Who enjoys Warne's football poll?

[Jubbs]

16 hours ago, ram59 said:

However, watching England yesterday, reminded me of watching Derby under LR. It was so slow, passing for the sake of it. For all the possession England created virtually nothing, with the goal coming from pure Warne ball, 50 yard diagonal long ball

Under LR, we had 189 shots (15.75 per game, highest in the league at the time) yet only scored 8/28 big chances we created. We were one of 2 teams in the league that had scored less than their xG total.

[DavesaRam]

15 hours ago, Curtains said:

What sort of football do you like because I as sure as hell don’t understand what you are talking about  .  How do you know we aren’t going to play well from now on in. 
It’s 6 games . I reiterate 6 games 

I like good, passing football, and am able to enjoy “long ball” of the George Thorne variety. What I do like that Paul Warne has brought us is the urgency with which we get the ball forwards, especially having seen so much of the sideways and backwards variety under Clement, Cocu and Rosenior.

But apart from the Wigan match this season, we simply haven’t come up with the goods, barely able to string more than two or three passes together, and being outplayed by the opposition, especially lesser teams on much lower budgets. I don’t go matches to watch the opposition play well, I go to watch us play better than them. 

[YorkshireRam]

23 hours ago, Big Trav said:

I've gone for the 'don't know' option because at times we play some really lovely stuff, especially when we play it out from the back. However far too many times this season we've either overplayed the ball or underplayed the ball. Perfect example is Oxford at home when Nelson just needed to get rid instead of trying to play the pass. It's happened a lot this season and it's just about finding the right balance. At Peterborough we had a great mix of long diagonal balls and attacked with purpose and when needed we could get on the ball and calm the game down a bit. I think it's going to take a little bit of time until we see proper 'Warne ball'

This is the sanest take I've seen on here so far. There've been glimpses of really good football, both last season and this, however there have also been patches where there doesn't seem to be cohesion between intended style of play and execution. I've always surmised part of this is the hangover from the possession-based style that was favoured by all previous managers going back to Cocu; especially young players when this is all they've ever known as professionals. The mistakes this season, in my opinion, have all stemmed from execution, rather than fundamental flaws in the gameplan- that brings some reprieve for Warne, for me. 

There were many times in the Championship where we wondered whether the possession-based style was effective, given the calibre of players available ie. ''It works for Man City, but we're not them''. This is only more present in the league below, and we were seeing signs of that under Rosenior. Warne came in and had to use midfielders as fullbacks due to squad depth, despite that got us playing well and winning, utilising a more effective brand of football for the division we find ourselves in. 

I don't agree that Warne's style is hoofball (as stats in the thread previously disprove), nor is it particularly defensive- no sign of low block, wingbacks pushed so high it's essentially a back 3 both in AND out out of possession. I'd actually state what Warne's aiming to do is more attacking than defensive. It's direct- route one could be an applicable term, but it's not Pulis' style which is what comes to mind when 'hoofball' is mentioned. 

Due to the lack of squad depth last season and injuries this time around, it feels like Warne doesn't have all the pieces to his puzzle (he's part of recruitment, this isn't an excuse, just a mitigating factor) but the positives I have seen suggest to me that if we can get a settled side that know their roles, are comfortable in them, and have built up some form; then we could see success this season playing fast, direct, effective football.

 

[ram59]

6 hours ago, IlsonDerby said:

Third tier players? Hourihane, Bird, Smith, Waggy, Cashin, Ward, Fozzy, Sibley, McGildrick 

 

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.

[Jubbs]

22 minutes ago, ram59 said:

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.

And how many goals did we concede under LR from playing out the back from goal kicks? I'll wait for your answer patiently.

[trappatoni]

1 hour ago, YorkshireRam said:

This is the sanest take I've seen on here so far. There've been glimpses of really good football, both last season and this, however there have also been patches where there doesn't seem to be cohesion between intended style of play and execution. I've always surmised part of this is the hangover from the possession-based style that was favoured by all previous managers going back to Cocu; especially young players when this is all they've ever known as professionals. The mistakes this season, in my opinion, have all stemmed from execution, rather than fundamental flaws in the gameplan- that brings some reprieve for Warne, for me. 

