Norwich Vs Sunderland: How SAFC frustrated NCFC

Score: 1–0

Possession (%): 51–49

Passes: 513–501

Shots: 16–12

xG: 1.27–0.58

• Norwich’s settled-play patterns.
• Sunderland’s pendulum press.
• Dodds’ defensive organisation.
• Second-half success.

Base Formations:

On the back of a prolific run of form at Carrow Road, David Wagner’s Norwich faced a Sunderland side with Mike Dodds at the helm on an interim basis.

Wagner made one change following City’s 1–1 draw with Blackburn, as Ashley Barnes replaced Marcelino Nunez. Both sides set up in 4–2–3–1 base formations before transitioning into various alternative setups depending on the phase of play.

During Norwich goal-kicks, Bellingham (7) joined Semedo (9) in a front two before the visitors immediately dropped back towards their own half, creating a compact 4–4–2 structure.

This allowed Wagner’s side to transition into their usual settled-play shape much earlier in the build-up phases. Sunderland boss Mike Dodds described these rotations as “unique to the league”, with McLean (23) dropping into a situational back three, the full-backs advancing on both sides, and the wingers inverting into the space between the lines.

Beyond these deep build-up phases, Sunderland selected moments to sit back and control advanced spaces before jumping into a more aggressive press, with the aim of forcing Norwich back towards their own goal.

Given the nature of the visitor’s press, the logical order of analysis is contrary to that of many match breakdowns. Typically, it makes sense to analyse the highest pressing phases first, prior to assessing how the side drop into their mid-press or mid-block when the team in possession advance.

But in this case, Sunderland often began by dropping into their mid-block before gradually stepping up to apply pressure to City’s back line. If they managed to force the hosts back, Dodds’ side transitioned into a far more aggressive press than they created during goal-kicks.

The order of analysis, therefore, should reverse to match the predominant dynamics of Sunderland’s press. So let’s begin by analysing the visitor’s 4–4–2 mid-block once Norwich had advanced into periods of settled possession.

With Bellingham (7) joining Semedo (9) in a front two and Sara (17) occupying the space ahead of Norwich’s situational back three, the Sunderland duo created a ‘pendulum press’. This is where the ball-side centre-forward presses the ball-carrying defender, while the far-side forward tracks the single pivot.

In this case, once Hanley (5) passed to McLean (23), Semedo (9) could either leave him free and press Gibson (6), or he could apply pressure to McLean (23). Meanwhile, Bellingham (7) would move back over to occupy Sara (17), thus creating the back-and-forth ‘pendulum’ pattern.

If Semedo (9) pressed McLean (23), the visitor’s right-winger Callum Styles (28) would jump to press Gibson (6) as he received the ball from Norwich’s deep-lying midfielder.

In such situations, Giannoulis (30) dropped to provide an out-ball, but Sunderland ensured City’s full-back remained occupied by his counterpart, with Hume (32) tracking the Greek left-back. In response, Sainz (7) often moved into the space vacated by Hume (32) but was followed by Neil (24).

With Mike Dodds’ side tightly occupying every player on the ball-side, they successfully limited Norwich’s progression.

As a result of Sunderland’s man-orientation, McLean (23) often dropped deeper to create a gap between himself and Semedo (9), leaving him free to receive from Gibson (6). The completion of this pass enabled the visitors to push up further, as the far-side winger jumped to prevent Hanley (5) from becoming free.

As Bellingham (7) remained with Sara (17), these dynamics created the next phase of Sunderland’s strategy out of possession: their situational 4–2–3–1 mid-press.

With both wingers now committed to the initial lines of pressure, Neil (24) and Ekwah (39) moved wider to occupy City’s inverted wingers. But this exposed the visitors to Norwich’s 3v2 central overload, as the host’s deep-lying forward became free between the lines.

But when Sunderland blocked central progression to Norwich’s free man, they forced the host’s even further into their own half, where City’s 3-diamond-3 structure became clear. In these situations, the nearest centre-back occasionally jumped to press Sargent (9) or Barnes (10) when they received a pass between the lines.

In Norwich’s deep build-up phases, Sunderland alternated between their predominant 4–4–2 structure and their situational 4–2–3–1. This was dependent on the wingers’ depth and the centre-forwards’ pendulum press.

When the ball-side winger was pinned back by one of Norwich’s attacking full-backs, both centre-forwards pressed from the front alongside the far-side winger, thereby maintaining a 3v3 against City’s back line. In these situations, Neil (24) was forced to jump onto City’s single pivot to prevent the creation of a free man behind the first line of pressure.

But once City’s full-backs advanced, and both Sunderland wingers pressed high, the visitors created a temporary 4–2–4 structure with neither forward pressing City’s back line and the pendulum pattern temporarily ceasing.

In the first half, Sunderland’s defensive organisation frustrated Wagner’s men. The visitors were able to prevent Norwich’s controlled progression before forcing them back into their own half, often encouraging them to play long diagonal passes — an approach with limited success given Sunderland’s tight marking of City’s full-backs and wingers.

In Sunderland’s deepest build-up phases, they created an expansive shape from their 4–2–3–1 base, with Patterson (1) splitting the centre-backs and the full-backs advancing on both touchlines.

In response, Norwich created their usual 4–1–3–2 pressing structure, but the wingers often dropped to occupy space closer to Sunderland’s full-backs.

There were still situations in which McLean (23) was isolated in a horizontal 2v1 when Styles (28) moved away from Giannoulis (30), but Norwich’s highest pressing lines did well to force Sunderland long. In doing so, the visitors failed to access the overload behind the initial lines of pressure.

In settled possession, Sunderland transitioned into a fluid structure, with one pivot often dropping into a back three while Bellingham (7) drifted between midfield roles. In response, Norwich created their usual 4–4–2 mid-block.

The visitor’s narrow wingers were able to exploit another of Norwich’s recurring pressing issues when City’s far-side winger was drawn towards the free centre-back, allowing a pass into the half-space behind. But crucially, the visitors were frequently ineffective in the final third.

In the second half, a slight adjustment to Sunderland’s settled-play structure created a fluid but clearer 3–2–5 shape as Hjelde (33) dropped to create the back three, leaving Neil (24) and Ekwah (39) in midfield and Bellingham (7) in the left half-space.

Utilising their last-line overload, the visitor’s build-up was smooth, but they remained ineffectual in the final third.

There’s no doubt the hosts had control of the ball for large spells of the first half, but it’s important to recognise that you can control a game without the ball; I’d suggest Sunderland did that for the majority of the first 45 minutes.

So how did Norwich go from accumulating 0.23xG in the first half to 1.04xG in the second? Perhaps ironically, given the criticism from some, City were more effective playing through their structure with more patience after halftime.

The difference was notable, with 82 percent of Norwich’s accumulated expected goals coming in the second half. It wasn’t an easy task to break Sunderland down, but in many ways that makes it an even more impressive win in City’s race for the top six.