duncanjwitham

6 minutes ago, NorwichExile said:

I'm probably alone in thinking promotion would actually suit Warneball. We're on for our best away form season ever, and part of that is that teams are forced into attacking us on their home patch. We have a strong core to the defence and can counter quickly. Where we struggle is breaking down teams doing exactly what we want to do; sitting deep and breaking quickly. Promotion would mean we were not the heavy favourites for every game and teams would be expecting to take points off us, so would attack more freely and play into our underdog gameplan.

Is it fun to watch? Heck no, it's dour and boring. But it's effective. 30% possession away at Exeter sounds abysmal untill you read their fans saying we played them off the park and showed a real quality difference.

The bit in bold is the key though, because it won't be true in the Championship - the majority of teams will have better players than us.  Exeter created enough chances to think a half-decent Championship team would have scored at least one, and we probably don't score all of the goals we did against better defenders.

2 hours ago, MadAmster said:

I've not looked up last night's xG stats but I think our 3 goals wouldn't score well under xG but Collo's early, saved strike would. Conversely, they created a few chances inside our box but either mis-controlled or shot wide/over and those missed chances would probably attract a better xG than our actual goals.

The first site I've looked at had xG at 1.24 v 1.24 for last night, and that basically lines up with your analysis there.  Both sides had a few decent chances.  We scored one of ours (the NML goal was probably a fairly good chance, xG-wise), missed our best chance (Collins), and scored a couple more from less-good chances.  They scored none of their chances (you literally described them as being "wasteful" in the match thread, so you clearly think they were capable of scoring from those chances).

That tells me xG is doing what it's supposed to.  It's trying to tell you who created the best chances in the game, nothing more, nothing less than that.  If xG had come out at 0.0-3.0 or something similar, then it's an entirely useless stat - we already have a goals-scored stat for that.  

31 minutes ago, May Contain Nuts said:

Between games 6 and 18 (13 games) we used 11 diferent XI's which have yet to be repeated.

I'd hardly describe this as having a consistent starting XI, however we look at it.

We've had 8 players start at least 75% of our league games - Wildsmith, Nelson, Cashin, Forsyth, Bird, Hourihane, Collins, NML.  I reckon that's a much better indicator than the number of unique XIs we've put out.  

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

Another myth that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The mad thing is, both sides are kind of right.  We've over-played our core players during the first half of the season, and they're starting to pick up little niggles and miss games, leading to the uncertainty over the line-up now.

10 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

IMO xG is no better a stat than shots/SOT. In the end, it all comes down to creating chances, making the decision to shoot and then whether it's off target, on target but saved/blocked or on target and in.

That only holds true if you think that all shots (or shots on target) are equally as likely to result in goals.  As soon as you accept that some shots are more likely to result in goals than other shots, then xG is potentially a better stat that just shots on its own.

There are absolutely some types of games where shots (on target) is going to be a very good predictor of the actual outcome, because in general the better team is more likely to have more shots and more likely to score some of them.  But there are also games where that is not going to be true.  For example, games where you've got one team dominating possession against a team sitting in a low block (which we've seen plenty of over the years!), the team on the ball is probably going to have a fair few shots, but many of them will be pot-shots from distance or snatched half chances under pressure, that are unlikely to result in goals.  The other team is going to have much fewer shots, but they are probably going to be much better chances, where they've won the ball back an counter-attacked or something. 

xG is just an attempt to factor all that stuff in.  You can see it in the scores/stats you've posted above.  Luton had nearly 3 times as many shots as Sheff Utd, but the xG is almost the same.  That's very clearly saying that Luton were creating a lot of poor chances, vs Sheff Utd creating a few very good ones.  The Fulham vs Bournemouth game is similar.  I haven't watched those games, but those xG stats are telling more about the game than just the shots ones on their own are.  xG is certainly not perfect, and there's definitely an element of opinion in it (someone is having to make a value judgment somewhere about what a 'good' chance is, even if that is just down to the choice of methodology for calculating it), but to me, it's telling me stuff I didn't already know, so its useful.

6 minutes ago, Eoghan1884 said:

Did Cashin say what’s wrong in the hospitality suite. Some idiots on X are saying he’s broke his leg.

