duncanjwitham

11 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

Ward is a wing back isn’t he? I thought that was where he played for Posh, contributing 6 goals and 10 assists from that position last season, and 5 goals with 13 assists in the 20/21 season. He only had 3 assists in their championship season in between though. 
And didn’t Wilson played as a wing back for Forest Green?

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.

32 minutes ago, angieram said:

The Ward v Nyambe debate is a bit superfluous while Nyambe is injured, but for me it's about Warne making the right choices.

In games where we need to be on the offensive then Ward is perfect. Backs against the wall, I'd want Nyambe there every time. 

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.

15 minutes ago, Barney1991 said:

Leigh Curtis seems to pointing towards a 4231 with ward right back and sibley in a 3 behind Gayle 

We’re definitely warming up with that back 4…

1 hour ago, bcnram said:

We played Igor as a sweeper controlling everything. None of our current defenders would be capable of that, nor do I think our current manager has the ability to understand how to play it.

 

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.

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

In summary, it became a bit of a mess in the 2nd half, with the fans and seemingly the players unsure of where everyone was meant to be?

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.

5 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

I think it ended up as a three because Cashin ended the match driving forwards as a sort of playmaker, probably more like a wing back. Warne spoke of going 3 at the back during his rd interview, IIRC

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).

5 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I actually agree with that, however I don't believe in retrospectively claiming he did a bad job at Derby based on him being a poor manager elsewhere (not what you did, but others).

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.

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

What do you base that on, not last season. Plus they got to get at our centrebacks instead! 😄

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.

1 minute ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

I think the endless head tennis came about from Charlton imposing their game on us, and us not handling it to then impose our game of the first half on them. They ratcheted up the physicality and brought on bigger and bigger players. If people get disillusioned watching our football they’d be suicidal watching Charlton play, Christ almighty. The most route one team I’ve seen in a long long time. 

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.

6 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Sibley played LB regularly in a defence last season that barely conceded a chance never mind a goal.

But it’s not necessarily about him, can stick anyone who offers any sort of attacking threat there for all I care but breaking up the Nelson and Cashin partnership firstly for 3 at the back and now to shoehorn Bradley in so he doesn’t have to drop his marquee signing again, is crazy. Just no need. The back 4 last night was baffling.

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.

6 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Don’t think you can criticise the subs made. Adams possibly but he’d been kicked from pillar to post and played majority of the game, Smith is just back from injury so need to be careful as Gayle also we need to treat carefully. You can definitely criticise started by line up, but only alternative would be sibs or Wilson at left back, Elder would no doubt have started if fit. 

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?

14 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I thought Gayle looked promising in the first 20 minutes and was a large reason why we started so brightly. It was nice to have an actual footballer upfront. As much as I like Collins, if he isn't getting his head on something or putting his toe on it then he's a liability outside box. 

Gayle just needs to get a goal to get some confidence and we need to play into his feet as he's processes things very quickly and can bring others into play. 

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.

4 minutes ago, Srg said:

Last night was the footballing equivalent of that Willy Wonka experience in the news right now.

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

18 minutes ago, Kernow said:

I know. It’s two losses back to back, and it’s easy to say ifs and buts, but if Wildsmith doesn’t s*** the bed and give away the penalty, and we go on to win 1-0, what’s different?

It’s the exact same performance except we’re 3 points further ahead and everything is a lot more positive.

It’s the downside of playing football in this way, if you keep winning then brilliant but it only takes a couple of defeats before the pitchforks are out. We had this issue a few months ago and went on a run of great form. If we can sort ourselves out and stay positive then I think we can hit good form again, the problem is the league is poor, and there’s no reason why Bolton can’t also do the same.

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?

32 minutes ago, Kernow said:

I don’t think many can argue that we’ve been a great side this season. We’ve been industrious and efficient, which up til now has worked more times than it hasn’t.

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.

1 minute ago, rammieib said:

1) Agreed

2) From a business perspective, I believe the Championship will be worth an extra £7-10m in revenue. Of course our costs go up but who doesn't want this. 

I'd also suggest - we stay down, Bird is already gone, I am sure Cashin will move on (We just get a decent fee) so what will we be left with? Our better ball playing players will have left (Bird, Cashin, Hourihane), a manager playing lump it football, a depleted squad size, a manager who seems to struggle to attract good attacking players (Which attacking players has he bought in who are a success - even Wilson for all his skill doesn't contribute much in goals/assists). It's a disaster waiting to happen under Warne.

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.

4 minutes ago, Leicester Ram said:

Very succinctly written, Kernow

We all have February slump PTSD so I do sympathise with those that are panicking

There’s a good chance I’ll also be sharpening my pitchfork at the end of the season if we don’t go up but for now, I’m not blinded by the (1)lack of entertainment” when this always has been a results business

How so many posters are convincing themselves that (2)promotion almost isn’t worth it if Warne’s in charge shows how far from reality you can get when you dislike a manager. I remember thinking the same when Rowett was in charge but if we’d been promoted with him then we wouldn’t be here now - I couldn’t have been more wrong

I’ll put the tin hat on and say Warne’s biggest issue is managing the expectations of a bunch of pearl clutchers who can’t sit through the (3)grim reality of League One football at their precious Derby County and boo the team

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.

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

We have a squad of players and many of them don't know where they'll be playing next season.

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.

5 minutes ago, angieram said:

And what is that formation, iyo?

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.

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Funny that Pearce never suggested it at Chelsea given their record on spending too.

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…

7 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Here you are fella - you can find it for yourself in the EFL v DCFC decision document from 2020, from item 47) onwards:-

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/efl-v-derby-county--decision.pdf

 

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.

1 minute ago, Foreveram said:

Your last sentence is the telling one though. Presumably the appeal would also have cost more money, I wonder what the consequences would have been if we had won the appeal.

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.