Who enjoys Warne's football poll?

[May Contain Nuts]

Poor old Paul.

Fancy being given nearly a whole season to work out a way of playing that suits your squad, a full transfer window to sign 9, 10 players to help further implement your chosen style and a full pre-season to drill the tactics you'll be using into your squad, ready for kick-off.

And then the fans have the temerity to expect clear signs of a cohesive tactical approach, to look like an organised unit where the players clearly understand and fit the roles being asked of them. Entitled b*******!

Hard times.

Fast forward to the end of the season, we haven't managed to achieve a play-off place or higher. Well.....  we did have a slow start from having to bed so many players in, and we had those injuries, and he didn't get 100% of his targets in so it's still wasn't his squad, and the referees were awful, so you can't judge the manager yet.

Another 4-6 months forward... we had a lot of players out of contract who needed replacing, a total overhaul of the squad, we've got to give the new players time to gel, and PPS is still being rebuilt from when that meteor hit it so he's not had the benefit of a '12th man' like everyone else... too early to judge.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[Archied]

4 hours ago, trappatoni said:

In what way did Warne get us playing more effective football than Rosenior.   We were 7th when Rosenior left and he barely had McGoldrick available.   Add in the cup competitions - and they are competitive fixtures after all - and Rosenior's record was very good albeit over a  short time frame. 

This really makes me giggle , how do you or any of us know how mcgoldrick would have done in liams style / execution team ? He played under warne in a warne style team and had the best season he’s ever had as a pro 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Andicis]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

How much of that is due to Rosenior being up against stronger sides than the average L1 club? The sides he faced finished: 1st, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 19th. Oxford's had an outlier of a season, where their xG suggested they deserved to finish 7th despite actually finishing 19th.

In Rosenior's 9 games in charge, we scored 9 goals and gained 14 points. In the return fixtures with Warne, we scored 12 but gained only 8 points.

Warne also had a fully fit McGoldrick for those games whereas Rosenior didn't.

Rosenior was in charge of the first 9 games, in which some of the teams that finished strongly were not the better sides at that point, Barnsley for example had a pretty slow start. It's kind of weird to use finishing positions to appraise performances in the first 9 games. 

[Andicis]

55 minutes ago, Kokosnuss said:

Poor old Paul.

Fancy being given nearly a whole season to work out a way of playing that suits your squad, a full transfer window to sign 9, 10 players to help further implement your chosen style and a full pre-season to drill the tactics you'll be using into your squad, ready for kick-off.

And then the fans have the temerity to expect clear signs of a cohesive tactical approach, to look like an organised unit where the players clearly understand and fit the roles being asked of them. Entitled b*******!

Hard times.

Fast forward to the end of the season, we haven't managed to achieve a play-off place or higher. Well.....  we did have a slow start from having to bed so many players in, and we had those injuries, and he didn't get 100% of his targets in so it's still wasn't his squad, and the referees were awful, so you can't judge the manager yet.

Another 4-6 months forward... we had a lot of players out of contract who needed replacing, a total overhaul of the squad, we've got to give the new players time to gel, and PPS is still being rebuilt from when that meteor hit it so he's not had the benefit of a '12th man' like everyone else... too early to judge.

You have used this particular strawman a couple of times now, maybe it's time to change the record? Simply, if you think Warne has a lot of apologists making excuses for him or even that he is doing that himself then you are not living in reality. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, Jourdan said:

I think when it works, our football under Warne can be very enjoyable and no less exciting to watch than any other top League 1 team. The challenge for Warne is to marry performances and results more consistently so we can improve on last season.

I get having a preference for passing attacking football, but there is a reason why there have only been three Derby teams in 25 years to produce it on a reasonably consistent basis.

Good passing attacking teams are not easy (nor usually cheap or quick) to produce, otherwise we would have had far more success at it in the last 25 years.

I think Derby fans in general are too wedded to this idea that we are a club that should play in a certain way. As fans of a club in our position, we surely have to be patient, understanding, open-minded, and also able to manage our expectations.

As far as I am concerned, people are expecting too much too soon when we have signed 11 new players and we are only six games in. It’s not like it’s the same team from last season with 1-2 tweaks.

Nothing points to that more than Warne being stranded somewhere between wanting to implement his ideas and having to get results by any means to keep fans off his back. Is it any wonder tactics, style and selection all seem very muddled?

