Derby(home)predictions

[AucklandRover]

Champs - you are the one twisting words. I have never said that managers go from good to bad every week. MY whole point is that it is about far more than just the manager. I am actually SAYING that a manager is what he is! He carries the can for the overall results and the long-term pattern, but it is simply ludicrous to argue that nothing else matters. A football match can turn on a dozen things and most of them are completely beyond the control of the man in the dug-out.

I have been calling for Nyambe's return for some time, but you are so determined to blame one set of factors (the manager's input) that you are more or less suggesting that we couldn't possible play play well until the last week's changes were made. JUST NOT TRUE.
We played well in a number of games under the previous formation:Fulham, Boro, the second half at West Brom, Reading, Millwall, Forest. And Bennett did NOT play badly in all those (or some of the other) games! What has plagued us most is inconsistency.
Of course Mowbray has to carry some of the blame. I think it would have been much simpler to go for 4-4-2, but he has insisted on this formation with three in front of midfield, including trying a number of different people - unsuccessfully, for the most part - in this "wide forward" position.
As for Williams, he definitely did strengthen the centre-back area when we were missing Tosin. You can't pretend he didn't. His tenure included four clean sheets!
I just think it is arrogant and a total rewrite of history to say, "We have won three games in a row because Mowbray is finally listening to us."
That totally ignores what I have said above, and it also ignores the fact that our players have been woefully up-and-down in form. Even this week, Rothwell was nothing like as good against Stoke as he was against Brentford.
You can't pretend that this is not a factor, or - worse still - that Mowbray is "to blame" for an individual's inconsistency. That does seem to be what you are doing with Dack, for example. You appear to be suggesting that in the games where he dropped too deep, he had NOT been selected as the No. 10. You know that's not the case. Those were mainly games where we were under the cosh and he was out of form himself. He was dropping back too far because he is the kind of player who is desperate to influence a game (which is one of the things we like about him), but in doing so, he was removing himself from the areas where he is most dangerous.

I made it clear before the Barnsley match that I thought TM was one or two defeats away from the sack. I wasn't even complaining about it. That is the nature of the job. However, you will never get me to accept this nonsense that "it's all down to the manager."
Nobody who puts that case forward has ever successfully explained how, if THAT is true, almost every manager in existence has failures on his record as well as successes.
How do you categorise Ranieri, Mourinho, McCarthy, Hodgson, Moyes, etc, etc?
To ignore all the other factors that go into the difference between winning and losing seems crazy to me.
Confidence...form... conditions...injuries...luck...refereeing...the other team...the other manager...clash or match-up of styles on the day...simple difference in quality...
Are you really saying that none of those things influence the outcome of a game - that it is the only what a manager does in advance that matters?
None of this denies the manager's overall responsibility in the sense you mean - with the people under your charge at work - but that is simplistic. You may be in charge, but if one of them fiddles the books or puts diesel in instead of petrol, it is NOT your fault. In the same way, if Mowbray has put Dack at centre-back, but he then misses an open goal form three metres, it is nothing to do with the position Mowbray gave him at the start!

[champs95]

Champs - you are the one twisting words. I have never said that managers go from good to bad every week. MY whole point is that it is about far more than just the manager. I am actually SAYING that a manager is what he is! He carries the can for the overall results and the long-term pattern, but it is simply ludicrous to argue that nothing else matters. A football match can turn on a dozen things and most of them are completely beyond the control of the man in the dug-out.

I have been calling for Nyambe's return for some time, but you are so determined to blame one set of factors (the manager's input) that you are more or less suggesting that we couldn't possible play play well until the last week's changes were made. JUST NOT TRUE.
We played well in a number of games under the previous formation:Fulham, Boro, the second half at West Brom, Reading, Millwall, Forest. And Bennett did NOT play badly in all those (or some of the other) games! What has plagued us most is inconsistency.
Of course Mowbray has to carry some of the blame. I think it would have been much simpler to go for 4-4-2, but he has insisted on this formation with three in front of midfield, including trying a number of different people - unsuccessfully, for the most part - in this "wide forward" position.
As for Williams, he definitely did strengthen the centre-back area when we were missing Tosin. You can't pretend he didn't. His tenure included four clean sheets!
I just think it is arrogant and a total rewrite of history to say, "We have won three games in a row because Mowbray is finally listening to us."
That totally ignores what I have said above, and it also ignores the fact that our players have been woefully up-and-down in form. Even this week, Rothwell was nothing like as good against Stoke as he was against Brentford.
You can't pretend that this is not a factor, or - worse still - that Mowbray is "to blame" for an individual's inconsistency. That does seem to be what you are doing with Dack, for example. You appear to be suggesting that in the games where he dropped too deep, he had NOT been selected as the No. 10. You know that's not the case. Those were mainly games where we were under the cosh and he was out of form himself. He was dropping back too far because he is the kind of player who is desperate to influence a game (which is one of the things we like about him), but in doing so, he was removing himself from the areas where he is most dangerous.

I made it clear before the Barnsley match that I thought TM was one or two defeats away from the sack. I wasn't even complaining about it. That is the nature of the job. However, you will never get me to accept this nonsense that "it's all down to the manager."
Nobody who puts that case forward has ever successfully explained how, if THAT is true, almost every manager in existence has failures on his record as well as successes.
How do you categorise Ranieri, Mourinho, McCarthy, Hodgson, Moyes, etc, etc?
To ignore all the other factors that go into the difference between winning and losing seems crazy to me.
Confidence...form... conditions...injuries...luck...refereeing...the other team...the other manager...clash or match-up of styles on the day...simple difference in quality...
Are you really saying that none of those things influence the outcome of a game - that it is the only what a manager does in advance that matters?
None of this denies the manager's overall responsibility in the sense you mean - with the people under your charge at work - but that is simplistic. You may be in charge, but if one of them fiddles the books or puts diesel in instead of petrol, it is NOT your fault. In the same way, if Mowbray has put Dack at centre-back, but he then misses an open goal form three metres, it is nothing to do with the position Mowbray gave him at the start!

You have your opinion, and I have mine. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed.
I cant really go into all of those finer points as we are just going round in circles.
If I say one thing, you will disagree and tell me why I am wrong.
I will not change my opinion, and you have your own views on things.
I am a little miffed, as I am not the only person on this page alone saying this.

I thought we all agreed that it had reached critical point for TM. And that wasn't all down to bad luck. Things were not right, no matter what anyone says.
You decided that in November, and said so. I spotted it in August and was pretty vocal about the mounting issues back then, after a game. We had a brief upturn, then settled into a really bad spell. Which is why I am not getting carried away now. I am glad we have seemingly turned a corner. That too isn't all down to luck. I feel he is just doing sensible things now, which includes his starting 11. And playing people where they are effective.
He wasn't doing that earlier in the season.

We will never ever agree Aucks, we see things completely different. Maybe its just best for both to agree to disagree on all matters moving forward. I dont need anyone telling me every single opinion I have is wrong, on a game I have played at a pretty high level, and watched live my entire life.