brady1993

4 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

Your talking about sacking a manager three months into a four year contract even though he’s not even took a training session yet for crying out loud.

No. 

What I'm saying is the expectation has been set by Clowes that we need to be on course for automatics or very much in touching distance. And I can't see Warne meeting that expectation, in a large part regardless of his ability.

Because when you take a step back and assess everything a realistic expectation of Rosenior was to be in the playoffs by the end of the season. One which we were largely on course for. But it was Rosenior's squad, his style of play and coaching (even going back to last season. We are now hiring a manager who's favoured a 352 when we don't have wing backs and who by most accounts is a massive stylistic shift. I just don't see him turning us into contenders for automatics by Xmas when it's common for a manager's position to be reassessed.

Hence why I think there is a realistic possibility he's not here come January, irrespective about how I feel about Warne or any of the decision making.

4 hours ago, Carnero said:

I think some of us are guilty of letting our like of Liam Rosenior the man cloud our assessment of Liam Rosenior the manager.

If we had appointed, say, Paul Lambert or Aidy Boothroyd or Darren Wassall or Justin Walker, as an interim manager to start the season and had exactly the same performances and results as what we've had this season, would we be saying that this is a harsh decision or would we be saying that it's fair enough given the appointment was only as made as an interim with no promises of getting the permanent gig?

Honestly? Yes. 

We've had a squad scraped together on a short time span after crashing into league 1. Whilst we've not had a flying start it's been a solid one and would have been a base to kick on from as players gel and further get used to be asked of them.

2 hours ago, Yani P said:

One thing about Warne he is an emotional character and builds very strong relationships with his players..so I guess we will expect to see the same togetherness and team spirit that has served us well in recent times.

I think this a question mark right now. By most accounts he seems a good man manager but on the flip side its hard to say how much disruption this will cause in the dressing room.

A lot of these players signed for Rosenior and they signed with a certain way of playing in mind. The pressure will also be ratcheted up, so it's not an easy job for him to walk into from a player management perspective.

In my opinion this is a move that only makes sense if we are absolutely gunning for automatics. And if that's the case Warne needs to have us in the top 2 or just outside by Xmas or else we need to reassess. Personally it's not the way I'd have gone about it but I don't see how it can be any other way. 

My prediction of what will happen is as follows:

- We have an initial patch of decent form. The football is mostly decent or at least decent enough that it appeases most people.

- This will be followed by a lull where things get progressively ugly as we turn to increasingly more "pragmatic tactics". 

- This doesn't really pan out and our results flatline at mediocre and we are just inside the playoffs at best and quite likely down around 10th. This depends on how long the good form is and how long the slump is.

- From there it's a fair chance Warne loses his job and we either roll on a new manager going into January trying to push again. Or we hire in house and sell of the players who would fetch a decent fee in January.

10 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

'Found out at championship level.' He was Rotherham manager, look at what he was working with. A manager is only as good as his players. He got the best out of what he had at Rotherham and I expect him to do so here, doesn't necessarily mean we will be playing 'rowettball'

 

This is an open question and not necessarily to you specifically; but has a manager who's played solely pragmatic ugly football with one club ever shifted to not doing that ? 

Because I've seen this argument time and time again, specifically with a few recent Derby managers. Rowett sticks to mind and Pearson to an extent where people argue "oh they alter there style to the personal", "oh that's just because they had a limited budget", "oh with more resources they'd have a team playing better stuff" or some variation there off. And yet every single time it ends up pretty much the same, just a better version of ugly. And outside of Derby there are countless other examples. I honestly feel like it's largely a myth and that a manager will most likely show the same ethos regardless of resources.

21 hours ago, Ellafella said:

Yes indeed - that bit is just my opinion but quote me screen shot me etc in May. 

Fair enough, hope you are right. 

I worry though this is the monkey's paw curling and we are about to see some awful football.

4 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Compare Rotherham & Derby styles below; we will see quicker football; less “superfluous” passing and more goals. A faster style which will be more successful. 

Your conclusion that it will lead to more goals is speculative given there are several major confounding factors. 

This reeks. 