We are clearly still a work in progress but once Warne figures everything out, there is a good chance we can be both competitive and exciting to watch.

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.

 

[Bris Vegas]

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Rosenior was in charge of the first 9 games, in which some of the teams that finished strongly were not the better sides at that point, Barnsley for example had a pretty slow start. It's kind of weird to use finishing positions to appraise performances in the first 9 games. 

You can easily flip that and say playing teams 9th - 12th with six games remaining was also easier because they had nothing to play for. Similar to Wednesday on the final day of the season.

Rosenior had a far tougher nine games compared to Warne.

In Warne’s first 19 games in charge (going on a 15-game unbeaten run), only five of those games were against top half opposition. Ipswich (A) Wednesday (H) Pompey (A) and Bolton (H&A) and we only won 1 of those.

It’s no doubt we performed better under Rosenior. Not only did he pick up more points vs the same opposition than Warne, we created far more chances too.

 

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Bris Vegas said:

You can easily flip that and say playing teams 9th - 12th with six games remaining was also easier because they had nothing to play for. Similar to Wednesday on the final day of the season.

Rosenior had a far tougher nine games compared to Warne.

In Warne’s first 19 games in charge (going on a 15-game unbeaten run), only five of those games were against top half opposition. Ipswich (A) Wednesday (H) Pompey (A) and Bolton (H&A) and we only won 1 of those.

It’s no doubt we performed better under Rosenior. Not only did he pick up more points vs the same opposition than Warne, we created far more chances too.

 

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? 

[RoyMac5]

3 hours ago, YorkshireRam said:

I understand your point, but the stats under LR go a fair way to outright disproving this. We created a lot of chances but converted very little- so all that attacking support didn't actually benefit us... I don't think it's a coincidence that faster + more direct = more goals; at least in our specific case anyway. It's possible that having fewer attacking players present, but by merit of the system, fewer oppositional defensive players due to the speed of the break is actually more beneficial to scoring goals, and therefore more effective?

So as I said, Warne had Didzy and Rosenior was stuck with Collins.

[Jubbs]

44 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Barnsley for example had a pretty slow start

I mean before they played us they had lost 1-0 to Plymouth, beat Cheltenham 1-0 and beat Middlesbrough away 1-0 in the cup. So it wasn't as if they'd been awful before they played us. After, they had some iffy results like 0-3 to Wycombe but then they also drew 2-2 away to Ipswich and beat Wednesday 2-0 away.

[May Contain Nuts]

42 minutes ago, Andicis said:

You have used this particular strawman a couple of times now, maybe it's time to change the record? Simply, if you think Warne has a lot of apologists making excuses for him or even that he is doing that himself then you are not living in reality. 

You know shouting Strawman every time you think you see elements of one, as if it's a term you've just learned at 6th form debate club and want to show people how clever you are doesn't actually make you clever, or win any arguments, right?

The ending of the post was to show it may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek.

However if you really want to claim I'm not 'living in reality' if I think there are people out there giving Warne a longer leash and a rather . more leeway than is perhaps warranted (especially if you compare the amount given to him Vs that given to past employees of Derby County)  then I'd suggest you're rather blind to the obvious, or just don't want to see what's in front of your face.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[Jubbs]

32 minutes ago, Andicis said:

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? 

You've got to be kidding right? He also played Wycombe, who Warne also lost to like all 4 of the mentioned teams here, Warne lost away to. We got absolutely slaughtered against Barnsley away, Plymouth was closer but they deserved the win on the balance of play and Peterborough we had an okay first half but couldn't score then got battered in the 2nd half. 

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, Kokosnuss said:

You know shouting Strawman every time you think you see elements of one, as if it's a term you've just learned at 6th form debate club and want to show people how clever you are doesn't actually make you clever, or win any arguments, right?

The ending of the post was to show it may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek.

However if you really want to claim I'm not 'living in reality' if I think there are people out there giving Warne a longer leash and a rather . more leeway than is perhaps warranted then I'd suggest you're rather blind to the obvious, or just don't want to see what's in front of your face.

Well if people stopped using that particular method of argument and decided to make points in good faith then I wouldn't need to keep using it. However, since that's exactly what you are using and then you flipped to ad hominem immediately it pretty much clarifies the position.

Yeah, it was a tongue in cheek and exaggerated post done in a way that made it abundantly clear your thoughts on the matter.

