Are you not entertained?
Score: 0 – 0
Possession (%): 64 – 36
Passes: 582 – 334
Shots: 18 – 6
xG: 1.30 – 0.76
• Preston’s passive press.
• The importance of McLean and Nunez.
• Why Norwich struggled to play through Preston.
• Sustaining pressure and a positional change.
Base Formations:
Following Norwich’s recent upturn in results, David Wagner’s side welcomed a Preston team with a totally contrasting form guide. This felt like a real opportunity – an opportunity to catalyse the performance revival so many fans are craving.
The hosts set up in a 4-2-3-1 base formation, with Ashley Barnes performing the second striker role behind Adam Idah. Kenny McLean retained his new centre-back role behind Marcelino Nunez and Gabriel Sara in the double pivot.
Ryan Lowe’s struggling Preston side switched to a conservative 5-3-2 base formation, making four changes following a 2-0 home defeat at the hands of QPR.
In their deep build-up phases, Norwich transitioned into their customary 4-2-4 shape with two deep-lying forwards dropping into their own half, while Hernandez (25) and Fassnacht (16) provided the width.
In response, Preston created a 3-4-2-1 shape in their highest pressing phase. Browne (8) joined Evans (9) to create the second line of pressure behind Millar (23). The second line occupied Norwich’s double pivot, while Whiteman (4) and McCann (13) stayed tight to the deep-lying forwards.
On occasion, Gunn (28) successfully baited Millar (23) to press. The stand-in Preston forward made sure to press from the side, blocking a passing lane to one centre-back. But Gunn (23) used a pivot player to bounce the ball out to the defender, thus bypassing the first pressing line.
Despite the pressure from Preston’s initial lines, the visitor’s strategy out of possession was largely passive, with their structure primarily designed to block central progression and limit the efficacy of Norwich’s midfield box.
Once their press had been broken, Preston were quick to drop into their 5-3-2 base formation as Browne (8) dropped back into midfield while Evans (9) and Millar (23) created the front two.
In these settled phases, Norwich occasionally created a 2-2 rest-defence with Nunez (26) and Sara (17) remaining in a double pivot. Ahead of this structure, Norwich’s wingers inverted into the half spaces, allowing the full-backs to overlap.
Alternatively, Norwich frequently created a 3-1 rest-defence when Nunez (26) dropped between the centre-backs to create a situational back three. This rotation gave McLean (23) the freedom to advance with the ball on the left.
In his new centre-back role, McLean completed more progressive carries (9) than any other player. In fact, Norwich’s captain progressively carried the ball a total of 680 yards on Saturday, 388 yards further than Nunez in second place, and an astonishing 623 yards further than any Preston player.
This, combined with McLean’s progressive passes totalling 889 yards (98 yards further than Preston goalkeeper Freddie Woodman), demonstrates the significance of the Scot in achieving the verticality David Wagner demands.
Given Preston’s flat back five, Norwich’s positional rotations often created a 6v5 last-line overload. Such an overload is crucial to avoid man-marking and to allow forward players to occupy space between defenders.
But Storey (14) and Lindsay (6) were quick to jump onto Hernandez (25) and Fassnacht (16), while the three Preston midfielders successfully blocked passing lanes to Norwich’s inverted wingers.
Preston’s 5-3-2 low block successfully restricted access to players between the lines. In the second half, however, Norwich’s inverted wingers began occupying space to the side of Preston’s low block, rather than taking up their usual positions inside their opponent’s defensive unit.
These positional deviations had numerous repercussions, both positive and negative. The structure created by the wider inverted wingers contributed to Norwich’s ability to sustain pressure by confining Preston to their own half.
The counter-pressing barrier created by Norwich’s structure, combined with Preston’s overly direct response to transitions, made it very difficult for the visitors to counter-attack or regain possession.
However, despite supporting Norwich’s sustained pressure, the wingers’ positioning made the host’s attacks much less incisive. Instead, the structure was more conducive to wide ball circulation than dangerous central progression.
As a result, Norwich’s primary attacking strategy relied on creating overlaps and underlaps before crossing into the box – an approach more suited to the player profiles of their visitors than of their own.
While the host’s usual settled-play structure opens passing lanes between the back three and the wide full-backs, their adjusted shape meant it took two passes to access the wide areas. As a result, when shifting the ball from side to side, Wagner’s men gave Preston too long to shift into a compact defensive structure.
The rationale behind these positional adjustments was most likely to draw Preston’s flat midfield three towards the wingers in the wide areas, thus opening the half spaces for another player.
Indeed, Norwich’s best chance came late in the second half when Sainz (7) moved from the inside to the outside of Preston’s new 5-4-1 defensive block, opening space for Sara (17) between the lines. But such rotations were rare, and Norwich generally struggled to access these dangerous spaces.
With Ryan Lowe’s Preston refusing to play out from the back, the majority of the visitor’s spells in possession were on the edge of their own half. In these phases, Lowe’s men created a 3-1-4-2 shape as the two number eights advanced into space between the lines.
In response, Norwich transitioned into their usual 4-4-2 mid-block. Fassnacht (16) and Hernandez (25) were responsible for pressing Hughes (16) and Potts (44), with the duo aiming to prevent crosses from the Preston wing-backs.
Preston’s primary strategy appeared to involve shifting the ball from side to side, aiming to open gaps within Norwich’s block, before playing through the host’s lines. But the visitors became overly vertical and frequently played hopeful long balls to the front two.
Stacey (3) and Giannoulis (30) stayed narrow while Norwich’s ball-side pivot pressed the advanced Preston eights. Norwich’s full-backs only joined the press when McCann (13) or Browne (8) moved into the wide areas.
For most, the overriding emotion on Saturday was surely one of frustration; this was an opportunity to galvanise the Carrow Road faithful ahead of a week that matters more than most.
There was, undoubtedly, individual promise in the form of McLean and Nunez. The former was always likely to suit his new centre-back role in possession, with the Scot ostensibly suited to occupying space with play in front of him, but future matches may provide more of a defensive test.
With Preston making the trip to Norfolk aiming to avoid losing, Norwich’s principal challenge was to break down a low block. Their performance was more dominant than in prior victories, but in his own words, Norwich were “not ruthless enough” to silence Wagner’s critics.