duncanjwitham

For me it's pretty simple.  I have all the time in the world for a manager who is trying to get his teams playing decent football.  But if you deliberately set out to play terrible football, because you think it will help you win more, then if you don't win you've got nothing.  You deserve every bit of criticism that's coming to you.

Double-jeopardy. A genuine attempt to win the ball resulting in a pen, is only a yellow card now.

1. Most comments tend to relate to having control of the game (or not as the case may be). Long balls, to forwards to don't win the ball in the air very much is pointless as the ball ends up coming straight back and having to defend against another wave of attack, often without resetting in time.
2. The occasional long ball behind the defence is useful, but it has to be with purpose, not aimless into the corner with little chance of getting something from it.
3. A quick glance at the stats will show teams towards the bottom tend to have less of the ball than those at the top. This is shown by actually looking at the stats in more detail, where only 3 sides in the top half of the table are in the bottom 12 possession stats. Ipswich are the leaders in possession and are 2nd, whereas Morecombe are 24th in the table and 24th in the possession ranking. 
The other thing is, having possession doesn't mean you can't go long very often, just like having little of the ball doesn't mean you go long all the time. Yet, we see a similar trend. 5 out of the current top 6 are in the bottom 12 for long balls per pass attempt (Portsmouth are 13th lowest), whilst only 3 of the top 12 are in the top 12 for successful long passes per pass attempt.
You also have the belief that possession means fewer goals. However, there's a general trend of more possession = more goals. Ipswich are the obvious example, leading the charts in both, whereas Morecombe are bottom in both. Only 3 sides with less than 50% possession have scored more than 15 goals, whereas 6 with more than 50% have.
4. Since you're asking people if they want to stay in L1 for a long time or having a better chance of going up, the answer would be choosing the option which involves playing a possession based side with shorter passing.

Same to you, pal. 

?if you’re a right back and you know it, clap your hands? [absolute silence…]

?if you’re a right back and you know it, clap your hands? [absolute silence…]

?if you’re a right back and you know it, clap your hands? [absolute silence…]

At least with Rosenior-ball, you could see what needed to improve to turn it into good football (bit more movement, bit more tempo, bit more clinical in front of goal, bit more care with final balls etc).  At least the intent to play good football was there, and the improvements needed were relatively minor IMO.  Rowett-ball will always be terrible to watch, it’s terrible by design.

At least with Rosenior-ball, you could see what needed to improve to turn it into good football (bit more movement, bit more tempo, bit more clinical in front of goal, bit more care with final balls etc).  At least the intent to play good football was there, and the improvements needed were relatively minor IMO.  Rowett-ball will always be terrible to watch, it’s terrible by design.

At least with Rosenior-ball, you could see what needed to improve to turn it into good football (bit more movement, bit more tempo, bit more clinical in front of goal, bit more care with final balls etc).  At least the intent to play good football was there, and the improvements needed were relatively minor IMO.  Rowett-ball will always be terrible to watch, it’s terrible by design.

At least with Rosenior-ball, you could see what needed to improve to turn it into good football (bit more movement, bit more tempo, bit more clinical in front of goal, bit more care with final balls etc).  At least the intent to play good football was there, and the improvements needed were relatively minor IMO.  Rowett-ball will always be terrible to watch, it’s terrible by design.

He's in charge of managing the assistants...

?

And let's not forget, if we go up this year, we're still going to be under EFL spending restrictions for another season.  So it's not like we're going to be splashing cash around either.

Mainly disappointed in some people's reactions tbh.
The one's who seem all of a sudden to have turned from patient with Rosenior, supportive of what he was doing and willing to let him make mistakes while he finds his feet, now full of how they never liked his style in the first place, how he's got a great League One squad and is underachieving, they don't like how pally he is with some players, how they talk about stuff together rather than him being the clear leader etc. (Probably forgetting Rooney's meetings with Davies & Jagielka)
We saw it a bit with Rooney too tbf, bigged up so much when he was here that it felt like people were willfully blind to his mistakes and brushed them under the carpet, but when he left all of the doubts started coming out. Well, most of them, he still has a few hangers on who've applied massive double standards to his time against Rosenior's.
I suppose it's just the way some cope with change as supporters, but some of the things people are using to justify Rosenior leaving & Warne coming in are rather a stretch and feel somewhat forced, and any potential problems with Warne are already being whitewashed.
There's a lot of talk about Rotherham's budget being small, used as a defence against them being relegated every time they go up. First time (I think) he got them up they came down with the worst record ever at Championship level (23 points). Even our decimated squad last season got to 34 and that's with a 21 point deduction!
I'm not bringing this up to have a go at Warne, but I do find it interesting that it's hardly even been mentioned. He was allowed that season by their board and by their fans, however catastrophic the performances on the pitch must have been to accrue so little over 46 games. He won't get anywhere near that level of patience here, obviously. I'm a bit worried though, looking at how some people's true colours have so quickly revealed themselves with Rosenior, that he won't have very much time to make his mark here at all before people turn on him.
I'll wait and see how it goes. I've criticised some of the decisions Rosenior has made and very much advocated needing a different approach away from home - which ironically he may have found in his final home game - but I've also been supportive of the idea of letting him learn.
I'll just continue doing that with Warne, but my gut feeling is still not great tbh and I hope we aren't adrift by January if results plummet while he figures out how to manage a larger club, and how to play direct football when we don't have a striker at the club who can play as a target man.
 

But we’ve let him sign like a dozen players with his style in mind, and I’m pretty sure we all expected them to carry on with a similar style to last season, so it can’t have been a surprise.
And it’s not just the first team, the academy is supposed to be playing a broadly similar style so there’s a pathway straight through.  Is there any point in developing players like Liam Thompson and Darren Robinson if we appoint a manager that just wants to hoof it?

For me anyway, it’s not so much about Rosenior being sacked as the guy apparently replacing him.  IMO the root of all of the problems under Mel Morris was lurching between managers of differing styles every 5 minutes.  On the surface, it appears like we’re making exactly the same mistake again, barely a few months into Clowes ownership.
And if Warne is being bought in to play a complete different style to what he did at Rotherham, then that’s equally baffling.  Why appoint a manager in the expectation he’ll do the exact opposite of what he did at his previous club?

But we’ve let him sign like a dozen players with his style in mind, and I’m pretty sure we all expected them to carry on with a similar style to last season, so it can’t have been a surprise.
And it’s not just the first team, the academy is supposed to be playing a broadly similar style so there’s a pathway straight through.  Is there any point in developing players like Liam Thompson and Darren Robinson if we appoint a manager that just wants to hoof it?

Yes but you are relying on Ed Dawes to accurately describe a game of football. 
It's like asking Liz Truss to run the country. 
Oh wait... 

So happy we beat that load of scummers. That's what happens you do Ronaldo celebrations at 1-0 in the 15th minute and then proceed to time waste for 75. Morons. Back to London you go. Good riddance.

Korey Smith was injured ?

The only RB who may have been a potential was Stephen Kelly. He’s gone to West Brom and even then it was a long shot.
Everyone keeps saying let’s put Knight up the pitch but no one ever says who that would be at the expense of?
I actually don’t think his goal/assist return is quite there for being up the pitch. I’m perfectly happy with him at RB for us.

If it gets to 9-0, are they legally required to sack their manager?