CornwallRam

There's no way he can stay. 
If I owned the club and there were no fans to consider, I'd give him another month to make the squad gel and decide at the end of November whether to sack him or give him until April. The season is still salvageable and it's normal for teams to struggle with such a high turnover. 
The problem is he's lost the fans. Now failure is guaranteed. The atmosphere in the dressing room will be difficult enough, but as soon as things go a bit wrong on the pitch, the players will really struggle to cope with the toxic atmosphere in the ground. Under those circumstances, team cohesion dissappears, the players become overly cautious and their energy levels drop. 
Warne could be saved by a good run, but the hostility of the fanbase will make that impossible. Players get paid a fortune because, to people like us, football is so much more than 22 men kicking a bag of wind around. We spend our cash because we care. Football needs emotional attachment, and it's a facet of that which makes Warne's position untenable. 
It's best for everyone if he goes now.
 

There's no way he can stay. 
If I owned the club and there were no fans to consider, I'd give him another month to make the squad gel and decide at the end of November whether to sack him or give him until April. The season is still salvageable and it's normal for teams to struggle with such a high turnover. 
The problem is he's lost the fans. Now failure is guaranteed. The atmosphere in the dressing room will be difficult enough, but as soon as things go a bit wrong on the pitch, the players will really struggle to cope with the toxic atmosphere in the ground. Under those circumstances, team cohesion dissappears, the players become overly cautious and their energy levels drop. 
Warne could be saved by a good run, but the hostility of the fanbase will make that impossible. Players get paid a fortune because, to people like us, football is so much more than 22 men kicking a bag of wind around. We spend our cash because we care. Football needs emotional attachment, and it's a facet of that which makes Warne's position untenable. 
It's best for everyone if he goes now.
 

There's no way he can stay. 
If I owned the club and there were no fans to consider, I'd give him another month to make the squad gel and decide at the end of November whether to sack him or give him until April. The season is still salvageable and it's normal for teams to struggle with such a high turnover. 
The problem is he's lost the fans. Now failure is guaranteed. The atmosphere in the dressing room will be difficult enough, but as soon as things go a bit wrong on the pitch, the players will really struggle to cope with the toxic atmosphere in the ground. Under those circumstances, team cohesion dissappears, the players become overly cautious and their energy levels drop. 
Warne could be saved by a good run, but the hostility of the fanbase will make that impossible. Players get paid a fortune because, to people like us, football is so much more than 22 men kicking a bag of wind around. We spend our cash because we care. Football needs emotional attachment, and it's a facet of that which makes Warne's position untenable. 
It's best for everyone if he goes now.
 

There's no way he can stay. 
If I owned the club and there were no fans to consider, I'd give him another month to make the squad gel and decide at the end of November whether to sack him or give him until April. The season is still salvageable and it's normal for teams to struggle with such a high turnover. 
The problem is he's lost the fans. Now failure is guaranteed. The atmosphere in the dressing room will be difficult enough, but as soon as things go a bit wrong on the pitch, the players will really struggle to cope with the toxic atmosphere in the ground. Under those circumstances, team cohesion dissappears, the players become overly cautious and their energy levels drop. 
Warne could be saved by a good run, but the hostility of the fanbase will make that impossible. Players get paid a fortune because, to people like us, football is so much more than 22 men kicking a bag of wind around. We spend our cash because we care. Football needs emotional attachment, and it's a facet of that which makes Warne's position untenable. 
It's best for everyone if he goes now.
 

Halloween horror show followed by a manager being rocketed on Bonfire night?

