duncanjwitham

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He has to take a share of the responsibility because if he is telling them to get the ball out wide or up the pitch as quickly as possible the players are required to attempt riskier passes in to contested areas of the pitch more frequently.
The tactical setup is the reason we have chaotic pinball matches. 
Now, I agree that the players are executing poorly, but that just compounds the issues with the tactical setup.

Relative to the league we are in, yes. Warne has a squad that is as good as, if not better than they had relative to the league they were in.
The idea that Warne is some impoverished coach with no resources and a begging bowl is utter nonsense. Our wage bill (even on our business plan), pulling power as a club (purely on size), facilities etc eclipse the rest of the division with maybe one or two exceptions.
We are currently less than the sum our parts and ultimately the buck stops with the manager.

I posted a version of this in the match thread but it belongs here I think. I'm Warne out, I have been all season really. Even in our run of form performance levels were frequently poor and we rarely look like a team in control of a football match.
The simple fact is Warne thinks he can approach the Derby job with good vibes and percentage based kick and rush football down the flanks that offers little control. There's not really any nuance to it and any manager with half a brain can figure it out and counter it. 
Despite the above, we have brute forced a number of wins by having better players and a bigger budget than the opposition. If we get promoted we won't have better players and a bigger budget than the opposition. What do we do then?
I maintain that a manager with a more advanced approach to football and how to set a team up would extract better performances out of this team, and the deficiencies I see in Warne's approach will only become more of a problem as time goes on.

The team are not coached to have any control. Another midfielder will not help if Warne continues to employ the tactics he wants us to play football.
I say football. It’s pinball. Players must be being encouraged to move it as forward as quickly as possible, taking no more than 3 touches. Chaotic, gas out type football.
I thought we might go up with our squad automatically, even with him in charge. I am beginning to think not.

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).

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).

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).

He was only on loan last year, the actual sale occurred in July 2023, which is well after the year-end date in these accounts.  So I assume that accounts for the lack of disposal. 
And I can't see what else it could have been anyway, of the only guys we've paid real money for in the last few years (Lawrence, Jozwiak and Bielik), he was the only one left when we were sold.

Knight (and any other youth players that were in the books) would have been valued at £0, as we never paid anything to acquire him.  That £3.3m would have been almost entirely the remainder of Bielik’s value.

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.