Norwich City: Tactical analysis of Stoke City Championship draw

Ben is a City season ticket holder and author of the NCFC Analysis twitter account, which unpicks every Canaries' game with an analytical report highlighting tactical strengths and weaknesses.

This is what Ben made of Wagner's Potteries' plan.

Stoke versus Norwich: A change in approach?

Score: 0 - 0

Possession (%): 65 - 35

xG: 1.33 - 0.77

• Stoke's build-up variations and Norwich's responses.
• Norwich controlling space but not the ball.
• How Norwich prevented overloads.
• David Wagner's positional and stylistic changes.

Base formations:

Wagner made some interesting changes for Norwich's clash with in form Stoke City. His side were set up in a flat 4-4-2 (Wagner himself labelled it a 4-4-1-1 in his post-match) with Sorensen at right back and Aarons playing as a right-side midfielder. Alex Neil's Stoke were more fluid, rotating between various shapes from a 4-2-3-1 base.

In the midfield third, Stoke utilised a variety of build-up structures in an attempt to break Norwich down. Their most common build-up shape was a 2-3-4-1, with Pearson (22) dropping as the single pivot. Laurent (28) was free to move into the left half space, while Smallbone (18) occupied the right half space.

Out of possession, Norwich were set up in a 4-4-2 shape focused on denying access to dangerous spaces. Sargent and Pukki stayed tight to Ben Pearson (22). When one forward was drawn towards the ball, the other ensured Pearson remained marked. This was designed to limit the influence of Stoke's single pivot.

McLean and Sara were tasked with occupying both half spaces and limiting ball progression towards Smallbone (18) and Laurent (28). When Smallbone dropped deep, McLean followed him; when Laurent dropped deep, Sara followed him.

One variation in Stoke's build-up saw the home side utilise a rotation most Norwich fans will be familiar with. Ben Pearson (22) would drop between the centre backs to create a temporary back three, thereby allowing the full backs to advance. Laurent (28) would drop into midfield, to vacate the left half space, allowing Campbell (10) to invert.

Norwich's response was minimal; one forward would follow Pearson and the other stayed in the space vacated by the Stoke single pivot.

These two build-up variations allowed for a balanced occupation of space, with Stoke occupying each of the five vertical corridors. To prevent a situation of numerical inferiority in Norwich's defensive third, Aarons and Tzolis stayed close to the full backs to create a 6v5.

Another variation in Stoke's build-up involved creating a 3-1 shape with an element of asymmetry. Morgan Fox (3) moved alongside centre back Ben Wilmot (16) to create a back three, which allowed Pearson (22) to remain in midfield.

This led to the creation of dual width on Stoke's right side while, on the left, Aarons was drawn towards Fox (3). As a result, Norwich no longer had a 6v5 in their defensive third, and Sorensen was left 1v1 against Campbell (10).

It was no coincidence that Stoke dominated possession on Saturday afternoon. Out of possession, Norwich were set up simply to control space. The focus was on minimising Stoke's progression into the final third, rather than on regaining possession. With Aarons and Tzolis in defensive positions to protect Norwich's full backs, Norwich's 4-4-2 often looked like more of a 6-2-2.

By doing this, Norwich severely limited routes for ball progression once possession had been regained. They were forced to go long towards Sargent and Pukki. This led to situations which didn't suit the Norwich players.

In this game, it seemed that Wagner was prepared to abandon a number of his principles to nullify the strengths of Norwich's opponent.

At this point, it's important to consider Wagner's rationale for doing so. Under Neil, Stoke have become adept at drawing an opponent's press before escaping, and exploiting the space in behind. They have also had success at disrupting their opponents build-up through intense pressure.

Wagner's response to the former seemed to be to sit back in a low block, control space, and only press once Stoke entered Norwich's half. His response to the latter was to abandon any form of build-up play, and to go long from goal kicks or the centre backs.

While it was rare, there were a few occasions when Norwich looked like playing out from the back. It was at these moments that Stoke's pressing structure became clear. They pressed in a 4-1-3-2: a similar shape to Norwich's press since Wagner's arrival.

But, for the first time under Wagner, Norwich seemed totally disinterested in playing out from the back. Instead, Norwich favoured playing over pressure rather than through it. This was to the detriment of ball retention, but it reduced the likelihood of conceding immediately after turnovers: a common occurrence this season.

Your opinion of Norwich's set up against Stoke depends on what you value about football. If, like me, you value style, Norwich's set up will have frustrated you.

But Wagner also comes across as someone who values style and methodology. He often speaks of the need to focus on your own performance rather than that of your opponent. But his side's set up against Stoke seemed to be entirely focused on nullifying the home side's strengths, rather than playing to our own.

Given Stoke's strengths, Norwich's weaknesses and lack of preparation time, Wagner may have felt it would be naive to set up in any other way.

Perhaps he felt that without pragmatism we would have lost convincingly. Maybe he was right, but there's no doubt it took away from what would've, potentially, been a great game of football.

You can read all Ben's previous analysis of Norwich City games via his social media accounts.

Twitter: NCFC Analysis

Web: NCFC Analysis