Paul Warne appointed as Head Coach

[On the Ram Page]

If memory serves me right we played both Peterborough and Plymouth (both away) off the park in the first half - they didn’t get get a kick. Troubled was we didn’t covert the superiority into goals, which would have put the games out of sight.

Trouble was we didn’t or couldn’t ( the big debate) respond to the opposition changing tactics. We shall see once Warne has his squad whether he has an overall game plan, can tweak it when necessary and more importantly put the ball in the net when we have the chance (even 50% would do!). I would expect him to be able to react better when we have more pace and aggression in the side.

[S8TY]

29 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

That's a formation though, not a game-plan.  "Attacking intent" isn't a game-plan either.  And neither is "moments of incisive passing and movement".  Like I said earlier in the thread, we did a load of different things at different times, some of it was good and some of it was bad, but there seemed to be no plan in place to maximise us doing the good stuff and minimise us doing the bad stuff.  And there seemed to be no overall idea of what we actually wanted to do attacking-wise, other than some vague notion of working hard and getting the ball forwards quickly. 

You pick out Knight and Roberts out wide, and that just sums the whole thing up to me.  Roberts is (AFAIK) a centre half converted to a left back, he's a good defender and he's a decent passer, but he's not a progressive, attacking wingback because he's not quick, he's not a great dribbler and he's not a great crosser.  Jason Knight is a really good box-to-box midfielder, he's good at pressing high up the pitch, running off the ball and getting into goal-scoring positions, he's not really a dribbler or a crosser.  If you play both of those players as wingbacks you're actively stopping them doing what they're really good at, and asking them to do stuff they're not good at.

There are similar issues with the front 3 and midfield.  NML and Sibley are both players that you want running with the ball, committing defenders.  McGoldrick needs balls into his feet and people running off him.  But with only 2 midfielders in behind them, we were regularly outnumbered in there, and struggled to control games and give that front 3 the service they needed.  We had moments where we managed to get the ball into them and they did well with it, but the rest of the team wasn't set up to make that happen on a regular basis.

Serious question - do you think Guardiola is standing up in front of his Man City team and saying "433 today lads, and show a bit of attacking intent".  Or is he figuring out how to get the ball to De Bruyne's feet as much as possible, how to get as many crosses on Haaland's head as possible, how to get Grealish/Mahrez/whoever into as many one-on-one situations against isolated defenders as he can?

No but by your theory he wouldn't ask John Stones ( a CB ) to step into midfield creating an overload/pivot point because he's a defender.

You seem to argue that positions are important as if players cannot adapt but plenty of players can play different positions, in fact that is the modern way now , not a RB being a rigid  RB 

Warne actually made us look a lot better I thought with the changes he made going 3 at the back as 4 at the back wasn't working 

Plenty on here thought we had run our race and were maybe out of gas and our ageing thin squad was showing signs of fatigue

When Warne changed it it galvanised us and I think I remember Angieram saying the players she spoke to at a function at PP said they were enjoying the change

They did seem happier and more fluent to me , but you can argue your point i guess 

To say there was no plan and start to scrutinise what Wildsmith does with the ball is really nitpicking for me

The overall picture was we played more attacking and I've said this before but if we had 2 more really good finishers we'd be in the play offs now because we created lots of chances and didn't kill teams off especially in the first half of games 

Add a couple of strikers to that squad and we would've finished higher, next season I think we will be autos 

[Blondest Goat]

Think it would be fair to say that the plan was very simple in terms of attacking play.  I'm sure there were nuances beyond just hitting the channels and getting crosses in but Warne himself describes football as a simple game and I really don't think he likes to burden players with over-complicated instructions.

[Anag Ram]

The best teams don’t need tactics per se. They just need to know each other’s games well so they can complement each other.

When Diaz and Walker see John Stones stride forward they know to cover.

When players get the ball under pressure, a good team makes sure they have lots of options and gets close.

Building a tight unit that understands the disciplines and instincts required for success is the key.

