[Archived] Sam Allardyce

[Doaksie]

So... Allardyce turned on the good football tap because VH were in the crowd? NURSE!

I can't rationalise is myself. I've no idea why we stopped the ineffective long throw-ins and played with the most purpose we have this season. The only idea that springs to mind that is that they were sent out there invigorated because Chelsea were in town. Or maybe they were told of a Rovers legend called Ronnie Clayton and were told to make us fans proud to be Rovers. Doesn't make sense to change our style of 2 years just because VH were in town, I agree.

[BuckyRover]

I don't believe that is the case either. There must be a reason though. I really hope we can take this into the next game.

I hope it's not the players who suddenly found the motivation due to VH. That would indicate they are doing their own thing.

[den]

I'm still waiting for an explanation, Den.

Why the sudden change in our playing style (first half, at least)?

Why did we cut-back on the mindnumbing long-throws that pollute every game?

This just happened to come together at the same time the potential owners were watching from the stands?

OK Topman, I am trying to make a footballing point here. I aint trolling, because a troll is someone who posts in order to get a reaction and I don't do that [often].

First off, my main argument in my recent posts, is against those who continually dis every poor rovers display as being down to Allardyce's, set in stone, rigid, hoof it all the time to the isolated man up front who's career is being ruined by Allardyce's tactics. We have played some good football in quite a few of the other 9 PL games so far this season, so do you accept that Allardyce, aside from the long ball set pieces [which I've already agreed aren't varied enough] does have the team, at least trying to play decent, passing football?

If we can agree on that, then there's some common ground to start with.

[Hughesy]

I think Sam changed his tactics for one reason....Chelsea are VERY good in the air.

No point lumping it up or sticking it in the mixer if they have the players who can deal with easy....

Whatever the reason, we played very well on saturday and should have taken 3pts...Oh well!

[Commondore]

I think Sam changed his tactics for one reason....Chelsea are VERY good in the air.

No point lumping it up or sticking it in the mixer if they have the players who can deal with easy....

Whatever the reason, we played very well on saturday and should have taken 3pts...Oh well!

I don't really buy that. Can you name a team who's not good in the air?

[Neil Weaver]

I think Sam changed his tactics for one reason....Chelsea are VERY good in the air.

No point lumping it up or sticking it in the mixer if they have the players who can deal with easy....

Whatever the reason, we played very well on saturday and should have taken 3pts...Oh well!

..... and I wondered at the time (and since) if the Chelsea defence's aerial strength was a big reason why MGP's crossing has got slated - maybe he was under instruction from BFS to hit crosses low (apart from the one that ended up in the JW Upper )?

[BuckyRover]

So I guess if that is true, we should expect to see the long throw return on Saturday?

Interesting times

[Neil Weaver]

I wouldn't bet against it Bucky. Would you?

[PAFELL]

..... and I wondered at the time (and since) if the Chelsea defence's aerial strength was a big reason why MGP's crossing has got slated - maybe he was under instruction from BFS to hit crosses low (apart from the one that ended up in the JW Upper )?

Maybe Sam thought Rovers would get battered by Chelsea if they played football and not hoof ball. The the owners to be would realise £5 mill in january is not enough. (I don' t believe this by the way,) but it is a curious thing as to way the tactics were changed from the norm)

[sambo]

If their aerial ability is the reason, why didn't we not hoof it vs Stoke?

[den]

If their aerial ability is the reason, why didn't we not hoof it vs Stoke?

What's the point?

[Majiball]

Den,

Why have you got Ms Piggy as your avatar???

[gumboots]

Den,

Why have you got Ms Piggy as your avatar???

What have you got against pigs? Be careful or there will be some on here accusing you of having an anti-pig agenda!

[sambo]

What's the point?

Just talking in relation to Hughesy's point... hopefully it means Sam's learnt his lesson - against such teams, we should mix it up a bit more. Hopefully it wasn't just a show for the people watching, although who knows?! I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and say its either

A- The fact we had nothing to lose or

B - We have finally realised long ball doesn't work vs teams who excel in the air defensively..

