Shaun Barker says last night was

[Curtains]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Curtains woke up and chose violence today I see

That quote is beneath contempt 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

You constantly knock Warne. Try saying something nice occasionally.

We are all Derby fans.  Get off your high horse 

I thought I had posted a few pro-Warne comments recently. Even today, I said his subs last night were almost perfect (I felt Wilson should have stayed on for an extra 5 minutes) and reminded another poster that we have actually beat top teams already this season. I haven't said anything negative today.

I have been critical of a lot of aspects to Warne's management, from style of play, introducing academy prospects into the first team, and actually playing our younger players. But, if we consistently play like last night my first issue will be fixed. The continued use of players like Sibley in the first team solves the 2nd. All that remains is a few minutes given to academy players in cups or when we do have another injury crisis.

[May Contain Nuts]

...oh and because we had so much of the ball (and so many players) 20-35 yards from their goal they never had the opportunity to start to build any attacks from the back.

[Gaspode]

8 minutes ago, Curtains said:

So it was a flat back 4 in your eyes !

I disagree 

and that's absolutely fine - but you then proceeded to try and shut people down who disagreed with you or else acused them of not understanding football - not fine (at all).....

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

and that's absolutely fine - but you then proceeded to try and shut people down who disagreed with you or else acused them of not understanding football - not fine (at all).....

Accused

Get it right 

[Millenniumram]

17 minutes ago, Curtains said:

 

 

That quote is beneath contempt 

Never change Curtains 

[Srg]

43 minutes ago, Kokosnuss said:

 

 

Backs up what I thought I saw which was pretty much a 4-1-4-1 'base' which occasionally looked like a 4-3-3. For about 70 minutes of the match, anyway,

We were very attacking. Bird & Sibley essentially both playing as no. 10s, NML & Wilson wingers who stayed high up the pitch. Waghorn dropping in to further help link play. Occasionally Bird & Sibley dropped back a bit with NML/Wilson tucking in when needed (hence the 4-3-3).

The issue is of course that it left Hourihane pretty exposed and while they did go through us a few times, it didn't matter in this game because Exeter were so poor. We'd need someone with more pace/presence in Hourihane's role against better teams but surely that's Fornah.

I think what's good about this though is you can tell any of the any of the 'units' to move further forward or fall back (or spread apart / get closer together) to suit the opposition,  without completely altering the shape. The players should then still know how/where to find each other on the pitch which will help us if we need to score on the break.

I'm not saying it doesn't need work or it will bve viable every game, but it makes more sense (to me at least!) than what we've been trying to do for the past 13 months!

4-1-4-1

turns to 4-3-3

 

 

 

 

 

Problems came in two areas, which are kind of linked. The middle 4 (Hourihane, Bird, Sibley and Waghorn) didn't move anywhere near enough to make themselves available to receive the ball. This meant, as is normal, we ended up going wide often. Luckily, NML and Ward were playing well and comfortably had the beating of their men. Secondary to this, which you could argue was either caused by the lack of movement ahead, or if they had done so quicker there wouldn't be as much movement needed, was the deeper players held onto the ball way too long before releasing. It's no surprise the first goal came from two first time passes.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Well it’s semantics.  
Anyhow i watched Rams TV round up with Owen and Shaun this morning.  
They talk loads of sense. 
Worth a listen and it’s free

Which part of it is semantics? Wilson barely did more defensive work than NML (if at all) and @duncanjwitham's average positions suggest that too. If it's a flat back four when attacking, then you may as well say it's a seven-at-the-back (or more) when defending - it's not like all the other players wait up the pitch.

Also Wilson even turned up on the left-wing at one point, which would be strange for a right wing-back. 

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

 
Anyhow i watched Rams TV round up with Owen and Shaun this morning.  
They talk loads of sense. 

I'm surprised none of it's rubbed off 😁

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Rams TV 😂 lol

I'd pay the subscription fee to see that 😂

 

[RoyMac5]

36 minutes ago, Kokosnuss said:

...oh and because we had so much of the ball (and so many players) 20-35 yards from their goal they never had the opportunity to start to build any attacks from the back.

