Dava75

59 minutes ago, May Contain Nuts said:

...but are they the most reliable options because one of Warne's own signings (Fornah) has not yet shown enough signs to prove he should displace one of them, or has that addition  not proved successful because Warne doesn't understand how best to use him?

Similar to LB/LWB, is Elder a better option than Forsyth? Similar to CB, is Bradley a better option than Cashin? Is Washington a better option than Collins?

Why did we sign Fornah? What's his role? Why did we sign Ward and Wilson?  Ward isn't our best RB, he's not out best RW, arguable he's not even  our best RWB.

Has Warne brought in a player yet shows clearly better than whoever they were supposed to replace?

FWIW I think Fornah, Elder, Nelson, Wilson, Ward, Washington, Bradley are all good signings individually, I just don't see how they make us better when we're talking about the team as a whole or it's collective functionality.

Curtis Nelson IMO is better than Curtis Davies (was last season) so the simple answer to your question is ‘Yes’.

Disappointing result but we’ve taken 6 from games against Peterboro, Oxford and Wigan - I’d have taken that before these 3 games!

I wish people wouldn’t make such sweeping comments as James Collins not good enough for a Top 2 team. The bloke has run himself into the ground this last 10 games - which funnily enough has been top two form. Would it be great if he’d scored more goals? Yes absolutely - but has he missed a barrel load of chances in that time? Not really.  In this winning run the team is averaging over 2 goals a game - hardly poor. He’s kept himself fit - and been available for each fixture - which is more than our other strikers. His contribution in our box when defending set piece is huge too - I’m sure someone could quote the stats but I’d suggest he’s up there for defensive contributions (from a forward). 

I’m not saying I don’t want more competition in that number 9 slot - i would love us to have another option there because we are thread bare if Collo gets injured - but let’s give credit where credit is due.

Oxford 0-2 Derby 

Bird

Wigan 1-3 Derby

Bird

9 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I see xG is being debated.

Time to remind people that factual statistics (like Shots on target) are the input for the xG model, the output of the xG model depends on the inputs. Is the xG model any good? With zero knowledge of how that model is working, and I doubt the code would be shared openly by it's creators anyway, the confidance in xG appareas to be based on a consensus of "well everyone else buys into xG" rather than actual knolwedge of the xG model.

That doesn't mean the xG model is bad, or shouldn't be used as a useful indication of how effective a team's attacking has been, but it's a model output, not a factual statistic. On the one hand, it's likely to be consistent as the code is just running over the inputs to generate the xG number, on the other hand anyone watching the game and looking at the factual stats could (and probably does) run their own personal internal model and conclude "we deserved more than we scored" or "we were lucky everything went in and normally it doesn't" <etc>

Is xG a superior metric to shots on target? My take is they're different things and need be used differently. xG is not "the truth" but what factual statistics tell you about a game is very limited without further context.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this - and as you quite rightly state, the stats are so open to interpretation without context.

Goals Scored v Goals Conceded in each individual match. That is the only stat I honestly care about any match each week (and then the same stat in other games in our League which our competitors are involved in). The others might influence my view of the quality of the football played or the performance, feel good/feel negative factors but it’s unequivocal if we score more than the opposition we win - and if we win more than our peers then we succeed. 

Boo Paul Warne and your attacking substitution!!! 😉

🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏

Boo ……Bobble Hats, Boo….. not playing short corners, Boo….. not interested in youngsters, Boo his interviews being honest and not full of football cliches……Boo….not playing neat and tidy football but losing with the soft underbelly, Boo……being lucky and winning 3 games in a row, Boo….being 6th and not top when we have 25,000 supportive fans turning up each week.

Sorry just felt like this page needed a bit of ramping up again as some of the usual suspects have been incredibly quiet.

And yes I know this is sarky and childish of me - but it’s Monday and I’ve woken up grumpy!!

COYR 🐏

20 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

There’s a goal scoring machine at notts county who might disagree 

Is there? Did he say something different - genuine question as I didn't see this. Assuming you meant Didsy? What did he say?

4 hours ago, jono said:

It’s not about being happy clappy and if he plays badly in a particular game I have no problem him being criticised.

What I dislike intensely is the way in certain quarters individual players are cast as the ones to kick on a regular basis. It’s destructive it’s a kind of remote bullying. If this was a real playground there’d be a group picking out the likes of Collins, Bradley, Malone for special “attention” They were even on Vydras back for a short while. 
Yes there is always a mob

In fairness I reckon both Collins and Bradley could have handled themselves in the playground. I wonder how many folk who take the keyboard criticism to the excesses (and beyond fair and reasonable) would actually say this directly to the players if they met them (and no I don’’t count shouting faceless abuse when you’re part of a 1,500 away or 25,000 home crowd).

I suspect there are very few.  

Over the course of the season we’re going to need goals from everywhere. Collo may not be our first choice in some games but he has a role to play. He scored our only goal in the draw against Portsmouth, he scored both in a 2-0 win at Carlisle and he scored the 2nd in the win against Blackpool. Agreed he could have added to that at Cheltenham and Shrewsbury. He’s a League One striker - not PL - his conversion rate is going to be low. But he works his nuts off and by all accounts is a great for building togetherness in the dressing room. 

