[Archived] West Ham Preview

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Lack of home wins, together with a lack of pace and creativity is a cause for deep concern....

I'm very concerned by our inability to win enough matches at Ewood this season. Just 3 wins at home so far this season is pitiful and is the joint-worst record in terms of wins at home in the Premiership. Apart from Hull City, who have also managed to win only 3 matches at home, all of our other relegation rivals have picked up more wins at home than Rovers.

Stoke have won 8 matches at home, with the Britannia Stadium becoming a bit of a fortress for them this season. Unfortunately their home form could keep them up. Newcastle and Middlesbrough have won 4 matches each at home, Sunderland have won 5 home matches and Portsmouth have won 6 times at Fratton Park this season.

We need to try to understand the reasons why we have not won enough matches at home. When the onus is on Rovers to attack teams with pace and create good chances at home we are lacking in the qualities needed. We don't have enough pace, quality and invention in wide areas or indeed in the centre of midfield. Consequently when playing at home other teams are able to soak up the often feeble pressure that Rovers attempt to apply.

Away from home is a slightly different ball game. We've won 4 times away from home, picking up more wins than at Ewood. Away from home the onus is on the other team to attack us and even with our lack of pace and speed we can still sometimes exploit the gaps and spaces in the other team's defensive line by being dogged, hard-working, determined and persistent.

At times we've been dreadful at home this season. We've started off too slowly, haven't put the other team under nearly enough pressure and have then found ourselves a goal down. Against Bolton at home we found ourselves two goals down, managed to claw back the match to 2-2, but it was a game we desperately needed to win.

Against the Arabs of Man City we got ourselves into a two-goal lead. But due to very poor decision-making and a lack of concentration we ended up throwing away the two-goal lead and drawing the match 2-2. I hope and pray that those missed points and missed opportunities at home don't come back to haunt us at the end of the season.

Just 3 wins at home so far this season is simply not good enough. Under Paul Ince Rovers managed just one victory at home - a 1-0 win over Fulham. Mr Allardyce has only won two matches at home - against Stoke and Newcastle.

In the last seven years the fewest home wins by any Premiership team who have managed to stay up is five. Last season Fulham won 5 times at home and survived, in the 2006/07 season Wigan and Man City won 5 matches at home and survived, in the 2005/06 season Portsmouth also won 5 matches at Fratton Park and stayed up.

The last Premiership team to stay up and win fewer than 5 matches at home was Middlesbrough in the 2000/2001 season, when they won 4 times at the Riverside Stadium and still survived.

Recent history in the last seven seasons would suggest that Rovers need to win a minimum of two more matches at Ewood this season to take us up to 5 home wins. We've got four more matches at home, against Spurs, Wigan, Portsmouth and West Brom. Rovers desperately need to win a minimum of two of those four games, as well as also picking up another win away from home - preferably against Stoke at the Britannia Stadium on the 18th of April, which is going to be a massive six-pointer.

Rovers have got a huge battle on their hands along with perhaps seven or eight other clubs. West Brom are almost certainly doomed, so that's one relegation spot that looks to be out of the way. If Rovers can manage to survive, then in the summer Sam Allardyce has got a huge rebuilding job on his hands. A number of players need to be shipped out and better players brought in.

Our inadequacies in terms of pace, creativity, squad depth and talent should be patently clear to those who have watched us struggle to win just 3 matches at home so far this season. Hopefully the board and trustees might realise that they need to dig some pennies out and try to provide some funds for a squad which has failed so miserably at home this season.

[92er]

I also remember the West Ham defender who had two full hands worth of Samba's shirt at a couple of the set pieces towards the end of the game.

I don't think it was at a couple of set pieces. I think it was all the way through the match.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Cracking shot, Keith, lad. Well done. He has been vilified on this board, but he popped up when needed and I thought he did okay as a makeshift right back too.

I was disappointed by the boos that greeted Keith Andrews earlier in the season Mum. He might be a player of limited ability who at times seemed out of his depth facing top-class midfielders in the Premiership, but he seems a pleasant lad who is trying his best for the team.

There have been matches this season which have passed him by and he hasn't been able to have any impact on the game at all. Nevertheless he has scored three vital goals this season - against West Brom, Hull and West Ham.

I accept Keith's limitations, but he certainly doesn't deserve to be booed. El Hadj-Diouf has more natural talent on the pitch than Andrews, but Diouf is a thoroughly loathsome creature guilty in the past of spitting, diving, cheating, reckless challenges, dangerous driving and allegedly making threats to stab a team-mate.

Diouf might have more talent than Andrews, but I'd far rather share a drink and a chat with Keith than with disgusting dirty Diouf. Hopefully after his equaliser against West Ham the boos won't resurface towards Andrews again this season.

