brady1993

Overall I'm more positive about Rosenior now than when he was first announced. 
I think there is a few things people should be keeping in mind. 
First is that using average xG to compare us to the rest of the league is premature to draw any conclusions. It's a noisy statistic and I highly doubt 4 games is enough to draw a meaningful conclusion from or to compare us to the rest of the league.
Secondly is that we are tactically trying to embed something new with a largely new squad and with a really short pre season. It takes time for these to properly embed and gain fluidity. And we likely haven't even seen the true plan A yet what with the lack of a RB and McGoldrick not being fit so far. So any talk of plan b or shifting things is premature because frankly we need this time to properly embed what we are trying to do for this season and beyond. People talk about lack of bravery but ultimately that comes from the above. It's much easier to be brave when match fit, tactically clued up and familiar with your teammates.
To be honest with all that said I think 7 from 12 points is a really good return. It's positive because we are picking up points at a good rate whilst misfiring a bit as things embed tactically. And I don't expect we will be in full flow at least for another month or two.
I think the plan tactically at an abstract level is a good one and if well executed will see us being able to dominate games and break down teams that play a low block more comfortably than last season. Two physical fast wingers stretch the pitch and provide a option to go long. They can stay forwards almost the entire time which keeps the opposition wary as we can break easily if they overcommit. They can do this because of the inverted fullbacks who support the midfield. Both of these factors also lead in turn to allowing a lot of space and attacking freedom to the two 8s or the 8 and the 10 in midfield so they can in theory hurt teams. Its a good plan with solid tactical thinking behind and we've only seen glimpses of it firing so far.
My only concern is the persistence with trying a midfield with Smith and Hourihane as the advanced options which has looked unbalanced and stagnant since the friendly with Leicester. This is the part that I just don't see Roesnior's think aside from a misguided attempt to keep things tight, go with experience when in doubt and play the new players. Its just not working though and needs addressing going forwards. Especially as I think we have the players to fix the problems. Any of Sibley, Knight, McGoldrick or Thompson played over one of them likely sees a better balance.
If nothing else I think the time has come to evaluate whether we are actually going to get a RB before the window closes and if not perhaps it's time to move Knight from that position and convert Smith to it.
TLDR; It takes time to set a team up from nothing, time we haven't had. Whilst there can be concerns so far this is better than expected for this point in the season.

Overall I'm more positive about Rosenior now than when he was first announced. 
I think there is a few things people should be keeping in mind. 
First is that using average xG to compare us to the rest of the league is premature to draw any conclusions. It's a noisy statistic and I highly doubt 4 games is enough to draw a meaningful conclusion from or to compare us to the rest of the league.
Secondly is that we are tactically trying to embed something new with a largely new squad and with a really short pre season. It takes time for these to properly embed and gain fluidity. And we likely haven't even seen the true plan A yet what with the lack of a RB and McGoldrick not being fit so far. So any talk of plan b or shifting things is premature because frankly we need this time to properly embed what we are trying to do for this season and beyond. People talk about lack of bravery but ultimately that comes from the above. It's much easier to be brave when match fit, tactically clued up and familiar with your teammates.
To be honest with all that said I think 7 from 12 points is a really good return. It's positive because we are picking up points at a good rate whilst misfiring a bit as things embed tactically. And I don't expect we will be in full flow at least for another month or two.
I think the plan tactically at an abstract level is a good one and if well executed will see us being able to dominate games and break down teams that play a low block more comfortably than last season. Two physical fast wingers stretch the pitch and provide a option to go long. They can stay forwards almost the entire time which keeps the opposition wary as we can break easily if they overcommit. They can do this because of the inverted fullbacks who support the midfield. Both of these factors also lead in turn to allowing a lot of space and attacking freedom to the two 8s or the 8 and the 10 in midfield so they can in theory hurt teams. Its a good plan with solid tactical thinking behind and we've only seen glimpses of it firing so far.
My only concern is the persistence with trying a midfield with Smith and Hourihane as the advanced options which has looked unbalanced and stagnant since the friendly with Leicester. This is the part that I just don't see Roesnior's think aside from a misguided attempt to keep things tight, go with experience when in doubt and play the new players. Its just not working though and needs addressing going forwards. Especially as I think we have the players to fix the problems. Any of Sibley, Knight, McGoldrick or Thompson played over one of them likely sees a better balance.
If nothing else I think the time has come to evaluate whether we are actually going to get a RB before the window closes and if not perhaps it's time to move Knight from that position and convert Smith to it.
TLDR; It takes time to set a team up from nothing, time we haven't had. Whilst there can be concerns so far this is better than expected for this point in the season.

