We’re Unbalanced

[OohMartWright]

12 minutes ago, curtains said:

Mel said 2000 I believe from memory .

Could be wrong but I was amazed at the time that it had been miscalculated 

Wasn't it 1200 ? I think that's the figure he quoted at the fans' forum at the yard. No doubt David will get the definitive answer from his archive.

[RamNut]

20 minutes ago, David said:

Didn't go into details, I will hunt out the video and find a timestamp for you

Thanks but you really don't need to.

9 minutes ago, curtains said:

Mel said 2000 I believe from memory .

Could be wrong but I was amazed at the time that it had been miscalculated 

Yes that is odd. 

Are we therefore saying that attendances are the same?

North Stand certainly looks emptier these days. 

[Day]

26 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Indeed. Mac had the rug pulled from under him - given a job to do, stop relegation. He assessed the squad and said it needed changes, which of course he couldn't do mid-season. Mel then sacked him.

So there's no rhyme or reason for when managers get the shove from Mel, if they do what they were hired for or if they don't, watch out!

Was that the job he was given, simply avoid relegation? There is talk of false positions under Rowett in 2nd, surely we was in a false position where Pearson dragged us down to. McClaren took the squad back to where it should have been. 

He had January to makes changes, whilst not the best time he did bring in De Sart and Nugent, we then went on a run which saw us 10 points from 2nd place to 10pts from 6th place.

Now I'm not saying McClaren deserved to go for that bad run, simply highlighting how Rowett is being judged differently and unfairly. 

Looking back to when McClaren sacked, many blamed the players for underperforming, costing him his job, yet we haven't been out the top 6 for how long? Our dip in form whilst still being up there with 11 to play lands solely on the shoulders of Rowett, seen a few comments that he should even lose his job!

Is it Rowett's fault the ball smashed Forsyth in the face and wasn't able to control the ball which dropped to Mitrovic, or Keogh being done by a cheeky back heel, Weimann's inability to stay onside on Saturday?

The reason for this is clear to see, selling Hughes, Ince and loaning Martin out whilst playing a style of football some don't enjoy watching. Those opinions are fine, totally fine, but if we are judging a managers progress fairly, for me at least you have to be looking at season on season improvements and this year, despite the transfers we are seeing improvements.

Ok, last seasons bar may have been slightly warped by Pearson's 14 games in charge but McClaren and Rowett managed a combined 31 games out the 46, there is only so much you can blame Pearson for. We can't just erase that season and randomly pick another to judge Rowett on, we're in danger of dare I say living in the past!

The goal is promotion, fail to achieve that this year he will have set a bar to measure progress on next season and so on.

[Day]

19 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Thanks but you really don't need to.

You don't know how much I appreciate you saying that! Quick look and it's a 2 part video from back in August and I wouldn't know where to start, wasn't a long talking point maybe 30 seconds. 

I can account for 2 season tickets that didn't get renewed, one was for health reasons and the other as they wouldn't go by themselves. 

[RamNut]

3 minutes ago, David said:

You don't know how much I appreciate you saying that! Quick look and it's a 2 part video from back in August and I wouldn't know where to start, wasn't a long talking point maybe 30 seconds. 

I can account for 2 season tickets that didn't get renewed, one was for health reasons and the other as they wouldn't go by themselves. 

Do dav and ladyram still go? They seem to have disappeared.

[Day]

Just now, RamNut said:

Do dav and ladyram still go? They seem to have disappeared.

Ladyram stepped down as a moderator a couple of years ago now, Dav also stepped down not long after, do see him online from time to time although not as active as he once was. Not sure if both or either still go to be honest.

[RoyMac5]

24 minutes ago, David said:

Looking back to when McClaren sacked, many blamed the players for underperforming, costing him his job, yet we haven't been out the top 6 for how long? Our dip in form whilst still being up there with 11 to play lands solely on the shoulders of Rowett, seen a few comments that he should even lose his job!

