Who enjoys Warne's football poll?

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

2 hours ago, CBRammette said:

Is that Bill Murray doing a news report for East Midlands today live from Nottingham.  Just assuming based on the the latest Forza Garibaldi' masterpiece behind his head.  Adorning the Trent End at any moment I'd imagine. 

[Anag Ram]

1 hour ago, Foreveram said:

Apart from Burton, Fleetwood and Peterborough.

Yes, but look where Burton and Fleetwood are in the table. We are flat track bullies at the moment.

Obviously the hope is that with the whole squad available Warne will plot an improvement. 

We have to wait and see.

[Jourdan]

4 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I don't agree with that to be honest. Burleys team was put together with magic beans as revenue and Smiths team that got promoted was during a period of financial cost cutting.  The team he put together on promotion was the likes of Laursen and Dailly for 500 k a piece. Asanovic for 600k, Delap 400 k, Wanchope 500 k, McGrath and Dorigo on frees. Bainio and Eranio were frees albeit Eranio would have been on a good wage.

You can create a good passing side if you choose to go that way by getting in 4 or 5 on season long loans currently to facilitate the more agricultural players, so it's even easier nowadays.

 

There are exceptions and there are norms. What I said was that building a good passing side is usually complex, expensive and timely.

To me, Burley’s and Smith’s sides were exceptional in every sense of the word, hence why they are still reference points for many fans some 20-25 years later.

If it was normal and easily achievable to produce a good passing side, surely the last 25-30 years as Derby fans would have been much more fruitful?

Where are these 4-5 accomplished loan signings coming from if you can’t afford their loan fees and to contribute to their salaries?

Edited September 11, 2023 by Jourdan

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

Just now, Jourdan said:

There are exceptions and there are norms. What I said was that building a good passing side is usually complex, expensive and timely.

To me, Burley and Smith’s sides were exceptional in every sense of the word, hence why they are still reference points for many fans some 20-25 years later.

If it was normal and easily achievable to produce a good passing side, surely the last 25-30 years as Derby fans would have been much more fruitful?

Where are these 4-5 accomplished loan signings coming from if you can’t afford their loan fees and to contribute to their salaries?

We had a budget, a lot of which I see as wasted.   I've said along we needed younger legs. If a team thinks the way you play football is conjusive to that player getting better development, they'd happily negotiate a lower loan fee over a bigger fee at another club.  It's a pee in the ocean. 

I know we missed out on one player just after we signed Washington who's started very well at another club in this league. We missed out because another club offered more wages and he was due to sign that day.  I was surprised we were gazumped by this club but the funds were used elsewhere and this fella looks a much better player. 

 

 

 

 

[Jourdan]

2 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

We had a budget, a lot of which I see as wasted.   I've said along we needed younger legs. If a team thinks the way you play football is conjusive to that player getting better development, they'd happily negotiate a lower loan fee over a bigger fee at another club.  It's a pee in the ocean. 

I know we missed out on one player just after we signed Washington who's started very well at another club in this league. We missed out because another club offered more wages and he was due to sign that day.  I was surprised we were gazumped by this club but the funds were used elsewhere and this fella looks a much better player. 

Are the kind of young players we want attainable though?

All summer fans have suggested we sign Nombe, for example. In the end he goes to Rotherham for around £1 million. So perhaps there is a disparity between what we ideally want and what we can realistically get?

We’ve wasted our budget? How do we know? Surely it takes more than six games to reach such a conclusion?

This would be a good point if we were 30-35 games in and looked toast. What if this mystery player’s form dwindles and what if the players we signed instead begin to click and we shoot up the table? Would you still think the same?

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

6 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

Are the kind of young players we want attainable though?

All summer fans have suggested we sign Nombe, for example. In the end he goes to Rotherham for around £1 million. So perhaps there is a disparity between what we ideally want and what we can realistically get?

We’ve wasted our budget? How do we know? Surely it takes more than six games to reach such a conclusion?

This would be a good point if we were 30-35 games in and looked toast. What if this mystery player’s form dwindles and what if the players we signed instead begin to click and we shoot up the table? Would you still think the same?

Loan wise and possibly fee wise I think we had better options.  They don't need to be established. Azaz on loan at Plymouth or Mehmeti who Wycombe picked up.  There are players out there.  Ben House at Lincoln would be perfect in this side. I always knew that any fees for Knight and Bielik would go to clearing Legacy debt on transfer fees, so a million for a player was unlikely. We should have jumped at Clarke-Harris for 800k mind if it had been at all possible.   

Elder can't play as he's being asked, Washington is a donkey,  Bradley looked like he could be a good signing but hasn't got the legs, Wilson has no position and is another treatment table player we've taken on.  Re signing Loach ?.  Waghorn has started well and Ward looks like he's the new Knight doing everyone's running.  Don't know about the other fellas they've brought in yet.  With Elder and Bradley we have, I would imagine however, got a huge wedge of wages available now sat on the bench. 