The most encouraging (and equally most frustrating) thing for me, is that I really don't think we need to change that much at all.  Obviously the whole "kicking the ball in the goal when you have a chance" thing needs addressing, but I do think that will come with time/fitness/match-sharpness etc.  Beyond that, we just need to make sure that we actually capitalise on the times we manage to break the lines.  For example, in the game the other night, there were a few times when one of the fullbacks received the ball beyond the opposition's press, and had either an easy ball inside to Max Bird in space, or a ball down the line to the winger, but instead turned and played it back to a centre half.  If those passes keep going forward (or at least stay where they are), instead of going backwards, that phase of play keeps building rather than having to start again from the back.  We don't need a worldie pass, or a magic bit of skill, just to take the easy opportunities that are already there. 
Likewise, there were a few sloppy passes played when we got into decent positions (Hourihane was pretty guilty for this in the last game, for example) that ended up stopping a decent move in it's tracks.  Take those simple opportunities, complete those passes properly, and we're suddenly playing 20/30/40 yards further up the pitch a lot more often.  And to be clear, I'm talking about like half a dozen passes in the entire game.  It really doesn't need major surgery, just a bit more composure and a bit more care in possession. 

Overall I'm more positive about Rosenior now than when he was first announced. 
I think there is a few things people should be keeping in mind. 
First is that using average xG to compare us to the rest of the league is premature to draw any conclusions. It's a noisy statistic and I highly doubt 4 games is enough to draw a meaningful conclusion from or to compare us to the rest of the league.
Secondly is that we are tactically trying to embed something new with a largely new squad and with a really short pre season. It takes time for these to properly embed and gain fluidity. And we likely haven't even seen the true plan A yet what with the lack of a RB and McGoldrick not being fit so far. So any talk of plan b or shifting things is premature because frankly we need this time to properly embed what we are trying to do for this season and beyond. People talk about lack of bravery but ultimately that comes from the above. It's much easier to be brave when match fit, tactically clued up and familiar with your teammates.
To be honest with all that said I think 7 from 12 points is a really good return. It's positive because we are picking up points at a good rate whilst misfiring a bit as things embed tactically. And I don't expect we will be in full flow at least for another month or two.
I think the plan tactically at an abstract level is a good one and if well executed will see us being able to dominate games and break down teams that play a low block more comfortably than last season. Two physical fast wingers stretch the pitch and provide a option to go long. They can stay forwards almost the entire time which keeps the opposition wary as we can break easily if they overcommit. They can do this because of the inverted fullbacks who support the midfield. Both of these factors also lead in turn to allowing a lot of space and attacking freedom to the two 8s or the 8 and the 10 in midfield so they can in theory hurt teams. Its a good plan with solid tactical thinking behind and we've only seen glimpses of it firing so far.
My only concern is the persistence with trying a midfield with Smith and Hourihane as the advanced options which has looked unbalanced and stagnant since the friendly with Leicester. This is the part that I just don't see Roesnior's think aside from a misguided attempt to keep things tight, go with experience when in doubt and play the new players. Its just not working though and needs addressing going forwards. Especially as I think we have the players to fix the problems. Any of Sibley, Knight, McGoldrick or Thompson played over one of them likely sees a better balance.
If nothing else I think the time has come to evaluate whether we are actually going to get a RB before the window closes and if not perhaps it's time to move Knight from that position and convert Smith to it.
TLDR; It takes time to set a team up from nothing, time we haven't had. Whilst there can be concerns so far this is better than expected for this point in the season.

I think that's partly coming down to our situation right now. 
Players aren't super match fit for the most part what with the short pre-season. They are also getting accustomed to what we are doing tactically and their team mates.
All of which leads to a player playing safer than they should because they aren't quite backing their ability, they don't instinctively know the role and the roles of the players around them and they don't instinctively know their teammates for the most part.
It's easy for us to sit back and say "oh you should have played a 40 yard switch to NML as he'd made a run and was open". But a player has a split second to make that decision more often than not and so unless they are either very good, very confident or at least very aware of everyone on the pitch they will often play safe.
The other thing I don't think people realise is that defaulting to playing directly is often the absolute safest thing for a player to do in a given moment.

I actually this is the wrong way to think. 
If we embed the philosophy now at this point in the season then it will be the bedrock of success later in the season and going into the championship.
If we focus on results at all cost now we will end up a tactical mess of a team and probably looking back at a middling to average season and nothing to build on.
We have to look beyond short-termism right now, it's what lead to us being in league 1.

I think it's a lack of confidence to change it up instinctively during games! 
Coaching is all well and good, but the best players know when to try the unexpected.

