vonwright

2 hours ago, BathRam72 said:

Warne inherited the team last year. This year is his first attempt "to build HIS team" . They have only been together for a handful of games. They need some time.

I sort-of agree with this - new players definitely take time to get - but I do think two other points are important. 

One is that Warne has had plenty of time last season to bed in his style of play. 

The other is that he wasn't building on nothing. There were plenty of good players here already. And he's spent a lot of money on top of that getting more players in to fit his preferred system. Neither were most of these long-term signings - they are older players and presumably aimed squarely at a run at promotion now. So for me the window for showing better performances, far more cohesion, and ultimately better results is far smaller than for those saying 'these things take many years!'

1 hour ago, Jourdan said:

The squad McClaren inherited took 4-5 years to build. Rosenior built our squad in a matter of weeks having to get what he could, and with little to no thought to the future.

That’s the point.

McClaren was able to come in and raise levels so quickly, one because he is a very good coach but also largely because all of the hard work and laying of foundations had been done and the blood, sweat and tears had been wiped away.

We are still in the blood, sweat and (a lot of) tears stage. So maybe that’s the reason why Warne hasn’t had the same impact as McClaren - because the squad still requires a lot of work due to the restrictions in place, and perhaps he will have to build those foundations.

Do you think Warne is making signings for 4-5 years in the future? 

Who are the players he has signed who are the foundation of this future squad? 

I think Warne was brought in as a promotion expert and everything he is doing screams short-term results. Only he isn't getting the short-term results. 

It's true everything takes time. Given enough time some things get slower better. But, equally, given enough time some things get slowly worse. The key thing for fans is that we can see some signs of progress to give us confidence things are getting slowly better, not slowly worse. I am not seeing that at the moment. 

You could say - about any manager starting at a club in relative disarray - that they need time to get where they want to be, and given time they will do so. Sometimes that will be right. But often it will be wrong.  So the question is whether we are on the right path. What are the signs that we are? Is it the players that have been brought in under Warne? Coherent tactics that will clearly deliver results, if only we get the right blend of players? I don't see any of that.

Nigel Pearson could claim that if only he'd been given more time his vision would have become clear and everything would have been great. Maybe that's true. But based on the evidence we could see, probably it wasn't. We were right to move on. 

I hope Warne comes good but he needs to show something better and soon 

7 minutes ago, Kokosnuss said:

We were sold on the idea that Warne could develop along with us and alter his style to suit. At least by those justifying his appointment in the early days.

I don't really want to quote things I haven't heard or have misremembered  but I have seen others say that he himself said he could adapt? I could be wrong. Apologies if so.

Either way, or perhaps both, it just appears that we've been missold.

 

Personally I hoped Warne would be able to adapt his style to the squad he had, but thought it would be the other way around - he'd build a squad to match his preferred style. I think that's what he has tried to do but I'm not sure the squad we've got is that good, or that Warne's style will ever be very effective unless he manages to put together a very specific group, with very specific skills. Still hope I'm wrong. I remember watching Billy Davies' Derby and they could be a hard watch. But they won. So it was okay. If they hadn't won however...

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

This is a weird one. Mowbray was quoted in the Sunderland paper this morning saying they didn't think it was best for him to go on loan and he should fight for time on the pitch.

Surely it's possible to be eternally grateful to Clowes for his actions in saving the club and at the same time have some questions or reservations about the way he runs that club? These are quite distinct. However well or badly Clowes runs the club, it won't affect my gratitude for him saving it. Equally, however grateful I am for him saving the club, it won't affect my assessment of the way he runs it. 

I don't see why it's somehow disrespectful to discuss the way the club is being run - choice of manager, budget, etc.

It's a football forum. We have to be able to discuss Clowes the chairman as well as Clowes the saviour.

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

Can't you see the flaw in your own argument 

Perhaps you could explain?

Attack (goal threat, pace and creativity) and midfield (mobility and power) were clear priorities for recruitment this summer.

We then lost our main source of attacking creativity and our main goal threat. So those priorities only became more pressing. 

We had a reasonable (if limited) budget.

We spent it all on wing backs, central defenders, and strikers with no real pace and no real creativity.

This was a bad mistake.

What's the flaw exactly? 

7 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

What it shows is how much of our poor play Didzy covered over last season. Not just his goals but his footballing skills and intelligence. So yeah worth a new thread, it is depressing watching the stuff Warne puts out there for the fans.

Also shows how much difference one really smart skilful forward can make 

7 hours ago, Big Trav said:

It seems like the budget has been spent. 

If true that's utterly reckless. Anyone could see midfield and attack were priorities even before McGoldrick left. Completely one-eyed spending. Does Warne not see the midfield struggling game after game? Does he not see the complete lack of creativity and pace in forward areas? 

Genuinely no idea what he expected to happen if this was his grand plan.

