Main Discussion - Norwich City

Topic has 34 replies.
Print Search Sort Posts:

Re: Please help with some ideas

You can go all the way back to the Stringer and Forbes pairing to recognise that we had a ball winner and a ball player in the central defensive positions. Stringer was always a cultured passer of the ball and Big Dunc always sought to pass the ball to him or else whack it up field if a pass wasn't on. It was more about letting your better player have the ball than any kind of 'system' as we call it today.
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

 Rock The Boat wrote:
You can go all the way back to the Stringer and Forbes pairing to recognise that we had a ball winner and a ball player in the central defensive positions. Stringer was always a cultured passer of the ball and Big Dunc always sought to pass the ball to him or else whack it up field if a pass wasn't on. It was more about letting your better player have the ball than any kind of 'system' as we call it today.

I'm sure Big Dunc could go a whole game without kicking the ball at allSmile [:)]

   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

Poor Duncan wouldn’t last long in the modern games, nor would a few others ? Trevor Hockey for one !
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

I'm sure I've seen Hanley play a few pinpoint cross-field balls. Is it just my yellow and green glasses that blind me to his lack of skills in playing out from the back?

   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

Nuff said,

It is not about what you can do with a second of time, it is what you can do with half a second of time (or instinctively do with even less).

This is where historical comparisons (or lower levels) bear little resemblance to the modern game. There is so much less time for decisions, you are physically (and mentally) more tired from increased distances, sprints and average intensity.

The key factor for coaches, scouts and analysts is then to determine what a players deep-seated instinctive processes are, how they fit with your team/tactical model/philosophy, and - most importantly - whether they would translate to a higher level.

Parma
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

I remember Elliot Ward being bigged up as a great ball playing defender because he could ping it 40 odd yards under no pressure. He really wasn't though.

Zimmerman should be good (Dortmund training and all that) on the ball but struggles when pressured and often thinks he has more time than he has.
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

Indeed Kingo. Doc could ping a decent 40 yard diagonal and would win a footrace over 50 yards. Just couldn't do anything quickly. If that makes senseTongue Tied [:S]

I still miss himCrying [:'(]

   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

Oh yes. I remember Peter Grant playing him in defensive midfield once. We lost 5-0.
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

<BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">&nbsp;<strong>Parma Ham's gone mouldy wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4">Big O,

Having thought about it, it may be that Godfrey’s development and potential encourage a welcome reversion to 3-5-2.

Whilst paper formations can be misleading, it is notable that our full backs look well suited to the wing back role, our defence looks more solid and our midfield - without a true single pivot CDM - benefits structurally from two (relative) holding or deeper-lying players (including at least one of Tettey or Trybull or similar).

Inferior sides - or sides playing at the top level or when playing sophisticated tactical sides - look vulnerable with two strikers or/and high and mostly non-defending wider players.

In our case playing Leitner plus Hernandez plus Pukki plus Rhodes plus a.n.other (that isn’t Tettey or Trybull) in a 4-1-4-1 simply leaves us exposed, whilst not quite having enough tactically-sharp ball retainers with sound Technical ability.

We look sound until we try to attack, whereupon our lack of real weapons leaves us looking a little toothless, whilst (connectedly) not particularly solid either. Tettey chasing the ball anywhere away from the pocket in front of the two centre backs scares me every time. He shouldn’t do it and no-ones in any case covers him. Ironically when Trybull plays the role he ‘stays’ much better, but then others around him don’t press the areas he (correctly) refuses to run into.

Simply throwing Godfrey into that does not solve the structural issue in any case, however good he may be.

Parma

Thanks Parma, your knowledge far outweighs mine so always interesting to hear your views.

I have similar views on the 4-1-4-1 and the way we deploy it, admittedly I’ve missed a few games this year but Preston and Ipswich we just looked lost.

