[Archived] Keith Andrews - Rovers Newest Signing

[The Harwood Yankee]

Nothing to discuss about Andrews. Anyone who saw him play for Rovers last season who knows the first thing about football must be aware that he's an absolute mediocrity and totally out of his depth in the Premier League. If Fulham are prepared to take him off our hands at any price I'd bite their hand off. He was a product of Ince's weedy impersonation of a Premiership manager and anyone who attempts to defend Andrews with such pathetic arguments as 'he always tried his best' is clearly a loser who probably defended Ince and said 'get behind whoever is the manager, regardless.'

Just get rid & lets get someone in who is Premiership standard for a Premiership wage. We're a football team, not a bloody charity shop.

[den]

No. It means Sam and his coaches and medics have seen a good footballer in Keith Andrews.

Forget the 94 posts by Jonnolad and Den. It is amazing that an "ordinary" player like Andrews has 87 pages of discussion about him.

I hope Rovers keep him.

Bazza, you've been watching rovers for longer than me. You must know after all those years what's needed to make a good top division midfielder. Think of all the great midfielders you've seen at Ewood over the years, even in the lower divisions and then compare. He doesn't come out on top many times, does he?

[Al]

Agreed. Andrews has heart and keeps fit. Something a team can never have too much off, IMO.

Never have too much of? A team of 10 Andrews would finish the season with zero points.

[Alan75]

Never have too much of? A team of 10 Andrews would finish the season with zero points.

Blame the keeper myself

[Jan]

Hasn't he gone yet? The joke's gone on long enough Mr Williams, just take the money and let him go.

[Hasta]

Andrews did a job last year despite the critics, many of whom criticised him because of the Ince connections. On what we saw last year he's a better midfielder than Grella or The Axe.

We cannot count on Dunn or Reid being fit and I have serious doubts about whether a player snapped up from the French 3rd division is going to be the solution.

Fortunately two of our fullbacks are our best reliable midfielders who we can rely on to be fit. However unless we get a midfielder who can guarantee us 30+ league games a season we can't let Andrews go.

[philipl]

The fact Andrews has not gone means they have looked at Dunn, Reid and Emerton in pre-season training and are very worried about what they are seeing.

[Uddersfelt Blue]

Andrews did a job last year despite the critics, many of whom criticised him because of the Ince connections. On what we saw last year he's a better midfielder than Grella or The Axe.

We cannot count on Dunn or Reid being fit and I have serious doubts about whether a player snapped up from the French 3rd division is going to be the solution.

Fortunately two of our fullbacks are our best reliable midfielders who we can rely on to be fit. However unless we get a midfielder who can guarantee us 30+ league games a season we can't let Andrews go.

I think I could guarantee 30 games a season but doesn't mean I'm good enough for the Premier League

I would agree that he played an important part in keeping us up but we need players who will take us into the top half and with due respect I just don't think he is of that calibre.

As for Grella, the jury's out yet

[den]

As a matter of interest, which partnership would people think, could do the best job in the Prem - Andrews and Grella, or Metcalfe and Parkes [at their best obviously]?

[Hasta]

I think I could guarantee 30 games a season but doesn't mean I'm good enough for the Premier League

I would agree that he played an important part in keeping us up but we need players who will take us into the top half and with due respect I just don't think he is of that calibre.

As for Grella, the jury's out yet

I agree he's not the answer to push us on. It's just that with the doubts about the injury-list in that area I wold like us to buy 2 midfielders before we release Andrews. If we do that then great, £3mill is a good price.

Again, whether he's premieship quality or not, I think he's better than Grella and I hold very little hope for Nzonzi. We need 2, proven, injury free midfielders. Otherwise £3million will not be much good come November when we are having to push Samba into the middle of the pitch cos of injuries.

[John]

Mokoena and Andrews was a good combo.....

[ffan]

Anyone know if Fulham are going to pay the reported 3 million?

