[Archived] Keith Andrews - Rovers Newest Signing

[Jonnolad]

This post should be pinned at the top of every page on this thread. These are exactly the points that I have tried to have people realise.

Also, when asked to remember exactly a specific incident that occured over the course of a 38+ game season, we will struggle. But we will always remember the general performance of a player. Stop asking us to recall exact moments when Andrews might have given the ball away, for example, because we aren't going to be able to.

But people's views are swayed by a skewed negative projection though. I've mentioned it before, it's called the halo effect (or in Andrews case it's the reverse halo effect). We all do it to a greater or lesser degree - it's just part of being human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

So in Andrews case doing something wrong once is perceived by those who already don't like him as underlining an already negative opinion of him - regardless of whether he has actually done that before or not. In effect we think we've seen it happen before though it may only be the first and only time. Let's be honest, who actually remembers and blames any other players for an opposition goal when they gave the ball away in the opposition half?

That's why objective evidence is important - some objective evidence is indirect incidentally - Big Sam continually choosing Andrews to play (especially out of position) will be based on more direct objective evidence; Pro Zone etc.

You may not like objective evidence but it isn't skewed by natural human nature.

[LeChuck]

Big Sam continually choosing Andrews to play (especially out of position)

Which I provided an answer for...

[Amo]

Andrews slotted comfortably into Big Sam's percentage football, when we were scraping for points. He's limited technically, but he'll run up and down all day, waiting for the flick downs. He wasn't Big Sam's first choice, but he came in and did a reasonable job while we were in the mire.

I do think we target Andrews unfairly. Most of us know he lacks the class for a consistent PL midfielder, but if Andrews is found out next season surely the criticism should be directed towards Big Sam and not the guy himself?

[Majiball]

He isn't the "ONLY Eire central midfielder playing in the premiership" though. He is directly keeping Andy Reid of Sunderland, and Darron Gibson of Man U playing in his position. And Keith Andrews only started to get in the ROI after his performances for us. Are they premier league standard - both clubs haven't seemed to be in a rush to get rid of them (let alone loan them out).

But we had other fit midfielders - you'll recall the left back incidentally (Warnock) was played by Hughes there as well as Allardyce too.

Plus it doesn't explain Allardyce playing Andrews at right back for the last games for us last season. If Andrews was so dire why not play Ooijer at right back instead? Khizanishvili was available to play instead of Ooijer at centre back so why did Big Sam continually play Andrews out of position if he didn't rate him? Why would Andrews even be on the bench, led alone be starting out of position if he was so dire?

I'm sorry but the "there was no-one better" argument doesn't actually hold any water unless you want to accept that Sam rates Andrews better than half of our current squad!

I cannot believe you have brought up Gibson, would you care to tell me how many times he has PLAYED in the premiership??? Andy Reid made several apperances, yes but Andy has always had issues towards his game that have followed his whole career. Darren gibson playing for Eire when he plays next to no competitive games says wonders for the wealth of talent available to Eire in central midfield.

I will ask one more time If I get choosen for say Scotland am I automatically good enough for the premiership??

The point I tried to make was that just because you play international football you are not automatically premiership standard.

Why didn't he play Ooijer and Zurab, your clutching at straws now, It was obvious Andrews would play there, he'd done OK when forced to play there. Ooijer lacks at full back, as does Zurab, Andrews did OK so he gets the nod because I have to move less players around which means better continuity. He was the only right footer available at one stage with Samba up front (except Zurab who sam obviously does not rate, hence him leaving) so he was always going to play there, check my posts I said it before it happened. Andrews has an engine so can get up and down as he needs too, both the players you've mentioned where found to be sadly lacking in the RB back role. So do I move one of my main center backs, play someone who's been exposed in the role before or someone who came in and did ok??? It will always be the latter its the safest option, no more.

As soon as two fit players where ready that could play in central midfield he gets moved to a new position?? why if he's doing so well in there would any manager move him away from that role??? I would always choose my best midfield two.