All of the strikers have looked good in some games and pants in others - but at least we have options when that happens now!!

 
🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏

Cashin looking dodgy as f so far. Don’t think he’s playing a full 90 today!

11 hours ago, ziggazagga said:

y son and I travel home and away at great expense to support this team.

11 hours ago, ziggazagga said:

For the sanctimonious amongst us, my first match was in 1967, I have seen all sorts in that time and I have never booed. I have however had a company with 1200 employees

Please tell me you were being ironic…..😂

5 hours ago, Kokosnuss said:

 

 

Backs up what I thought I saw which was pretty much a 4-1-4-1 'base' which occasionally looked like a 4-3-3. For about 70 minutes of the match, anyway,

We were very attacking. Bird & Sibley essentially both playing as no. 10s, NML & Wilson wingers who stayed high up the pitch. Waghorn dropping in to further help link play. Occasionally Bird & Sibley dropped back a bit with NML/Wilson tucking in when needed (hence the 4-3-3).

The issue is of course that it left Hourihane pretty exposed and while they did go through us a few times, it didn't matter in this game because Exeter were so poor. We'd need someone with more pace/presence in Hourihane's role against better teams but surely that's Fornah.

I think what's good about this though is you can tell any of the any of the 'units' to move further forward or fall back (or spread apart / get closer together) to suit the opposition,  without completely altering the shape. The players should then still know how/where to find each other on the pitch which will help us if we need to score on the break.

I'm not saying it doesn't need work or it will bve viable every game, but it makes more sense (to me at least!) than what we've been trying to do for the past 13 months!

4-1-4-1

turns to 4-3-3

 

 

 

 

 

When I heard the team I immediately thought 3 4 3 but it was clear when the game started it was as you’ve said. Connor playing the pivot role - which on one or two occasions left him exposed - when this happened it was fine as both centre halves were sat in. And as others observed, because they play from the back,  the extra bodies we had higher up the pitch nullified the the outball meaning they gifted possession with a hopeful ball or we turned over because of pressure round on the man with ball.

Yes Exeter weren’t great but I’d suggest a lot of that was because last night we got it spot on tactically.

Having said all that …the only thing that matters right now is results - so whatever works to get 3pts is fine by me!!!

9 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

This is what happens at nearby away games when we have a big capacity. Encourages all the scum bags who aren’t proper fans to go there looking for a fight.

Always find it’s a much different experience at the smaller grounds. None of those nobheads travelled to Carlisle for instance, and the atmosphere was much better. Lots of moaning about the s*** performance of course, but no coked up idiots shouting abuse. 

There’s not many times I’ve agreed with your posts in recent times but on this one I couldn’t agree more!!! 👌🏻

45 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

1. No, we had a pretty well balanced squad but used the summer to add cover in all positions which matched the style of play of existing players. We had just spend a reasonable amount on Thorne, and put a decent amount of money towards wages for loan players in the January window.

2. It took injuries to several positions all at once in 14/15. Let's not forget that Smith was a regular at RB last season, but Warne never used him there. It was also only 1 game between Rooney being injured, and Nyambe coming in

3. After Bird's injury, we still has Collins, Waghorn, Washington, Waghorn and Sibley in the matchday squad vs Fleetwood (for a 352). Sibley then dropped out of the squad with TJJ in, and Barkhuizen returning the game after that.

Mac was unlucky with injuries in most cases. We knew Thorne's injury record prior to him joining us, but all other players who picked up injuries have had a good injury record up until that point - notably Buxton and Martin who had been ever present up to that point under Mac.
Warne has signed a number of players who have had injury issues in the last season or two - TJJ, Washington, Bradley, Elder, etc...

1. Ok so Mac had it better than Warne with recruitment - and a better budget to spend on a squad.

2. Injuries all at once, I think your point is weak here tbh - they still had Hanson available to play in his preferred position (and whilst in experienced - I’d say that’s like putting Rooney in at RB). Warne never used Smith there because we didnt have the depth in midfield due to other injuries (eg Bird) meaning Smith needed to stay in midfield. 

3. Washington and Sibley coming back from injuries and without a pre-season. 

So Mac was unlucky? Ok.

And Warne’s is all self inflicted 🤷🏼‍♂️

Anyway’s of to Meadow Lane now - hopefully we can agree on one point - it would be nice to see a Rams win?!

COYR 🐏

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The 14/15 season was before MM decided to through money at promotion. He saw injuries to the squad stop us earning promotion in 14/15, so tried to prevent that happening again.

Let's look at why we did so bad at the end of that season...

Defence
Buxton missed the final 11 games of the season leaving just Shotton (also covering RB) and Albentosa as options. Forsyth had to cover CB for the one game too.
Whitbread was already out injured since October, was rushed back into the side in April due to our injury crisis, played only 1 full games before picking up another injury 27 minutes into his 2nd start
Christie was out for the final 6 games. Due to Shotton also being injured at the time, Keogh filled in at RB for 2 games and Albentosa 1 until Shotton was rushed back in to the side.

