Some thoughts on Farke

No definitely not, everyone knows CB's are not pivotal in defending set pieces.

 

Zonal marking is the problem,simples

 

Not entirely, but partly, yes. No team can defend set pieces perfectly, but communication is key.

My view is our main problem with set pieces, though, is that we have a team of midgets. There was a ridiculous moment in ET on Saturday where they focused in on Harry Maguire at a corner and he was being marked by someone (maybe Tettey?) roughly six inches shorter - and you realise that that is because we had no choice. Ironically, I think we would have been better off playing ET with Godfrey sent off instead, even though he had a better game, because we needed height in the late-game bundle fest rather than his silkier skills.

That is one of the reasons why I like having Vrancic and/or Stiepermann on the pitch, because they add a little bit of physicality and height - we've already discussed how that missing height and power in midfield costs us on 50-50s as well. I have been somewhat disappointed by Drmic's defensive contribution too, if I am honest.

I'm not saying I am right, but this is how I see it. I don't think it's going to change so much, though, as Farke is clearly prefers the quick feet mobility - and at our level we have to make compromises. Would you prefer Hughton and a bunch of static muscle-bound giants? (Rhetorical question, I know no-one is advocating that).

 

Yeah, though I think we're forced to zonal mark due to height.

 

Are they any more pivotal when defending in open play?

 

Pretty sure Farke has said this before, yeah. Although if we're unable to compete in the air, I'd hope we could at least be stronger at making the second balls. Number of scrappy goals we concede from set pieces must be as much if not more as those arises directly from players meeting the set piece delivery.

 

I think what Farke said was simply that we are handicapped by lack of height when defending set pieces, i.e. the remark wasn't tied to zonal marking. Lacking height (and strength) is disadvantageous irrespective of system, zonal, man to man, or hybrid. Judging by DF's interview after the loss to Everton, his instructions are to concede as few corners as possible; he labelled the corner from which Everton scored as having been conceded "unnecessarily".

 

Maybe if we'd had 3 fit CB's we could have played them at the same time.

 

We have to remember this is Farke's and many of his players first ever season in the premier league, hopefully he will get us back up (if we go down) next season and if we can keep the core of the squad we should be stronger due to the experience they will have had this season. We have just got to hope we don't have as bad luck with injuries as we did this season when we come back up, as I think that and a failure to strengthen the squad properly in the summer, and I know we have financial restrictions, and cannot pay £20m - £30+ on players but even if we had payed £2m-£3m on 1 or 2 players, we might have been in a stronger position to stay up.

 

We did strengthen the squad in the summer, bringing in Roberts and Amadou on loan. Both good players, certainly up to the general standard of our first team squad. By Christmas both were apparently disillusioned and desperate to get away. To say they weren't good enough to force their way into the team on merit is too simplistic IMO; for me, the way their loans panned out contributed to a growing sense of inflexibility on DF's part. The last two games, though, suggest to me that maybe, just maybe, we are finally beginning to see the first signs of change.

 

I disagree. Amadou got lots of game time and was there as cover at CB. Frankly, he wasn’t good enough.

Patrick Roberts has had question marks around his ability to step up - it was a good opportunity for him - we were doing him a favour. Unfortunately, Cantwell surpassed everyone’s expectations and if it hadn’t been for that I’m confident Roberts would have had a chance. But Farke has to prioritise the team and so Cantwell gets the nod.

You say Farke’s inflexible, but earlier you mention him adjusting the defence against the better teams. And we’ve seen him mix the team up and formation up loads (sometimes forced, usually not).

In my view, if Farke’s inflexible it’s only in the sense of sticking to a “style” of play - a culture. He’s certainly flexible in players and formation. And if there is one thing I am happy for a manager to be inflexible with it’s sticking to a fluid and attractive playing style. As someone above said, do you want Pulis? Similarly inflexible on style of play, yet so very different.

And yes, I accept that style comes a cropper when it doesn’t click, but frankly this season despite ravaging injuries and lack of squad investment it has clicked more often than not - the proof of that pudding is in the eating of all the pundits saying we’re too good to go down and we’ve been unlucky. Sure, that’s a thin quid pro quo for getting relegated, but it’s a hell of a lot better than relegation watching turgid football.

 

@Canary Rob

"I disagree. Amadou got lots of game time and was there as cover at CB. Frankly, he wasn’t good enough."

Amadou is a specialist DM; playing that position was how he built his reputation in France and earned him his move to Spain. I think he was brought in as a back up and potential long term replacement for Tettey. The fact that he had some experience playing CB was no doubt an added attraction.
You say he had lots of game time but it was almost entirely at CB; I can recall only one start at DM, which was the home game against Arsenal, in which he played well.

"Patrick Roberts has had question marks around his ability to step up - it was a good opportunity for him - we were doing him a favour. Unfortunately, Cantwell surpassed everyone’s expectations and if it hadn’t been for that I’m confident Roberts would have had a chance. But Farke has to prioritise the team and so Cantwell gets the nod."

Yes, Cantwell's surpassing expectations contributed, but Roberts is primarily a right side player, and in that sense not in direct competition with Todd. Neither the results we were getting, nor the form of others, including Buendia (2 month long barren patch, which eventually saw him dropped to the bench) justified not giving Roberts more than a measly 24 minutes game time in the league (3 appearances as sub). There were plenty of voices calling at the time for him to be given a chance. I can't myself see any sort of favour being done to Roberts and I'm pretty sure Man City were less than happy with his treatment. There is a message here for any young player who we approach to take on loan: Don't sign, you won't play unless injuries force DF's hand.

"You say Farke’s inflexible, but earlier you mention him adjusting the defence against the better teams. And we’ve seen him mix the team up and formation up loads (sometimes forced, usually not).

