Warne isn't the Messiah and Stearman is a very Naughty Boy

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, Addingham Ram said:

Can't we just let him do it?

Of course, but if you say things like...

1 hour ago, Addingham Ram said:

DC has appointed arguably the most successful League One manager for decades, if not of all time.

...I'd suggest that you're not actually 'just letting him do it', but raising expectations to a ridiculous level.

Even if it turns out to be statistically correct, his success has so far been limited to one club, this is his first opportunity to spread his wings and prove he can do it at a bigger club.

Nobody (well, hardly anybody!) is saying can't or wont be a success here, or not advocating giving him time to do his thing but Christ Almighty.

Arise the  unimpeachable king of League One management! (Arguably)

[NottmRAM]

As many have said, I was very disappointed with the style of football on Saturday. Lots of route one with the ball coming straight back at us into midfield where there was no Derby player to be seen.

Derby's goal was a classic example of what I want to see. Running at players with the ball (NML), pushed out wide (to JK), taken to the by-line and then crossed or laid back. Perfect goal.

After that, it was very boring to watch. I could probably stomach not being entertained if we win every week but I can't remember Derby playing like this since I stood in the Popside.

I do find PW's personality quite refreshing. He is charismatic and engaging in his interviews. I would imagine he brings more energy to the dressing room after a string of quietly spoken managers.

I will certainly not make a judgement of his style based on the one game I have watched but Saturday was not playing to the strengths of the players.

[Ambitious]

We played more long balls against Plymouth (62) and Wycombe (63) than we did against Port Vale (52), so I'm not sure where the assumption we've now suddenly become a long ball team has come from? 

We're getting the ball forward quicker, but not necessarily by long passing. It's usually just getting the ball forward, down the wings and then in the box. It's disappointing to lose a game that we should definitely be winning, but important to not let assumptions/prejudices get into the way of the facts. 

[May Contain Nuts]

27 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

We played more long balls against Plymouth (62) and Wycombe (63) than we did against Port Vale (52), so I'm not sure where the assumption we've now suddenly become a long ball team has come from? 

We're getting the ball forward quicker, but not necessarily by long passing. It's usually just getting the ball forward, down the wings and then in the box. It's disappointing to lose a game that we should definitely be winning, but important to not let assumptions/prejudices get into the way of the facts. 

I agree that we're not trying to simply hoof it, but I'm sure you're aware that it is also important not to simply use one statistical fact as a smoking gun without any context of the overall picture of the game.

There are all sorts of variables (these aren't questions I'm actually looking for an answer to!)

What's that as a percentage of our overall passes in those games? If we simply made more passes as a result of more possession then the actual number of long balls will be higher, but so too short balls. What's the divide between aerial long balls and those on the floor? Are the balls put forward with a particular target in mind, or are they aimless punts? Are they ahead of the recipients to run onto or are the recipients supposed be be winning headers / holding it up? What was the pass completion rate for each type of pass? How did the opposition's setup influence the types of pass being made?  Does the system counting these stats accurately differentiate between clearances and long passes?

etc

Edited October 10, 2022 by Kokosnuss

[i-Ram]

3 hours ago, Addingham Ram said:

I love the fact that we there are now so experts on what has happened at Rotherham over the past few years.

Let's be honest. If we hadn't appointed PW, then we'd have mostly been pretty ignorant of how he had gone about achieving what he has achieved in League One. 3 promotions in 6 years. That's remarkable!

I bet before Derby came in for PW, you'd have struggled to find many Rotherham fans that would have had a bad word to say about him. Of course if you ask them now, they'll be glad to point out his limitations. That's fickle football fans for you. Derby fans are exactly the same.

DC has appointed arguably the most successful Leage One manager for decades, if not of all time.

So let's not pretend we are experts in the way PW wants to play. He wants to be successful, and has his own ideas as to how to achieve that.

Let's give him ample opportunity to show us what he can do.

I'd be very surprised that if he thinks the style of football needs changing, he'll change it. His record shows he knows exactly what he's doing.

Can't we just let him do it?

DC has appointed arguably the most successful Leage One manager for decades, if not of all time.

