duncanjwitham

I've certainly thought the same about him.  He's definitely not a regular fullback in a flat back 4 for sure.  But there's definitely a player in there somewhere, and honestly, he's the kind of signing we don't make enough of - cheap gambles that we might be able to polish into something.  Obviously you can't fill your whole team with them, but there's more long-term value in having a few of them around than just filling out your squad with 32-year old free transfers.

None of those managers want slow sideways passing though, it's what happens when the team trying to play it hasn't quite clicked yet, or doesn't quite have the right players in place yet.  When it does click, you get stuff like that McClaren side, which was one of the most entertaining and exciting Derby teams I've ever seen.

4231 is plenty attacking enough if you're doing it properly...  2 deeper midfielders should give you a solid base to let everybody else get forward and support the attack (overlapping fullbacks, a number 10 with license to roam around and affect the play etc) and you use the 2 sitters to feed the ball into that lot.
We don't really do any of that though.  Our fullbacks aren't exactly a massive threat bombing forward - Forsyth is way past his best in terms of getting up and down, Niambe is a good player but more on the defensive end of the fullback spectrum.  We don't seem to use the only real number 10 we have there (Sibley), we either play Bird there and he ends up dropping back to make 3 sitting deeper, or we play Waghorn who pushes up too much and we end up in a very flat 442.  And we largely bypass the midfield 2 in possession anyway, so they never really get a chance to get on the ball and affect the game.

None of those managers want slow sideways passing though, it's what happens when the team trying to play it hasn't quite clicked yet, or doesn't quite have the right players in place yet.  When it does click, you get stuff like that McClaren side, which was one of the most entertaining and exciting Derby teams I've ever seen.

Reading the game is the main thing you'll struggle with if you're playing out of position.  "Reading the game" is basically just knowing what's likely to happen, based on having been there and done it a load of times.  And if you haven't been there and done it before, you aren't going to have those instincts kick in, that muscle-memory take over.  You aren't going to just know whether to drop off or push up, whether to go with the guy or hand him off, whether to hold position or make that run in behind, because you haven't really had to make those exact same decisions (under match pressure) before.
The other stuff, I think we're struggling with it because of how we're setting up.  We're deliberately making the game stretched, chaotic, 100 miles an hour etc.  So you're asking players to pass and control and ball quicker, make harder and riskier passes, with fewer teammates nearby, under more pressure from opposing players, so it's no surprise we're doing it less well.  For example, if you tell Cashin to just play simple passes to Bird/Smith or out to his fullbacks he's going to make those every time. If you ask him to keep pinging first-time 50 yard passes out to the wingers, he's going to make those much less often.

And some of us are still scarred by the last time we took a "just get out of the league" approach, and ended up in the Premier League still trying to lump it up to Steve Howard...

Reading the game is the main thing you'll struggle with if you're playing out of position.  "Reading the game" is basically just knowing what's likely to happen, based on having been there and done it a load of times.  And if you haven't been there and done it before, you aren't going to have those instincts kick in, that muscle-memory take over.  You aren't going to just know whether to drop off or push up, whether to go with the guy or hand him off, whether to hold position or make that run in behind, because you haven't really had to make those exact same decisions (under match pressure) before.
The other stuff, I think we're struggling with it because of how we're setting up.  We're deliberately making the game stretched, chaotic, 100 miles an hour etc.  So you're asking players to pass and control and ball quicker, make harder and riskier passes, with fewer teammates nearby, under more pressure from opposing players, so it's no surprise we're doing it less well.  For example, if you tell Cashin to just play simple passes to Bird/Smith or out to his fullbacks he's going to make those every time. If you ask him to keep pinging first-time 50 yard passes out to the wingers, he's going to make those much less often.

I think the counterpoint to that is, if you're having to consistently rely on a top-class striker taking the one chance that comes his way to win a game, then there's something fundamental going wrong elsewhere.  Obviously we'd all love a proper goal-scorer, and no doubt the recruitment in that area has been questionable etc, but we've still got 3 senior strikers who have all scored at reasonable-ish rates at this level or higher before, and plenty of others in the team who've shown they can chip in too.  The fact that they aren't scoring at those kind of rates this season has to be down to how they are being used.  You can't just shrug and say "nothing we can do, no striker", as a manager you have to find a way to work with what you've got.

That's kind of what I'm getting at too, although I think we have (just about) enough there to work with if we actually set out to use it.  For example, Collins will absolutely score goals at this level if you put a dozen crosses on his head every game, but we just don't.  We start with inverted wingers, or wingbacks or whatever, and just lump long balls up to him to fight for, or chip balls over the top for him to run onto.  Collins is averaging less that one shot from a header per 90 minutes this season, he's just not going to get goals in that circumstance.