Warnocks was a full back surely he would be a better choice at right back??? leaving Keith in a role he knows and Warnock playing the same role but on a different side???? Because thats the option that makes the most sense, but Keith got moved to full back before a full back did??? the only arguement is his right foot, or that Sam rates Warnock a better midfielder than a real midfielder in Keith.

As you have done all through this you take a small part of the equation and make it fit your arguement, you do not consider the context that decisions where made in and miss out half the arguement, just like stat's do.

So I'll ask this towards the tail end of last year we started to get our central midfielders back, how many games did Keith start in central midfield when Dunn, Grella, Warnock, mokoena and Tugay where fit????

You'll have to remind me which game Hughes played Warnock in central midfield, but I don't really understand the point your trying to make there. What does what happened prior to Keiths arrival have to do with Keith being good enough???

In other words it's "no" then.

Thats a subjective statement based on your interpratation of my words, I did not say yes or no, did I????? I said it was never going to be any different.

But people's views are swayed by a skewed negative projection though. I've mentioned it before, it's called the halo effect (or in Andrews case it's the reverse halo effect). We all do it to a greater or lesser degree - it's just part of being human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

So in Andrews case doing something wrong once is perceived by those who already don't like him as underlining an already negative opinion of him - regardless of whether he has actually done that before or not. In effect we think we've seen it happen before though it may only be the first and only time. Let's be honest, who actually remembers and blames any other players for an opposition goal when they gave the ball away in the opposition half?

That's why objective evidence is important - some objective evidence is indirect incidentally - Big Sam continually choosing Andrews to play (especially out of position) will be based on more direct objective evidence; Pro Zone etc.

You may not like objective evidence but it isn't skewed by natural human nature.

What do you know about Sam's decision making process???? Are you Sam, no. Its your interpretation don't claim it as objective because its nothing of the sort.

So now my opinions due to me being swayed by the halo effect, perhaps its based on this: MY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE GAME.

Jonnolad you offered a reasonable arguement but if you now want to insult people which you have, then subjectivily claim anyone who disagrees with you is under the influence of the Halo effect, I'm going to say your arguments run its course.

[tcj_jones]

But people's views are swayed by a skewed negative projection though. I've mentioned it before, it's called the halo effect (or in Andrews case it's the reverse halo effect). We all do it to a greater or lesser degree - it's just part of being human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

So in Andrews case doing something wrong once is perceived by those who already don't like him as underlining an already negative opinion of him - regardless of whether he has actually done that before or not. In effect we think we've seen it happen before though it may only be the first and only time. Let's be honest, who actually remembers and blames any other players for an opposition goal when they gave the ball away in the opposition half?

That's why objective evidence is important - some objective evidence is indirect incidentally - Big Sam continually choosing Andrews to play (especially out of position) will be based on more direct objective evidence; Pro Zone etc.

You may not like objective evidence but it isn't skewed by natural human nature.

Funnily enough, I thought that I might get a response along these lines after I posted.

Don't get me wrong, you make a good point, and I think that it is definitely true, to a certain extent. However, I don't feel that as many people on here who are criticising Andrews have such biased preconceptions, as you appear to be making out.

When he made his first appearance for the club - against West Ham as a sub - we were being battered and out-fought in midfield. He came in and got himself on the ball, slowed things down and kept possession. I was actually quite impressed and looked forward to seeing him play again. I was also totally prepared to give him a chance, despite knowing that he had previously failed in the Championship and that he had jumped three divisions, from League Two.

He actually went down in my estimations over the course of the season and over time I came to realise that he was hugely limited as a player. He can pass the ball backward and sideways over five feet and he will run around all day long, thus giving him impressive stats in this respect. However, what the stats don't say is that a lot of his running was chasing shadows. Nor do they show the simpliity of his passing game.

As for being chosen to play out of position, well that is more likely down to the fact that players were injured and that Sam would rather sacrifice one of his inferior players.

[Fife Rover]

He was sneaked in against the wishes of many fans who saw him as a managers pet signing. No its not Keith's fault but to think that it would be any different than it is, is blinkered. He was always going to be under the microscope by our fans, every little thing would be picked up on and commented on.

