YorkshireRam

Slightly confused how someone can be ''behind the team'' when calling for the manager to be sacked? The manager is part of the team, more than that, he is the leader of the team, if you're calling for his head then how are you in any way ''behind'' them as a whole, you're opposed to them at that point, no? This winning streak always seemed likely to happen to me, hence why I've consistently stated patience was needed. But others let impatient petulance creep in. I wonder whether those folk have learned something from this spell about not speaking too soon, especially when voicing negativity.

Nah

I agree with this. He seems to be tentative to leap with any kind of authority and it means he doesn't look dominant aerially. I've half wondered if this is a fear of injury thing- he was out for a long time with a severe knee injury, maybe he's worried about the impact on landing? Regardless, we need to figure out why this is as if he can start winning headers, I think he could actually fill the gap if Cashin leaves. His blocking and 1-on-1 defending I actually think is excellent. What impressed me v Northampton was his speed of passing as well and how he contributes well in the build-up and passes well from the back. I'm not sitting here saying he's been a worldbeater, by any means. Just that I'm still holding out hope that he can be the imperious defender we all want him to be. 🤞

I suspect this will get proved wrong over the course of the season. I really don't think he's been that bad. Nelson looked as wobbly initially but after consistent gametime looks far more assured. This is why i've endorsed giving Bradley minutes, as how is his form ever supposed to improve if he's not playing? I still think he'll come good.

I have a habit of forgetting that video exists, then I get reminded and without fail it gives me a chuckle every single time. It's like every time you watch, you notice something new to laugh at. ''Don't bulleh meh'' 😂

This is a hilarious response to a meme ngl 😂

Warne Outers: Calling for his head, ignoring mitigating factors, generally bashing the bloke, criticism logical or not. Also Warne Outers when he makes a snide comment back:

How do you distinguish the two types- is it just physical traits that should transcend the level being played at? Springett, in fairness, had 3 PL apps, I think that constitutes some sort of pedigree for a youngster, but then I agree he looked very lightweight (did well at Port Vale (A) though). Marshall doesn't but does have 3 international appearances which is similar. Loans always seem like a bit of a gamble, Mason Mount-esque loans excluded, so is it not the case that often you don't really know whether they'll sink or swim until they're out on loan and thrown in the deep end?

Implied here he could be a replacement for John-Jules: https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/derby-county-should-look-to-west-ham-if-arsenal-deal-ends-in-january-view/

So the implication could be Warne is going against the aims set out by Clowes for him to achieve? He could well be, we have no way of knowing what his primary aims are, and whether they're being achieved. I think this would be fairly reckless of Warne though, if it was explicitly stated to him upon appointment that academy inclusion and progression was a critical part of his task as manager, and then he instantly abandoned it upon entering the role, that'd be pretty brazen. Brazen to the point I do actually doubt it. ''But he was clear that the academy was vital in the rebuild and he has backed that up with the quality of staff brought in to run it at no small cost.'' As fans, we're not privy to these conversations, and I don't tend to take press statements at face value. There was also a misunderstanding with the ''competitive budget' comments after we failed to pay a transfer fee for anyone (just to show why they can sometimes cause confusion). If it was really that critical, wouldn't the logical appointment have been Rosenior who had a track record of not just integrating youth, but integrating OUR youth? This combined with the fact that not actively promoting youth isn't usually a hapless mistake but a series of deliberate actions lead me to believe this isn't actually Warne going against directives set out for him by the board/Clowes. But then again, I'm just guessing like everyone else.

I don't disagree, and I like this idea of how to run a football club and integrate the academy with the first team. The appointment of Warne over Rosenior suggests maybe academy progression wasn't at the forefront of our thinking as a club though- would that be fair? In which case, the issue isn't with Warne, because he's doing exactly what most would expect, but with Clowes' decision-making... And that's the bit I'm refusing to touch. I have too much gratitude for what DC did to even begin to start to question any of that stuff. If he thought prioritising promotion was in the best interest of the club, even to the short-term detriment of the academy, I'm going to blindly trust that at the minute. There's still a lot we don't know about behind the scenes, but I do absolutely believe that everything DC does is with integrity and acting in the best interest of the club, so in my ignorance, I'm going to trust him. Does that mean I agree with everything. No. But it does mean I'm being patient and seeing what happens before I call for the manager's head or similar.

