For the opening 20 minutes, it was good. Excellent even.
But the old adage about having to capitalise on your good spells is an old adage for a reason.
We didn’t capitalise.
As Teemu Pukki’s brilliantly self-made opportunity slammed into the post and escaped the overtures of Seny Dieng’s goal line, so drifted away City’s chance of winning the game. Other chances came and went but none were as good as Pukki’s.
Onel Hernandez had a good one that Dieng did well to save and Grant Hanley’s right boot proved as lethal as his 50p-head in front of goal with the last kick of the game, but it always had the feeling of being one of those nights.
We’ve had too many of those lately.
QPR are a decent side of course – we knew that before the match – and we have no divine right to win any Championship game, but the modicum of momentum garnered from Saturday’s win over Stoke needed to be built upon.
Instead of momentum, we’ve had a small step forward followed by one sideways.
Equally, it was a decent game, certainly by 0-0 standards, so how you feel about last night largely depends on what you’re looking for from your football club.
For me, on a night when Watford and Burnley both won from losing positions, it was two points dropped. And while there are some signs of improvement, overall it doesn’t feel as if any corners have been turned.
You don’t tend to win games of football based on just 15 or 20-minute bursts. That’s not enough. But it remains baffling as to why we appear only capable of playing at an intensity and tempo that hurts opponents for those short periods.
Opponents will, of course, adapt tactically and structurally to try and stifle our progress, but good sides can counter those changes and still maintain the upper hand. When City’s Plan A is neutralised we usually enter periods of struggle or nothingness.
During those spells, any chances or half-chances for City are usually borne only of flashes of individual brilliance or a defensive error. And the palpable uncertainty that accompanies those spells of struggle usually culminates with the ball being shifted with the zip of a sloth.
Then it becomes harder to get out and against a well-executed press, like QPR’s, we enter the second phase of nothingness, which predominantly involves both centre-backs and Angus playing the ball slowly, carefully, and deliberately to one another in ever-decreasing triangles.
With neither Isaac Hayden nor Liam Gibbs being especially comfortable taking the ball under pressure or playing on the half-turn, the only alternative to the pat-a-cake triangles is Angus hoofing it long, and, minus the aerial presence of Josh Sargent, we know how that ends.
It was a shame because in those opening 20 minutes it was all so far removed from all of the above. QPR weren’t allowed to get into their defensive shape as the ball was being zipped. Ben Gibson and Sam McCallum, in particular, were effective in moving the ball with speed and purpose and it all flowed nicely from there.
While Sam Byram and Grant Hanley are less adept at this fizzing-a-pass malarkey, with the left side functioning fluently, it mattered little but problems arrived when QPR blocked off that particular avenue of productivity.
With Smith and Shakespeare unable to find a solution, we entered said hour of stagnation.
In that hour we were grateful to Angus for making a couple of outstanding saves. The decision by Dean Smith to ‘rest’ Tim Krul and replace him with a younger model has been justified by Gunn’s excellence. I wasn’t sure, others too questioned the decision but in the big moments, Gunn Junior has stood tall.
I’ll leave the erratic decision-making of Andy Davies for others to debate, and I don’t believe it was he who cost us two points, but for all the moans and groans we have over officials and VAR when we’re in the Premier League, it’s clear with every passing game that the officialdom in tier two is a massive step down.
I suspect we’d better get used to it.
So it was a point, and performance-wise it was an incremental improvement from Saturday despite yielding two fewer points, but on the quality of chances created it was a game we probably should have won.
That we didn’t and that Burnley are now nine points clear of us tells the story of a side with, realistically, top six rather than top two ambitions.
That, right now, is where we are.
I don’t sense the club’s hierarchy has any appetite whatsoever to question whether or not this group could produce more under a more progressive coaching team. Even two defeats in two leading up to the World Cup break would probably be insufficient to trigger change.
So, I guess we have to suck it up and accept that this City side will have the occasional good spell followed by longer, ordinary spells and will tread water in that area betwixt third and eighth in the hope that something clicks in April and May.
This, with the best will in the world, doesn’t have the feel of a group destined for top two. Maybe we’d all be a little less angry if we reconciled ourselves to that.
So, I’ll try my best. But not promising anything.
With the players at the club we should be in the top two. Playing two deep midfielders and leaving out Nunez was a mistake.Changing the team every single game doesn’t do any good. Expecting Hernandez to change every game doesn’t work-all we get is a succession of corners that we are useless at- we need a set piece coach. Occasionally someone can show some imagination but the rest of the time we are too predictable.