In my view, if Farke’s inflexible it’s only in the sense of sticking to a “style” of play - a culture. He’s certainly flexible in players and formation. And if there is one thing I am happy for a manager to be inflexible with it’s sticking to a fluid and attractive playing style. As someone above said, do you want Pulis? Similarly inflexible on style of play, yet so very different."

It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone who questions Farkeball must want Pulis, just as it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone who calls for a shift in balance towards defence wants a return to the football we saw in Hughton's second season. Nor is it the case that attaching greater importance to defensive solidity means sacrificing the fluid, quick, short passing game that you rightly praise. As I've often pointed out, the most fluid team in the league, Man City, is among the best in the league defensively speaking. What I was referring to in describing Farke as inflexible is neither style, formation, nor culture; it is inflexibility in strategy, encapsulated in his mantra about exerting control through possession. As you say, I have often pointed out that he does change strategy when his hand is forced, e.g. by who we are playing (Man City H) or a desperate run of bad results (Bournemouth A, Everton A). His inflexibility consists in immediate reversion to his preferred possession-based strategy the minute the hand-forcing factor is removed.
Earlier I quoted Todd Cantwell's comment after Saturday's game, to the effect that possession had been surrendered "more than we like". Would Todd/DF really have preferred a hammering of the sort Man Utd handed out in the league as opposed to Saturday's game which, without Klose's red card, we might have managed to win?

"And yes, I accept that style comes a cropper when it doesn’t click, but frankly this season despite ravaging injuries and lack of squad investment it has clicked more often than not - the proof of that pudding is in the eating of all the pundits saying we’re too good to go down and we’ve been unlucky. Sure, that’s a thin quid pro quo for getting relegated, but it’s a hell of a lot better than relegation watching turgid football."

This again reverts to a false dichotomy between what I argue we should be doing and "turgid football". Was watching us beat Man City at Carrow Road a case of watching turgid football? Was the 0:0 draw at Bournemouth a case of watching turgid football? Was Saturday's match against Man Utd a case of watching turgid football? As for being "the best team to finish bottom of the league", there was no shortage of praise when we beat Man City, or after Saturday's defeat. What is so sad is that, if only we had set out every game prepared to surrender possession "more than we like", we might very well not be facing relegation.

 

Sorry Robbie, but you’re doing that thing again. I know you mean well, but I’m out

 

Opinions Rob. The one that matters is Webber's.

 

There isn't any single answer to what went wrong this season. Injuries, especially in defence, have been a huge problem all season. The failure to replace Klose with a FT or loan was a major mistake, IMO. On the 'failed' loans, Amadou failed to oust either Tettey or Trybull at DM. He played well at CB against ManCity but but less so in other games. Roberts is a good attacking player but weak defensively. That mattered less at Celtic as they dominate other teams, but in the PL it's a huge weakness, which is why Rupp was brought in. Player inconsistency has also been a big problem.

I agree with Robbie that Farke favoured attack over defence early in the season, but the balance improved as the season went on. ManCity was a brilliant win, but it was also due to our scoring on our only 3 shots on target. That doesn't happen very often. Like Rob, I don't want us to emphasise defence at the expense of attack - we need both. Sheffield United have done well, but it's not a style that I'd want to watch every week.

Farke has learned a lot this season and hopefully that will take us forward next season as long term development is the most important thing.

 

It'll be interesting to see how Farke's lineups evolve next season. Does he stick with what has got us this far, and brought success last year, or does he try and change things up towards a more PL-friendly system? Some sort of 3-4-2-1 system perhaps.

 

Here's a straight question. In which games have we garnered most points so far this season?

1. Games in which we have dominated possession (i.e. where we have enjoyed at least 55% possession)
2. Games in which neither we nor our opponents have dominated possession (i.e. where we have enjoyed between 46% and 54% possession)
3. Games in which our opponents have dominated possession (i.e. we have enjoyed at most 45% possession)

Well, since I've posed the question, I guess it won't surprise anyone that the answer is 3

1. 14 games, average of 59% possession, 7 points, i.e. 0.5 ppg
2. 7 games, average of 48.5% possession, 1 point, i.e. 0.14 ppg
3. 11 games, average of 40% possession, 13 points, i.e. 1.18 ppg

That third group, by the way, included games against Liverpool and Leicester (twice each), and the two Manchester clubs, Spurs and Arsenal (once each).

 

You make a reasonable case Robbie, but there are other factors to consider. Many of our higher possession games came when we went behind and then the other teams sat back to pick us off on the break. Against ManCity we scored on our only 3 shots on target and then sat back to hold on, just. Possession can thus be a very misleading stat.

 

We started the season with the attitude that we were going to stick to our attacking game and despite losing games we were exciting to watch, scoring goals, performing well in patches and getting the odd decent result.

Then the cry came that we must be more defensive, the assumption being that if we could tighten up defensively we would win more games.

Well over the season we've made some adjustments to the way we play with a stronger emphasis on defence and less on attack, a more balance approach some might say.

Well guess what we're not winning more games, we're not scoring goals and performances have generally gone downhill. Something that some on here suggested might happen.

Personally, irrespective of the results, I'd rather see us playing like we did at the start of the season than we are now. For me one of the best form of defence is to attack and I believe most teams struggle to build / create the attack when they're on the back foot

Defensively over the season our 3 main defensive problems, injuries to CB's, individual unforced or schoolboy errors & set pieces, haven't change. Only the lack of improvement in defending set pieces do I put partially down to a coaching failure and partially down to injuries to CB's.

 

Farke reveals he could have left City.

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/canaries-daniel-farke-job-interest-revealed-1-6729164