We are a fickle bunch

[May Contain Nuts]

51 minutes ago, SKRam said:

No I didn’t mean they were stable, merely they copped for how many seasons in third tier (Was it 5? Pure guess!) and suffered some very poor results missing out on POs a couple of times? Bad days at the office (please no more Brent references) are gonna happen 

They came down with an underperforming, bloated, expensive squad and had to sort that out before they could build anything. Then they suffered the clown that is Charlie Methven running things. The reasons they took so long to get back up don't really apply to us, same as with most teams who've dropped down and struggled to get back up.

The league has also got 'easier' in the last 3-5 years if you're a footballing team, there's less emphasis now on hoofball cloggers, giant strikers trying to outmuscle you, many more teams try to play 'properly' but lack the quality, and you can beat them with good football - I think that's one of the reasons Sunderland finally found success, and they've carried on in the same vein after promotion.

We've had restrictions, of course, and legacy payments to take into consideration,  but on the pitch we pretty much got a clean slate to make a new identity for ourselves from scratch that these other clubs haven't had.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[RoyMac5]

17 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

It has to be bigger than a single manager though.  The transition from Clough to McClaren was fine because McClaren basically carried on doing what Clough was doing, but with some tweaks/improvements.  The issue is when you give Rosenior free reign to build a squad then replace him after 10 games with the polar opposite.  We can't be giving managers 2 seasons to build a squad, then giving the next manager 2 years to dismantle that squad and build a different one.  And we've been doing that stuff almost continuously since McClaren left the first time - McClaren->Clement->Pearson->McClaren->Rowett->Lampard is just the most moronic thing.

But that only matters when you spend the sort of silly money Mel was throwing around. Lots of teams have recruited and sold large numbers of players in one go. How many new players did Blackpool and Wigan have out? It's not like the old days of buying players when 10 year testimonials seemed common.

[SKRam]

5 minutes ago, Kokosnuss said:

They came down with an underperforming, bloated, expensive squad and had to sort that out before they could build anything. Then they suffered the clown that is Charlie Methven running things. The reasons they took so long to get back up don't really apply to us, same as with most teams who've dropped down and struggled to get back up.

The league has also got 'easier' in the last 3-5 years if you're a footballing team, there's less emphasis now on hoofball cloggers, giant strikers trying to outmuscle you, many more teams try to play 'properly' but lack the quality, and you can beat them with good football - I think that's one of the reasons Sunderland finally found success, and they've carried on in the same vein after promotion.

We've had restrictions, of course, and legacy payments to take into consideration,  but on the pitch we pretty much got a clean slate to make a new identity for ourselves from scratch that these other clubs haven't had.

Not sure a style of play can define how ‘easy’ a league is. So many factors including luck of course. Just had a peep. After 10 years of Prem they did slide dramatically for four years of League 1. Let’s hope and believe we can rise up in half that time. 🐏 

[May Contain Nuts]

3 minutes ago, SKRam said:

Not sure a style of play can define how ‘easy’ a league is. So many factors including luck of course. Just had a peep. After 10 years of Prem they did slide dramatically for four years of League 1. Let’s hope and believe we can rise up in half that time. 🐏 

Aye,  hence the '-', it depends on how we define easy.

I'm seeing it as... less physical, meaning a team with more technical, and classically a little more lightweight players are able to show their skills and influence games, because they aren't just being thrown to the wolves and being kicked to bits every game by thugs.

We saw last season just how easily we sliced through the likes of FGR, Accrington & Morecambe when we played decent football - in years past I'd have expected those at the bottom to have put up at least a little more 'fight'.

I'd say something about making our own luck but I bloody hate that phrase.

[duncanjwitham]

8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

But that only matters when you spend the sort of silly money Mel was throwing around. Lots of teams have recruited and sold large numbers of players in one go. How many new players did Blackpool and Wigan have out? It's not like the old days of buying players when 10 year testimonials seemed common.