There were many times in the Championship where we wondered whether the possession-based style was effective, given the calibre of players available ie. ''It works for Man City, but we're not them''. This is only more present in the league below, and we were seeing signs of that under Rosenior. Warne came in and had to use midfielders as fullbacks due to squad depth, despite that got us playing well and winning, utilising a more effective brand of football for the division we find ourselves in. 

I don't agree that Warne's style is hoofball (as stats in the thread previously disprove), nor is it particularly defensive- no sign of low block, wingbacks pushed so high it's essentially a back 3 both in AND out out of possession. I'd actually state what Warne's aiming to do is more attacking than defensive. It's direct- route one could be an applicable term, but it's not Pulis' style which is what comes to mind when 'hoofball' is mentioned. 

Due to the lack of squad depth last season and injuries this time around, it feels like Warne doesn't have all the pieces to his puzzle (he's part of recruitment, this isn't an excuse, just a mitigating factor) but the positives I have seen suggest to me that if we can get a settled side that know their roles, are comfortable in them, and have built up some form; then we could see success this season playing fast, direct, effective football.

 

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. 

[YorkshireRam]

9 minutes 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. 

I define effectiveness as ease at which goals are scored- direct play with a focus on fast breaks is a very effective way of playing football as you're aiming straight for the end product, with no pfaffing between- obviously this has its pitfalls but i'd argue it's technically more efficient when compared against the overall aims of football?

[RoyMac5]

29 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

I define effectiveness as ease at which goals are scored- direct play with a focus on fast breaks is a very effective way of playing football as you're aiming straight for the end product, with no pfaffing between- obviously this has its pitfalls but i'd argue it's technically more efficient when compared against the overall aims of football?

Both ‘fast’ and possession based football rely heavily at most levels on the effectiveness of the main striker. Warne had Didzy but Rosenior had Collins. Longball, crosses, passing through the thirds all become reliant on the finish and as we’ve seen Collins isn’t as reliable as Didzy.

Edited September 11, 2023 by RoyMac5

[jimtastic56]

5 hours ago, TomTom92 said:

Very good point and i can only speak for myself, but i don't care about any of the nice things as long as we win on a saturday.

I know the two aren't exclusive, but ultimately i'd have the devil himself as manager if he got us 3 points on a saturday. 

I like PW as a person and i'm desperate for it to work, but other peoples fears about him being tactically poor etc. seem to be correct. I think maybe Derby is too big for him. I remember him making a passing comment about fans spotting Waggy in a pre season photo and he compared us to MI5. Richie Barker also told a story where he was surprised to see a young boy wearing a Derby shirt in the Yorkshire area, before he realised that Derby are followed throughout the country. 

We're not going to be patient especially in League 1, where there's an unjust feeling that we should be there in the first place. PW seems to be Nigel mk2 except Nige's recruitment was better and he had the luxury of being in the championship to keep us satisfied.

Didn’t Brian Clough say “He would shoot his own grandmother for 3 pts on a Saturday “. We know what he meant. It’s no good still blaming the EFL for us being in Lg1 , we went to Shef W last season and blew the play offs ourselves. I do think DC wants to sweep away all the negativity and I think Warne will eventually do it .

[YorkshireRam]

11 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Both ‘fast’ and possession based football rely heavily at most levels on the effectiveness of the main striker. Warne had Didzy but Rosenior had Collins. Longball, crosses, passing through the thirds all become reliant on the finish and as we’ve seen Collins isn’t as reliable as Didzy.

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. 

[duncanjwitham]

16 minutes 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. 

The problem with getting there quickly is you don't always have the same amount of support or control when you actually get there.  A possession-based team might take longer to get the ball into the final third, but when it does there will be plenty of bodies around to get involved in creating/taking chances, and the ball is far more likely to actually stay in the final third while that happens.  A more direct team might actually get the ball into the final third quicker, but lose it more quickly too because there are less passing options, less people to cross to etc.  Or the first ball-receiver in the final third (i.e. the guy you've gone long to) might never even get control of it at all, because he's dealing with a direct ball to fight for, or a longer pass to chase after and he get in a foot-race for, rather than a relatively short ball to feet.

I'm not saying either is necessarily better or worse, but it's not simply a case of quicker=better, there's some kind of quality issue at play too.