Lots of interesting stuff in this matchday thread. 
I agree with those who say the midfield balance isn't right. There may be three individually gifted players there but they are just too similar to work effectively as a unit. One of Sibley or Knight should always be part of that mix, otherwise Collins is going to continue to be isolated at centre forward and his head is going to drop soon. You can see it in his body language already.
I also noticed that Dobbin and Sibley drew fouls and bookings out of Shrewsbury defenders within minutes of coming on, just by turning and running with the ball. Do that in the first half and you've two nervous defenders on a booking making life easier for us. We need someone who doesn't play it safe on the pitch from the start, imo.
Other than that, I'll take the draw against a well-organised defensive unit who fought hard for each other.
Uninspiring football, but a point on the road is better than none.

Three reasons
We are trying to draw the opposition onto us then pass through them
To patiently love the ball around whilst waiting for an opening as we don't have a dominant target man
All the other teams will be fitter than us so we can try to wear them down by chasing the ball
 

Not going to lie I still don't quite how that midfield is supposed to work and I feel like I'm missing what Smith is adding in that more advanced role.

Not going to lie I still don't quite how that midfield is supposed to work and I feel like I'm missing what Smith is adding in that more advanced role.

Not going to lie I still don't quite how that midfield is supposed to work and I feel like I'm missing what Smith is adding in that more advanced role.

The thing is though is when is experience just overridden by fatigue and not keeping up with the game? Because at a certain point it doesn't count for anything when decisions become poor, when technique becomes sloppy and when the legs go right? 
Like I can see how you leave him on when you are chasing because he has got the ability to win a game but when you are holding a lead and getting ragged in the heat, I just think its flawed thinking to leave him on. Especially with a packed schedule to come.
Get it about McGoldrick but I feel like if the remit was he would only come on if he was needed then I think Saturday kinda called for it. Because more than anything we just needed it to stick more in midfield areas and he's excellent at that.

Dont think Fozzy is that much better defensively to be honest. Still his job is to do more than defend, on the ball we are using the full backs heavily as auxiliary midfielders alongside Bird to help instigate the play. It's why Knight has been particularly effective in the role. Roberts looked a good fit there preseason and has done OK so far with some minor hiccups. 
But Fozzy frankly can't really play that role.

His job is to be in a position to receive the ball, retain it, turn if possible and move the ball quickly into and through midfield or if prefereable to the situation put the pass down the line. His role is to drop into midfield not bomb on and put crosses in. This tactic is different to last season when the full backs went on the overlap and put in crosses. This season our two wingers are just that, traditional wingers. Im not saying the fullbacks can never overlap if the play dictates it right to do so but its not their primary role.

Totally agree with your post, only quibble i'd make is we have 5 subs but only 3 chances to change in open play.
So you'd need to make that Fozzy call on 80mins when Collins came off or not at all

Alternatively you can abuse the concussion subsitute rules

I think the thing that's often missed when we play it out from the back part of the point is to draw the press. 
If a team is compact in their shape they can be very hard to break down however if they press high and you can beat their press they are often left wide open. 
If we just go long in the face of a press your kinda playing into what they want i.e. a 50-50 followed frequently by a turnover in possession.
Of course their is risk but if you've set your team up right then it should be a calculated one. But it's why it's really important to have the right personnel and to have really drilled the little movements in build up play.
We shouldn't always go short of course but we should be trying to for the most part even if its just to work an angle for a long pass. Thats part of the reason why we have two fast, strong wingers who play high hugging the touch line. They keep the opposition's press honest and stretch the pitch and if the opposition do cheat a little it leads to an easy long ball for them to run onto.
If anything the problem isn't that we try to play out too much it's more getting the balance right in defence and midfield, getting a good amount of coaching and match time in players so they can be sharper with it and having the right people in the right positions.

I think what you've alluded to here is part of the reason why things in midfield have looked better when Sibley has played. He keeps the opposition honest by running in behind or into the channels so they can't compact the space as much. It's also likely why Rosenior is playing his wingers high and hugging the touchline.

I think what you've alluded to here is part of the reason why things in midfield have looked better when Sibley has played. He keeps the opposition honest by running in behind or into the channels so they can't compact the space as much. It's also likely why Rosenior is playing his wingers high and hugging the touchline.

Really depends on who's fatigued for this one. 
Assuming no one else is back to fitness. I'd be thinking about playing Smith or Thompson over Hourihane given he played the full 90mins and looked shattered after 60. And probably Dobbin for one of the wingers. I'd start Sibley but with the idea of taking him off on the hour mark.

I think we probably actually agree - it's about drawing the press in the right way and it's also about balance. And you make a really good point about midfield. We're lucky in that all our midfielders are comfortable receiving the ball, but when it comes to them from defence they should be sufficiently aware of what's around them to normally be playing on the half turn, so they can immediately move forward with the ball, instead of playing it straight back into defence without considering a forward option.