Thats Football.

That is exactly the crux of this whole argument. There are a number of people who, for the reasons you have stated in your post, are completely against Andrews and it would not make any difference to their blind prejudice no matter what Andrews does or how well he plays. These people not only don't see his good points when they appear, but are actually determined NOT to see them because they simply don't want to.

As I have said myself in several posts I too can see his limitations, but I can see his good points also, and people who say he has none are just too ridiculous for words and I won't waste my time and energy arguing with them. I have already made several points which disprove some of the unfair and untrue statements made by some but if they are so determined to remain blinkered and unfair in their treatment of a lad who plays every match to the best of his capability, then there is nothing more to say.

[Jonnolad]

I cannot believe you have brought up Gibson, would you care to tell me how many times he has PLAYED in the premiership??? Andy Reid made several apperances, yes but Andy has always had issues towards his game that have followed his whole career. Darren gibson playing for Eire when he plays next to no competitive games says wonders for the wealth of talent available to Eire in central midfield.

Lol, admittedly Gibson don't play too many games for Man Utd in the Prem. However he is still considered good enough to be maintained in the squad - albeit he's a fringe squad player. Fringe squad players at Man Utd aren't like they \are everywhere else though are they, you must realise that? Man Utd of recent have had such a strong squad they could arguably field two separate teams and both challenge for honours! I'd be very surprised if quite a few other premier league clubs wouldn''t be interested in him, even as a squad player (which is all we're saying Andrews is at Rovers).

The point I tried to make was that just because you play international football you are not automatically premiership standard.

I never said it did, but I would say he is starting in an International team which is holding it's own in a group with Italy, and look likely to qualify for the world cup.

So I'll ask this towards the tail end of last year we started to get our central midfielders back, how many games did Keith start in central midfield when Dunn, Grella, Warnock, mokoena and Tugay where fit????

Not being funny but surely you've shot yourself in the foot a bit there - if those players were fit why didn't Sam choose one of them to start at right back instead of Andrews? Why leave the other players on the bench? If your dire assessment of Andrews is correct surely those players would be mighty p1ssed off that they aren't getting a start but Andrews is and he's out of position. Starting Andrews in crucial games would be a big kick in the teeth from Big Sam to them don't you think? It wouldn't make any sense if you reckon he just isn't Prem quality, not even as a squad player.

What do you know about Sam's decision making process???? Are you Sam, no. Its your interpretation don't claim it as objective because its nothing of the sort.

Saying Sam uses Pro Zone is hardly a wild assumption surely? Therefore, at the very least, I'd say Sam's decision to play Andrews is a far more objective assessment of the player's ability than mine or your opinion of him.

So now my opinions due to me being swayed by the halo effect, perhaps its based on this: MY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE GAME.

Are you saying your knowledge and experience are better than Sam Allardyce and Gionvani Trappatoni?

Jonnolad you offered a reasonable arguement but if you now want to insult people which you have, then subjectivily claim anyone who disagrees with you is under the influence of the Halo effect, I'm going to say your arguments run its course.

I'll apologise if I've offended anyone but if certain specific people have been insulted, then maybe they shouldn't start straight off with insults far worse than anything I've done on this thread, wouldn't you think? And I don't see you bleating about these people either.

Saying people have a halo effect on Andrews isn't an insult though. To a greater or lesser degree everyone has a halo effect on all players - mostly positive for Rovers players I would guess. It's a proven human psychological trait in all of us. Pretty much every Rovers fan had a positive halo effect on Tugay for instance (the bloke could do no wrong), and quite a few would have a reverse halo effect on Lucas Neill (he was a bellend) at the end of their respective careers with us.

[LeChuck]

Are you saying your knowledge and experience are better than Sam Allardyce and Gionvani Trappatoni?

My word, I've answered for you several times! Against Bulgaria, Andrews' partner was Glenn Whelan and the backup was Liam Miller. With that standard of player to choose from it's no wonder Andrews is being picked, I think most here would do the same.

That doesn't mean he's good enough for an established Premier League team. Hopefully the bold bits will help you understand, you seem keen on using them yourself.

