Norwich Vs Hull

Norwich Vs Hull City:

Score: 3 - 1

Possession (%): 58 - 42

xG: 1.79 - 0.30

· Norwich's pressing structure and a working gegenpress.

· Why Norwich were able to play out from the back.

· The roles of Sara and McLean.

· Norwich's wide combinations.

Base Formations:

Norwich's 4-2-3-1 base formation is becoming more of a 4-4-2 with Sargent more advanced than a typical number 10, but Idah and Sargent alternated in a deep-lying-forward role. Sara and McLean's roles were also flexible. Hull were set up in a more rigid 4-4-2 with Woods and Seri making up a double pivot in the first half.

Perhaps the most notable feature of Norwich's game was their pressing structure. In the first half, during goal kicks, Hull transitioned into a 3-2-3-2. This shape was created by an asymmetric rotation with Christie (33) moving into the wide zone on the right and Greaves (4) staying deep to create a back three.

Norwich pressed high in a 4-4-2 with McLean and Sara in more advanced positions than Hernandez and Dowell. Norwich's pressing structure had clear elements of man-orientation, as McLean and Sara stayed tight to Hull's double pivot. Norwich also dropped back into a 4-4-2 when pressing in their own half.

Hull's 3-2 build-up structure was put under significant pressure by Norwich's pressing four. Passing lanes to Woods (15) and Seri (24) were blocked by Idah and Sargent's cover shadow's.

The numerical superiority created by Hull's back three against Norwich's front two meant Hull often found a free centre back in the build-up. But due to the positioning of Norwich's wide midfielders, Hull were forced into wide areas of numerical inferiority. This often led to a turnover in possession.

In the second half, Hull head coach Liam Rosenior made changes to Hull's build-up structure. Christie (33) and Greaves (4) became narrow full backs, Seri (24) became a single pivot as Woods (15) moved into a more advanced position. Longman (16) moved onto the right wing, Tetteh (30) occupied the left wing and Slater (27) became the second striker alongside Estupinan (19). Replacing a first half 3-2 build-up structure, the changes created a 2-3 shape. Against Norwich's first half pressing structure, these changes may have helped.

But Norwich's pressing structure also changed. In the second half, due to Hull's positional changes and Norwich’s man-orientated press, Norwich's initial press became a 4-1-3-2. Sargent and Idah remained the first line of pressure, but Hernandez and Dowell (later Gibbs) joined Sara in the second line. McLean stayed just behind Sara to pick up Woods (15). Hull's only free man was Matt Ingram (1)...their goalkeeper.

There were clear signs of an effective gegenpress (counter-press) on Tuesday night. Norwich were able to create numerous chances from turnovers. This is something which requires intensity, bravery and aggressive positioning. In the second half, Norwich often had around five players in the final third. This made it much easier to press when out of possession and counter-press at the point of defensive transition.

A significant difference between Norwich's game against Hull and previous games was their ability to play out from the back with relative ease. There are numerous factors that need to be taken into account when considering this difference.

Against Hull, there were a few variations in Norwich's build-up. At times, Norwich built up in a 2-4 structure with McLean alongside Sara. This meant Sara wasn't always alone in midfield. Norwich also used a 3-1 build-up structure with McLean or Sara dropping between or alongside the centre backs.

Hull pressed in a 4-4-2 formation. Woods (15) and Seri (24) stayed tight to Kenny McLean and Gabriel Sara. The front two tried to block passes to McLean and Sara, but once one of them dropped between Omabamidele and Hanley, Norwich could create a 3v2 and a vertical passing lane to the other midfielder. This meant Norwich often escaped the first line of pressure.

If Sara was put under pressure by Seri (24) or Woods (15) jumping onto him, the wide centre backs provided simple passing options while McLean remained available.

Hull's press was weak, and once Norwich were beyond the first line of pressure, Hull dropped deeper: often into a mid-low block. They tried to deny Norwich access to the central zone by jumping onto McLean and Sara when they received the ball in midfield.

With players like Dowell and Idah occasionally dropping deep, Norwich's midfield structure was marginally better than in previous games. Aarons and Giannoulis also helped by moving deeper and narrower when play was on the opposite side. However, there was still a large gap between the players involved in Norwich's build-up and those in the front line.

By denying access through the middle, Hull forced Norwich to advance down both sides. This partially reduced the significance of Norwich's midfield void as they were able to profit from wide combinations instead of progressing centrally.

Additionally, the lack of a Hull press gave McLean and Sara time to play passes from deep when they were on the same line as Omabamidele and Hanley. McLean and Sara were excellent at this all game, they dictated play throughout.

Considering Norwich's control, intensity, and technical quality on Tuesday night, it was arguably Norwich's best home performance of the season. Norwich's pressing and counter-pressing was much more intense than in previous games. There were also a few signs of improvement in Norwich's movement, which reduced the problems caused by the midfield void.

But there is no denying Hull's set up helped Norwich. A lack of pressure on City's build-up gave McLean and Sara many chances to show their quality and dictate the game. Hull made it far too easy for Norwich to play out from the back.

The task for David Wagner is to improve his sides ability to escape a well organised, intense press. Hull didn't test that abi