Mac didn't chose his 'underperforming players'. Rowett had had a preseason and two transfer windows, they are his underperforming players, if that is the case.

[Day]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Mac didn't chose his 'underperforming players'. Rowett had had a preseason and two transfer windows, they are his underperforming players, if that is the case.

Grant, Keogh, Christie, Hughes, Bryson, Ince, Russell, Bent were all here from his previous spell at the club, thats 8 players he didn't walk into a dressing room having to introduce himself and his ideas on how to play football. Let's not pretend McClaren was dealt with a bad hand when he arrived.

Whilst Rowett has had one more window than McClaren, there has been a lot of work to get his ideas across and make changes to the team yet we're still in the play offs, still have a chance, where as this time last year we was 10 points outside the top 6.

[rammieib]

The attendances are down on previous years for sure. Looking at the empty seats can give that away. Not sure why the club have come out and said they were lying in previous years.

Surely the problem with the team is that the players are not good enough? Don't have an issue with GR's tactics, just the players are not generally good enough to execute it.

Two sitting midfielders, 3/4 full backs incapable of attacking at speed (I.e on the break), attackers who don't like to get in behind and strikers not offering as much as they should be.

Losing Winnall was huge. I have no doubt he would have been our regular starter by now because he offers goals. Nugent and Jerome don't. 

We need to stumble through to the top six by end of season and then hope the play offs are a lottery with a 1 in 4 Jan chance.

We do need more youth in the team. That's mid 20's and I would like alternative options on the team as well. 

By the way GR won't play Palmer in the centre mid spot - way too risk averse for that, but Fulham were defending a lead on Sat which allowed us to make that switch.

[RamNut]

If we think the team is defective, why do we still want to go up?

i'm genuinely not bothered.

[Curtains]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

Thanks but you really don't need to.

Yes that is odd. 

Are we therefore saying that attendances are the same?

North Stand certainly looks emptier these days. 

IMO they are down just looking at the crowd density.  

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

33 minutes ago, curtains said:

IMO they are down just looking at the crowd density.  

That can be deceptive Curtains. Although I can see plenty of spare seats the crowd can still be quite dense. 

[RedSox]

4 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

That can be deceptive Curtains. Although I can see plenty of spare seats a section of the crowd can still be is quite dense. 

FTFY

[Curtains]

1 hour ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

That can be deceptive Curtains. Although I can see plenty of spare seats the crowd can still be quite dense. 

Lol.  

Up the Rams tonight. 

[EnigmaRam]

After listening to last nights moan in I'd say the fans are more unbalanced than the team!

[jagerbob]

16 hours ago, Leicester Ram said:

I’d argue that this current Rowett team is good but suffers from a lack of balance in personnel and style. I’ve said this before but it reminds me of McClaren’s teams imbalance. 

Under McClaren at our best, we had a top 7 defence because our attack was the best in the league. We attacked so well that the defense didn’t have much to do because teams were so busy trying to stop us. 

Under Rowett at our best, we had a top 7 attack because our defence was the best in the league. We defended so well that the attack didn’t have to do much because teams were so busy trying to break us down. Hence us defying expected goals (12th in league for xG but 2nd in league table).

But both of those have pitfalls because they’re so reliant on one aspect of the team performing well. We were good under Mac because we were hard to stop, we are good under Rowett because we’re hard to beat. 

We need to be able to do both.

The first time Rowett’s really said something that didn’t sit too well with me in the press was before the Fulham game. Here’s the quote on Fulham:

”They play a very attractive style of football but with that attractive style of football comes opportunities to attack them, to put them under pressure”

This is weird because it brings up the whole ‘is it entertaining’ argument surrounding DCFC that is completely irrelevant. He clearly has a chip on his shoulder about people saying his football’s boring so discredits attacking styles of play by implying they’re somehow implemented for fans enjoyment rather than effectiveness.

Every style of football brings an element of risk with it, you can see that from games we’ve had this season. Being overtly defensive is a risk just as much as being overtly attacking is a risk.