It matters as soon as you're giving players contracts of any kind of length.  If Warne was here from day one last season, would we have signed any of the players we did? I'm really not sure we would have.  I'm not even sure McGoldrick is really the kind of player Warne wants.  So right now, a year later, we've still got Hourihane, Smith, NML, Barkhuizen, maybe even Collins, on the wage bill.  None of them really seem to suit what Warne wants, and they're probably 5 of the highest earners.  It's going to be another season before they're moved on, so we're stuck paying them and struggling to fit them into jobs they can't really do.  That's not helping anybody be successful.

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

It matters as soon as you're giving players contracts of any kind of length. 

It matters based on the kind of contract - how long/how much and whether the player has any saleability, or can you afford to keep them on the bench ala Anya (not!). 

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

None of them really seem to suit what Warne wants, and they're probably 5 of the highest earners. 

Then either Warne plays them to their strengths, or sells them or we shouldn't have appointed him?

[trappatoni]

2 hours ago, jameso said:

Interesting - when you say “should be”: on what basis? The size of the gate (and therefore the revenue)? A sense of natural justice? (Derby fans/DCFC deserve at least this?) Something else?

What about the size of the wage bill.   Weren't we the second or third highest payers last season.  

 

I think our squad last year had enough to challenge for top 2 except for the lack of a number 9.   Even then to not make top 6 was a serious under achievement. 

[CBX1985]

14 hours ago, sage said:

How many people have called for him to be sacked? 3? 4?

Plenty more are concerned by what they seen and heard, but have been told we aren't allowed to point out any issues.  

Loads have tacitly.  Just because they prefix "I'm not saying he should be sacked, but....  That is exactly what they are saying.  

 

The issues are clear.  But they take time.  We cannot (afford to) sack managers because something doesn't work or it never ends. No one is against constructive criticism.  The "he doesn't know what he is doing" vibe is madness; we have played one real match and a glorified friendly.  

Edited August 10, 2023 by CBX1985

[May Contain Nuts]

31 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

So right now, a year later, we've still got Hourihane, Smith, NML, Barkhuizen, maybe even Collins, on the wage bill.  None of them really seem to suit what Warne wants, and they're probably 5 of the highest earners. 

You'd be surprised if Bradley, Elder & Nelson weren't up there too.

They may all come good if we get the midfield sorted ahead of them (and stop pretending our CBs are midfielders/forwards), but with the squad balance the way it is that's a further proportion of our budget tied up in players who can't perform what's asked of them if we're playing 3 at the back.

It makes me want to hide behind the sofa.

[duncanjwitham]

23 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Then either Warne plays them to their strengths, or sells them or we shouldn't have appointed him?

That's the point really.  We probably aren't going to be able to sell those players, given their age etc, so it's either keep them or pay them off (which we probably can't afford to do).  So we either accept another season of transition or Warne adapts.  

I do wonder what the recruitment process was that resulted in him getting the job.  If you're getting in a manager in, purely off the back of him being successful at another club, surely the first question is can he replicate that here - what setup was he working in, do we have the same or similar here, and if not, what will it cost us in time/money/whatever to get us to that setup etc.  I can't imagine he was appointed with the intention of giving him 2 years to replace all the players we'd literally just signed.  But equally, I can't see the logic in giving him the job if the intention was for him to do something completely different to what he did at Rotherham.

[TINMANTED]

2 hours ago, jameso said:

That’s fair enough. I’m not disagreeing with you as such - it’s genuinely a point of interest. I think among our fanbase we have a sense of something which could be entitlement, possibly a legacy of winning titles, time spent in the premier league and the fact that we have a big fanbase and the club is so important to the city. But it could also be a sense of natural justice - almost the feeling that we’ve been hard done by (as supporters) for so long that we must surely deserve better than what we’ve been getting!

It's about wanting dcfc to be the best it can be,and being disappointed when dcfc is far from being the best it can be.some of us are old enough to have seen us at the very best,and it hurts while we are so far from where we have been

[kevinhectoring]

14 hours ago, sage said:

Oh I didn't say it had any effect on me 😀

I would add that not everything has to polarised opposites. You can criticise Warne without calling for him to be sacked. You can question our budgets without wanting to spunk £6m on Bradley Johnson. You can suggest we have bought very slow. CB without personally trying to melt him down for glue. Most people are putting together constructive criticisms and are being met with scorn and personal attacks.

