brady1993

Personally I think on paper we've got reasonable sections of the squad that are capable of playing well in the league above and then the rest are mostly good at this level. 
Is it the best squad in the league? Don't know on that front. Nor do I think anything aside top 2 is a a failure. I do however think with the ability at hand it should be pushing for top 2 rather than dreaming of trying to get that last play off spot. And I'm partly convinced of that purely because we are getting points on the board still despite poor management.
I also think with where the quality areas are in the squad (i.e. midfield)  we should be firmly in control of most games and would be with proper coaching. 
Weirdly I think we had a top 2 squad probably when Warne took over. I'm not saying it should have performed at that level because it takes time to click.
But last season should have been focused on building momentum, squad familiarity and developing academy players into solid squad players and more. All so we could mount a serious challenge this year. 
It's what I find frustrating, it feels we've thrown a year down the drain only to be in a worse place. 

Yes and no.
You can make it easier for the player tactically. If hoofing is the easiest option and you don't want that then you can tactically set up the team and coach the team that their is a different default. And you play them where their current capabilities lay.
Hourihane has never looked the absolutely most comfortable playing the deepest midfield role. He's too peripheral, hasn't got the best tactical awareness and is only ok under serious pressure with the ball.
He's not got the legs for serious midfield running anymore but he can still be a difference maker in final 3rd, so... use him as that and don't expect from him what he can't do.

It's also league 1 and a bad league 1 at that we don't need as good as we had then. 
Sibley hits double figures comfortably if played for a whole season. Waghorn's hold up play is good enough and he has an understanding with Sibley (Cocu specifically paired the two when Sibley first broke the same). We've got ample ability in midfield and the playing out from the back will be good enough with coaching.
McClaren also likely makes adjustments tactically to accommodate it not being the exact same set of players. For example you likely don't want to play with overlapping wingbacks and narrow wide forwards, its probably better to let nml and barkhuizen cheat a little and stay wide.
It'd not be perfect but it'd have tactical coherence that'd let McClaren play to his strengths in coaching.

It wouldn't be exactly the same tactically but 
                Wildsmith 
Nyambe Nelson Cashin Forsyth 
                     Fornah
               Bird            Sibley
NML            Waghorn    Barkhuizen
Would give McClaren something to work with, with the right coaching.
And there in lies the rub: coaching We've got enough quality at our disposal for this division, we just need to name a balanced side that has tactical coherence and have it coached well enough.
 
 
 

I'd say it was better in the way that it was coherent and was tactically sound.
It was ugly at times but the plan was very clear and people knew what they were supposed to be doing.
Tbh Rowett is the benchmark I put other pragmatic managers that we've seen against in recent years because with the others it was both ugly and bad rather than just ugly.

Yes and no.
You can make it easier for the player tactically. If hoofing is the easiest option and you don't want that then you can tactically set up the team and coach the team that their is a different default. And you play them where their current capabilities lay.
Hourihane has never looked the absolutely most comfortable playing the deepest midfield role. He's too peripheral, hasn't got the best tactical awareness and is only ok under serious pressure with the ball.
He's not got the legs for serious midfield running anymore but he can still be a difference maker in final 3rd, so... use him as that and don't expect from him what he can't do.

Personally I think on paper we've got reasonable sections of the squad that are capable of playing well in the league above and then the rest are mostly good at this level. 
Is it the best squad in the league? Don't know on that front. Nor do I think anything aside top 2 is a a failure. I do however think with the ability at hand it should be pushing for top 2 rather than dreaming of trying to get that last play off spot. And I'm partly convinced of that purely because we are getting points on the board still despite poor management.
I also think with where the quality areas are in the squad (i.e. midfield)  we should be firmly in control of most games and would be with proper coaching. 
Weirdly I think we had a top 2 squad probably when Warne took over. I'm not saying it should have performed at that level because it takes time to click.
But last season should have been focused on building momentum, squad familiarity and developing academy players into solid squad players and more. All so we could mount a serious challenge this year. 
It's what I find frustrating, it feels we've thrown a year down the drain only to be in a worse place. 

I'd say it was better in the way that it was coherent and was tactically sound.
It was ugly at times but the plan was very clear and people knew what they were supposed to be doing.
Tbh Rowett is the benchmark I put other pragmatic managers that we've seen against in recent years because with the others it was both ugly and bad rather than just ugly.

More than anything I think I'd like to see us get a more dedicated director of football in place. Somebody who can better guide the trajectory of the club's development  all round from a playing perspective.

To add to this players at this level and the championship can often big strengths but big weaknesses. So with the right manager in the right set up they look fantastic but with the wrong one they look like they don't belong at this level.

Bad managers often make good players look like average players and average players look like terrible players. Good managers often make even average players look good (even if it's for a short burst).
Sometimes a player is a clear standout in terms of class (McGoldrick) and can almost help drag other players up to their level, but that's rare.
Continued exposure to poor management has a habit of convincing onlookers that the players are actually as bad as they look and incapable of being better.
It doesn't even have to be long term exposure - remember watching Chris Martin play under Pearson? It's like Pearson's system was specifically designed to make Martin look bad so he could justify replacing him.
I'm not suggesting Warne is doing the same thing intentionally as I don't think that's in his character, just as a by-product of his limitations.
There's no way Barkhuizen is anywhere near as bad as you make out he is, IMO.
I could be wrong, but If you look back to Chris Wilder's time at Sheffield Utd I have a feeling you could accuse him of having taken on a number of players who'd been 'rejected' by Championship clubs in a similar fashion to Barkhuizen, but he made those rejects into a team where everyone played to their maximum and they reaped the benefits.
 

