May Contain Nuts

in a way, yes, in a way no.
We haven't experienced League One refs for, well, a lot longer than Forest have.
s*** decisions do come with the territory, but at the same time as much as I hate the argument "if you give the ref an opportunity, it's your fault" and the way it excuses unfair decisions where you've actually taken the ball perfectly, if you face 2 or 3 of these knife-edge decisions every game, you're clearly doing something wrong.

Your opinion is a bit coloured though. 

Derby 0 Grecians 2000 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Rosenior was 'so early' into his reign (or as it happened, about in the middle of it!) when the scrutiny started for him and he'd had an average (not bad) start too. There's simply no escaping it.
Is it really scrutiny anyway, or just discussion and analysis, exactly what we're on a forum to do?
A big problem is the way Warne he's been talked up so in some quarters, with it often being impossible for someone to say anything positive about him without throwing shade at the previous incumbent in the same breath. The hype has been unreal, and if you create such hype around someone on a message board, you're going to attract a few "Wait, hold on a minute... " responses in return.
The more hype, the quicker that reaction will come and probably with more ire when things don't go to plan. You can't make out that  the new thing is vastly superior to the old thing and then expect no comeback when the new, much vaunted thing has a hiccup.
The reaction isn't likely to be about Warne himself, in any case.
Making out that anyone countering the hype is just being negative, impatient, unwilling to let Warne get on with the job and a Rosenior loving sycophant (I'm not accusing you of this, but it has been said - sometimes with validity, but usually not) also probably isn't helping matters, really.
I get that it's a case of supporting the new manager, and some may be a little more reluctant than others to voice their opinions, or simply not wish to comment on any negatives until he's had 10, 15, 20 games, but those who do aren't 'not supporting the manager' just because they wish to discuss any concerns they have.
That said I can see how it comes across poorly, but again it comes down to the hype - counter-hype and by its very nature is perceived as negativity.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Rosenior was 'so early' into his reign (or as it happened, about in the middle of it!) when the scrutiny started for him and he'd had an average (not bad) start too. There's simply no escaping it.
Is it really scrutiny anyway, or just discussion and analysis, exactly what we're on a forum to do?
A big problem is the way Warne he's been talked up so in some quarters, with it often being impossible for someone to say anything positive about him without throwing shade at the previous incumbent in the same breath. The hype has been unreal, and if you create such hype around someone on a message board, you're going to attract a few "Wait, hold on a minute... " responses in return.
The more hype, the quicker that reaction will come and probably with more ire when things don't go to plan. You can't make out that  the new thing is vastly superior to the old thing and then expect no comeback when the new, much vaunted thing has a hiccup.
The reaction isn't likely to be about Warne himself, in any case.
Making out that anyone countering the hype is just being negative, impatient, unwilling to let Warne get on with the job and a Rosenior loving sycophant (I'm not accusing you of this, but it has been said - sometimes with validity, but usually not) also probably isn't helping matters, really.
I get that it's a case of supporting the new manager, and some may be a little more reluctant than others to voice their opinions, or simply not wish to comment on any negatives until he's had 10, 15, 20 games, but those who do aren't 'not supporting the manager' just because they wish to discuss any concerns they have.
That said I can see how it comes across poorly, but again it comes down to the hype - counter-hype and by its very nature is perceived as negativity.

And to think I worried that sarcasm was a dying art. You’ve restored my faith ?

Hmm, now I've typed that and thought about it a bit..
...this is actually all Liam Rosenior's fault! Like, all of it. Everything
Rooney was a miracle worker having to put up with this chump as his assistant, dragging him down and causing all the problems with our play.
Warne's now going to have a massive job fixing all of the problems Liam has left him with, the useless little s***!
Crikey. A pat on the back for me. I knew I'd get there eventually!

I'm not sure he does "insist" on bypassing them, anymore than Rosenior insisted on playing out from the back regardless of the risks. Surely no manager completely drives any capability for individual decision-making out of his players?

You're on the rampage a bit tonight so clearly missed the tone of my post, which was just pointing out the difference in reactions to a performance lacking a shot on target across various different managers' spells in charge.
That's regardless of whether they were actually the manager at the time or not, it would appear, but you know that the notion of guilt by association cares not for such detail.
Under some managers it's been the be-all and end-all, a sure sign of a rotten manager with terrible tactics and a horrid style of play. Circumstances ignored, no allowances given. Under others, well, not so much. In fact it hardly means anything and could people please just stop overreacting?
That's fine, of course, both valid viewpoints, but when they both come from the same fingertips it's a bit of a curiosity to say the least.