The problem for me is I just don't see where the improvement comes from. If Warne stays this system stays - the formation, the 'tactics'. He's recruited entirely around playing exactly this way, spending the money we had on wing backs and central defenders (with Washington added to do no one-knows-what, and Waghorn as an afterthought). He doesn't seem to notice the glaring deficiencies in our midfield, because the midfield doesn't seem to feature much in his thinking about how the game should be played. He doesn't seem to notice the lack of pace or guile because they also don't feature in his 'lump it up, get it wide, corners and free kicks and the big man in the middle' blueprint. 

A lot of us were willing to pinch our noses and accept maybe Warne knew something we didn't. Maybe the quickest route out of League One really was telling a bunch of grizzled old lower-division veterans to whack the ball forwards and hope something happens. 

The problem is - if this method doesn't work, Warne doesn't seem capable of trying anything else. 

So we are left with these tactics, and this squad, and all we can really do is hope to find a couple of loans who can help address the massive deficiencies on show again tonight.

5 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Roy you've not answered my question as you can't. As neither can I.

So you've proved my exact point with my reply in essence.

It's only really Warne and Derby whom know which players they made serious offers for and then they turned us down.

But we can then leap to the conclusion that because we haven't seen an influx of stellar recruits this summer then it's because the fault lies at Warnes door automatically. We don't know.

But the lazy insinuation to draw if it suits your purposes is it must be. And none of use know the precise list of players we had an interest in, and if they did which club to they go to instead and why - for more money, to live closer to home etc etc 

But no it must all be down to Warne as a manager. If that's the agenda you have.

It's true we don't know - but does it matter? Surely Warne and his recruitment team are ultimately responsible for getting the right players in? Identifying a sufficient number of targets who do want to play for the club to make sure we don't end up precisely where we are right now? To switch targets if we aren't making progress on a deal? To identify the gaps and priorities early and deal accordingly? 

I'm sure bad luck or broken promises might have cost us a signing or two. That happens. But did we not have a fall back plan? And why were we able to sign so many defenders so quickly but make absolutely no progress on the midfield, or the abject lack of pace and guile in attacking positions? Why are we still talking about replacing McGoldrick having signed two strikers already?

I don't know whether it's true that some players don't want to play for Warne. I'm not even sure it matters. Let's say everyone we've tried to sign does want to play for him - does that somehow reflect better on our transfer dealings these past couple of months?

A quick glance at the transfer forum is really quite worrying. It's been weeks since we've been linked with any new names; most of the old names are either variations on what we already have (old slow strikers), or deals that aren't happening, or both.

Beginning to feel like any remaining signings are most likely to be loans, and our record there is patchy at best. 

Energetic powerful midfielder, and fast creative forward player remain priorities for me, along with first choice striker. I've assumed all summer this was known and would happen. Not at all sure now. 

1 hour ago, IlsonDerby said:

Can we afford 3 centre backs with not much pace in the team? Either put Rooney in or drop one of them and go 4 at the back. 

I'd like to see Rooney given more of a go if we are going to play three at the back, particularly if we are expecting the centre backs to push up and play. I've been impressed by him when I've seen him and feel he is both ready for more games, and has plenty of scope to develop if given playing time.

He also seems to have the "right character"...

44 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I feel the £3m (roughly) brought in for Bielik and Knight is inconsequential as it doesn't increase our player budget to £13m (for example) but does help pay towards the running costs of the agreed budget. 

Not sure I fully understand this. If we agreed a budget of say £10m before those sales, then why wouldn't they affect the budget? Eg a new signing on a £10k a week, two year contract = roughly £1m committed + any transfer fee. Why couldn't this come out of a transfer windfall? What are these additional 'running costs' that suddenly appear when we sell a player and swallow the money? Yes it's not as simple as saying 10m + 3m = 13m (because wages tend to be a multi-year commitment) but it's also not completely separate.

He might get us promoted. He has a track record of doing so. The issue for me is that this team appears to be at best about half of what I imagine a Warne team to be. Underwhelmed by the signings so far and the midfield and attack seem completely wrong for a Warne team, and arguably for any team that wants to score goals and win games. 

Will see what the rest of the window brings but the noises coming from the club are not encouraging. 

2 hours ago, Magicman said:

Bristols first  home game had a crowd of 27,000 

Always think Bristol City should be bigger than they are. Big, beautiful and wealthy city; no real competitors in the south west so a big catchment area. Suffers from the fact it's not the most 'football' city in the world but still - I could see the attraction as a project for either a rich would-be owner or a player for that matter.

36 minutes ago, Rample said:

Transfer window is still open, and we're still chasing 2-3 players so its not a finished squad

While this might be true, what players are we chasing and what money is available?

The only names we hear are the likes of Rhodes and Smith. I'm sure Smith is a decent striker but he's 31, essentially a slightly better version of Collins, and apparently isn't available. Rhodes is older and arguably the same type. 

We are absolutely crying out for energy, pace and creativity in both the midfield and forward positions. We all said this last year. Since then we've sold Knight (energy) and McGoldrick (creativity). 

These positions should have been absolute priorities if we had limited money to spend.