[tcj_jones]

Jonno, I think I'd be correct in saying (as I have already) that Andrews was most likely played out of position at right back because Sam was sacrificing one of his weaker players in another position and because he was match fit. Also, he is clearly more suited than the likes of Dunn and Tugay who are creative players or Grella because of his lack of place. Mokoena I'll give you.

[Kelbo]

Well, obviously...

What are the goals you speak of?

If you had sat through as many games as I have through a season, sometimes 4 per week, to be too precise I would probably be wrong, but, on two occassions I distinctly remember him playing a simple ball, which turned out to be a hospitl ball, looked as though (on one occassion as though Tugay was tackled) when in fact the ball played Tugs into trouble, with many prem midfielders they have the pace to get back and recover, dont simply think, oh, he's passed it and someone else gets tackled its not his fault, it is, as the quality of pass was simply not good enough.

Too many fans get blinkered and dont see the whole picture. A midfielder has three duties, pressure and support to both the defence and attack and to pick out a pass, Tugay, because of his quality could do this as he has what I describe as a football brain, it gives you an extra yard, thats why Bobby Moore was good, not very quick but his thinking was quicker than others, he read the game.

Savage wasnt a great footballer but he was quick out of the traps, pressed the ball and got his tackles in, his directive from Sparky was, win it and give it to Tugay!!!

Watch the old videos of Rovers under Hughes and Savage was in midfield, watch how quickly he closed the ball down, the opposition didnt have any respite, then watch him play the ball to Tugay or Bentley and thats how we were successful under Sparky. Its no coincidence our performances dipped when Savage stopped playing for Rovers, he was pretty quick, a terrier type player.

With Tugay and Andrews in the centre, we had no pace and this will have to be addressed, once the opposition get through our slow midfield, they are straight onto our defence.

Sams first game he pulled Andrews back and let him do a defensive role, defended in two banks of four, and when we got possession of the ball went at Stoke on the break, simple and basic coaching, prior to that our midfield were too far up the park and no pace to get back!!

Remember, and this is not trying to be clever here, many have mentioned the four goals he scored, granted in the games in which he scored they were important, but four goals for the number of games he played is not something special.

Lampard, Gerrard, Ronaldo, Cahill, Ireland and even Taylor at Bolton all scored at least twice as many goals last season as Andrews did !!

I have said previously, the lad tries hard, works his socks off and maybe as a makeshift off the bench ok, but dont get deluded here, he is not a premiership player, he simply doesnt have the neccssary technicaal abilty and at 28 dont think he ever will have, but of course one can be wrong.

[Kelbo]

Quick, pass on their details to big Sam!

Many lads are now unfortunately released due to their height and build, ask the scouts what they are looking for and its all power and pace, technical ability comes second!!

Spain didnt see it that way and with one of the smallest (in height) squads I have seen, murdered our national squad, absolutely footballed us to death!

Its sad that the future Jansens, Duffs etc are still out there only to be told 'dont call us we'll call you' by many top clubs,

Rovers are included in this and I know (unfortunately he died this year) a lad called Ian Harrisson who looked after the Blackburn under 15s - he was dismayed that lads from his team went to Rovers and were discarded due to their build!!

[Jonnolad]

Jonno, I think I'd be correct in saying (as I have already) that Andrews was most likely played out of position at right back because Sam was sacrificing one of his weaker players in another position and because he was match fit. Also, he is clearly more suited than the likes of Dunn and Tugay who are creative players or Grella because of his lack of place. Mokoena I'll give you.

In some matches (Liverpool was one I think) Andrews was played at right back, with Ooijer replacing Samba at centre back and he kept Khizanishvili on the bench. Therefore Sam had more faith in Andrews out of position at right back than he did playing Khizanishvili in his favoured position and playing Ooijer in the position he played for Holland and other clubs (Ooijer is seriously experienced at right back in other words).

Or was Sam saving Khizanishvili for the end of season once round the pitch, as he didn't seem to have much input for us from then on.

Not sure what the bold thing is all about btw.