Midfield
Thorne was injured in pre-season, and was only fit enough to play 29 minutes in the first team during this 12 game spell before returning to the treatment table.
Mascerall, his replacement, picked up an injury for the final 9 games.
Eustace, cover for both, picked up a career ending injury in the middle of January
Despite Hanson playing there for a couple of games, we struggled to find the right balance, even playing Dawkins and Warnock in midfield.

Forward
Martin was only fit enough to start 1 of the final 16 games, playing a total of 220 minutes during that spell.
Bent, our backup for Martin, was injured for the first 4 games of your 12 game run and for the penultimate game of the season.

Thanks for clarifying the detail……doesn’t depart from the fact that you can have a brand of football that is good - and still lose games - and end up failing in your objective to win games and secure promotion - even if the matches were entertaining - which was the post I was replying to.

Just having a look at your analysis further, there seems some similarities between then and now: 

1. Recruitment: 14/15 was the season before MM throws money at it - suggests SMac had his hands tied when it came to recruiting a well balanced squad. Roll on 23/24… I think we know this is true for PW.

2. 3x Injuries in one position in the team:  13/14 …. (CDM - Eustace, Mascarell, Thorne). ……. See 23/24 RB/RWB issues…Ward / Rooney /Wilson all injured for a large proportion of our first 11 games.

3. Attacking options: OK so not at Centre Forward like the Martin and Bent issue specifically …….but Bird (if you play him in the more advanced role), Embleton, Sibley, Barkhuizen, John Jules (brought in to play behind the 9) all injured/unavailable consistently.

So an inability to put out a consistently balanced team for 11 (12) games.

Was SMac just damn unlucky because he had his hands tied on recruitment and was unlucky with injuries?  Or should he have signed players regardless of budget constraints, had the foresight to recruit 4 players for every position, trained the players differently so they didnt get injured and maybe have changed his style of play to suit the players at his disposal? Surely we had enough in our squad in the last 3 games of the season to get the extra point we needed to secure play offs given we were playing away at Huddersfield (16th), Millwall (Relegated) and at home Reading (bottom and relegated)?

I only make these points as it seems they are overlooked by some posters right now who don’t like the brand of football played by Warne and believe we have a right to be in the Top 2. 

We’re 11 games in - and 35 to go and we’re about to hit our stride. My own view is that with the current coaching team we will be still in the promotion hunt after 45 games…..just like 14/15… here’s hoping that’s where the 14/15 comparator ends.

And yes it’s just my opinion…🐏

5 hours ago, sage said:

 

We had Darren Bent fit the whole time and actually Chris Martin, GT and Omar Mascerell played in that 12 game run. But I get your point that there were injuries to key players. 

Was that down to poor recruitment ie lack of cover for key roles, poor training or was it poor management/coaching in not adapting the style to the players available?  
All criticisms that have been levelled at Warne by some on here 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

5 hours ago, Kathcairns said:

Very unlikely you would lose 6 if playing good football.

I’m not sure I said we would …..but just to pedantic (hope you appreciate this Jimbo 😉) ….. you could certainly go winless in 6.
 

Go back to March 2014/15 season under Stevie Mac - arguably one of the best 18 months of entertainment we’ve had at Derby (since TBE at least) but no wins in 6. And only 2 out of 12 at the most important stage of the season. Perhaps that team lacked character and steel 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

We were entertained but ultimately it was not good enough to deliver the main objective - promotion!!  
 

We’re unbeaten in 6 - which has to be good for confidence - and yes I too would have also liked to have seen more goals and more wins, However, there are mitigating circumstances, we are only just able to select from a full squad and even then are nursing some (Bird, Wilson, Barks) back to full fitness. One win puts us in the play off spots and on course for the main objective for the season - promotion.

10 hours ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Yes, a Manager is judged by results, if not how are they judged? On how unlucky they are? I would be more inclined to go and watch if the football was entertaining and good to watch. Is that not important in your view 🤔

I go whether the football is good or bad - but I go primarily because I want my team to win - and secondary to that is the desire to watch good football.

First you suggest a manager be judged on results but then you said “more importantly” was the football. So I was just checking which it was. If its results as you now state then I guess you’re “happy” that we’re unbeaten in 6? 🤷🏼‍♂️😉 🐏

4 hours ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Depends how you see it really, 8th place in a pretty poor league. More importantly for me, pretty poor football.

OK so not judged on results - as you originally implied? More important to you is the football? So you’d be happy to have lost the last 6 if we’d played good football?!  🤷🏼‍♂️

8 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Managers are generally judged on results.

So generally we’re doing ok? We’ve not lost in 6 or (whatever it is now)? 🤷🏼‍♂️

3 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

👀

Beat me to it!! 👏🏻

1 hour ago, Millenniumram said:

So Barkhuizen comes back from injury and we actually look like we can play football with him. What do you do Paul? Stick James Collins in instead. Of course 

So Collins starts…..what happens? 😉