duncanjwitham

If Cashin doesn’t play basically every game he’s available for this season, we may as well give up and close the academy.  We’ll never get a better chance to bring youngsters on than this season - a complete rebuild, at a level below where we’re expected to be.  And Cashin has the shirt already, it’s not like he’s got to force his way into the team from nowhere.

He’s 20 years old, he started something like 15 consecutive games at Championship level last season and was mostly excellent.  If he isn’t ready to play week in, week out in League 1, then there’s no point him being here.  Obviously rotating for fitness, or if he has a dip in form and needs a rest, is fine etc.
 
The other side of it is next season - what happens if we play Davies and Chester all season and go up, and then they both leave or retire? We’re back to square one and have Cashin who’s sat on his backside for 12 months learning nothing.  Honestly, we’ll be in a much better position if we spend an extra season at this level, and go up with a load of youngsters established in the team, than go straight up and have half the team retire on the spot.

And the other thing..... What better way of learning the game than playing alongside a seasoned pro like Curtis?

He may be 20 years old, but this is the first time he's been at Derby where we've not been under crippling restrictions since before he was old enough to buy a beer. He missed half of last season purely because the EFL wouldn't let us register him. As soon as he could be registered, he was a pretty consistent figure for us in a side that gathered enough points to survive in the Championship pretty comfortably. I don't think his low number of games is an accurate reflection on just how good he is to be fair.

So, he shouldn't start for us because he doesn't have enough experience?
So how's he going to get experience?
Oh, loan him out?
What to a club in League One, say?
Well, hello.

He’s 20 years old, he started something like 15 consecutive games at Championship level last season and was mostly excellent.  If he isn’t ready to play week in, week out in League 1, then there’s no point him being here.  Obviously rotating for fitness, or if he has a dip in form and needs a rest, is fine etc.
 
The other side of it is next season - what happens if we play Davies and Chester all season and go up, and then they both leave or retire? We’re back to square one and have Cashin who’s sat on his backside for 12 months learning nothing.  Honestly, we’ll be in a much better position if we spend an extra season at this level, and go up with a load of youngsters established in the team, than go straight up and have half the team retire on the spot.

He’s 20 years old, he started something like 15 consecutive games at Championship level last season and was mostly excellent.  If he isn’t ready to play week in, week out in League 1, then there’s no point him being here.  Obviously rotating for fitness, or if he has a dip in form and needs a rest, is fine etc.
 
The other side of it is next season - what happens if we play Davies and Chester all season and go up, and then they both leave or retire? We’re back to square one and have Cashin who’s sat on his backside for 12 months learning nothing.  Honestly, we’ll be in a much better position if we spend an extra season at this level, and go up with a load of youngsters established in the team, than go straight up and have half the team retire on the spot.

If Cashin doesn’t play basically every game he’s available for this season, we may as well give up and close the academy.  We’ll never get a better chance to bring youngsters on than this season - a complete rebuild, at a level below where we’re expected to be.  And Cashin has the shirt already, it’s not like he’s got to force his way into the team from nowhere.

If Cashin doesn’t play basically every game he’s available for this season, we may as well give up and close the academy.  We’ll never get a better chance to bring youngsters on than this season - a complete rebuild, at a level below where we’re expected to be.  And Cashin has the shirt already, it’s not like he’s got to force his way into the team from nowhere.

If Cashin doesn’t play basically every game he’s available for this season, we may as well give up and close the academy.  We’ll never get a better chance to bring youngsters on than this season - a complete rebuild, at a level below where we’re expected to be.  And Cashin has the shirt already, it’s not like he’s got to force his way into the team from nowhere.

I think it depends more on the "how we get there" than the actual destination.  If we start off struggling to gel, but gradually get a style of play in place, and then go on a run but don't quite make it, then fine.  There's something to build on and we go again next year.  If in 6 months time we're still signing random players, switching formation every week, changing managers etc then I'm going to be worried. I want to see signs that we have a plan, an identity etc, from both the owner and the manager, and that we're going to follow through on that plan, even if it takes a while to get there.

