Ghost of Clough

Yet only Chester made more successful tackles than him today. Doesn't bode well when "the worst tackler he's ever seen" is winning the ball back more than most others on the pitch.
Maybe the problem is putting an AM at LWB. ? 

You aren't the first to claim this, but what are you basing it on? Poor results? The majority of the people who don't think Warne should be manager are basing their opinion on much more than results. Style of play, damage to the academy, reducing the chances of keeping our academy graduates, dwindling attendances, the destruction of the feel good factor around the club, etc...

In your opinion. Looking at recent managers win % doesn't change by much after their 12th game in all competitions.
By 7 games played, Clement was performing worse than he did overall, whilst Lampard and McClaren were performing better.
By 12 games played, all except Lampard and McClaren had reached their final level.

Most people can make the judgement that Rosenior was doing better with this group of players than Warne is.
This initial assessment can be backed up with what you actually see on the pitch. We've gone from having a clear identity and way of playing, and a squad which only needed a couple of additions to make the system work even better, to everyone (fans and players) not having a clue what they should be doing on the pitch, and needing 7 or more players to shape the squad to how Warne wants for the 2nd half of the season.

The way I see it, there are 2 competing factors. Obviously this season was always going to be a struggle, given the restrictions, having no squad, delayed preseason etc, so clearly nobody was expecting us to romp the league. But counter to that, the longer we stay at this level, the harder it is to get out of it - existing good players will want to move on, it being harder to convince new signings of our ambition if we’re stuck here, declining attendances potentially affecting the wages we can offer etc.  Clubs quite often bounce back out of this league almost immediately, or get stuck here.
In my mind, the best case for this season was we muddle along until January, making sure we’re not out of it completely. And then we try and get a few decent players in and kick on over the second half of the season. And we looked on pace for that.  We weren’t playing fantastically, but there were signs of a pattern of play and the new players were bedding in fairly well. And we were sat just below the playoffs, comfortably capable of mounting a charge, with a bit of luck.
I now think the season probably is a write-off - we’re drifting away from the playoffs and we need major surgery in January, not just a few tweaks and improvements, and that’s unlikely to happen.  The thing that’s really annoying me is that it’s a situation entirely of our own making.  We’ve effectively taken what looked to be a potentially promising season and decided to bin it for some future hope of something or other.

That's pretty much how interpret it. Right now, I'm worried how far he'll push McGoldrick and Smith before they pick up muscle injuries.
Davies was out for 7 games due to a thigh strain earlier in the season. He was clearly dropped back into the side too soon. Chester was out for the first 10 games due to an achilles problem but has played every league game for Warne. Both were at high risk of injury, especially playing this style of play.
Injuries will only continue to mount up over the next month before players start coming back.

That's pretty much how interpret it. Right now, I'm worried how far he'll push McGoldrick and Smith before they pick up muscle injuries.
Davies was out for 7 games due to a thigh strain earlier in the season. He was clearly dropped back into the side too soon. Chester was out for the first 10 games due to an achilles problem but has played every league game for Warne. Both were at high risk of injury, especially playing this style of play.
Injuries will only continue to mount up over the next month before players start coming back.

You're seriously saying Barkhuizen is injury prone based on 6 months in his entire career.
Training is a massive part of it. A consistently high level of intensity, whether in matches or training will result in more injuries. Inadequate levels of training will have the same result, but due to matches being a shock to their bodies.

In your opinion. Looking at recent managers win % doesn't change by much after their 12th game in all competitions.
By 7 games played, Clement was performing worse than he did overall, whilst Lampard and McClaren were performing better.
By 12 games played, all except Lampard and McClaren had reached their final level.

Most people can make the judgement that Rosenior was doing better with this group of players than Warne is.
This initial assessment can be backed up with what you actually see on the pitch. We've gone from having a clear identity and way of playing, and a squad which only needed a couple of additions to make the system work even better, to everyone (fans and players) not having a clue what they should be doing on the pitch, and needing 7 or more players to shape the squad to how Warne wants for the 2nd half of the season.

