Norwich Vs Rotherham: Comfortable Superiority

Score: 5–0

Possession (%): 68–32

Passes: 645–303

Shots: 18–2

xG: 1.83–0.04

• A new role for Sara.
• Norwich’s overloads and patterns.
• Poor defending in the final third.
• Second half adjustments.

Base Formations:

Facing a Rotherham side on a run of eight consecutive Championship defeats, conceding twenty goals in as many games, this was a must-win for David Wagner’s play-off hopefuls.

Rotherham boss Leam Richardson replaced six of his last starting eleven after their 5–0 loss away at Coventry City, as the visitors set up in a 3–4–1–2 shape. Norwich made three changes and lined up in their usual 4–2–3–1 formation, with Gabriel Sara in a new role on the right.

During Norwich goal-kicks, the hosts played out in a similar structure to their usual settled-play shape, as the wingers inverted on either side of Barnes (10), and the full-backs overlapped.

In response, Rotherham pressed from their 3–4–1–2 base, with Rathbone (18) advancing to create a situational front three. The remaining midfielders stayed tight to Sara (17) and Barnes (10), while Odofin (22) was forced to jump into midfield to track Sainz (7).

The wing-backs often pressed City’s full-backs, and Clucas (8) was occasionally drawn towards Nunez (26) given the positional advantage created by the centre-forwards failing to block passing angles to the host’s double pivot.

For the most part, Norwich played through the initial lines of Rotherham’s press with ease. In one instance, for example, City escaped via a well-executed ‘third-man combination’ after McLean (23) dropped on the left.

Eaves (9) moved wide to block the passing lane between Gibson (6) and McLean (23) but, in doing so, he created a gap through which Norwich’s left centre-back found Sainz (7), who was tracked by Odofin (22).

At the same time, McLean (23) made a ‘third-man run’ to receive a bounce pass from Sainz (7) in space on the left.

In Norwich’s deepest open-play build-up phases, the positional advantage created against Rotherham’s situational front three became a numerical overload when the centre-forwards were drawn to press.

On occasion, Sainz (7) provided an out-ball for Gunn (28) when the Spaniard dropped too deep for Odofin (22) to follow him, forcing Tiehi (27) to shift over from midfield.

Within the first ten minutes, Rotherham’s coaching staff attempted to reduce the influence of City’s double pivot by instructing Tiehi (27) to move alongside Rathbone (18) — an adjustment the visitors didn’t repeat.

Gunn (28) was able to bait Wyke (14) to press, leaving Sorenson (19) free to receive and advance on the right.

Once Sorenson (19) advanced, McLean (23) dropped to create a situational back three, leaving Nunez (26) as the single pivot.

After Sara (17) had moved wide to receive, his misplaced pass to Nunez (26) exposed a recurring issue for Wagner’s Norwich, with Tiehi (27) free to advance into the space created by City’s weak rest defence.

Luckily for the hosts, Rotherham seemed incapable of profiting from offensive transitions, often misplacing passes or mistiming runs in the final third.

Given Norwich’s positional and numerical advantages against the initial lines of Rotherham’s press, City were able to manipulate the visitor’s strategy while creating their settled-play structure.

As one pivot dropped between the centre-backs, the remaining midfielder created a passing angle to receive beyond Rathbone (18) and the centre-forwards.

The positional requirements of Wagner’s settled build-up structure meant a player of Gabriel Sara’s (17) profile was more than capable of playing on the right, with the Brazilian typically positioned in the right half space in City’s 3-diamond-3 shape.

With Sara (17) and Sainz (7) frequently moving away from the half spaces to receive in wide areas, Rotherham’s wide centre-backs were reluctant to jump too far from the last line. As a result, Norwich created a clear overload behind the first line of Rotherham’s press, making it easy for the hosts to advance.

In higher build-up phases, Norwich remained in their 3-diamond-3 structure while the visitors transitioned between their 5–2–3 mid-press and a deeper 5–3–2 mid-block, with Rathbone (18) moving between two roles.

But City’s midfield diamond created an overload against both defensive setups. This advantage was exploited on multiple occasions, including in the build-up to Sainz’s (7) 32nd-minute screamer — a chance worth just 0.02xG.

The space and positional advantages Rotherham conceded ahead of their back five meant Norwich were consistently able to advance towards the final third, where Barnes (10) and the inverted wingers created a line of three inside The Millers’ 5–3–2 mid-block.

City’s patterns continued in the visitor’s half. On the left, for example, Sainz (7) dropped outside of Rotherham’s defensive block to receive from the back line, while McCallum (15) occupied the left half space.

With Rathbone (18) pressing Sainz (7), and McCallum (15) moving back out wide, Barnes (10) became free to receive between the lines. City’s number ten then returned the ball to Sainz (7), who outpaced Rathbone (18) into space before playing Sargent (9) through in a 1v1.

Moving into the final third, Norwich were able to exploit a 6v5 last-line overload against Rotherham’s 5–3–2 while often leaving a 2–2 rest defence on the edge of their half.

This last-line advantage meant City’s attacking full-backs were often in space to receive on both touchlines. Once one of the full-backs received a pass out wide, Rotherham’s back line shifted over to the ball-side. If this shift was effective, they left the full-back free on the opposite side.

Early in the first half, however, Revan (28) advanced for a long Rotherham goal-kick before Stacey (3) ran into the space behind in the following transition. This forced Humphreys (24) to track City’s right-back.

As Sara (17) moved into the box, he found space behind Morrison (23) before converting a comfortable free header following Stacey’s (3) cross.

From the start of the second half, Leam Richardson changed the visitor’s setup, replacing Wyke (14) with Rinomhota (12) to create a 5–4–1 shape out of possession.

But this adjustment gave City’s back line too much time on the ball and allowed passing angles to Barnes (10) and the inverted wingers — a positional advantage Norwich exploited in the build-up to Sara’s (17) incredible half-volley.

Rotherham’s final structural adjustment came just over ten minutes later once Norwich had made two further substitutions, which forced Sara (17) to drop back alongside Nunez (26).

Alongside two additional changes, Leam Richardson replaced Morrison (23) with Appiah (30) to allow the visitors to transition between a 4–3–3 mid-press and a 4–5–1 mid-block. This final change created the visitor’s most balanced setup, with the attacking three pressing from the front of their new man-oriented defensive system.

But these changes came too late for Rotherham. For the most part, the visitors managed to play into Norwich’s hands in virtually every phase of play.

Their build-up was direct and predictable, and their press allowed the upsides of Norwich’s expansive settled-play shape without challenging the weaknesses.

This was a comfortable win for City, and Wagner’s side had complete technical and tactical superiority throughout.