YorkshireRam

18 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Charlton being linked with Ladapo on loan, wonder if we still hold any interest there?

That's surely backup for the JCH deal, if true? I know Leaburn is injured for another few months but would be very strange to bump him that far down the pecking order when he was one of the standout young talents in the league last season

6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Gerrard's injury 'troubles' are in no way comparable to Gerrard's.

I'm not superstitious at all... until it comes to football.

Genuinely grimaced reading that he'd won 😂

Smith on loan would be good competition/cover for Collins, and relieves the pressure off Waghorn and Washington to rush back from injury. 

It'd be a very underwhelming first signing though. I want signings for the future, not Collins MK.II- both in age and playing style. If it's Smith + CBT and a midfielder, or something, then I'm okay, but when all we hear this week is basically ''budget is tighter than we thought'' and we then hear about signing Michael Smith, then if that's true, it seems a bit of an ominous sign for our transfer window as a whole.

14 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Club board members, players, managers will all have a vague idea of where there club's wage bill compares with other clubs. It doesn't take much effort to guess at the top 5 in the league this season being Charlton, Bolton, Portsmouth, Oxford and ourselves. Clowes saying we have a budget which he thinks is good enough to get out of this league isn't going to make an agent think they can get an extra £2k a week of of us.

Didn't quite make the point clearly, more that it built up fan expectations that we'd likely be able to target and sign players we want, rather than having to sift through freebies and loans. I've half wondered when Warne has sounded frustrated about transfers if it's because he expected this to be the case, also? 

16 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

Are there any remaining restrictions that could be/would be hampering our ability to be able to sign players at this point?

It is very concerning to hear that we essentially don't have any money to spend. Why is this the case, at this point, if there are no further restrictions?

Have we spent a fee on any player since David Clowes bought the club?

Nope, and this is why I've pointed out before that I doubt this is Warne's ideal transfer strategy; brought in to oversee a complete rebuild and hasn't been allowed to buy a player yet...

This would all be fine, except for all the comments in summer about having one of the best budgets in the league. I still can't work out why we'd say something like that when what we've seen is that clubs like Charlton can seemingly outbid us for players...

9 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Yes it was me and I stand by that. It would be interesting to know why Jordan Rhodes, after promising he would be signing for us, decided to just not turn up on the morning he was expected in.

It was reported at the time the deal was agreed and all but signed, and they turned round at the eleventh hour and asked for more money. Cue Warne talking about ''liars in his next press conference.

There was a lot of talk around this at the time, not sure how you missed it? Also weakens your own argument about Warne having an adverse effect on potential signings if you're not aware of the context... 

52 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Perhaps he should work out how to get them to 'turn up'?! It's what managers do.

He's got them to turn up when it actually matters which is in 9/11 recent league games, not that you'll ever credit that to the same degree which you highlight the negatives...

Honestly the only annoyance about last night for me is having to tolerate the doomsayers emerging from their recent hibernation 😂

16 hours ago, DavesaRam said:

From Yorkshire, eh? With your own pair of binoculars and some wire cutters? Say no more!!! Nudge, nudge! Wink, wink! It was you, wasn't it? 

Get him signed and then we can have a La(i)ng on both flanks 

Rated him for a couple of seasons now but not done as much this season as I thought he would have done. For the right price, definitely the sort of player that may be able to give us a push in the second half of the season ie. Broadhead at Ipswich last year.

15 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Punditry is quite different though and I expect my pundits to have played the sport in question, you can't really give an in depth opinion unless you have played it to the level you're commenting on.  I don't think thats controversial tbh as we often accuse players/managers of not being able to step up a level, why would we give pundits of a different sport credence?

I had a thought while commenting earlier: shouldn't coaches make better pundits than players? They understand the tactics better than players, have to analyse as part of the coaching gig, and also have to a certain level of communication skills. Arguably that set of skills lends itself better to punditry than that of a former player?

I want insight and analysis I can't infer myself from just watching the game. Hearing about 'double pivots' and 'inverted wingbacks' and technical terms you don't hear in the concourses at games or in day-to-day discussions.

One of the better pundits to emerge recently that weaves his own personal experience into what he says is Daniel Sturridge. But the fact he stands out for this is largely my point. If pundits can't weave their subjective experience into their commentary, then the only upside provided by being an ex-pro is lost, and they're likely not going to offer insight above what someone in the pub may be able to. Ashley Williams was a decent centre half in his day but I don't half find him dull to listen to, same with Jermaine Jenas- great presenter, boring pundit. 

36 minutes ago, May Contain Nuts said:

I'd say the first goal was the result of good pressing and opportunism - I do think we work better now as a unit in that regard as last season and early this it didn't seem like a very organised press at all - but not cohesive or rehearsed attacking play, the passes are players on the stretch getting what they can on the ball, not 'fancy flicks', it wasn't a planned move to my eyes.