SOME wanted 3 at the back because they wanted Knight in midfield and thought 3 at the back was the only way to do that. Rosenior even said he would have tried Smith there if he wasn't injured in pre-season. What did Warne do on Saturday? Went back to a back four with Smith at RB.
Rosenior's system only needed tweaking, and with a couple of additions in January he wold have achieved that. The passing between defenders was for two reasons. Not having those couple of additions, but also the style of drawing the opposition out of position. 
The majority of fans didn't want super direct play, bypassing the midfield. They wanted a more urgent style of play, passing between lines, without sacrificing the amount of possession.
Most of all, fans want winning football. As I've mentioned before, only Ted Magner has a better win% than Rosenior in the history of our club. If the quality of football is crap, you have to make sure you're getting results, and so far Warne is failing. Warne is quickly joining the Jewell, Brown and Pearson group as managers with the worst record for our club. He's already got a worse record than Tommy Docherty.

It's a stick or twist decision. Sticking with Warne will cause a lot of damage to what we have left after years of mismanagement. The academy graduates in the first team will leave to Championship sides, and we'll go in to next season with just Wildsmith, Mendez-Laing, Barkhuizen, Hourihane and Collins from the current squad. All the investment in the academy will be wasted as none will be suited to Warne's style. Attendances will dwindle this season, and ST sales will be lower for next season. Academy recruitment will be damaged as youngsters won't see a pathway to the first team anymore.
The first team will be set back at least 1 year, more likely 2. The academy will go back to 2008 standard.

Yet only Chester made more successful tackles than him today. Doesn't bode well when "the worst tackler he's ever seen" is winning the ball back more than most others on the pitch.
Maybe the problem is putting an AM at LWB. ? 

Then why let Rosenior recruit with his own style in mind. It added an unnecessary risk on the players we were signing not suiting a future manger's style. The likes of Chester, Hourihane and McGoldrick will be on a decent wage for L1 standards. Davies, Stearman, Forsyth, although adding depth don't appear to be Warne type players either. That's a lot of money being spent on wages to players Warne very likely doesn't want.
If, as you believe Rosenior was never going to get the job, then why not recruit to suit the style of manager Clowes did want?

You aren't the first to claim this, but what are you basing it on? Poor results? The majority of the people who don't think Warne should be manager are basing their opinion on much more than results. Style of play, damage to the academy, reducing the chances of keeping our academy graduates, dwindling attendances, the destruction of the feel good factor around the club, etc...

It's a stick or twist decision. Sticking with Warne will cause a lot of damage to what we have left after years of mismanagement. The academy graduates in the first team will leave to Championship sides, and we'll go in to next season with just Wildsmith, Mendez-Laing, Barkhuizen, Hourihane and Collins from the current squad. All the investment in the academy will be wasted as none will be suited to Warne's style. Attendances will dwindle this season, and ST sales will be lower for next season. Academy recruitment will be damaged as youngsters won't see a pathway to the first team anymore.
The first team will be set back at least 1 year, more likely 2. The academy will go back to 2008 standard.

You're seriously saying Barkhuizen is injury prone based on 6 months in his entire career.
Training is a massive part of it. A consistently high level of intensity, whether in matches or training will result in more injuries. Inadequate levels of training will have the same result, but due to matches being a shock to their bodies.

1-0 up at Accrington. Throw-in high up the pitch with all three CBs in the area. We lose the ball and all three have to sprint back into defence. Still no more running than before?
Injury prone players have to be managed carefully. Getting them to do high intensity drills in training, then expecting them to last 90 minutes of high intesity football during games on a consistent basis is just asking for trouble.

Probably because of where we were when Rosenior was relieved of his duties. We were outside the playoffs on goal difference and his overall record as manager was the best we've had in 75 years. Instead, we're now 5 points behind 6th, with only Pearson having a worse record since Jewell.
There's no sign of things improving. If anything, results and performances are getting worse. He's pointed the finger at a number of players already, specifically regarding injuries and is ignoring his own role in that. It's no surprise that players who haven't had a good pre-season and others who no longer have the fitness levels required are picking up injuries. Yet, Warne consistently keeps players who are running on empty on the pitch and sticks to a style which puts the older players (specifically our defence) at risk of picking up muscle injuries.

