YorkshireRam

It's not even really to do with Forsyth.  Those wide centre half positions are not just centre halves that stand 10 yards wider.  You can't just chuck any old centre half there and get away with it.  They're absolutely as specialised a position as wingback is in this system.  They're basically hybrid centre-half/fullbacks, and if the player cannot happily play as both a central defender and a fullback in a flat back 4, they aren't going to be able to play that wide role in a back 3 properly.  The "coming wide to cover in behind the wingback" isn't a bug due to Forsyth, it's literally a feature of the position.  It's why England have played the likes of Gary Neville, Kyle Walker, Stuart Pearce in those roles.

Probably shouldn't have used the word 'worry' as I'm not sure the short-term view is intrinsically bad, just that if it doesn't work you've still got to rebuild, just in the same league as before... so why not start sooner?
I won't claim to know the nuances of our finances currently or why we're 'hamstrung', I was speaking more ideologically that there's merits to both approaches but one has more benefits if success isn't achieved, that's all.

Furthest back of the 3 but not a typical DM. He has excellent close control and retains the ball well in tight spaces. He's also terrier-like and suits Warne's press, plus has the energy and legs Smith maybe lacks to properly screen the back 3. His progressive dribbling is surprisingly strong also. 
He's not massive in stature, but the 3 behind him are which negates the need for him to be- so he'd be more Shinnie than Bielik in my mind; getting stuck in and doing the dirty work, regaining possession, and starting us on the attack, with some tidy play on the ball for good measure. 

I'm in general agreement, but if the loanee is capable of contributing more effectively in games, then there is an argument they're worthwhile short-term, even at the expense of the development of our own youngsters.
This starts to touch on a bigger question at the minute: short term success v long-term sustainability. I agree that it's always preferable to develop and grow your own youngsters, rather than other teams' higher up the pyramid. However, judging by signings and comments made this season, it seems we're hell-bent on going up this season, in which case, loans may make more sense for us?

I'm in general agreement, but if the loanee is capable of contributing more effectively in games, then there is an argument they're worthwhile short-term, even at the expense of the development of our own youngsters.
This starts to touch on a bigger question at the minute: short term success v long-term sustainability. I agree that it's always preferable to develop and grow your own youngsters, rather than other teams' higher up the pyramid. However, judging by signings and comments made this season, it seems we're hell-bent on going up this season, in which case, loans may make more sense for us?

That's where we fully agree. Don't know much about this Fornah, but I do rate Thompson highly and would like to see him given a fair crack this season. Especially as he looked more than adequate in the league above. The Lampard season showed us the value of loanees but we're not in anywhere near the same position now. 
My only worry is that our transfers so far suggest that our recruitment don't agree, and are potentially just trying to get us over the line, rather than build a sustainable squad that only even needs to be tweaked, rather than rebuilt. 

That's where we fully agree. Don't know much about this Fornah, but I do rate Thompson highly and would like to see him given a fair crack this season. Especially as he looked more than adequate in the league above. The Lampard season showed us the value of loanees but we're not in anywhere near the same position now. 
My only worry is that our transfers so far suggest that our recruitment don't agree, and are potentially just trying to get us over the line, rather than build a sustainable squad that only even needs to be tweaked, rather than rebuilt. 

I agree. But I find it unlikely given our current league status and financial position that we will attract such 'a player' on loan.

The only counterargument i'd put up here is Port Vale (A). Dobbin created both the goals and it was Springett's effort to keep the ball in-play that led to the 2nd. 2/3 points could be the difference in a tightly-run promotion race, so any loan that contributes points probably isn't a waste. Last season these points didn't mean much, but they could this season?

Done, best of luck with the research

Not at Pride Park they didn’t 

While I agree, sometimes more players are available later in the window when other teams' have finalised their own incomings and can afford to let players leave. It's part of the reason deadline day is always so chaotic, because while everyone would ideally like to do their business early, when deals are contingent on other signings, it often drags on towards the latter end of the window.
It's no bad thing to have depth either; both Waggy and Washington can play as a #10, while McGoldrick's replacement is likely to be our first choice out and out #9.
From comments this week, I suspect we'll see a few more outgoings than we expected which could completely change our plans and how the squad looks come September- could free up more funds to splash on a marquee striker signing (although that's likely baseless optimism)