Players form can dwindle but we could have had a lot of craft and goals from this player from what I've seen, certainly in this league, so Washington coming in and missing out on him when that wage could have been available was disappointing. 

[Bris Vegas]

6 hours ago, Andicis said:

Of the games you cited, Pompey and Bolton were good away points, and a good home win vs Bolton. Ipswich away was always going to be a very tough challenge, and Wednesday at home wasn't a bad point either. 

Barnsley had a stuttering start to the season, Charlton away wasn't a good result, nor Shrewsbury, Fleetwood, Plymouth or Lincoln.

Rosenior also was able to play Barnsley, Plymouth and Peterborough at home. He didn't have to manage away against a top side. If we're honest, Rosenior didn't have tougher games did he really? 

The away games Rosenior played against Shrewsbury, Fleetwood and Lincoln. Remind me how many points Warne took from those home games - I’ll give you a clue, we didn’t win any of them.

Rosenior’s PPG record was better than Warne’s PPG against the same teams. 

And Warne had far easier home games.

[IlsonDerby]

15 hours ago, YorkshireRam said:

If they both rely to the same extent on that variable, then you could remove it from the equation and just compare the other elements? I'd argue less passes to the final shooting position constitutes more effective build-up, due to there simply being less involved in reaching that point in play. That's mainly what I'm getting at, reaching the same position quicker is more effective- it's a very surface level point though. 

But you have to take into account quality of chance. Who cares if we get a shot off if it’s from 30 yards out/from a stupid angle/into an absolute crowd of players? 
 

Roaeniors football created good chances, enough to comfortably win every game during his time with us but it was when Collins forgot where the goal was and others were found wanting too in the finishing dept. 
 

People speak about Rosenior like it’s chance after chance under Warne. It isn’t.

[IlsonDerby]

17 hours ago, ram59 said:

Actually, I think that you'll find that they are third tier players, they will be playing lg1 fixtures again this week, unfortunately. You're avoiding my point though with that list of players, I was talking about the goal kick situation with the CHs and the keeper, unfortunately the CHs and the keeper at LR's disposal last season were not comfortable or even capable of playing that tactic with any degree of success and LR stubbornly refused to accept it. I got to the stage where I was hoping that the ref gave a corner rather than a goal kick every time the ball went out.

Yes but you’re using ‘third tier’ to suggest they aren’t capable of playing the football some of us want them to play. I’ve given you a list of players who are. Cashin and Nelson would be fine getting ball from the keeper. Nelson’s better on the ball than Davies. 

[Archied]

8 hours ago, trappatoni said:

 

Because he's a class above league 1.   

So is hourihan and a few others that people say can’t play under warne style , you have not the first clue whether didzy would have had the season he had with rosenior in charge , he certainly would not have had the space in games with the opposition given half an hour to get set before we got the ball to him , 

[Archied]

8 hours ago, Jourdan said:

There are exceptions and there are norms. What I said was that building a good passing side is usually complex, expensive and timely.

To me, Burley’s and Smith’s sides were exceptional in every sense of the word, hence why they are still reference points for many fans some 20-25 years later.

If it was normal and easily achievable to produce a good passing side, surely the last 25-30 years as Derby fans would have been much more fruitful?

Where are these 4-5 accomplished loan signings coming from if you can’t afford their loan fees and to contribute to their salaries?

And garuantee games no matter how they are playing

[jono]

We seem 2 faced. Some games I have enjoyed, seen skill and thought in enjoyably good contests. Others we have looked horribly clumsy simplistic and dull. Jury is out for me. 
The oddity being that it doesn’t appear to be the quality of opposition that defines the either or. Puzzled !

[trappatoni]

41 minutes ago, Archied said:

So is hourihan and a few others that people say can’t play under warne style , you have not the first clue whether didzy would have had the season he had with rosenior in charge , he certainly would not have had the space in games with the opposition given half an hour to get set before we got the ball to him , 

 

Let's go back to my original point which was simply to question in what way we played more effective football under Warne than Rosenior when Rosenior had a better win/draw/loss record, had us higher than we are now and as high as we finished under Warne - and did it largely without McGoldrick.  

 

You can question whether McGoldrick would have been an asset to Rosenior but even without him the point still stands that statistically Warne doesn't have us playing more effective football. 

[Tamworthram]

6 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

The away games Rosenior played against Shrewsbury, Fleetwood and Lincoln. Remind me how many points Warne took from those home games - I’ll give you a clue, we didn’t win any of them.

Rosenior’s PPG record was better than Warne’s PPG against the same teams. 

And Warne had far easier home games.