Intuition and anticipation is the way to beat your opponent, not 4-3-3, 4-4-2 or any number of tree formations 😊

[May Contain Nuts]

21 minutes ago, S8TY said:

Warne actually made us look a lot better I thought with the changes he made going 3 at the back as 4 at the back wasn't working 

Plenty on here thought we had run our race and were maybe out of gas and our ageing thin squad was showing signs of fatigue

That's a weird one though because we looked better earlier on in the season when he went to 4 at the back because his insistence on 3 wasn't working, so I'm not sure it's really wing-backs-or-a-flat-back-4 that's the key issue.

The change from trying to force NML & Barkhuizen to play wing back, with Knight & Roberts taking over these positions, made us defensively a bit more reliable again (after that terrible run) - it also allowed us to keep the ball and control play a bit  better up field with a small tactical tweaks putting NML & Sibley (and whoever else) closer to McGoldrick. 

In the end it was a change too late to have any major effect because the players had I'd argue, pretty much ran their race - it was just covered up better.

I think it's all a bit moot at this point anyway tbh - we don't entirely know what Warne is going to do tactically next season and we don't know what players we're going to bring in.

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[Jubbs]

14 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

The best teams don’t need tactics per se. They just need to know each other’s games well so they can complement each other.

When Diaz and Walker see John Stones stride forward they know to cover.

Not sure what you're saying on this. 

Pep is one of the best tacticians of all time.

A team I would look at that "don't need tactics" is Real Madrid. Look what happened the other night... City played Real off the park tactically.

[S8TY]

14 minutes ago, Jubbs said:

Not sure what you're saying on this. 

Pep is one of the best tacticians of all time.

A team I would look at that "don't need tactics" is Real Madrid. Look what happened the other night... City played Real off the park tactically.

Agree what I think what he maybe alluding too is that the best teams I think are tactically aware

When I was doing my own coaching badges I remember someone who had worked with Arsene Wenger saying that the best teams/players also adapt and work it out, hence why you rarely saw Wenger saying much during the game 

Pep is totally unique to me and very different to anyone I've seen , I went to a City campions league  game with my lad who's at uni in Manchester and to be honest the movement,intelligence and hard work from up high in the stands  was quite awesome to watch

Yes they cost a lot of money but the hard work at 3-0 up was the same as 0-0 but players being intelligent enough and knowing the warning signs is also something that good coaching brings not just spending big money

Pep does get animated and kicks every ball so there is no blueprint in how to manage from the touchline but for me making players aware of there roles and the dangers as well as exploiting oppurtunities when they arise is too late sometimes to order from the touchline

You need the players to at least be aware of what to do in games then trust them to carry it out 

I saw plenty of good oppurtunities last season going forward that we didn't exploit through bad decisions in the finall third or poor execution of the right decisions

We relied far too heavily on Didzy who was fantastic for us last season but he was also guilty on occasions of trying too much or not making the correct decisions in the final third and I believe some of that was because I think he thought without him we wre probably not likely to score many 

A few more players need to be a threat , for me Bird , Sibley, Knight and Barks dont score enough we need 5-10 goals from players in there position to take the burden off of the strikers , then add 2 more potent forwards and all of a sudden we will go from nearly play offs to top 2 for me ......

[duncanjwitham]

45 minutes ago, S8TY said:

No but by your theory he wouldn't ask John Stones ( a CB ) to step into midfield creating an overload/pivot point because he's a defender.

You seem to argue that positions are important as if players cannot adapt but plenty of players can play different positions, in fact that is the modern way now , not a RB being a rigid  RB 

I'm saying exactly the opposite.  Get players doing things they're good at, and not doing the things they're bad at.  Stones in midfield works because Stones is good on the ball, and it also mitigates his tendency to make mistakes because they're less serious if they happen a bit further forward.  And it also plays into the overall structure that Guardiola is trying to set up, because it gives them another passing option in deep midfield, which prevents teams just sitting on your holding midfielder and stopping you playing out from the back through midfield.  Rosenior was doing something similar with Roberts earlier in the season and I praised him for that too.