Radio Derby didn't go into specifics, but did say Cashin's injury wasn't too bad.  They implied Vickers was a worse one.

4 minutes ago, littleover ram said:

Blackett-Taylor out of favour with Warne already 😭

We spent the whole summer recruiting for a back 3 and wingbacks, only to abandon it after a few games.  So of course we spent the whole of January recruiting wingers, only to change to wingbacks after 2 games...

3 minutes ago, Rampant said:

I reckon it'll be Bradley left, Nyambe right, Nelson centre.

There's no way Bradley plays one of the wider roles, he's just not mobile enough.  Nyambe has played left (wing)back at times, so if it is a back 3, odds are he plays on the left.

Just now, eddielewis said:

Interesting how that 3 is positioned is it just a simple swap with Nyambe at LCB or does everyone shift one across with Nyambe at RCB? 

Could easily be a flat four too.  NML and Ward as wingers.

Spend the last 3 weeks in a panic because we don't have a right back, then as soon as we actually have one, switch to a formation that doesn't use one... #JustPaulWarneThings

20 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

About sums up why you don’t get selected 

I think he could probably get away with it more in other systems.  Put him in a more possession-heavy system for example, and he gets caught on the ball less often as he's always going to have more passing options to move it to quickly.  Plus we probably get counter-attacked on a lot less if we're keeping the ball (instead of the mad, stretched, end-to-end stuff we see at times) so he gets exposed less that way too.

It's looks like another case of panic-signing a player that doesn't really seem to fit what we want in anything other than the most basic way (he's a midfielder that runs around a lot, he'll do etc etc).

5 minutes ago, Srg said:

With a huge asterisk with the fact that a lot of his minutes and when these lapses occur is when Hourihane is on the pitch, who is completely unable to cover any ground whatsoever and is the common denominator in our porous midfield.

He needs to improve, of course he does, but he's also of an age where he can. Stick him with Bird there and it would help.

I don't think that's really anything to do with it.  I'm talking about stuff when it's very clearly his man who he just leaves, or when he just dawdles on the ball for far too long and gets caught out.  And he's 24, he's not going to improve this stuff massively, especially since he seems to be on Warne's don't-trust list and isn't going to get time on the pitch to learn this stuff.

8 minutes ago, Srg said:

To me, he's shown enough to be worthy of game time here. Take minutes from Hourihane, he doesn't need them and maybe he can actually be more useful with more energy in the tank.

He looks like a technically decent player and he's mobile and stuff, but he just seems to have no awareness of what's going on around him.  He gets caught in possession a lot when we have the ball, and he lets players run off him when we don't have it.  And both of those things are absolutely suicidal given the way we play.

31 minutes ago, May Contain Nuts said:

Anyway, if we sign this lad (which I have no doubt we will) then it goes some way to alleviating people's concerns about how he sees the team working better as a unit, which is what most people critical of Warne do actually want from him.

Awareness, learning, improvement. It's just that we haven't seen anywhere near enough of it.

I suppose it depends on what we do with him.  If he just comes in and replaces one of Bird or Hourihane, then I don't think he's learned anything - we've just replaced a footballer with a guy that runs around a lot, and not solved any of the underlying issues.  If he comes in with the intention of moving to a 3 in midfield, and using him to get Bird and Hourihane on the ball in more dangerous areas, then maybe.

40 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

Good thing Bird can do both then 👀

I genuinely think if we stuck Bird further forward, put someone more mobile next to Hourihane and just told them their main job was to get the ball into Max Bird's feet as much as possible, we'd look miles better.  If we still want to get it wide and cross it, then we can do that, Bird is more than capable of feeding wide players from there.  We'd be much less susceptible to getting overrun in midfield.  We'd keep the ball better, so less aimless chasing around.  It might take a few extra passes to get the ball into the final third, but the quality will be so much better when we do.

46 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

In fairness, #10s are literally referred to as 'second strikers', and are often dedicated forwards. Our best #10 in recent years was Vydra (who was a textbook trequartista). Firmino played this role in Klopp's gegenpress, and Rooney in later years played this role for Utd as well.

In your system, 'pushing' a midfielder in a 3 would make them more of an #8? So Warne playing a striker as a #10 in his 4231 does make sense, you just seem to prefer a traditional 433. 