We've done a pretty poor job of nurturing our young players since the Cocu days tbf, part by design part by circumstance.
They shouldn't have needed to be carrying the weight of the team on their shoulders, played too much out of necessity and shunted around the pitch, but that's exactly what happened .
The ones who've come in over the past couple of seasons have moved on and up before we've had chance to see whether their form was a flash on the pan or not, the ones who were here before that have been through the mill with us and I think it shows in their lack of progression.
Sibley had probably had the least opportunity to play his own game than the others tbf, but he has had not opportunities recently and not really excelled either.
Sometimes a young player's progress can stall, they find themselves out of the team a lot and when they return they struggle to reattain the verve that got them noticed in the first place. 
Some will manage to get it back, others will fade into obscurity, others find a place lower down the leagues and have steady careers.  It's just the way it goes.
A move away can do wonders for some, whereas sticking around causes them more harm than good - it's not like Hughes has hit the heights he could have, maybe he stuck around too long in the end?
 

I suppose it depends on whether you think the conditions we were working under meant that we couldn't operate with an eye on the future / long term plan at all.
The thing is the general consensus is that Clowes was interested in Warne before the season started, in an ideal world he'd have brought him in months ago, and that's where it doesn't really tally up. There was a long term plan, this was it.
I agree we got the 'best' players in we could, but considering Clowes was eyeing up Warne for the job and sees him as the man to head up the rebuilding, were they the most suitable players? I think they were for what Rosenior wanted, but wouldn't have been if Warne was already in place.
 
The wages we could offer were still higher than most in this division. McGoldrick/Hourihane/NML/Barkhuizen will be among the higher earners in the league, top 20% for sure.
Again, if the future was always intended to be Warne then those wages could have been elsewhere, but instead we've spent some of them on players who don't really have much hope of performing the way he wants and who'll probably not be here next season.

I suppose it depends on whether you think the conditions we were working under meant that we couldn't operate with an eye on the future / long term plan at all.
The thing is the general consensus is that Clowes was interested in Warne before the season started, in an ideal world he'd have brought him in months ago, and that's where it doesn't really tally up. There was a long term plan, this was it.
I agree we got the 'best' players in we could, but considering Clowes was eyeing up Warne for the job and sees him as the man to head up the rebuilding, were they the most suitable players? I think they were for what Rosenior wanted, but wouldn't have been if Warne was already in place.
 
The wages we could offer were still higher than most in this division. McGoldrick/Hourihane/NML/Barkhuizen will be among the higher earners in the league, top 20% for sure.
Again, if the future was always intended to be Warne then those wages could have been elsewhere, but instead we've spent some of them on players who don't really have much hope of performing the way he wants and who'll probably not be here next season.

That's why you buy players like McGoldrick, Hourihane, Smith, Barkhuizen, Mendez-Laing & Collins and put them alongside Bird, Knight, Cashin - whilst not 'top tier technical' they all have more than enough technical ability to do well in this league and play good football.
A player's abilities won't intrinsically improve just because they're asked to run around more. You will get a better press off the ball but that only gets you so far, you still need quality on it to do anything.
The players will still have the same limitations they already had, but now the older players will tire quicker, the less technically capable players will end up rushing things, and the technically less gifted older players will both tire more and make more mistakes because they're being asked to play at a tempo above their capabilities.
Or at least that's the risk, it's certainly how it looked toward the end against Ipswich.
Players who's skillset is already based on pace on athleticism will benefit - just as long as the players supplying them with the ball aren't knackered or playing rushed, sloppy passes - but due to our limitations in the transfer market we don't have a great deal of those sort of players in our squad. 
People can complain about Rosenior's football being slow (in the most cliched, exaggerative terms possible) but in some ways it was dictated by what was available to him, what suited a number of his players at this stage of their careers.
Was the balance right? No probably not. Is the balance right so far under Warne? No probably not. If Warne can find a way to mitigate against the risks using the existing squad, so we don't just trade one problem for another, wonderful. If not we'll be needing a few transfer windows to change the faces up.

A post that could have been written, almost word for word save for swapping some names, about Rosenior’s 10 or so games. 
In truth I don’t think he is under much pressure at all besides what he puts on himself. He’s about a month into a 4 year contract. But I think his job is more difficult than it needed to be and we are going to need MORE new players which was entirely avoidable. 