[Jonnolad]

My word, I've answered for you several times! Against Bulgaria, Andrews' partner was Glenn Whelan and the backup was Liam Miller. With that standard of player to choose from it's no wonder Andrews is being picked, I think most here would do the same.

That doesn't mean he's good enough for an established Premier League team. Hopefully the bold bits will help you understand, you seem keen on using them yourself.

I didn't realise I was so keen on bold - there must be over 1000 words of mine on this page alone and there are no bold ones - I think you must have the halo effect on me with bold letters

My question still stands though - do you have more knowledge than Allardyce & Trappatoni or do you think they are right with their selection of Keith Andrews?

[Kelbo]

In some matches (Liverpool was one I think) Andrews was played at right back, with Ooijer replacing Samba at centre back and he kept Khizanishvili on the bench. Therefore Sam had more faith in Andrews at right back than he did playing Khizanishvili in his favoured position and playing Ooijer in the position he played for Holland and other clubs (Ooijer is seriously experienced at right back in other words).

Or was Sam saving Khizanishvili for the end of season once round the pitch, as he didn't seem to have much input for us from then on.

Not sure what the bold thing is all about btw.

I think you will find Ooijer played right side of a back three for Holland!!

[Blue blood]

In some matches (Liverpool was one I think) Andrews was played at right back, with Ooijer replacing Samba at centre back and he kept Khizanishvili on the bench. Therefore Sam had more faith in Andrews at right back than he did playing Khizanishvili in his favoured position and playing Ooijer in the position he played for Holland and other clubs (Ooijer is seriously experienced at right back in other words).

Or was Sam saving Khizanishvili for the end of season once round the pitch, as he didn't seem to have much input for us from then on.

Not sure what the bold thing is all about btw.

Whether Sam thinks Zurab is good enough is irrelivent to the debate to whether Andrews is good enough.

For the record, I think there's a lot of similarity between Andrews and Kuqi; both limited and not good enough, but tries hard and have some positives. The differences are the price paid, the circumstances in which they were brought, and the role they played in the squad. Had Kuqi been brought in by a struggling Souness in his latter days from Rangers as the number 1 striker for a couple of million pounds, whether we'd remember him and his first touch so fondly.

For me Andrews is definately not good enough, end of story. However, the blame lies with Ince not Andrews, and since he gives his all and gives his all he cannot really be booed/overly criticised. It is the manager's job to make sure that we aim for a higher quality of player

[Jonnolad]

I think you will find Ooijer played right side of a back three for Holland!!

Ooijer played 51 times for Holland. He also used to play predominately as right back at some of his former clubs. I can't be arsed trawling through the net, but I'd bet good money Ooijer has played in a tradional right back position in his time.

Besides, we're starting to split hairs here - Ooijer is extremely experienced at right back - with us alone! Yet Sam would rather play Andrews there and then play Ooijer in Khizanishvili's favoured position (and leave him on the bench). That doesn't sound like a manager who is playing Andrews at right back because there's no other option available to me.

[Jonnolad]

Whether Sam thinks Zurab is good enough is irrelivent to the debate to whether Andrews is good enough.

Of course it's relevant if Andrews being played out of position is keeping Zurab on the bench from his favoured position.

You're only claiming it is irrelevant because it dispels the myth of Sam playing Andrews at right back out of complete and utter desperation. Sam clearly had other options available to him, including the obvious one I've mentioned.

[Al]

Ooijer played 51 times for Holland. He also used to play predominately as right back at some of his former clubs. I can't be arsed trawling through the net, but I'd bet good money Ooijer has played in a tradional right back position in his time.

Besides, we're starting to split hairs here - Ooijer is extremely experienced at right back - with us alone! Yet Sam would rather play Andrews there and then play Ooijer in Khizanishvili's favoured position (and leave him on the bench). That doesn't sound like a manager who is playing Andrews at right back because there's no other option available to me.

Sounds to me like a manager who would rather not move around his entire defence if he can help it.

[Jonnolad]

Sounds to me like a manager who would rather not move around his entire defence if he can help it.