We are 7th in the table, joint points with 6th after 9 games with a squad that was almost completely rebuilt. I really don't know what the expectation was. I understand that 7th isn't where we want to finish but surely given that you'd expect our form to improve you'd say its enough to get more than 9 games. 

Rosenior would have every right to feel hard done by here. 

Then it's all for Paul Warne. Like fair enough he's done a decent job at Rotherham but that's been his only job and it's been there 6 years, hes had time to grow into a role with the club and influence things in a direction that suits. It's misguided at best to think he will be able to walk in here and suddenly have us firing on all cylinders especially when you consider that stylistically its a complete lurch.

This feels like an attempt at nailing our colours for someone who Clowes feels is a certainty for promotion based on that's he's good Rotherham promoted. And to be honest from the outside it looks like a shaky bet especially as I worry its because Warne is flavour of the month with Rotherham in their current position. We'd just about got a squad, all hired by Rosenior all with a certain style of play in mind and now are lurching to something that's the opposite. I don't see how at best this causes a large amount of disruption at the start and in the worst case scenario there is a non zero chance this tanks our season.

It's also a decision with no forethought or planning beyond just get promoted especially given that the academy is set up playing football in a way that won't be conducive to how the first team will now be setup.

All of this from the people complaining over possession football, to hailing the decision to bring in a "no-nonsense" "pragmatic" manager who's only had success at one club who he spent a bunch of time at had Pearson mark 2 written all over it.

Just now, Diego said:

The same fans that want LR to carry on are the same fans that wanted Nige to carry on around this time nine years ago.

Blatantly obvious Rosenior wouldn’t kick us on. A few paper over the cracks home wins and zero goals scored away from home is hardly impressive stuff.

Nice guy and I wish him well but not what we need in League One. 
 

Very different situation with a very different coach following. 

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Looks like they're warming up as a back 4 (Chester RB)

If I were Wycombe I'd be focusing the attacckingpressure and the pressing off the ball around him.

If we are staying with a 4231 and putting Chester at RB. I'm not convinced it materially solves anything and probably makes us weaker. Its a very flat back 4. 

Personally would set up as the following with that set of players. 

                      Wildsmith 

           Chester Davies Cashin 

Barkhuizen Knight Bird Hourihane Roberts 

                       Sibley

                       McGoldrick

I worry this is a "throwing things at the wall to see what sticks line up". Hope I'm wrong.

2 minutes ago, jono said:

He is hugely able and influential. I have a sense that he is going to be used sparingly for impact - and he definitely makes one - is there going to be a pattern ? starting home games and finishing away games ? 
 

I also wonder if there is some injury history that we don’t know about and he is deliberately not being pushed ? 

Or could be a case of they are wary of his fitness levels following an injury and missing almost all the preseason. 

I think the thing that can't be understated is how quickly and effectively we went about our very early business. 

That was absolutely crucial as it settled the whole club down, gave reassurances to the squad we had left and gave us something to work on in preseason to provide a platform for the season. 

We could have easily collapsed into the season with half existing team propped up by u21s who aren't ready. And it would have been demoralising all around. 

Beside I think the business we've done has been very good considering everything and I feel its as close to perfect as we perhaps could have expected. 

10 minutes ago, chadlad said:

Fozzy is a Chamionship standard LB, I would argue that he is as good if not better than Roberts at LB.

I can think of a few RB who have successfully played the LB position and Roberts seems to have 2 good feet.

We gain more than we lose and Roberts is a good defender whereas both Oduroh and Smith would be targeted aerially.

My point about Fozzy is you really do not want him as involved in the build up play as we are currently asking our fullbacks to be.

I mean yeah I'm not saying a left footed right back can't exist. I'm saying it'd likely hurt our build up play because he can't open his body up as easily.

I think we lose significantly more than we gain by shuffling around like that.

1 hour ago, Marriot Ram99 said:

I don't get why people are suggesting Mcgoldrick to play CM in a 433, he is a striker /CF and clearly not a midfielder. 

I think it's a myth he is a midfielder. At Sheffield United he played like a number 11 so a 2nd striker next to Billy Sharp, at other teams as far as I'm aware he has played striker, so at a push he could play as a 10 but definitely not a CM with defensive responsibilities like Smith has in our set up. 