The thing is, genuine #10s/second strikers/whatever basically don't exist in modern football, unless you're doing something very, very specific (Leicester's title winning team is an example, where they almost gave up on possessing the ball and just sat deep and counterattacked).  There are very few small, pacy strikers any more (Owen, Defoe types) and where they do exist, they get stuck out wide (like Rashford).  And there are very few dribbly attacking midfielders any more (Kinkladze, Kaka types) and again where they do exist, they get stuck out wide (like Grealish).

If you have any desire to have meaningful possession, you have to have 3 central midfielders in some form or other.  That can be a straight 3, some kind of 4231 with the centre of the 3 dropping in, 442 with a wide midfielder tucking in (like Paul Coutts for us) or whatever, but you need bodies in there.  And that mostly means you have to play 1 central striker, and that needs to be someone that can play up front on their own, that you can play off (whether that being a Chris Martin dropping off and linking up, or an Ivan Toney/Callum Wilson style mobile, physical presence you can be more direct to).  You can't play a small/pacy/dribbly guy there on his own, and if you play 2 strikers together, you get overrun in midfield and your #10 doesn't get the ball anyway.

Teams that are playing 4231 mostly play with a creative passer in the middle of the 3 (De Bruyne, Bruno Fernandes etc), not a dribbler.  Teams are using false 9 type things to have strikers dropping into what used to be the number 10 role (Messi has done this, Firmino sort of, Martin for us).  When we used Vydra as a 10, we were basically doing what Leicester did - almost a back 6 sitting very deep, and a front 4 just trying to win us the game on their own.  And we had the textbook counterexample in the previous season, when Vydra really struggled to make an impact in a possession-heavy McClaren team.  We're seeing it happen this season when we play what's basically a 424 (with Barkhuizen, Sibley, TJJ as a 10), where we get overrun and they never get the ball.

2 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

How many sides in League 1 have the luxury (be it time or money) to build a Championship ready side?

It took Ipswich several years of building and at great expense.

Look at the market we are shopping in at the moment by comparison. It’s very different.

We might be able to attract players who have Championship experience but they are stepping down into League 1 for a good reason.

In our current state, we are not likely to attract many players who we can say we are confident about their ability to transition to Championship football.

We’ll probably look to add some extra quality in every area of the squad.

 

It's not so much about having championship-ready players, it's about the style of play.  You want to be in a position where if you go up, you can basically carry on doing that you're doing, but add a few quality players where you can find them to kick that style up a level. 

I just don't believe that we will win enough games at Championship level if we keep playing like we are, even if we do add a few quality players to the squad.  No amount of extra running will make up for the amount of times we turn possession over, when up against better players.  Plus we go from having one of the strongest squads in the league to having one of the weakest, so there's much less chance of winning games by the sheer virtue of having a Hourihane or having a NML or having a McGoldrick in the team.

1 hour ago, Waghorny said:

I don't think the budget will change much, but I think we'll be changing tact from high earners on a free (to fit in with the 'business plan'), to lower earners that cost a transfer fee...

Warne openly said during the summer transfer window that he was choosing to not sign those type of players.  Something like the players were no better than he was getting on frees, so why pay?

3 minutes ago, DiggerB said:

Yep, why he even ends up beyond the defensive side of the centre circle is beyond me?

Because that's what Warne means by "gas out" football.  He wants those 2 midfielders sitting protecting the back 4 and also pushing right up to support the attack.  And given how quickly we turn possession over, they basically spend the whole game running between the 2 boxes.  Which is why we look so knackered all the time, and why we look so open in midfield when we get counter-attacked on.

2 hours ago, MadAmster said:

I don't think it's numbers that are the problem. 2 DMs works, provided one of them isn't MB/CH. By all means have both in the side, as long as one of them is in the #10 role. Who would I MOVE/drop? CH. IMO he is no longer suited to the DM role so, based on the goals from the edge of the box he's scored of late, I'd be tempted to have him in the #10 role. I think his goals tally would improve. Also based on recent performances, I'd relieve him of dead ball duty. Bird, Ward, NML and Sibley are all currently better at it than CH.

 

Just my opinion. Having said that, he will get my backing every second he's on the pitch.