The third goal is all about Bird running down the channel and pulling it across, I still just about Include that goal as one fom a wide area tbh (it's teetering on the verge of 'down the middle'), just because it wasn't from outside the box doesn't mean it wasn't still a cross.

I do agree things are improving in the manner you say though, generally.

Ah gotcha, like premeditated patterns of play. Yeah I agree on this front, was definitely more noticeable earlier in the season that we sometimes didn't look like we knew what to do when in possession. 

Now i'm thinking out loud here, what if putting it into the channels to cross is just a vague blueprint which the end goal is to deviate from? As in, create that first instinct in the players so we have an established pattern of play, then trust once it's working that the players are smart enough to know when to change it up and break through the middle?

There's so much about high-level coaching that I know absolutely nothing about, I'd love to spend a day amongst training just to see what goes on, gets talked about, focused on etc.

28 minutes ago, May Contain Nuts said:

You'd still be hard pushed to say we look like a cohesive attacking unit when doing anything other than working it wide, our good play still tends to 'break out' from from otherwise mediocre performances  rather than feeling fully rehearsed, and our best moments still come from individual players proving their class in ways other League One teams simply can't deal with.

I'd say we looked like a cohesive attacking unit for the first goal on Saturday- one touch stuff, neat flicks, tidy finish. That was through the middle of the park? Same with the third, though less players involved in the build-up

Maybe we're still on a downward trend of seeing less of the predictable 'work it out wide and cross' gameplan. We've definitely stopped lumping diagonals as much as we did at the start of the season, so maybe this is the next step, and we're still not quite the finished article?

13 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

As I'm sure you're aware, both played at the top level of MENS football during the 80s.

When their views became outdated and irrelevant to the modern game they were cast aside, but at least they were relevant and a point in time.

I daresay the same would happen to Lineker had he not joined in with the box ticking. 

Genuine question then: do you think stature as an ex-professional player is a more important qualification for the role of pundit, than being able to speak eloquently about football? 

Just wondering why the people providing commentary and analysis need to be ''relevant''? I'd much rather hear a complete nobody provide tactical insight where I learn something, than I would watch someone clumsily stumble through cliches, who's only there because they used to be a pro...

8 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

I don’t remember that from Fornah, irrespective he’s been poor otherwise. Ward has also been pretty woeful, despite a few good crosses. Waghorn is a good player, but technically gifted he is not. Most of his signings have not been what I was call “footballers”. Even Wilson, who I rate highly, is still quite direct (not that that’s a problem of course!) - same goes for Mendez-Laing, who is definitely having an excellent season.

Not saying Warne isn’t getting the best out of some players, he clearly is. But I’d still say the “footballers” he could get more out of. Bird had a great game at the weekend, but I think he could be way more effective if we played through the middle more often. Same goes for Sibley who is rarely given a chance. And Barkhuizen who often seems to be unfairly left out the team.

'Direct' and 'technical' are not correlated so struggling to see your point there. You don't score the 3rd v Peterborough (A) bending it round the keeper like that without being technically gifted. If you disagree, let's take a ball to the park and see how many attempts it takes us to recreate in a completely unpressured situation 😂

Who are you referring to, and what more would you need to see out of them (highlighted bit)? Barkhuizen has been handled perfectly, and his G/A seriously flatters him; I'm still annoyed at the complete apathy to track the runner and stop the cross v Portsmouth which led directly to their equaliser. Sibley I rate but hasn't done enough to be a starter yet. Just curious what you'd be wanting to see to maybe flip your opinion to a wholly positive one? More wins always help I guess!

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well obviously its not something that can be proved, I think just applying common sense and looking at what's before you will give you the answer though. 

''What's before'' was a generational playing talent in Alan Hansen saying ''you'll never win anything with kids'' and then getting proved wrong repeatedly... I want tactical and analytical insight, you don't need to be an ex-pro to provide that. I've heard more of it from Alex Scott than I ever did from Mark Lawrenson- so you also don't need to be a man to provide it. You just have to know the game. 

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nope, its called an opinion.

Do you have any hard evidence that they are there on merit and not just for filling quotas?

If not....actually I won't even bother going there 😂

The burden of proof is on you here if you're making the assertion that their inclusion is purely tokenistic.

You don't need to be an ex-pro to be a good pundit. It isn't usually down to experience, it's down to preparation. Personal insight can be useful, but most pundits don't know how to weave it into commentary effectively, which sort of negates gender as an important factor in whether someone does a good job.

I'm not a huge fan of Fara William's punditry, but I am of Courtney Sweetman-Kirk's. Fara William's earlier inclusion in BBC programming will be part of the reason I get to hear from CSK, which is a positive for me. Without equality of opportunity, meritocracy isn't the fairly-weighted system it's described as being, and sometimes that needs to be forced a little bit to change overall for the better.