That sad fact is you could learn everything you ever needed to know about Paul Warne just by listening to the Moment of Truth podcast, both good and bad.
I've seen people note that he said at his first press conference or interview something along the lines of "if you have good footballer, you try to play good football"; we have good footballers, yet we're no longer trying to play good football. Not in any game where the opposition isn't considerably weaker than us anyway, and even then not always.
I don't blame Clowes for appointing him because I assume that in interviews for the job he'll have said similar things, stated a willingness to adapt, convinced his new employer that he's capable of growth as a manager whilst delivering a team which capable of achieving promotion with his time at Rotherham clearly evidencing the latter.
In reality it's been 13 months and he's not showing enough (if any) signs of doing either of those things, all the while appearing rattled every time he's questions. When the facade drops, what's left?

That's something that's concerned me since early in his reign, his only answers to problems are:
1) work harder
2) be more aggressive
3) get more crosses in
That's it. Right in his first interview there were comments he made that worried his view of the game tactically was narrow and all we've seen since backs that up.

It wouldn't be exactly the same tactically but 
                Wildsmith 
Nyambe Nelson Cashin Forsyth 
                     Fornah
               Bird            Sibley
NML            Waghorn    Barkhuizen
Would give McClaren something to work with, with the right coaching.
And there in lies the rub: coaching We've got enough quality at our disposal for this division, we just need to name a balanced side that has tactical coherence and have it coached well enough.
 
 
 

More than anything I think I'd like to see us get a more dedicated director of football in place. Somebody who can better guide the trajectory of the club's development  all round from a playing perspective.

Yeah I more or less agree. It either needs to be a short term person who's going to give fast success or somebody putting the building blocks in place for more sustainable progress. 
The only thing I somewhat disagree with is I don't think keeping warne is treading water. I think it's a slow, gradually slide backwards.
We are in a worse position on many fronts than when he took over.
 

It's also league 1 and a bad league 1 at that we don't need as good as we had then. 
Sibley hits double figures comfortably if played for a whole season. Waghorn's hold up play is good enough and he has an understanding with Sibley (Cocu specifically paired the two when Sibley first broke the same). We've got ample ability in midfield and the playing out from the back will be good enough with coaching.
McClaren also likely makes adjustments tactically to accommodate it not being the exact same set of players. For example you likely don't want to play with overlapping wingbacks and narrow wide forwards, its probably better to let nml and barkhuizen cheat a little and stay wide.
It'd not be perfect but it'd have tactical coherence that'd let McClaren play to his strengths in coaching.

It's also league 1 and a bad league 1 at that we don't need as good as we had then. 
Sibley hits double figures comfortably if played for a whole season. Waghorn's hold up play is good enough and he has an understanding with Sibley (Cocu specifically paired the two when Sibley first broke the same). We've got ample ability in midfield and the playing out from the back will be good enough with coaching.
McClaren also likely makes adjustments tactically to accommodate it not being the exact same set of players. For example you likely don't want to play with overlapping wingbacks and narrow wide forwards, its probably better to let nml and barkhuizen cheat a little and stay wide.
It'd not be perfect but it'd have tactical coherence that'd let McClaren play to his strengths in coaching.

It wouldn't be exactly the same tactically but 
                Wildsmith 
Nyambe Nelson Cashin Forsyth 
                     Fornah
               Bird            Sibley
NML            Waghorn    Barkhuizen
Would give McClaren something to work with, with the right coaching.
And there in lies the rub: coaching We've got enough quality at our disposal for this division, we just need to name a balanced side that has tactical coherence and have it coached well enough.
 
 
 

More than anything I think I'd like to see us get a more dedicated director of football in place. Somebody who can better guide the trajectory of the club's development  all round from a playing perspective.

I agree but it won’t be happening based on an Athletic article I read yesterday morning. Pearce and Clowes scoffed at the idea when Matt Slater raised it to them on Tuesday evening. I think the plan is to get more football knowledge on to the board as NED’s but I would worry these would be sentimental appointments.
It seems crazy to me that you would not have football people in charge of football decisions but what do I know

It wouldn't be exactly the same tactically but 
                Wildsmith 
Nyambe Nelson Cashin Forsyth 
                     Fornah
               Bird            Sibley
NML            Waghorn    Barkhuizen
Would give McClaren something to work with, with the right coaching.
And there in lies the rub: coaching We've got enough quality at our disposal for this division, we just need to name a balanced side that has tactical coherence and have it coached well enough.
 
 
 

It's also league 1 and a bad league 1 at that we don't need as good as we had then. 
Sibley hits double figures comfortably if played for a whole season. Waghorn's hold up play is good enough and he has an understanding with Sibley (Cocu specifically paired the two when Sibley first broke the same). We've got ample ability in midfield and the playing out from the back will be good enough with coaching.
McClaren also likely makes adjustments tactically to accommodate it not being the exact same set of players. For example you likely don't want to play with overlapping wingbacks and narrow wide forwards, its probably better to let nml and barkhuizen cheat a little and stay wide.
It'd not be perfect but it'd have tactical coherence that'd let McClaren play to his strengths in coaching.

Neither was Bryson until McClaren arrived.

It wouldn't be exactly the same tactically but 
                Wildsmith 
Nyambe Nelson Cashin Forsyth 
                     Fornah
               Bird            Sibley
NML            Waghorn    Barkhuizen
Would give McClaren something to work with, with the right coaching.
And there in lies the rub: coaching We've got enough quality at our disposal for this division, we just need to name a balanced side that has tactical coherence and have it coached well enough.