May Contain Nuts

Nah, I'd send her down Tesco to get some chicken. I want chicken! ?

Alien, the sequel to Alien and prequel to Alien

It was a mistake allowing people to select Rosenior in a thread titled "if not Rosenior" though tbh, made no sense at all.  Didn't warrant a meltdown, however.

Having listened to Rosenior post match it seems that NML was injured hence not starting, so had he been fit we may well actually have seen us start the game with him and Barkhuizen as wing backs. As you say neither of them enjoy that, and just because it worked in the second half doesn't automatically mean it's a viable option from the start of games.
There was no need to experiment / change to wingbacks at home to Wycombe is the point really, they're no Plymouth in the way they play, our home form isn't an issue and changing things caused us to be be in the position of needing to overturn a deficit in the first place; the players didn't look like they knew where they were supposed to be, two going for the same ball gifts them the first goal. 
Perversely had Wycombe not got that goal they probably wouldn't have sat back, and it's debatable whether we'd have improved first half had they not done that. 
We made an unnecessary change and it very nearly backfired. The last 35 minutes were promising but shouldn't have been needed, even if ultimately the end result was good and we've gained some experience of 3 at the back along the way to take into other games.
Had we not capitalised on our chances (or had they gone 2-0 up when Cashin made that saving tackle) we'd be on the end of a demoralising home defeat (may have draw had it been 2-0) and it would have to go down to us not getting it right for the first part of the game.
Not totally specific to this conversation because it's been going on a while... I get that people are naturally very protective of our staff and players after the past couple of years, but at times I think it's bordering on overprotective, where the notion that someone may have made a mistake seems to cause offense and shouldn't be talked about, like it's not OK to admit that something was an error just because it worked out in the end and you're being negative / disloyal if you question a decision.
As I said in my initial post I'm fully on board with Rosenior, and he deserves praise for changing things when they weren't working, but I'm not going to go overboard with the praise and rubbish any concerns anyone might have, or pretend that (what I see as) an error isn't an error.

I'd probably maybe potentially have said Darren Ferguson.
Good record in this league and plays nice football.
Only caveats he'd need replacing as soon as we go up, he may have learnt all he's ever going to learn so you're stuck with any faults he may have no matter what, and his success has only ever been at one club anyway.
Talked myself out of it.

I'd probably maybe potentially have said Darren Ferguson.
Good record in this league and plays nice football.
Only caveats he'd need replacing as soon as we go up, he may have learnt all he's ever going to learn so you're stuck with any faults he may have no matter what, and his success has only ever been at one club anyway.
Talked myself out of it.

I'd probably maybe potentially have said Darren Ferguson.
Good record in this league and plays nice football.
Only caveats he'd need replacing as soon as we go up, he may have learnt all he's ever going to learn so you're stuck with any faults he may have no matter what, and his success has only ever been at one club anyway.
Talked myself out of it.

I'd probably maybe potentially have said Darren Ferguson.
Good record in this league and plays nice football.
Only caveats he'd need replacing as soon as we go up, he may have learnt all he's ever going to learn so you're stuck with any faults he may have no matter what, and his success has only ever been at one club anyway.
Talked myself out of it.

It was a mistake allowing people to select Rosenior in a thread titled "if not Rosenior" though tbh, made no sense at all.  Didn't warrant a meltdown, however.

We started playing better after 25 minutes but Wycombe had also sat back a bit, happy to pack their box and chance a breakaway goal for 2-0, which very nearly worked but for Cashin's brilliant tackle.
From 25-55 it was quite like a lot of our other games - we were decent but not particularly quick in build up, and the chances of us actually scoring a goal were slim.despite having a few shots.
We weren't getting in behind them and by the time we got the ball in positions to shoot there was a wall of defenders ready and waiting to block those shots. It was better than the first 25 but it was still the wrong setup.
I'm not sure how you can really call getting NML & Collins on the pitch a brave decision, we were still a goal down and couldn't just continue the way we were it else it'd likely have stayed that way.