We moaned when we were winning and were told to look at the results, now those have gone. Zero chance that this manager can choose and motivate a side in the top flight even if our short term goals were somehow achieved.
I assume you’re being ironic, Gil, as we *do* have a set-piece coach. Not that it’s made a single scrap of difference.
A very well paid one,I imagine and a massive coaching staff. Don’t want to think how much it would take to pay them off.
Agreed, mate. And, I guess, that’s part of their thinking. Without the Attanasio dollar, we’re pretty much stuffed every which way.
We will wait until it’s too late .
It may well be that being a flat tracked bully, getting wins against the bottom 2/3 of the league, will be good enough for a top 6 finish. But where’s the glory in that?
The inability of the team to perform intensely for more than 20 minute periods suggest that the players are not as fit as they could be-certainly, quite a few have looked leggy during games. There’s plenty to discuss about S&S regarding tactics and playing style, but players’ fitness should be beyond question.
As a Scotland fan, I hope the SFA are in contact with Angus. Scotland’s two regular keepers are the 39 year old Craig Gordon and 37 year old David Marshall (remember him?).
Take Pukki out of this side – as will be the case in 2023-24 – and it’s going to be a real struggle unless there’s been a serious injection of dollars by then. If City don’t go up next May our only possible hope of salvation is that we somehow manage to pluck another Lambert or Farke out of the proverbial managerial hat; otherwise we’ll be back in League One by 2025-26 with the finances being what they are.
And on the subject of finances… as mentioned before on here I didn’t renew my season-ticket this year but the TV highlights suggested a significant level of empty seats last night. Now the weather was poor, Covid is still “a thing” – I know, I’ve had it – and entertainment levels have fallen off a cliff, but, even so, the club must be seriously concerned about season-ticket sales next year. The bubble which began with the 2001-2 run to the play-offs is about to burst. Plenty of people aren’t going to pay in the region of £25 a time for this in the current economic climate, and I suspect we’re going to return to a world of sub-20,000 attendances. I defy even Mick Dennis to be in the slightest bit optimistic for our short-to-medium-term prospects…
If I was given the option to rewatch either the Stoke game or last night, I’d definitely go for last night.
However, it’s all feeling a bit meh right now. We’re looking like play-off contenders, at best, at the moment, and, personally, I’m not sure if a four week break is going to be enough to change my opinion.
Agree with all of that, Gaz. Don’t expect a four week-break to make a jot of difference tbh. ‘Meh’ is spot on.
Next, I’ll be accused of giving up too early on the team . 🌧️
Ok youse givin up too early .
I thought there was real improvement. Yes, more improvement required , but I’m not one that would boo at the end . I’ve been as critical as most , but I’m also guilty of looking at the past as some sort of “ sunlit uplands “ . A more forensic look back tells me we had plenty of games like this when the German Maestro was in charge . It just reinforces in my mind that much of our past success was built on one man : Mr E Buendia .
I also think that Mick Beale is a top man
Last night we appeared to be less than the sum of our parts. I saw some good performances, Gunn, Sara, Cantwell, even Pukki barring the post. We just can’t appear to string the performances together for a long period (or at the same time).
Burnley are now off, I’d be surprised if they didn’t run away with the league and I suspect another of the top six will break away. It’s important we stay in contention, there are a lot of teams below us within just a few points. We need to win at least one of the next two.
Do we really have a premiership squad that should be dominating this league as many claim? Sure Buendia, Skipp, Pukki and Aarons are premiership quality but the rest are either too young or not at that level.
As we’ve lost our best two from that quartet it’s fair to say we have a pretty standard championship squad.
I’d say we’ve punched way beyond our weight for the past four years thanks to the coaching of Daniel Farke and the recruitment of Kieran Scott. Unfortunately our clueless owners have allowed both these people to leave preferring to retain the administrator.
This has left us with a championship squad and a £50-60 million hole in our finances.
Last night was an improvement but not the answer if we ever wish to make our way back to the premier league.
Smith is no Farke and our one hope is the fact that we do have a number of very young players that show promise. We need a different coach for the youngsters and we need new owners to finance our future!
