Straw poll

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Why exactly 'should we be winning' against these two teams? If we're as poo as you've been making out for weeks now, then why would you expect us to beat anyone? Can't have it both ways. It's all the more confusing because I thought the guy who scored is valued at about the same as the entire team we put out and I'm pretty sure Watford had 10 others on the pitch too. 

Ah, must be just me...

Because they didn't play very well against us. Simply put, if you expect Derby to be in the top half they should be winning those games. The player's transfer value is of little importance, we've played with some pretty expensive squads in the past and regularly got beaten by cheaper ones. It's an excuse. 

[Alph]

2 hours ago, Curtains said:

With the resources MM gave previous managers its failure .

Sorry don’t do monologues lol ? 

I always read your posts though and I’m the Rowett fan remember 

MM didn't give Mac money. He only had one transfer window under Mel and that was after the Pearson mess

[minesahartington]

7 minutes ago, Shuff264 said:

Yea, they pressed like Leeds last season and made it very difficult once they scored.

Have you seen there results? 4 unbeaten with 3 wins including beating Swansea

How many would replace our starting 11 on Tuesday? 

 

..any?

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, minesahartington said:

How many would replace our starting 11 on Tuesday? 

 

..any?

This  guy for one 

Harry 

[Comrade 86]

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Because they didn't play very well against us. Simply put, if you expect Derby to be in the top half they should be winning those games. The player's transfer value is of little importance, we've played with some pretty expensive squads in the past and regularly got beaten by cheaper ones. It's an excuse. 

So my opinions are 'excuses' and by inference, yours are what? 

Look, you've stated numerous times you saw 'nothing positive' in last night's performance and I think that one observation on its own shows how far apart we are on this. Like I said, each to their own. It's a thoroughly pointless debate when opinions are so entrenched as even if Cocu won his next 10 on the bounce, there'll still be folk on here and everywhere else saying everything is poo.

The fact is, it'll be performances on the pitch that dictate our future, not our opinions, no matter how many times we say the same things. Either we'll improve when we are closer to full strength, or we won't. If the latter proves to be the case, then I'm sure your wish will be granted. 

 

[Andicis]

3 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

So my opinions are 'excuses' and by inference, yours are what? 

Look, you've stated numerous times you saw 'nothing positive' in last night's performance and I think that one observation on its own shows how far apart we are on this. Like I said, each to their own. It's a thoroughly pointless debate when opinions are so entrenched as even if Cocu won his next 10 on the bounce, there'll still be folk on here and everywhere else saying everything is poo.

The fact is, it'll be performances on the pitch that dictate our future, not our opinions, no matter how many times we say the same things. Either we'll improve when we are closer to full strength, or we won't. If the latter proves to be the case, then I'm sure your wish will be granted. 

 

I don't think I'm entrenched at all. I said after the Watford game I thought we deserved a point and played alright. I've consistently altered my opinion based on the football I've seen us play, I don't think I'm even a little bit entrenched. 

I think you saying Watford should beat us because they have more expensive players than us is an excuse, yes. Because they didn't look good on the day, they weren't playing like world beaters. 

 

[goldstar]

3 hours ago, Alpha said:

That Rotherham game got a really bad reaction on here. Calls for a proper manager like Pearson and "we should be beating teams like Rotherham"

There was a massive sense of entitlement around at the time. I hope the past few years have shown people that not getting promoted isn't necessarily failure. 

We were spoilt by such entertaining football, and i agree it isn't failure, i am however seeing relegation much more likely than mid table. 

[Comrade 86]

Just now, Andicis said:

I don't think I'm entrenched at all. I said after the Watford game I thought we deserved a point and played alright. I've consistently altered my opinion based on the football I've seen us play, I don't think I'm even a little bit entrenched. 

I think you saying Watford should beat us because they have more expensive players than us is an excuse, yes. Because they didn't look good on the day, they weren't playing like world beaters. 

 

If you read my post I say absolutely nothing of the sort. I responded to a another poster's comment that stated we should be winning' against the likes of Watford. I merely questioned why we should expect to beat Watford who have parachute money, the remnants of a Premier league squad and currently sit 6th with a game in hand. And if you're saying better players (ie those that tend to cost more) don't guarantee results, of course they don't, but they bloody well help! Mount, Wilson and Tomori strike a note?

Jesus! This forum gets harder work by the day.

[Andicis]

5 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

If you read my post I say absolutely nothing of the sort. I responded to a another poster's comment that stated we should be winning' against the likes of Watford. I merely questioned why we should expect to beat Watford who have parachute money, the remnants of a Premier league squad and currently sit 6th with a game in hand. And if you're saying better players (ie those that tend to cost more) don't guarantee results, of course they don't, but they bloody well help! Mount, Wilson and Tomori strike a note?

Jesus! This forum gets harder work by the day.

And as I said before, because they weren't playing well on the day. And haven't been all season really. We have good players, and expensive players too. Arguably as many as Watford do. You wouldn't say before the game we have a right to beat Watford, but when you see what they produce on the day there is a case for it. 

 

[May Contain Nuts]

55 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Surprisingly and clearly unbeknown to you, there's a third option and that is to not give an interview to John Percy in the first place. Hmmm...

Anyway, not that you'll accept any comment that contradicts your chosen narrative, this ma provide some guidance for others as well as addressing your comment.

 

 

...and that's coming from someone who is allowed to go to the matches in person, and seems to have a good working & personal relationship with the club , someone who will have a decent idea what discussions have taken place and what the real feeling within the squad is.

When people say things like "these players aren't playing for the manager" you've got to laugh, haven't you?

It sounds like some posters are just going to have to suck it in and toughen up up a little bit.