You're really only arguing over semantics there, though.  I just reused your terms, when maybe emotional and rational are better ones. The emotional thing to do is to fire him because he used to work for Morris, the rational thing to do is evaluate Pearce on his merits (which looking in from the outside, with incomplete information to work from, we aren't in a position to do). 
Rationally, maybe Clowes look at Pearce and decides he made bad mistakes, and fires him after the transition to new owners is sorted.  Maybe he decides he worked competently within the confines he was given, and keeps him on.  Maybe they both part ways amicably or something.  But honestly, I'd be more worried if he was fired due to past associations, because that's the kind of thing Morris was guilty of.

The pragmatic thing to do is evaluate Pearce on his own merits and make a decision. The sentimental thing is to fire him because of who he used to work for.
The way I see it, the only thing you can actually pin on Pearce is the amortization issue, and that was deemed fine by at least 3 other sets of accountants (including the EFL's own appointment on the disciplinary panel).  So it's hard to blame him too much for that.
The rest of the financial issues seem to stem from COVID (which you can't really pin on Pearce), and Morris just stopping putting money in.  You could argue that Pearce should have made sure that we weren't running at a loss (and requiring monthly deposits from Morris), but then that same argument applies to probably half of the clubs at Championship level.

The pragmatic thing to do is evaluate Pearce on his own merits and make a decision. The sentimental thing is to fire him because of who he used to work for.
The way I see it, the only thing you can actually pin on Pearce is the amortization issue, and that was deemed fine by at least 3 other sets of accountants (including the EFL's own appointment on the disciplinary panel).  So it's hard to blame him too much for that.
The rest of the financial issues seem to stem from COVID (which you can't really pin on Pearce), and Morris just stopping putting money in.  You could argue that Pearce should have made sure that we weren't running at a loss (and requiring monthly deposits from Morris), but then that same argument applies to probably half of the clubs at Championship level.

You're really only arguing over semantics there, though.  I just reused your terms, when maybe emotional and rational are better ones. The emotional thing to do is to fire him because he used to work for Morris, the rational thing to do is evaluate Pearce on his merits (which looking in from the outside, with incomplete information to work from, we aren't in a position to do). 
Rationally, maybe Clowes look at Pearce and decides he made bad mistakes, and fires him after the transition to new owners is sorted.  Maybe he decides he worked competently within the confines he was given, and keeps him on.  Maybe they both part ways amicably or something.  But honestly, I'd be more worried if he was fired due to past associations, because that's the kind of thing Morris was guilty of.

The pragmatic thing to do is evaluate Pearce on his own merits and make a decision. The sentimental thing is to fire him because of who he used to work for.
The way I see it, the only thing you can actually pin on Pearce is the amortization issue, and that was deemed fine by at least 3 other sets of accountants (including the EFL's own appointment on the disciplinary panel).  So it's hard to blame him too much for that.
The rest of the financial issues seem to stem from COVID (which you can't really pin on Pearce), and Morris just stopping putting money in.  You could argue that Pearce should have made sure that we weren't running at a loss (and requiring monthly deposits from Morris), but then that same argument applies to probably half of the clubs at Championship level.

You're really only arguing over semantics there, though.  I just reused your terms, when maybe emotional and rational are better ones. The emotional thing to do is to fire him because he used to work for Morris, the rational thing to do is evaluate Pearce on his merits (which looking in from the outside, with incomplete information to work from, we aren't in a position to do). 
Rationally, maybe Clowes look at Pearce and decides he made bad mistakes, and fires him after the transition to new owners is sorted.  Maybe he decides he worked competently within the confines he was given, and keeps him on.  Maybe they both part ways amicably or something.  But honestly, I'd be more worried if he was fired due to past associations, because that's the kind of thing Morris was guilty of.