Does Stuart Hall dislike Rovers or does he dislike Sam Allardyce ?

He did not have a good word to say about us in any of his reports.

Stuart Hall certainly does not dislike Sam Allardyce on a personal level. Stuart does however dislike ugly direct football, which has been played by teams like Wimbledon in the past and at Bolton under Big Sam.

It is certainly nothing personal towards Sam, because Hall has said that Allardyce actually provided him with one of his favourite memories in nearly 50 years of following football for BBC Radio. That came on a freezing evening in the 1970s, after a match at Bolton's Burnden Park, when Hall found that his orange car was half buried in snow and immovable amid a blizzard.

Hall said: "Sam came out of the players' entrance and almost singlehandedly pushed it out of the car park. How many of them would do that today? They'd probably be in their Ferrari and on to the next assignment."

A link to those comments on Allardyce in an interview with Hall is HERE

Stuart Hall is a man who at times can be entertaining and at times somewhat irritating. I hated his programme "It's a Knockout" - with it's absurd set of games, ridiculous costumes and Hall's constant cackle of laughter at the silly fools who paraded on the programme. However I usually like his football radio reports which are different to the norm.

Stuart has his flaws, but he remains essentially a nice chap who evokes the football from years gone by.

Incidentally I share Stuart Hall's views on the current PC culture we now have in this country and also his views on the loathsome Robert Mugabe and how he has brought Zimbabwe to extinction. (A link to those comments from Hall is HERE)

As Stuart says: "You can't say what you want any more, we are living in a police state".

Rather apt words I think at the moment....

[Exiled_Rover]

That's irrelevant. Diouf stood as the ball came in, not backing in, and green ran straight through him. They are never given but that was a foul. Keepers get free run in the premiership, if they run into someone then the outfield player has automatically fouled them.

Imo the only one diouf backed into green for was the offside first goal. The majority of the time he just stands there, which is good as it stops the keeper seeing.

That makes up for the fact that if a keeper goes near an attacking player who is moving on goal it's a penalty.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

That's irrelevant. Diouf stood as the ball came in, not backing in, and green ran straight through him. They are never given but that was a foul. Keepers get free run in the premiership, if they run into someone then the outfield player has automatically fouled them.

Imo the only one diouf backed into green for was the offside first goal. The majority of the time he just stands there, which is good as it stops the keeper seeing.

Technically standing in front of any player's path to the ball and making no attempt yourself used to be called obstruction so yes it is a foul. Just like defenders weren't allowed to shield a ball out of play by zig zaging between an opposing player and the ball but how many are those are given. It is not just Foy who protects keepers.

But Abbey I agree the incident in question was a penalty as Diouff was moving towards the ball all be it slowly. It is also a penalty every time their number 14, Kovac I think, wanted to swap shirts with any player he was marking.

Anyway Saturday's game so does Rovers second half performance resemble a team who got a tactical masterclass from Tony Pulis at half time. When did Rovers turn into Stoke? We scored from a long throw so proceeded to play for them all the rest of the game. There was at least one occasion that when the ball was in open play an attacking ball was there to be played into the box but Rovers just allowed to role out of play for a throwing. It is OK having the long throw in your Arsenal and can be effective but use it all the time then the opposotion get wise to it and pack the box like the majority of the second half. It becomes easy to defend. The problem once this had occured was that Rovers ran out of ideas, Benni went wide and did create openings but he is Rovers one penalty box poacher without Derbyshire and so Rovers for all the possession in their box never created a single chance where the keeper had to save or you said to yourself " He should have scored that."

Defensively it is no good playing a defensive midfielder and a left back in midfield and allow a player to run fifty yards unopposed and still not got anywhere near him. Even then once he has run fifty yards we then leave our left back the choice of does he go to close down that player or stay with the player he is supposed to be marking. Crazy defending. Other than that I can't remember Robinson having a shot to save.

Why have players like Tugay,Dunn or Carlos on the bench when you are crying out for a bit of variety and not use them? For those advocating the return to 4-4-2 for Saturday with RSC out injured starting with Benni and Roberts means we have no forwards on the bench meaning no plan B. I was surprised that Zurab did not come on so Sam could put big Chris up front for the aerial bombardment.

[67splitscreen]

I was disappointed by the boos that greeted Keith Andrews earlier in the season Mum. He might be a player of limited ability who at times seemed out of his depth facing top-class midfielders in the Premiership, but he seems a pleasant lad who is trying his best for the team.

There have been matches this season which have passed him by and he hasn't been able to have any impact on the game at all. Nevertheless he has scored three vital goals this season - against West Brom, Hull and West Ham.

I accept Keith's limitations, but he certainly doesn't deserve to be booed. El Hadj-Diouf has more natural talent on the pitch than Andrews, but Diouf is a thoroughly loathsome creature guilty in the past of spitting, diving, cheating, reckless challenges, dangerous driving and allegedly making threats to stab a team-mate.

