Norwich City 1-0 QPR: Ben Lee's Canaries tactical analysis

Ben is a City season ticket holder and author of the NCFC Analysis social media account, who unpicks Canaries' games with an analytical report highlighting tactical strengths and weaknesses.

This is what Ben made of a grinding victory at Carrow Road to mark the start of new sporting director Ben Knapper's first game since replacing Stuart Webber.

Norwich versus QPR: A tough watch

Score: 1 – 0

Possession (%): 38 - 62

Passes: 365 – 610

Shots: 7 – 9

xG: 0.76 – 0.58

• Basic build-up patterns.
• The impact of Norwich’s direct approach.
• QPR’s wide triangles and underlapping full-backs.
• Norwich’s hybrid press.

Base formations

Following Norwich’s only win in seven before the break, David Wagner set his side up in a 4-2-3-1 base formation. Barnes returned from injury to occupy the second striker role, while Duffy came back into the side to pair up with Batth.

In just his third game in charge of QPR, Marti Cifuentes’ side lined up in a fluid 4-3-3 base shape. But these formations merely represent a lineup prior to rotations; both sides created a variety of structures both with and without the ball.

In their deep build-up, Norwich set up in a 4-2-4 shape with two deep-lying forwards and a double pivot. The centre-backs dropped alongside Long (12), while the full-backs and wingers created the width.

QPR transitioned into a 3-2-4-1 pressing structure as Dixon-Bonner (19) and Colback (4) joined the second line of pressure while the wingers were ready to press the full-backs. To prevent a 2v1 overload in the third line, Dunne (3) jumped into midfield to mark Hwang (31) while Field (8) tracked Barnes (10).

Norwich goal-kicks were frequently taken by Duffy (24), who rolled the ball back to Long (12) before both centre-backs moved to the side of the penalty area. These movements were designed to give Dykes (9) too far to jump between players after being drawn to press Long (12).

Norwich’s most common build-up patterns saw the centre-backs either go long to the wingers or play out to the full-backs.

The first, direct strategy had varying degrees of success. By going man-to-man plus one in the last line, Cifuentes’ QPR made it difficult for Norwich to control direct passes, but the host’s wingers did have occasional 1v1 success.

In Norwich’s alternative strategy, the full-backs waited for the QPR wingers to press before accessing the ball-side pivot on the pressing player’s blind-side.

Stacey (3) and Giannoulis (30) relied on the nearest pivot outpacing his marker to access the space behind the pressing winger. The far-side pivot provided a backup route if the ball-side pivot was marked.

Given the man-to-man nature of QPR’s second pressing line, combined with the unreliability of Duffy (24) and Batth’s (21) short passing under pressure, the hosts often favoured playing directly over the initial pressing lines to access the front four quickly.

However, QPR’s last-line advantage meant Norwich’s direct build-up approach lacked control. This contributed to the sloppy, transitional feel of much of Saturday’s game.

In settled possession, McLean (23) or Sara (17) often dropped deep to create a situational back three. This created Norwich’s usual settled play structure, with two inverting wingers and the second striker occupying space between the lines.

QPR dropped back into a fluid 4-5-1 mid-block with the wingers pressing the wide centre-backs, as the midfield three intensely pressed Sara (17) while attempting to block passing lanes to the inverted wingers.

Barnes (10) or Hwang (31) occasionally dropped alongside Norwich’s temporary single pivot to disrupt QPR’s press, but with the visitors successfully blocking central progression, Wagner’s men often targeted the wide areas.

In his ‘quarterback’ role behind Sara (17), McLean (23) frequently played long diagonals to the overlapping full-backs to play around QPR’s press.

While structurally Norwich’s settled play shape was unchanged, with the centre-backs still too wide to create a secure rest-defence, there was less of an emphasis on intense counter-pressing in defensive transitions. Instead, the host’s rest-defence tended to focus on controlling space and maintaining their structure.

This risk-averse adjustment represented a notable shift in approach; it was a shift Wagner favoured over adjusting the structure while maintaining his side’s usual intensity.

In possession, however, Norwich’s direct approach was rewarded following a moment of quality from Sara (17) and Hwang (31), who combined to exploit the space behind QPR’s last line to give Norwich the lead.

In their deep build-up, Cifuentes’ QPR created an initially asymmetric 4-2-1-3 shape, with Field (8) and Colback (4) creating a double pivot while Dixon-Bonner (19) advanced into the right half-space.

Norwich pressed in their usual 4-1-3-2 shape as McLean (23) occupied the space behind the host’s first two pressing lines.

Once QPR’s build-up play began, Norwich created a ball-side man-to-man press. The far-side winger jumped onto the nearest pivot, the ball-side winger pressed the full-back, Sara (17) jumped onto the ball-side pivot, and the forwards pressed the centre-backs.

Ilias Chair (10) often dropped into the left half-space, dragging Stacey (3) into midfield while Dykes (9) moved into the space they vacated; Duffy (24) ensured the Scottish international remained occupied.

After QPR’s deepest build-up phase, however, Sara (17) was occasionally overloaded by the visitor’s temporary double pivot when Barnes (10) was drawn to press and the far-side winger was too far to jump onto the free pivot.

In settled possession, Cifuentes’ QPR created a highly changeable, asymmetric 2-4-4 shape against Norwich’s 4-4-2 mid-block, with Colback (4) typically occupying deeper spaces than Dixon-Bonner (19).

On the ball-side, QPR’s wingers, full-backs, and midfielders created wide triangles. In these situations, the far-side full-back moved infield to support the rest-defence while Colback (4) or Dixon-Bonner (19) advanced into the half-space.

When moving into the final third, the narrow full-backs occasionally underlapped into the half-spaces to maintain the visitor’s wide connections.

By moving into the left half-space, Colback (4) created a more conventional midfield three with Field (8) becoming the single pivot; this was most noticeable with QPR sustaining pressure in the second half.

For now, at least, Wagner seems to have decided that defensive solidity must be the priority, even if that comes at the detriment of his side’s intensity and attacking output.

In his post-match press conference, Wagner accepted that this was the rationale behind Norwich’s risk-averse style on Saturday.

At best, it created moments like the host’s high-quality first-half goal; at worst, it created passages of play more reminiscent of Sunday League football than of the second tier.

Publicly shifting the focus from performances to results creates a clear expectation. Once that expectation fails to be met, performances like Saturday’s will rightly be deemed unacceptable.

Many fans would have walked away from Carrow Road with mixed emotions: the result was undoubtedly an important step in the right direction, but could the same be said for the performance?

Is this latest style shift a temporary attempt to stop the rot, buy time, and boost confidence, or is it likely to be a longer-term adjustment this season?

It begs the question: at what point will the attacking, proactive style Knapper is seeking to implement become the priority? Something has got to give, and it won’t be Knapper’s long-term vision.

You can read all Ben's previous analysis of Norwich City games via his social media accounts.

X: NCFC Analysis

Web: NCFC Analysis