Taking into consideration your point about paper formations, I just think we might be more suited to a 4-1-2-3 formation. We don’t have a number 10 who stands out to me so I want to get a better balance in midfield and I think one pivot behind two more energetic players might allow us to compete better. Our weapons can then be two from buendia (a must for me), pukki and Hernandez with freeer roles to roam off the one centre forward.

My thinking about Godfrey is that If he plays as the single pivot he can then sink into the two centre when the fullbacks push up. The midfield two would be one of mcclean/leitner with trybull or tettey.

I think the big weakness is that we don’t have a centre forward who could make this work, but I think it would give us better balance.

Would love you to point out why it would or wouldn’t work if you can spare the time?
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

O,

It depends how you play your formation, who you select in it, what their overriding tendencies are under pressure and what tactics, weapons and approach you are up against as to whether it can work in any given scenario.

What we can look for on paper is a balance, a sensible coverage of space and whether roles are suitable for the Norwich personnel that we know well.

If you intend your formation to be operated à la Terry Venables’ Christmas Tree, with the 1-2 actually a flattish defensive-minded three, operating in the half spaces between (ahead of) the centre backs and full backs, with your attacking 2 (you name Buendia and Pukki) dropping regularly into midfield whilst being capable of going beyond your 9 pivot (to avoid him being isolated and 1-dimensional - Rhodes has limited threat in behind), then there is balance, though - particularly if your chosen full backs want to attack, join midfield and play/receive high - your low defensive midfield 3 need to be good, defensive structural players (or good at holding station on their tucked in side - like a Surman).

As you can see, even a rough analysis throws up plenty of ifs, contingencies and depending-ons. This doesn’t even yet take into account the nature, quality and specific tactics that the opposition may use.

Predetermining your own pieces is only of limited value. Some paper formations are more conducive than others to certain shapes and repeating on-field positions and patterns, though such tactics should overwhelming be based on what best suits the instinctive movements under pressure of your resources and indeed the vice-versa of what suits the same tendencies of the opposition and what they would least like to face.

Parma
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

Have you managed/coached teams Parma ? Interesting thoughts .
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

<BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/forums/mobilepinkun/cs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">&nbsp;<strong>CANARYKING wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4">Poor Duncan wouldn’t last long in the modern games, nor would a few others ? Trevor Hockey for one !</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bit harsh.

Don’t know if you ever met Trevor Hockey but I can assure you that I’ve never been in the company of anybody that loved the “beautiful game” more than he did.

He wasn’t Cruyff, Best or Pele but.... he had all of their shirts. I don’t think I’ve ever met a man more dedicated to football than he was. He coached me for five days when I was maybe 6 or 7 years old but I absolutely loved the bloke. I was absolutely rubbish at football but I was the first one on the field and the only one that didn’t want to leave when the monsoon hit. A lot of folk would concentrate on the footballers with some talent but he knew how much I loved the game as I stood there soaked to the bone and that was enough for him.

Later I was coached by Culverhouse and Sutton’s old man but great as they were, if I could send my son to any of them it would still be Trevor Hockey.

Should be in our hall of fame. Terrific player, kept us up and an absolute gent to go with it. Just because he wasn’t John Charles doesn’t mean he was no good.
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

Duncan i without doubt acknowledge that Trevor Hockey was an iconic figure and somewhat of a cult hero at Norwich city but The Hall of Fame having played just 13 games for us is a stretch to far for me even though there are some in it that make me raise my eyebrows.

   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

Nutty, I’m in the missing the Doc club too, I think there a few of us. Got to love a trier, especially if he’s a no nonsense CB. And the Doc had his song too...
   Report  

Re: Please help with some ideas

Agreed Nuff. At least he went on the back of a good season. 

As for the late great Trevor Hockey, I agree wholeheartedly that he should be in the Hall of Fame and have campaigned for it. But I guess it depends on the definition of the word fame. If it means "the state of being known or talked about by many people" then he's in. If it's a long service award then he's out.

In for me.

   Report