duncanjwitham

From what the Peterborough fans said when we signed him, he mostly played as a winger for them, and when he did play at wingback he wasn't as good. It doesn't really matter though where he played for them though - he's clearly not good enough defensively to play wingback IMO. And it's the same with Wilson - AFAIK he did play there for them, but he's not good enough defensively to play wingback every week for a team that wants to be getting promoted from this league. It's like describing Louis Sibley as a wingback by trade because he's played there a bunch of times for us - he clearly isn't one either. NML and Barkhuizen both played as wingbacks at their previous clubs - again they clearly aren't wingbacks. If you want to play wingbacks, you *have* to have players that can play that position properly - it's the most important part of that setup - and if you don't have them you are going to get killed on one side of the game or the other (defensively or offensively). There will be games where you can get away with it (like yesterday), but you can't get away with it every game if you want to be winning things.

The thing is, you can't afford to play Nyambe as a wingback (or Elder for that matter), no matter the circumstances, because in a 352, your wingbacks *have* to be a major part of your attack. If you have any intention of being a top team, you simply cannot go into games with your primary wide players not really wanting to cross the halfway line, and just hoping that NML does some magic or you score from a set piece or something. The big issue is that despite 3 transfer windows and umpteen signings, we still don't have a single actual wingback. It's a highly specialised position, where you *need* to be able to contribute offensively and defensively. We seem to have a ragtag bunch of fullbacks and wingers that can do half the job.

We’re definitely warming up with that back 4…

The big thing was that pretty much everyone else was still playing 442 at that point. So us playing 352 basically left Stimac and whoever of Asanovic/Baiano/Kinladze as spare men, with the freedom to go and influence the game. Nowadays, most teams play one up front and 3 in midfield, so us playing a back 3 leaves us with 3 men marking one striker and us getting outnumbered somewhere else.

Yeah, pretty much. I *think* it was basically this at the end: Wilson Nelson Bradley Cashin Barkhuizen Bird Sibley NML Waghorn CBT But I'm far from convinced.

Best I could tell, we started in a back 4, went to a back 3 when Sibley came on (at left wingback), then went back to a 4 when CBT came on (Sibley went into midfield and Cashin went back to left back).

I think it's reasonably fair to say (given both of their post-Derby careers so far) that while Rooney was the public face of the operation, probably did the motivation, public speaking etc and had the contact book of mates to call, Rosenior was the footballing brains behind the operation. And that's not meant as a slight on Rooney, he was excellent at that other stuff. And he's by no means the only manager who's basically needed a good right-hand man to compensate for his own weaknesses.

I thought that towards the end of his run at LB last season, teams were starting to target him a little bit - stick your best winger on him and force the ball there because you know he's going to get caught out sooner or later. Overall he did a decent enough job and all that, and I can't fault him for effort or anything, but he's just not experienced enough at the position to deal with a top winger at this level. You wouldn't want him up against someone like NML for example. But like I said, Charlton didn't seem to have one of those, so I think he'd have been fine.

Yeah, I'm sure we weren't intending to play head-tennis for the whole second half, but effectively playing Max Bird in midfield on his own isn't going to solve that problem, it's going to make it worse.

The thing with Sibley at left back is, he's good going forwards, but less good when he has to do some proper defending. Last night, against a pretty poor, out of form team, at home, should have been an obvious game to use Sibley there. They didn't really get at Cashin all that often, certainly not to the extent where you're thinking Sibley would have struggled.

I don't necessarily have a problem with taking Smith and Adams off if they're struggling for fitness or whatever, it's more the way the whole thing was handled. We had 2 major shifts in system during the game - from 4231, to 352 when Sibley came on, to 433 (I think) when CBT came on. Each one of those shifts, we ended up with less players in central midfield - I think Bird was basically playing on his own in there by the end (it looked like he was at the base of a 433, with Sibley and Barkhuizen in front of him, but it was very muddled by that stage). So each time we change system, we get further and further away from what actually worked early on (passing through midfield into Gayle's feet) and leaned more and more into what really wasn't working (endless head-tennis as we just and get the ball quickly to the bunch of guys milling around up front). And that's on top of the general confusion caused by players repeatedly moving between positions during the game. If we needed to take off Smith and Adams, we had Thompson, Fornah and Sibley as midfield options on the bench. And if we weren't willing to use them, then why were they on thereat all?

I was actually surprised how good he was on the ball. I was half expecting him to just be a goal poacher, that stood in the box waiting for a pass that never came, but his link up play was pretty good.

Completely different situations - they're giving out refunds for that Willy Wonka thingy...

This isn't aimed at you necessarily (you've just triggered something that's been bugging me for a while), but I do find it very odd that the people who insist that this is a really poor league and we can't possibly play good football with all the terrible footballers in it, seem to be the exact same people that think players should never ever make mistakes, should score very chance they have etc. So maybe once we fill the squad with players who aren't good enough to pass to each other consistently, but at the same time never, ever make mistakes, we'll be fine?