I reckon there's been some mass hypnosis of football fans over the the last few years. Somehow, people now believe that tedious, short, sideways passing for most of a match is good football. It isn't, it's turgid anti-football nonsense. The brand of football peddled by Clement, Cocu and Rosenior is the least entertaining way of playing imaginable. I'm just amazed that so many people have been convinced by the excitement free, safety of the slow build up. It's Emperors new clothes writ large.
Warne's problem isn't that his brand of football isn't entertaining or effective. A fast passing game with early crosses and a high press is a great way of playing. The trouble is that we aren't playing that way. We're too slow to see the pass, too scared to take risks, not pressing as a team and delaying the crosses until the defence are organised. Warne's massive problem, and the reason he will soon be gone, is that  he has failed to get the team to play Warneball.
I wonder if that's a facet of being at a bigger club? Is he looking too far forward? There's a big thing been made that most of the recruitment has been of players with Championship experience. I suspect at Rotherham, that wasn't a thing. The players brought in were younger athletes with just enough ability to play in an organised League 1 side, but that was perfect for Warneball.
The players bought in here have more proven ability, but are that bit older and slower.  Maybe they are also less mouldable, having already seen how football is played at a higher level. Is that why a proven League 1 manager appears to be a poor fit for Derby County? He's adjusted his style for the bigger club and diluted his winning formula. 
After 50 years of watching football, the common factor with successful teans has just dawned on me. Our best sides are built around the striker's style. Warne is trying to shoehorn the strikers into his style. Yet our best managers worked out what their best strikers needed to be the most successful and set the team up to deliver it for them. 
Chris Martin was a donkey for a lot of his career, but as a pivot striker with Bryson, Ward and Russell running past and Eustace or Thorne feeding him, he looked like a world beater.
Look at the movement of Biano, Wanchope and Sturridge - all made possible by three central defenders and a holding midfielder.
Hector and O'Hare - fed by Hinton and constantly assisted by Gemmil.
Stevie Howard, Charlie George, Saunders and Goddard...etc. Even Nigel fell on a system with Shefki Kuqi starring that briefly looked brilliant until he inexplicably replaced Kuqi with Young. Warne himself accidentally got a winning formula last year with McGoldrick in the 9.5 role (yes I made that term up, but you know what I mean).
My conclusion is that the style doesn't hugely matter, as long as it suits the best strikers available at the club.
 

Actually, Phil Brown is sounding orangely appealing at present. 

Actually, Phil Brown is sounding orangely appealing at present. 

Rooney might be available soon.

Actually, Phil Brown is sounding orangely appealing at present. 

Actually, Phil Brown is sounding orangely appealing at present. 

Rooney might be available soon.

Rooney might be available soon.

Rooney might be available soon.

Rooney might be available soon.

I understand what you are saying to a point but I don't think that anyone is asking for slow turgid football. Keeping possession needs to be with a plan in mind not just keep ball for keep ball's sake. You can play possession football with an intention to attack swiftly with swift controlled passing, as all the best sides in the top flight do and even as a League 1 side, we look at our best when we do quick crisp passing moves. Clearly, how effective that is will be dictated largely by whether you have the players to play that way. We can definitely play a bit but our plan seems to be to just get it out wide and bang a cross in, regardless of whether we have the forwards to make that work.
We have players with skill and creativity in the middle in the form of Bird and Hourihane but how often do we play though the middle with quick incisive moves? Rarely, we usually just switch it out wide. Sure, sometimes you want to get the ball out wide and stretch the defence before whipping a ball in, but that becomes really predictable when its all that you try to do (and not particularly successfully either). Defences at this level usually have 2 or 3 big lads in the middle and just banging mediocre crosses in is exactly what they want.

Getting lots of crosses in is great if their defence is desperately streaming back to try and smother an attack but if they are already well set then it's bread and butter defending unless you are going to play some big beast up front which we don't. We seem to be between stools. Our approach work largely seems to be is that of a team that expects to get joy from crosses but our forward line are not that type. Our 'style' seems based on an assumption that the opposition has over-extended itself and we can counter. Sometimes, going wide just gives the opposition vital time to get ready for the cross.

Ideally we need to be able to mix it up and thread balls through without always waiting for the wide option. Ideally we need a striker with the ability to make those runs though and that is a slight problem as it stands. As I say, we are a bit 'between stools' with this squad. Neither one thing nor the other.