[Alan75]

As a matter of interest, which partnership would people think, could do the best job in the Prem - Andrews and Grella, or Metcalfe and Parkes [at their best obviously]?

Different division different times den. Dont think you can compare

Although those crazy runs of Metcalfe were, whilst frustrating, entertaining.

I'm sure he used to meet himself going side ways across the pitch sometimes.

[Al]

I agree he's not the answer to push us on. It's just that with the doubts about the injury-list in that area I wold like us to buy 2 midfielders before we release Andrews. If we do that then great, £3mill is a good price.

Again, whether he's premieship quality or not, I think he's better than Grella and I hold very little hope for Nzonzi. We need 2, proven, injury free midfielders. Otherwise £3million will not be much good come November when we are having to push Samba into the middle of the pitch cos of injuries.

It's a poor state of affairs if we have to keep inferior players just because they are not injured.

By the way there is no way that Andrews is better than Grella. Just had a few injuries.

[den]

Different division different times den. Dont think you can compare

Although those crazy runs of Metcalfe were, whilst frustrating, entertaining.

I'm sure he used to meet himself going side ways across the pitch sometimes.

I know Alan. Thought it might spark an interesting debate though!

[philipl]

No brainer- Metcalfe and Parkes.

Never mind the era, never mind the division.

[Uddersfelt Blue]

No brainer- Metcalfe and Parkes.

Never mind the era, never mind the division.

"Sid" Cowans would be one of my favourites. Unfortunately Metcalfe and Parkes didn't prove themselves at the top level

[trs]

"Sid" Cowans would be one of my favourites. Unfortunately Metcalfe and Parkes didn't prove themselves at the top level

Cowans or Tugay?

[Uddersfelt Blue]

Cowans or Tugay?

Both, now that would be something!

[philipl]

"Sid" Cowans would be one of my favourites. Unfortunately Metcalfe and Parkes didn't prove themselves at the top level

But answering the question posed, they'd still be chosen every week ahead of Grella and Andrews.

[den]

But answering the question posed, they'd still be chosen every week ahead of Grella and Andrews.

Yep, that was the question. Doesn't matter whether or not they played in the top division, - lot's of people saw enough of Metty and Parkes, to know whether they were better players than Andrews and Grella.

[Fife Rover]

I know Alan. Thought it might spark an interesting debate though!

I think all us oldies know what you are up to Den. But here's one that's not biting.

Edit: Spoke too soon. I didn't allow for Philipl; there's always one isn't there?

[den]

I think all us oldies know what you are up to Den. But here's one that's not biting.

Would that be because you think M&P were better Fife, or does it cause you some other kind of problem? I'm sure you would tell us if you thought Andrews and Grella were better.

It's not a question to be frightened of.

[Fife Rover]

Would that be because you think M&P were better Fife, or does it cause you some other kind of problem? I'm sure you would tell us if you thought Andrews and Grella were better.

It's not a question to be frightened of.

I am not frightened of anything Den. I just think it would be a completely pointless debate. Metcalfe and Parkes were very good in the team and divisions they played in. But seeing that neither of them ever played in the old first division any speculation would be just that and a waste of time and effort. You might just as well turn the argument round the other way and ask if Grella and Andrews (both at their best of course as in your original stipulation) would have have looked good in the old 2nd and 3rd divisions?

As I said above.....pointless.

[den]

I am not frightened of anything Den. I just think it would be a completely pointless debate. Metcalfe and Parkes were very good in the team and divisions they played in. But seeing that neither of them ever played in the old first division any speculation would be just that and a waste of time and effort. You might just as well turn the argument round the other way and ask if Grella and Andrews (both at their best of course as in your original stipulation) would have have looked good in the old 2nd and 3rd divisions?

As I said above.....pointless.

Don't follow that at all Fife. Was Stuart Metcalfe a better player than Keith Andrews - and was Tony Parkes a better player than Vince Grella? They didn't play in the same divisions, but I would say that Bryan Douglas was a better player than Stuart Metcalfe, - wouldn't you?