Rosenior himself isn't aware of that change going by his comments. We were definitely playing out as normal against Grimsby and Nantes. I think it's just people don't notice it as much when there are no hairy moments with it.
He's arrogant because he's confident in his beliefs? Hate to break it to you but that describes 99.9% of managers.
The principle is still in place, he just seems to have adapted to Ingram not being as confident playing short. More long balls into the strikers etc
There you go again, this time the laughing out loud emoji and the condescending 'hate to break it to you' comment. Why not just take it as someone else's view and then make an intelligent counter response? You really don't help yourself on here; not just me saying that, but time & again you get the same / similar feedback from others. We had McCann who was fixated on his style of play too. His team had a very clear identity and he was stubborn / arrogant / naive so as not to deviate (other than minor tinkering). Identities comes in various shapes & sizes. Some say Bruce was our greatest or most successful manager ever, he certainly didn't fixate on a philosophy and he didn't make out he had some magic formula. He just got on with trying to get the best out of what was available to him. To me that's what a big part of the manager's job is i.e. to get the very best out of what he's got whilst gradually moving toward whatever they believe is right for the long term. Not to fixate on something that, in his own words, we are on "page 2 out of 100" with. Maybe his page analogy was just a(nother) silly BS throw away, but personally I'd rather he dropped the arrogance (as it can be perceived). Hopefully it all comes together quickly as we surely need to be at least threatening the top 6 this season
I'm sorry if expressing my opinion on an internet forum upset you. But perhaps consistently and regularly looking for negatives in things Rosenior says isn't healthy. If he is combative with the media like McCann people grumble, if he says **** all and people are confused like Shota, people grumble, or if he comes out and articulates his style of play, explains what he's trying to do, people grumble. I found your comment funny because of how naive it came across, so I used a laugh emoji. If you're offended by a laugh emoji then that's a you problem.
I think the plan has always been to long if and when the opposition press high enough to leave space behind them. It's the same as what other footballing sides do. The Athletic did an article the other day about how Brighton do it. We won't start going long for the sake of it.
You expressing your opinion doesn't upset me. I, like others it seems, just get a bit pissed off with your manner. Anything actually constructive to add about what he said? His page 2 out of 100 analogy for example?
I would have to completely disagree with this. Hate to break it to you but we basically just played 5 at the back during his whole tenure which he stuck to when the squad really didn’t suit it, it was IMO probably the biggest factor behind our terrible form and relegation in 14-15. We had all those technical wingers in the squad that he had playing either up front or in central midfield instead of playing a system with wingers. He never adapted to suit what was available, it was probably the biggest and most common criticism of him that he’d constantly stick square pegs in round holes rather than try and innovate a bit.
If you think Bruce didn't have a playstyle or philosophy and didn't bring in players accordingly then I do have some seaside property in Derby to sell to you.
Rosie said he preferred 4 at the back but he didnt rule out 3 at the back plus two wing backs sometimes When we have 3 centre backs fit I like the idea of 3 at the back We can always change formation or personnel if we have injuries Rosie talked about changing formations between defence and attack He said 5 at the back was too passive but I would think it's sensible when you are defending with wing backs Given we seem to have a lot of injuries I would prefer to be flexible formationwise rather than being too fixed and trying to slot square pegs into round holes
Thought the whole thing was very good. I personally didn't think there was that much filling and actually the questions emailed in (or those selected were good too. As for Rosie, well I think it's a good thing if he's media trained and engaging , and he's a breath of fresh air compared to some (not all) of his predecessors. His philosophy may or may not work but I find it positive that he has one and can explain it so articulately. Of course, we might still get hammered on Saturday...
His specific point about that was that 5 at the back out of possession wouldn't allow us to press high like he wants us to. I thought it was an interesting nugget to hear from a coach, because it's the kind of thing fans would never think of when discussing what lineups would work well on paper.
