Pragmatism or Negativity?
Score: 1 – 1
Possession (%): 57 – 43
Passes: 532 – 407
Shots: 21 – 6
xG: 1.73 – 0.56
• Coventry’s press behind a passive first line.
• Norwich’s weak pressing structure.
• Frequent Coventry attacks and multiple superiorities.
• Second half adjustments.
Base Formations:
Following Norwich’s disappointing mid-week loss in Wales, David Wagner continued to rotate his starting eleven as Adam Idah, Przemyslaw Placheta, Liam Gibbs, and Sam McCallum came into the side to face Mark Robins’ Coventry.
The hosts made four changes to their eleven, with Kitching, Sakamoto, Ayari, and Wright coming into the side. The Sky Blues lined up in a 3-5-2 base formation, but Brighton loanee Yasin Ayari often advanced beyond Allen and Eccles.
In their deep build-up phases, Norwich created a familiar 4-2-4 shape with Idah (11) and Gibbs (8) dropping into their own half ahead of the visitor’s double pivot, while Rowe (27) and Placheta (20) stretched the Coventry back line.
Out of possession, in their highest pressing phase, Coventry transitioned into a 3-4-1-2 shape as Yasin Ayari (26) created the second line of pressure behind Wright (11) and Simms (9).
The host’s wing-backs were ready to press Stacey (3) and McCallum (15), while Eccles (28) and Allen (8) tracked Idah (11) and Gibbs (8). In the last line, Kitching (15) stayed tight to Rowe (27), and Thomas (4) occupied Placheta (20).
With the Norwich centre-backs often playing goal kicks to Gunn (28), the ball was often in play at the feet of the Canaries’ keeper; the Sky Blues’ front two used their cover shadows to block passing lanes to Sara and McLean, with the forward duo reluctant to press with much intensity.
The rationale behind their passive first line was to leave Gunn (28) as Norwich’s only free man, rather than pressing and leaving McLean (23) or Sara (17) free and accessible via a centre-back. But when a centre-forward – usually Simms (9) – did press, he curved his run to force Norwich to one side.
Instead, the hosts typically waited for a pass to a centre-back before a striker applied pressure. With Eccles (28) and Allen (8) preoccupied by Idah (11) and Gibbs (8), and therefore unable to join the press quickly, Ayari (26) was occasionally left in a 2v1 when a Norwich centre-back broke the first line of pressure.
If Norwich played out to a full-back, however, Eccles (28) or Allen (8) had time to jump onto the free pivot player. On the visitor’s left, for example, when McLean (23) became free and Gibson (6) passed to McCallum (15), Eccles (28) jumped onto McLean (23) while Allen (8) moved onto Idah (11).
In settled possession, Norwich’s usual rotations saw the wingers invert and the full-backs overlap, while McLean (23) dropped into a back three to maintain a 3v2 first-line advantage. This created City’s settled play diamond.
In these phases, Coventry dropped into a 5-2-1-2 as Ayari (26) dropped back and Allen (8) stayed close to Gabriel Sara (17). Wright (11) and Simms (9) created the first line of pressure, with Sara (17) occupying the space behind and between them.
Norwich’s diamond created a temporary 4v3 numerical advantage behind the first line of pressure, with Eccles (28) and Ayari (26) caught in a 3v2 when Allen (8) pressed Sara (17). To nullify this overload, Kitching (15) or Thomas (4) jumped onto the free Norwich winger.
Placheta (20) and Rowe (27) often dropped close to Sara (17), dragging their markers into the Norwich half. Liam Gibbs (8) would then attempt to exploit the space vacated by pressing Coventry players.
When defending deep in their own half, Coventry dropped into a flat 5-3-2 shape with Ayari (26), Allen (8), and Eccles (28) blocking passing lanes to Gibbs (8) and Norwich’s inverting wingers, while the wing-backs tracked Stacey (3) and McCallum (15).
If one Coventry midfielder was drawn to press Norwich’s back three, the nearest centre-back would jump onto the free inverted winger.
One variation in Norwich’s structure occurred when McCallum (15) inverted while Placheta (20) occupied the widest corridor. With Sakomoto (7) staying wide, McCallum (15) was able to underlap into the left half space to receive a bounce pass from Liam Gibbs (8). Within the first fifteen minutes, Idah (11) came close to converting a cross from exactly this combination.
Coventry combined going long with vertical build-up play, as the Sky Blues spent very little time in their deep build-up; but the hosts created a 3-5-2 shape when playing out from the back. Eccles (28) and Ayari (26) occupied the space on either side of Allen (8).
Norwich pressed in their usual 4-1-3-2 shape, but the visitors were passive in their highest pressing phase and, before their shift towards the touchlines, the structure allowed Coventry to create multiple overloads before easily progressing into periods of settled possession.
Gibbs (8) and Idah (11) were left trying to press four players, while the three players in Norwich’s second line of pressure had to shift between five Coventry players. With Stacey (3) and McCallum staying deep, instead of backing up the press on Dasilva (3) and Sakamoto (7), the host’s wing-backs were often free.
Once the Sky Blues progressed into settled possession, Eccles (28) and Ayari (26) often moved between the lines ahead of Allen (8), while the visitors dropped into a 4-4-2 low-block.
The triangle created by Coventry’s midfield three created both numerical and positional superiority against Sara (17) and McLean (23), with Ayari (26) and Eccles (28) able to advance into the half spaces when Norwich’s ball-side full back eventually applied pressure to the nearest wing-back.
With Coventry 1-0 down at half-time, the host’s first pressing phase became more intense and man-oriented in the second half. Simms (9) began to press Gunn (28) while simultaneously blocking the passing lane to Gibson (6), thereby forcing a pass to Duffy (24).
Once Duffy (24) received the ball, he was pressed by Wright (11), while Dasilva (3) jumped onto Stacey (3). With Allen (8) caught between occupying Idah (11) and jumping onto the ball-side Norwich midfielder, McFadzean (5) was tasked with jumping onto the player left unoccupied by Allen (8).
In his post-match press conference, David Wagner explained that he was “very pleased with how the players executed our idea to give Coventry possession, make sure we defend from a lower block, and be a threat in the transition.”
But Norwich’s passive press and low-block did little to stem the flow of Coventry attacks, with the hosts having twenty-one shots and accumulating more than double the expected goals of Wagner’s side. This issue was compounded by a late change to a 5-4-1 shape, just seconds before the hosts equalised.
For a side aiming to be in a fight for the play-offs, it was a shame to see such a negative press from Norwich. It was also somewhat of a surprise, given that Wagner often cites being ‘uncomfortable to play against’ as an appropriate metric of his side’s performance.