[Majiball]

What have you got against pigs? Be careful or there will be some on here accusing you of having an anti-pig agenda!

Imagine the furore if he had fog horn leg horn???

[den]

Just talking in relation to Hughesy's point... hopefully it means Sam's learnt his lesson - against such teams, we should mix it up a bit more.

Ah yes, Sam's probably learned his lesson.

[sambo]

Ah yes, Sam's probably learned his lesson.

What is your problem with everyone? You're not even making any points, just making snide remarks about others.

[Majiball]

What is your problem with everyone? You're not even making any points, just making snide remarks about others.

[den]

Den,

Why have you got Ms Piggy as your avatar???

What's wrong with Miss Piggy?

[Majiball]

What's wrong with Miss Piggy?

LOL, you got yourself on Utube quickly. I always knew there was something fishy about you!!

Nothing wrong with Ms Piggy, I haven't called her fat or ham. I was just curious that's all.

[Doaksie]

a troll is someone who posts in order to get a reaction and I don't do that [often].

What's the point?

Ah yes, Sam's probably learned his lesson.

I'm not sure, but is twice in just 10 minutes regarded as often.

[den]

What is your problem with everyone? You're not even making any points, just making snide remarks about others.

Just fed up with the bull spouted about the manager. I mean, c'mon, we apparently changed formations and tactics on Saturday, [although no-one has pointed out what formation and tactics we used, that were any different than previous games] - just to impress the Indians!

It's obvious to me why we played well. All you had to do was watch the game.

[sambo]

Just fed up with the bull spouted about the manager. I mean, c'mon, we apparently changed formations and tactics on Saturday, [although no-one has pointed out what formation and tactics we used, that were any different than previous games] - just to impress the Indians!

It's obvious to me why we played well. All you had to do was watch the game.

You also shot me down for suggesting it could have been Sam trying to avoid an aerial duel up front with Chelsea's defence? I don't think I was talking bull when I questioned why the whole approach was different to Stoke etc. I gave him credit for it! And I see no reason why it wouldn't be to impress the Indians - after all, new men in charge, maybe Sam rammed it home to the players that they're potentially playing for their futures? Would certainly fire me up!

[BRFC95]

It's obvious to me why we played well. All you had to do was watch the game.

I didn't watch the game, would you mind explaining why?

Thanks

[den]

You also shot me down for suggesting it could have been Sam trying to avoid an aerial duel up front with Chelsea's defence?

No I wasn't disagreeing with you there Sambo. There's every chance that he thought that looping long throws onto the heads of Terry and Alex, with Czech waiting to mop up the rest, wouldn't yield much.

Every credit to the manager eh?

And I see no reason why it wouldn't be to impress the Indians

Well some folk who reckon that Sam can't, and never has played anything other than hoofball, are now saying he did it just to impress the Indians. Hardly consistent is it? It's ridiculous.

Again, what did he change tactically? How was the formation any different? He didn't and it wasn't.

Bottom line is that Rovers played well. Benjani made a big difference in the way that his movement gave Chelsea problems all the time he was on. He could turn and run at them, while getting shots away, he was also bringing the other front runners into the game better and the result of that was a far better brand of free flowing football.

This wasn't the only reason for the really good performance though, because there were some really good performances from other players as well. Unfortunately, we still don't have the quality of player to be able to do that week in, week out. When we are put under pressure, particularly in away games, we can't cope as well. Only the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal and Man Utd have the players who can play exceptionally well, week in, week out.

So, good positive performance, put Chelsea under pressure most of the afternoon, with better quality up front. Player performances coming together better than of late, all making to what we saw.

Tactically, the team got the 4-5-1 right for once. It gave us the strength of numbers in midfield, while the contribution of Benjani and Roberts, who gave the opponents back four far more to think about, always encouraged the midfielders - in particular the two Dioufs, to get forward. Their back four was never allowed to settle.

Nothing to do with the manager seeing the errors of his ways, or the manager trying to impress new buyers. In my opinion, it was a display that he's been trying to achieve since he's been here.

and no, I'm no Sam apologist. I have mixed views on him, but he doesn't deserve most of the bile that he gets on here.