Just don't get it!

[Comrade 86]

12 hours ago, David said:

He might not have been fit enough for 45 minutes though, only Rowett, the staff and player know.

Why risk him for 45 minutes when we have fully fit Martin, Winnall and Nugent to pick from?

If we was 1-0 down, 20 minutes to go, he may have been able to come on and provide a bit of magic but at 3-0 the games lost. Let him recover fully.

Spot on. Why folk are having such a hard time grasping this is beyond me. But no, let's disregard this possibility in favour of calling the gaffer a liar. Jesus wept!

[Derbylad92]

13 hours ago, curb said:

Russell is awful, switching Johnson to defensive midfield meant two positions vastly weakened.

Russell has been better then lawerence has maybe we should try dropping him and make him hungrier for it, only because we paid 7m for him doesn't make golden balls not droppable. I know he' trying but just give him a rest, I'm not saying drop him for good he is  just try and make him fight for his place 

[Van der MoodHoover]

Just now, angieram said:

 

It was the initial set up that I was most disappointed with, but again it might have worked if Keogh hadn't got injured. 

Football. 

Agree with this 100%.

Ledley being out has been talked about for days. The Johnson huddlestone midfield axis is tried and failed. Why not put an alternative plan in place - whether that's trying George for 45 mins to see how he gets on or something else. Not without risk obviously but to simply revert to previous failings is hardly management worthy of the name.

Keogh was just unfortunate. And whilst I can see some logic behind vydra,  the response to create a new partnership pairing seemed unnecessary when Martin was available and has worked with winnall. 

[RamNut]

The initial set up would never work because it was obvious that nugent wouldn't drop deep into the no 10 role.

That left a big hole in the midfield where they had three players. 

He had to chose between nugent and winnall and put someone in the vydra role. 

Either vydra or johnson or lawrence.

No point vydra being on the bench if he can't play for 45 minutes 

He could move lawrence by bringing on weimann or moving johnson forward

he could move johnson by bringing on baird or thorne

did nowt.

admittedly he can't do anything about the defensive howlers. 

But he didn't even bring on an extra striker for the last fifteen minutes,

No wonder the ground was half empty on 75 mins. 

Gary has had deserved credit for the recent run, but he messed up here both in the initial selection, and in his failure to respond.

[europia]

15 hours ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Smells of b******* mate doesn't it.

Gary needs to stop talking sometimes.

Yes his post match interview wasn't very impressive. Didn't take any responsibility for his poor team selection and tactics. 

[Carnero]

15 hours ago, McLovin said:

If Vydra was injured, why have him on the bench? Also Rowett said the other day that Vydra was dropped, not injured. Make up your mind Gary!

Perhaps he felt his calf in the warm up, like Keogh felt his quad.

[Carnero]

On 05/11/2017 at 11:59, Saul Pimpson said:

Perhaps he felt his calf in the warm up, like Keogh felt his quad.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2017/11/an-update-on-the-fitness-of-keogh-ledley-and-vydra

Matej Vydra, on the other hand, will not be linking up with Czech Republic due to an injury to his left tibia.

The 25-year-old’s problem had been managed conservatively over the past week, but a kick in the possession-based warm-up ahead of Saturday’s game against Reading exasperated the injury – meaning he was not risked from the substitutes bench and will not be linking up with Czech Republic.

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, Saul Pimpson said:

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2017/11/an-update-on-the-fitness-of-keogh-ledley-and-vydra

Matej Vydra, on the other hand, will not be linking up with Czech Republic due to an injury to his left tibia.

The 25-year-old’s problem had been managed conservatively over the past week, but a kick in the possession-based warm-up ahead of Saturday’s game against Reading exasperated the injury – meaning he was not risked from the substitutes bench and will not be linking up with Czech Republic.

Looks like a few folk owe the gaffer an apology then, Can't see it happening though, can you?

[Carnero]

2 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Looks like a few folk owe the gaffer an apology then, Can't see it happening though, can you?

No chance, this'll be some club propaganda to justify Rowett completely forgetting that he had Vydra on the bench to bring on in order to guarantee victory.

[angieram]

11 hours ago, 86 points said:

Looks like a few folk owe the gaffer an apology then, Can't see it happening though, can you?

You'd think so wouldn't you?  However on the moan in last night Ramage was read this statement and made comments inferring that it wasn't true.

Wonder where some of our fans get their misinformed opinions from? Look to Radio Derby. 

(Don't usually listen to the show but we were on our way to the under 23s match.)

[DRBee]

On 05/11/2017 at 11:55, europia said:

Yes his post match interview wasn't very impressive. Didn't take any responsibility for his poor team selection and tactics. 

Spot on . All he said in his post-match interview was 'we lacked energy' . He takes no responsibility ever.He has responsibility for selection and the way the players deliver his tactics - you wouldn't think so from what he says.

[G STAR RAM]

11 hours ago, 86 points said:

Looks like a few folk owe the gaffer an apology then, Can't see it happening though, can you?

I don't think so really.

It does say that he was already carrying the injury.

If it was only made worse in the warm up how can we possibly have had enough time to assess how long he would be fit to play for?

The sensible thing would have been to remove him from the squad and explain what happened. 

To have him warming up but not bring him on when we required 2 goals in approximately 7 minutes was bound to raise questions about why he was on the bench.

At what point would GR have considered bringing him on?

[Tamworthram]

On 5 November 2017 at 11:55, europia said:

Yes his post match interview wasn't very impressive. Didn't take any responsibility for his poor team selection and tactics. 

Because every other manager admits responsibility in their post match interviews following a defeat (not). 