I reckon there's been some mass hypnosis of football fans over the the last few years. Somehow, people now believe that tedious, short, sideways passing for most of a match is good football. It isn't, it's turgid anti-football nonsense. The brand of football peddled by Clement, Cocu and Rosenior is the least entertaining way of playing imaginable. I'm just amazed that so many people have been convinced by the excitement free, safety of the slow build up. It's Emperors new clothes writ large.
Warne's problem isn't that his brand of football isn't entertaining or effective. A fast passing game with early crosses and a high press is a great way of playing. The trouble is that we aren't playing that way. We're too slow to see the pass, too scared to take risks, not pressing as a team and delaying the crosses until the defence are organised. Warne's massive problem, and the reason he will soon be gone, is that  he has failed to get the team to play Warneball.
I wonder if that's a facet of being at a bigger club? Is he looking too far forward? There's a big thing been made that most of the recruitment has been of players with Championship experience. I suspect at Rotherham, that wasn't a thing. The players brought in were younger athletes with just enough ability to play in an organised League 1 side, but that was perfect for Warneball.
The players bought in here have more proven ability, but are that bit older and slower.  Maybe they are also less mouldable, having already seen how football is played at a higher level. Is that why a proven League 1 manager appears to be a poor fit for Derby County? He's adjusted his style for the bigger club and diluted his winning formula. 
After 50 years of watching football, the common factor with successful teans has just dawned on me. Our best sides are built around the striker's style. Warne is trying to shoehorn the strikers into his style. Yet our best managers worked out what their best strikers needed to be the most successful and set the team up to deliver it for them. 
Chris Martin was a donkey for a lot of his career, but as a pivot striker with Bryson, Ward and Russell running past and Eustace or Thorne feeding him, he looked like a world beater.
Look at the movement of Biano, Wanchope and Sturridge - all made possible by three central defenders and a holding midfielder.
Hector and O'Hare - fed by Hinton and constantly assisted by Gemmil.
Stevie Howard, Charlie George, Saunders and Goddard...etc. Even Nigel fell on a system with Shefki Kuqi starring that briefly looked brilliant until he inexplicably replaced Kuqi with Young. Warne himself accidentally got a winning formula last year with McGoldrick in the 9.5 role (yes I made that term up, but you know what I mean).
My conclusion is that the style doesn't hugely matter, as long as it suits the best strikers available at the club.
 

I reckon there's been some mass hypnosis of football fans over the the last few years. Somehow, people now believe that tedious, short, sideways passing for most of a match is good football. It isn't, it's turgid anti-football nonsense. The brand of football peddled by Clement, Cocu and Rosenior is the least entertaining way of playing imaginable. I'm just amazed that so many people have been convinced by the excitement free, safety of the slow build up. It's Emperors new clothes writ large.
Warne's problem isn't that his brand of football isn't entertaining or effective. A fast passing game with early crosses and a high press is a great way of playing. The trouble is that we aren't playing that way. We're too slow to see the pass, too scared to take risks, not pressing as a team and delaying the crosses until the defence are organised. Warne's massive problem, and the reason he will soon be gone, is that  he has failed to get the team to play Warneball.
I wonder if that's a facet of being at a bigger club? Is he looking too far forward? There's a big thing been made that most of the recruitment has been of players with Championship experience. I suspect at Rotherham, that wasn't a thing. The players brought in were younger athletes with just enough ability to play in an organised League 1 side, but that was perfect for Warneball.
The players bought in here have more proven ability, but are that bit older and slower.  Maybe they are also less mouldable, having already seen how football is played at a higher level. Is that why a proven League 1 manager appears to be a poor fit for Derby County? He's adjusted his style for the bigger club and diluted his winning formula. 
After 50 years of watching football, the common factor with successful teans has just dawned on me. Our best sides are built around the striker's style. Warne is trying to shoehorn the strikers into his style. Yet our best managers worked out what their best strikers needed to be the most successful and set the team up to deliver it for them. 
Chris Martin was a donkey for a lot of his career, but as a pivot striker with Bryson, Ward and Russell running past and Eustace or Thorne feeding him, he looked like a world beater.
Look at the movement of Biano, Wanchope and Sturridge - all made possible by three central defenders and a holding midfielder.
Hector and O'Hare - fed by Hinton and constantly assisted by Gemmil.
Stevie Howard, Charlie George, Saunders and Goddard...etc. Even Nigel fell on a system with Shefki Kuqi starring that briefly looked brilliant until he inexplicably replaced Kuqi with Young. Warne himself accidentally got a winning formula last year with McGoldrick in the 9.5 role (yes I made that term up, but you know what I mean).
My conclusion is that the style doesn't hugely matter, as long as it suits the best strikers available at the club.
 