It is a misconception to think that we have a vastly superior squad to others in this league. It clearly isn’t as good as we think it is. Pukki is still a great player for us, but some of the chances he has missed so far this season (and last, come to that) should have been buried. Hernandez wasn’t good enough for us for the last two seasons and he still isn’t. Dowell plays for 10 minutes whenever he plays. Aarons is a shadow of the player he was. Cantwell can still do it when he wants to, but he clearly wants away.
Our hope lies in players like Gibbs, Sargent, Andrew O, Tomkinson, McCallum, Gunn, Springett, Rowe, Nunez, Sara, Mumba etc. Most of the others are busted flushes and will not take this league by storm.
Nine points sounds a lot but is nothing at this stage – in the meantime last night performance wise was comfortably our best of the season so far. Organised, aggressive and with some understandable tactics. Three huge goalscoring chances, none converted. One of those goes in and we all feel much better. It doesn’t change the performance overall.
A special mention for Gibson who has taken such stick but was excellent, in particular in keeping McCallum focussed and in position.
Against other teams in the top half NCFC have P9 W2 D3 L4. We should: last night have beaten QPR; hung on at Burnley (but for Hanley’s stupidity); beaten Blades if Pukki slots pen; PNE drawn if a goal allowed (Hanley again).
So P9 W4 D3 L2 could have been possible on marginal breaks/less stupidity i.e. +6 points. Whereas Burnley are on P8 W5 D2 L1 could be W3 D4 L1 so -4 points if us and Rotherham hung on to draws.
We would thus be on 35 points and Burnley behind us on 34 points. Reality, playoffs is remote unless we buck up ASAP. We need to get back to the old gold standard, win at home and draw away.
Hi Gary,
Agree with you, that was a sideways step last night.
One win over the top 11 teams as it stands, and that was against Millwall. Not good enough.
I think if we only get one point from the next 2 games Dean Smith will be in big trouble.
I have supported Dean on here for most of the season and while I would still resist the temptation to make a change at present, that number of points would see well out of the top six and even Smith should say he has been given a fair crack of the whip after over a year in charge.
If he gets 4 points from Rotherham and Boro that will be okay, just.
Then with a full squad, get Byram, Omibedele, Dimi, Sorenson, Hayden, Sara, Nunez, McCallum properly fit, I am sorry, but Dean will have no excuses. None.
I still think automatic has gone, but unless anyone other than Burnley make a big push, it is not impossible.
And there is another thing going on here and that is despite being a self-funding club 😂 they have borrowed against all the parachute payments due. Now to be fair the Covid endemic is part of that but so is paying youngsters like Brandon Williams and Billy Gilmour £40,000 per week for a relegation scrap.
So, I don’t think it is quite ” Don’t panic Mr Mainwaring” yet.
But if we don’t go up then we will be back pre-Webber, Farke and Maddison. A massively improved training ground to be fair but basically skint….Again.
If you don’t believe me just listen to our Finance Officer, who when he isn’t seeing more conspiracies plots against the club than Donald Trump, says failure to go up will mean player sales.
That leads a very interesting question? Who would we sell? Todd, Teemu, Keiran, Onel, Sam and Kenny will all go on frees. They won’t get new contracts either that’s for sure.
So that leaves Max and Andy O to sell. Unless Sara or Nunez hit a purple patch after January. The fee for Max will be far less than we would have got a year ago. Then we get into perhaps Gibbs, Sargent or McCallum.
That all means a revolution not evolution for the squad next year. Unless we have enough good enough young players things could get very tricky indeed.
My mate Trev said today he prefers the championship; I can see why but failure to go up this year could mean he may have to get used to liking League One even more before too long.
A lot of sense here!
When you see a successful team it is almost certain that they have a settled side and subs are used to reinforce the team when tiring or change tactics. Sadly we are missing the first step – a settled side. Even if we had a first choice midfield it would be an improvement. Smith clearly doesn’t know his best team and the constant fiddling serves no one. Sad really.
I felt a lot of our problems in going forward yesterday was due to Hayden being totally immobile. A great defensive shield but completely offered nothing in that second half when we tried to move forward – hence the defensive passes. Gibbs was overstretched and taken care of by the opposition so the play was stiff when we tried to build.
NAIL ON HEADS SUM THIS PIECE UP (posted on the Pink’Un messageboard).
Posted Wednesday at 21:26 (edited)
Parma’s State of the Nation
Farke brought us a precise, carefully-constructed philosophy, using intelligent positional play, Dortmund-esque fan engagement, attractive sporting entertainment, though clear top level failure.
