brady1993

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.
 

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.
 

Rooney achieved much more with fewer resources? Erm, no he didn’t.
Bielik’s return coincided with a purple patch and then under Rooney we presided over a 9 game losing run and nearly got relegated (and that is with a fit Kazim and minus Rooney himself which was like playing with 10 men).
Nobody is saying Cocu would have gotten us promoted.
But we finished midtable (60+ points) the season before and players like Bird, Knight and Sibley were all better under Cocu than they were under Rooney.
Name me one good game Rooney had after Covid. The guy was an embarrassment.
Cocu was here for 15 months. He had to deal with the Keogh fiasco, constant rumours of Rooney taking his job, Mel, Bielik’s injury, Rooney’s presence post Covid and the loss of key players because Mel was done. He walked into an impossible job.
His work at PSV will be more than anything Rooney achieves in his managerial career.

And much of this is down to the difference between managing Rotherham and Derby.
It's not just the level of expectation that's higher, its the ceiling. We have the potential to progress to heights far beyond that of Rotherham.
This means a long term strategy is much more important. Part of that is developing a style of football which works now, but will only need to be tweaked at the next level, a style which will help us attract quality loans from clubs higher up the leagues.
 

I think you hit at the core of why I think keeping Warne on board is going to hurt us long term and isn't the neutral option people often opine it to be. 
You have to take a step back and realise how asymmetrical the footballing system is and how uneven the playing field is to succeed at the highest levels. A club like ours either needs a robust plan to overcome that sustainably as we will likely never be big enough or attract the kinds of backing to seriously compete. (And even if we do we risk the trajectory of what happened under MM). 
Essentially we need something or a set of things we can do differently in order to level things out. And if you look at the success of clubs who have some degree of sustainability and not just relied on boom/bust investment they all have that element to them. I.e. Brentford, Southampton. 
The one major advantage we have as a club is geographical in that we have quite a sizeable catchment area where we can realistically compete for talent at youth levels, talent that otherwise might be prohibitive to acquire after they've matured. But we need to plan with this in mind. We need to have strong development pathways from academy to first team with firm incentives about taking risks on bringing people through and giving them time. 
It's what was so frustrating about last season to me. Last season was practically as free a hit as you get as a club. It was a season to get our ducks in a row and reset as a club. We should have been giving serious game time to developing academy players and recent academy graduates like Thompson. It was a season we could afford to take risks on players  This would have given us a solid foundation of a squad to work from that would improve over time. Instead we kick Thompson on loan and then find ourselves short of cover. Warne is clearly reluctant to trust academy players to the point where its actively detrimental. In a nothing game with a lead once again we were playing players past the point of exhaustion (some of which like bird who are coming off injuries) rather than giving someone game time. 
It feeds into my feelings that as a manager he struggles to see beyond the surface level and struggles to see the bigger picture whether it's tactical, player fitness management or overall club development.

I think you hit at the core of why I think keeping Warne on board is going to hurt us long term and isn't the neutral option people often opine it to be. 
You have to take a step back and realise how asymmetrical the footballing system is and how uneven the playing field is to succeed at the highest levels. A club like ours either needs a robust plan to overcome that sustainably as we will likely never be big enough or attract the kinds of backing to seriously compete. (And even if we do we risk the trajectory of what happened under MM). 
Essentially we need something or a set of things we can do differently in order to level things out. And if you look at the success of clubs who have some degree of sustainability and not just relied on boom/bust investment they all have that element to them. I.e. Brentford, Southampton. 
The one major advantage we have as a club is geographical in that we have quite a sizeable catchment area where we can realistically compete for talent at youth levels, talent that otherwise might be prohibitive to acquire after they've matured. But we need to plan with this in mind. We need to have strong development pathways from academy to first team with firm incentives about taking risks on bringing people through and giving them time. 
It's what was so frustrating about last season to me. Last season was practically as free a hit as you get as a club. It was a season to get our ducks in a row and reset as a club. We should have been giving serious game time to developing academy players and recent academy graduates like Thompson. It was a season we could afford to take risks on players  This would have given us a solid foundation of a squad to work from that would improve over time. Instead we kick Thompson on loan and then find ourselves short of cover. Warne is clearly reluctant to trust academy players to the point where its actively detrimental. In a nothing game with a lead once again we were playing players past the point of exhaustion (some of which like bird who are coming off injuries) rather than giving someone game time. 
It feeds into my feelings that as a manager he struggles to see beyond the surface level and struggles to see the bigger picture whether it's tactical, player fitness management or overall club development.

