Paul Warne Pre-Season Interview

[S8TY]

Gloss it up as much you want but some clearly don't like Warne and that is ok, not everybody likes everybody i get it....If its football reasons though I still think thats unfair as looking at the game even today there was some nice neat interchanges of play on the floor and not hoofball as some say and even last season we played some nice stuff at times but some only see hoofball ? ( The second goal today was brilliant play and Radcliffe did what i want our midfielders to do...pass and move and get into the box ) 

Some seem to dislike Warne because he's a bit quirky, friendly etc etc ...I find this astonishing really !

What do you want ? a person who's un-friendly ? Closed ? obnoxious ? 

Also when we got Cocu as manager some instantly disliked him yet here was a proper gentleman and had played at the very highest level 

I don't understand what fans actually want sometimes but i guess we all have different opinions 

FWIW I like Warne he's a decent bloke and cares about the club, the fans and the players 👍

 

[InstaRam]

4 minutes ago, S8TY said:

Gloss it up as much you want but some clearly don't like Warne and that is ok, not everybody likes everybody i get it....If its football reasons though I still think thats unfair as looking at the game even today there was some nice neat interchanges of play on the floor and not hoofball as some say and even last season we played some nice stuff at times but some only see hoofball ? ( The second goal today was brilliant play and Radcliffe did what i want our midfielders to do...pass and move and get into the box ) 

Some seem to dislike Warne because he's a bit quirky, friendly etc etc ...I find this astonishing really !

What do you want ? a person who's un-friendly ? Closed ? obnoxious ? 

Also when we got Cocu as manager some instantly disliked him yet here was a proper gentleman and had played at the very highest level 

I don't understand what fans actually want sometimes but i guess we all have different opinions 

FWIW I like Warne he's a decent bloke and cares about the club, the fans and the players 👍

 

Nothing wrong with Warne but at least I am yet to see what he can bring to the table regarding results first and foremost. Last season was, even according to him, kind of a failure so I personally can understand why some are a bit hesitant as well as outright critical towards him. Only Warne himself can prove his critics wrong by getting on the field matters right and I am hopeful that he will do so after being able to form his own squad. With that said it really did not look to good last year even when you take into account the difficult circumstances he was working under. Most teams were truly awful footballers but our team somehow managed to be equally bad more often than not. Please just get it to work this season Paul! Fingers crossed!

[MackworthRamIsGod]

2 hours ago, Rev said:

Is it just me?

Every club video I click on via here or the OS, freezes video a few seconds in, but plays the audio regardless. 

It doesn't happen on YouTube, for the same content.

Me too.

I thought it was my phone.

[May Contain Nuts]

17 hours ago, S8TY said:

looking at the game even today there was some nice neat interchanges of play on the floor and not hoofball as some say and even last season we played some nice stuff at times but some only see hoofball ?

I think for the most part the only people  actually using the term "hoofball" are those doing so in order to defend Warne, misrepresenting what's actually being said by those have cast a more critical eye on his style. Creating something to argue against which isn't even being said.

It's a bit like when people would pre-empt others' criticisms of Keogh by claiming that they were still blaming him for / bringing up his mistake at Wembley. It must have been brought up 20x more by people defending him than anyone else.

Hoofball would to me be lumping it up to a target man and looking for flick-ons rather than playing long passes to people in space or putting in lots of crosses. Warne is not a hoofball merchant.

Throughout last season there was indeed some nice football played, but as a trend it only really happened when we were playing against the poorer sides in the division, those who gave us plenty of space. The more competitive mid table teams (Lincoln, Shrewsbury) stopped us playing. If we went a goal down we stopped playing. We didn't see that good play all too often when McGoldrick wasn't playing (although it wasn't exclusively when he did).

I'm sure we'll continue to see the 'neat interchanges' against the poorest sides, but we will be ramping up the percentage of our overall play that's dedicated to getting crosses in, to taking advantage of balls over the top (there's nothing wrong with that, again... not hoofball), to making the most of set pieces. That's simply a fact. We have brought players in to that effect, and at present it doesn't look like we're trying to get anyone in who would provide the finesse that McGoldrick added to our attack.

We'll be more effective, and presumably won't be bullied by teams like Lincoln like we were last season (under both managers), so should be in for a good season regardless of how we play.

