I’ve fallen behind.
That statement could apply to many facets of life – particularly those involving technology – but in this case I’m thinking of the writers on this site.
Through the summer my fellow columnists have produced incisive analysis of tactics, formations and the Championship contenders, while I’ve been wallowing in Cambridge nostalgia and re-quoting Stuart Webber from three months ago.
Actually, no apologies for the latter. The gist of reaction to the interview he gave us in April was “Sounds good, but will he deliver?” So it’s maybe time for an interim review.
Stuart told us he was about to preside over some major change at Norwich City. Specifically, he promised to:
- Hire a dynamic Head Coach, with a clear approach and philosophy that could become the new Norwich way throughout the club;
- Reduce the wage bill and age profile of the squad;
- Give our talented young players a chance to shine;
- Bring in hungry, quality players within our budget, exploring a range of avenues including the Continent and loans;
- Communicate more openly and honestly with fans.
It’s clearly still a work in progress, as Stuart said it would be – but some fairly big ticks there, I’d say.
Not all the details will have gone to plan. I ‘m sure there are players Stuart and Daniel would have rather lost than Jonny Howson and Jacob Murphy. But those cases brought into play another principle Stuart shared with us: that nothing less than 100% commitment to Norwich City would do.
That’s also a reason I’m confident that Nelson Oliveira’s ‘celebration’ at Fulham will be quickly dealt with. I doubt Daniel Farke will let it pass without gently reminding Nelson who picks the team – but neither will he want to suppress the passion that lay behind it.
Stuart Webber also warned us that the new way wouldn’t work every week. At least, though, he promised we’d be told – and be able to see – what the team was trying to do.
That philosophy is crystal-clear (to the chagrin of the chap who sits behind me at Carrow Road and isn’t keen, it’s probably fair to say, on passing at the back). The movement and vision when we’re in possession is distinctly Continental, while the re-grouping when we lose the ball is taking impressive shape.
Stuart’s parting words to us three months ago were that we’d no longer see a Norwich team giving up. The performance at Fulham was perhaps what he had in mind. My previous away game was Sheffield Wednesday: an anaemic show devoid of ideas and spirit. What a contrast to Saturday, where City’s minds and bodies were ready to battle to the end.
Another ten minutes and I reckon we’d have won the game.
Leaving all that, let me try to catch up a bit with some of my colleagues’ analytical prowess.
Let’s begin with three goal difference scenarios:
- Scored 85, conceded 69
- Scored 67, conceded 56
- Scored 83, conceded 58
The first I’m sure you recognize as City’s from last season, with plenty of goals in the ‘For’ column. Some commenters – including a notable one on this site – have expressed worry that with the departures of Jacob Murphy, Jonny Howson and Graham Dorrans we might struggle to repeat last season’s scoring.
The question is: does it matter? What’s the key to improving on last year’s final placing?
A big part of the answer may lie in the second scenario (67 For, 56 Against). That’s last season’s average for the teams who achieved what we expected but failed to, and would love to achieve this time – ie the teams who made the playoffs.
They didn’t score anything like as many as we did. And last season was pretty typical. In 2011-12 Reading scored only 69 – and won the league.
No, the key is the other side of the equation. You’re not going to succeed in this division if you concede 69 goals. In recent years only one team has conceded as many as 60 and still finished in the top 6 (Palace in 2012-13, with 62). Most have let in significantly less.
It must surely have gladdened the hearts of those who’ve followed City in recent seasons to see the presence and performance of Christoph Zimmermann and Marcel Franke at Craven Cottage.
By the way, the third scenario is also City’s – in 2010-11, when Paul Lambert took us straight through the Championship. We were big scorers then too, and actually let in more goals than any of the other top six – but crucially, 11 fewer than last year.
With Paul Lambert’s side in mind, there’s another factor that the bare stats don’t really convey. Last season we piled on the goals in games where they were surplus to requirement (5-0 vs Brentford, 5-1 vs Forest, 7-1 vs Reading). What we signally failed to do was squeeze the kind of 2-1 victories out of close games that were the hallmark of the Lambert era.
At the end of the game at Fulham, we looked energetic and determined – a real throwback to Paul Lambert’s time.
