[Archived] Keith Andrews - Rovers Newest Signing

[T4E]

But it'd be a positive impact nonetheless as it guarantees roughly 5/6 goals a season?

You could argue at last seasons rate Andrews could do the same.

Emerton and Grella, pleeeeeeeeeeease.

[mellison24]

You could argue at last seasons rate Andrews could do the same.

Emerton and Grella, pleeeeeeeeeeease.

Touche. Though, for the record, I'd like to see Bert and Grella in CM with Dunny just ahead of them.

[Jonnolad]

I can't really criticise anything Andrews did yesterday...mainly because he didn't do anything. If I hadn't seen his name on the team sheet before the game I wouldn't have known he was playing.

As Jacobsen has made the right back position his own we should give Salgado a run in Andrews' position.

Yeah - he's a good un that Jacobsen. Played well yesterday would you say? Better than Andrews certainly would be my guess (his thread hasn't seen posting activity like this one that's for sure). You'd have thought Andrews would have been slated to high heaven today in the papers today as well. A couple of papers have a "hero" and "villian" player for each match - the hero being the best player, the villian being the worst. Andrews was the villian for both papers, no competiton surely? Funnily enough he wasn't though - Jacobsen was. Why was that do you think? Andrews got double Jacobson's overall rating in one paper in fact - how would you explain that?

Do these journalists not know a thing about football or what? Is that Alan Nixon, for instance, just a charletan and actually knows nothing about the game? In every paper Andrews is rated as competant at least, Jacobsen on the other hand was rated consistently far worse than any single report I've ever read in any paper regarding Andrews - it was a pretty consistent "3" across the board I think (he might have scraped a 4 in one paper). Why are these people rating Jacobsen far lower than Andrews ever has been for any match? Why is Andrews even rated as OK? Is there a conspiracy afoot here or something? It just doesn't make sense.

What I want to know is this though: who are all you going to have a moan about if Andrews doesn't play

[mellison24]

Yeah - he's a good un that Jacobsen. Played well yesterday would you say? Better than Andrews certainly would be my guess (his thread hasn't seen posting activity like this one that's for sure). You'd have thought Andrews would have been slated to high heaven today in the papers today as well. A couple of papers have a "hero" and "villian" player for each match - the hero being the best player, the villian being the worst. Andrews was the villian for both papers, no competiton surely? Funnily enough he wasn't though - Jacobsen was. Why was that do you think? Andrews got double Jacobson's overall rating in one paper in fact - how would you explain that?

Do these journalists not know a thing about football or what? Is that Alan Nixon, for instance, just a charletan and actually knows nothing about the game? In every paper Andrews is rated as competant at least, Jacobsen on the other hand was rated consistently far worse than any single report I've ever read in any paper regarding Andrews - it was a pretty consistent "3" across the board I think (he might have scraped a 4 in one paper). Why are these people rating Jacobsen far lower than Andrews ever has been for any match? Why is Andrews even rated as OK? Is there a conspiracy afoot here or something? It just doesn't make sense.

What I want to know is this though: who are all you going to have a moan about if Andrews doesn't play

Maybe you should look at how well Jacobsen has played since he got here and not base it on one game. While I'm happy to defend Keef's position as a squad player, he is NOT as good as Jacobsen. You can hardly say Jacobsen had an off day against ARSHAVIN!! Whereas the midfield was run by Fibreglass and Keef was nowhere to be seen. He didn't do anything wrong because he did jack all. Don't be so naive as to suggest ONE game where Keef hasn't done anything makes him better than Jacobsen, just because Jacobsen was pitted againt arguably the best winger in the league.

[LeChuck]

Yeah - he's a good un that Jacobsen. Played well yesterday would you say? Better than Andrews certainly would be my guess (his thread hasn't seen posting activity like this one that's for sure). You'd have thought Andrews would have been slated to high heaven today in the papers today as well. A couple of papers have a "hero" and "villian" player for each match - the hero being the best player, the villian being the worst. Andrews was the villian for both papers, no competiton surely? Funnily enough he wasn't though - Jacobsen was. Why was that do you think? Andrews got double Jacobson's overall rating in one paper in fact - how would you explain that?

Do these journalists not know a thing about football or what? Is that Alan Nixon, for instance, just a charletan and actually knows nothing about the game? In every paper Andrews is rated as competant at least, Jacobsen on the other hand was rated consistently far worse than any single report I've ever read in any paper regarding Andrews - it was a pretty consistent "3" across the board I think (he might have scraped a 4 in one paper). Why are these people rating Jacobsen far lower than Andrews ever has been for any match? Why is Andrews even rated as OK? Is there a conspiracy afoot here or something? It just doesn't make sense.

What I want to know is this though: who are all you going to have a moan about if Andrews doesn't play

What are you rambling on about now? Jacobsen was poor yesterday, I have never said anything to the contrary. If he consistently plays like that then I'll be calling for him to be dropped too, but I'm not going to do it after one game.

All I've gathered from that post is that you scour every paper going to find out what they have to say about your beloved Andrews. It's rather worrying to be honest.

[jim mk2]

Yeah - he's a good un that Jacobsen. ......explain that?

Well, hello Keith's mum / dad/ brother / agent .

Another pIsspoor game by your boy and it's taken you more than 24 hours to respond. What took you so long ?

Could you please ask your lad if he feels embarrassed taking his wages this week ?

Because after his pitiful performance at the Emirates he risks being charged with accepting money under false pretences.

Either that or the equally serious charge of a false impersonation of a midfield player.

[Presty On Tour]

Well, hello Keith's mum / dad/ brother / agent .

Another pIsspoor game by your boy and it's taken you more than 24 hours to respond. What took you so long ?

Could you please ask your lad if he feels embarrassed taking his wages this week ?

