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

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

34 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

FFS Stearman obviously did nothing wrong. A ref totally out of his depth with the game not under his control made the wrong decision and now we have a stupid thread that cements the mistake. It was clearly Hourihane who handled and, along with Collins, they are both very naughty boys.

A big shame Hourihane isn't suspended so we could change the midfield and start Sibley. A big shame Collins is suspended for three games, just as he was finding form. 

Definitely not the game to judge Warne on. 

He scores goals, albeit cost one today.  Sibleys a man further forward behind a striker.  The waste of a place is Bird.  Never seen the fascination.  Him and Hourinane went for the same ball twice today and then the same header.  One scores 10 a season .  One scores 10 in his career.  Only one option for me. 

[desirelines]

Good to see we’re turning on the manager after three games 

[maydrakin]

5 hours ago, desirelines said:

Good to see we’re turning on the manager after three games 

It’s rather inevitable that Warne will get some stick when things go poorly.

He has replaced Rosenior, who had an awful lot of good will still on his side, was universally popular and was doing alright.

As a result, the “cuckoo in the nest“ will have to do better than how Rosenior was perceived to be doing.

The Port Vale match was a game most fans turned up to expecting a win.

My concern is we have changed our style of play and formation, which does not necessarily suit our players - playing forward players as wing-backs leaves us susceptible at the back, meaning we have done a “Morris” by building one team and now needing different players that suit the new managers style better.

I just hope that we stick to one philosophy and don’t go down the new manager route if Warne doesn’t bring immediate success.

[Tyler Durden]

18 minutes ago, maydrakin said:

It’s rather inevitable that Warne will get some stick when things go poorly.

He has replaced Rosenior, who had an awful lot of good will still on his side, was universally popular and was doing alright.

As a result, the “cuckoo in the nest“ will have to do better than how Rosenior was perceived to be doing.

The Port Vale match was a game most fans turned up to expecting a win.

My concern is we have changed our style of play and formation, which does not necessarily suit our players - playing forward players as wing-backs leaves us susceptible at the back, meaning we have done a “Morris” by building one team and now needing different players that suit the new managers style better.

I just hope that we stick to one philosophy and don’t go down the new manager route if Warne doesn’t bring immediate success.

Agree with the rest of you post but don't agree with that point. Just read the forum.

But those who did favour Rosenoir keeping his job are probably finding it hard to accept Warne coming in to replace him still and days like yesterday just further entrench their opinions. 

[WestLondonRam]

9 hours ago, sage said:

Ref booked Stearman which suggested it was him. Stearman didn't really argue.   

He did argue.. I was behind the goal and could hear him telling the Ref it never touched “HIS” hand.. 

[Oldben]

35 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Agree with the rest of you post but don't agree with that point. Just read the forum.

But those who did favour Rosenoir keeping his job are probably finding it hard to accept Warne coming in to replace him still and days like yesterday just further entrench their opinions. 

I think lr would have got us against port Vale.

However, it's unfair to criticise warne, when he's only 3 matches into managing the club.

It takes time to build the club from players you were not responsible for bringing to the club.

I don't blame the players as that's not the formation they had been playing under lr.

I don't blame warne as he has a lot of experience in promoting clubs from this league.

If you lose a player during a game that for me means, change formation, go defensive, especially if you have a lead over the other team or are level on goal difference.

Losing Collins for 3 matches is not great.

 

[Tyler Durden]

6 minutes ago, Oldben said:

I think lr would have got us against port Vale.

However, it's unfair to criticise warne, when he's only 3 matches into managing the club.

It takes time to build the club from players you were not responsible for bringing to the club.

I don't blame the players as that's not the formation they had been playing under lr.

I don't blame warne as he has a lot of experience in promoting clubs from this league.

If you lose a player during a game that for me means, change formation, go defensive, especially if you have a lead over the other team or are level on goal difference.

Losing Collins for 3 matches is not great.

 

That's an opinion though and whilst I acknowledge it the only facts are that LR wasn't here and that we conceded two penalties and had a player sent off.

What LR would have been able to get out of yesterdays game no one knows.

[sage]

6 hours ago, desirelines said:

Good to see we’re turning on the manager after three games 

I'm in no way turning on the manager. The OP was about fans expectations. 

[Mucker1884]

7 hours ago, sage said:

When you have made one move  they just stomp all over the board, knock half the pieces over and s**** on a bishop. 

 

slide?  

[sage]

1 minute ago, Mucker1884 said:

slide?  

It may slide out

[i-Ram]

9 hours ago, sage said:

Do you read my posts? 

This is like playing chess with a pigeon. 

Yes, but does the pigeon have an appliance up its arse which delivers a range of pulses which helps it decide it’s next move. If so, you are on a hiding to nothing.

[LazloW]

13 hours ago, SaffyRam said:

Dreadful football, worse than watching Rowettball. It’s going to be a very, very long season. But, hey he wears a funny bobble hat ?