I think you hit at the core of why I think keeping Warne on board is going to hurt us long term and isn't the neutral option people often opine it to be. 
You have to take a step back and realise how asymmetrical the footballing system is and how uneven the playing field is to succeed at the highest levels. A club like ours either needs a robust plan to overcome that sustainably as we will likely never be big enough or attract the kinds of backing to seriously compete. (And even if we do we risk the trajectory of what happened under MM). 
Essentially we need something or a set of things we can do differently in order to level things out. And if you look at the success of clubs who have some degree of sustainability and not just relied on boom/bust investment they all have that element to them. I.e. Brentford, Southampton. 
The one major advantage we have as a club is geographical in that we have quite a sizeable catchment area where we can realistically compete for talent at youth levels, talent that otherwise might be prohibitive to acquire after they've matured. But we need to plan with this in mind. We need to have strong development pathways from academy to first team with firm incentives about taking risks on bringing people through and giving them time. 
It's what was so frustrating about last season to me. Last season was practically as free a hit as you get as a club. It was a season to get our ducks in a row and reset as a club. We should have been giving serious game time to developing academy players and recent academy graduates like Thompson. It was a season we could afford to take risks on players  This would have given us a solid foundation of a squad to work from that would improve over time. Instead we kick Thompson on loan and then find ourselves short of cover. Warne is clearly reluctant to trust academy players to the point where its actively detrimental. In a nothing game with a lead once again we were playing players past the point of exhaustion (some of which like bird who are coming off injuries) rather than giving someone game time. 
It feeds into my feelings that as a manager he struggles to see beyond the surface level and struggles to see the bigger picture whether it's tactical, player fitness management or overall club development.

I think you hit at the core of why I think keeping Warne on board is going to hurt us long term and isn't the neutral option people often opine it to be. 
You have to take a step back and realise how asymmetrical the footballing system is and how uneven the playing field is to succeed at the highest levels. A club like ours either needs a robust plan to overcome that sustainably as we will likely never be big enough or attract the kinds of backing to seriously compete. (And even if we do we risk the trajectory of what happened under MM). 
Essentially we need something or a set of things we can do differently in order to level things out. And if you look at the success of clubs who have some degree of sustainability and not just relied on boom/bust investment they all have that element to them. I.e. Brentford, Southampton. 
The one major advantage we have as a club is geographical in that we have quite a sizeable catchment area where we can realistically compete for talent at youth levels, talent that otherwise might be prohibitive to acquire after they've matured. But we need to plan with this in mind. We need to have strong development pathways from academy to first team with firm incentives about taking risks on bringing people through and giving them time. 
It's what was so frustrating about last season to me. Last season was practically as free a hit as you get as a club. It was a season to get our ducks in a row and reset as a club. We should have been giving serious game time to developing academy players and recent academy graduates like Thompson. It was a season we could afford to take risks on players  This would have given us a solid foundation of a squad to work from that would improve over time. Instead we kick Thompson on loan and then find ourselves short of cover. Warne is clearly reluctant to trust academy players to the point where its actively detrimental. In a nothing game with a lead once again we were playing players past the point of exhaustion (some of which like bird who are coming off injuries) rather than giving someone game time. 
It feeds into my feelings that as a manager he struggles to see beyond the surface level and struggles to see the bigger picture whether it's tactical, player fitness management or overall club development.