[YorkshireRam]

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

The problem with getting there quickly is you don't always have the same amount of support or control when you actually get there.  A possession-based team might take longer to get the ball into the final third, but when it does there will be plenty of bodies around to get involved in creating/taking chances, and the ball is far more likely to actually stay in the final third while that happens.  A more direct team might actually get the ball into the final third quicker, but lose it more quickly too because there are less passing options, less people to cross to etc.  Or the first ball-receiver in the final third (i.e. the guy you've gone long to) might never even get control of it at all, because he's dealing with a direct ball to fight for, or a longer pass to chase after and he get in a foot-race for, rather than a relatively short ball to feet.

I'm not saying either is necessarily better or worse, but it's not simply a case of quicker=better, there's some kind of quality issue at play too.

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?

[DavesaRam]

27 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The problem with getting there quickly is you don't always have the same amount of support or control when you actually get there.  A possession-based team might take longer to get the ball into the final third, but when it does there will be plenty of bodies around to get involved in creating/taking chances, and the ball is far more likely to actually stay in the final third while that happens.  A more direct team might actually get the ball into the final third quicker, but lose it more quickly too because there are less passing options, less people to cross to etc.  Or the first ball-receiver in the final third (i.e. the guy you've gone long to) might never even get control of it at all, because he's dealing with a direct ball to fight for, or a longer pass to chase after and he get in a foot-race for, rather than a relatively short ball to feet.

I'm not saying either is necessarily better or worse, but it's not simply a case of quicker=better, there's some kind of quality issue at play too.

Quality? Nope. You’ve got me there. You’ll have to remind me. 👀

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes 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?

10 games for Rosenior is far too small a sample size to make any comparisons like that, especially given that he was missing McGoldrick for a bunch of them.  And I seem to remember we missed a lot of genuinely good chances under Rosenior, which is very little to do with the actual system/style of play and more down to individual players.  And likewise, have had plenty of games under Warne where we've never remotely looked like scoring.

And like I said, neither is necessarily better or worse, you can absolutely make either extreme (of directness that is) work, at this level at least.  What really matters is playing to your strengths, having a good game-plan and executing it etc.  Then it's just down to personal taste as to what you'd prefer to what.

[YorkshireRam]

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

10 games for Rosenior is far too small a sample size to make any comparisons like that, especially given that he was missing McGoldrick for a bunch of them.  And I seem to remember we missed a lot of genuinely good chances under Rosenior, which is very little to do with the actual system/style of play and more down to individual players.  And likewise, have had plenty of games under Warne where we've never remotely looked like scoring.

And like I said, neither is necessarily better or worse, you can absolutely make either extreme (of directness that is) work, at this level at least.  What really matters is playing to your strengths, having a good game-plan and executing it etc.  Then it's just down to personal taste as to what you'd prefer to what.

I'm starting to confuse myself at this point, but in my mind more effective isn't necessarily better. It's more direct and gets you from your own goal to the opposition's quicker and is therefore more effective at advancing play- i'm not even sure that's the point I was initially making, it was a just throwaway adjective added to the list for good measure really 😂

[Ghost of Clough]

32 minutes 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?

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.

[YorkshireRam]

1 minute 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.

The point wasn't LR v Warne (I was actually against LR being let go), my initial point transgressed into something way deeper than i intended 😂

It was more just that fast and direct has its merits v what we'd previously been seeing which was difficulties with scoring despite good chance creation. Maybe 'effective at this level when executed properly' was more fitting, rather than wading into overall footballing philosophy haha!

[Jourdan]

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.

[duncanjwitham]

34 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

I'm starting to confuse myself at this point, but in my mind more effective isn't necessarily better. It's more direct and gets you from your own goal to the opposition's quicker and is therefore more effective at advancing play- i'm not even sure that's the point I was initially making, it was a just throwaway adjective added to the list for good measure really 😂

I suspect most people are going to equate “more effective” with better, even if people may have different definitions of better.  I think you’re sort of trying to argue for some kind of attacking efficiency measure (passes-per-chance-created or passes-per-shot for example), but while that might be an interesting thing to use to compare teams and styles, I don’t think it’s necessarily anything that you would necessarily want to maximise or minimise.  As much as anything, the teams that have a high pass-per-shot value, are probably just going to be the teams that pass the ball a lot.  

[Stive Pesley]

I've seen us win twice this season and it was enjoyable enough

Not sure that it matters though - we're in League One - the standard of football is generally not great and by definition we don't and won't have a huge amount of gifted players on display. We'll have a bunch of L1 standard players trying their best to not muck it up