May Contain Nuts

Absolutely nothing has changed with how that club is run. They got lucky last season with a good manager and some clever recruitment. Promotion came out of nowhere. Now they are going back to what they have, on the whole, been doing for the last 5 years. Scattergun approach to recruitment and reactionary hiring and firing from the owner.

1. Most comments tend to relate to having control of the game (or not as the case may be). Long balls, to forwards to don't win the ball in the air very much is pointless as the ball ends up coming straight back and having to defend against another wave of attack, often without resetting in time.
2. The occasional long ball behind the defence is useful, but it has to be with purpose, not aimless into the corner with little chance of getting something from it.
3. A quick glance at the stats will show teams towards the bottom tend to have less of the ball than those at the top. This is shown by actually looking at the stats in more detail, where only 3 sides in the top half of the table are in the bottom 12 possession stats. Ipswich are the leaders in possession and are 2nd, whereas Morecombe are 24th in the table and 24th in the possession ranking. 
The other thing is, having possession doesn't mean you can't go long very often, just like having little of the ball doesn't mean you go long all the time. Yet, we see a similar trend. 5 out of the current top 6 are in the bottom 12 for long balls per pass attempt (Portsmouth are 13th lowest), whilst only 3 of the top 12 are in the top 12 for successful long passes per pass attempt.
You also have the belief that possession means fewer goals. However, there's a general trend of more possession = more goals. Ipswich are the obvious example, leading the charts in both, whereas Morecombe are bottom in both. Only 3 sides with less than 50% possession have scored more than 15 goals, whereas 6 with more than 50% have.
4. Since you're asking people if they want to stay in L1 for a long time or having a better chance of going up, the answer would be choosing the option which involves playing a possession based side with shorter passing.

When vets refer to your pet by their name plus your surname.
I mean, I like my cat and all that, but he isn't my child, he isn't actually a member of the family and it just looks and sounds stupid to refer to him as such.
He doesn't have a surname, he's a cat.

West Ham must be thinking that they may as well wrap their club up.
Not that Forest would have beaten them without a massive helping hand from VAR, even the 5 points they're on is 2-3 more than they've deserve based on their own performances.

When vets refer to your pet by their name plus your surname.
I mean, I like my cat and all that, but he isn't my child, he isn't actually a member of the family and it just looks and sounds stupid to refer to him as such.
He doesn't have a surname, he's a cat.

I'm fairly certain the "looked good against us" method of player recruitment has been shown to be a bit of a disaster in the past?
A bit like the 'sign everyone else's POTY!' method.

Nope.
Just stating a fact.

In the last few years, the best football we have played has been under Mac V1. It was sublime; high tempo, on the floor, possession with a purpose, exciting and above all relentlessly positive and forward thinking. Given a choice, I’d have that every time.  We still lost the odd game though, so people ought to bear in mind we won’t win them all.
However, I’m not that fussed about the length of passing or the amount of possession we have. I’m more interested in intent.
What worried me about Warne coming at first (and being no expert on Rotherham at all) is that we would be playing ‘pragmatic’ football, with a focus on being tight, play on the back foot, hitting teams on the break, letting the opposition have the ball and seeking to grind out a lot of 1-0 games. That is how I envisaged a club like Rotherham would have to play to get promoted; limited resources, limited ability and so do ‘what works’.  I didn’t and don’t want that.
So far, I’ve seen nothing to suggest my concerns were valid. From the two games In charge (not counting Mansfield as it was obviously just a chance for I’m to see a few players), it might not be pretty but I don’t see it as being ‘negative’ or back foot football yet (it may change). It is only two games, so can’t really judge anything at all yet. But if we play at a high tempo, press, look forward and look to be on the ball as much as possible then it won’t be all bad.  A bit more of the few runs that Barks, NML  and Knight made in the first half; getting to the byline and putting the ball across and a bit less frenzy and I think we’ll have something eminently watchable.
Might not be Steve Mac watchable, but certainly not the horror shows of Rowett (my ultimate fear).