Its down to the whole way the system is set up.  If you want lots of passing options, you need the team to be compact (i.e. keep the distance between your backline and forwards relatively small), so there are always lots of players with 10/20/30 yards of the guy on the ball. The team then progresses up the pitch as a unit - everybody goes forwards together, everybody goes back together.
WarneBall is the exact opposite - get the ball forward as quickly as possible, which results in the team being very stretched.  You have much fewer passing options because so many of your players are still chasing to catch up with the play (or not going with the play at all), or you're trying to play the ball to the guy 50 yards in front of you, not 10 yards.
In both systems, you are still using energy (moving into space, vs getting up and down), but normally you would use a lot less in a possession team.  You only need a few guys moving into space at any given point vs having the whole team running between both boxes for the whole game.

I think the counterpoint to that is, if you're having to consistently rely on a top-class striker taking the one chance that comes his way to win a game, then there's something fundamental going wrong elsewhere.  Obviously we'd all love a proper goal-scorer, and no doubt the recruitment in that area has been questionable etc, but we've still got 3 senior strikers who have all scored at reasonable-ish rates at this level or higher before, and plenty of others in the team who've shown they can chip in too.  The fact that they aren't scoring at those kind of rates this season has to be down to how they are being used.  You can't just shrug and say "nothing we can do, no striker", as a manager you have to find a way to work with what you've got.

Reading the game is the main thing you'll struggle with if you're playing out of position.  "Reading the game" is basically just knowing what's likely to happen, based on having been there and done it a load of times.  And if you haven't been there and done it before, you aren't going to have those instincts kick in, that muscle-memory take over.  You aren't going to just know whether to drop off or push up, whether to go with the guy or hand him off, whether to hold position or make that run in behind, because you haven't really had to make those exact same decisions (under match pressure) before.
The other stuff, I think we're struggling with it because of how we're setting up.  We're deliberately making the game stretched, chaotic, 100 miles an hour etc.  So you're asking players to pass and control and ball quicker, make harder and riskier passes, with fewer teammates nearby, under more pressure from opposing players, so it's no surprise we're doing it less well.  For example, if you tell Cashin to just play simple passes to Bird/Smith or out to his fullbacks he's going to make those every time. If you ask him to keep pinging first-time 50 yard passes out to the wingers, he's going to make those much less often.

And some of us are still scarred by the last time we took a "just get out of the league" approach, and ended up in the Premier League still trying to lump it up to Steve Howard...

Their job is supposed to be overseeing the whole of the footballing side of things - first team, scouting, recruitment, coaching, academy, everything.  To make sure everybody is pulling in the same direction.  So you don't have the academy producing technical midfielders, while the first team is playing kick and rush hoofball, or have the manager inherit a team build for 433 and decide to play wingbacks.
The idea is it lets a chairman/owner (who probably has very little actual on-the-ground football experience) set the overall parameters of how he wants his club to work, but leave the actual nuts and bolts of making it happen to someone who does have that experience.  All while not leaving it in the hands of a manager who (no matter how well they are doing right now), is basically 10 games away from being sacked at any given point.

Their job is supposed to be overseeing the whole of the footballing side of things - first team, scouting, recruitment, coaching, academy, everything.  To make sure everybody is pulling in the same direction.  So you don't have the academy producing technical midfielders, while the first team is playing kick and rush hoofball, or have the manager inherit a team build for 433 and decide to play wingbacks.
The idea is it lets a chairman/owner (who probably has very little actual on-the-ground football experience) set the overall parameters of how he wants his club to work, but leave the actual nuts and bolts of making it happen to someone who does have that experience.  All while not leaving it in the hands of a manager who (no matter how well they are doing right now), is basically 10 games away from being sacked at any given point.

And some of us are still scarred by the last time we took a "just get out of the league" approach, and ended up in the Premier League still trying to lump it up to Steve Howard...

Yeah, great way showing you respect their opinion right there, and you're definitely not mocking anyone by making out that their views are what you expect a 'younger fan' to hold. 🙄🤣
I'll assume this was unintentional and not really how you meant the post to come across. Benefit of the doubt and all that.
 