Our style is quite reliant on getting an early goal and sitting on it or just plainly not conceding. When we go a goal behind in a game, we’re in a lot of trouble because we don’t have the capability to pressure teams effectively. 

How many games this season have we come from behind to win? Just one, against Leeds.

You can argue that’s because our defence is so good but when you look at when our attack has been a position to grab us a win, we don’t seem to deliver:

- we have had 8 games this season where we’ve been drawing with 20 minutes to go but not gone onto win. 16 points missed because we can’t get a goal in the last 20 minutes.

- times where we’ve scored goals in the last 20 minutes to win ourselves points? Only 4 times; Norwich, Leeds (A), Burton, Leeds (H). 

You need to be able to adjust to situations in games because it’s as simple as Murphy’s law; everything that can go wrong, will go wrong. 

We won’t always get a goal in the first 30 mins and be able to sit on it, so the team needs to be more capable of adjusting when that doesn’t happen.

It’s obvious this is a big problem when we come up against teams like Fulham or even Reading earlier this season. They attacked us well and went ahead, then we never looked like coming back and winning, despite both sides having defensive frailties. It’s hurt us more with games like Sheff Utd, Bristol and Leeds in this bad run of form, we haven’t been able to find a goal when we needed to.

We’ve had the same issues this season with attacking, flair based teams that McClaren’s teams had with well set-up defensive teams, like Dyche’s Burnley, who mugged us off at every available opportunity. It’s because neither team have been balanced enough to counteract certain styles, we’ve often played into oppositions hands.

So to imply that attacking football is risky where our defensive style is not, really doesn’t sit well with me.

Both McClaren and Rowett set up their teams to be imbalanced in the first season because they were just working with what strengths they had. Rowett’s had a mess of a squad with no real funds and McClaren came in outside a transfer window, only having loans and January.

You can see how a few adjustments could make us so much more balanced and versatile. It’s like dominoes (not the pizza).

- We needed someone more mobile next to Huddlestone/Thorne to cover their lack of pace but still defend well. We messed up Kieftenbeld so had to get in Ledley.

- Getting someone more mobile in could have allowed us to incorporate Martin (one of the most prolific strikers in champ in past 5 seasons, still in his prime) by getting midfielders closer to him without sacrificing the shape. You can’t play a ball into a strikers feet consistently if you’re 30 yards away.

- Having Martin in the team would have allowed us to use effective passing in and around the box, as well as the balls into space for the wingers we use currently, giving us different styles of attacking for different situations (i.e. last 20mins when we need a goal). Lumped balls into Jerome aren’t efficient and they’re easy to defend.

There are obviously other ways to go about making us more attacking, not everyone loves Martin but those are just some quick changes that feasibly could have happened this season without sacrificing much if any defensive stability.

You could see from Palmer coming on for Thorne on Saturday how different we looked having someone who could pick up the ball on the halfway line and actually ******* move with it! He changed the game instantly, imagine if we had that weapon all season.

This team has been very good for stretches this year but I think anyone arguing we should go again with the same tactics next season (regardless of which league we’re in) is setting themselves up for disappointment. Build on the strengths by addressing the weaknesses.

Too Long didnt read.

the bit i did read, I'm pretty sure is factually incorrect.

For no season under McClaren, nor part season did we ever have the best attack.

You are confusing attack with "had the highest possession of the ball percentage."

Im pretty sure GRs teams with sometimes as little as 30% percentage create more chances and have more shots at goal, than those turdig slow paced McClaren teams, which wound a team down with 10 men behind the ball, and "patience" was the key.

This is precisely why this team is better balanced than any under McClaren, we had 2 many attacking minded central midfield players, and not enough all rounded / defensive minded ones. Eustace didnt play enough games after Thorne came in, Thorne had horrible injuries, Mascerell just wasnt what we needed for the championship, he alone, gave away goals on his own, by illjudged positional play and poor challenges. Had we had just two of Bryson hughes and Hendrick, and had an extra DM, so we could maybe play 2 of them at the same time.. then this would have represented balance. 3 centrally attack minded midfielders, when you also have 2 wide forward in the team was over kill, and when we didnt play well, and our play was too slow paced. then the opposition regularly picked us off on the counter attack, running directly at Keogh with their sights on goal. 