[Justa]

47 minutes ago, Shuff264 said:

Yea, they pressed like Leeds last season and made it very difficult once they scored.

Have you seen there results? 4 unbeaten with 3 wins including beating Swansea

Ok I take it back - a poor team would have been fairer 

[Mostyn6]

46 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Why exactly 'should we be winning' against these two teams? If we're as poo as you've been making out for weeks now, then why would you expect us to beat anyone? Can't have it both ways. It's all the more confusing because I thought the guy who scored is valued at about the same as the entire team we put out and I'm pretty sure Watford had 10 others on the pitch too. 

Ah, must be just me...

I'm not reading it as posters saying Derby are poo as much as they are saying Derby are massively underperforming, underachieving and underscoring. There's a difference. As I've been saying since the Nigel Clough era, if a manager is getting 7/10 (or better) performances from players, and the team still loses, then the players aren't good enough. BUT, if those players are playing 3/10, then they are not performing and the manager's job is to get those players performing.

It's been said enough times, but in 2013, Clough had them playing 4/10, SMac got them up to 8/10. 

Using this logic, Cocu has these players at 4/10.... the question is, who can get them to 8/10?

[dcfc4ever]

Cocu in

still too early to judge his team when our best players are just returning from injury and we still have others to come in as well.

will judge him and team once we have our best 11 players on field and 10 games into new season.

keep the faith the players and Cocu will come good starting on Friday 

[Mostyn6]

3 minutes ago, Justa said:

Ok I take it back - a poor team would have been fairer 

no, don't back down. They were useless until we rolled over. They gave the ball away in the defensive 3rd about four times, yet we were so inept in the attacking 3rd, we couldn't capitalise. I hate saying it, but I think back to Marriott's first goal against Leeds away under Lampard, and the goals after, taking advantage of nervy/static Leeds defenders, and compare it to the first half last night... we didn't accept a few gifts.

If you cannot make your own chances, you must accept gifts from the opposition.

[Mostyn6]

1 minute ago, dcfc4ever said:

Cocu in

still too early to judge his team when our best players are just returning from injury and we still have others to come in as well.

will judge him and team once we have our best 11 players on field and 10 games into new season.

keep the faith the players and Cocu will come good starting on Friday 

how many times would you eat a Chef's food if he served you undercooked or burnt disgusting food? Would you sit there saying "it's too soon, I'll keep coming back for another year, eating this rubbish, in the deluded hope that something will change"??

The manager's job is to get the best out of the 11 on the pitch. There's probably not a team in professional football that currently has it's best 11 players available!!

 

[Jourdan]

2 minutes ago, Coconut said:

 

...and that's coming from someone who is allowed to go to the matches in person, and seems to have a good working & personal relationship with the club , someone who will have a decent idea what discussions have taken place and what the real feeling within the squad is.

When people say things like "these players aren't playing for the manager" you've got to laugh, haven't you?

Looks like some posters are just going to have to suck it in and toughen up up a little bit.

What else is Conway really going to say though?

He is too close to the club and depends on the club for his livelihood.

He is not going to fan the flames of discontent, whether there are any or not.

Of course, he is going to trot out the party line. If he started saying the opposite, the club could cut him off and restrict his access.

He’s probably a nice chap and a decent journalist, but at this point, he might as well be on the payroll.

After all, a few weeks back, he was more than willing to say Forest were in a mess and making questionable decisions.

But it never feels like he is saying what he really thinks when it comes to us. Everything feels carefully manicured to protect his relationships at the club.

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

4 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

how many times would you eat a Chef's food if he served you undercooked or burnt disgusting food? Would you sit there saying "it's too soon, I'll keep coming back for another year, eating this rubbish, in the deluded hope that something will change"??

The manager's job is to get the best out of the 11 on the pitch. There's probably not a team in professional football that currently has it's best 11 players available!!

 

True but if Cocu were the chef, he would have had best frying pans unavailable, been forced to get all his ingredients for a tenner and had his kitchen staff out with hangovers. 

[Justa]

2 minutes ago, Theres’s Only Wan Chope said:

True but if Cocu were the chef, he would have had best frying pans unavailable, been forced to get all his ingredients for a tenner and had his kitchen staff out with hangovers. 

But then chosen crap recipes ?

[Mostyn6]

1 minute ago, Theres’s Only Wan Chope said:

True but if Cocu were the chef, he would have had best frying pans unavailable, been forced to get all his ingredients for a tenner and had his kitchen staff out with hangovers. 

well, it looks to me like Cocu is trying to serve us fried eggs cooked in a toaster, except they are lizard eggs not Hen.

[May Contain Nuts]

17 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

What else is Conway really going to say though?

He is too close to the club and depends on the club for his livelihood.

He is not going to fan the flames of discontent, whether there are any or not.

Of course, he is going to trot out the party line. If he started saying the opposite, the club could cut him off and restrict his access.

He’s probably a nice chap and a decent journalist, but at this point, he might as well be on the payroll.

After all, a few weeks back, he was more than willing to say Forest were in a mess and making questionable decisions.

But it never feels like he is saying what he really thinks when it comes to us. Everything feels carefully manicured to protect his relationships at the club.

As per @86 Schmokes & a Pancake he could say nothing at all.

Or, even if he did have to say something, there wasn't really any need for him to throw in the line about Cocu having the players' backing as well.

Just saying the club are backing him would be more than enough.

He wasn't too bothered about his standing with the club when he posted that story about our financial dealings with Henry Gabay! 

I also doubt that The Athletic would be too happy if they perceived him to have become a club stooge when he's supposed to be an independent, impartial journalist.

Oh and.. I thought he actually was a forest fan? Have I got that wrong?