You aren't the first to claim this, but what are you basing it on? Poor results? The majority of the people who don't think Warne should be manager are basing their opinion on much more than results. Style of play, damage to the academy, reducing the chances of keeping our academy graduates, dwindling attendances, the destruction of the feel good factor around the club, etc...

Right character doesn't mean 'nice'. Shinnie would fit the character profile, but he was afraid to get stuck in to a challenge or scream in the ref's face.
We didn't get enough 'peak age' players in the 23-30 bracket because of our restrictions. They don't tend to be available on frees and rarely on loan either, unless they're injury prone. The players in that age who we'd like to sign would also like deals longer than the 2 years we're allowed to offer, and the players who'd be willing to accept it are unlikely to be good enough.

In your opinion. Looking at recent managers win % doesn't change by much after their 12th game in all competitions.
By 7 games played, Clement was performing worse than he did overall, whilst Lampard and McClaren were performing better.
By 12 games played, all except Lampard and McClaren had reached their final level.

Most people can make the judgement that Rosenior was doing better with this group of players than Warne is.
This initial assessment can be backed up with what you actually see on the pitch. We've gone from having a clear identity and way of playing, and a squad which only needed a couple of additions to make the system work even better, to everyone (fans and players) not having a clue what they should be doing on the pitch, and needing 7 or more players to shape the squad to how Warne wants for the 2nd half of the season.

SOME wanted 3 at the back because they wanted Knight in midfield and thought 3 at the back was the only way to do that. Rosenior even said he would have tried Smith there if he wasn't injured in pre-season. What did Warne do on Saturday? Went back to a back four with Smith at RB.
Rosenior's system only needed tweaking, and with a couple of additions in January he wold have achieved that. The passing between defenders was for two reasons. Not having those couple of additions, but also the style of drawing the opposition out of position. 
The majority of fans didn't want super direct play, bypassing the midfield. They wanted a more urgent style of play, passing between lines, without sacrificing the amount of possession.
Most of all, fans want winning football. As I've mentioned before, only Ted Magner has a better win% than Rosenior in the history of our club. If the quality of football is crap, you have to make sure you're getting results, and so far Warne is failing. Warne is quickly joining the Jewell, Brown and Pearson group as managers with the worst record for our club. He's already got a worse record than Tommy Docherty.

It's a stick or twist decision. Sticking with Warne will cause a lot of damage to what we have left after years of mismanagement. The academy graduates in the first team will leave to Championship sides, and we'll go in to next season with just Wildsmith, Mendez-Laing, Barkhuizen, Hourihane and Collins from the current squad. All the investment in the academy will be wasted as none will be suited to Warne's style. Attendances will dwindle this season, and ST sales will be lower for next season. Academy recruitment will be damaged as youngsters won't see a pathway to the first team anymore.
The first team will be set back at least 1 year, more likely 2. The academy will go back to 2008 standard.

Right character doesn't mean 'nice'. Shinnie would fit the character profile, but he was afraid to get stuck in to a challenge or scream in the ref's face.
We didn't get enough 'peak age' players in the 23-30 bracket because of our restrictions. They don't tend to be available on frees and rarely on loan either, unless they're injury prone. The players in that age who we'd like to sign would also like deals longer than the 2 years we're allowed to offer, and the players who'd be willing to accept it are unlikely to be good enough.

Something to consider though... that's two games in a row where an opposition player should have been sent off, yet not even a freekick was awarded for either.

Then why let Rosenior recruit with his own style in mind. It added an unnecessary risk on the players we were signing not suiting a future manger's style. The likes of Chester, Hourihane and McGoldrick will be on a decent wage for L1 standards. Davies, Stearman, Forsyth, although adding depth don't appear to be Warne type players either. That's a lot of money being spent on wages to players Warne very likely doesn't want.
If, as you believe Rosenior was never going to get the job, then why not recruit to suit the style of manager Clowes did want?