Can we keep up the similarity?
Thanks Stewart – a good read for a gloomy Mundesley morning.
I enjoy considering tactics and formations, but unless somebody as adept as Dave Bowen interprets them for me, statistics often mean very little. But two from Saturday particularly did sink in.
Our pass completion was 86 per cent. You could argue much of that was “tapping it about”, but it’s still one hell of a percentage. And we won 52 per cent of our aerial duels. Fractionally more than Fulham. I don’t have the data to hand but I’d bet we didn’t scrape over 50 per cent very often under Alex Neil!
With all respect to this evening, roll on Sunday.
It’s definitely German coaching. Lambert came from the same school of thought. I mentioned last week that a solid preseason is the difference between scoring late goals and conceding them. Ffion Thomas at ACN pointed out that this was our first late goal to snatch a point or three since April 2015 (Bolton away). That’s incredibly poor on the club’s part, if that’s the case. It’s good to see us turning the tables again.
P.s. I like the new site 😀
I read the ACN article too and was amazed that we spent fractionally over two seasons without a late riposte!
The turning of the tables should give us some thrills this year – here’s hoping!
Excellent piece as usual on this site. Really like the new layout, larger lettering for fading eyesight.. I think that, so far, all the signs are that we are in safe hands with Webber and Farke, a distinct improvement on the last regime. I am now contemplating a very successful season as I am certain that we will only get better as the players come to terms with our new style.
A very good piece. Interesting to reflect on the rollercoaster ride from McNally’s heady days, to Moxey and now to Webber. Suffice to say l think we’ve make great forward strides in a short time under Webber and I’m optimistic for the season ahead. If l needed any more confirmation that l think we’ve got a good head coach in Farke he duly delivered with his excellent response yesterday to the Oliveira “celebration”. Onwards !
Saturday was full of positives, particularly the spirit and willingness to fight to the end. It felt like a point we wouldn’t have got last year, more likely to have lost 4-0 once we’d conceded. Having said that it looked like a work in progress with plenty of room for improvement though at least you felt it would come.
We seem to be accumulating German players like Peter Grant used to accumulate Scots though at least Germans have a reputation for being technically gifted and well coached so we have to assume that while we haven’t seen them play the coaching staff know what they’re getting. One or two of the newcomers seemed shocked at the frantic nature of the championship, let’s hope they’re quick learners.
On Oliviera I have no problem with the passion or the desire to play, I’m sure Farke can manage that. I do have an issue when they strip their shirts off and earn a needless automatic booking. That’s the sort of indiscipline that comes back to haunt you when he’s suspended for a vital game on the totting up system. That needs sorting with a thin squad.
Oliveira may have something of a point, given that he was the subject of large bids during the summer and presumably told how important he was to the club, only to find himself behind both Jerome and Watkins for an attacking position on Saturday. Then you look at the chances the latter missed and you can imagine he’d be apoplectic.
That doesn’t mean it’s ok to act like he did, though. Showing ‘passion’ is all well and good but there was a real sense of self-absorption about the whole thing. My main concern would be the likelihood of another daft sending off if he can’t keep his head where it should be.
The Oliveira incident was good in a strange sort of way in that it provides us with an insight into Farke’s man management skills. From the interview he gave yesterday I would surmise that they are in good order. What a real treat to see the team battling to the final whistle and grabbing a late goal. Optimism is rising.
Webber clearly has scouting chops, that’s for sure, and I’m more impressed with Farke as time passes.
I’m still not sold on Webber’s communication. It may be a maturity thing. His interview on the Scrimmage was an odd affair. Insulting those who can’t attend and saying they can’t have an opinion (see my last blog on why that’s particularly wrong), telling Farke what “blackmail” was, and suggesting he “had” to threaten Howson with trashing him in public. All very peculiar.
I’m still interested to hear what exactly is our goal for the season. Has that been announced and did I miss it?
Thanks for everyone’s comments. It won’t all be plain sailing, but some optimism is surely justified.
The cohesion of City’s play on Saturday is pretty remarkable, considering the extent of change: of the starting XI against Fulham, only Russ started the final game of last season. Conventional wisdom says that can’t be done – again, Stuart Webber told us it could be.