When Daniel Farke took charge of his new team, he carried with him the expectation of implementing the renowned German Gegenpressing style, characterized by its high-intensity pressing and attacking approach. This style was vividly displayed during his tenure at Norwich, where fans witnessed a relentless commitment to pressing, possession-based control of the game, intricate passing triangles, and an unwavering focus on attacking. Some even drew comparisons to Jurgen Klopp's dynamic tactics.
However, as time went on, it became evident that Farke's vision was not fully realized in his subsequent coaching stints. His second season at Norwich in the Premier League saw a significant shift in strategy. Rather than adhering to the aggressive Gegenpressing style, Farke seemed to abandon it in favor of a more counterattacking approach. This tactical shift, unfortunately, did not yield positive results; Norwich conceded more goals and scored fewer than even their lackluster first Premier League season.
The departure from his trademark style was not exclusive to his time at Norwich. When managing Borussia Mönchengladbach, it appeared that pressing was virtually non-existent, and the swift attacking triangles had given way to laborious passing along the backline. This alteration in approach frustrated fans, who expressed their displeasure through whistles and boos. It seemed as though Farke had been traumatized by the failure of his initial Premier League campaign, prompting him to adopt a seemingly safer, slower, and more passive style.
One perplexing decision was Farke's choice to play Piroe in the number 10 role, justifying it by emphasizing Rutter's pressing ability. However, it becomes evident that the team was not pressing as anticipated. The slow build-up strategy required extensive movement from midfield and the attack to advance the ball, but they lacked a traditional number 10 to orchestrate this. Moreover, setting up to counterattack placed additional strain on players who were already playing out of position.
Archie Gray, a midfielder by trade, finds himself deployed at right-back and struggled to defend like a traditional full-back. The team's reluctance to press and tendency to concede ground made it easier for opposition wingers to exploit this vulnerability. Farke's fixation on using Piroe as a number 10 becomes problematic in this context. The system requires Piroe to undertake tasks he is ill-suited for, and the midfield often finds itself overrun, leaving a spare man open for the opposition, typically in the number 10 position or within the defense.
This tactical setup bears little resemblance to Farke's successful Norwich side that had clinched the Championship. While Norwich had excelled in quick ball circulation, intricate passing, and intense pressing, the new team adopted a slower, more predictable style, relying on individual moments of brilliance from players like Rutter and Summerville.
It's worth noting that Farke's tactics seemed to have less impact on the game compared to the likes of Marcelo Bielsa, whose tactics transformed his players into Championship standouts. Farke's departure from his earlier successful principles raised questions, as his team now relied heavily on individual brilliance rather than a cohesive tactical system.
Criticism extends beyond Farke's tactical decisions, his in-game management has been poor at times. What remains unclear to many was why he appeared to compromise or even abandon his principles, which had proven successful in the past. The transformation from Gegenpressing to a more conservative style has left fans, and even neutral observers, puzzled by the shift in Farke's coaching philosophy.
Is Daniel Farke having an identity crisis?
Original content by cjay, join the conversation on our messageboards.