Warne Out Out

[MadAmster]

Am I the only one feeling somewhat "Warne out" by all the Warne Out threads and posts all over "social" media?

[Ghost of Clough]

11 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

11:40 onwards in here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0grntp1

"Hopefully we'll be able to make subs, but not patronising the opposition, I'll only make subs if the game is completely out of control either way. If we're getting humped I might as well let the academy lads play and if we're winning comfortably I will."

"would have brought [Weston on vs Barnsley] if all subs weren't used". We only used 3 subs, with the last one at 84 minutes. Was he suggesting he would have only brought Weston on in injury time when he wouldn't be a 'risk' and throw away a 3-0 lead?

[BathRam72]

12 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

Am I the only one feeling somewhat "Warne out" by all the Warne Out threads and posts all over "social" media?

You are not alone

[duncanjwitham]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

"would have brought [Weston on vs Barnsley] if all subs weren't used". We only used 3 subs, with the last one at 84 minutes. Was he suggesting he would have only brought Weston on in injury time when he wouldn't be a 'risk' and throw away a 3-0 lead?

That's exactly what he seems to be saying.  The bit I quoted earlier, he almost seems to think that bringing academy lads on is an insult to the team you're playing against or something, so he's not going to do it while the game is still live.

[Walkley Ram]

22 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

That's exactly what he seems to be saying.  The bit I quoted earlier, he almost seems to think that bringing academy lads on is an insult to the team you're playing against or something, so he's not going to do it while the game is still live.

Remember when man u insulted the premier league by winning it with the class of 92? Still waiting for them to apologise for it.

[YorkshireRam]

1 hour ago, BondJovi said:

Given the strength of the starting 11, my instinct tells me were it not for the international call ups and injuries that bench would not have contained the youth. I don't believe for one second he wanted to use them. I guess the proof will be how much youth involvement we see in the coming games. Does your manager coming out and saying he will only play you if the game is won and 3-0 inspire you?

I don't see anybody arguing that Weston should be a first team regular based on one sub appearance, but the last two games presented an ideal chance to let him get more of a taste for first team football, a taste that he would learn far more from than sat on his ass. If he played well, then he puts himself in the picture, if not, he knows what to work on. Otherwise what does he gain. A reward for him scoring and assisting, we all know Warne loves his rewards.

As for the sub, I understand entriely the reasoning behind it. All it did was give players who weren't playing well, more time to continue. It didn't need the same faces in new places, it needed something different. The result speaks for itself on the effectiveness of his decision. 

The last point is purely an opinion formed on the comments Warne has made publicly, the actions he has taken with his team choices. When he started Thompson, his comments after the match were of the "only young bless him". It was very much a picked him because he had to, not because he wanted to. And that is the message I do not like. He played the youth against Wolves because he wanted to rest some of the first team, not because he wanted to see what the youth could do. He is not used to working with an academy and it shows. 

I would be delighted to be wrong, because it will be the best for the club. I hope I am. 

 

What were your thoughts on Cocu? 

The reason I ask is because he was a massive proponent of youth progression, and yet I don't remember that affording him all that much leniency. That cup game against Forest where Cocu played as many youngsters as he could, he got absolutely slated by a lot afterwards for his selection. So I don't instantly buy the idea that if we'd played the youth and lost by the same score, the people criticising Warne would be any more lenient towards him, because I've seen historically this isn't necessarily the case.

Bradley was practically our marquee summer signing and needs minutes for his match fitness. I can understand the logic behind giving him that before the international break. There's also been times under Warne where ''giving players who weren't playing well, more time to continue'' has actually worked when the system has been tweaked.

I actually agree, it would have been good to see Weston play, but if we're playing whataboutism- what if he was entirely anonymous, could barely get a sniff, to the point it damaged his confidence? Surely that'd be bad management to introduce him to a game if this were to happen? Throwing youngsters into random games isn't automatically good for their development. I don't know either way, I just struggle making sweeping statements about internal circumstances I know very little about. 

 

[Srg]

1 minute ago, YorkshireRam said:

What were your thoughts on Cocu? 

