duncanjwitham

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.

Must admit I never thought I'd see @Ghost of Clough being called a hater, toxic or one of the usual suspects, or someone who doesn't get the art of discussion 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The thing is, it only looked good on paper if your analysis extended as far as “Paul Warne wins football matches” and then stopped. As soon as you start to look at how he was winning them, why he was winning them etc, it starts to become less and less likely that he’d be able to replicate it here. Did we have the right kind of squad? No. Did the financial restrictions make it likely we could get the right squad? No. Was his style going to work as well when we’re the massive favourite in most games? Probably not.  Were the fans going to be happy with his style of football? Probably not.  Was he going to get the time to transition the squad to what he wanted? No.
To me, it looked an obviously wrong-headed appointment at the time, and it still looks like that to me.

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 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.

We've got someone with the potential to be a good striker (at least at this level) sitting in the youth team unable to get a league minute. We know what we get with Collins and Waggy (who IMO are both past their best...)... why not give the unknown a chance when we obviously need to try something different... and it baffles me that PW seems so against the idea!

The real kicker is that we don’t even seem to want to outplay them, just run about more than them and lump more crosses in the box than them.  I can take losing games (nobody has a divine right to win any game etc), it’s the defeatist attitude that we aren’t good enough to try and play through teams that really annoys me. 

The thing is, it only looked good on paper if your analysis extended as far as “Paul Warne wins football matches” and then stopped. As soon as you start to look at how he was winning them, why he was winning them etc, it starts to become less and less likely that he’d be able to replicate it here. Did we have the right kind of squad? No. Did the financial restrictions make it likely we could get the right squad? No. Was his style going to work as well when we’re the massive favourite in most games? Probably not.  Were the fans going to be happy with his style of football? Probably not.  Was he going to get the time to transition the squad to what he wanted? No.
To me, it looked an obviously wrong-headed appointment at the time, and it still looks like that to me.

The real kicker is that we don’t even seem to want to outplay them, just run about more than them and lump more crosses in the box than them.  I can take losing games (nobody has a divine right to win any game etc), it’s the defeatist attitude that we aren’t good enough to try and play through teams that really annoys me. 

The real kicker is that we don’t even seem to want to outplay them, just run about more than them and lump more crosses in the box than them.  I can take losing games (nobody has a divine right to win any game etc), it’s the defeatist attitude that we aren’t good enough to try and play through teams that really annoys me. 

The thing is, it only looked good on paper if your analysis extended as far as “Paul Warne wins football matches” and then stopped. As soon as you start to look at how he was winning them, why he was winning them etc, it starts to become less and less likely that he’d be able to replicate it here. Did we have the right kind of squad? No. Did the financial restrictions make it likely we could get the right squad? No. Was his style going to work as well when we’re the massive favourite in most games? Probably not.  Were the fans going to be happy with his style of football? Probably not.  Was he going to get the time to transition the squad to what he wanted? No.
To me, it looked an obviously wrong-headed appointment at the time, and it still looks like that to me.

The thing is, it only looked good on paper if your analysis extended as far as “Paul Warne wins football matches” and then stopped. As soon as you start to look at how he was winning them, why he was winning them etc, it starts to become less and less likely that he’d be able to replicate it here. Did we have the right kind of squad? No. Did the financial restrictions make it likely we could get the right squad? No. Was his style going to work as well when we’re the massive favourite in most games? Probably not.  Were the fans going to be happy with his style of football? Probably not.  Was he going to get the time to transition the squad to what he wanted? No.
To me, it looked an obviously wrong-headed appointment at the time, and it still looks like that to me.

Yes, but if you know that you don't have prolific forwards and they typically need 3-4 proper chances to score a goal, then you do everything in your power to make sure that the rest of your team creates enough chances - and just as importantly enough variety of chances - to compensate for their profligacy.
When your gameplan is as predictable as Warne's is though and your good results - think Peterborough away this season or Bristol Rovers at home last season  - depend on those strikers managing to defy their career histories and be unusually prolific then you end up in trouble when they revert to the norm.
Today we should have had a penalty when Forsyth was fouled. Refs fault. Did we create that situation again during the game? Or similar situations? Not really. So the ref doesn't have the chance to even up the wrong with a right. Or even another wrong!
I always scoff at the phrase "you make your own luck" (luck cannot be controlled) but I think what people really mean is... you create your own opportunities for luck to fall in your favour.
A brilliant example of doing things the right way was Bournemouth in about 2015, they seemed to be the luckiest team in existence, penalty after penalty - lots incorrectly given, but lots given because of the sheer amount of possession they'd have in and around the opponent's penalty area.
We don't do that, because we don't value possession and we don't have reliable (productive) patterns of play, everything is in the moment and sporadic.

Just worked out that if you crop the league table just right, things don't look so bad.