I reckon there's been some mass hypnosis of football fans over the the last few years. Somehow, people now believe that tedious, short, sideways passing for most of a match is good football. It isn't, it's turgid anti-football nonsense. The brand of football peddled by Clement, Cocu and Rosenior is the least entertaining way of playing imaginable. I'm just amazed that so many people have been convinced by the excitement free, safety of the slow build up. It's Emperors new clothes writ large.
Warne's problem isn't that his brand of football isn't entertaining or effective. A fast passing game with early crosses and a high press is a great way of playing. The trouble is that we aren't playing that way. We're too slow to see the pass, too scared to take risks, not pressing as a team and delaying the crosses until the defence are organised. Warne's massive problem, and the reason he will soon be gone, is that  he has failed to get the team to play Warneball.
I wonder if that's a facet of being at a bigger club? Is he looking too far forward? There's a big thing been made that most of the recruitment has been of players with Championship experience. I suspect at Rotherham, that wasn't a thing. The players brought in were younger athletes with just enough ability to play in an organised League 1 side, but that was perfect for Warneball.
The players bought in here have more proven ability, but are that bit older and slower.  Maybe they are also less mouldable, having already seen how football is played at a higher level. Is that why a proven League 1 manager appears to be a poor fit for Derby County? He's adjusted his style for the bigger club and diluted his winning formula. 
After 50 years of watching football, the common factor with successful teans has just dawned on me. Our best sides are built around the striker's style. Warne is trying to shoehorn the strikers into his style. Yet our best managers worked out what their best strikers needed to be the most successful and set the team up to deliver it for them. 
Chris Martin was a donkey for a lot of his career, but as a pivot striker with Bryson, Ward and Russell running past and Eustace or Thorne feeding him, he looked like a world beater.
Look at the movement of Biano, Wanchope and Sturridge - all made possible by three central defenders and a holding midfielder.
Hector and O'Hare - fed by Hinton and constantly assisted by Gemmil.
Stevie Howard, Charlie George, Saunders and Goddard...etc. Even Nigel fell on a system with Shefki Kuqi starring that briefly looked brilliant until he inexplicably replaced Kuqi with Young. Warne himself accidentally got a winning formula last year with McGoldrick in the 9.5 role (yes I made that term up, but you know what I mean).
My conclusion is that the style doesn't hugely matter, as long as it suits the best strikers available at the club.
 

I reckon there's been some mass hypnosis of football fans over the the last few years. Somehow, people now believe that tedious, short, sideways passing for most of a match is good football. It isn't, it's turgid anti-football nonsense. The brand of football peddled by Clement, Cocu and Rosenior is the least entertaining way of playing imaginable. I'm just amazed that so many people have been convinced by the excitement free, safety of the slow build up. It's Emperors new clothes writ large.
Warne's problem isn't that his brand of football isn't entertaining or effective. A fast passing game with early crosses and a high press is a great way of playing. The trouble is that we aren't playing that way. We're too slow to see the pass, too scared to take risks, not pressing as a team and delaying the crosses until the defence are organised. Warne's massive problem, and the reason he will soon be gone, is that  he has failed to get the team to play Warneball.
I wonder if that's a facet of being at a bigger club? Is he looking too far forward? There's a big thing been made that most of the recruitment has been of players with Championship experience. I suspect at Rotherham, that wasn't a thing. The players brought in were younger athletes with just enough ability to play in an organised League 1 side, but that was perfect for Warneball.
The players bought in here have more proven ability, but are that bit older and slower.  Maybe they are also less mouldable, having already seen how football is played at a higher level. Is that why a proven League 1 manager appears to be a poor fit for Derby County? He's adjusted his style for the bigger club and diluted his winning formula. 
After 50 years of watching football, the common factor with successful teans has just dawned on me. Our best sides are built around the striker's style. Warne is trying to shoehorn the strikers into his style. Yet our best managers worked out what their best strikers needed to be the most successful and set the team up to deliver it for them. 
Chris Martin was a donkey for a lot of his career, but as a pivot striker with Bryson, Ward and Russell running past and Eustace or Thorne feeding him, he looked like a world beater.
Look at the movement of Biano, Wanchope and Sturridge - all made possible by three central defenders and a holding midfielder.
Hector and O'Hare - fed by Hinton and constantly assisted by Gemmil.
Stevie Howard, Charlie George, Saunders and Goddard...etc. Even Nigel fell on a system with Shefki Kuqi starring that briefly looked brilliant until he inexplicably replaced Kuqi with Young. Warne himself accidentally got a winning formula last year with McGoldrick in the 9.5 role (yes I made that term up, but you know what I mean).
My conclusion is that the style doesn't hugely matter, as long as it suits the best strikers available at the club.
 

