Tactics. Warne vs Rosenior

[DavesaRam]

On 27/10/2022 at 13:35, Jimbo Ram said:

Only one way to sort this out….?

Hiya, Harry!

[IlsonDerby]

9 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Well Hourihane’s not exactly famous for running around but Warne’s changing his ways 

1 game. Promising but not going to get carried away but first time this season Hourihane has stamped his authority on the game. Surely he knows his technical ability is as good as it gets at this level so with some hard work and running he’s in a different class at this level. 

[Crewton]

Who won? 

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

Who won? 

Intermission.

[jono]

You could see what Liam wanted do and it could have worked, but it didn’t anything like often enough despite a reasonable number of games and good knowledge of the players. I can see what Warne is trying to do and it’s working more often. AND He’s only just started. 

[MadAmster]

Throughout his 12 games (League and Cup) this season (58% win rate BTW), Rosenior had a constant message post match. He wanted the players to be more adventurous, take risks going forward, play faster through the thirds. We know he was telling the truth because Sibley and others have confirmed that message was what he was telling the players. What happened? It was slow, slow, slower, slower, slow. I'm going on the premise that he not only told them to be adventurous, take risks and play the ball faster but that he worked on that in training.

Based on that, whose fault was the side, back, slow, slower, slowest "tactics" we saw? I would say the players rather than the coach. Some might say if the players weren't carrying out the gaffer's wishes, why didn't he drop the worst offenders. My answer  would be that the squad was too small to do that AND he'd upset the few players he had. He was also limited by injuries. 

I'm not saying Clowes wasn't right to go for more experience, merely putting out there the fact that the tactics we saw were not, necessarily, Rosenior's tactics.

[Archied]

2 hours ago, MadAmster said:

Throughout his 12 games (League and Cup) this season (58% win rate BTW), Rosenior had a constant message post match. He wanted the players to be more adventurous, take risks going forward, play faster through the thirds. We know he was telling the truth because Sibley and others have confirmed that message was what he was telling the players. What happened? It was slow, slow, slower, slower, slow. I'm going on the premise that he not only told them to be adventurous, take risks and play the ball faster but that he worked on that in training.

Based on that, whose fault was the side, back, slow, slower, slowest "tactics" we saw? I would say the players rather than the coach. Some might say if the players weren't carrying out the gaffer's wishes, why didn't he drop the worst offenders. My answer  would be that the squad was too small to do that AND he'd upset the few players he had. He was also limited by injuries. 

I'm not saying Clowes wasn't right to go for more experience, merely putting out there the fact that the tactics we saw were not, necessarily, Rosenior's tactics.

Emphasis might have an underlying effect , perhaps keeping possession was a big thing too in training and the message to players , there certainly seems less concern with keeping the ball at all costs under warne, maybe players got a mixed message from liam ? Who knows but it’s clear the players wernt getting the message hence liam saying they wernt playing how he wanted

[jono]

3 hours ago, MadAmster said:

Throughout his 12 games (League and Cup) this season (58% win rate BTW), Rosenior had a constant message post match. He wanted the players to be more adventurous, take risks going forward, play faster through the thirds. We know he was telling the truth because Sibley and others have confirmed that message was what he was telling the players. What happened? It was slow, slow, slower, slower, slow. I'm going on the premise that he not only told them to be adventurous, take risks and play the ball faster but that he worked on that in training.

Based on that, whose fault was the side, back, slow, slower, slowest "tactics" we saw? I would say the players rather than the coach. Some might say if the players weren't carrying out the gaffer's wishes, why didn't he drop the worst offenders. My answer  would be that the squad was too small to do that AND he'd upset the few players he had. He was also limited by injuries. 

I'm not saying Clowes wasn't right to go for more experience, merely putting out there the fact that the tactics we saw were not, necessarily, Rosenior's tactics.

I’d say that something in the training patterns didn’t square with the message he was giving out. I felt for a long time that we were over coached to the point that natural  instincts had been inhibited by theory and tactics. I’d also suggest that when we did do well with Liam it was little bits of individual skill that made the difference. I think Warne has a point about fitness. Other teams out fought us too many times for it to be a coincidence. 

[Anag Ram]

I think it’s fair to say that most games are won by the team that works the hardest.

If you watch Manchester City, they run their socks off in support of their team mates. The passing looks lovely of course, but you can’t make a good pass unless someone makes a telling run and several others ‘decoy’ runs.

When they lose the ball, they’re angry and want it back.

In order to play with that intensity, you have to be really fit.

You also need to hate losing.

We’re in a transition period between a side that was happy to be 80% fit and play tidy football and a fit, hungry team that wants to score goals.

I hope Warne is successful because his methodology makes sense.

His players need to buy into it. 

Last Tuesday, they didn’t look like a side that did. The enforced change to 4-3-3 and a good start on Saturday seemed to breathe life into them.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, jono said:

I’d say that something in the training patterns didn’t square with the message he was giving out. I felt for a long time that we were over coached to the point that natural  instincts had been inhibited by theory and tactics. I’d also suggest that when we did do well with Liam it was little bits of individual skill that made the difference. I think Warne has a point about fitness. Other teams out fought us too many times for it to be a coincidence. 

I kind of felt it was over coaching as you say , we seemed far better in the early games and went a bit downhill, though we lost I thought charlton away was very good and we would build from there and get results