The main issue is how stretched we are as a team (i.e. the gaps between the lines in the team), as a result of the "get it forward quickly" philosophy we're using.  The problem the midfield 2 are having is when they pick up the ball, the 4 attackers in front of them all start making runs, and half the time the fullbacks do the same, so their only forward passing options are the backs of players shirts as they get further and further away.  So they either have to thread an inch perfect 30 yard pass through 4 defenders, lump a hopeful ball over the top, or play sideways/backwards.  There's no Chris Martin dropping off the front to link the play, no Simon Dawkins drifting in from the wing to give options, no Morten Bisgaard floating around in the AM position looking for the ball, no Mason Mount finding space in the final third etc.  We get the ball and everyone just starts bombing forwards. 

And that's all compounded by the fact that when we do actually get a pass into the forwards, both the central midfielders are expected to quickly get forward and support the attack, and then get back to track runners if they break on us.  That's an insane amount of effort to sustain for anyone, let alone 2 not-exactly-mobile players (one of which is definitely in physical decline) who basically play every minute if they're fit.  So as they've tired over the course of the seasons, we've had more and more games where they don't get forward enough and we're light in attack, or they get caught forwards and teams keep breaking on us, into an empty midfield.  I think that even if you drop/move/whatever Bird or Hourihane out of there, those problems still exist.  (And to be clear, expecting midfielders to support the attack is fine, expecting them to basically sprint continuously between the 2 boxes for 90 minutes is never going to work.)

I think there are definitely ways you can get Bird and Hourihane into the same midfield (with or without another body in there), but the way we're setting up at the moment isn't it.  Rowett had us playing a 424, the 2 DMs just sat while the front 4 tried to win the game - it was a bit negative, but it would probably work for us here.  McClaren had the whole team playing very compact, so there was lots of movement between the lines, lots of passing options available - something more like that that probably works ok with say Liam Thompson in there too.  Huddersfield used to play a 4231 with Jacob Butterfield just standing in the middle of the 3 pinging through-balls to the likes of Sean Scannell, Nakhi Wells etc.  That probably works if you just stick Hourihane (or Bird) there, play loads of balls into his feet 25 yards from goal and get 3 of NML, CBT, Washington, TJJ, Barkhuizen running off him.  There are options, but we don't seem interested in finding them, just trying to recreate Rotherham with players that clearly aren't suited for it.

2 hours ago, Jourdan said:

The quality of football is not high but we are also in League 1 with a squad of League 1 footballers, so quality and consistency are naturally difficult to maintain. If you are realistic about where we are, then perhaps it’s not so disappointing that we struggle in that department.

Some people believe we have the best squad in the league and should be a cert for top two. For me, we are a competitive top six side with an outside chance of top two. That always seemed likely to me as Bolton, Barnsley and Peterborough were better than us last season and have also looked to improve.

I am not really frustrated about people’s gripes over the style of play or generally not fazed by people not appreciating the job Warne is doing. I have too at times commented that it can be frustrating and also at times commented that Warne needs to step things up. 

I was all over the thread on Tuesday saying that it wasn’t good enough v Reading. I was all over the Stevenage thread saying Warne’s position was in trouble. The difference is that it seems that some people don’t seem willing to praise and criticise in equal measure and be balanced in their views. The praise was begrudging even when we won 8 games out of 9 recently. It feels like nothing will ever be enough for some.

In terms of meeting expectation, I would say that Warne is around par. Missing out on the playoffs last season was disappointing and being in the top six now is expected. Some of the opposition teams have good squads and equally good individual talent and experienced managers at this level (see Bolton and Peterborough with Evatt and Ferguson) that are proving just as canny. I don’t see that we can be dismissive of that.

A few random, semi-related points... 

We're also a playing against League 1 teams, with League 1 defenders etc.  We don't have to play exactly like Barcelona or anything, but we're absolutely capable of a much higher quality that what we're seeing.

Personally, I think we've probably got one of the top 2 squads in the League, and I think we've more than likely got one of the top 2 wage bills in the league.  There's just the overriding feeling that we aren't trying to make the most of what we do have.  For one, if you set your team up in such a way that you need Max Bird and Connor Hourihane to outrun a 3-man midfield to be successful, then you're setting yourself up for failure.  I'm not saying we have a God-given right to win the league or anything, but it almost feels like we're hamstringing ourselves and then when it doesn't work, shrugging our shoulders and carrying on doing it anyway.