Webber – it must be assumed – also implemented this very particular methodology throughout the youth ages. Planning purchases based on that particular style (Or?).
Delia – though passionate, loyal and committed – has no ‘football money’, so the self-sustaining model is a top down necessity, as shown by the £5m fan Bond to build the training ground (via the Tifosys finance model).
Promotion to premier duly puts Webber in a difficult position: Do we accept the glass ceiling of our model or blame Farke?
The external questions were clear:
Were the new players good enough for now? Were they investment purchases to appreciate at some future date?
The idea – surely – is that as you develop, the risk on buying youth is less, as you pay more, you buy experienced youth playing at higher levels already. Vid Tzolis, Sargent. You try to get a weapon. Vid Rashica (really?).
The ‘Pissed up window wall’ window had Klose (longevity, good quality, value), Pinto (longevity, fair quality, value), Naismith (expensive here-and-now investment, Sat on contract, nightmare -£15m), Maddison +£18m, Godfrey +£20m), so an overall window balance of say +£20m? Did we do better than this under the new model? The top level is where we are judged, where our aims are focused as per our attractively-presented 2022 Report.
Trotsdem , top level failure occurred despite implanting an excellent, attractive, coherent playing philosophy. Record points totals had been achieved, there was a clear identity, followed by a high spend on new players. The Sporting Director had had plenty of preparation time and a free operational hand. Including with the limited ring-fenced chequebook.
Farke (despite recently-signed 4 year contract) was summarily replaced by Smith, who was suddenly available, opportunistically persuaded, so not pre-planned. Both parties fell into each others’ arms via timing.
Webber – I think just about understandably – just could not accept that our structural ceiling (financial-operational-sporting) had been reached, plus the further implication that his big investment signings were not successful. He just couldn’t (be seen) to accept either at that point.
However history shows that within the parameters of owner finance this was-is as good as we can expect (particularly after first Premier season failure, which was ‘taking the money, to come back stronger next time’)
Thus the glass Norwich ceiling was concretised. No further dreaming was possible. Everything that could have been done, was done. Mistakes were perhaps the inevitable product of imperfect financial and sporting compromises.
QED Attanasio? Or an acceleration-expansion of his involvement?
Nevertheless Sportingly Smith replacing Farke looks like correcting yesterday’s mistakes. Thus everything is a step behind where it should be.
Smith immediately tried to solidify an exposed defence, the over-committed midfielders (particularly out of possession). A desire to counter-press effectively, stay-in-shape, not be so vulnerable on transition.
The flaw with this approach – which has been endorsed also by the Sporting Director whose *new* vision now also ‘aligns’ – is that the Premier League and the Championship are fundamentally, dramatically, operationally so different from each other. And for very good reason.
At the top level you are one of the worst, so you have to defend a lot, so you come under lots of pressure and you lose a lot. So you must be pretty good at defending or have awkward weapons that others have to adjust for.
In the second tier you are not punished much for your mistakes (relatively), you don’t need to set up to defend, lots of teams are hard-working but lack quality. And no one has any weapons (really). So you don’t need to defend so much or so well.
Farke also knew the above perfectly well. What he did was no accident. As Guardiola has repeatedly stated (including in writing if you read his books), positional play is actually a defensive tool. If you keep possession and ‘do nothing with it’, no one else has it either do they? Passing it backwards and sideways for 90 minutes is a bloody good idea against most top level teams (nil-nil is better than you will do in about 25 games).
Of course upon demotion, very few teams can live with positional play. It takes high intelligence and it requires a level of coordinated press and defensive shape to combat, that few teams in the championship have enough players of sufficient intelligence to achieve.
So we now have a a pragmatic mercenary journeyman manager that might suit a top level team destined to defend every week and be attritional, with a structure that is hard to break down and shouldn’t get hammered every week (I appreciate that we are not seeing this, though it is-was the intention I believe).
The problem is that we are solving yesterday’s problems again.
We don’t need to ask the players – say Cantwell – to counter press like marines. You need this at the top level. There are limits to professional footballers (at our level). They cannot chase defensive shape chickens like Gary Holt, then magically make through passes like Buendia a second later. The very, very best can do this (sometimes). We cannot buy them. So we end up neither fish, nor fowl.
The irony is that many accused Farke of doing something that needed top level players only. He proved many of you wrong. With coaching, teaching, studying of positional play principles, it spread through the club. It became second nature to many.