Honestly, I think that a lot of the performances this season haven't really looked all that different to last night. The only difference being that in those games we didn't make those silly mistakes, and NML/Hourihane/Collins etc pulled a goal or 2 out of nowhere and we ended up winning fairly comfortably. And that's why a lot of people have been so frustrated, even when we've won, because it doesn't feel sustainable. We aren't going to go the entire season without making silly mistakes, and without those key matchwinners getting injuries or getting tired or losing form, yet with the way we set up, it feels like we're going to have to. And that's compounded because we know with the way we play, that players are going to pick up knocks, and that older players are going to get tired etc, and that's when the mistakes creep in and performances start to drift off.

The unwritten assumption in my post was that I'd rather a different manager actually get something in place (even if it takes us another year or 2), than Warne drag us up through sheer bloody-mindedness and then take us straight back down. I dread to think what we'll look like next season after most of the remaining footballers have gone, whatever league we're in.

A few points: 1. It's an entertainment business. If the club think they can rely entirely on goodwill to keep people coming in through the gates, they're in for a shock. And more than anything, playing entertaining football gives you something to fall back on when results don't go your way. If you play well but manage to lose the game, people are still going to be largely positive. If you play terribly and lose anyway, then what have you got? Nothing. 2. I think there's definitely an argument that going up and coming straight back down is worse than not going up this year, then going up in a season or 2 and staying there. We are still a "temporarily embarrassed Championship club" in most peoples minds (potential signings included), going up and staying up reinforces that. Proving that we can't compete at Championship level any more just hammers home that we might end up stuck permanently at this kind of level. (Obviously I know you can't pick and choose your promotions, you take what you can etc.) 3. When did people get so down on the club? It's like a big chunk of Derby fans have decided that we need to be punished and aren't allowed to have nice things any more. It's *weird*. We're not demanding that the club plays like Real Madrid every game, but it would be nice if we actually tried every now and then. We're one of the biggest clubs in the league, with pretty much the biggest wage bill, probably the best academy and whatever else. We should be going into games believing we can outplay the opposition, and okay if we can't then we find other ways to win, but we should at least be starting with that mindset. I find the gamut of "it's League One, we have to play bad football" to "we can't outplay teams, so we'll have to outrun them" type attitudes pretty sad to be honest. We should be a team that plays good football and believes that we are good enough to beat teams by doing that.

Most of them didn't know where they were playing last night either... 😉

I suspect it was mostly delusion - "we'll be making so much money soon that nobody will notice a few missing millions, or I can just pay it back with all the money I'll be making too". And it caught up with him before they ever made those millions (if they ever were going to...). In terms of Quantuma cutting him off earlier, can you *imagine* the firestorm that would have kicked off in the fanbase, and at the EFL, if Kirchner had gone on TV or Radio Derby and announced that he had the money to save Derby, but Quantuma won't speak to him? Goldman-Sachs backed, current sponsor of a big golf tournament and an NHL team, passed the EFLs tests, Rooney and co on board etc, the lynching parties would have been starting in minutes.

433: WIldsmith Nyambe Nelson Cashin Elder Bird Adams Hourihane NML Waghorn Barkhuizen Assuming Waghorn is fit enough to start at some point soon, as he's the only real focal point we have. Fozzy back in for Elder when he's fit. Rotate the wingers with Wilson/Ward/CBT etc as per form/fitness. The same with Sibley/Thomspon/Smith etc in the midfield 3.

To be fair, I don’t think FFP existed when he was at Chelsea, so there was no incentive to fiddle with amortisation models. Plus the club always claimed that it was the introduction of FRS102, which slightly tweaked reporting requirements, that sparked the change in our method. Whether people choose to believe that may vary of course…

I suspect the suggestion there is that we got the auditors involved early in approving the new methodology, rather than having the auditors design it themselves. Basically we didn’t want to submit the accounts with the new stuff in and have them go “WTF? Oh hell no”.

Stuff like this is why people don’t like Maguire. Skim reading that tweet makes it sound like Quantuma have been charged with wire fraud, when in fact it’s a “company makes profit” non-story. I’m sure it’s deliberately worded that way as click-bait.

The entirety of the EFL's actions (as a governing body that is, not the league as a whole) only make sense through a lens of them just wanting their cushy little existence to go on, and not be bothered by anything. They were quite happy to let us get on with doing whatever we wanted, until 'Boro and co started threatening them, so they felt they had to act. They buried their head in the sand about 'Boro and co's actions during our admin and waited until Morris finally stepped in and sorted it out. They're doing their best to ignore issues at other clubs like Reading. They just want the world to leave them alone to their prawn sandwiches. I think if we'd won the appeal, they would have maybe let it go, as that was possibly a big enough stick to deter 'Boro. They'd probably amend the rules to force straight-line amortization for everyone and stop stadium sales counting for FFP going forwards (which they did anyway on both counts). But no retrospective changes for our accounts. But honestly, that first IDC report, particularly the bit about the stadium valuation, should have ended them as a governing body. There should be no coming back from spending hundreds of thousands of pounds having a guy who'd never ever valued a football stadium (and had literally no clue how to go about it) redo a disputed valuation, and then construe an entire set of charges and tribunals off the back of it. The clubs themselves should have kicked them out for the sheer abuse of power and waste of resources.