 

p.s. I’m usually a happy clapper.

Can’t agree with that. Rowett would have shut up shop and let Vale have the ball for 86 minutes and completely sat back.

While it wasn’t particularly pretty at least I thought we were being positive and trying to go forward.  

There were a few decent bits of play too in the first half in particular. Put those chances away and it’s a completely different story. I think the result is probably colouring the overall view of the game.

I complained that it was too early to judge Rosenior after 9 games, so certainly not going to judge Warne after two. 

Also, very unusual to have two penalties awarded against you and have a man sent off in the same game. 

Anyway, nothing was as bad as Rowettball. Nothing.

[Crewton]

I can't understand why this thread exists when there's already a match thread and a Paul Warne thread? It looks extremely negative and makes the forum messy. 

[ariotofmyown]

10 hours ago, nottingram said:

Rosenior got criticised 10 games into a season after signing a whole new team. But anyway. It’s good to understand we blame the players when it suits.

He was getting major stick after the Shrewsbury game, 4 games in.

Lots of people wanted it to work for him, but he was also an inexperienced manager and interim, so no real issue in bringing in an experienced and succsessful League One manager instead.

It is possible to enjoy the process of trying to get a new team to play together? 

[Tamworthram]

15 hours ago, SaffyRam said:

Dreadful football, worse than watching Rowettball. It’s going to be a very, very long season. But, hey he wears a funny bobble hat ?

 

p.s. I’m usually a happy clapper.

You may well be right (I didn’t see much of Rotherham when Warne was there) but I think it’s a little unfair to predict the rest of the season based on the first week and a half of his tenure as manager. Let’s give him until at least the end of the calendar year before making any such assessment.

[May Contain Nuts]

11 hours ago, Jourdan said:

But what I don’t understand is there being some posters who seem have to made their mind up on Warne from day one and will pounce on any negative result to reinforce their position.

 

What I don’t understand is there being some posters who seem have to made their mind up on Warne from day one and will pounce on anyone who provides any sort of critique that isn't unwaveringly upbeat or in any way casts doubt about any aspects of his style of play being a good fit for the players we have, thus inviting others to swarm all over these posts, claiming them to be negative, impatient and born out of a desire to see Liam Rosenior in charge.

I don't really understand the position you've taken on this really, which seems to eschew your usual (intended) balance and fair judgement in favour of relentless positivity and calling out others for not being positive. With respect, it just isn't how you've come across before! 

There are also some strange claims on here, like 'Rosenior wasn't criticised until 9 games in' (who was deriding his use of the word delighted then?) 

To provide a critique on something isn't the same as criticising it, it's an evaluation. Sometimes people don't seem to know the difference.

If there are pitfalls to Warne's style then they should be addressed, that doesn't mean he's being criticised whether that's 2 games in, 20 or 200.

FWIW I think we saw glimpses of the best of a Paul Warne team but equally as many glimpses of the worst. It is obviously too early to know which way the pendulum will swing (despite a previous topic claiming it had done just that).

Our goal was everything you look for under him - decisive forward passing, quick as a flash the ball is in the opposition's net.

The rest of our play was simply chaotic. The kick and rush style with no control of the game spilled over into player discipline, it's easier to make a mistake sometimes when everything is happening at 100mph, and plenty were.

We can point out that the officials were dire, but if the game played out in a more controlled manner those same errors don't get made and the piss poor referee has fewer opportunities to f*** up the game.

Previous managers (no matter who they were) haven't been allowed to blame the referee for defeats (that godawful term "you make your own luck" gets pulled out of the closet) but now it's Warne in charge it's nothing to do with him & his style whatsoever? Nothing he could have done differently? OK then, that's fine as long as that logic is applied consistently 

If you look at Warne's Rotherham team though they had a very good defensive record, so it seems unlikely that their games were quite as open, and as has been pointed out he wasn't happy with what he saw yesterday. That said we've seen managers publicly point out things they don't like before only to see the team continue in the same vein.

How long it takes us to get to the stage where we find the right balance, who knows. There's a danger it's impossible with our current squad and we'll be waiting until January for it to happen by which point we could be well out of even the playoff picture.

I just hope people are prepared for that possibility, or else it could turn very nasty very quickly.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Kokosnuss

[LazloW]

54 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I can't understand why this thread exists when there's already a match thread and a Paul Warne thread? It looks extremely negative and makes the forum messy. 

I agree with this. Forum discipline seems to be on the slide!! 

[Foreveram]

15 minutes ago, LazloW said:

I agree with this. Forum discipline seems to be on the slide!! 

Yes but if people keep putting comments on it, it will stay near the top, oops ? 

[Curtains]

[sage]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

I can't understand why this thread exists when there's already a match thread and a Paul Warne thread? It looks extremely negative and makes the forum messy. 

Because it's about fans expectations