American Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Not good enough to be a Premiership starter, but good enough to be a 5th midfielder forced into action due to injuries.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
Exiled in Toronto Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Not good enough to be a Premiership starter, but good enough to be a 5th midfielder forced into action due to injuries. Exactly,but there are some who believe our 5th choice midfielder should be someone who would be guaranteed a start at other prem clubs, just like the rest of our squad....
LeChuck Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Not good enough to be a Premiership starter, but good enough to be a 5th midfielder forced into action due to injuries. 5th choice? Why is he starting when only Grella is injured then?
A cup of beans Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 5th choice? Why is he starting when only Grella is injured then? IMO andrews started against stoke mainly because we need to conserve tugay's energy, for the hectic xmas and early jan period. dunn isnt fit to play 90 mins, and thats another reason for having the magician in reserve. i believe andrews isnt good enough for premier league. he can pick a nice pass out, if he's given time, but he never gets to grip with the pace of the game. he doesnt help out in anyway defensively, and is constantly out of position - i counted 4 occasions yesterday, where he bombed forward - leaving acres of space behind him. i really think grella will do well for us. he clearly was rushed back too soon, against boro - but he still impressed me. nothing fancy or skillful about him, but he's a great holding player. you dont play all those years in italy if youre no good.
islander200 Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 how about you just accepted, that andrews is not good enough and never should have been signed.. if people referr yo him as a pub player, so (Please don't use that word again)ing what.. does it hurt your feelings.. ? it seems your the one with an agenda, defending everything and everybody at the club.. what is it that you want, the gold medal as the numero uno rovers fan, being recognised as the most hardcore supporter.. your so desperate in your arguments, that you bring in ince into this.. its plain obvious for thr majority, that andrews is not good enough.. but with ince´s nutsack swinging in your face, its hard to see the reality eh.? I voted for allardyce to be manager in the summer mate but yes i am guilty that i wanted paul ince to succeed.I am very very sorry that me rating andrews as a good squad member has offended you so much! Maybe he is backing him because: He cost very little He was picked by Sam yesterday He was highlighted by Alan Hansen as one of our best performers yesterday Picked by Trappatoni for Ireland Scored on his international debut Give 100% for the cause (not a bad attribute in a relegation dogfight, in our last relegation battle we had Jonathan Douglas playing for us, Andrews is much better than him) Maybe if people got off his back he would be even better (for example when he played for Ireland I don't imagine the crowd were "on his back" for the whole game, and he scored a goal). I couldnt agree with you more
Alex Rover Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Oh for God's sake. Andrew's is a great addition to the squad and if you don't agree you can suck a sprout. The old Blackburn End enclosure gave stick to Super Atko the minute he joined Rovers as a right-back for £60,000 in a blaze of glory from Scunthorpe United and we were right to do so.....until King Kenny corrected us a few years later.
ABBEY Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 I did Tris about the lack of cold beer outside Anfield !!! you should of knocked on the arkles window at 10am then
Amo Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Seeing as first-team affairs were overseen by former Dons coach Karl Robinson, it wasn't a surprise really to see Andrews in the starting line-up.
American Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 5th choice? Why is he starting when only Grella is injured then? I was counting Reid in there. My guess is that Sam felt he was a better fit with Dunn than Tugay (who would technically be the only one in the other 4 above him who was healthy that he played ahead of).
bigbrandjohn Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 The Andrews discussion is just a waste of time. He is a Rovers player, he does a job and I think if Sam gets working on him he can become a better player. His biggest problem is that he was signed by Ince. He is under new management and anyone who can make Kevin Davies become a Premier goal scorer will probably develop Andrews as well.
dingles staying down 4ever Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 IMO andrews started against stoke mainly because we need to conserve tugay's energy, for the hectic xmas and early jan period. dunn isnt fit to play 90 mins, and thats another reason for having the magician in reserve. i believe andrews isnt good enough for premier league. he can pick a nice pass out, if he's given time, but he never gets to grip with the pace of the game. he doesnt help out in anyway defensively, and is constantly out of position - i counted 4 occasions yesterday, where he bombed forward - leaving acres of space behind him. i really think grella will do well for us. he clearly was rushed back too soon, against boro - but he still impressed me. nothing fancy or skillful about him, but he's a great holding player. you dont play all those years in italy if youre no good. Why does your views differ so differently to Alan Hansen's review on MOTD on Saturday? You've basically said the exact opposite of him
47er Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 Hughes signed the axe though who for me is much worse than andrews yet he is targeted for abuse.I dont think any player should be singled out.Huges also signed berner and franny jeffers yet they did not recieve the abuse that andrews gets. The Axe was signed to do a specific job in a specific situation ie provide additional protection for the 4-man defence by being the 5th mid-fielder and boy did he do it! The opposition knew they'd been "tackled" when the Axe got them! Once that role wasn't needed anymore there was no further role for him imo. Quite different from Ince signing Andrews.