We've surely started to scrape the barrel for reasons here!

The manager played a central midfielder at right back, a right back at centre back, and leaves a centre back on the bench because he would "rather not move around his entire defence if he can help it"!

Makes perfect sense

Why would Sam not just play a right back at right back and a centre back at centre back, if he didn't want to move his entire defence around?

[Kelbo]

Whether Sam thinks Zurab is good enough is irrelivent to the debate to whether Andrews is good enough.

For the record, I think there's a lot of similarity between Andrews and Kuqi; both limited and not good enough, but tries hard and have some positives. The differences are the price paid, the circumstances in which they were brought, and the role they played in the squad. Had Kuqi been brought in by a struggling Souness in his latter days from Rangers as the number 1 striker for a couple of million pounds, whether we'd remember him and his first touch so fondly.

For me Andrews is definately not good enough, end of story. However, the blame lies with Ince not Andrews, and since he gives his all and gives his all he cannot really be booed/overly criticised. It is the manager's job to make sure that we aim for a higher quality of player

That is so correct!!

[JAL]

Then Ooijer and Derbyshire are clearly losers then from the examples given by Fife. Tugay gave the ball away cheaply as well in games, as did Warnock, as did Samba. As for Grella - he literally couldn't pass to his own team mates in some games. They all must be losers eh! They obviously aren't and neither is Andrews (well the jury is still out for Grella!). All players give the ball away at times. The stats show that Andrews actually gives the ball away less than most though.

When other players give the ball away, no-one cares. When other players give the ball away and it leads to a goal, no-one remembers - certainly not one where the ball was given away in the opposition's half - who then still have to get past the rest of our team to score. People clearly remember when it's Andrews though. It's interesting to note that Kelbo's answer to the question "How many goals were conceded directly following Andrews losing possesion?" was "Quite a few and directly too!", yet he clearly can't name another single one when asked. Does that not strike anyone else as odd?

The poor lad obviously has a far higher bar to reach than our other players - why? Did he cost us a fortune and should therefore be justifying this high cost? No. Has he come out and said he's not happy and wants to leave and should therefore be showing his commitment on the pitch? No. The opposite in fact. So why does Andrews have to make less mistakes than other players before he is worth his place in the squad? It's not fair on the lad.

With the exception of Keith FOR NOW, they have all gone.

So Keith could well find he joins the others, we'll just have to wait and see what happens next but theres definitely a bit of a pattern there.

[Jonnolad]

With the exception of Keith FOR NOW, they have all gone.

So Keith could well find he joins the others, we'll just have to wait and see what happens next but theres definitely a bit of a pattern there.

But would you rate Ooijer and Khiznishvili over Andrews out of position though?

[JAL]

But would you rate Ooijer and Khiznishvili over Andrews out of position though?

All had varying degrees of success in the right back spot, in order of the above three i'd put Ooijer in first place, followed by Keith, then Zurab third.

Bret Emmerton would have been my personal number one choice but then he was injured so all the others had to fill in.

If the Rovers team had been a little but stronger and Keith hadnt played as many games as he did, i'm sure the fans wouldnt have been as critical.

[Jonnolad]

All had varying degrees of success in the right back spot, in order of the above three i'd put Ooijer in first place, followed by Keith, then Zurab third.

Definitely agree with that ranking. You'd think Sam would too.

In which case though why not play Ooijer at right back and Zurab in his normal favoured position? Instead it seems Sam rates Andrews out of position more than he rates Zurab in position. Which would surely be seriously conflicting with other people's opinion of Andrews.

[JAL]

Definitely agree with that ranking. You'd think Sam would too.

In which case though why not play Ooijer at right back and Zurab in his normal favoured position? Instead it seems Sam rates Andrews out of position more than he rates Zurab in position. Which would surely be seriously conflicting with other people's opinion of Andrews.

Its called working with what you've got, getting the best out of what you've got jonnolad, management.

It was a high risk short term solution that Sam and Rovers got away with at the time. Could Rovers possibly get away with it again next season you wouldnt want to put your mortgage on it would you.