Only just got round to watching the game. Thought it was a decent-ish for the win for the most part and didn't really think Barnsley threatened that much. 
Few random thoughts:
 - The midfield looked better balanced in midfield first half with Sibley. And I don't think he should have come off when he did.
- Stearman makes me appreciate that Davies has actually got a lot better on the ball as Stearman looked a good deal shakier in possession and wasn't make build up play easy.
- Whilst I'm there I think Stearman could have done better for the goal.
- To reiterate everyone Cashin was fantastic.
- I'm still not sure what Rosenior sees in Smith, especially in a more advanced position.
On a more general point I don't think we got the subs right. Hourihane's legs had gone after an hour and NML looked knackered as well. Whilst Sibley was tiring I don't think he should have been first off as he still had some running in him and he kept them honest in midfield by providing a threat. If the thinking was to get control of the midfield I can understand that but in that case I think you have to look at Hourihane first and then maybe Sibley at the same time. In particular I thought we were crying out for McGoldrick to come on so the ball would stick a deal more (probably for Sibley) and we needed his ability to get on the ball and link play.
Also am I imagining things or don't we have 5 subs ?  
Personally would have gone something like:
Hourihane -> Smith/Thompson 60mins  
NML -> Dobbin 60mins 
Sibley -> McGoldrick 65mins
Collins -> Thompson/Smith 80 mins 
Fozzy on late if you need him in the air.
 

I think the thing that's often missed when we play it out from the back part of the point is to draw the press. 
If a team is compact in their shape they can be very hard to break down however if they press high and you can beat their press they are often left wide open. 
If we just go long in the face of a press your kinda playing into what they want i.e. a 50-50 followed frequently by a turnover in possession.
Of course their is risk but if you've set your team up right then it should be a calculated one. But it's why it's really important to have the right personnel and to have really drilled the little movements in build up play.
We shouldn't always go short of course but we should be trying to for the most part even if its just to work an angle for a long pass. Thats part of the reason why we have two fast, strong wingers who play high hugging the touch line. They keep the opposition's press honest and stretch the pitch and if the opposition do cheat a little it leads to an easy long ball for them to run onto.
If anything the problem isn't that we try to play out too much it's more getting the balance right in defence and midfield, getting a good amount of coaching and match time in players so they can be sharper with it and having the right people in the right positions.

I think the thing that's often missed when we play it out from the back part of the point is to draw the press. 
If a team is compact in their shape they can be very hard to break down however if they press high and you can beat their press they are often left wide open. 
If we just go long in the face of a press your kinda playing into what they want i.e. a 50-50 followed frequently by a turnover in possession.
Of course their is risk but if you've set your team up right then it should be a calculated one. But it's why it's really important to have the right personnel and to have really drilled the little movements in build up play.
We shouldn't always go short of course but we should be trying to for the most part even if its just to work an angle for a long pass. Thats part of the reason why we have two fast, strong wingers who play high hugging the touch line. They keep the opposition's press honest and stretch the pitch and if the opposition do cheat a little it leads to an easy long ball for them to run onto.
If anything the problem isn't that we try to play out too much it's more getting the balance right in defence and midfield, getting a good amount of coaching and match time in players so they can be sharper with it and having the right people in the right positions.

Only just got round to watching the game. Thought it was a decent-ish for the win for the most part and didn't really think Barnsley threatened that much. 
Few random thoughts:
 - The midfield looked better balanced in midfield first half with Sibley. And I don't think he should have come off when he did.
- Stearman makes me appreciate that Davies has actually got a lot better on the ball as Stearman looked a good deal shakier in possession and wasn't make build up play easy.
- Whilst I'm there I think Stearman could have done better for the goal.
- To reiterate everyone Cashin was fantastic.
- I'm still not sure what Rosenior sees in Smith, especially in a more advanced position.
On a more general point I don't think we got the subs right. Hourihane's legs had gone after an hour and NML looked knackered as well. Whilst Sibley was tiring I don't think he should have been first off as he still had some running in him and he kept them honest in midfield by providing a threat. If the thinking was to get control of the midfield I can understand that but in that case I think you have to look at Hourihane first and then maybe Sibley at the same time. In particular I thought we were crying out for McGoldrick to come on so the ball would stick a deal more (probably for Sibley) and we needed his ability to get on the ball and link play.
Also am I imagining things or don't we have 5 subs ?  
Personally would have gone something like:
Hourihane -> Smith/Thompson 60mins  
NML -> Dobbin 60mins 
Sibley -> McGoldrick 65mins
Collins -> Thompson/Smith 80 mins 
Fozzy on late if you need him in the air.