The main issue is we have a manager who wants to play a high tempo pressing game and we have bought slow, ageing players to add to an already slow ageing squad.

If anyone has a convincing solution to that quandary, which involves a slow back line and a pedestrian CM supporting slow CFs in a successful and cohesive high press, I'll have more faith.

Till then I'll remain a sceptic.   

 

i’m certainly not one of those calling for him to be sacked. 

I just want him to line up and motivate our players in a way that suits the squad and gets the best out of them. 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, CBX1985 said:

Loads have tacitly.  Just because they prefix "I'm not saying he should be sacked, but....  That is exactly what they are saying.  

 

The issues are clear.  But they take time.  We cannot (afford to) sack managers because something doesn't work or it never ends. No one is against constructive criticism.  The "he doesn't know what he is doing" vibe is madness; we have played one real match and a glorified friendly.  

I'll be honest: I have no idea how many have prefaced their comments with "I'm not saying he should be sacked, but..." and then have tacitly indicated they actually think PW should be sacked.

But from comments amounting to "There are some things in his management style/decisions which I do not like and it frustrates me that he does/persists in them" there is still quite a leap to "Even taking into consideration the turmoil caused by replacing yet another manager, the costs involved, and the potential impact on the current season/players, I actually think we should sack this guy".

For me personally, I am much nearer the first than the second and I suspect most others on the Warne-scepticism spectrum are too, though I may be wrong.

I also remind myself that he got out of this division three times. (Yes I know he ended up back in it twice, and yes he got the promotions with a club (and set of players) not directly comparable to ours). Perhaps on that basis it's reasonable that I can't bring myself to believe he is nothing more than a David Brent motivational speech one-trick pony with not so much a tactical blind-spot as complete tactical blindness who doesn't learn from his mistakes and has wasted the summer bringing in the wrong players and having them bond at the opportunity cost of reminding them how to defend 😜

I would also add that I don't find our club media's depiction of Warne particularly helpful. I half-expect them to introduce him as "Paul Warne: The Man, The Myth, The Legend" at the beginning of every interview. Constantly asking him things about building a culture, as they did last year, may have provided some insight but it has also shifted the focus from winning football matches to being lovely human beings. As such (for me at least) it adds to the Warne persona as being a wonderful man who may or may not know how to win football matches but will almost certainly respond in an emotionally literate manner when we don't. I just don't think this ticks many boxes for those of us who want to see evidence that we are clued up and capable where it matters - on the pitch - and all the fluffy stuff therefore detracts from that.

[Jayram]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Then either Warne plays them to their strengths, or sells them or we shouldn't have appointed him?

Exactly this!

[NottsRam77]

7 hours ago, sage said:

They are such a minority they are invisible. I searched the matchday thread and couldn't find any.

If you can find any, please quote them. I've now asked 3 posters this. No response so far.

Just search milleniumram posts 

hard to miss lol

 

[Wolfie]

It does amuse me that there are a band of posters who literally only appear when we're losing/not playing well.

I don't know if they're fans or just WUM's but it seems you can post whatever alarmist accusations and BS you like, as long as you then add "I hope I'm worng" somewhere in there.

[davenportram]

6 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

They may well drop, but we'd still be one of the biggest (if not the biggest) club in terms of attendances and revenue by some margin compared to the majority of clubs in the division. 

 

But we won’t have the biggest attendances if we dint go up this year. Welll be down to 12-15000 average if we stay in league 1

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, davenportram said:

But we won’t have the biggest attendances if we dint go up this year. Welll be down to 12-15000 average if we stay in league 1

I hope we won’t have to test your prediction but are you being serious with this one?

[davenportram]

2 minutes ago, jameso said:

I hope we won’t have to test your prediction but are you being serious with this one?

Yep.