Paul Warne’s track record points to apparent limitations. He appears to have the know how as to how get out of the division, but not how to stop going back. I would say any successful league one manager would be someone who takes the team up, and then consolidates, or keeps the team pushing on.  I can think of a great many successful managers in recent years who have achieved the latter.

[S8TY]

4 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Playing long balls forward in the air, targeted or not, creates a scrap for the second ball situation. It's not what I enjoy watching and I don't think it especially suites our players. 

This….we have enough quality to be able to control games so that means on the floor and keeping the ball …the problem is we don’t move the ball quick enough to be able to move the opposition around and create enough openings so a mixture of styles in certain situations is what’s required imo 

IF and it’s an IF we try to play percentage football then we are basically playing exactly the way of most teams in this  division …Note: Plymouth Argyle did not ..I thought they played some nice attacking football 

Edited October 10, 2022 by S8TY

[Oldben]

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-paul-warne-transfers-7685254

Pw makes sense ...

"All the free options knocking about, respectfully, are knocking about because they are knocking about. I can't say anything fairer than that. 

"I like energy, I like athleticism and it might be in January. Luckily, Korey Smith is coming back and Didzy (David McGoldrick). They would have been ideal subs for me on Saturday. We have got a lot in the building that I really like, but in games like Saturday, it's not one to throw in an 18-year-old.

"You need your men because sometimes it's just about grabbing each other and saying we are not conceding anymore and when we break this is how we are going to play. So yes I think it's a January thing."

So he's actually going to market to purchase players in January?!

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/3-things-we-learnt-about-derby-county-after-2-1-defeat-to-port-vale/

1. PW needs time.

2. This is a tough league (other teams have paid to bring in quality).

3. We are going miss James collins for the next 3 games, especially with the Ipswich game.

 

[Curtains]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

DC has appointed arguably the most successful Leage One manager for decades, if not of all time.

Paul Warne’s track record points to apparent limitations. He appears to have the know how as to how get out of the division, but not how to stop going back. I would say any successful league one manager would be someone who takes the team up, and then consolidates, or keeps the team pushing on.  I can think of a great many successful managers in recent years who have achieved the latter.

Do you know what I thought you were clever but I’m having my doubts lol

[Chellaston Ram]

We’re getting the ball in the box earlier that’s why Collins has started scoring instead of slow sideways build up a that gives defenders time to close down our strikers.

[Curtains]

 

[Charliegeorge1962]

2 days to reflect.

1. We do move the ball a lot quicker now.

2. We haven't become a long ball team 

3. Warne has a lot of work to do to turn this side into a side capable of promotion.

[NottmRAM]

3 hours ago, Ambitious said:

We played more long balls against Plymouth (62) and Wycombe (63) than we did against Port Vale (52), so I'm not sure where the assumption we've now suddenly become a long ball team has come from? 

We're getting the ball forward quicker, but not necessarily by long passing. It's usually just getting the ball forward, down the wings and then in the box. It's disappointing to lose a game that we should definitely be winning, but important to not let assumptions/prejudices get into the way of the facts. 

There's long ball and there's long ball. The long balls against Plymouth and Wycombe were tactical in that the ball was played around the back to drag their forwards and midfielders in and then the long ball out to the flankers.

The long balls on Saturday were route one - down the middle. Stats do not show the full picture.

[Anag Ram]

If I was Warne I’d be working on McGoldrick like a Formula One pit team to get him right for Saturday.

We need players who demand the ball and can do something creative with it.

We have Barks and NML who can in their different ways get into the danger areas but it’s McGoldrick who can unpick the lock.

 

[Jayram]

8 hours ago, jameso said:

Are you basing that on the Port Vale game, both league games where PW picked his best available side, or all 3 games he's taken charge of (including Mansfield)?

Did you watch the Cambridge game and if so did you feel the same after that one?

No, I'm basing my views on seeing the way his Rotherham teams played when he was in charge and seeing something of the same style on Saturday, when we played some very poor football after the goal and ended up losing to a very average side. I don't like his style of football but we're in it for the long haul and so I hope he has the ability to adapt the style of play to the players we have.  