What I don’t understand is there being some posters who seem have to made their mind up on Warne from day one and will pounce on anyone who provides any sort of critique that isn't unwaveringly upbeat or in any way casts doubt about any aspects of his style of play being a good fit for the players we have, thus inviting others to swarm all over these posts, claiming them to be negative, impatient and born out of a desire to see Liam Rosenior in charge.
I don't really understand the position you've taken on this really, which seems to eschew your usual (intended) balance and fair judgement in favour of relentless positivity and calling out others for not being positive. With respect, it just isn't how you've come across before! 
There are also some strange claims on here, like 'Rosenior wasn't criticised until 9 games in' (who was deriding his use of the word delighted then?) 
To provide a critique on something isn't the same as criticising it, it's an evaluation. Sometimes people don't seem to know the difference.
If there are pitfalls to Warne's style then they should be addressed, that doesn't mean he's being criticised whether that's 2 games in, 20 or 200.
FWIW I think we saw glimpses of the best of a Paul Warne team but equally as many glimpses of the worst. It is obviously too early to know which way the pendulum will swing (despite a previous topic claiming it had done just that).
Our goal was everything you look for under him - decisive forward passing, quick as a flash the ball is in the opposition's net.
The rest of our play was simply chaotic. The kick and rush style with no control of the game spilled over into player discipline, it's easier to make a mistake sometimes when everything is happening at 100mph, and plenty were.
We can point out that the officials were dire, but if the game played out in a more controlled manner those same errors don't get made and the piss poor referee has fewer opportunities to f*** up the game.
Previous managers (no matter who they were) haven't been allowed to blame the referee for defeats (that godawful term "you make your own luck" gets pulled out of the closet) but now it's Warne in charge it's nothing to do with him & his style whatsoever? Nothing he could have done differently? OK then, that's fine as long as that logic is applied consistently 
If you look at Warne's Rotherham team though they had a very good defensive record, so it seems unlikely that their games were quite as open, and as has been pointed out he wasn't happy with what he saw yesterday. That said we've seen managers publicly point out things they don't like before only to see the team continue in the same vein.
How long it takes us to get to the stage where we find the right balance, who knows. There's a danger it's impossible with our current squad and we'll be waiting until January for it to happen by which point we could be well out of even the playoff picture.
I just hope people are prepared for that possibility, or else it could turn very nasty very quickly.

When vets refer to your pet by their name plus your surname.
I mean, I like my cat and all that, but he isn't my child, he isn't actually a member of the family and it just looks and sounds stupid to refer to him as such.
He doesn't have a surname, he's a cat.

Of course, but if you say things like...
...I'd suggest that you're not actually 'just letting him do it', but raising expectations to a ridiculous level.
Even if it turns out to be statistically correct, his success has so far been limited to one club, this is his first opportunity to spread his wings and prove he can do it at a bigger club.
Nobody (well, hardly anybody!) is saying can't or wont be a success here, or not advocating giving him time to do his thing but Christ Almighty.
Arise the  unimpeachable king of League One management! (Arguably)

I am not pouncing on anyone. I don’t have the agility. I don’t think there is ‘relentless positivity’ either.
Many like myself have said it could be a shrewd appointment, many like myself have also said it’s a calculated risk, so there is balance there if you are willing to search for it. I don’t think anyone is oblivious to the idea things could fall flat.
Right now, I am going to support the club’s decision to appoint Warne. I can see the intent and the logic behind it and there have been signs that it could work and yes, also some indicators that it might not.
But if people want to raise alarm bells after two games, that’s their prerogative. I am not sure it’s helpful when the man has been tied down to a four-year contract, not installed in a temporary position that could last one game or ten.
Is it possible it could all go wrong and people’s fears will be realised? Absolutely. But the uproar after two league games, one which we won and the other we were on our way to winning until we pressed self destruct, seems a bit agenda-driven, I have to say.
The turning points in the game were both down to decision making by individuals, not style of play or tactics. Rosenior or Rooney wouldn’t have got the blame for Saturday either.
I think Warne could do very well here. There is every possibility he might not. But some people seem to have already seen this episode play out and no benefit of the doubt is being given. After two league games, it seems unforgiving in the extreme.

End to end end at the cost of anything else so far. Entertainment.
Rotherham's defensive record was great though so I live in hope it's a temporary adjustment period rather than what we'll see every week.

Isn’t it a bit unfair to think Warne can’t adapt to these players and work out a system to suit .
Its been 2 League games and we got our first away win last week .
Yesterday wasn’t really a true reflection of what could happen in the future .
I for one am backing Warne to be successful 
 

I'm not sure he's bothered or and/or has that much class about him tbh, if the way he acted when playing for Man City's U23s against us is anything to go by.