Because after his pitiful performance at the Emirates he risks being charged with accepting money under false pretences.

Either that or the equally serious charge of a false impersonation of a midfield player.

[Jan]

"will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest"? By the way, if anyone takes that as me inciting anyone to kill/kneecap Andrews- you may say that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Seriously though, I've worked out how he stays fit when others can't. He's never going to be tackled- the opposition simply don't need to, and he is never in a position to pull anything as he's alwys in the wrong place at the wrong time so not sprinting for anything.

[Blue blood]

Jacobsen had his first poor game for rovers, no questions about it. In part that was due to Chimbonda and wanting to drift in and help him, but reasons or no, many Jacobsen fans will hold thier hands up and say it was a bad performance.

How many bad games has Andrews had though? And poor though Jacobsen was, did you honestly think Andrews had a good or even decent game? Jacobsen being poor, has nothing to do with whether Andrews is good enough.

A debate on Jacobsen being good enough is a question of do we need to play someone else at right back (given his solid performances every other game I cannot believe that I'm typing this). A debate on whether Andrews is good enough for centre midfield is another debate entirely. The two are mutually exclusive.

[3rdpillar]

Andrews was rubbish at Arsenal, Rubbish. Not good enough. And yes the back 4 were poor as a unit.

[joey_big_nose]

Jacobsen has been outstanding up until Arsenal. That sort of suggests the makeshift back four and the quality of the opposition undid him more than personal deficiencies.

Andrews on the other had has been poor to average all season.

Not really much of a comparison.

[LeftWinger]

Jacobsen has also just become a dad. It's quite conceivable that he is having as many sleepless nights as I have when I think of Keith in the team.

[T4E]

Yeah - he's a good un that Jacobsen. Played well yesterday would you say? Better than Andrews certainly would be my guess (his thread hasn't seen posting activity like this one that's for sure). You'd have thought Andrews would have been slated to high heaven today in the papers today as well. A couple of papers have a "hero" and "villian" player for each match - the hero being the best player, the villian being the worst. Andrews was the villian for both papers, no competiton surely? Funnily enough he wasn't though - Jacobsen was. Why was that do you think? Andrews got double Jacobson's overall rating in one paper in fact - how would you explain that?

Do these journalists not know a thing about football or what? Is that Alan Nixon, for instance, just a charletan and actually knows nothing about the game? In every paper Andrews is rated as competant at least, Jacobsen on the other hand was rated consistently far worse than any single report I've ever read in any paper regarding Andrews - it was a pretty consistent "3" across the board I think (he might have scraped a 4 in one paper). Why are these people rating Jacobsen far lower than Andrews ever has been for any match? Why is Andrews even rated as OK? Is there a conspiracy afoot here or something? It just doesn't make sense.

What I want to know is this though: who are all you going to have a moan about if Andrews doesn't play

That is your best post on this thread so far. You almost seem to be accepting that Andrews was @#/?, so instead of extolling his virtues, you are arguing that others players were worse. Just take a step back and think about that for a second. That's how ridiculous you have become.

BTW - how well do you you think the "versatile" Andrews would have done at right back against RVP and co on Sunday? After all, being able to play at right back in the Premier League is one of his redeeming features, isn't it?

[ada2020]

I accepted him being in the side last season, on a needs be basis.

But this season I really cannot see any need, on Sunday we may aswel have stuck a bloody training cone on the pitch in his position.

He cannot cut it against most of the sides in this league.

Anyone else notice how he's always busy calling and pointing to other players in the team, we are in trouble if he thinks he's our midfield marshall!!

If he paid more attention to his game he might not let so much of the 90 mins pass him by.

[waggy]

andrews tries his little heart out when he plays,moved up 2 divisions and his limitations,is paid poorly for a premier player,on the otherhand sladalgo has dropped down leagues,is crap and gets paid 40k a week,put that in your pipe and smok it

[1864roverite]

Been on Andrews watch, whilst watching the Ireland game.

The problem with Keith is that he is a born ball watcher and this causes him to be pulled out of position.

For example, in tonights Irish formation, he is supposed to be cental with Whelan. He is forever running ot on the wide flanks leaving massive gaps around the middle. he chases the ball and leaves the man in the middle free to do whatever he wants.

This is basic footballing.

Keith, you can run but you simply cannot play top flight football. Basic errors like the one mentioned prove this once and for all.

[Ben-2000]

This is all set up for a late winner from Keith next Sunday

[philipl]

I haven't watched the game but I have read the whole of Rob Smyth's minute-by-minute on the game in the Guardian.

Keith Andrews got one mention- in the team sheet listed as starting the game.

[bazza]

This is all set up for a late winner from Keith next Sunday

I'd love it, yeah just love it, if he got a brace.

He'd be an instant hero.

Come on, Keith. Burnley are just about your level.

[Ricky]

All I noticed keef do was run around a lot and pass the ball to the italians.

[alexanders]

All I noticed keef do was run around a lot and pass the ball to the italians.

You didnt see his perfect 50 metre long pass?

I was stunned that our Keith did that.

Besides that he was very poor and as mentioned earlier runs around and gets caught out of position.

[tcj_jones]

All I noticed keef do was run around a lot and pass the ball to the italians.

So essentially what he does week in, week out for Rovers then?

[thenodrog]

So essentially what he does week in, week out for Rovers then?

Wouldn't we have to play Italy week in weeek out for that to happen tcj?

[tcj_jones]

Wouldn't we have to play Italy week in weeek out for that to happen tcj?

Hardy ha

[LeftWinger]

I watched a few little bits of the Ireland game. The first time I put it on, within about 30 seconds the ball came to Andrews and he gave it away. It's actually quite amusing to watch when he's not in a Rovers shirt.