The hope is that once this style gets us up (and why shouldn't it?) we go on to 'do a Luton' (their style last season could be seen as the ultimate version of what Warne is looking to achieve), the fear is that we go on to 'do a Rotherham' and end up back where we started.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[On the Ram Page]

13 minutes ago, Kokosnuss said:

I think for the most part the only people  actually using the term "hoofball" are those doing so in order to defend Warne, misrepresenting what's actually being said by those have cast a more critical eye on his style. Creating something to argue against which isn't even being said.

It's a bit like when people would pre-empt others' criticisms of Keogh by claiming that they were still blaming him for / bringing up his mistake at Wembley. It must have been brought up 20x more by people defending him than anyone else.

Hoofball would to me be lumping it up to a target man and looking for flick-ons rather than playing long passes to people in space or putting in lots of crosses. Warne is not a hoofball merchant.

Throughout last season there was indeed some nice football played, but as a trend it only really happened when we were playing against the poorer sides in the division, those who gave us plenty of space. The more competitive mid table teams (Lincoln, Shrewsbury) stopped us playing. If we went a goal down we stopped playing. We didn't see that good play all too often when McGoldrick wasn't playing (although it wasn't exclusively when he did).

I'm sure we'll continue to see the 'neat interchanges' against the poorest sides, but we will be ramping up the percentage of our overall play that's dedicated to getting crosses in, to taking advantage of balls over the top (there's nothing wrong with that, again... not hoofball), to making the most of set pieces. That's simply a fact. We have brought players in to that effect, and at present it doesn't look like we're trying to get anyone in who would provide the finesse that McGoldrick added to our attack.

We'll be more effective, and presumably won't be bullied by teams like Lincoln like we were last season (under both managers), so should be in for a good season regardless of how we play.

The hope is that once this style gets us up (and why shouldn't it?) we go on to 'do a Luton' (their style last season could be seen as the ultimate version of what Warne is looking to achieve), the fear is that we go on to 'do a Rotherham' and end up back where we started.

Not sure I agree we didn’t play well against some of the better sides. Although we eventually lost the games we absolutely played Plymouth (twice) and Peterborough off the park in the first halves. Why we eventually lost the games were down to their reasons.

[May Contain Nuts]

That's why it's a trend but not an absolute.

Our response to going a goal down was often to go more 'basic'. 

That's not to say that there aren't examples to the contrary.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[Srg]

11 minutes ago, Kokosnuss said:

That's why it's a trend but not an absolute.

Our response to going a goal down was often to go more 'basic'. 

That's not to say that there aren't examples to the contrary.

I think the bigger issue in this area was looking at the bench and potential changes and the cupboard being completely bare. 

[May Contain Nuts]

5 minutes ago, Srg said:

I think the bigger issue in this area was looking at the bench and potential changes and the cupboard being completely bare. 

Possibly, but that's a different conversation and not one I can engage in whilst walking round Tesco.

[DiggerB]

I was pleased with PWs comments about wanting more than just going backwards and sideways yesterday and what Washington can offer in that regard. We were far too pedestrian switching play and moving the ball forwards with purpose last year. More dynamism required and hopefully forthcoming with the signings made/coming.

[S8TY]

1 hour ago, Kokosnuss said:

I think for the most part the only people  actually using the term "hoofball" are those doing so in order to defend Warne, misrepresenting what's actually being said by those have cast a more critical eye on his style. Creating something to argue against which isn't even being said.

It's a bit like when people would pre-empt others' criticisms of Keogh by claiming that they were still blaming him for / bringing up his mistake at Wembley. It must have been brought up 20x more by people defending him than anyone else.

Hoofball would to me be lumping it up to a target man and looking for flick-ons rather than playing long passes to people in space or putting in lots of crosses. Warne is not a hoofball merchant.

Throughout last season there was indeed some nice football played, but as a trend it only really happened when we were playing against the poorer sides in the division, those who gave us plenty of space. The more competitive mid table teams (Lincoln, Shrewsbury) stopped us playing. If we went a goal down we stopped playing. We didn't see that good play all too often when McGoldrick wasn't playing (although it wasn't exclusively when he did).

I'm sure we'll continue to see the 'neat interchanges' against the poorest sides, but we will be ramping up the percentage of our overall play that's dedicated to getting crosses in, to taking advantage of balls over the top (there's nothing wrong with that, again... not hoofball), to making the most of set pieces. That's simply a fact. We have brought players in to that effect, and at present it doesn't look like we're trying to get anyone in who would provide the finesse that McGoldrick added to our attack.