[rynny]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

You'd think so wouldn't you?  However on the moan in last night Ramage was read this statement and made comments inferring that it wasn't true.

Wonder where some of our fans get their misinformed opinions from? Look to Radio Derby. 

(Don't usually listen to the show but we were on our way to the under 23s match.)

It is like on Tuesday when he was saying that he didn't think Nugent was ill.

[LazloW]

Ramage was at it straight after the match on Saturday.  In footballing parlance, I think he needs a rest (i.e. get shot of him for a few weeks and lets have a different voice for a bit).  RD presenters are a bit like certain posters on here; once they get an idea in their head they can't let it go.  Ramage is now the king of the conspiracy theory. 

[cheron85]

On 11/4/2017 at 17:19, Topram said:

After such a great few weeks it's bound to end we all know that, but it's the manner we lost, we looked so easy to play against and just didn't turn up, we've had a great run at home with vydra and nugent, they really started to get a good partnership and then he gets dropped?? Just strange, Russell wasn't fully fit and isn't good enough, wiemann was class at Leeds when he came on, just don't understand today's tactics, anyway we go again at Fulham! Have a nice few weeks 

 

On 11/4/2017 at 18:41, cannable said:

We set up with a game plan that looked flawed after five minutes.

This is the main thing which worries me about Rowett - He talks a very good game about adjusting the squad for the specific game - Utilising them all in the right way for the right games - Yet seems to fail almost every time to get it right - In fact I'd pretty much say the Hull game was the only one he's got right this season

[cannable]

23 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

 

This is the main thing which worries me about Rowett - He talks a very good game about adjusting the squad for the specific game - Utilising them all in the right way for the right games - Yet seems to fail almost every time to get it right - In fact I'd pretty much say the Hull game was the only one he's got right this season

The truly frightening thing is that I honestly thought they had three centre-halves and wingbacks.

It turns out it was four at the back but we had two players marking their left winger and give the left-back the freedom of Pride Park. 

[Comrade 86]

7 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I don't think so really.

It does say that he was already carrying the injury.

If it was only made worse in the warm up how can we possibly have had enough time to assess how long he would be fit to play for?

The sensible thing would have been to remove him from the squad and explain what happened. 

To have him warming up but not bring him on when we required 2 goals in approximately 7 minutes was bound to raise questions about why he was on the bench.

At what point would GR have considered bringing him on?

Players play with niggles all the time. Ledley had apparently been carrying a slight niggle for several games. Had Rowett known that Matej's injury would flare up during the warm up then clearly he'd not have named him in the squad. The knock he received that put him out was during the warm up and NOT prior to the game. Equally, if Matej himself had been overly concerned, doubtless he'd have told the gaffer to leave him out of the squad.

It's very easy to say what is and isn't sensible after the event, it's rather tougher to assess what is a gamble worth taking (or not) beforehand. Those who accused GR of being disingenuous certainly owe him an apology. Criticise the team selection if you really must, just don't call the guy a liar without the full facts in hand, that's the point I've tried to make and the one that you've overlooked. 

As for when he would have come on, how would I (or you) know that. If I had to guess it'd be if we were a goal down in the last 15 or 20 and chasing the game.

Who'd be a manager, eh?

[G STAR RAM]

32 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Players play with niggles all the time. Ledley had apparently been carrying a slight niggle for several games. Had Rowett known that Matej's injury would flare up during the warm up then clearly he'd not have named him in the squad. The knock he received that put him out was during the warm up and NOT prior to the game. Equally, if Matej himself had been overly concerned, doubtless he'd have told the gaffer to leave him out of the squad.

It's very easy to say what is and isn't sensible after the event, it's rather tougher to assess what is a gamble worth taking (or not) beforehand. Those who accused GR of being disingenuous certainly owe him an apology. Criticise the team selection if you really must, just don't call the guy a liar without the full facts in hand, that's the point I've tried to make and the one that you've overlooked. 

As for when he would have come on, how would I (or you) know that. If I had to guess it'd be if we were a goal down in the last 15 or 20 and chasing the game.

Who'd be a manager, eh?

Yes maybe I missed the point you was making. 

Just don't see the point of having someone on the bench with no intention of playing them.

After our second goal would have been the perfect time to bring him on.

Surely Rowett would not have him on the bench with the intention of him playing for less than 5 minutes?

[Comrade 86]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Yes maybe I missed the point you was making. 

Just don't see the point of having someone on the bench with no intention of playing them.

After our second goal would have been the perfect time to bring him on.

Surely Rowett would not have him on the bench with the intention of him playing for less than 5 minutes?

Like I said, I don't think the intention was ever to start Matej, given the niggle he was carrying. I think it was a failsafe in the advent that we were losing by the odd goal in which case chuck him on and see whether he can provide a bit of magic. The squad had already been named obviously, by the time he got the knock in the warm up so he had to remain on the bench whether it made sense or not. I think folk are reading far too much into this when the reasoning is pretty clear. GR took a gamble and it backfired but that's where it starts and finishes for me. Put it this way, if we'd been 1-0 down with 10 to play, GR chucks on Matej and he nicks an equaliser, we'd have been singing his praises. On such fine margins....

I guess you could say it was not a risk worth taking, but that's a different story altogether, least in my mind. Bear in mind though that Ledley was similarly carrying a knock for a few games and made it through, often as one of the best players on the park. We don't yet have the strength in depth that we can rest every player with a niggle. Much was made of Thorne not playing too but he'd played midweek for the U23's hence he was rested - when you consider that fact and the way folk reacted to the Vydra gambit,  then it seems that the  manager is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't which was the whole point of my OP.