They had lots of possession but did very little at all in the final third. They passed, found space and attacked quite well only to fizzle out when it mattered. 😄

[Curtains]

33 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Never change Curtains 

End of the day we all see football in different ways and the perception of games are different from fan to fan .

Rynny please don’t stop posting because of me.  I’m a buffoon at times .

 

[richinspain]

16 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

They had lots of possession but did very little at all in the final third. They passed, found space and attacked quite well only to fizzle out when it mattered. 😄

I'm having the same problems.

[angieram]

How about we say it would have potentially have been a back five when we were defending, but we didn't have to do any defending therefore it was a back four? 

Acceptable compromise? 🙂

[oomarkwright]

CONTEMPT

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

 

 

That quote is beneath contempt 

No. This quote is beneath Contempt. 

[LazloW]

I love how polarised the positions on Warne have become that debating whether it was four or five at the back last night becomes a pro/anti-Warne debate.  I have no idea how saying it was a back 4 can be seen as being anti-Warne. Indeed, given a back 5 has been woeful when tried, I’d have thought that him sticking to a back 4 would be seen very positively in terms of his ability to adapt and compromise.  FWIW, it was definitely a four last night. I think it is understood that midfielders and wingers might occasionally track back and help out without it constituting a change in formation - although this type of thinking is why football is becoming far too complicated (or rather,  football is still really simple but in order to fill endless media space people have to try and make it more complicated).

Anyway, thought we played quite well whatever formation we used (a back 4!).

[Foreveram]

2 hours ago, angieram said:

How about we say it would have potentially have been a back five when we were defending, but we didn't have to do any defending therefore it was a back four? 

Acceptable compromise? 🙂

I have just skimmed through this thread and at last someone speaks sense 😂

[Ramarena]

Have I clicked onto the Daily mail comments section by mistake?

[Boycie]

3 hours ago, Curtains said:

End of the day we all see football in different ways and the perception of games are different from fan to fan .

Rynny please don’t stop posting because of me.  I’m a buffoon at times .

 

But we aren’t allowed to see it in different ways to you? Cool beans.

[Dava75]

5 hours ago, Kokosnuss said:

 

 

Backs up what I thought I saw which was pretty much a 4-1-4-1 'base' which occasionally looked like a 4-3-3. For about 70 minutes of the match, anyway,

We were very attacking. Bird & Sibley essentially both playing as no. 10s, NML & Wilson wingers who stayed high up the pitch. Waghorn dropping in to further help link play. Occasionally Bird & Sibley dropped back a bit with NML/Wilson tucking in when needed (hence the 4-3-3).

The issue is of course that it left Hourihane pretty exposed and while they did go through us a few times, it didn't matter in this game because Exeter were so poor. We'd need someone with more pace/presence in Hourihane's role against better teams but surely that's Fornah.

I think what's good about this though is you can tell any of the any of the 'units' to move further forward or fall back (or spread apart / get closer together) to suit the opposition,  without completely altering the shape. The players should then still know how/where to find each other on the pitch which will help us if we need to score on the break.

I'm not saying it doesn't need work or it will bve viable every game, but it makes more sense (to me at least!) than what we've been trying to do for the past 13 months!

4-1-4-1

turns to 4-3-3

 

 

 

 

 

When I heard the team I immediately thought 3 4 3 but it was clear when the game started it was as you’ve said. Connor playing the pivot role - which on one or two occasions left him exposed - when this happened it was fine as both centre halves were sat in. And as others observed, because they play from the back,  the extra bodies we had higher up the pitch nullified the the outball meaning they gifted possession with a hopeful ball or we turned over because of pressure round on the man with ball.

Yes Exeter weren’t great but I’d suggest a lot of that was because last night we got it spot on tactically.

Having said all that …the only thing that matters right now is results - so whatever works to get 3pts is fine by me!!!