We'll be more effective, and presumably won't be bullied by teams like Lincoln like we were last season (under both managers), so should be in for a good season regardless of how we play.

The hope is that once this style gets us up (and why shouldn't it?) we go on to 'do a Luton' (their style last season could be seen as the ultimate version of what Warne is looking to achieve), the fear is that we go on to 'do a Rotherham' and end up back where we started.

Do agree with your points about seemingly getting lost in certain games where it was quite poor and resorted to crossing to no one in particular 

I just don’t see us as one dimensional team and Warnes comments about having different types of players to stretch the game etc only confirms my opinion that we are not just a long ball percentage play type of team 

[S8TY]

1 hour ago, On the Ram Page said:

Not sure I agree we didn’t play well against some of the better sides. Although we eventually lost the games we absolutely played Plymouth (twice) and Peterborough off the park in the first halves. Why we eventually lost the games were down to their reasons.

You’re spot on we outplayed Peterborough and Plymouth especially but for me didn’t punish them and go in at HT 1 or 2 up and that hopefully will be addressed this season we need more goals from all over the pitch not just rely on one or two 

[May Contain Nuts]

1 minute ago, S8TY said:

Do agree with your points about seemingly getting lost in certain games where it was quite poor and resorted to crossing to no one in particular 

I just don’t see us as one dimensional team and Warnes comments about having different types of players to stretch the game etc only confirms my opinion that we are not just a long ball percentage play type of team 

Talk is cheap, the strikers required to help us become a multi-faceted team are not. Time will tell. You don't sign the players we have done so far to open up teams down the middle.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Kokosnuss said:

Talk is cheap, the strikers required to help us become a multi-faceted team are not. Time will tell. You don't sign the players we have done so far to open up teams down the middle.

Last season Plymouth had 2 strikers comfortably into double figures with Whittaker adding 9 before Jan (so he would have been nearer 20 had he stayed) and the 4th one Cosgrove on 8. This is along with 3 midfielders who all got 8-10 each…

Do we honestly have that yet in this squad? I’m not so sure. 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 minute ago, ExiledinDerby said:

Last season Plymouth had 2 strikers comfortably into double figures with Whittaker adding 9 before Jan (so he would have been nearer 20 had he stayed) and the 4th one Cosgrove on 8. This is along with 3 midfielders who all got 8-10 each…

Do we honestly have that yet in this squad? I’m not so sure. 

Azaz scored 8 as the AM/SS in their 3421. Wright scored 4 and Mayor 1 in the same role.

Butcher and Randell scored 3, Matete and Grant each scored 1 from DM/CM. Their 'midfield' scored 8 in total.

In the end, they got 5 from CBs, 12 from WBs, 8 from CMs, 21 from SSs, and 34 from CFs.

Based on our current squad and goals scored last season for their various clubs, we're at: 2 from CBs, 7 from WBs, 8 from CMs, 14 from SSs, and 16 from CFs.

This simplistic calculation leaves us short by 3, 5, 0, 7 and 18 goals in each area, with a CB, WB, SS and CF still to sign.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Azaz scored 8 as the AM/SS in their 3421. Wright scored 4 and Mayor 1 in the same role.

Butcher and Randell scored 3, Matete and Grant each scored 1 from DM/CM. Their 'midfield' scored 8 in total.

In the end, they got 5 from CBs, 12 from WBs, 8 from CMs, 21 from SSs, and 34 from CFs.

Based on our current squad and goals scored last season for their various clubs, we're at: 2 from CBs, 7 from WBs, 8 from CMs, 14 from SSs, and 16 from CFs.

This simplistic calculation leaves us short by 3, 5, 0, 7 and 18 goals in each area, with a CB, WB, SS and CF still to sign.

Apologies I picked up Mumba as a midfielder. I still think with those numbers it’s a 15 goal CF and someone else to pick up some more. 7 from a wing back we don’t have and with what we’ve signed a 3 goal CB to come in who will chances are be a back up player. 
 

15 goals a season doesn’t come cheap I hope we are lucky enough to find one in the loan market.
 

 

[Guest]

The last 3 years at least have all been won with over 80 goals scored. 
 

We scored 67 last year with 22 coming from one man. 
 

I think it’s a fair question. 

[RoyMac5]

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by RoyMac5