[Archived] Keith Andrews - Rovers Newest Signing

[Jonnolad]

So we play with 10? No.... we play with 10 and Andrews, but Andrews is not replacing him.

Surely we play with 10 and Diouf now by that rationale though, since he plays in Bentley's position and we signed him since we sold Bentley.

In fact by your way of thinking it could actually be just 10 plus anyone we've got since last season - 10 plus Simpson, 10 plus Givet, 10 plus Grella, 10 plus Villanueva.

You just seem to be in some kind of weird deinal by claiming that Andrews replaced Bentley when he clearly didn't and your reasons are getting more and more contrived the longer this goes on, to the point of ridiculous now with your latest "10 plus Andrews" stance.

[thenodrog]

Surely we play with 10 and Diouf now by that rationale though, since he plays in Bentley's position and we signed him since we sold Bentley.

In fact by your way of thinking it could actually be just 10 plus anyone we've got since last season - 10 plus Simpson, 10 plus Givet, 10 plus Grella, 10 plus Villanueva.

You just seem to be in some kind of weird deinal by claiming that Andrews replaced Bentley when he clearly didn't and your reasons are getting more and more contrived the longer this goes on, to the point of ridiculous now with your latest "10 plus Andrews" stance.

You have it your way. I'm losing the will to live.

[American]

You have it your way. I'm losing the will to live.

As well as this argument.....

[CrazyIvan]

As well as this argument.....

Yep, he was never going to win this argument because he is so obviously and completely wrong but he'll never ever admit that.

[Blue blood]

I was, should have been a winking face there. I disagree that Andrews doesn't break up play though, the reason people haven't spotted what he ACTUALLY does on the pitch (compared to perceived) is that he is sometimes indistinguishable from other players (dark hair, average height) whereas Savage was unmissable. If an arrow was placed over Andrews head during a match then people might begin to appreciate what he does do and how often. He is playing much better now than when he joined and that's no doubt due to experience, fitness and training. Too many people wrote him off back then. Some should sit down a watch a few replays to specifically watch Andrews. I think a few opinions would change.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense.

Wasn't saying that Andrews doesn't break up the play, just don't think he does it quite as well as Savage.

And yes I know what you mean about noticable players. The one I recall doing a similar dm job was McKinlay. When he had his bleached blonde hair you noticed him in the thick of it all the time, but when he didn't dye it you only noticed him when he got booked - which as I recall was quite often.

[thenodrog]

The one I recall doing a similar dm job was McKinlay. When he had his bleached blonde hair you noticed him in the thick of it all the time, but when he didn't dye it you only noticed him when he got booked - which as I recall was quite often.

Another sick note but a fit McKinley would have suited us down to the ground this season. Even Lee Carsley would have been good.

[JAL]

So we play with 10? No.... we play with 10 and Andrews, but Andrews is not replacing him.

Come on thenodrog, you heard Sam last night say how Keith Andrews was suprised himself by how much playing time he'd done in the premiership this season. Something Keith didnt expect himself.

If this was the case it clearly suggests he was definitely was signed as a squad player rather than as a first teamer .

[DanLad]

I'm losing the will to live.

A successful resolution!

[Eddie]

So we play with 10? No.... we play with 10 and Andrews, but Andrews is not replacing him.

OK then, applying your logic I will now argue that Robinson was actually signed as a replacement for Bentley and Andrews a replacement for Friedel.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

OK then, applying your logic I will now argue that Robinson was actually signed as a replacement for Bentley and Andrews a replacement for Friedel.

I'm confused

So who was Fowler meant to replace?

Thinking about it. Why does a player signed HAS to replace another player. Ince wanted a different style of play of Hughes so signed different types of players. The style changed so it could have meant that Bentley MIGHT never play wide right and moved more centrally so in that respect Theno may have been right about Andrews being Bents replacement. But I suspect Andrews would have arrived even if Bentley had stayed so then who would have he replaced then? Henchoz or Berner?

[thenodrog]

I'm confused

So who was Fowler meant to replace?

Thinking about it. Why does a player signed HAS to replace another player. Ince wanted a different style of play of Hughes so signed different types of players. The style changed so it could have meant that Bentley MIGHT never play wide right and moved more centrally so in that respect Theno may have been right about Andrews being Bents replacement. But I suspect Andrews would have arrived even if Bentley had stayed so then who would have he replaced then? Henchoz or Berner?

Numerically I am. There can be no argument.

As for who Fowler replaced? For those who don't rem John Radford ........... How about Egil Ostenstad?

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Numerically I am. There can be no argument.

As for who Fowler replaced? For those who don't rem John Radford ........... How about Egil Ostenstad?

Egil Ostenstad scored goals.....just not as many as was hoped for.

Radford or Paul McKinnon possibly

If we are talking numbers the same can be said of Grella and Fowler as Bents had played centre midfield and as a forward.