I think you hit at the core of why I think keeping Warne on board is going to hurt us long term and isn't the neutral option people often opine it to be. 
You have to take a step back and realise how asymmetrical the footballing system is and how uneven the playing field is to succeed at the highest levels. A club like ours either needs a robust plan to overcome that sustainably as we will likely never be big enough or attract the kinds of backing to seriously compete. (And even if we do we risk the trajectory of what happened under MM). 
Essentially we need something or a set of things we can do differently in order to level things out. And if you look at the success of clubs who have some degree of sustainability and not just relied on boom/bust investment they all have that element to them. I.e. Brentford, Southampton. 
The one major advantage we have as a club is geographical in that we have quite a sizeable catchment area where we can realistically compete for talent at youth levels, talent that otherwise might be prohibitive to acquire after they've matured. But we need to plan with this in mind. We need to have strong development pathways from academy to first team with firm incentives about taking risks on bringing people through and giving them time. 
It's what was so frustrating about last season to me. Last season was practically as free a hit as you get as a club. It was a season to get our ducks in a row and reset as a club. We should have been giving serious game time to developing academy players and recent academy graduates like Thompson. It was a season we could afford to take risks on players  This would have given us a solid foundation of a squad to work from that would improve over time. Instead we kick Thompson on loan and then find ourselves short of cover. Warne is clearly reluctant to trust academy players to the point where its actively detrimental. In a nothing game with a lead once again we were playing players past the point of exhaustion (some of which like bird who are coming off injuries) rather than giving someone game time. 
It feeds into my feelings that as a manager he struggles to see beyond the surface level and struggles to see the bigger picture whether it's tactical, player fitness management or overall club development.

I think you hit at the core of why I think keeping Warne on board is going to hurt us long term and isn't the neutral option people often opine it to be. 
You have to take a step back and realise how asymmetrical the footballing system is and how uneven the playing field is to succeed at the highest levels. A club like ours either needs a robust plan to overcome that sustainably as we will likely never be big enough or attract the kinds of backing to seriously compete. (And even if we do we risk the trajectory of what happened under MM). 
Essentially we need something or a set of things we can do differently in order to level things out. And if you look at the success of clubs who have some degree of sustainability and not just relied on boom/bust investment they all have that element to them. I.e. Brentford, Southampton. 
The one major advantage we have as a club is geographical in that we have quite a sizeable catchment area where we can realistically compete for talent at youth levels, talent that otherwise might be prohibitive to acquire after they've matured. But we need to plan with this in mind. We need to have strong development pathways from academy to first team with firm incentives about taking risks on bringing people through and giving them time. 
It's what was so frustrating about last season to me. Last season was practically as free a hit as you get as a club. It was a season to get our ducks in a row and reset as a club. We should have been giving serious game time to developing academy players and recent academy graduates like Thompson. It was a season we could afford to take risks on players  This would have given us a solid foundation of a squad to work from that would improve over time. Instead we kick Thompson on loan and then find ourselves short of cover. Warne is clearly reluctant to trust academy players to the point where its actively detrimental. In a nothing game with a lead once again we were playing players past the point of exhaustion (some of which like bird who are coming off injuries) rather than giving someone game time. 
It feeds into my feelings that as a manager he struggles to see beyond the surface level and struggles to see the bigger picture whether it's tactical, player fitness management or overall club development.

I think you hit at the core of why I think keeping Warne on board is going to hurt us long term and isn't the neutral option people often opine it to be. 
You have to take a step back and realise how asymmetrical the footballing system is and how uneven the playing field is to succeed at the highest levels. A club like ours either needs a robust plan to overcome that sustainably as we will likely never be big enough or attract the kinds of backing to seriously compete. (And even if we do we risk the trajectory of what happened under MM). 
Essentially we need something or a set of things we can do differently in order to level things out. And if you look at the success of clubs who have some degree of sustainability and not just relied on boom/bust investment they all have that element to them. I.e. Brentford, Southampton. 
The one major advantage we have as a club is geographical in that we have quite a sizeable catchment area where we can realistically compete for talent at youth levels, talent that otherwise might be prohibitive to acquire after they've matured. But we need to plan with this in mind. We need to have strong development pathways from academy to first team with firm incentives about taking risks on bringing people through and giving them time. 
It's what was so frustrating about last season to me. Last season was practically as free a hit as you get as a club. It was a season to get our ducks in a row and reset as a club. We should have been giving serious game time to developing academy players and recent academy graduates like Thompson. It was a season we could afford to take risks on players  This would have given us a solid foundation of a squad to work from that would improve over time. Instead we kick Thompson on loan and then find ourselves short of cover. Warne is clearly reluctant to trust academy players to the point where its actively detrimental. In a nothing game with a lead once again we were playing players past the point of exhaustion (some of which like bird who are coming off injuries) rather than giving someone game time. 
It feeds into my feelings that as a manager he struggles to see beyond the surface level and struggles to see the bigger picture whether it's tactical, player fitness management or overall club development.

