Huddersfield Vs Norwich

Structured Chaos

Score: 0 – 4

Possession (%): 44 – 56

Passes: 379 – 512

Shots: 18 – 9

xG: 0.99 – 2.49

• A midfield box and constant rotations.

• Huddersfield’s extreme man-to-man press.

• Disengaging a man-marking system.

• Build-up variations.

Base Formations:

Neil Warnock’s Huddersfield lined up in a 4-1-4-1 base formation, with Terriers stalwart Jonathan Hogg acting as the single pivot behind youngsters Brahima Diarra and Jack Rudoni.

Returning to his former club, David Wagner selected an unchanged Norwich side with Sara and McLean creating a double pivot behind Sargent and Barnes.

Given the dominance of positionism in contemporary football, most sides press in highly structured systems to counteract pre-planned superiorities, often combining zonal and man-orientation. This lends itself to complex tactical battles between competing systems organised by head coaches.

In the build-up to Norwich’s trip to West Yorkshire, Wagner outlined Neil Warnock’s “unique” man-to-man press. Due to the ease with which they can be manipulated by rotations and positional interchanges, complete man-to-man pressing systems are rare in modern football.

When facing a team playing with fluidity, it is easier for pressing players to mark players entering a pre-determined zone rather than following them across the length and width of a full pitch. This fact can be explored in greater depth in the context of Saturday’s game.

In their initial build-up phase, Norwich transitioned into their usual 4-2-4 shape, with Sargent and Barnes dropping into their own half to create a midfield box with McLean and Sara.

Warnock’s Huddersfield pressed from a 4-1-4-1 base formation with near-complete man-orientation: where opposition players are the reference point for pressing players. Daniel Ward (25) rarely pressed from the front, instead allowing Gunn and the centre-backs time in possession to encourage Norwich to play into Huddersfield’s man-marking block.

In the second line of pressure, Koroma (10) was ready to press Stacey, Rudoni (8) marked Sara, Diarra (11) marked McLean, and Thomas (14) was ready to press Giannoulis. Behind this line, Jonathan Hogg (6) followed the first Norwich centre-forward to drop deep, while the nearest centre-back followed the next dropping centre-forward. In the last line, Ruffels (3) marked Fassnacht while Edwards (16) marked Rowe.

With the visitors taking an early 2-0 lead and Idah (11) replacing an injured Josh Sargent, Huddersfield began to press with more intensity in Norwich’s deep build-up phases. Diarra (11) joined Ward (25) in a front two, while Hogg (6) moved alongside Rudoni (8) to mark McLean. This created a 4-4-2 shape as Huddersfield matched up with Norwich’s build-up structure.

But there were significant issues with Huddersfield’s press. These issues made it far too easy for Norwich to progress.

By dropping into midfield, Idah and Barnes created a 4v2 central overload against Hogg (6) and Rudoni (8), with the Huddersfield centre-backs reluctant to follow Norwich’s centre-forwards so far into the visitors’ half.

When pressing Norwich’s centre-backs, Ward (25) and Diarra (11) frequently failed to use their cover shadows to block passing lanes to Sara and McLean. This meant Gunn could easily play into the double pivot who, with Hogg and Rudoni caught between the centre-forwards and the midfielders, had time to receive the ball on the half turn.

When Norwich progressed into periods of settled play, Rowe (27) and Fassnacht (16) inverted. This allowed the full-backs to overlap while McLean occasionally dropped into a back three.

Huddersfield maintained man-orientation in these phases of play, with markers forced to follow Norwich players wherever they moved. Hogg (6) was tasked with following whichever centre-forward dropped deep, while the nearest centre-back was responsible for following the other striker.

Throughout Saturday’s win, Norwich attempted to disengage Huddersfield’s man-marking with constant positional interchanges and rotations. For the visitors, these rotations represented fluidity within a clear structure. For Huddersfield, they created chaos as markers were manipulated and dragged out of position.

Huddersfield’s man-marking meant Norwich could utilise a concept known as pinning, where players move their marker away from teammates, passing lanes, or the ball.

There were some interesting variations in Norwich’s settled play structure. McLean often stayed higher to create a fluid midfield box, while another variation saw the visitors rotate asymmetrically after easily progressing beyond the deep build-up phases.

Fassnacht (16) inverted earlier than Rowe, Stacey (3) overlapped, and Barnes (10) and Idah (11) occupied the half spaces behind Fassnacht. This created a temporary 2-3-2-3 shape.

Given Huddersfield’s man-marking system, this rotation created further chaos as Ruffels (3) was drawn into the middle and, with Fassnacht attacking the space behind them, the centre-backs were reluctant to jump onto Barnes and Idah.

In possession, Huddersfield transitioned into a 2-3-2-3 shape as Hogg (6) became a single pivot behind Rudoni (8) and Diarra (11). Norwich created their usual 4-1-3-2 pressing structure, with McLean occupying the space ahead of Norwich’s back four.

The hosts had two primary methods of ball progression from their deep build-up. One method was to play directly to one of their front three, who bounced the ball back towards Rudoni (8) or Diarra (11) in an attempt to exploit a 2v1 overload against McLean (23).

But Norwich’s “backwards press”, as David Wagner describes it, successfully prevented such an overload, as Fassnacht, Rowe, and Sara tracked back to win second balls.

With Huddersfield in their 4-1-4-1 base formation, another method of ball progression involved playing around Norwich’s pressing block. The hosts did this by using the wingers as out-balls, before using Ward (25) to hold up the ball to give Rudoni (8) and Diarra (11) time to make runs behind Norwich’s back four.

But Gibson (6) and Duffy (24) aggressively jumped onto Ward and the ball-side attacking midfielder to regain possession before the visitors could attack the space behind.

In the second half, Norwich found more direct means of ball progression, with Gunn targeting wingers in the space created by Barnes and Idah behind the Huddersfield centre-backs.

While this extra verticality created Norwich’s third goal, it made it more difficult for the visitors to sustain pressure and, as a result, reduced the chances they were able to create from settled play situations.

Overall, Saturday’s win provided yet more evidence of Norwich’s adaptability under David Wagner, with the German’s side facing a unique challenge against a complete man-to-man press.

Building up against positional pressing structures involves drawing pressure to create superiorities ahead of the ball; creating space to progress against a man-to-man press, on the other hand, requires fluidity and positional interchanges to manipulate opposition markers.

A serious injury to Josh Sargent will further test Norwich’s adaptability. Adam Idah came into the side as a direct replacement for Sargent in the deep-lying centre-forward role; the Ireland international looked more comfortable than would be expected in a difficult role for natural strikers.

It will be interesting to see whether Idah can consistently perform in the role or if Wagner will need to turn to another profile. In the event of Idah struggling, players like Núñez or Gibbs could be suited to the role.

But Norwich have now successfully counteracted positional and man-orientated pressing systems this season; they are quickly becoming one of the most tactically interesting and impressive sides in the Championship.