Either Warne thought he had more money than he did or - as I suspect - he thinks that what really matters is having three strong centre backs and wing backs as your main creators of goals. So he prioritised signings in those positions and used most of the available budget there.

If so I think that was a terrible mistake and I just hope Clowes can be persuaded to give him the funds to rectify it. 

Just now, dcfcreece1601 said:

FGS BLACKPOOL ARE RELAXING AND WE STILL HAVEN'T HAD A SNIFF , im moving out and not coming back dad

That's what bothers me to be honest. Don't care about the cup. Believe we have options and time to fix the defence. No idea where goals are going to come from when we are chasing the game. That's the bit that needs urgent attention and we seem to be out of options and money. 

We are ahead on the only stat that matters 

1 minute ago, NottsRam77 said:

Yes but its not fifa .. he doesnt control them when they cross the line does he

elder has been promoted from this division, hes been team of the season from this division .. what more do u want for what we can afford ? A ballon dor nominee ??? 🤦

Well yes but then you have to ask why all these experienced players are suddenly making uncharacteristic mistakes. It could be their fault; it could be bad luck; or it could be that the system itself isn't working and is causing confusion.

In which case it might be the manager's fault.

Similarly the fact we don't look like scoring and don't have any control further up the pitch might me the manager's fault, too. It's not like we've been dominating the game and peppering their goal except for a couple of mistakes.

Early days, shouldn't overreact, but this isn't a great reflection on the manager's work over the summer.

1 minute ago, nemoram said:

Thats a pretty good assist

With McGoldrick gone and no replacement signed we do need players all over the pitch to contribute goals.

Ideally at the other end though

Just now, RamsFan10 said:

I do wonder how much more of this Warne will watch before reverting to 4 at the back like last season. 

All his recruitment has been aimed at playing three at the back. He spent whatever we had on defenders and wing backs. If he can't make this formation work we are in serious trouble. 

8 hours ago, angieram said:

I think that the investment in new academy players' wages is meant to do just that. 

I just don't think we can afford to do it for players at their next stage of development yet, because they are the ones most in demand and will attract fees that we either can't afford, or are unwilling to pay at this stage of our re-birth.

I suppose it is a matter of degree. I'm certainly encouraged by the investment in academy players (and some are genuinely exciting prospects). I've no problem with bringing in some experienced L1 pros (who will have little or no resale value) to help us get promoted. But yes I would have hoped that we might have invested a little more in younger first team players, with an eye on developing them as both players and assets. As you say we are either unwilling or unable. If it's unwilling then that's a shame: I don't think anyone is talking about a Mel Morris style spending spree. There is surely something less than that, but more than this. 

It's a strange thing though. All this talk of DC running a 'sustainable club' and yet our signings all seem very short term. Most of them are older and have a lot of experience; many have been very successful in League One but found wanting at Championship level. It's hard to see any of them having much retail value. You'd imagine the plan is 'get promoted at all costs this year so we can attract better players, increase our income etc'. And yet we've stopped spending before we've addressed some of the squads most glaring gaps.

I suppose this is fairly low-risk but I'm not sure it's a textbook example of 'sustainability' - or at least not a very ambitious kind of sustainability. Shouldn't we be looking at at least some younger players with a view to developing them, selling them at a profit, and reinvesting the money into the squad? Isn't that part of sustainability too?

27 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I’m not arguing with any of that, but I am far from certain that Paul Warne sees it the same way.

l still think, but happy to be proven wrong, that Clowes made a mistake hiring Warne. I do think Rosenior would have given more opportunities to playing and progressing youth, and formulating a strategy that links the academy to the first team. I also think where we were at the time he would have been the better of the two options to get us up in two seasons, and that we would have been in the playoffs last season if he had stayed in charge. It was a very strange decision to change managers after the work he had done in the summer - in my view.

I think this season will be crucial. I was happy to accept Warne's ethos that the team needed more athleticism and fitness etc. I was happy to accept we might benefit from being more direct at times. I also thought Warne might have a decent understanding of the lower league market and an eye for an unexpected gem. But I've been a bit puzzled by our transfers this summer - the fact we've massively prioritised the defence and wing back positions (at the expense of a glaringly deficient midfield and attack), and the fact we haven't added that much youth, pace or athleticism. I don't quite see how the squad we have is going to 'Warne' it's way to promotion. Hope I'm wrong. 

Bird isn't the problem - Bird + Hourihane + Smith is the problem. Our midfield looked a bit slow, unathletic and physically weak last season and since then we've sold Knight. Bird or Hourihane would both look better with a different kind of midfielder playing alongside them.

I'm frankly puzzled that we didn't prioritise such a midfielder when we went on a signing spree at the start of summer. 

The solution now might seem to be sell Bird and use the proceeds to buy a different kind of midfielder but honestly I don't have any confidence we'd bring one in. 

Midfield is such an important part of the team and the balance has been wrong for a long time. I'm baffled that the management don't seem to see that.