It's an odd situation really. Most of the people who are Warne out are that way precisely because they are concerned about the bigger picture, not because of a few bad results but because of everything they see about the way the team is being managed. It's the direct opposite of the short-terminism they're accused of.
The strongest advocates for him going are those looking at the long term prospects of the club (well beyond the next 2-3 years) and considering what the impact of continuing to employ a manager with such limitations in both his his current abilities and his interest in giving young players a proper chance, coupled with a lack of any sign he's going to develop tactically beyond what he currently is showing.
They're typically posters who can write at length (yes sometimes it's boring and repetitive!) about their concerns and back up their view with things that have actually happened while he's been in charge of Derby, whereas many (certainly not all, maybe most) of those who won't consider the idea he should leave seem to deal in of ifs, buts, maybes, diversionary tactics,  and a fair ol' bit of mud-slinging. (Yes both 'sides' can do that - and no doubt someone will (incorrectly) try to claim that's what I'm doing here - but it definitely comes from one direction more than the other)
I suppose you could accuse them of that they're looking too far in front and not realising that first and foremost we need to get out of this league, but that's not exactly looking promising right now, and even if we do make it, the long term concerns won't just go away.

The way you'd normally do that is by having the DoF heavily involved in appointing the manager/head-coach. So you simply don't appoint a manager that doesn't set the team up how you want it to be.  Obviously that's not going to work very well here (at the moment anyway...) because we already have a manager in place, and I can't imagine installing a DoF over his head (who wants something radically different to what Warne wants) is going to go down well.

The way you'd normally do that is by having the DoF heavily involved in appointing the manager/head-coach. So you simply don't appoint a manager that doesn't set the team up how you want it to be.  Obviously that's not going to work very well here (at the moment anyway...) because we already have a manager in place, and I can't imagine installing a DoF over his head (who wants something radically different to what Warne wants) is going to go down well.

I assume he means this guy:
https://www.dcfc.co.uk/teams/player/ross-burbeary
But I don't think he's a Director of Football, at least in the sense you mean (as in overseeing the football side of things, above the managers head).

I assume he means this guy:
https://www.dcfc.co.uk/teams/player/ross-burbeary
But I don't think he's a Director of Football, at least in the sense you mean (as in overseeing the football side of things, above the managers head).

I think the counterpoint to that is, if you're having to consistently rely on a top-class striker taking the one chance that comes his way to win a game, then there's something fundamental going wrong elsewhere.  Obviously we'd all love a proper goal-scorer, and no doubt the recruitment in that area has been questionable etc, but we've still got 3 senior strikers who have all scored at reasonable-ish rates at this level or higher before, and plenty of others in the team who've shown they can chip in too.  The fact that they aren't scoring at those kind of rates this season has to be down to how they are being used.  You can't just shrug and say "nothing we can do, no striker", as a manager you have to find a way to work with what you've got.

I say crosses because that's explicitly the thing Warne seems to want us doing, and we're not even doing that very well (because we aren't setting up to do it, as much as anything).  He's probably as good with his feet, but what he needs is lots of balls played in and around him - crosses, cutbacks, loose balls rattling around whatever.  You can't just stick him up front and use him like Steve Howard or Chris Martin or David Nugent and expect it to work.
The truth is, we aren't really setting up to get the best out of any of our squad, especially in forward areas.  And while that is true, we're going to struggle to score goals.  You can absolutely set us up differently to benefit Sibley, Barkhuizen etc (and I'd probably prefer watching that tbh), but what matters is that you're getting as many of your players doing what they're good at as possible.

I think the counterpoint to that is, if you're having to consistently rely on a top-class striker taking the one chance that comes his way to win a game, then there's something fundamental going wrong elsewhere.  Obviously we'd all love a proper goal-scorer, and no doubt the recruitment in that area has been questionable etc, but we've still got 3 senior strikers who have all scored at reasonable-ish rates at this level or higher before, and plenty of others in the team who've shown they can chip in too.  The fact that they aren't scoring at those kind of rates this season has to be down to how they are being used.  You can't just shrug and say "nothing we can do, no striker", as a manager you have to find a way to work with what you've got.

Its down to the whole way the system is set up.  If you want lots of passing options, you need the team to be compact (i.e. keep the distance between your backline and forwards relatively small), so there are always lots of players with 10/20/30 yards of the guy on the ball. The team then progresses up the pitch as a unit - everybody goes forwards together, everybody goes back together.
WarneBall is the exact opposite - get the ball forward as quickly as possible, which results in the team being very stretched.  You have much fewer passing options because so many of your players are still chasing to catch up with the play (or not going with the play at all), or you're trying to play the ball to the guy 50 yards in front of you, not 10 yards.
In both systems, you are still using energy (moving into space, vs getting up and down), but normally you would use a lot less in a possession team.  You only need a few guys moving into space at any given point vs having the whole team running between both boxes for the whole game.