I think you hit at the core of why I think keeping Warne on board is going to hurt us long term and isn't the neutral option people often opine it to be. 
You have to take a step back and realise how asymmetrical the footballing system is and how uneven the playing field is to succeed at the highest levels. A club like ours either needs a robust plan to overcome that sustainably as we will likely never be big enough or attract the kinds of backing to seriously compete. (And even if we do we risk the trajectory of what happened under MM). 
Essentially we need something or a set of things we can do differently in order to level things out. And if you look at the success of clubs who have some degree of sustainability and not just relied on boom/bust investment they all have that element to them. I.e. Brentford, Southampton. 
The one major advantage we have as a club is geographical in that we have quite a sizeable catchment area where we can realistically compete for talent at youth levels, talent that otherwise might be prohibitive to acquire after they've matured. But we need to plan with this in mind. We need to have strong development pathways from academy to first team with firm incentives about taking risks on bringing people through and giving them time. 
It's what was so frustrating about last season to me. Last season was practically as free a hit as you get as a club. It was a season to get our ducks in a row and reset as a club. We should have been giving serious game time to developing academy players and recent academy graduates like Thompson. It was a season we could afford to take risks on players  This would have given us a solid foundation of a squad to work from that would improve over time. Instead we kick Thompson on loan and then find ourselves short of cover. Warne is clearly reluctant to trust academy players to the point where its actively detrimental. In a nothing game with a lead once again we were playing players past the point of exhaustion (some of which like bird who are coming off injuries) rather than giving someone game time. 
It feeds into my feelings that as a manager he struggles to see beyond the surface level and struggles to see the bigger picture whether it's tactical, player fitness management or overall club development.

I'm not even sure it's down to trust.  You either have to commit fully to being a team that develops academy players, or you just don't bother at all.  If you genuinely want academy lads to progress through to the first team consistently, you have to be willing to gamble a bit on them sometimes.  Give them some minutes whenever you can, and be aware that it might cost you results in that game, but be willing to accept that, because long-term you will be better off as a club.
If we don't ever play Brown because we don't trust him, he's never going to make the mistakes that he can learn from, and become a player that we can trust.  And then instead of being a 17 year old that needs to develop, he's suddenly going to be a 21 year old that needs to develop, and by then it's probably too late.  Players don't just spring from the academy fully formed and trustworthy.
And obviously I'm not saying throw players in before they're ready at all, or even that we should have put all of the youngsters on much earlier the other night.  But if we think Brown is a genuine championship-level prospect, he should be getting at *least* a couple of hundred first-team minutes over the course of this season.  If he's only getting 2 minutes in a tin-pot cup when we were 2-0 up, he's going to get nowhere near that, especially when he barely even makes the bench in league games.
If you aren't going to be willing to commit to it, you might get the odd Will Hughes-type that comes through and just looks like a first-team player from day one, but you'll never get the conveyor-belt of players that teams like Southampton seem to manage.

I've quoted this small bit bit to talk around because I've seen it floated or close variants to it. And I'd argue its somewhere between not true in theory and not true in execution.
Warne's style of play I think you could argue has the same base root but I don't think it's based on Klopp's ideas (or the set of coaches inspired/worked with Klopp). 
You can sum up the major difference by Klopp's teams care about having the ball whereas as Warne doesn't. Warnes thinking is very much around territory, it reminds of playing rugby in someways. We want to get the ball forwards quickly and into wide areas so that we can either put a ball into the box, force a set piece or force a mistake by a defending player recovering the ball. Get wide -> get it in -> get it back. Rinse and repeat. 
Klopps teams tend to actually play through the lines more, use possession and control the game. Counterpressing is used frequently but the difference there is its often in central areas after a period of domination with several players close by to close in on the ball. Its aggressively winning the ball back to regain control and look for an opening.
Also after that initial ball loss Klopp tends to be a bit choosier about when and how to press. Yes the press is aggressive but its normal triggered and is a mix of players blocking channels, players holding position and players attacking the ball. We tend to be a lot more gung ho in pressing all of the time.
That's the thing though trying to dominate the ball and control the ball and being a pressing side are not antithetical. You mention Rotherhams stats but the thing that underlays them is you are going to have to make more defensive actions as a team if you don't control the ball. So yes they might have been good at pressing but they are forced into doing far more often than average because an inability to hold onto the ball.
Warnes tactics are pretty basic tbh and lack a lot of the nuance that's made for the successful modern pressing teams. 