If Mcgoldrick is going to play either Collins drops to the bench or we play with 2 up top which is unlikely so I think he'll rotate with Collins. 

We'd be playing McGoldrick at 10. 

I suspect that was the initial intention going into the season with the line up something close to like we played against Hertha Berlin in pre season. 

12 minutes ago, Gerry Daly said:

Your initial post was excellent Brady and follow my thoughts on this too. However I do think you acknowledged but then quickly moved on from the other main potential option playing exactly this system and that is to swop Knight and Smith. Knight would give us more value than Smith does in midfield I think, particularly goal scoring but also all round involvement in the play. But Smith, a decent midfielder who has also crucially played right back for some of his career could in my opinion slot in very effectively to the role Knight is currently playing. I don't think the 'coaching time' is a deal breaker with that 

I don't disagree. And with no right back on the horizon it is what I'd probably look at doing. I'd look at coaching Smith into that role because I feel he could do a similar job there whilst Knight is likely a better midfielder from what we've seen.

My point about Smith though is we had the entire preseason to prepare Knight for playing there and won't have had the same time with Smith. That's not a deal breaker but it might mean it's not as simple as just swapping them at going smoothly. And sticking with Knight whose doing well there does make sense.

4 minutes ago, David said:

You risk it as the benefits of having Knight in midfield far outweigh it.

Look at the games so far, we have largely dominated with little pressure on the back line. 

The start of the season, players finding their way into match fitness, it's absolutely the right time to give the lad some minutes.

If he looks flaky, play Knight. I just want to see him given a run of games if possible to show what he can do.

He's obviously going to look nervous initially, the only way he can kick on is by actually playing.

You might be right. It might be worth the risk. And I'm not opposed to trying it.

In terms of games so far though we are going at a decent rate especially considering its a rapidly assembled squad with a short preseason. And our best attacking outlet has been down the right with Knight a big part of that.

We do need to find a way to break teams down better and part of that is a better balanced midfield (alongside more time coaching, more game time and more familiarity between players)

10 minutes ago, chadlad said:

Knight is an international midfield player who was voted MOM in the last international match.

A midfield 3 of Bird, Knight and Hourihane is without doubt our strongest midfield and most probably the strongest in L1.

Knight offers goals from midfield, something we seem to be short of.

Knight offers aggression, tenacity and legs in midfield again something we seem to be lacking.

He doesn’t get bullied, reminds me of Roy Keane!

I would argue that Roberts at RB would be a better option than JK in terms of defensive and aerial ability. Being left footed would also help when coming inside onto his left foot. Odurah and Smith just not good enough options at RB IMHO.

 

Knight is a good midfielder and quite likely would be part of our best midfield three. It's more debatable if we want to play with a 10 like Sibley or McGoldrick that he'd start though. 

There is a couple issues sticking Roberts there. Him being left footed would hinder him rather than help. It'd make harder for him to find the right winger or the midfielder in front of him or to take the ball on the half turn. Also it means we'd have to play Fozzy and he's really unsuited to playing that role so you would have to further shuffle the team around to compensate.

8 minutes ago, Warwick Ram said:

Playing a central midfielder at right back instead of recruiting an actual right back is very short sighted.

Knight should be running the midfield as well as providing a goal threat.

If this was Cocu it would be slated.

Some would say it is very naive of Rosenior to potentially waste Knight at full back.

Your implication that we haven't tried to recruit a right back is more than certainly false. Rosenior has mentioned many many times about wanting to get a right back in. Why that hasn't happened is almost certainly down to we are still under fairly heavy restrictions.

As it stands Knight likely is our best option at right back. He fits what we need there and is playing well there. Whether it's worth him playing in midfield and putting someone else there is an open question but we have other good midfielders we can play.

3 minutes ago, David said:

One game and he's out then, judged and written off as being not ready? Surely we've seen plenty of young players come through to know that it can take a run of games to get a feel for it.

Look at Max Bird when he broke through.