I reckon there's been some mass hypnosis of football fans over the the last few years. Somehow, people now believe that tedious, short, sideways passing for most of a match is good football. It isn't, it's turgid anti-football nonsense. The brand of football peddled by Clement, Cocu and Rosenior is the least entertaining way of playing imaginable. I'm just amazed that so many people have been convinced by the excitement free, safety of the slow build up. It's Emperors new clothes writ large.
Warne's problem isn't that his brand of football isn't entertaining or effective. A fast passing game with early crosses and a high press is a great way of playing. The trouble is that we aren't playing that way. We're too slow to see the pass, too scared to take risks, not pressing as a team and delaying the crosses until the defence are organised. Warne's massive problem, and the reason he will soon be gone, is that  he has failed to get the team to play Warneball.
I wonder if that's a facet of being at a bigger club? Is he looking too far forward? There's a big thing been made that most of the recruitment has been of players with Championship experience. I suspect at Rotherham, that wasn't a thing. The players brought in were younger athletes with just enough ability to play in an organised League 1 side, but that was perfect for Warneball.
The players bought in here have more proven ability, but are that bit older and slower.  Maybe they are also less mouldable, having already seen how football is played at a higher level. Is that why a proven League 1 manager appears to be a poor fit for Derby County? He's adjusted his style for the bigger club and diluted his winning formula. 
After 50 years of watching football, the common factor with successful teans has just dawned on me. Our best sides are built around the striker's style. Warne is trying to shoehorn the strikers into his style. Yet our best managers worked out what their best strikers needed to be the most successful and set the team up to deliver it for them. 
Chris Martin was a donkey for a lot of his career, but as a pivot striker with Bryson, Ward and Russell running past and Eustace or Thorne feeding him, he looked like a world beater.
Look at the movement of Biano, Wanchope and Sturridge - all made possible by three central defenders and a holding midfielder.
Hector and O'Hare - fed by Hinton and constantly assisted by Gemmil.
Stevie Howard, Charlie George, Saunders and Goddard...etc. Even Nigel fell on a system with Shefki Kuqi starring that briefly looked brilliant until he inexplicably replaced Kuqi with Young. Warne himself accidentally got a winning formula last year with McGoldrick in the 9.5 role (yes I made that term up, but you know what I mean).
My conclusion is that the style doesn't hugely matter, as long as it suits the best strikers available at the club.
 

Maybe we should get Mansfield's manager? What's his name again?

It's not feasible to just be good in the Championship in perpetuity. You either die trying to go up, like we did, or you actually do go up. You can't keep a squad together forever.
The realistic problem is that you only ever reach the top with a takeover from questionable sources. Modern football in a nutshell. Why do we bother? Who really knows, but we still do.

Who have how many promotions between them from League 1?
They 'may' do great, but it's still a massive gamble.
Really lacklustre first half.
Better start to the 2nd half and then we massively faded. Quite a few players were poor, which is also worrying. Fornah was off the pace. I also thought Sibley was particularly disappointing at times. Just looked so slow and didn't cover back well either.
For me, all the moaning about the style of hoof football is fairly irrelevant (and inaccurate at times) but a couple more of those limp performances and we will slip away from the play off picture and I'd start to agree it's worth taking the gamble. 
At the moment in Clowes' shoes I wouldn't be considering it. But I dont know the details of what's happening in the club so I trust him to make the right decision.
The narrative is he doesn't know what to do with 'ball players' and yesterday I agree it looked that way. Home performances now need to turn asap or he will be really up against it.

Maybe we should get Mansfield's manager? What's his name again?