23 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

Much of this is true, I’ll give you that. I’d still argue that his hand has been rather “forced” to play more technical players though, because they’re what he mainly inherited from Rosenior.

His recruitment has mainly been of workhorses like Washington, Waghorn, Fornah, Ward etc - which suggests to me those are the sort of players he prefers, and would build a team around them given the chance. He did even try to at the start of this season, before it became evident that it wouldn’t work, and (to his credit) he’s changed tack a bit since. 

It still feels to me though (and it is only a feeling) that he’s itching to return to his 3-5-2 workhorse team as soon as he has the players to.

 

Fornah has produced the best bit of close control/skill i've seen this season, while Ward is easily the best crosser of the ball at the club- think you're doing them a disservice by not describing them as technical. Waghorn rattling in a hattrick of classy finishes also doesn't fit this brief; it seems very much like you're trying to bend facts to suit an agenda here... No mention of the recruitment of Wilson who is a flair player that loves to nutmeg people either?

20 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

Maybe, we will see how his recruitment continues. I agree we lack pace in midfield, but I wouldn’t say we’re slouches up front. I still believe he could get more from our technical players.

NML is on track to have his most productive season to date? Bird influencing games far more thanks to Warne recognising he could be more effective as an #8 than a #4? Cashin's form under Warne has been outstanding (barring the early blip) and he's a very technical centre half, consistently preferred to marquee signing Bradley. Again, I'd argue Warne has improved our technical players as much as anyone else.

18 minutes ago, sage said:

No. Similar career trajectory though.

Tom Naylor?

5 hours ago, TheHomunculusLives said:

We never seem to get market value for our players

I've just thought about it and the recent exception may well be Luke Plange. He's still young and plenty of time to improve, but looking at what he's done since he left, £1m looks good business to me?

40 minutes ago, Chellaston Ram said:

How much did we end up getting for Buchanan and Ebowi ?

€1.5m was reported for Buchanan as compensation. I'm not sure Ebiowei's has even been decided yet, but they only offered us a measly £30k, which we obviously rejected and so it's gone to tribunal.

40 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

My understanding is that FA set compensation will be made up of an upfront fee, add-ons (ie appearances), and a sell-on percentage.

Based on historic cases, of players 20+, the upfront fee is typically at least 2/3rds of the total amount, and a 20% profit sell-on.

Two cases include our current players.
Collins - 18 months at Shrewsbury before joining Swindon aged 22. His compensation was worth £220k with a 20% sell-on.
Nelson - Released by Stoke at 16, then spent 8 years at Plymouth. After 246 games and 23 years of age, he moved from Plymouth in League 2 to join League 1 Oxford for a deal worth £280k.

Other cases:
Jed Steer - moved from Norwich to Aston Villa shortly before his 21st birthday in a deal which was potentially worth £950k with a 20% sell-on.
Danny Ings - signed for Burnley aged 19 for £1m, then moved to Liverpool at 23. The deal cost £8m (£6.5m upfront) with a 20% sell-on.

As I posted earlier, I'm led to believe FIFA rules mean we are guaranteed at least £810k.

Never knew the compensation included sell on clauses. That's interesting, and potentially good news for us. Suppose it means there's even less urgency to sell if we're practically guaranteed 7 figures + 20% sell on at the end of the season anyway... that's a remarkably good deal for a player ending his contract with us!

7 minutes ago, TheHomunculusLives said:

We never seem to get market value for our players - sounds like we're only going to be talking a few hundred thousand whether he goes in the transfer window or the summer. I don't think Bird will ever be a top class player as he doesn't have any standout attributes, but he's definitely proven Championship quality and worth £2-3 million. 

I haven't got the source, but I distinctly remember someone saying the compensation from tribunal would likely be more than bids we'd receive in January, hence the club's relaxed stance about selling him and not needing to cash in this window. That implies easily 7 figures if true.

1 minute ago, TomTom92 said:

Derby's recruitment in the fullback areas has been diabolical in the past 30 years. If i had to make an all time XI from the past 30 years i'd be looking at Fozzy, Brayford or Bogle. All solid championship full backs in their prime, but hardly a good return. Anyway moan over, well done Fozzy. 

Chris Powell?

3 minutes ago, sage said:

My point is extreme examples are used to try and silence any critique.

Which I haven't done at any stage, I've actually been fairly careful in pointing out proper criticism always has its place. But a reminder that footballer's are human, and experience emotional responses to public criticism is important. I think it's easy to forget how public some online spaces are, and that awareness was what I was alluding to. If people had a quick thought of ''what if the subject of my post sees this?'', would they phrase things quite as harshly maybe? 

Essentially this: 😂