Well yes exactly?
Did he do any better or worse than expected, really? If the answer is no he cannot possibly have performed his way in or out of the job, so in my opinion the intention was never to actually hire him, unless we hugely over exceeded any sensible expectation
If the intention was never to hire him he shouldn’t have been given pre-season, the transfer window and 10 games. Makes no sense. 
All I’m saying is taking a bit of time to get the right manager in the summer would’ve made sense. In my opinion doing what we have, doesn’t.

I suppose it depends on whether you think the conditions we were working under meant that we couldn't operate with an eye on the future / long term plan at all.
The thing is the general consensus is that Clowes was interested in Warne before the season started, in an ideal world he'd have brought him in months ago, and that's where it doesn't really tally up. There was a long term plan, this was it.
I agree we got the 'best' players in we could, but considering Clowes was eyeing up Warne for the job and sees him as the man to head up the rebuilding, were they the most suitable players? I think they were for what Rosenior wanted, but wouldn't have been if Warne was already in place.
 
The wages we could offer were still higher than most in this division. McGoldrick/Hourihane/NML/Barkhuizen will be among the higher earners in the league, top 20% for sure.
Again, if the future was always intended to be Warne then those wages could have been elsewhere, but instead we've spent some of them on players who don't really have much hope of performing the way he wants and who'll probably not be here next season.

Of course ghosts exist. We've got one who regularly posts on the forum, haven't we?
 

I suppose it depends on whether you think the conditions we were working under meant that we couldn't operate with an eye on the future / long term plan at all.
The thing is the general consensus is that Clowes was interested in Warne before the season started, in an ideal world he'd have brought him in months ago, and that's where it doesn't really tally up. There was a long term plan, this was it.
I agree we got the 'best' players in we could, but considering Clowes was eyeing up Warne for the job and sees him as the man to head up the rebuilding, were they the most suitable players? I think they were for what Rosenior wanted, but wouldn't have been if Warne was already in place.
 
The wages we could offer were still higher than most in this division. McGoldrick/Hourihane/NML/Barkhuizen will be among the higher earners in the league, top 20% for sure.
Again, if the future was always intended to be Warne then those wages could have been elsewhere, but instead we've spent some of them on players who don't really have much hope of performing the way he wants and who'll probably not be here next season.

There's no protection for the defence from the middle of the pitch or out wide, we've conceded 4 penalties in 2 league games, been terrorised by Port Vale at home, should have had a defender (Davies) sent off against Accrington which would have massively changed the complexion of the match, had to sub one off because of a risk of a second yellow, but yeah, sure, the midfield balance is brilliant now! 

We've done a pretty poor job of nurturing our young players since the Cocu days tbf, part by design part by circumstance.
They shouldn't have needed to be carrying the weight of the team on their shoulders, played too much out of necessity and shunted around the pitch, but that's exactly what happened .
The ones who've come in over the past couple of seasons have moved on and up before we've had chance to see whether their form was a flash on the pan or not, the ones who were here before that have been through the mill with us and I think it shows in their lack of progression.
Sibley had probably had the least opportunity to play his own game than the others tbf, but he has had not opportunities recently and not really excelled either.
Sometimes a young player's progress can stall, they find themselves out of the team a lot and when they return they struggle to reattain the verve that got them noticed in the first place. 
Some will manage to get it back, others will fade into obscurity, others find a place lower down the leagues and have steady careers.  It's just the way it goes.
A move away can do wonders for some, whereas sticking around causes them more harm than good - it's not like Hughes has hit the heights he could have, maybe he stuck around too long in the end?
 

That's why you buy players like McGoldrick, Hourihane, Smith, Barkhuizen, Mendez-Laing & Collins and put them alongside Bird, Knight, Cashin - whilst not 'top tier technical' they all have more than enough technical ability to do well in this league and play good football.
A player's abilities won't intrinsically improve just because they're asked to run around more. You will get a better press off the ball but that only gets you so far, you still need quality on it to do anything.
The players will still have the same limitations they already had, but now the older players will tire quicker, the less technically capable players will end up rushing things, and the technically less gifted older players will both tire more and make more mistakes because they're being asked to play at a tempo above their capabilities.
Or at least that's the risk, it's certainly how it looked toward the end against Ipswich.
Players who's skillset is already based on pace on athleticism will benefit - just as long as the players supplying them with the ball aren't knackered or playing rushed, sloppy passes - but due to our limitations in the transfer market we don't have a great deal of those sort of players in our squad. 
People can complain about Rosenior's football being slow (in the most cliched, exaggerative terms possible) but in some ways it was dictated by what was available to him, what suited a number of his players at this stage of their careers.
Was the balance right? No probably not. Is the balance right so far under Warne? No probably not. If Warne can find a way to mitigate against the risks using the existing squad, so we don't just trade one problem for another, wonderful. If not we'll be needing a few transfer windows to change the faces up.