At the time he made those substitutions, we were starting to dominate and many managers would have left it unchanged for another ten minutes or so. Also, NML and Barkhuizen were unhappy last season at their previous clubs precisely because they were selected to play as wing-backs, a position that they weren't comfortable in. I was concerned that NML in particular might struggle to provide defensive cover to Chester, but for that half-hour it worked well. We ended up with a front five who were all attackers : that, to me, was "brave", given so many were calling for his head prematch and booing during it. 

Pretty much agree with you on all of this.  What seemed to work yesterday was playing 3 at the back with NML & TB in the wide “wing back” roles.  Be interesting to see if this is used again, maybe not from the start but if we are struggling to break teams down.
All in all, a very good last 30 mins in particular under immense pressure as I’m sure Liam and the team will have been aware of the the supporters “jungle drums of doom” 

The last 30 years? They haven't won the league since 1927 (before that it was 1909), the FA Cup since 1955 and their only European title is an Anglo-Italian cup win in 1973. They've spent a quarter of their entire history playing below the top level.
How long can you be massive underachievers before you accept that your level is the one you've consistently been at for the majority of the past 100+ years?
Are we really holding something they achieved 5 years short of a century ago as evidence to their size as a club?
What success exactly is it that's being brought back? Ah yes, the glory days of 1905-1909 & 1996-1997. 7 seasons out of 129 years.
They had a couple of flash-in-the-pan spells under Dalgliesh(?) & Keegan where they challenged for the Premiership title (as it was called all 25 years ago) but they were seasons in which the club overachieved, they weren't the norm, nor an indication of their true level.
Their true level is lower to upper-mid table "Premier League" , with the odd flirtation with the top two, and the occasional drop down to a lower level. Exactly as it has been for the past 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90+ years.

Agreed. He looks more influential playing at right back, in this team. Understand that Rosenior probably noted Mehmeti as their threat and wanted to sure up that side (although it didn’t work brilliantly in the first 20) he didn’t want Knight pinned back by the threat of him. It was a good adjustment.

Am I allowed to say Knight had a very average game today even if it does goes against this week's obsession? 
 

We sort of played a back 3 all game really when we had the ball..

For me, Wildsmith has done very well since he came in. Like any lower leagues keeper, his game has the odd weakness, but he's very good value at L1 level. 

Here we go again, no control, sloppy errors and losing ..Why keep playing Hourihane .

I'm a Rosenior fan and want him to be stay for a long spell.
...but the changes were only needed because we totally messed up our starting lineup and formation. Wycombe had nothing to offer in any moment where it wasn't us missing a header (which happened a worrying amount of times and always left us horribly exposed), none of their own play warranted a goal. Our players looked like they'd never met, and nobody seemed to know their own jobs let alone how to link up with the other players.
Once he did make the changes though he did something different to his previous setups with McGoldrick & Collins both on the pitch and only one of Bird/Hourihane. THAT deserves a lot of praise.
It doesn't change the fact he got it badly wrong for the first 55 minutes though.
Today is proof of his learning, hopefully, but the first half resembles what we saw under Cocu's latter days where he was making big changes just in the hope that something would work.

I'm a Rosenior fan and want him to be stay for a long spell.
...but the changes were only needed because we totally messed up our starting lineup and formation. Wycombe had nothing to offer in any moment where it wasn't us missing a header (which happened a worrying amount of times and always left us horribly exposed), none of their own play warranted a goal. Our players looked like they'd never met, and nobody seemed to know their own jobs let alone how to link up with the other players.
Once he did make the changes though he did something different to his previous setups with McGoldrick & Collins both on the pitch and only one of Bird/Hourihane. THAT deserves a lot of praise.
It doesn't change the fact he got it badly wrong for the first 55 minutes though.
Today is proof of his learning, hopefully, but the first half resembles what we saw under Cocu's latter days where he was making big changes just in the hope that something would work.