The reason I ask is because he was a massive proponent of youth progression, and yet I don't remember that affording him all that much leniency. That cup game against Forest where Cocu played as many youngsters as he could, he got absolutely slated by a lot afterwards for his selection. So I don't instantly buy the idea that if we'd played the youth and lost by the same score, the people criticising Warne would be any more lenient towards him, because I've seen historically this isn't necessarily the case.

Bradley was practically our marquee summer signing and needs minutes for his match fitness. I can understand the logic behind giving him that before the international break. There's also been times under Warne where ''giving players who weren't playing well, more time to continue'' has actually worked when the system has been tweaked.

I actually agree, it would have been good to see Weston play, but if we're playing whataboutism- what if he was entirely anonymous, could barely get a sniff, to the point it damaged his confidence? Surely that'd be bad management to introduce him to a game if this were to happen? Throwing youngsters into random games isn't automatically good for their development. I don't know either way, I just struggle making sweeping statements about internal circumstances I know very little about. 

 

Pre financial trouble and now are two different kettles of fish with different expectations and ambitions.

[YorkshireRam]

Just now, Srg said:

Pre financial trouble and now are two different kettles of fish with different expectations and ambitions.

Not sure I follow; so using youth is only imperative, or positive, under certain financial circumstances?

Warne was brought in to get us promoted. If we'd wanted attractive football and youth development, surely we'd have stuck with Rosenior? Maybe i'm being overly-realistic but I never expected Warne to use youth due to the circumstances under which he was appointed. Bashing him for it feels a bit like appointing Russell Martin and then complaining we pass the ball too much... 

[duncanjwitham]

17 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

What were your thoughts on Cocu? 

The reason I ask is because he was a massive proponent of youth progression, and yet I don't remember that affording him all that much leniency. That cup game against Forest where Cocu played as many youngsters as he could, he got absolutely slated by a lot afterwards for his selection. So I don't instantly buy the idea that if we'd played the youth and lost by the same score, the people criticising Warne would be any more lenient towards him, because I've seen historically this isn't necessarily the case.

Bradley was practically our marquee summer signing and needs minutes for his match fitness. I can understand the logic behind giving him that before the international break. There's also been times under Warne where ''giving players who weren't playing well, more time to continue'' has actually worked when the system has been tweaked.

I actually agree, it would have been good to see Weston play, but if we're playing whataboutism- what if he was entirely anonymous, could barely get a sniff, to the point it damaged his confidence? Surely that'd be bad management to introduce him to a game if this were to happen? Throwing youngsters into random games isn't automatically good for their development. I don't know either way, I just struggle making sweeping statements about internal circumstances I know very little about. 

 

There's a big gap between starting a team full of kids and basically playing none of them though.  

The way I see it, Weston should have been given 20 minutes or so against Barnsley.  Maybe he sticks away that 1-on-1 chance that Barkhuizen put miles wide or something.  Then if he does okay in that game, you start him in the Crewe game.  It's not the end of the world if he struggles, but if he plays well then all of a sudden you've got a useful first team squad player.  As it stands, Weston is a 20-year old that Warne doesn't want to play when it matters, so what point is there in him being here?  He's not suddenly going to turn into a useful player if he's barely allowed to play.

[DavesaRam]

On 15/11/2023 at 16:19, Sweetness34 said:

So not only are they playing in games that could have been used to blood youngsters at the same time as giving them a rest, they'll now have to work even harder in training.

I'm going to predict muscle injuries on the horizon, low squad morale.

Poor management in my eyes

The floggings will continue until morale improves.

[i-Ram]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

FYI, Rotherham attempted 25% more crosses than the 2nd highest in League 1 in the 21/22 season.

Did they do 25% more running around too?

You can see why he often gets name checked with Guardiola.

[Ghost of Clough]

15 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Did they do 25% more running around too?

You can see why he often gets name checked with Guardiola.

No, but those extra crosses did help them to score the 8th most goals in the league and 13th most from open play.

[Blondest Goat]

Would love to know what % of goals come from a cross.  It feels pretty old school to me and having watched us this season it certainly doesn't feel like it's an obvious way of having success.