What I don’t understand is there being some posters who seem have to made their mind up on Warne from day one and will pounce on anyone who provides any sort of critique that isn't unwaveringly upbeat or in any way casts doubt about any aspects of his style of play being a good fit for the players we have, thus inviting others to swarm all over these posts, claiming them to be negative, impatient and born out of a desire to see Liam Rosenior in charge.
I don't really understand the position you've taken on this really, which seems to eschew your usual (intended) balance and fair judgement in favour of relentless positivity and calling out others for not being positive. With respect, it just isn't how you've come across before! 
There are also some strange claims on here, like 'Rosenior wasn't criticised until 9 games in' (who was deriding his use of the word delighted then?) 
To provide a critique on something isn't the same as criticising it, it's an evaluation. Sometimes people don't seem to know the difference.
If there are pitfalls to Warne's style then they should be addressed, that doesn't mean he's being criticised whether that's 2 games in, 20 or 200.
FWIW I think we saw glimpses of the best of a Paul Warne team but equally as many glimpses of the worst. It is obviously too early to know which way the pendulum will swing (despite a previous topic claiming it had done just that).
Our goal was everything you look for under him - decisive forward passing, quick as a flash the ball is in the opposition's net.
The rest of our play was simply chaotic. The kick and rush style with no control of the game spilled over into player discipline, it's easier to make a mistake sometimes when everything is happening at 100mph, and plenty were.
We can point out that the officials were dire, but if the game played out in a more controlled manner those same errors don't get made and the piss poor referee has fewer opportunities to f*** up the game.
Previous managers (no matter who they were) haven't been allowed to blame the referee for defeats (that godawful term "you make your own luck" gets pulled out of the closet) but now it's Warne in charge it's nothing to do with him & his style whatsoever? Nothing he could have done differently? OK then, that's fine as long as that logic is applied consistently 
If you look at Warne's Rotherham team though they had a very good defensive record, so it seems unlikely that their games were quite as open, and as has been pointed out he wasn't happy with what he saw yesterday. That said we've seen managers publicly point out things they don't like before only to see the team continue in the same vein.
How long it takes us to get to the stage where we find the right balance, who knows. There's a danger it's impossible with our current squad and we'll be waiting until January for it to happen by which point we could be well out of even the playoff picture.
I just hope people are prepared for that possibility, or else it could turn very nasty very quickly.

If his manager has instructed the team to do everything possible to sway the referee, yes.
Like for instance, I dunno, diving to win a penalty?

What I don’t understand is there being some posters who seem have to made their mind up on Warne from day one and will pounce on anyone who provides any sort of critique that isn't unwaveringly upbeat or in any way casts doubt about any aspects of his style of play being a good fit for the players we have, thus inviting others to swarm all over these posts, claiming them to be negative, impatient and born out of a desire to see Liam Rosenior in charge.
I don't really understand the position you've taken on this really, which seems to eschew your usual (intended) balance and fair judgement in favour of relentless positivity and calling out others for not being positive. With respect, it just isn't how you've come across before! 
There are also some strange claims on here, like 'Rosenior wasn't criticised until 9 games in' (who was deriding his use of the word delighted then?) 
To provide a critique on something isn't the same as criticising it, it's an evaluation. Sometimes people don't seem to know the difference.
If there are pitfalls to Warne's style then they should be addressed, that doesn't mean he's being criticised whether that's 2 games in, 20 or 200.
FWIW I think we saw glimpses of the best of a Paul Warne team but equally as many glimpses of the worst. It is obviously too early to know which way the pendulum will swing (despite a previous topic claiming it had done just that).
Our goal was everything you look for under him - decisive forward passing, quick as a flash the ball is in the opposition's net.
The rest of our play was simply chaotic. The kick and rush style with no control of the game spilled over into player discipline, it's easier to make a mistake sometimes when everything is happening at 100mph, and plenty were.
We can point out that the officials were dire, but if the game played out in a more controlled manner those same errors don't get made and the piss poor referee has fewer opportunities to f*** up the game.
Previous managers (no matter who they were) haven't been allowed to blame the referee for defeats (that godawful term "you make your own luck" gets pulled out of the closet) but now it's Warne in charge it's nothing to do with him & his style whatsoever? Nothing he could have done differently? OK then, that's fine as long as that logic is applied consistently 
If you look at Warne's Rotherham team though they had a very good defensive record, so it seems unlikely that their games were quite as open, and as has been pointed out he wasn't happy with what he saw yesterday. That said we've seen managers publicly point out things they don't like before only to see the team continue in the same vein.
How long it takes us to get to the stage where we find the right balance, who knows. There's a danger it's impossible with our current squad and we'll be waiting until January for it to happen by which point we could be well out of even the playoff picture.
I just hope people are prepared for that possibility, or else it could turn very nasty very quickly.

