Mike Taylor: Compromises and loyalty stifling potential

In 2020/21 Buendia was world class, in my opinion, with 15 goals and 16 assists but without him we appeared clueless. DF and SW re-engineered attacking aspects of the squad with Placheta, Dowell, Hugill, Rashica and Tzolis whilst replacing Skipp with PLM, Gilmour, Normann.

None of these players have stood the test of time. Let’s not forget that Dean Smith has largely been left with the remnants of that era as the basis of his team so this new evolution at Carrow Road is going to take time.

However, the game against Watford was the most disappointing tactical performance I have seen from Smith. I have no idea, when faced with Sarr and Sema, why anyone would consider playing a narrow system and not protecting our flanks. Dowell does not have the work rate and Nunez was protecting thin air rather than a full back.

Hanley kept a very deep backline and given that Pukki will play off of the shoulder, our midfield were stretched from back to front, and that’s before the consideration of Watford’s width. It seemed so obvious to use wing backs, and that’s why the second half was better.

Playing that deep defensive line is such a hindrance and I feel that an anxious Hanley has his reasons for being so deep. More on that later. Pukki and Sargent, in the same team, also impose compromises.

Both want to play off the shoulder and neither drop into the central hole which creates a problem as we basically lose a second central pivot, a role epitomised by Pritchard, then Maddison, then Vrancic or Stieperman then so emphatically by Buendia.

That is hugely important because no second pivot means a compromise to Pukki’s goal output.

How many goals did Pukki score and how many points did Farke win when Buendia was injured or suspended in the last promotion season?

I would argue Sargent doesn’t need that creative spark behind him but without any left footed balance throughout the squad, we are asking Sargent to compromise his potential by staying wider because he’s one of the very few pure athletes capable of covering our full backs. Dowell’s defensive attempts are pathetic.

Further ’joining the dots’, if we don’t have the aforementioned second pivot then a first pivot becomes somewhat obsolete, therefore, the excellent young Gibbs is not fulfilling his potential.. Buendia was nothing without Skipp, and Stieperman or Vrancic were nothing without Leitner or Trybull.

But before either pivot, there must be a defence capable of beating the high press with passes into midfielders. Gibbs is a superb player but our defenders limit his impact because they cannot pass crisply.

As a point of reference, this is precisely the reason why Gilmour immediately struggled last season.

Earlier, I alluded to Hanley playing very deep, but my opinion is actually the inclusion of Omombamidele is creating a problem. I do not wish to be misunderstood, the Irishman is a talented young player that I like. However, both Andy O and Hanley are completely right sided.

To accommodate Omabamidele, Hanley is now playing on the left side of the pair and he is completely wrong footed both on and off the ball as a consequence. That’s a major flaw in our game. A major flaw.

An orchestrated press makes it impossible for Hanley, in particular, to play out from the back.

Farke’s “vertical passes” have given way to “sideways passes” into a longer ball out from the goalkeeper. This is not a Smith issue, Farke had that problem last season too, and when Russell Martin seemingly insisted on re-inventing himself as a centre back, it was a problem then too.

Until we play natural left footed players, then we will not be able to play into the feet of that first pivot because the angles are all wrong.

I also think some fans are a touch biased if they truly think that Omobamidele, at this Championship level, is honestly performing better than Zimmerman and Godfrey did in their first full seasons.

The culmination, succinctly, is that a first pivot is a bit pointless with Hanley and Omobamidele unable to play out from the back, which means a second pivot is also wasted.

My opinion is that these limitations ought to result in box to box type midfielders, and it’s why I think we see consistency from McLean. Sadly, spoilt by five seasons of 'Farkeball', there are some fans who choose to use McLean as some sort of scapegoat.

It’s not his fault if opposition teams are swamping the midfield and stifling the remaining output of the Canaries’ midfield.

For his excellent use of the ball, Nunez is losing the physical and the athletic battle in midfield. His dominance on the ball has diminished by the week as opponents flood the midfield and that isn’t going to change.

He either needs to be given a free role or he needs to be dropped against better and more physical teams.

Next, by playing two strikers, a midfielder is either omitted or Sargent plays as an attacking midfielder. We can’t play Pukki and Sargent in a 4-4-2 because we literally have no left footed players available. Sargent is playing better than Pukki, he’s faster, just as direct, he has a physical presence.

He’s scoring goals from open play whilst two or three of Pukki’s goals have come from defensive errors, and we all know the reliance that Pukki has from a dedicated playmaker.

Therefore, if Norwich want to play both strikers, we need to commit to a playmaker as well. Immediately, there are tactical implications to that. But Sargent is playing and scoring like a young Chris Sutton. In my opinion it is Sargent that we need to prioritise.

There is the possibility of retaining Nunez in a 10 behind two strikers, a system reliant on wing backs and three central defenders.

This is something Smith has at his disposal and it is a system suited to McLean and Gibbs in the middle, but we don’t have a balanced back three and we don’t yet have a fully-fit left wing back.

But the title of this article is about compromises limiting our performances, so here it is in a nutshell:

No second pivot = 70pc output, in my opinion, from Pukki and a lack of need for a first pivot = 70pc output of Gibbs' game.

Playing from wider areas = 70pc of Sargent’s potential. A lack of midfield width = 70pc attacking commitment from an isolated Aarons. Playing Omobamidele and Hanley = 70pc from Hanley and consequently so many infield passes = no instinctive release of the whole left flank.

Playing Nunez with the danger of being overturned in midfield = 70pc from a hesitant McLean, a player suited to supporting attacks. Playing right footed players like Hernandez or Cantwell on the left = 70pc from either.

Lastly…..Pukki is only 70pc capable (compared to Sargent) of holding the ball up and allowing midfield runners to go beyond/behind the striker, something Cantwell and Sara would both thrive at.

That’s my opinion. I’m not talking about 70pc effort, I don’t doubt the application of the players, I’m talking about 70pc of potential being fulfilled.

But most likely from Smith? I’d say 4-2-3-1 retaining Pukki up front with Sargent, Nunez as a 10, and Sinani on the right, keeping Gibbs and (until Hayden is fit enough to start), McLean sitting in front of the back four, and as per Watford, switching Aarons and Byram.

But key to everything (in my opinion) is that unless we play a defence confident and capable of passing out and beating the press, which won’t happen whilst a right footed central defender is playing on the left of a pair, then it will struggle to gain traction: those first passes are critical.

Omobamidele's ankle injury would appear to open the door for the left-footed Gibson, starting with Luton's visit.

Some difficult calls lie ahead for Smith, and if he makes those brave calls, then the fans should back him up. We are third, after all.

OTBC

Midfield Mike