Paul Warne

[YorkshireRam]

2 minutes ago, sage said:

Or true.Eddie found one example. 

I don't approve from either side. My whole argument is constructive debate is fine and those in a minority or perceived minority should be respected.

I'm not sure why this is deemed to be controversial 🤔 

 

My main issue was the folk that couldn't tell where the line was between constructive debate and personal insults. I saw an embarrassing amount of vitriol online towards a manager that ultimately got us promotion in the end. I was arguing against it at the time because it was all so premature. Hopefully now those who went OTT feel a bit silly and will reign it in next time. 

[sage]

16 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

My main issue was the folk that couldn't tell where the line was between constructive debate and personal insults. I saw an embarrassing amount of vitriol online towards a manager that ultimately got us promotion in the end. I was arguing against it at the time because it was all so premature. Hopefully now those who went OTT feel a bit silly and will reign it in next time. 

I would largely agree but would add that silly stuff on twitter and Facebook was used against posters on here who were arguing constructively.

I think after the Stevenage and Shrewsbury away games, there was a noticeable but not revolutionary change in playing style which I think produced less criticism as well as better results.

 

 

Edited April 30 by sage

[Archied]

40 minutes ago, sage said:

Or true.Eddie found one example. 

I don't approve from either side. My whole argument is constructive debate is fine and those in a minority or perceived minority should be respected.

I'm not sure why this is deemed to be controversial 🤔 

 

Come on sage ,, the bullying comment was a bit strong 🤷🏻‍♂️, just as post earlier by someone towards some warne detractors was in my view a bit strong too ,

[sage]

15 minutes ago, Archied said:

Come on sage ,, the bullying comment was a bit strong 🤷🏻‍♂️, just as post earlier by someone towards some warne detractors was in my view a bit strong too ,

Some people did feel bullied. One person left the forum publicly and I know 2 other posters who don't feel they can post anything critical anymore.

I didn't but maybe I have thicker skin. It may explain my bathroom scales reading. 

[Archied]

19 minutes ago, sage said:

I would largely agree but would add that silly stuff on twitter and Facebook was used against posters on here who were arguing constructively.

I think after the Stevenage and Shrewsbury away games, there was a noticeable but not revolutionary change in playing style which I think produced less criticism as well as better results.

 

 

Not sure I agree in this kind of myth that either fan know how/ pressure or clowes intervention suddenly put warne on the right track , what I saw over the whole season where I watched every game live either in person or on rtv was warne trying to get results the best he could within the bounds of our injuries and a game plan he thought suited beating the team we were up against ,

just how I saw it over a season

[Archied]

3 minutes ago, sage said:

Some people did feel bullied. One person left the forum publicly and I know 2 other posters who don't feel they can post anything critical anymore.

I didn't but maybe I have thicker skin. It may explain my bathroom scales reading. 

There’s the rub ,, someone feeling or saying they feel bullied does not mean they are being bullied , we really need to look at that nowadays ,, the pendulum has swung too far and it’s really not helpful to those who unjustly claim to feel bullied to just affirm they’re feeling rather than help them understand perhaps there’s stuff going on with them that they need to look at if they are to ever have a comfortable happy life 🤷🏻‍♂️

[YorkshireRam]

36 minutes ago, sage said:

I would largely agree but would add that silly stuff on twitter and Facebook was used against posters on here who were arguing constructively.

I think after the Stevenage and Shrewsbury away games, there was a noticeable but not revolutionary change in playing style which I think produced less criticism as well as better results.

 

 

My take is that there wasn't much of a change, aside from our ability to execute the gameplan and style of play better. All still with a mishmash assembled squad of freebies. 

That context is what a lot of us were taking into account when posting. It did seem at times, this nuance wasn't being thought about by some of the naysayers. That for me was what caused the frustration, not the difference in opinion, because it felt like some were being deliberately stubborn and refusing to acknowledge that context because they just didn't like his bobblehat or jokes or something... 

Edited April 30 by YorkshireRam

[sage]

27 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

My take is that there wasn't much of a change, aside from our ability to execute the gameplan and style of play better. All still with a mishmash assembled squad of freebies. 

That context is what a lot of us were taking into account when posting. It did seem at times, this nuance wasn't being thought about by some of the naysayers. That for me was what caused the frustration, not the difference in opinion, because it felt like some were being deliberately stubborn and refusing to acknowledge that context because they just didn't like his bobblehat or jokes or something... 