Surely everyone (Warne supporters and Warne haters alike) must concede that it’s impossible to do any meaningful comparison between Warne and Rosenior when looking at results. Mainly because RL wasn’t in charge long enough (he may have gone on to achieve great things or, performances and results under him may have tailed off. We simply don’t know) but also because there are too many other variables including how the opposition performed on the day and what sort of form were they in (had the season been going long enough for them to have even established any real form?). It’s impossible to tell if PW would have started the season better or worse than LR, we’ll never know if we would have achieved the same unbeaten run under LR or if it would have continued longer. We’ll never know if, under LR our end of season form/results would have been worse, the same or better. 

In short, through no fault of either manager, we just can’t compare them or seriously suggest we would have done better or worse under the other manager.

[RoyMac5]

9 hours ago, Jourdan said:

There are exceptions and there are norms. What I said was that building a good passing side is usually complex, expensive and timely.

To me, Burley’s and Smith’s sides were exceptional in every sense of the word, hence why they are still reference points for many fans some 20-25 years later.

If it was normal and easily achievable to produce a good passing side, surely the last 25-30 years as Derby fans would have been much more fruitful?

Where are these 4-5 accomplished loan signings coming from if you can’t afford their loan fees and to contribute to their salaries?

Perhaps if you consider the quality of managers involved in our more successful periods that might give you a hint as to what is the defining factor? They aren’t seen as the norm because they are much better managers than lots of the ones we have employed - did they also have better recruitment networks?

[Gerry Daly]

19 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Perhaps if you consider the quality of managers involved in our more successful periods that might give you a hint as to what is the defining factor? They aren’t seen as the norm because they are much better managers than lots of the ones we have employed - did they also have better recruitment networks?

We didn’t have any money when Burley was manager but just look at the quality and imagination of some of his signings. Bisgaard, Rasiak and Idiakez were all free transfers but they were from Italy, Denmark and Spain. Now look at the unimaginative rubbish we have signed this summer. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Gerry Daly

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

I am not answering the poll because it's too black-and-white for me. There are elements of the Paul Warne philosophy that I like. Speed in the transition from defense to attack and a level of physicality to go with it. I do think it's important to split formation and 'philosophy' up, because you can have a single philosophy and multiple formations that work alongside it. 

There were spells last season that I really enjoyed, when the players were played in a formation that suited them and applied the philosophy Warne wants. It coincided with our best run of form, I definitely enjoyed that.

What I don't enjoy is when Warne plays a formation that the players are ill-suited to, or not coached well enough to execute (probably a bit of both). The philosophy ends up being reduced to kick-and-rush football with no shape, pure chaos, and the results reflect that.

Unfortunately, this season we have seen mostly the latter. I hope Warne is pragmatic enough to notice and make the changes needed. Time will tell. If he can't replicate the kind of form we hit at times last season he'll be gone by this time next year.

Edited September 12, 2023 by JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta

[RodleyRam]

Late to the party on this thread as usual.

I understand the theory of what Warneball is, I can broadly get behind the theory, though I would prefer us to be more possession based. As a direct comparison I thought Rosenior was onto something, the players just needed to better judge when you keep it and when to move it.

That said we have seen glimpses of Warne's style of play being both effective and exciting to watch.

With the right players who could execute that style of play consistently, then I could get behind it.

The issue is there's often a stark difference between the touted style of play and what style of play we actually get. We rarely look to control games which seems utter madness given our resources.

Often it looks a total mess and our good quality players look like they've never seen a football before and run about a lot with very little impact. It's painful to watch and frustrating to see talent being wasted on a chaotic style of play.

Somewhere between Rosenior and Warne would suit these players and would be good to watch. I hope Warne is able to adjust sufficiently to bring out the ability of the players, as it is I don't look forward to match days.

[Chris_Martin]

9 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

The away games Rosenior played against Shrewsbury, Fleetwood and Lincoln. Remind me how many points Warne took from those home games - I’ll give you a clue, we didn’t win any of them.

Rosenior’s PPG record was better than Warne’s PPG against the same teams. 

And Warne had far easier home games.

Not to mention rosenior didnt have didzy either

[Archied]

2 hours ago, trappatoni said:

 

Let's go back to my original point which was simply to question in what way we played more effective football under Warne than Rosenior when Rosenior had a better win/draw/loss record, had us higher than we are now and as high as we finished under Warne - and did it largely without McGoldrick.  

 

You can question whether McGoldrick would have been an asset to Rosenior but even without him the point still stands that statistically Warne doesn't have us playing more effective football. 

In your opinion , based on liams 9 games at the start of a season where teams and players are in a tiny snapshot of what form we and they were in when we played them , warne had us top 6 for a long period with a sniff of challenging top two , liam never had us in top 6 ,,, you see how easy it is to spin and twist , we have no idea how Liam would have done over the season ( even mystic Meg ) and that’s the only measure that’s of any use , even then so many factors can come into play ,

im ok with opinions , we all have them and the differ widely, where I get bored is people stating opinions as virtual facts 

warne has started poorly and will be very much at risk of the sack if we don’t have a real good tilt at promotion as in my opinion there’s no excuses as I think he has the squad to at the very least expect that