While I agree, sometimes more players are available later in the window when other teams' have finalised their own incomings and can afford to let players leave. It's part of the reason deadline day is always so chaotic, because while everyone would ideally like to do their business early, when deals are contingent on other signings, it often drags on towards the latter end of the window.
It's no bad thing to have depth either; both Waggy and Washington can play as a #10, while McGoldrick's replacement is likely to be our first choice out and out #9.
From comments this week, I suspect we'll see a few more outgoings than we expected which could completely change our plans and how the squad looks come September- could free up more funds to splash on a marquee striker signing (although that's likely baseless optimism)

He'd be an exciting addition, which is more than can be said for most other names being mentioned

Stats aren't everything but....
Hourihane had 5 assists from set pieces, 5 from open play. A couple of those freekick assists were little taps to the side for some McGoldrick magic and Ward will be taking at least half of those set pieces this season so his output will decrease.
Sibley and Bird both created almost twice as many chances as Hourihane for teammates in open play last season, and both make 50% more tackles per 90.
The important thing in a Warne side is ability to press and win the ball back. When will Hourihane ever be that type of player?

Yep, we play nine 'defensive' minded players and then sit them so far up the field they can't do the jobs they're good at. As I said last night, if you want a winger, play a winger.
And if you want somebody to charge up and down the pitch all day doing both, don't recruit 30 year olds! 
It will be interesting to see how we play on Saturday when we are away from home and the impetus is on the other team to attack. Will we look better creating our play on the break? I'm hoping so, otherwise I can see no advantage at all in this set up. 

The Mears maneuver

I also think Warne has painted himself into a corner on getting promoted this year.
He’s signed ready made experienced players. They’re all talking about not messing around and making memories etc.
Then he admits the squad still has the same structural issues as last year.
He might have been cut more slack if he’d brought in some youth and pace and admitted some were a gamble but that he was building the foundations for several seasons of success and growth.

Talking to someone connected with the club today briefly spoke about transfers apparently Warne has spoken to 8 players from 4 clubs + free agents. Originally he was looking at signing three players but has approached clowes to discuss the possibility of upto 5 coming in. No names besides a strong indication one coming in is sharp, waggy is 50:50 might sign him to booster the over age players in u23s and the first team. Positions spoken about are as follows LWB but Warne is struggling with that and might go for a LCB /LB , A 10 that looks to be a prem loan , two strikers - one older poacher type currently looking at Sharp , waggy , assombolonga and wickham the other is a young championship player and finally it appears another CM likely more of an older head. The player Warne is frustrated about was Rhodes apparently had agreed a 1 year deal with an optional extension but  no showed a medical  Saturday morning his agent came back saying he wanted more money  plus an 18 month deal. My source is in the media department 

I wouldn't say 'lying', I think what he's said could well have been misconstrued (which in itself isn't great PR, but I don't think he intended to deceive)
The last quote from him was: ''"Paul has been given a budget, I think a good budget for League One that is good enough to get us out of the league. But it's football and nothing is guaranteed."
The budget may be a lump figure and we might have preferred to sign more experienced players on higher wages than pay transfer fees for younger prospects, we don't know. I agree, I think expectations regarding transfer fees should have been tempered if this is the case, but I really don't think Clowes lied...

Worked hard for the team, had comedy value. He clearly didn't have 'zero talent' (although it was rather limited!) and at international level formed a good partnership with Robbie Keane. Funnily enough he'd probably have been the sort of player Warne would value.
He was a proper good time charlie in footballer form.
Very good when his team is on the front foot and isn't put up to much defensive scrutiny. Poor if ever put in a team regularly on the backfoot or exposed by a weak midfield, and a bloody terrible on-field captain who dragged everyone else down with him when he started to panic and lose his head. Also a clownish moron who refuses to accept any responsibility for his own errors.

Our supply chain would need a song 
 
Hit the Rhodes Nat and don't you pass back no more, no more. 
 

I'm not sure the rest of his season undermines the comment that he did perform 'heroics' on that day though; without him we'd have been relegated?
Davies put his body on the line and showed great courage but Waggy actually delivered the goods that kept us up. In terms of impact on the game, Waghorn had far, far more influence. Both were heroes on that day, in my eyes. 
 

I'm not sure the rest of his season undermines the comment that he did perform 'heroics' on that day though; without him we'd have been relegated?
Davies put his body on the line and showed great courage but Waggy actually delivered the goods that kept us up. In terms of impact on the game, Waghorn had far, far more influence. Both were heroes on that day, in my eyes.