'Naysayers'...

I think some who are more critical would point out we had a bugger budget than all other teams and most of the hard work re recruitment was done by others. So the context was seen differently by others. Not agreeing on a context is refusing to acknowledge. You see that sort of comment suggest there is a truth and others differ from that. In reality its all opinions.

 

I think the jokes fall flat when results and performances aren't good. My only problem with his interviews when he threw players under the bus a couple of times.

 

[jono]

2 hours ago, sage said:

Or true.Eddie found one example. 

I don't approve from either side. My whole argument is constructive debate is fine and those in a minority or perceived minority should be respected.

I'm not sure why this is deemed to be controversial 🤔 

 

Ack, sorry I am biting again. 🤣 The only controversy from my point of view was your suggestion that people had been “bullied”, somehow shut down or prevented from posting. That’s it really. In my opinion they weren’t and I have yet to see evidence that they were.

There was some name calling from all quarters and I agree it can be a bit childish, but it isn’t bullying, especially on an adult football forum like this. 

[sage]

36 minutes ago, Archied said:

There’s the rub ,, someone feeling or saying they feel bullied does not mean they are being bullied , we really need to look at that nowadays ,, the pendulum has swung too far and it’s really not helpful to those who unjustly claim to feel bullied to just affirm they’re feeling rather than help them understand perhaps there’s stuff going on with them that they need to look at if they are to ever have a comfortable happy life 🤷🏻‍♂️

Some people are more sensitive than others but despite not feeling bullied myself I have felt rounded upon and debate being shut down.

Again I would add that just because someone feels and reacts differently to you, it doesn't mean they are wrong or their is something wrong with them.

[sage]

2 minutes ago, jono said:

Ack, sorry I am biting again. 🤣 The only controversy from my point of view was your suggestion that people had been “bullied”, somehow shut down or prevented from posting. That’s it really. In my opinion they weren’t and I have yet to see evidence that they were.

There was some name calling from all quarters and I agree it can be a bit childish, but it isn’t bullying, especially on an adult football forum like this. 

Well there is evidence because one poster publicly quit last week citing bullying. 

I also know 2 other people who have stopped posting. That is evidence.

Bullying is in the eye of the beholder to an extent. 

[Caerphilly Ram]

3 minutes ago, sage said:

Some people are more sensitive than others but despite not feeling bullied myself I have felt rounded upon and debate being shut down.

Again I would add that just because someone feels and reacts differently to you, it doesn't mean they are wrong or their is something wrong with them.

Let’s open up that conversation again, you and those others with valid concerns that you’re undoubtedly able to articulate should put them forward now (not saying you shouldn’t have before either by the way). The season is done, the radio Derby review and preview last night included some deserved praise for what has been delivered and some fair observations on what could be better, so let’s discuss it openly as adults as you say 🍻
 

Any inappropriate comments or behaviour can be reported should there be any. 

Edited April 30 by Caerphilly Ram

[Walkley Ram]

1 hour ago, sage said:

Some people did feel bullied. One person left the forum publicly and I know 2 other posters who don't feel they can post anything critical anymore.

I didn't but maybe I have thicker skin. It may explain my bathroom scales reading. 

I've been called all sorts too. Like you, I'm happy to brush it off, but it was getting pretty toxic in here. Rather than stop posting, I just reeled in my thoughts on things for a while. Tried to focus on the positives. Tried to have a laugh when things were bad, as well as good.

I think most of what you say is absolutely spot on, for what it's worth.

 

[CBX1985]

30 minutes ago, sage said:

Well there is evidence because one poster publicly quit last week citing bullying. 

I also know 2 other people who have stopped posting. That is evidence.

Bullying is in the eye of the beholder to an extent. 

it is very subjective.  I would say bullying would be ad hominem attacks.  I have seen very few of these on this site in any direction.  

You then get the "I'm offended" brigade who confuse offence with disagreement and cite their offence as bullying.  I'm with Stephen Fry on this one: so f***ing what.

 

Edited April 30 by CBX1985

[Crewton]

29 minutes ago, sage said:

Well there is evidence because one poster publicly quit last week citing bullying. 

Who was that? I ask because I didn't notice anyone saying they were quitting.

I stopped posting after the defeat at Wednesday because I knew what followed was going to be ugly and I wanted a break from it, so it works both ways.