The thing with Roberts and Knight at wingback is you're asking them to do stuff which they're not good at, while reducing their opportunities to do stuff they're good at.  No matter how much he adapts, Knight is not going to be dropping his shoulder, beating a man and whipping a cross in.  It's just not his skill set (and that's not meant to be a criticism of Knight, every player has things they're good and bad at).  Knight's best spell of the season with him playing in behind McGoldrick, because he was doing what he was good at, in a situation that was set up to support him (someone in front of him to play off, midfielders behind to cover, pace out wide to stretch teams etc).  I just don't see what Knight or Roberts offer at wingback, other than being warm bodies to fill out a formation.

Like I've said all along, I think we were mostly winning games because we had better players than the other team, not because we were getting the most out of what we had.  How many games did we work hard, defend well and then McGoldrick scored out of nothing, for example?  And I think that's a big reason why we did so well against the poorer teams, and struggled against the better ones.  And I know that happens to all teams to a degree, but it's rare to see it as starkly as it was with us.

50 minutes ago, S8TY said:

to say there was no plan and start to scrutinise what Wildsmith does with the ball is really nitpicking for me

I think you've misunderstood the point about Wildsmith.  It wasn't meant as a criticism of Wildsmith, but more of a "we're back at square one, what shall we do now?".  At that point, we have complete control over what happens next - do we want Wildsmith playing out to e.g. Cashin or Bird to play through midfield?  Do we want quick throws to the wingbacks to break?  Do we want direct balls to the forwards?  It's basically the point where it should be most obvious what we're setting out to do.

[YorkshireRam]

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

That's a formation though, not a game-plan.  "Attacking intent" isn't a game-plan either.  And neither is "moments of incisive passing and movement".  Like I said earlier in the thread, we did a load of different things at different times, some of it was good and some of it was bad, but there seemed to be no plan in place to maximise us doing the good stuff and minimise us doing the bad stuff.  And there seemed to be no overall idea of what we actually wanted to do attacking-wise, other than some vague notion of working hard and getting the ball forwards quickly. 

You pick out Knight and Roberts out wide, and that just sums the whole thing up to me.  Roberts is (AFAIK) a centre half converted to a left back, he's a good defender and he's a decent passer, but he's not a progressive, attacking wingback because he's not quick, he's not a great dribbler and he's not a great crosser.  Jason Knight is a really good box-to-box midfielder, he's good at pressing high up the pitch, running off the ball and getting into goal-scoring positions, he's not really a dribbler or a crosser.  If you play both of those players as wingbacks you're actively stopping them doing what they're really good at, and asking them to do stuff they're not good at.

There are similar issues with the front 3 and midfield.  NML and Sibley are both players that you want running with the ball, committing defenders.  McGoldrick needs balls into his feet and people running off him.  But with only 2 midfielders in behind them, we were regularly outnumbered in there, and struggled to control games and give that front 3 the service they needed.  We had moments where we managed to get the ball into them and they did well with it, but the rest of the team wasn't set up to make that happen on a regular basis.

Serious question - do you think Guardiola is standing up in front of his Man City team and saying "433 today lads, and show a bit of attacking intent".  Or is he figuring out how to get the ball to De Bruyne's feet as much as possible, how to get as many crosses on Haaland's head as possible, how to get Grealish/Mahrez/whoever into as many one-on-one situations against isolated defenders as he can?

By this logic, I assume you believe Cocu was our best manager of the last 20 years? Tactically what he was trying was far more advanced than anyone else- fluid positional rotation, utilising long periods of ball retention via slow build up to dominate games... how well overall did that work out for us?

It's a balance of finding a tactical setup that suits the players, whilst ensuring they're playing to their full individual potential through man management and psychology- Warne seems very big on the latter. Cocu underestimated the ability level of the squad and asked something unrealistic of them. Perhaps at this level, ensuring consistently solid individual performances goes further than trying to establish defined methods of play?

I love discussing tactics and football stats but with stuff like this I can't help come back to the Classic Clough quote:

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

3 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

By this logic, I assume you believe Cocu was our best manager of the last 20 years? Tactically what he was trying was far more advanced than anyone else- fluid positional rotation, utilising long periods of ball retention via slow build up to dominate games... how well overall did that work out for us?