Training exists and this is where the manager will assess players most closely, not in games themselves. Pace for example, will be evident in training, Weston didn't need 10 minutes v Barnsley for us to know what he's like as a player... There's also plenty more games for us to give Weston his chance in the first team, I don't think not playing in this specific one is detrimental to his overall development. Also, how often do players get promoted from the academy and instantly become first team mainstays? Hughes and Bogle are about the only ones I can remember for us (outside of administration). So again, I don't think not giving Weston 10 minutes in this game is going to make any January signings redundant, if anything if he looks really good, we've just got more depth and it takes the pressure off him to instantly and consistently perform? As I say, I think we all love seeing homegrown talent, and we agree Weston looks exciting and we want to see more of him. I just don't think, given the circumstances, not subbing him on in the first 2 games since his debut reflects poorly on the manager.

Warne masterminded a resounding 3-0 win over promotion rivals, I can't say I'm all that bothered about whether Weston got a cameo appearance at the end. Certainly not enough to criticise, rather than praise, on the balance of the result. Weston hasn't played against a men's side yet. His performance v Wolves U21s warranted more inclusion into the first team, but I do feel it's massively pedantic to criticise Warne for not using him yet. The argument this is symptomatic of Warne's general approach to youth progression may be valid, but I don't understand why anyone would have the expectation he was going to be youth-focused and things would be different. It seems to be he was brought in to achieve promotion quickly, not progressively by extensively using youth, so why try beat him with a stick by which his success is likely not measured?

I did consider this. But is that the level we're getting to now- bashing a manager for not giving a youngster who hasn't played at a senior level yet (senior competition but against a youth team) a brief cameo at the end of a game we were seeing out? Dunno, that just seems a very trivial level to start criticising on. If Weston had scored and then instantly been relegated back to the u21s, fair enough. But he's clearly being integrated into the first team picture now, and I'd argue that may well be progress (and reward) enough?

Fair points. I guess my point about the academy wasn't a reflection on anyone's individual ability, more that maybe Robinson is better utilised as a regular in the u21s so they can prosper, rather than sporadic first team appearances where he may not make an impact. Although thinking about it, these two aren't mutually exclusive. I think I agree with the overall sentiment. I love to see our homegrown youngsters utilised. Warne's comments on this were maybe a bit misguided, but I do think he's utilised youth more than some previous managers e.g. Rowett, Clement Maybe I'm just being blindly optimistic, I was guilty of this with Cocu as I did really want him to succeed. I think with Warne there's just a few too many unlucky, mitigating factors at the minute for me to condemn him. Just feels like the picture will be clearer with a fully fit squad, and a chance to build proper consistency and form- the inability to field a settled XI due to injuries is a big thing I've not heard many talk about.

Lot to unpack here but the general gist is that we've created a harder pathway to the first team for academy players? ''Barring an injury crisis, there's no way an academy player is even making the bench''... Tony Weston was literally on the bench for our last league game after impressing on his debut in the cup. Is the implication he should have been playing every minute after scoring against an under 21s team? Collins scored 5 goals in a few days playing in his position, Weston hadn't earned the right to displace him. I mentioned above just shoving youngsters into games isn't automatically good for their development. The academy has just had a hard reset. Part of what contributed to the recent turbulence was the need to promote all our best youth players to the first team, there's even an argument that we SHOULDN'T be promoting youth, simply to give the academy a chance to rebuild its success on the pitch. ''His carefully planned summer transfer spree''. Unless you have insider information the rest of us aren't privy to, why are you attributing the entirety of recruitment to Warne? I wasn't thrilled by our summer business either but we don't know anywhere near enough to say how much involvement in this Warne had, maybe he was let down by whoever was in charge of signing his choices up? We're just outside the playoffs only on goals scored despite our terrible luck with injuries, so still in the promotion hunt. Without said injuries, we'd have 2 academy graduates in the first team that Warne himself promoted to regulars- plus Brown, Robinson, and Weston on the fringe, and at times we have played good football- so I actually disagree we ''have none of those things''. We're definitely not the finished product but given the radical change of style that I expected when Warne was appointed, I think there's green shoots, it just remains to be seen whether they'll blossom.

I feel like some of the expectations on here are totally unrealistic. We're in the weakest playing position in our club's history, coming out of the worst financial period. How are people honestly commenting with straight faces they want full academy inclusion, pretty football, AND promotion form? Surely something has to give? Rosenior gave us pretty football and youth inclusion, and prior to his departure there were still negative murmurings; so I don't buy the idea that if we incorporated the other elements, it makes on-field success less important somehow and people wouldn't whinge as much. People going mental over a throwaway comment about youth seemingly forgetting he tried to make both Thompson and Rooney first team regulars before they got injured, promoted and integrated Brown into the first team, hailed Bird as our best player etc. There's stuff to be critical of but some posters do seem hell-bent on just making it seem like an agenda...

