[Archived] Keith Andrews - Rovers Newest Signing

[BuckyRover]

  philipl said:

Keith Andrews is a competent player.

Is he going to scare the watsits out of Premier League opposition and help Rovers kick on to another level? NO

That's what is wrong. The mindset at Rovers was all wrong in the signing of Andrews.

I guess you are right.

But even worse was the message sent out by the previous manager, as when we were crying out for a central midfielder all Hughes could manage was Vogel, an aged "has-been". I don't remember Hughes getting such vitriol. Did he improve the starting eleven? No, was he a squad player? Yes. Did it help us "kick on"; Definitely NOT.

Was that a good message to send out? Hughes had been in the job for over 3 years, surely he could have done better than that?

[Amo]

Hughes didn't exactly have the same budget to work with that Ince had. We had to rely on bargains with experience under their belt or players with a point to prove.

The thing that stinks the most about the Andrews deal is the guy has very limited potential at the age of 28. Midfielders have generally peaked around then. His pedigree is nothing but a string of lower league clubs, and he was the manager's pet at his former club. Now I'm expecting Imy or Hughesy to pop up in defence and say that Hughes signed Bellamy, Savage etc. but then we're going around in circles because we know those two can do a job in the Premiership. If Andrews was such a diamond in the rough, why were only Watford looking at him?

[tony gale's mic]

  BuckyRover said:

I guess you are right.

But even worse was the message sent out by the previous manager, as when we were crying out for a central midfielder all Hughes could manage was Vogel, an aged "has-been". I don't remember Hughes getting such vitriol. Did he improve the starting eleven? No, was he a squad player? Yes. Did it help us "kick on"; Definitely NOT.

Was that a good message to send out? Hughes had been in the job for over 3 years, surely he could have done better than that?

That was unfair, Vogel hadnt had a game in a year and was most likely bought with a view to this season after having a proper summer to get into shape. He was also signed outside of the transfer window meaning we couldve only got free players at that time. He put in a few good performances last year after a shaky start and is only 31, a player of his style which doesnt rely a great deal on pace shouldnt be past his best at 31. We havent got the chance to see how he wouldve done this season.

[Bennisfromheaven]

  BuckyRover said:

I guess you are right.

But even worse was the message sent out by the previous manager, as when we were crying out for a central midfielder all Hughes could manage was Vogel, an aged "has-been". I don't remember Hughes getting such vitriol. Did he improve the starting eleven? No, was he a squad player? Yes. Did it help us "kick on"; Definitely NOT.

Was that a good message to send out? Hughes had been in the job for over 3 years, surely he could have done better than that?

Didn't Hughes say we would see the best of Vogel this year & that he reckoned he would be a star performer!

[Hughesy]

Maybe he will offer us a swap then with Elano for Vogel? (Me thinks not)

Vogel looked average at best last season - nothing special

[philipl]

Vogel has been frozen out by Ince who simply does not like him as a footballer- check it out on the official site MB.

[tony gale's mic]

  Hughesy said:

Maybe he will offer us a swap then with Elano for Vogel? (Me thinks not)

Vogel looked average at best last season - nothing special

He hadn't played for a year and was more of a signing for this season by Hughes.

Signing a 31 year old ex AC Milan and PSV midfielder on a free is infinitely better than buying a 27 year old lower league chugger for just under a million.

[67splitscreen]

  Paul Inces Lovechild said:

The post you quoted explains why.

I'm not saying for certain, but I'm being led that way because Ince never considers Vogel. You'd think with an international midfielder on the books and the squad being thin on the ground, he'd get some mention. But he doesn't. That suggests to me it's something personal.

I'm sure if we were a bigger side, more attention would be drawn to it.

IMO, before the comment, would have been far more accurate, rather than making it sound as though it is fact, that's all. Assumptions, Assumptions.

[Amo]

  philipl said:

Vogel has been frozen out by Ince who simply does not like him as a footballer- check it out on the official site MB.

I'd like it straight from the horse's mouth, with reason behind it. Because sacrificing your best left-back to play centre-mid, when you have an international midfielder in reserve is completely stupid.

[philipl]

Well I posted the Lee Grooby comments that the manager doesn't fancy Vogel on here once before already.

[Amo]

I know Lee works for the club, but that doesn't mean he knows everything that goes on behind the scenes. All I remember him saying was something to the effect of 'all managers have their own ideas' etc. which sounded more like a theory than anything concrete.

[LeChuck]

  BuckyRover said:

But even worse was the message sent out by the previous manager, as when we were crying out for a central midfielder all Hughes could manage was Vogel, an aged "has-been".

Why do you continually show yourself up by comparing things in Hughes' reign to current happenings? I've refrained from commenting on your 'being in the relegation zone' comparison but this one is just plain daft.

Vogel was bought in March because it was quite obvious Hughes didn't have the funds the bring in the quality he wanted. If Vogel was anywhere near his first choice then he wouldn't have waited until March, would he? He looked despondent in all the January interviews, and for the first time in his entire reign complained about not being able to bring in players, hence the virtual 'come and get me' pleas to Newcastle and why he was so quick to jump ship when City came calling. Vogel was a desperation signing done out of necessity to simply get the numbers back up after Savage left.