I think you are probably right aside from a situation where we are well off the pace come December. (Like outside of the top 10). 
The only only thing I will say in contrast to this and to be clear this is pure speculation on my part is that my read of some of Warne's interview comments is somebody who feels under pressure and is reaching for explanations. Its just got that inkling of somebody deflecting in order to mitigate their situation.

I've quoted this small bit bit to talk around because I've seen it floated or close variants to it. And I'd argue its somewhere between not true in theory and not true in execution.
Warne's style of play I think you could argue has the same base root but I don't think it's based on Klopp's ideas (or the set of coaches inspired/worked with Klopp). 
You can sum up the major difference by Klopp's teams care about having the ball whereas as Warne doesn't. Warnes thinking is very much around territory, it reminds of playing rugby in someways. We want to get the ball forwards quickly and into wide areas so that we can either put a ball into the box, force a set piece or force a mistake by a defending player recovering the ball. Get wide -> get it in -> get it back. Rinse and repeat. 
Klopps teams tend to actually play through the lines more, use possession and control the game. Counterpressing is used frequently but the difference there is its often in central areas after a period of domination with several players close by to close in on the ball. Its aggressively winning the ball back to regain control and look for an opening.
Also after that initial ball loss Klopp tends to be a bit choosier about when and how to press. Yes the press is aggressive but its normal triggered and is a mix of players blocking channels, players holding position and players attacking the ball. We tend to be a lot more gung ho in pressing all of the time.
That's the thing though trying to dominate the ball and control the ball and being a pressing side are not antithetical. You mention Rotherhams stats but the thing that underlays them is you are going to have to make more defensive actions as a team if you don't control the ball. So yes they might have been good at pressing but they are forced into doing far more often than average because an inability to hold onto the ball.
Warnes tactics are pretty basic tbh and lack a lot of the nuance that's made for the successful modern pressing teams. 

I've quoted this small bit bit to talk around because I've seen it floated or close variants to it. And I'd argue its somewhere between not true in theory and not true in execution.
Warne's style of play I think you could argue has the same base root but I don't think it's based on Klopp's ideas (or the set of coaches inspired/worked with Klopp). 
You can sum up the major difference by Klopp's teams care about having the ball whereas as Warne doesn't. Warnes thinking is very much around territory, it reminds of playing rugby in someways. We want to get the ball forwards quickly and into wide areas so that we can either put a ball into the box, force a set piece or force a mistake by a defending player recovering the ball. Get wide -> get it in -> get it back. Rinse and repeat. 
Klopps teams tend to actually play through the lines more, use possession and control the game. Counterpressing is used frequently but the difference there is its often in central areas after a period of domination with several players close by to close in on the ball. Its aggressively winning the ball back to regain control and look for an opening.
Also after that initial ball loss Klopp tends to be a bit choosier about when and how to press. Yes the press is aggressive but its normal triggered and is a mix of players blocking channels, players holding position and players attacking the ball. We tend to be a lot more gung ho in pressing all of the time.
That's the thing though trying to dominate the ball and control the ball and being a pressing side are not antithetical. You mention Rotherhams stats but the thing that underlays them is you are going to have to make more defensive actions as a team if you don't control the ball. So yes they might have been good at pressing but they are forced into doing far more often than average because an inability to hold onto the ball.
Warnes tactics are pretty basic tbh and lack a lot of the nuance that's made for the successful modern pressing teams. 

Mu suspicion is he will be given the season and if we don't come top 6 he will be gone.
I'd imagine DC has a manager or 2 in his head already.
 