It's a balance of finding a tactical setup that suits the players, whilst ensuring they're playing to their full individual potential through man management and psychology- Warne seems very big on the latter. Cocu underestimated the ability level of the squad and asked something unrealistic of them. Perhaps at this level, ensuring consistently solid individual performances goes further than trying to establish defined methods of play?

I love discussing tactics and football stats but with stuff like this I can't help come back to the Classic Clough quote:

Sure, a player or players can lose you a game, but the manager having a stinker and sending the wrong team out in the wrong setup can also lose you the game even at the level we find ourselves at right now.

It's a convenient line for a manager to say it's never tactics and always the players, but it simply isnt true.

[S8TY]

18 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I'm saying exactly the opposite.  Get players doing things they're good at, and not doing the things they're bad at.  Stones in midfield works because Stones is good on the ball, and it also mitigates his tendency to make mistakes because they're less serious if they happen a bit further forward.  And it also plays into the overall structure that Guardiola is trying to set up, because it gives them another passing option in deep midfield, which prevents teams just sitting on your holding midfielder and stopping you playing out from the back through midfield.  Rosenior was doing something similar with Roberts earlier in the season and I praised him for that too.

The thing with Roberts and Knight at wingback is you're asking them to do stuff which they're not good at, while reducing their opportunities to do stuff they're good at.  No matter how much he adapts, Knight is not going to be dropping his shoulder, beating a man and whipping a cross in.  It's just not his skill set (and that's not meant to be a criticism of Knight, every player has things they're good and bad at).  Knight's best spell of the season with him playing in behind McGoldrick, because he was doing what he was good at, in a situation that was set up to support him (someone in front of him to play off, midfielders behind to cover, pace out wide to stretch teams etc).  I just don't see what Knight or Roberts offer at wingback, other than being warm bodies to fill out a formation.

Like I've said all along, I think we were mostly winning games because we had better players than the other team, not because we were getting the most out of what we had.  How many games did we work hard, defend well and then McGoldrick scored out of nothing, for example?  And I think that's a big reason why we did so well against the poorer teams, and struggled against the better ones.  And I know that happens to all teams to a degree, but it's rare to see it as starkly as it was with us.

I think you've misunderstood the point about Wildsmith.  It wasn't meant as a criticism of Wildsmith, but more of a "we're back at square one, what shall we do now?".  At that point, we have complete control over what happens next - do we want Wildsmith playing out to e.g. Cashin or Bird to play through midfield?  Do we want quick throws to the wingbacks to break?  Do we want direct balls to the forwards?  It's basically the point where it should be most obvious what we're setting out to do.

You see it as back at square one what do we do now ? I don't ....Same as when I see Ederson when he gets used like an outfield player which he does, If the keeper did exactly the same thing when he received the ball it would be too predictable hence why ederson sometimes goes long sometimes plays out...its reading the situation not being a robot, if the centre backs split( and usually the opposition play 2 forwards ) and the forwards go wide then a centre mid will usually drop into the hole and ask for the ball if the centre backs aren't tracked by the 2 forwards then that is your outball if the intention is to play out from the back, if the GK sees an oppurtunity to send it wide and long to NML or whoever is the other wide player than he may do that ...its decision making ...we are in the third tier of the english game and players don't always get it right at this level but please don't think that nothing is worked on in training and in the classroom because I've sat myself in some clubs match analysis videos and seen where players make errors or don't carry out what there supposed to do in certain situations

The game is not all about tactics its about intelligence of seeing a picture of whats happening on the pitch, once the players cross the line it is down to them, you seem to think Warne sends them out there without any game plan or thought...i very much doubt that 

Edited May 19, 2023 by S8TY

[duncanjwitham]

4 minutes ago, S8TY said:

You see it as back at square one what do we do now ? I don't ....Same as when I see Ederson when he gets used like an outfield player which he does, If the keeper did exactly the same thing when he received the ball it would be too predictable hence why ederson sometimes goes long sometimes plays out...its reading the situation not being a robot, if the centre backs split( and usually the opposition play 2 forwards ) and the forwards go wide then a centre mid will usually drop into the hole and ask for the ball if the centre backs aren't tracked by the 2 forwards then that is your outball if the intention is to play out from the back, if the GK sees an oppurtunity to send it wide and long to NML or whoever is the other wide player than he may do that ...its decision making ...we are in the third tier of the english game and players don't always get it right at this level but please don't think that nothing is worked on in training and in the classroom because I've sat myself in some clubs match analysis videos and seen where players make errors or don't carry out what there supposed to do in certain situations

The game is not all about tactics its about intelligence of seeing a picture of whats happening on the pitch, once the players cross the line it is down to them, you seem to think Warne sends them out there without any game plan or thought...i very much doubt that 

I'm really not sure why you're getting so hung up on the Wildsmith thing, it's basically just a turn of phrase. I could easily have picked kick-off as a point to talk about, for example.

I'm not saying do the same thing every time, and I'm not saying reading the situation doesn't matter.  I'm saying what do we want to happen.  What situations are we trying to engineer?  What are our best players good at and how can we get them doing more of it etc.  If you are saying we just send the players out and basically tell them to see what happens and make good decisions, then that's the very definition of not having a game-plan.

[YorkshireRam]

17 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Sure, a player or players can lose you a game, but the manager having a stinker and sending the wrong team out in the wrong setup can also lose you the game even at the level we find ourselves at right now.

It's a convenient line for a manager to say it's never tactics and always the players, but it simply isnt true.

I wasn't necessarily referring to team selection when I talk about 'tactics'- the discussion seemed to be about whether we had defined methods of play or not, so by 'tactics' I meant more the footballing system the given XI is expected to play within.

It's the balance between tactics and man management, as I previously mentioned, that is the key to success. Cocu's tactics on paper were brilliant, and led to huge success in the Eredivisie... but they didn't work here. So it's not one or the other, it's a mixture of the two. The OP was putting this big focus on the idea we're not drilled in executing very specific, established methods of play- when we saw with Cocu that can often have an adverse effect on overall team performances and results...

[Anag Ram]

52 minutes ago, S8TY said:

Agree what I think what he maybe alluding too is that the best teams I think are tactically aware

When I was doing my own coaching badges I remember someone who had worked with Arsene Wenger saying that the best teams/players also adapt and work it out, hence why you rarely saw Wenger saying much during the game 

Pep is totally unique to me and very different to anyone I've seen , I went to a City campions league  game with my lad who's at uni in Manchester and to be honest the movement,intelligence and hard work from up high in the stands  was quite awesome to watch

Yes they cost a lot of money but the hard work at 3-0 up was the same as 0-0 but players being intelligent enough and knowing the warning signs is also something that good coaching brings not just spending big money

Pep does get animated and kicks every ball so there is no blueprint in how to manage from the touchline but for me making players aware of there roles and the dangers as well as exploiting oppurtunities when they arise is too late sometimes to order from the touchline

You need the players to at least be aware of what to do in games then trust them to carry it out 

I saw plenty of good oppurtunities last season going forward that we didn't exploit through bad decisions in the finall third or poor execution of the right decisions

We relied far too heavily on Didzy who was fantastic for us last season but he was also guilty on occasions of trying too much or not making the correct decisions in the final third and I believe some of that was because I think he thought without him we wre probably not likely to score many 

A few more players need to be a threat , for me Bird , Sibley, Knight and Barks dont score enough we need 5-10 goals from players in there position to take the burden off of the strikers , then add 2 more potent forwards and all of a sudden we will go from nearly play offs to top 2 for me ......

For me it was our lack of desire for the ball which cost us. Too many players are happy to ‘sit’ in position rather than run into space for their teammates.

This meant Didzy and others had to try something on their own, often leading to a loss of possession and groans from the crowd.

A good team provides options all the time and wants the ball to showcase their talents.

[S8TY]

9 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I'm really not sure why you're getting so hung up on the Wildsmith thing, it's basically just a turn of phrase. I could easily have picked kick-off as a point to talk about, for example.