I'm a Rosenior fan and want him to be stay for a long spell.
...but the changes were only needed because we totally messed up our starting lineup and formation. Wycombe had nothing to offer in any moment where it wasn't us missing a header (which happened a worrying amount of times and always left us horribly exposed), none of their own play warranted a goal. Our players looked like they'd never met, and nobody seemed to know their own jobs let alone how to link up with the other players.
Once he did make the changes though he did something different to his previous setups with McGoldrick & Collins both on the pitch and only one of Bird/Hourihane. THAT deserves a lot of praise.
It doesn't change the fact he got it badly wrong for the first 55 minutes though.
Today is proof of his learning, hopefully, but the first half resembles what we saw under Cocu's latter days where he was making big changes just in the hope that something would work.

Steve Cooper

There remains nothing wrong with Knight playing RB in and of itself, he's not the first RB in the world to be turned by an attacker and for them to fall over at the slightest touch while he's running alongside them to recover and he won't be the last.
He's been asked about the role and seems comfortable with it, no real sign if any at all of being unhappy about his development by being played there.
It isn't stopping him having chances to score, had another good one against Lincoln saved by the keeper. It doesn't totally remove him from CM as his inverted role means he does get the ball there from time to time, but yes, not enough.
I think there are certain sections of our support who've simply decided that Knight playing RB is BAD and are seeing whatever it is they want to see to back up their opinion. Lincoln was the first game he's had an overall under-par performance in and predictably it's been jumped on as ultimate proof that it's a terrible idea despite there being  more evidence to the contrary.
It does take something out of our midfield, but that's more a problem with the midfield itself. Despite the issues we're still getting more than enough chances to have won every one of our games this season, but for a combination of poor finishing and, if not poor finishing, the luck of the bounce with poor officials and borderline decisions.
There is a concern we don't dominate midfield which is fair in some games against the better teams, but there have been others where we've overwhelmed the opposition with our possession, and missed some good chances, we're probably 5 or 6 points away from where we should be.
I've forgotten what wider point I was making here now tbh, think I've typed too much of a ramble already and don't think I've being covering the counterpoints to my argument very well ..  I am a bit hungover tbf and a couple of pints in to today's pre match session.
 

There remains nothing wrong with Knight playing RB in and of itself, he's not the first RB in the world to be turned by an attacker and for them to fall over at the slightest touch while he's running alongside them to recover and he won't be the last.
He's been asked about the role and seems comfortable with it, no real sign if any at all of being unhappy about his development by being played there.
It isn't stopping him having chances to score, had another good one against Lincoln saved by the keeper. It doesn't totally remove him from CM as his inverted role means he does get the ball there from time to time, but yes, not enough.
I think there are certain sections of our support who've simply decided that Knight playing RB is BAD and are seeing whatever it is they want to see to back up their opinion. Lincoln was the first game he's had an overall under-par performance in and predictably it's been jumped on as ultimate proof that it's a terrible idea despite there being  more evidence to the contrary.
It does take something out of our midfield, but that's more a problem with the midfield itself. Despite the issues we're still getting more than enough chances to have won every one of our games this season, but for a combination of poor finishing and, if not poor finishing, the luck of the bounce with poor officials and borderline decisions.
There is a concern we don't dominate midfield which is fair in some games against the better teams, but there have been others where we've overwhelmed the opposition with our possession, and missed some good chances, we're probably 5 or 6 points away from where we should be.
I've forgotten what wider point I was making here now tbh, think I've typed too much of a ramble already and don't think I've being covering the counterpoints to my argument very well ..  I am a bit hungover tbf and a couple of pints in to today's pre match session.
 

Nah, hear it all the time because I quite like crumpets the foodstuff. In the other context though yeah it's gone, but if you have crumpet you must also have strumpet