What made Rosenior's football boring, whilst Warne's is entertaining? Shots?
Rosenior's games which we didn't win:
Charlton - 15 shots
Shrewsbury - 13 shots
Fleetwood - 27  shots
Plymouth - 12 shots
Lincoln - 10 shots
I recall goalkeepers being man of the match in at least 2 of those games (Fleetwood and Lincoln)
In the games this season, we've had 20, 9, 11, 13, 13 and 10 shots. As you can see, there isn't any improvement in chance creation. There are a couple of main differences. Warne's style of play means more shots in relation to number of passes and possession, Collins was unlucky with a number of efforts under Rosenior, whilst Waghorn has been clinical this season.
Is it not possible that Rotherham had a high 'Passes allowed Per Defensive Action' because they were so wasteful with their passing, resulting in the opposition had fewer defensive actions to make? We're 13th for PPDA this season, behind the likes of Wycombe,  Northampton and Shrewsbury. It's also possibly that Rosenior acknowledge the abilities of his squad (mostly old and slow) which leant itself to not pressing as aggressively.

I think we are both right.
I think Clowes was looking for someone mote experienced but an extra 4 points which would have very reasonably been gained with adequate finishing, would have placed us in the play off positions, which would have made it very difficult to replace him.
Maybe like Rush with Clough and Stevie Mac, he had his man on standby and was waiting for a couple of bad results.
 

I've quoted this small bit bit to talk around because I've seen it floated or close variants to it. And I'd argue its somewhere between not true in theory and not true in execution.
Warne's style of play I think you could argue has the same base root but I don't think it's based on Klopp's ideas (or the set of coaches inspired/worked with Klopp). 
You can sum up the major difference by Klopp's teams care about having the ball whereas as Warne doesn't. Warnes thinking is very much around territory, it reminds of playing rugby in someways. We want to get the ball forwards quickly and into wide areas so that we can either put a ball into the box, force a set piece or force a mistake by a defending player recovering the ball. Get wide -> get it in -> get it back. Rinse and repeat. 
Klopps teams tend to actually play through the lines more, use possession and control the game. Counterpressing is used frequently but the difference there is its often in central areas after a period of domination with several players close by to close in on the ball. Its aggressively winning the ball back to regain control and look for an opening.
Also after that initial ball loss Klopp tends to be a bit choosier about when and how to press. Yes the press is aggressive but its normal triggered and is a mix of players blocking channels, players holding position and players attacking the ball. We tend to be a lot more gung ho in pressing all of the time.
That's the thing though trying to dominate the ball and control the ball and being a pressing side are not antithetical. You mention Rotherhams stats but the thing that underlays them is you are going to have to make more defensive actions as a team if you don't control the ball. So yes they might have been good at pressing but they are forced into doing far more often than average because an inability to hold onto the ball.
Warnes tactics are pretty basic tbh and lack a lot of the nuance that's made for the successful modern pressing teams. 

I've quoted this small bit bit to talk around because I've seen it floated or close variants to it. And I'd argue its somewhere between not true in theory and not true in execution.
Warne's style of play I think you could argue has the same base root but I don't think it's based on Klopp's ideas (or the set of coaches inspired/worked with Klopp). 
You can sum up the major difference by Klopp's teams care about having the ball whereas as Warne doesn't. Warnes thinking is very much around territory, it reminds of playing rugby in someways. We want to get the ball forwards quickly and into wide areas so that we can either put a ball into the box, force a set piece or force a mistake by a defending player recovering the ball. Get wide -> get it in -> get it back. Rinse and repeat. 
Klopps teams tend to actually play through the lines more, use possession and control the game. Counterpressing is used frequently but the difference there is its often in central areas after a period of domination with several players close by to close in on the ball. Its aggressively winning the ball back to regain control and look for an opening.
Also after that initial ball loss Klopp tends to be a bit choosier about when and how to press. Yes the press is aggressive but its normal triggered and is a mix of players blocking channels, players holding position and players attacking the ball. We tend to be a lot more gung ho in pressing all of the time.
That's the thing though trying to dominate the ball and control the ball and being a pressing side are not antithetical. You mention Rotherhams stats but the thing that underlays them is you are going to have to make more defensive actions as a team if you don't control the ball. So yes they might have been good at pressing but they are forced into doing far more often than average because an inability to hold onto the ball.
Warnes tactics are pretty basic tbh and lack a lot of the nuance that's made for the successful modern pressing teams. 