There have been so many games we've not played very well at all, but we've got something out of the game because Hourihane has smashed one in out of nowhere (Burton) or NML blows past his fullback and crosses for Collins to half-volley in (Cheltenham).  I find it hard to give the manager too much credit when we've been borderline dysfunctional for big chunks of a game, but we won because we had better players and one of them did something.

1 hour ago, Srg said:

That’s not technically true. Traditionally, you can’t sign a pre-contract with another team from England in the January prior to the end of your contract in July. You could only do that with a team outside of England. 

Now, in this case, who knows how it’s been worked. Maybe because the loan has been agreed that that has too, somehow. Or, maybe it’s simply just been agreed that a permanent transfer happens just prior to the end of his contract and that value is £0. 

As I understand it, the issue isn't so much with signing the pre-contract, it's with approaching the player in the first place.  Tapping-up rules prevent you from speaking to a player from another club without their permission.  At least until the proper process in May has been gone through and they become free agents anyway.  In this case, Charlton are happy for us to speak to him and agree the pre-contract, so we have done.

9 minutes ago, Chesterfield_Ram said:

I believe the club would have had to pay 100% if HMRC requested it. Luckily though they agreed to a deal where they were guaranteed a set amount. I suppose they were of the believe that they would prefer a % of something, as opposed to 100% of nothing.

Your last sentence is right.  As one of the largest creditors, they could have absolutely refused the settlement if they weren’t happy with the percentage they were getting. But in that case they would basically get nothing, as nobody was buying the club for the amount of cash that paying 100% to HMRC would have required.  The rules were tweaked, but the fundamental mechanics of the situation were unchanged from previous football administrations - the only way anybody gets any money is if the club is able to carry on as a going concern.  And that dictates that creditors have to make a deal to make that happen.  That set of mechanics should have been obvious to anyone.  

The only issue would have been if HMRC decided to make an example of someone to demonstrate they were serious about the new rules - but given the questions that would have been raised about them simultaneously forcing a historic football club into liquidation, and turning down taking a (still significant) amount of money into the public purse, that was pretty unlikely IMO. 

23 minutes ago, Stockport Ram said:

I agree we had more, but my humble opinion is that none of them were anywhere near as three of theirs. I’d say NML’s was the best but still difficult. I am a bear of very little brain so maybe I just don’t comprehend the statistical basis of “expected” goals, because I assumed it was more based on the probability of the chances than their frequency. 

Its good to learn ! 🤓

Not necessarily aiming at this at you, but people do struggle to rate how good chances are.  When you look at actual real-life conversion rates of some types of shots, they are often wildly different to what people think.  One-on-ones are an obvious example, because people seem to think they should almost all be scored, but the actual conversion rate is something closer to 20% if my memory is correct.  And that’s something that xG is supposed to capture, and I suspect it’s part of the reason why xG stats don’t always measure up to people’s recollection of the game.

Having watched the highlights back again, their chances were all from wide angles, the attacker was under pressure from a defender in almost all of them, one was so from wide it was almost on the goal line, and one was taken from almost the edge of the box.  All of which count against the quality of the chances.  So the truth is, while the situations looked really bad (with Cashin getting done for pace etc), they actually didn’t result in very easy chances (in most part because Cashin was able to stay on his feet and influence the game).

And that’s another reason why stats are interesting alongside watching the game.  Most of the time they are going to more or less back up what you see with your eyes (and if they never did this, they’re probably useless stats).  But sometimes they don’t match up, and that’s when you can have a deeper dig and see if anything was actually going on that you didn’t notice first time (and likewise, if stats didn’t do this sometimes, they’re also useless stats because they don’t tell you anything you don’t already know).

9 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I think that's the difference between accountancy rules as they apply to businesses in general and the EFL capricious rules which don't have to make sense to anybody and only apply to the 72 businesses that are the EFL clubs?

I think it was more that nobody quite knew how the new rules (with HMRC having a higher preference) were going to interact with all that stuff.  But rather than say that it wasn’t clear yet, he came out and started making “factual” claims that later turned out to be wrong.