What I don’t understand is there being some posters who seem have to made their mind up on Warne from day one and will pounce on anyone who provides any sort of critique that isn't unwaveringly upbeat or in any way casts doubt about any aspects of his style of play being a good fit for the players we have, thus inviting others to swarm all over these posts, claiming them to be negative, impatient and born out of a desire to see Liam Rosenior in charge.
I don't really understand the position you've taken on this really, which seems to eschew your usual (intended) balance and fair judgement in favour of relentless positivity and calling out others for not being positive. With respect, it just isn't how you've come across before! 
There are also some strange claims on here, like 'Rosenior wasn't criticised until 9 games in' (who was deriding his use of the word delighted then?) 
To provide a critique on something isn't the same as criticising it, it's an evaluation. Sometimes people don't seem to know the difference.
If there are pitfalls to Warne's style then they should be addressed, that doesn't mean he's being criticised whether that's 2 games in, 20 or 200.
FWIW I think we saw glimpses of the best of a Paul Warne team but equally as many glimpses of the worst. It is obviously too early to know which way the pendulum will swing (despite a previous topic claiming it had done just that).
Our goal was everything you look for under him - decisive forward passing, quick as a flash the ball is in the opposition's net.
The rest of our play was simply chaotic. The kick and rush style with no control of the game spilled over into player discipline, it's easier to make a mistake sometimes when everything is happening at 100mph, and plenty were.
We can point out that the officials were dire, but if the game played out in a more controlled manner those same errors don't get made and the piss poor referee has fewer opportunities to f*** up the game.
Previous managers (no matter who they were) haven't been allowed to blame the referee for defeats (that godawful term "you make your own luck" gets pulled out of the closet) but now it's Warne in charge it's nothing to do with him & his style whatsoever? Nothing he could have done differently? OK then, that's fine as long as that logic is applied consistently 
If you look at Warne's Rotherham team though they had a very good defensive record, so it seems unlikely that their games were quite as open, and as has been pointed out he wasn't happy with what he saw yesterday. That said we've seen managers publicly point out things they don't like before only to see the team continue in the same vein.
How long it takes us to get to the stage where we find the right balance, who knows. There's a danger it's impossible with our current squad and we'll be waiting until January for it to happen by which point we could be well out of even the playoff picture.
I just hope people are prepared for that possibility, or else it could turn very nasty very quickly.

If his manager has instructed the team to do everything possible to sway the referee, yes.
Like for instance, I dunno, diving to win a penalty?

He was getting major stick after the Shrewsbury game, 4 games in.
Lots of people wanted it to work for him, but he was also an inexperienced manager and interim, so no real issue in bringing in an experienced and succsessful League One manager instead.
It is possible to enjoy the process of trying to get a new team to play together? 

Barkhuizen and Laing will be off in January as they can't play this formation effectively.  At the minute Barkhuizen is playing with the wrong foot in a position he openly stated he didn't like playing for Preston when he came here.  Laing is an out and out winger .  His effectiveness has notably dropped playing this formation, where he's advancing over the half way line rather than starting further forward.  
 

I was in a very good mood as I had just passed my viva exam for my PhD.. but I am sorry that was absolutely shocking from almost start to finish. Playing a 3-5-2 is absolutely bizarre with the players we have available and I'm sorry but playing direct with bird and hourihane in  midfield who's bright idea was that?  We asked port vale onto us trying to kill them onto the counter and ultimately even though the ref was shocking we got our just desserts. We're derby county, at home in front of 29,000 people and asking a recent promoted team from the 4th division to attack us so we can nick a couple via speed, it's an absolute fu**ing embarrassment.  
Anytime they got the ball down any wide area they looked dangerous, any time they dared to press they looked dangerous, any time they lumped the ball into the box they looked dangerous. This is not because they are good but because of the ridiculous formation, style and pressing mechanisms we used throughout the game. If this is the Warne revolution as far as I'm concerned I want to show him the door and give him back to Rotherham right now. It stank of defensive, stilted play that I'd expect of a team playing unfashionable 3rd division football. I fu**ing hated every moment.  Why anyone wanted this guy beyond his personality and interview style is beyond me... he's a typical 3rd division manager with about as much imagination as a stunted man child when it comes to how to play the game as demonstrated today.

Rosenior got criticised 10 games into a season after signing a whole new team. But anyway. It’s good to understand we blame the players when it suits.
I don’t think Warne is being talked down, is he? I just think we all got a bit over excited about him wearing hats and getting an away win which had been coming anyway. But there are the same issues in the squad today as there were under Rosenior.
Personally I was a bit confused today. If you had asked Port Vale before the game what type of game they wanted they’d have probably said they hoped it became a scrap with fights for second balls, plenty of set pieces and lack of control. It’s exactly what we gave them and worse still it looked like a choice at times. That was a concern when we hired Warne and I’ve seen little to be able to say it’s not a concern now. We have some good footballers, I’d like to see us try to use them. If we are going to play the style we did today we may as well not bother with a midfield and just rock a 5-0-5 formation.

Dogs just need to man up a bit really. Bunch of giant pussycats.