Had it been a signing under a previous manager, I could maybe understand it, yet Rosenior signed him, the guy that creates the system we play.

If he's not good enough right now, why are we sitting him on the bench and not giving him minutes with the U21s?

Makes no sense, at what point do we decide he's ready? After sitting on his arse for 20 games and only kicking a ball in training?

Give him a first half, what's the worst that can happen? Take him off, bring on Smith or Sibley and move Knight into right back.

In the games we've played so far, our defence hasn't been under a lot of pressure.

I just fail to see how you can say he's the best option when he's the only option we tried so far.

To be clear I'm not personally opposed to doing that.

Odurah looks like he's talented and he looks like he could play that role. And my bet is at some point he takes over the role. 

Knight has looked better so far though and Odurah has looked like he's not quite ready for playing week in, week out. 

So it's a question of do you risk it ? Can you ride out the occasional mistake ? And is it worth disrupting our right hand side which has looked our most effective path for attacking?

The answer could be yes for sure. And if he starts tomorrow I'll be happy about it personally. I can just see why Knight is currently starting there.

37 minutes ago, David said:

You can't say he's the best option if it's the only option we've tried ?

I mean to an extent your right. We've seen Odurah and Knight has looked better than him there at the moment. 

And any other option is a player out of position with various degrees of suitability.

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

How many fullbacks do you know in League 1 or even the Championship can play this way? I've never seen it before, I'm old fashioned and like my fullbacks to be defenders not midfielders.

As for 'we've set up this way', well yes, but why? This is League 1 not the Champions League.

The thing is... you have seen it before.  At Derby no less. Byrne at times last season, especially early in the season would be playing an inverted role. The same is true about Bogle under Cocu. It wasn't all the time and it perhaps wasn't as obvious but it did happen.

The fullbacks still are defenders when we are defenders. In fact their overall role is more defensive than previous seasons as they've less license to break forwards.

Ah sorry forgot it was league 1. Best go back in time and tell Chris Wilder to knock it off with that funny business with the overlapping CBs. Can't be having tactics in league 1 ?.

Flippant answer aside, because if it clicks it will allow us to counter what is commonly put in front of us in this League.

1 hour ago, LERam said:

I don't disagree with Knight being the best option we have at RB

But in my opinion we lose more in midfield than we gain by having him out of position. I think any downside of having the others at RB is outweighed by what Knight can offer in the middle 

Honestly that could be completely true and it could see it being the case. I've even said elsewhere that I'd be thinking about coaching Smith into the role to potentially free Knight up.

But alternatively we might have a better solution and our best team with everyone fit might have Knight at RB.

9 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

I think it's a reasonable argument @brady1993. Nevertheless, I think a bigger issue that we have at the moment is creating and taking chances. I believe a better balanced midfield would greatly help in that regard. And I would put Knight as a key element in that midfield.

Perhaps, they're all still relatively young, compared to Smith and Hourihane, but they all now have sufficient experience. Therefore, I like the balance offered by:

• Knight - legs, box-to-box-midfielder
• Bird - passing ability
• Sibley - creativity and goal threat

Therefore, the recruitment process should have focused - could still focus, if there is time and money - on bringing in a right back to play that role. Byrne would have been great but he screwed us over.

Thing is I do pretty much agree. 

On the recruitment I suspect from what Rosenior has said we have tried to get a RB in and are probably still trying. But it's likely just a case with our financial situation we just can't find the right person if anyone at all. 

And so if you aren't getting a RB this window you've got to think about your options.

Knight is doing well there. So it becomes a series of questions:

Does moving him into midfield fix the issues there?

Can we solve the midfield issues without moving him? 

Does moving him from right back create more problems than it solves?

Thats what Rosenior needs to try to answer. My post was mostly to argue its not as simple as people are making it out to be and that he is playing well there.

3 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Why do you need the player with the best running stats playing at right back ? His energy should be utilised as a goal scoring central midfielder who makes late runs into the box and can recover to get back into shape during the attack to defence transition.

I feel like I've explained why.....

But to take a different approach our best team might have Knight at RB even if it's not his best position. 

Better players than Knight have had to play in roles that you'd think unconventional or not their best.