 

I agree with Grs philosophy in that football is a game about utlising space, and you create that with a balanced game plan, and speed of attack. All mcClarens teams did, was hope the opposition didnt have enough of the ball, and hoped we wouild nick an early goal, forcing them to come out, and then leave is that space to play in.

But when teams defended well, then we seemed to give them the freedom of our whole defensive half to play in, once they did get the ball.

 

[Mistaram]

14 hours ago, superfit said:

I'd hate to think what the average age of this team is going to be once the 'work in progress' is complete.     

As Warnock always says " you won't get out of this league with kids "

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

39 minutes ago, jagerbob said:

Too Long didnt read.

the bit i did read, I'm pretty sure is factually incorrect.

For no season under McClaren, nor part season did we ever have the best attack.

You are confusing attack with "had the highest possession of the ball percentage."

Im pretty sure GRs teams with sometimes as little as 30% percentage create more chances and have more shots at goal, than those turdig slow paced McClaren teams, which wound a team down with 10 men behind the ball, and "patience" was the key.

This is precisely why this team is better balanced than any under McClaren, we had 2 many attacking minded central midfield players, and not enough all rounded / defensive minded ones. Eustace didnt play enough games after Thorne came in, Thorne had horrible injuries, Mascerell just wasnt what we needed for the championship, he alone, gave away goals on his own, by illjudged positional play and poor challenges. Had we had just two of Bryson hughes and Hendrick, and had an extra DM, so we could maybe play 2 of them at the same time.. then this would have represented balance. 3 centrally attack minded midfielders, when you also have 2 wide forward in the team was over kill, and when we didnt play well, and our play was too slow paced. then the opposition regularly picked us off on the counter attack, running directly at Keogh with their sights on goal. 

 

I agree with Grs philosophy in that football is a game about utlising space, and you create that with a balanced game plan, and speed of attack. All mcClarens teams did, was hope the opposition didnt have enough of the ball, and hoped we wouild nick an early goal, forcing them to come out, and then leave is that space to play in.

But when teams defended well, then we seemed to give them the freedom of our whole defensive half to play in, once they did get the ball.

 

Well,if all Macs teams did was hope that the opposition didn't have enough of the ball,it did remarkably well to get a better win rate that rowetts even in mac 2 (which is still higher than gr's current rate)

As was wassells....

Rowetts team has been equally found out in terms of stifling our play but more so in that we are almost totally relying on vydras goals,on the break,whereas before we had a team set up to permit and encourage the midfield to add to to our goal tally.

 

[Coneheadjohn]

10 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Well,if all Macs teams did was hope that the opposition didn't have enough of the ball,it did remarkably well to get a better win rate that rowetts even in mac 2 (which is still higher than gr's current rate)

As was wassells....

Rowetts team has been equally found out in terms of stifling our play but more so in that we are almost totally relying on vydras goals,on the break,whereas before we had a team set up to permit and encourage the midfield to add to to our goal tally.

 

Those stats are a grim read for the current set up.

[Comrade 86]

Pretty fed up with the whole Rowett, McLaren thing to be honest. Shame we can't just get on with supporting the team irrespective of who is in situ. It's no big secret that I'm a big McLaren fan but equally I can see that Rowett has done some good work since arriving and in tricky circumstances too. Yeah, he's hit a bump in the road but so did Steve - so what? It's football and it happens, especially at Derby in recent years.

Why folk find it so hard to credit (or criticise) both is beyond me. It's either Mac walked on water and Rowett's a duffer or vice versa. Fact is, neither is true, yet it definitely feels like many on here are simply dying to see Rowett fail, irrespective of the cost to the club.

Frankly, I find that hard to take onboard.

COYR