[sage]

I would have preferred more entertaining football and control in games. I think that the lack of control in games led to unnecessary physical exertion which there is a good case for saying led to the amount of injuries. Some may argue our style of play played a part in Bird wanting to leave. Pure speculation of course.

I think much of the recruitment was ill thought out. Too many signings of players who were arriving with injuries, too near the end of the career or hadn't played for a while which didn't fit well with Warne's style of play. He signed Fornah to do a job he want physically capable of doing. 

There is an argument that our superior budget dug us out of a mess of our own making with the arrivals of Nyambe, Adams and Gayle later in the season.

I thought the whole captaincy process and back 5 insistence made him and Bradley look weak to many people. I can see the sense in a vote on captaincy but there was a perception amongst fans that Bradley was brought in to do this and that Hourihane wouldn't have been his choice.

On the plus side, we bounced back from adversity well. We never went on a dreadful run like we have under other managers. Some more cynical may suggest its easier to bounce back as you are never more than a couple of matches from playing a poor team.

We showed some good resilience in important/difficult games. Our away performances against Pompey, Posh (first half) and in patches Bolton were very good. 

He eventually solved the back 4 problem with Nyambe and in January solved the midfield energy problem with Adams.

In terms of PW I don't hate him. I hate very few people. I didn't like 2 interviews he did this year and I know they irritated many on here, some of whom have a rosier view of PW than myself. I'm fairly ambivalent to him generally. I dont feel the love that i had for Cox and Smith but he equally isn't a Pearson or even a Clement.

He has talked about needing a lot of changes for next year. I hope that means looking after the ball a bit more and not just taller, quicker versions of what we have now. His admiration for Bird gives me some hope in that direction.

My view of fans on here defending/over defending PW by pointing to limited resources is a bit off. They are only limited in terms of fees and in comparison to the MM Madness. We had a very good budget on wage bill compared to the rest of the league.

That is my constructive view.

 

 

[Anag Ram]

We are all expressing our own opinions on here. They are often opinions without background knowledge.

We have no idea how players have performed in training, what’s going on in their personal lives, who’s a good influence and who isn’t.

So there is every possibility that we are wrong. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have our say, or indeed that other ’experts’ should tell us we are wrong, or even stupid.

I am quite happy to admit that I was a complete arse in doubting Collins’ ability to score goals this season. 

I have been a strong critic of Sonny Bradley, and whilst some of that was justified, I’m delighted at the way he has played at the end of the season.

We’re all fallible but please let’s be more respectful of other opinions. Just as we don’t know much about the players’ private lives, you never know what posters on here are going through and how a casual slur can affect them.
 

[sage]

6 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Who was that? I ask because I didn't notice anyone saying they were quitting.

I stopped posting after the defeat at Wednesday because I knew what followed was going to be ugly and I wanted a break from it, so it works both ways.

I think the ref got the most stick after that game. 

The thread is been deleted so I don't think it's appropriate to name someone 

[YorkshireRam]

1 hour ago, sage said:

'Naysayers'...

I think some who are more critical would point out we had a bugger budget than all other teams and most of the hard work re recruitment was done by others. So the context was seen differently by others. Not agreeing on a context is refusing to acknowledge. You see that sort of comment suggest there is a truth and others differ from that. In reality its all opinions.

 

I think the jokes fall flat when results and performances aren't good. My only problem with his interviews when he threw players under the bus a couple of times.

 

It's the perfect lexical choice for what I meant?

 

I politely disagree with the notion that all opinions are valid or equal, also. Plenty of critics this season resorted to calling Warne a ''clown'' or a ''PE teacher'' etc; these individual's opinions mean far, far less than those who actually know what they're talking about and can discuss without turning to throwaway insults. You kind of invalidate yourself when you stoop to that level...

Edited April 30 by YorkshireRam

[sage]

3 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

It's the perfect lexical choice for what I meant?

I politely disagree with the notion that all opinions are valid or equal, also. Plenty of critics this season resorted to calling Warne a ''clown'' or a ''PE teacher'' etc; these individual's opinions mean far, far less than those who actually know what they're talking about and can discuss without turning to throwaway insults. You kind of invalidate yourself when you stoop to that level...

I'm very puzzled. I said I'm against all name calling and yet somehow I'm 'stooping'. 

Whether all opinions are equal is indeed debatable but everyone still has a right to one and should feel able to give their opinion on a forum. Again I'm not sure how this is controversial.