I agree. Obviously we later found out he was hamstrung by the Rooney thing and other factors during his tenure, but in a parallel universe, I'd be fascinated to see what'd have happened if he could have turned form a little more and stayed on. The way he was trying to play was actually very progressive. Because I could see what Cocu was trying to do, heavy emphasis on fluid positional rotation, methodical progression by dominating possession etc., I vouched for him right until the end, as I felt it was failure of execution, rather than intrinsically poor management. Until it got to a point where his position seemed entirely untenable did I concede maybe he needed to go. I feel like i'm in that same position with Warne now. Ideally I wanted Rosenior to stay, but the moment that decision is made, I felt like I should back and get behind the new manager. I knew we wouldn't be seeing fast-flowing, attractive football, nor would we be seeing youngsters utilised as often as under Cocu, or even Rooney. Warne has his strengths and it's pragmatic football that's especially effective at League 1 level. That's why i'm not judging him on academy inclusion, or style of play- just the bit he's supposed to be effective at: achieving promotion. We're still in the hunt, in this respect, and results do generally seem to be improving, and there's enough mitigating factors such as injuries for me to give him a bit of leeway. The result against Barnsley seemed to be the culmination of his efforts so far: for once we were that slightly nasty, physical team that completely outmuscled the opposition- that was pleasing to see as it was success measured by the metrics I've been judging him on since his arrival. I don't care about a loss in a cup competition we were never going to win, and could probably do without the extra games, given our squad size. Those sort of games happen, and I'm not bothered by the context or who played etc. - it all seems relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things. Because promotion is still on the cards, I won't turn on Warne yet, if that starts to fade then what I will say is that Warne hasn't got much else to fall back on. But i'm not there yet, see where we are in the league table come Christmas and I might be harsher on him.

Not sure I follow; so using youth is only imperative, or positive, under certain financial circumstances? Warne was brought in to get us promoted. If we'd wanted attractive football and youth development, surely we'd have stuck with Rosenior? Maybe i'm being overly-realistic but I never expected Warne to use youth due to the circumstances under which he was appointed. Bashing him for it feels a bit like appointing Russell Martin and then complaining we pass the ball too much...

What were your thoughts on Cocu? The reason I ask is because he was a massive proponent of youth progression, and yet I don't remember that affording him all that much leniency. That cup game against Forest where Cocu played as many youngsters as he could, he got absolutely slated by a lot afterwards for his selection. So I don't instantly buy the idea that if we'd played the youth and lost by the same score, the people criticising Warne would be any more lenient towards him, because I've seen historically this isn't necessarily the case. Bradley was practically our marquee summer signing and needs minutes for his match fitness. I can understand the logic behind giving him that before the international break. There's also been times under Warne where ''giving players who weren't playing well, more time to continue'' has actually worked when the system has been tweaked. I actually agree, it would have been good to see Weston play, but if we're playing whataboutism- what if he was entirely anonymous, could barely get a sniff, to the point it damaged his confidence? Surely that'd be bad management to introduce him to a game if this were to happen? Throwing youngsters into random games isn't automatically good for their development. I don't know either way, I just struggle making sweeping statements about internal circumstances I know very little about.

I'm not referring to the effectiveness of the substitution, I'm directly addressing the implication that Warne's substitution was a deliberate snub to the academy players, namely Weston. The claim, as I interpreted it, was essentially: Weston would be dismayed to see a defender being substituted on over him when we're chasing the game. My response was that it was a tactical change to alter shape (which justifies the sub alone) and it's a very trivial action to try use to evidence the point that Warne doesn't want to utilise or develop academy graduates.

You've fairly succinctly made my point for me here. Being included on the bench the following game after making your debut is 'taking note', it's not like he was instantly relegated back to the youth sides. Just because he isn't being launched into the deep end of regular first team football doesn't mean he's being ignored... He's also likely sensible enough to understand the reality of professional football and how the transition into the first team squad is not necessarily an instant one, and comprises of continually taking your chances when they're presented. The Bradley substitution was to alter the formation and try and push the wide players further forward. It was an attacking change involving a defensive player. It was not a direct affront to Weston and his personal development as a player. ''Warne has not sent out the right messages regarding the academy''- without speaking to some of the academy players on the cusp of making the step into the first team picture, I have no way of assessing how true this statement is. Have you had contact of this kind, or is this just a guess?