I would suggest that what Smith is asking for is more geared towards top level players only. Be a machine out of possession, switch to Litmanen cool upon turnover. We’d all love to think we can do that, though try sprinting flat out for 200 metres, then beating the computer at Chess. It’s not really how the brain and body typically operates. Hence we often look disjointed, erratic and play in fits-and-starts.
Farke chose a certain compromise. Smith is trying to pretend that no such compromises are necessary. That we can have all things. Furthermore both he and a Webber appear to think that we need ‘to be prepared for the Premier’ in the way we play now. In our current circumstances.
I think that this is fundamentally flawed.
We need to jump the Championship hurdle – whereby you can attack teams, be expansive and overwhelm opposition if you have Pukki and players who can score regularly – first.
This methodology is then proved (within our parameters) not to come close to working at the top level. At which point you need different tactics, a far more mechanical, low-risk, high running, high physicality, couple of expensive and strategically-protected weapons (which is where you spend all your available money).
However there is even a further flaw. None of our players would be good enough for the top level anyway (except Pukki who’ll leave shortly anyway). We couldn’t invest enough to buy what we’d need to reframe the squad make up and approach anyway (which would also require a coaching-sporting pivot).
So we return to our nexus points. Our sale of Buendia, our sacking of Farke, our huge relative investments strategically in Rashica-Tzolis-Sargent. Our style pivot to a prosaic Smith-headed philosophy – even in the second tier (and is it now through the age groups? Does-can anyone teach positional play anymore?)
As fans what do we have? Identity no. Entertainment not really. Continuity not obviously. Clarity of corporate future not yet. Dreams of top level success extinguished. Unique Fan led club no longer. Money no. Investment purchases unnrealised and seemingly mostly unrealisable. Large swathes of too-good-for-Championship yesterday’s men out of contract. A huge pivot on unproven new players that have not obviously improved anything. A much smaller, cheaper squad by necessity-design.
We are chasing a chimera. Even success is just expensive and embarrassing. Though in its stead we are drifting into that awful, anonymous, disinterested purgatory of mid-table second tier quicksand.
The ‘camels coming down Carrow Road’ were previously dismissed, now the Cowboys are embraced.
Despite the planning, sporting strategy and legions of forecasters, it all starts to look a little ‘events dear boy, events’.
Parma
Very interesting Pedro.
A really good summation of where we are.
Good sum up again Mr G, I think the players (well most) can streets ahead of what they are, I watch watching the other night, they played far too deep, too much playing across the back line, inviting them on all the time. Only in the spell and towards the end did we really press. Isn’t there that much movement, in front of defenders, had to gauge off the TV as that follows the ball. Had the camera been behind the goal, the operator would have been sick from the constant L-R .
Smiff says many things, how he wants to play, but as rare as rocking horse Sh1t do we see it. I think he is one of the managers who cannot manage only when he is shelling out millions, given the bones he cannot put them together. The other Smiff, will be hitting the bottles of cooking sherry in panic as her self-funded dream is about to disintegrate, if it hasn’t already. she will be scared of the backlash and criticism that will hit her like a tornado. (Just my opinion)
There is no line of young players already to sell, many have no experience at all at this level. Rowe & Springett are nowhere near enough. Andrew O, alongside master Gibbs are the better options with experience, But why the hell sell them, ? We know it will happen, all to keep this out of date couple happy with their pipe dreams.
For me the doors are wide open for Mark Attanasio to force a buy out, and sort the bloody club out before we limp and hobble through another crap filled season. TBH I care not one iota how he does it, I have no sympathies for the stowmarket duo or the other creepers who bow to their whims on the board. 60 years of following this once great club, I am just sick an F****** tired of the way it is being led.
Sir Geoffrey Watling was so right, when he said no person should have total control, sadly he should have said a married couple also.
@canarylad
In fact two married couples in control, even worse !
Good points above about Hayden or Gibbs not coming short often for the ball, giving the back 4 near sod all options other than left and right or the occasional lump forward
Ownership and control are 2 different things, a lot of day to day control has been delegated as we all know. Many of the most vehement critics of the current majority shareholders (who seem to have an odd obsession with county lines geography) were bleating for a ruthless C.E to be brought in from outside of the inner circle. Then the focus turned on bringing in outside investment. The board did both. The board / owners also brought in a young innovative foreign coach with huge success. Then, aforesaid ruthless administrator sacks him. Yes, sometimes you get what you deserve.