I'm not saying do the same thing every time, and I'm not saying reading the situation doesn't matter.  I'm saying what do we want to happen.  What situations are we trying to engineer?  What are our best players good at and how can we get them doing more of it etc.  If you are saying we just send the players out and basically tell them to see what happens and make good decisions, then that's the very definition of not having a game-plan.

I'm not privvy to the tactics and or instructions but I can still say I'm certain Warne does not send them just to see what happens ....what i am saying is...that within a players roles and duties should be flexibility to adapt to whats actually happening on the pitch 

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, S8TY said:

I'm not privvy to the tactics and or instructions but I can still say I'm certain Warne does not send them just to see what happens ....what i am saying is...that within a players roles and duties should be flexibility to adapt to whats actually happening on the pitch 

And all I'm saying is, if he was sending them out to do something specific, I couldn't see it on the pitch.

And I'm not denying that players should adapt to what's happening, of course they should.  And I'm not really saying we should be "drilled in executing very specific, established methods of play" either.  But the manager must have some rough idea of what he wants his team to do, and then he should pick the team, coach, give team talks etc accordingly. 

If we want to get lots of crosses into the box, then play NML as a winger and get Collins to stay in their box.  If we want to play off McGoldrick's feet, then play 3 in midfield to get lots of possession and get the like of Knight/Sibley running off him.  If we want to play on the break then you want hard working midfielders and pace up front (Korey Smith and Dobbin, I suppose).   If we want to play long ball then play your best big target man (Collins, I guess) and get the likes of Knight near him for knockdowns and flick-ons etc.

I just can't see what Roberts and Knight at wingback (amongst many other issues) are supposed to be bringing to the team.  To be clear, if I thought that we had e.g. 10 players to fit some tactic/system but just didn't have a right wingback to make it work, then it's fine to stick Knight there to make the overall thing work.  Because in that case you're still trying to maximise what you can get out of the team (sacrificing a bit of Knight's skills to benefit the other 10 players), but I don't think that's happening here.

[kevinhectoring]

On 18/05/2023 at 15:34, duncanjwitham said:

... Knight and Roberts playing as wingbacks (when neither of them can cross...

Literally half the wing backs in the PL can cross no better than Roberts can (and as you point out, that’s not saying much). But surprised you say the same about Knight because I think he is (was) much better despite that he was crossing into the void. Wing back of course he is not 

[Archied]

On 19/05/2023 at 14:27, YorkshireRam said:

By this logic, I assume you believe Cocu was our best manager of the last 20 years? Tactically what he was trying was far more advanced than anyone else- fluid positional rotation, utilising long periods of ball retention via slow build up to dominate games... how well overall did that work out for us?

It's a balance of finding a tactical setup that suits the players, whilst ensuring they're playing to their full individual potential through man management and psychology- Warne seems very big on the latter. Cocu underestimated the ability level of the squad and asked something unrealistic of them. Perhaps at this level, ensuring consistently solid individual performances goes further than trying to establish defined methods of play?

I love discussing tactics and football stats but with stuff like this I can't help come back to the Classic Clough quote:

Yep , quality post , a bit like Mike Tyson saying everyone comes in with a plan until they get hit on the chin ,,, good players who communicate well respond to the game as it’s unfolding 

[Chester40]

Enjoyed PW's interview- if not the Peaky Blinders hat.

Has a very particular way of managing that must have been difficult to implement coming in when he did.

Made it clear how much time he was spending showing potential players round and how much it was their personality that matters. Also expect fitness levels to improve, no chance he will be recruiting players who aren't dedicated athletes.  No surprise it was Knight who he mentioned immediately rating.

I expect he will revert to type and play a back 3 and get the ball up to some powerful forwards. 

I expect us to be a lot more difficult to beat and play offs as a minimum. Wing backs and a striker seem massive priorities. 

Need to trust him as we have nobody to fear and we could walk this league if we hit the ground running. We are big fish in this league now and the competition is weak- no excuses if he gets what he wants this summer.

[Kingpin]

On 28/05/2023 at 14:15, Chester40 said:

we could walk this league if we hit the ground running. We are big fish in this league now and the competition is weak

😅