[RodleyRam]

3 hours ago, Ambitious said:

We played more long balls against Plymouth (62) and Wycombe (63) than we did against Port Vale (52), so I'm not sure where the assumption we've now suddenly become a long ball team has come from? 

We're getting the ball forward quicker, but not necessarily by long passing. It's usually just getting the ball forward, down the wings and then in the box. It's disappointing to lose a game that we should definitely be winning, but important to not let assumptions/prejudices get into the way of the facts. 

The forum will implode if people aren't allowed to simply make stuff up, repeat it 14 times over and pass it off as fact... Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

[LazloW]

In the last few years, the best football we have played has been under Mac V1. It was sublime; high tempo, on the floor, possession with a purpose, exciting and above all relentlessly positive and forward thinking. Given a choice, I’d have that every time.  We still lost the odd game though, so people ought to bear in mind we won’t win them all.

However, I’m not that fussed about the length of passing or the amount of possession we have. I’m more interested in intent.

What worried me about Warne coming at first (and being no expert on Rotherham at all) is that we would be playing ‘pragmatic’ football, with a focus on being tight, play on the back foot, hitting teams on the break, letting the opposition have the ball and seeking to grind out a lot of 1-0 games. That is how I envisaged a club like Rotherham would have to play to get promoted; limited resources, limited ability and so do ‘what works’.  I didn’t and don’t want that.

So far, I’ve seen nothing to suggest my concerns were valid. From the two games In charge (not counting Mansfield as it was obviously just a chance for I’m to see a few players), it might not be pretty but I don’t see it as being ‘negative’ or back foot football yet (it may change). It is only two games, so can’t really judge anything at all yet. But if we play at a high tempo, press, look forward and look to be on the ball as much as possible then it won’t be all bad.  A bit more of the few runs that Barks, NML  and Knight made in the first half; getting to the byline and putting the ball across and a bit less frenzy and I think we’ll have something eminently watchable.

Might not be Steve Mac watchable, but certainly not the horror shows of Rowett (my ultimate fear).

Edited October 10, 2022 by LazloW

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Jayram said:

No, I'm basing my views on seeing the way his Rotherham teams played when he was in charge and seeing something of the same style on Saturday, when we played some very poor football after the goal and ended up losing to a very average side. I don't like his style of football but we're in it for the long haul and so I hope he has the ability to adapt the style of play to the players we have.  

Fair enough. Agreed we weren't great after going a goal up (which was quite a lot of the match we weren't great for) and Port Vale are definitely very average, although I still think we'd have beaten them with 11 men, even with all the (mostly) dodgy decisions.

Still, did you watch the Cambridge game and think it was more of the same of what you'd seen with PW's Rotherham teams?

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Do you know what I thought you were clever but I’m having my doubts lol

t..

[Addingham Ram]

3 hours ago, i-Ram said:

DC has appointed arguably the most successful Leage One manager for decades, if not of all time.

Paul Warne’s track record points to apparent limitations. He appears to have the know how as to how get out of the division, but not how to stop going back. I would say any successful league one manager would be someone who takes the team up, and then consolidates, or keeps the team pushing on.  I can think of a great many successful managers in recent years who have achieved the 

Are they Paul Warne's limitations though, or a reflection of the limitations of Rotherham as a club?

I'd argue that Rotherham stuck with him through 3 relegations because they knew their own limitations, and that he probably never stood a chance of staying up. Most clubs would have let a manager go after a relegation. Why do you think that hey didn't, not once, twice, or even three times?

And humour me please, how many of the many successful managers that you refer to pushed on to greater things with the something akin to Rotherham's limited budget?

[Addingham Ram]

5 hours ago, Kokosnuss said:

Of course, but if you say things like...

...I'd suggest that you're not actually 'just letting him do it', but raising expectations to a ridiculous level.

Even if it turns out to be statistically correct, his success has so far been limited to one club, this is his first opportunity to spread his wings and prove he can do it at a bigger club.

Nobody (well, hardly anybody!) is saying can't or wont be a success here, or not advocating giving him time to do his thing but Christ Almighty.

Arise the  unimpeachable king of League One management! (Arguably)

Nope.

Just stating a fact.