[RibbleValleyRover]

The way I look at it is that the board/management were looking at bringing someone in to play on the right wing but either couldn't find anyone suitable or they were out of our price range. Ince then thought well if I can't bring someone in at the moment then i'll try sticking Bert there, Bert ended up doing a solid job but couldn't replicate that creative spark and service that Bentley did. It was then decided that they would try and bring in Pennant on the last day, but that failed so we were left using Bert in that role until the summer.

I think the main error the board made was that they waited until Bentley's drunken rant and Ince's decision to finally offload him, before they started the search for a new right winger. It was clear several months before the drunken rant that Bentley wanted out or that there was interest from other clubs especially as Bentley was stalling on a new contract. We should have started the process a lot earlier, especially with the level of resources we have.

In terms of Andrews as this is his thread, I don't see how anyone can say he was Bentley's replacement. Andrews was probably brought in because Ince analysed the state of our central midfield noticing that it was quite injury prone and getting old, so he decided to bring in someone he thought could do a job and at the same time had worked previously with before.

I was one of his biggest critics when he signed but fair play to the lad he gives his all and has performed better than a lot of Rovers players this season.

[Eddie]

Numerically I am. There can be no argument.

As for who Fowler replaced? For those who don't rem John Radford ........... How about Egil Ostenstad?

No, numerically you aren't as Andrews wasn't the only signing. Simpson was signed to allow Emerton to move forward, whilst Grella, Andrews, Villanueva and Fowler were all new signings who got games. Andrews didn't exactly have a regular role under Ince, he was simply a squad man. He in no way replaced the role that Bentley had in the side, either in the squad or when he got games.

RVR...I've said the entire time that not every signing has to be a replacement. I would actually argue that most signings aren't replacements. Robinson was a replacement, Grella was in a way, but apart from that none of the other summer signings were replacements. Givet was not a replacement, he was an addition to the squad to give us more options and strength at the back. If all signings were replacements then squads would constantly remain exactly the same size and you would be able to tie every transfer in top flight football in Europe together. Some signings aren't replacement, most signings aren't, Andrews certainly wasn't. At this point we're seeing someone unable to admit that they are wrong.

[rover6]

Simpson's Rovers career over? Keith Andrews preferred at right back.

[vyeo]

Simpson's Rovers career over? Keith Andrews preferred at right back.

From Andrew's recent performances at RB (second half of west ham and today), he appears to be a much better choice than Simpson. His lack of skill is less shown up at RB, his tenacity means he tries hard to defend, and he has generally impressed me very much there. Andrews looked far more comfortable at RB than he has looked in midfield all season. He is also much more effective for us there.

[joey_big_nose]

From Andrew's recent performances at RB (second half of west ham and today), he appears to be a much better choice than Simpson. His lack of skill is less shown up at RB, his tenacity means he tries hard to defend, and he has generally impressed me very much there. Andrews looked far more comfortable at RB than he has looked in midfield all season. He is also much more effective for us there.

I wouldn't say that! he was appalling all game today save the last ten minuets!

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Simpson is appalling all the time.

[only2garners]

I wouldn't say that! he was appalling all game today save the last ten minuets!

No he wasn't. He had a spell in at the beginning of the second half when he couldn't find a player but overall he was decent in an unfamiliar role. Not his best game but not the worst Rovers player on the pitch. He helped to stop Modric playing, which coupled with Givet having Lennon in his pocket meant that for all Spurs possession there was little real goal threat.

[herbergeehh]

I was about to say Andrews could be a short-term solution to our right back problem, and a long term backup there (aswell as in midfield). He then started a period of abysmal passing, and I decided not to. He then recovered a bit, and overall I think he did fairly well - not worse than Simpson surely.

[OJRovers]

I've stuck up for Andrews recently but today in the second half he was poor, and his passes found their players all the time. Having said that, he was still more solid at RB than Simpson who is dangerous.

We should stick with Big Andre there I think from now on, he is playing very well.

[Iceman]

He has a bad game, in a position he aint comfortable with and we attack him. He is doing okay, and big up to him for his efforts. When we stay up, i reckon next season he will be used more as a substitute than starting.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

He has a bad game, in a position he aint comfortable with and we attack him. He is doing okay, and big up to him for his efforts. When we stay up, i reckon next season he will be used more as a substitute than starting.

I agree. It's getting silly when this thread is being bumped every time he plays. If he plays well, he gets grudging praise. If he doesn't play as well, he gets completely mauled. Just leave the topic alone until the end of the season and make a judgement then, in my opinion.

[Tom]

I thought he was ok today, had a vital clearance in the second half. His distribution let him down but he did a job in an unfamiliar position.

[roversmum]

He did make a couple of cracking passes over to Samba after Samba had gone up front. He seemed very nervous though but I don't think he did too badly. I'd rather have him there and Ooijer at centre back.