Whenever a player is signed, what follows is a tranche of information to create hype and explain why they are the next big thing, the missing piece of the jigsaw or someone to provide a huge upgrade on what is already in the building.

That is the same for Norwich City as every club in the professional game. Social media accounts have become businesses based on speculation, updates and news surrounding targets or deals. The transfer window has become an animal of its own and, at times, it can feel as though some relish its drama and theatrics more than what happens on the pitch on any given Saturday.

Inside clubs, including Norwich, data operations are expanding and scouting networks are becoming increasingly extensive. Yet there is still so much that isn’t under the control of clubs.

Norwich have done a lot of player trading since Ben Knapper arrived as sporting director – the model on that front has been clear; to sign young, develop and sell for profit. In turn, that enables that money to be funnelled on better targets and, as a result, City keep moving.

Selling players has been intrinsic to Brighton’s strategy, for example. It’s also the reality of modern football that most clubs’ best assets are sold. That is the circle of life.

Across Knapper’s tenure as City sporting director, there have been 37 incoming transactions overall, with approximately £67m–£71m spent compared to approximately £93m recouped in sales.

The 27 permanent senior recruits had a mean age of 23.4 and median of 23. 11 were under 23; only five were 27 or older. This is where it comes down to what Knapper’s brief is from the ownership – if it is about signing young, selling and generating profit, then it is hard to consider his tenure as anything but a success.

If his brief is to construct a Norwich City side capable of competing for promotion, the assessment looks considerably less flattering. The problem is nobody outside the club really knows which of those objectives carries greater weight.

The reality is that City’s place in the footballing food chain means they do have to take more gambles. Using the data, physical scouting and extensive character references, they try to make those gambles as educated as possible, but there is always an element of the unknown.

Matej Jurasek - a significant outlay that struggled to make progress at Norwich City. (Image: Daniel Hambury/Focus Images Ltd)

That is why it is a byproduct of their policy that every signing won’t be a success. There will be misses. The greater concern is that several of the more expensive additions have yet to justify that investment. Matej Jurasek and Amankwah Forson are obvious examples, while Norwich are still waiting for sufficient return from Ante Crnac and Mathias Kvistgaarden.

But here is the thing. For all the criticism of City's work in the market, it is difficult to argue that their player identification has been poor. Norwich have consistently uncovered players with talent.

The bigger issue is whether they have built a team. Identifying talented individuals is one thing; assembling players whose qualities complement each other, suit the head coach and create a side capable of challenging is another. That is where the bigger questions around Knapper's tenure lie.

Kvistgaarden is perhaps an example of this. Very few would dispute the talent he possesses, but does he fit into the style that Philippe Clement wants to play? Not really. Others can be overlaid into that context.

Norwich have signed talented individuals – so their player identification and scouting processes have worked. But Knapper's responsibility extends beyond identifying good players. It is to construct a squad with enough coherence to deliver the club's intended style without requiring major surgery every time the head coach changes. That is where things become more questionable.

Johannes Hoff Thorup was the first coach appointed by Ben Knapper throughout his time as sporting director. (Image: Paul Chesterton/Focus Images Ltd)

This is what Dan Ashworth, former sporting director at Newcastle United, Manchester United, Brighton and England, said in October 2019 to Training Ground Guru: “If you keep changing the head coach every 14 months, you have no chance… you end up having to change 17, 18 players in order to change the principles and philosophy.”

A sporting director cannot build a new squad every time the head coach changes. There has to be enough continuity in recruitment that players remain functional when the man selecting them inevitably changes. Norwich have not achieved that.

Clement is their fifth head coach since relegation. The bulk of those players signed in Knapper’s first transfer window were brought to slot in Johannes Hoff Thorup’s style. That is why they moved for Forson and Jurasek. It is why Jacob Wright arrived. It is why Jose Cordoba was the first addition.

Then those same players are being asked to deliver under different head coaches with different game models. Perhaps there is little wonder why consistency, both in performances and results, is hard to come by.

That is where the ‘recruitment’ part comes in. Take the last two games, with Kenny McLean absent, Norwich have started with just two players over the age of 25 – Dan Grimshaw and Jack Stacey.

Just as constructing a squad containing 11 players over 30 was not a recipe for success, neither is stripping it back so aggressively in the opposite direction.

Do Norwich need more additions like Kenny McLean? (Image: Paul Chesterton/Focus Images Ltd)

They have been too aggressive in pursuing that strategy, leaving an imbalanced team too dependent on confidence and emotion to perform.

And how do young players develop successfully? Usually within a structure capable of absorbing their inconsistency and covering their mistakes. Take 2018/19. Max Aarons and Jamal Lewis developed in a team that also contained Alex Tettey, Timm Klose, Tim Krul and Teemu Pukki. Those were established players capable of providing a consistent level of performance when younger team-mates inevitably dipped.

Experience isn't simply age, and it would be wrong to conflate the two. It is about players who understand situations, can alter the temperature of games and provide consistency when confidence disappears. Beyond Kenny McLean, Norwich look desperately short of that.

There is another contradiction. Norwich continue to invest heavily in maintaining Category One academy status while simultaneously recruiting externally in the very age bracket their academy is supposed to produce. Buying potential is understandable, but every 19, 20 or 21-year-old signed from elsewhere occupies a pathway that Norwich are paying millions to create for players developed at Colney.

Lucien Mahovo came through City's academy to the first-team - but even then was signed from Notts County. (Image: Paul Chesterton/Focus Images Ltd)

None of this makes Knapper solely responsible for Norwich's current predicament. Head coaches, players, ownership and circumstance all form part of a complicated picture. Nor does it mean City's recruitment operation cannot spot a player. There is considerable evidence that it can.

But sporting directors aren't ultimately judged on how many talented individuals they discover or how much profit appears on the trading sheet. They are judged on the team those decisions eventually create.

That is the distinction Norwich have yet to master. They have recruited assets. They have recruited potential. They have recruited talent. The question increasingly facing Knapper is whether he has recruited a team.