Bit silly signing the players we did in the summer then if the plan was to build back up a running club rather than a football club.
If finances are the issue we could have skipped on bringing Hourihane in and  instead got 2-3 players released by teams at the lower end of League One, they likely wouldn't have had much quality about them, but they'd have been cheap and they'd run all day.

That's why you buy players like McGoldrick, Hourihane, Smith, Barkhuizen, Mendez-Laing & Collins and put them alongside Bird, Knight, Cashin - whilst not 'top tier technical' they all have more than enough technical ability to do well in this league and play good football.
A player's abilities won't intrinsically improve just because they're asked to run around more. You will get a better press off the ball but that only gets you so far, you still need quality on it to do anything.
The players will still have the same limitations they already had, but now the older players will tire quicker, the less technically capable players will end up rushing things, and the technically less gifted older players will both tire more and make more mistakes because they're being asked to play at a tempo above their capabilities.
Or at least that's the risk, it's certainly how it looked toward the end against Ipswich.
Players who's skillset is already based on pace on athleticism will benefit - just as long as the players supplying them with the ball aren't knackered or playing rushed, sloppy passes - but due to our limitations in the transfer market we don't have a great deal of those sort of players in our squad. 
People can complain about Rosenior's football being slow (in the most cliched, exaggerative terms possible) but in some ways it was dictated by what was available to him, what suited a number of his players at this stage of their careers.
Was the balance right? No probably not. Is the balance right so far under Warne? No probably not. If Warne can find a way to mitigate against the risks using the existing squad, so we don't just trade one problem for another, wonderful. If not we'll be needing a few transfer windows to change the faces up.

We've done a pretty poor job of nurturing our young players since the Cocu days tbf, part by design part by circumstance.
They shouldn't have needed to be carrying the weight of the team on their shoulders, played too much out of necessity and shunted around the pitch, but that's exactly what happened .
The ones who've come in over the past couple of seasons have moved on and up before we've had chance to see whether their form was a flash on the pan or not, the ones who were here before that have been through the mill with us and I think it shows in their lack of progression.
Sibley had probably had the least opportunity to play his own game than the others tbf, but he has had not opportunities recently and not really excelled either.
Sometimes a young player's progress can stall, they find themselves out of the team a lot and when they return they struggle to reattain the verve that got them noticed in the first place. 
Some will manage to get it back, others will fade into obscurity, others find a place lower down the leagues and have steady careers.  It's just the way it goes.
A move away can do wonders for some, whereas sticking around causes them more harm than good - it's not like Hughes has hit the heights he could have, maybe he stuck around too long in the end?
 

That's why you buy players like McGoldrick, Hourihane, Smith, Barkhuizen, Mendez-Laing & Collins and put them alongside Bird, Knight, Cashin - whilst not 'top tier technical' they all have more than enough technical ability to do well in this league and play good football.
A player's abilities won't intrinsically improve just because they're asked to run around more. You will get a better press off the ball but that only gets you so far, you still need quality on it to do anything.
The players will still have the same limitations they already had, but now the older players will tire quicker, the less technically capable players will end up rushing things, and the technically less gifted older players will both tire more and make more mistakes because they're being asked to play at a tempo above their capabilities.
Or at least that's the risk, it's certainly how it looked toward the end against Ipswich.
Players who's skillset is already based on pace on athleticism will benefit - just as long as the players supplying them with the ball aren't knackered or playing rushed, sloppy passes - but due to our limitations in the transfer market we don't have a great deal of those sort of players in our squad. 
People can complain about Rosenior's football being slow (in the most cliched, exaggerative terms possible) but in some ways it was dictated by what was available to him, what suited a number of his players at this stage of their careers.
Was the balance right? No probably not. Is the balance right so far under Warne? No probably not. If Warne can find a way to mitigate against the risks using the existing squad, so we don't just trade one problem for another, wonderful. If not we'll be needing a few transfer windows to change the faces up.