't understand is why DF didn't bring on Gibson to give us a 3 CB formation to defend our lead if the intention was to keep the ball at the opposition end.

Hopefully, Gibson and Quintilla will be able to start against Barnsley so we once again have our best defence in place. Sørensen has coped well with his emergency role, but the strain is beginning to show as opposing teams look to exploit that weakness.

 

Saying "the focus should be on staying solid" is not at all the same as saying "sit back and defend". It is a matter of keeping shape at all times and avoiding unnecessary risk. If you can safely keep the ball at the opposition end, well and good. Last night, when we conceded, Sorensen had regained possession and took the ball forward. Aarons immediately set off running forward too. There was absolutely no need for Aarons to do that. It left Zimmermann without any defensive support.

 

In your opinion Skipp isn't showing signs of wear, but there are other opinions. He might be at his best in 4-1-4 whatever that means, but we don't play that way, you might prefer if we did, but we don't.

 

I'm sorry but you are talking absolute nonsense and judging everything on the way you think we should play, rather than the way we actually play. Zimmerman was not exposed, we were in pretty much the shape we should be in when countering and it was not unreasonable in the circumstances to push forward for the 2nd goal, which would have finished QPR off. I guess in depends a bit on your view of Risk v Reward, however we did not over commit to the counter and we only (i think) had 4 players in QPR's half including Sorensen. At this point we are a million miles away from taking unnecessary risks. There was every need for Aarons to run forward for the counter attack. Under a 4-2-3-1 system the full backs are there to create the attacking width. The movement of all players whilst not perfect was consistent with our patterns of play.

Sorensen attempted to pass to his left the only other real option being, I think, to pass down the middle to Pukki, Aarons should have been another option, but he was not far enough forward, contrary to what you claim. There may have been another Norwich player further forward on the right, i'm not sure. The pass was blocked by a QPR player and bounced into space. This all happened just inside the QPR half and looking at how many players we had behind the ball I can't see that Sorensen did much wrong. He was hardly moving forward with insufficient cover behind him. Vrancic should have got to the ball if he had been younger and fitter or hadn't been on for the whole game he would have got it. Soressen initially moved it get the ball, but stopped, assumedly because he thought, like a lot of people that Vrancic should have got it. At this point the counter was still on as Vrancic coming forward, could have still played to either Buendia, Pukki or a 1 2 with Sorensen. To be fair to Vrancic the ball did back spin a bit, however having not got to the lose ball, Vrancic did fail to delay the counter by not making a robust tackle (it almost looked like he pulled out of it) and the ball was passed to a QPR player in the middle of the pitch and they countered. At this point we had sufficient players back to successfully defend the counter. Aarons was not recklessly out of position as you clearly suggest.



The QPR player then played a through ball between Zimmermann and Aarons to the number 11 (I think) which Aarons almost intercepted. In trying to intercept the ball Aarons went to ground, for me I would have prefered him to stay on his feet and possibly moved into the gap between Zimmerman and Hanley to cover the movement of the QPR player who passed the ball, but I can see the alternative argument for what he did. Either way the QPR player was only just approaching our third with Zimmermann in a decent position to delay him and deny him options to pass. At this point we were still in a relatively good position to defend the attack.



In my view Zimmermann's role is to try and dictate where the QPR 11 can play, by pushing him wide of the goal. His only role at this time is to deal with the player with the ball, there are more than enough other Norwich players to cover the middle and deal with runners. For me Hanley's and Sorensen's movement is particularly good. By the time the QPR player enters the box Zimmerman has close him down and all he has to do is to stay with him and prevent the cross. The GK is fairly well positioned, Hanley is covering the middle and Sorensen is motoring back to cover the only other QPR player in our third. Unless the QPR player takes an exceptional shot with his left foot the only realistic way QPR can get anything from this move is if Zimmerman fails in his role and gives away a penalty.



The trouble is Zimmermann is not quick enough and tries to deal with his lack of speed by putting his hand on the QPR's players shoulder to try and slow him down and keeps it there until the QPR player goes to ground, back giving the ref an easy decision to make.

So for me Vrancic failing to get the initial lose ball or at least to make a tackle and delay the counter is a coaching point as is Zimmermann's failure to defend 1 on 1.

 

Then try analysing it, in its entirety with an open mind.

Maybe if you analysed it first, before drawing conclusions rather than the other way round you may start to see things differently or at least appreciate their are alternative view to yours.

 

Get the Barnsley thread up @Cromercanary this one's giving me a migraine.

 

Keep up DD, it's been up nearly 2 hours