The pragmatic thing to do is evaluate Pearce on his own merits and make a decision. The sentimental thing is to fire him because of who he used to work for.
The way I see it, the only thing you can actually pin on Pearce is the amortization issue, and that was deemed fine by at least 3 other sets of accountants (including the EFL's own appointment on the disciplinary panel).  So it's hard to blame him too much for that.
The rest of the financial issues seem to stem from COVID (which you can't really pin on Pearce), and Morris just stopping putting money in.  You could argue that Pearce should have made sure that we weren't running at a loss (and requiring monthly deposits from Morris), but then that same argument applies to probably half of the clubs at Championship level.

The pragmatic thing to do is evaluate Pearce on his own merits and make a decision. The sentimental thing is to fire him because of who he used to work for.
The way I see it, the only thing you can actually pin on Pearce is the amortization issue, and that was deemed fine by at least 3 other sets of accountants (including the EFL's own appointment on the disciplinary panel).  So it's hard to blame him too much for that.
The rest of the financial issues seem to stem from COVID (which you can't really pin on Pearce), and Morris just stopping putting money in.  You could argue that Pearce should have made sure that we weren't running at a loss (and requiring monthly deposits from Morris), but then that same argument applies to probably half of the clubs at Championship level.

The pragmatic thing to do is evaluate Pearce on his own merits and make a decision. The sentimental thing is to fire him because of who he used to work for.
The way I see it, the only thing you can actually pin on Pearce is the amortization issue, and that was deemed fine by at least 3 other sets of accountants (including the EFL's own appointment on the disciplinary panel).  So it's hard to blame him too much for that.
The rest of the financial issues seem to stem from COVID (which you can't really pin on Pearce), and Morris just stopping putting money in.  You could argue that Pearce should have made sure that we weren't running at a loss (and requiring monthly deposits from Morris), but then that same argument applies to probably half of the clubs at Championship level.

Chris Martin hadn't really scored that many when he signed for us either, just one good season for Norwich in League 1.  That type of link-up striker, that don't really create their own chances, can be very dependant on style of play and the players around them - get them in the right system and they'll score plenty.

Chris Martin hadn't really scored that many when he signed for us either, just one good season for Norwich in League 1.  That type of link-up striker, that don't really create their own chances, can be very dependant on style of play and the players around them - get them in the right system and they'll score plenty.

Chris Martin hadn't really scored that many when he signed for us either, just one good season for Norwich in League 1.  That type of link-up striker, that don't really create their own chances, can be very dependant on style of play and the players around them - get them in the right system and they'll score plenty.

442 is fine if you don't care about actually having the ball that much. Leicester, Burnley, Iceland all played 442, but all set up with the expectation of having significantly less possession than the other team, and then either went very direct, or played on the counter to compensate for that
You will struggle to play anything possession-centric in a 442 nowadays, because the vast majority of other teams play with 3 in the middle so you're outnumbered in there.  And the teams that are playing 2 in the middle (like the 3 above) are all setting up specifically to try and exploit the weaknesses of teams keeping possession, so by matching up, you're exposing those weaknesses all the more.
Even if Knight and Bielik were to leave, I still think we have pretty much the best technical midfield in the league - Bird, Hourihane, Thompson etc are all very good on the ball.  So why play 442 and give up one of the advantages we have?  Get the ball, keep it, and make the other team run around all afternoon chasing us.

442 is fine if you don't care about actually having the ball that much. Leicester, Burnley, Iceland all played 442, but all set up with the expectation of having significantly less possession than the other team, and then either went very direct, or played on the counter to compensate for that
You will struggle to play anything possession-centric in a 442 nowadays, because the vast majority of other teams play with 3 in the middle so you're outnumbered in there.  And the teams that are playing 2 in the middle (like the 3 above) are all setting up specifically to try and exploit the weaknesses of teams keeping possession, so by matching up, you're exposing those weaknesses all the more.
Even if Knight and Bielik were to leave, I still think we have pretty much the best technical midfield in the league - Bird, Hourihane, Thompson etc are all very good on the ball.  So why play 442 and give up one of the advantages we have?  Get the ball, keep it, and make the other team run around all afternoon chasing us.