I've quoted this small bit bit to talk around because I've seen it floated or close variants to it. And I'd argue its somewhere between not true in theory and not true in execution.
Warne's style of play I think you could argue has the same base root but I don't think it's based on Klopp's ideas (or the set of coaches inspired/worked with Klopp). 
You can sum up the major difference by Klopp's teams care about having the ball whereas as Warne doesn't. Warnes thinking is very much around territory, it reminds of playing rugby in someways. We want to get the ball forwards quickly and into wide areas so that we can either put a ball into the box, force a set piece or force a mistake by a defending player recovering the ball. Get wide -> get it in -> get it back. Rinse and repeat. 
Klopps teams tend to actually play through the lines more, use possession and control the game. Counterpressing is used frequently but the difference there is its often in central areas after a period of domination with several players close by to close in on the ball. Its aggressively winning the ball back to regain control and look for an opening.
Also after that initial ball loss Klopp tends to be a bit choosier about when and how to press. Yes the press is aggressive but its normal triggered and is a mix of players blocking channels, players holding position and players attacking the ball. We tend to be a lot more gung ho in pressing all of the time.
That's the thing though trying to dominate the ball and control the ball and being a pressing side are not antithetical. You mention Rotherhams stats but the thing that underlays them is you are going to have to make more defensive actions as a team if you don't control the ball. So yes they might have been good at pressing but they are forced into doing far more often than average because an inability to hold onto the ball.
Warnes tactics are pretty basic tbh and lack a lot of the nuance that's made for the successful modern pressing teams. 

Sorry for picking up on a very small point of your post but I've seen this sentiment floated in a bunch of places. 
At what point do we cast a critical eye at why we've consistently had a large injury list under Warne ? And especially concerning is the growing number of injuries amongst young players ? The thing is I can't say I'm entirely surprised.
The way we play is highly physically demanding, it's a lot of running for the sake and an almost complete lack of control at times. It can lead to high fatigue levels and therefore a higher chance of injury (there is a reason why distance metrics and minutes played are closely monitored by the fitness teams at high level clubs). This is compounded by that Warne's management of player fitness has been frankly poor; players often play beyond the point of being knackered and there is minimal rotation when options are available.
There is also a more tenuous potential contribution of why in particular we've being seeing injuries to younger players. Muscle takes time to build and provides a certain element of resilience to injury for example it's possible to have no acl but still play if the leg is strong enough. Also physical training does promote strengthening of ligaments and tendons but it takes a long time. Its possible that the younger players are being exposed to a level of consistent physical demand that put simply they aren't ready for.
 

I've quoted this small bit bit to talk around because I've seen it floated or close variants to it. And I'd argue its somewhere between not true in theory and not true in execution.
Warne's style of play I think you could argue has the same base root but I don't think it's based on Klopp's ideas (or the set of coaches inspired/worked with Klopp). 
You can sum up the major difference by Klopp's teams care about having the ball whereas as Warne doesn't. Warnes thinking is very much around territory, it reminds of playing rugby in someways. We want to get the ball forwards quickly and into wide areas so that we can either put a ball into the box, force a set piece or force a mistake by a defending player recovering the ball. Get wide -> get it in -> get it back. Rinse and repeat. 
Klopps teams tend to actually play through the lines more, use possession and control the game. Counterpressing is used frequently but the difference there is its often in central areas after a period of domination with several players close by to close in on the ball. Its aggressively winning the ball back to regain control and look for an opening.
Also after that initial ball loss Klopp tends to be a bit choosier about when and how to press. Yes the press is aggressive but its normal triggered and is a mix of players blocking channels, players holding position and players attacking the ball. We tend to be a lot more gung ho in pressing all of the time.
That's the thing though trying to dominate the ball and control the ball and being a pressing side are not antithetical. You mention Rotherhams stats but the thing that underlays them is you are going to have to make more defensive actions as a team if you don't control the ball. So yes they might have been good at pressing but they are forced into doing far more often than average because an inability to hold onto the ball.
Warnes tactics are pretty basic tbh and lack a lot of the nuance that's made for the successful modern pressing teams.