Chris_Martin

A pretty good analysis, Jono, although Warne was obsessing about getting lots of crosses in before our midfield deficiencies became apparent. And in many ways our midfield deficiencies was largely because he kept playing a 2-man midfield, but without a ball-winner in there. Oh, and by-passing it whenever possible.

2-0
Thompson

"Players lose you games, not tactics"

There seems to be an increasing narrative on here that Warne's last stint in the Championship was a success & somehow negates the 3 relegations he'd previously suffered at that level.
Below is the Championship table as at 17th September 2022 - 5 days before he left Rotherham for Derby. Rotherham were in 8th place & had won 3 out of 9 games - all at home. A decent start sure but reality is they were still only 4 points above the bottom 3 & very far from demonstrating they would have been able to survive that full season under Warne.
To show just how this table is misleading in predicting performance over a full season, Wigan were only one point behind Rotherham at that stage but were ultimately comfortably relegated (even if they hadn't been deducted 6 points). Same situation with Reading who sit in 3rd at this stage with 18 points but only accrued another 32 points on the pitch from the last 36 games. On the flip side, Coventry sit bottom here but ended up in the playoff final.
I would also ponder the question that if Rotherham had looked so strong at that point, why would he have considered dropping a division & not wait for an offer from a bigger fellow Championship club? That's what Steven Schumacher did this year swapping another small yo/yo club in Plymouth for a better resourced gig at Stoke.

is that not warne's football in a nutshell?

it makes me angry that we'd even have to think about this

What did they do that was 'horrible'. Well their defence looked fairly 'horrible' true. From that first early mess up where they nearly scored an own goal. But what else did they do that was 'horrible'?

The White House?

Glad I saved my tenner lads. Even talking to the wife couldn’t have been half as tedious as the game you have been describing.

is that not warne's football in a nutshell?

is that not warne's football in a nutshell?

is that not warne's football in a nutshell?

is that not warne's football in a nutshell?

The second bit "There was a distinct lack of control and composure." But what urgency was there at throw-ins or freekicks, we looked like we were holding on for a point, timewasting.

is that not warne's football in a nutshell?

Whatever Clowes has done, and we're eternally grateful for what that, the appointment of Warne felt strange but it's looking to be awful. While tonight was grim, it wasn't particularly out of character or surprising, it was utterly predictable. Promotion or not, he's not the future 

Every time I start to feel slightly positive towards Warne, a performance like this comes along and ruins it. Absolutely nothing all game. I don't even know how to describe it. I can't even remember much details of the game. It's just a blur of nothingness.  

is that not warne's football in a nutshell?

"They're all difficult games in League One"
Absolutely infuriating listening to that. If it's that difficult now, good luck playing Watford, West Brom etc every week. Christ.

1-0
☹️

I never said it wasn't effective, but it won't work if we get promoted when most other teams have the same technology. If it starts failing there's nothing to fall back on. 

Some noticeably absent posters on this thread since last night  😉

🙄

This seems completely wrong to me. Either you measure quality of chances (which is what xG does) or you look at how many goals the teams have actually scored. But if in the xG calculation you give 1.0 for a goal scored, then you’re mixing the two up 
By the way I was interested to hear you say that Pompey’s missed chance (the ‘open goal’) was assessed at 0.1 on xG.  It seems very low at first blush, but combine height of ball, speed it came in, bodies in the box not to mention the winds and I suspect it’s closer to the truth than the 0.9 implied by the moronic Sky commentator