[i-Ram]

4 minutes ago, Blondest Goat said:

Would love to know what % of goals come from a cross.  It feels pretty old school to me and having watched us this season it certainly doesn't feel like it's an obvious way of having success.

It is old school, but if you have a winger very good at crossing, and a centre forward who is good in the air, it can be a great sight to behold. Unfortunately we have neither. With the players we have it seems the least obvious way of achieving success.

[Ghost of Clough]

21 minutes ago, Blondest Goat said:

Would love to know what % of goals come from a cross.  It feels pretty old school to me and having watched us this season it certainly doesn't feel like it's an obvious way of having success.

In general, 20% of crosses find a teammate and 10% of shots go in. That's 1 goal every 50 crosses. This season, we have averaged 25.0 crosses a game, scoring a total of 3 goals.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Ghost of Clough

[Van der MoodHoover]

10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Absolutely nothing to base this on but I wouldn't expect a 3rd choice League One goalkeeper to be on that much.

May show that I'm out of touch of course.

With our legendary negotiating skills I'd estimate around £10k per week for a 2k p/w going rate......🙄

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

With our legendary negotiating skills I'd estimate around £10k per week for a 2k p/w going rate......🙄

On a 5 year contract...

[Chris_Martin]

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

No but I think most football fans know that when we talk about giving a manager money to spend we are talking about transfer kitty.

If we are talking about wages budget then you also need to knock off the wages that have been saved by departing players such as Knight who was one of our highest earners...

Weather you spend it on wages or transfer fees, it's still from the same pot. 

Just because you spend more on a transfer, doesn't automatically mean they are a better signing.

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

47 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

In general, 20% of crosses find a teammate and 10% of shots go in. That's 1 goal every 50 crosses. This season, we have averaged 25.0 crosses a game, scoring a total of 3 goals.

So the problem is that we are only crossing half as much as we should then. If anything Warne has got us playing too much irrelevant nonsense through the middle!

[FlyBritishMidland]

7 hours ago, BondJovi said:

Of course, I'd be bloody stupid to state feelings as facts without that person directly telling me.

The performance against Crewe was rubbish. The substitutions/tactical changes had zero impact on the match. The manager chose to put on a defender when losing the game instead of giving a chance to a player who had scored and asissted in his pervious game.

Do you think Weston was buzzing when a defender got sent on before him when the team needed goals? Maybe next time he needs to score a hat trick and then Warne might take note...

In terms of momentum, I was referring more to the feel good generated around the academy. Of course we can still have a good season, but this reluctance to ultilise our squad could be our undoing. Given the number of players out of contract in the summer, these cup competitons would have been a good time to see if we had anyone in the academy who could step up. Their chances are now seriously limited before January. Makes even less sense when the cash isn't flowing.

Warne has not sent out the right messages regarding the academy, intentional or not and just when it looks like that has changed, he blows it. What is the point in investing heavily in keeping our cat 1 status if the figurehead won't utilise it. He has only really used those players in a game against a fellow U21 team. Right now, there is not a clear pathway.

A lof of fans have their concerns about his use of the squad, confused as to why he didn't do something that seemed like the most obvious thing to do. What concerns me most about this is that it seems like a complete lack of forward planning, the Wolves U21 game was not in the long term thinking, only decided a few days before.

Am I stupid for having concerns about his long term management of this club? This run of games up to Christmas is vital. If we aren't secure in those play off spots, it doesn't look good for him. I would have more patience if I could see that there was some long term thinking happening, if we were trying to do this with a young squad. But it all feels very Rowett like to me.

 

 

 

The bit in bold is something I’ve been mulling over.

I don’t think Warne is a good long term planner or strategist, he focuses on short term wins.  This may explain his promotions followed by immediate relegations.  In some way, who can blame him when you see the flak for a defeat.  I think we’ll see less U21 layers used in the EFL Trophy, which is a shame as it’s an ideal stage to gain experience.  He wants the short term wins.  He’s more Mourinho than Fergie - Mourinho built teams for the short term, Fergie built clubs to leave a legacy.

For what it’s worth I wouldn’t say I’m pro-Warne but I’m pro-stability as I do think give a manager time we’ll benefit in the long run.  But I’m wavering as to whether Warne is that manager.