It's not being blind to the reality, it's just not taking such a hardline view one side or another. I can admit there are flaws in how we've played and that there is plenty of room for improvement but also see elements that are positive in it too. I would say that my judgement was less impaired than yours here, frankly. 

[Andicis]

8 minutes ago, Jubbs said:

I mean before they played us they had lost 1-0 to Plymouth, beat Cheltenham 1-0 and beat Middlesbrough away 1-0 in the cup. So it wasn't as if they'd been awful before they played us. After, they had some iffy results like 0-3 to Wycombe but then they also drew 2-2 away to Ipswich and beat Wednesday 2-0 away.

Yes, but the direct comparison is to when Warne played Barnsley away, when they were flying high. And it's clear that you would rather play them at the point Rosenior did than when Warne did. 

 

3 minutes ago, Jubbs said:

You've got to be kidding right? He also played Wycombe, who Warne also lost to like all 4 of the mentioned teams here, Warne lost away to. We got absolutely slaughtered against Barnsley away, Plymouth was closer but they deserved the win on the balance of play and Peterborough we had an okay first half but couldn't score then got battered in the 2nd half. 

Again, Warne played Wycombe away vs Rosenior at home which is a tougher game. We did get slaughtered by Barnsley away, it was also the worst possible time to play them and Wednesday lost to them just after we did. Plymouth was a close game but Rosenior didn't do any better in the reverse (again, better time to play them and at home). Peterborough was pretty unlucky. 

[May Contain Nuts]

23 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Well if people stopped using that particular method of argument and decided to make points in good faith then I wouldn't need to keep using it. However, since that's exactly what you are using and then you flipped to ad hominem immediately it pretty much clarifies the position.

Yeah, it was a tongue in cheek and exaggerated post done in a way that made it abundantly clear your thoughts on the matter.

It's not being blind to the reality, it's just not taking such a hardline view one side or another. I can admit there are flaws in how we've played and that there is plenty of room for improvement but also see elements that are positive in it too. I would say that my judgement was less impaired than yours here, frankly. 

Ah 'good faith', 'ad hominem' -  two more of your favourites!

I can't think of anything more tedious than arguing about argument techniques, tbh. They're usually a shield and a distraction from the points at hand.

If you actually read my (serious) post in reply to the OP you'd see I also said I enjoy a few aspects of Warne's football, don't think the intention is to play awful ugly stuff ("anything but"), but pointed out a few faults in his ideology that I see holding us back which won't change no matter how long you give him and as such will need to be worked around rather than fixed.

On the Paul Warne poll I voted to reassess at Christmas, I've never once said I think he should be sacked or that he won't be able to bring us success.

The thoughts you believe it 'abundantly clear' I hold are of your own interpretation and not those I actually hold.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[Andicis]

Just now, Kokosnuss said:

Ah 'good faith', 'ad hominem' -  two more of your favourites!

If you actually read my (serious) post in reply to the OP you'd see I also said I enjoy a few aspects of Warne's football , don't think the intention is to play awful ugly stuff ("anything but"), but pointed out a few faults in his ideology that I see holding us back, and which won't change no matter how long you give him and as such will need to be worked around rather than fixed.

On the Paul Warne poll I voted to reassess at Christmas, I've never once said I think he should be sacked or that he won't be able to bring us success.

The thoughts you believe it 'abundantly clear' I hold are of your own interpretation and not those I actually hold.

Says more about the calibre of discussion centred around Warne than anything else.

I often agree with what you post, and in fact agree with your serious post on this thread as I think it's a fairly honest appraisal on our limitations. For the record I voted that I don't like Warne's style of football.

I definitely take issue with the misrepresentations of arguments in defence of Warne and the insistence that the only angle you could possibly take it to endlessly call for more time in spite of results, I'm not sure anyone on here fits that billing. 

 

[CBRammette]

[europia]

Actually at the moment it doesn't seem to be either attractive football or winning football. 

[Foreveram]

43 minutes ago, europia said:

Actually at the moment it doesn't seem to be either attractive football or winning football. 

Apart from Burton, Fleetwood and Peterborough.

[trappatoni]

4 hours ago, Archied said:

This really makes me giggle , how do you or any of us know how mcgoldrick would have done in liams style / execution team ? He played under warne in a warne style team and had the best season he’s ever had as a pro 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Because he's a class above league 1.   

[Foreveram]

3 minutes ago, trappatoni said:

 

Because he's a class above league 1.   

He’s playing in league two.