CrazyIvan Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 Why does your views differ so differently to Alan Hansen's review on MOTD on Saturday? You've basically said the exact opposite of him Everyone is a pundit. Everyone's opinion is always right too. The fact Andrews played speaks volumes, the fact he played 90 minutes speaks volumes, the fact his performance was highlighted along with Dunn by Mr Hansen speaks volumes but people do tend to stick to their opinions no matter what. If Andrews continues to play in midfield for the rest of the season and beyond, what will those people say? Some will ALWAYS say he isn't good enough. I've never said that he's a world beater or he's better than anybody else in the squad but he IS a Rovers player and could do with your support along with the rest of the team. Some of the abuse makes me laugh though. For those that say he can't tackle, they obviously didn't see the tackle he put in on a Stokie that stopped their forward advancement and got the ball back to Robinson at the same time. He does a job, he's not the be-all and end-all that people seem to want but he cost peanuts and has repaid that money in bucket-fulls already this season.
Blueandwhitemike Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 He was also on the bench in Garth Crook's team of the week http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/s...bci/7631245.stm Along with Nelsen, Samba, and Roberts, while Dunn and Benni were in the 11. He's not great, but he is alright for 5th choice, played ok on Saturday and he does have the ability to make a lovely pass.
OscarRaven Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 I'll never warm to Andrews - its the ears and the girly jogging around the pitch. A few more points, the odd goal and Andrews will lose the Ince link that tarnishes him so badly. Fully expect to recoup our cash on this signing even if he isn't a world beater and a bit lightweight. Not a fan but not a critic either, he's doing a job for us (better than Moko) so I'll leave him alone.
CrazyIvan Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 I'll never warm to Andrews - its the ears and the girly jogging around the pitch. A few more points, the odd goal and Andrews will lose the Ince link that tarnishes him so badly. Fully expect to recoup our cash on this signing even if he isn't a world beater and a bit lightweight. Not a fan but not a critic either, he's doing a job for us (better than Moko) so I'll leave him alone. My words to my wife the other week at Wigan 'He runs like a girl...' at which she spotted him and laughed.
dennis the menace Posted December 22, 2008 Posted December 22, 2008 the main arguments in the defence of andrews is, well hughes bought the axe.. so to put it into perspective, they are defending him, by comparing him to the worst midfield player we have, who was bought to do a certain job, when hughes needed it.. with a budget, way way smaller, then what ince blew away.. get a grip people..! those situations are worlds apart.. the way i think is, that we should by players, who we would and could compare, to the best players, that we already have, or even players who surpasses those players, already under contract.. perhaps andrews is good, as a squad player, but a squad player was not what we needed, what we needed was and is quality..
American Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 I'm sure the thought at the time was the Grella was what we needed and Andrews was cheap cover. Oops.
Mr Creosote Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 the main arguments in the defence of andrews is, well hughes bought the axe.. so to put it into perspective, they are defending him, by comparing him to the worst midfield player we have, who was bought to do a certain job, when hughes needed it.. with a budget, way way smaller, then what ince blew away.. get a grip people..! those situations are worlds apart.. the way i think is, that we should by players, who we would and could compare, to the best players, that we already have, or even players who surpasses those players, already under contract.. perhaps andrews is good, as a squad player, but a squad player was not what we needed, what we needed was and is quality.. I think that the main arguments in defence of Andrews are that some of those constantly sniping at him have gone way, way over the top. Ince has left now.
Hughesy Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Like it or not... Andrews isnt as bad as some make out...Infact his performance was highlighted by Hansen on MOTD. We will more than recoup that cash when we come to sell him to a top championship/ relegation battling premiership side.
47er Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Like it or not... Andrews isnt as bad as some make out...Infact his performance was highlighted by Hansen on MOTD. We will more than recoup that cash when we come to sell him to a top championship/ relegation battling premiership side. What sort of club did Ince think we would be then when he signed him? Top championship or relegation battling?
waggy Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 very funny that bfs picked andrews on saturday
tony gale's mic Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 very funny that bfs picked andrews on saturday Very funny that Rovers picked BFS in the first place, eh waggy?
waggy Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Very funny that Rovers picked BFS in the first place, eh waggy? not at all,and when spit the dog appears i will descend into a very deep depression
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.