Hardly comparable to Ince and Andrews, is it?

[T4E]

Just to dumb that down even further for you Bucky -

Vogel signed outside of transfer window when no money and limited options.

Andrews signed inside of transfer window when plenty of money and options.

Comprende?

[RevidgeBlue]

  Tugay4England said:

Just to dumb that down even further for you Bucky -

Vogel signed outside of transfer window when no money and limited options.

Andrews signed inside of transfer window when plenty of money and options.

Comprende?

But there was nothing really prohibiting Hughes making a signing within the window?

And anyhow if we assume the "big" money was being set aside to replace Bentley, who's to say Ince could actually afford a dearer central midfielder than Andrews?

[T4E]

I have no idea. I would lean towards a failure on Hughes's part, although I'm sure some would argue the money wasn't there. Who knows?

The point was, it's a complete irrelevant and pointless non-comparison. The two are nothing alike.

[John]

Hughes always liked good value for money as well though. If you are to believe the rumour mill, Hughes wanted Diarra last January but we could not afford him.

[ABBEY]

a "has been" thought robbie was the subject.

[tony gale's mic]

It's harsh to judge Vogel as a failure when even at the time we said he was more of a signing for this season as he hadn't played for a year. He put in a couple of bad performances to start with but also a few good ones too. He was proven quality from some top clubs and since he was a defensive midfielder, 31 wasn't that old.

[philipl]

  RevidgeBlue said:

But there was nothing really prohibiting Hughes making a signing within the window?

And anyhow if we assume the "big" money was being set aside to replace Bentley, who's to say Ince could actually afford a dearer central midfielder than Andrews?

Yes there was concerning making the signing in the window.

There was a significant lack of quality available that particular January and the transfer prices were through the roof.

Hughes had lined up Huddlestone and thought he had got him but Ramos stuck him back in the Spurs starting team and convinced him to stay.

Rovers then went for Diarra seriously but were up against the (in those days) money no object Gaydamaks who were always going to out bid with a bigger transfer fee and wages irrespective of anything Rovers offered - Diarra cost Pompey £6m and £60k a week.

There were two more late bids for players unknown that were rejected at the end of the window and the triallists were all unacceptable.

The issue was not for want of trying but that for the first time Rovers' lack of financial firepower left us totally empty-handed at the end of the window as opposed to perhaps not getting first choice but always getting a good'un previously. That I believe demoralised Hughes.

I think it is plainly obvious there was far more money available for transfers than Ince spent this summer. You are not telling me he took the job with a brief to make an £8m transfer profit when he presumably knew Hughes and Bowen had been scouting players for the Rovers with £6m and £8m price tags only four weeks previously? Why on earth did the Trust put an extra £3m in specifically to help the new manager after Ince had been appointed?

[broadsword]

  RevidgeBlue said:

And anyhow if we assume the "big" money was being set aside to replace Bentley, who's to say Ince could actually afford a dearer central midfielder than Andrews?

I'm not sure how precarious that assumption is, Revidge.

We certainly had the receipts, but the fact that we didn't spend them (well, most of them) suggests that either:-

a) Ince is a canny transfer market operator when he says we're skint, and he's keeping his powder dry for a raft of big-money signings or;

The board nabbed most of the receipts for debt repayment and told Ince to make a pig's ear out of a peasant's purse or;

c) Ince is such a half-wit that he's only gone and lost the money down the drain either that or he's lost it on the gee-gee's

d) The chairman's got a nice new marble jacuzzi and brazilian transexuals on tap, thank you David Bentley

Which one of those you believe is largely down to prejudice perhaps.

[T4E]

Even the alledged £3m from the trustees was enough to buy a more expensive player. Infact, Vince Grella is walking proof that we could have spent more.

[LeChuck]

  Tugay4England said:

Even the alledged £3m from the trustees was enough to buy a more expensive player. Infact, Vince Grella is walking proof that we could have spent more.

Sounds dangerous, that'll put him out for at least another two weeks.

[Bennisfromheaven]

  LeChuck said:

Sounds dangerous, that'll put him out for at least another two weeks.

.....beat me to it!!

[American]

Why is it that everyone who used to say "Hughes sees the players in training and knows better than you" are now the ones saying Vogel isn't being given a fair shake, and vice versa?

[philipl]

Because we got the message from Lee Grooby several weeks ago that Ince just doesn't fancy Vogel as a midfielder and that we've just got to accept that different managers have different ideas. All the indications are of a completely shut mind on the part of Ince- and that is seriously bad.

To Keith Andrews. The lad wouldn't get a place in most-midfield line-ups Rovers have had in our 14 (?) seasons in the Premier League and certainly wouldn't endanger Mark Atkins' place if the two had been contemporaries (which I think is a fair comparisson of two honest but fairly limited players) and the Republic are far from blessed with talent at the moment- they got comfortably beaten 2-3 at home to thousands of Irish Polish plumbers but

Very very well done and congratulations to Keith Andrews on scoring on his debut this week. That is one heck of an achievement to have gone from the fourth division to international stardom at the age of 28 and nothing can take that away from him.