Diouf might have more talent than Andrews, but I'd far rather share a drink and a chat with Keith than with disgusting dirty Diouf. Hopefully after his equaliser against West Ham the boos won't resurface towards Andrews again this season.

Stuart Hall certainly does not dislike Sam Allardyce on a personal level. Stuart does however dislike ugly direct football, which has been played by teams like Wimbledon in the past and at Bolton under Big Sam.

It is certainly nothing personal towards Sam, because Hall has said that Allardyce actually provided him with one of his favourite memories in nearly 50 years of following football for BBC Radio. That came on a freezing evening in the 1970s, after a match at Bolton's Burnden Park, when Hall found that his orange car was half buried in snow and immovable amid a blizzard.

Hall said: "Sam came out of the players' entrance and almost singlehandedly pushed it out of the car park. How many of them would do that today? They'd probably be in their Ferrari and on to the next assignment."

A link to those comments on Allardyce in an interview with Hall is HERE

Stuart Hall is a man who at times can be entertaining and at times somewhat irritating. I hated his programme "It's a Knockout" - with it's absurd set of games, ridiculous costumes and Hall's constant cackle of laughter at the silly fools who paraded on the programme. However I usually like his football radio reports which are different to the norm.

Stuart has his flaws, but he remains essentially a nice chap who evokes the football from years gone by.

Incidentally I share Stuart Hall's views on the current PC culture we now have in this country and also his views on the loathsome Robert Mugabe and how he has brought Zimbabwe to extinction. (A link to those comments from Hall is HERE)

As Stuart says: "You can't say what you want any more, we are living in a police state".

Rather apt words I think at the moment....

Your first post above this one was a good read, a fair assessment of our current plight.

The post above a fair reflection and a similar view to my own on KA, of Stuart Hall as you say, he is one on his own, not everyone's cup of tea.

And then what, you go and spoil it all by reverting to what seems to be your favorite pass time............. take your agendas to a political thread, better still, get yourself a soapbox in Hyde Park, or where ever. All this has nothing what so ever to do with a bloody good preview of our next match.

I and many others I imagine are a bit peed off with them creeping into every thread you post on.

If it's football fine, other wise .........................

[only2garners]

Stuart Hall is a man who at times can be entertaining and at times somewhat irritating. I hated his programme "It's a Knockout" - with it's absurd set of games, ridiculous costumes and Hall's constant cackle of laughter at the silly fools who paraded on the programme. However I usually like his football radio reports which are different to the norm.

Stuart has his flaws, but he remains essentially a nice chap who evokes the football from years gone by.

I can't comment on the relative merits of Andrews and Diouf as a drinking partner but I can comment on Stuart Hall, who I had the misfortune to share a table with at a do several years ago. He was actually compering the proceedings and being paid to be there but he spent the night getting ###### and being generally embarrassing. The organisers had to keep him off the sage by the end - a complete liability. Compare this with David Hamilton, who did the same job at last year's do (and was featured on MOTD2 last night). I would previously have regarded him as an irritating nonentity but he was damned good company as well as an excellent compere.

[gumboots]

I can't comment on the relative merits of Andrews and Diouf as a drinking partner but I can comment on Stuart Hall, who I had the misfortune to share a table with at a do several years ago. He was actually compering the proceedings and being paid to be there but he spent the night getting ###### and being generally embarrassing. The organisers had to keep him off the sage by the end - a complete liability.

I think this is the first time I've seen that innocent herb named as being responsible for someone's bad behaviour!

[den]

Technically standing in front of any player's path to the ball and making no attempt yourself used to be called obstruction so yes it is a foul. Just like defenders weren't allowed to shield a ball out of play by zig zaging between an opposing player and the ball but how many are those are given. It is not just Foy who protects keepers.

Wrong on the first point and wrong on the second.

If one player is standing still and another player runs into him, it's a foul by the player running. No player is obliged to get out of the way of another.

As for your second point - that's never been a law of the game. You can put your body between an opponent and the ball, as long as you are within playing distance of the ball. Otherwise it's obstruction.

As for Diouff and Green, Diouff can stand where he wants. If Green then pushes him - that's a foul. If he moves between Green and the ball [when Green is going for the ball] and isn't within playing distance of the ball [which he most likely wouldn't be] he would be obstructing the Keeper.

[Ozz]

As for your second point - that's never been a law of the game. You can put your body between an opponent and the ball, as long as you are within playing distance of the ball. Otherwise it's obstruction.

Indeed-It's called shielding.

[johnradfordsubbuteo]

Like the lad Marshal Bosquet said of the Charge of the Light Brigade: " C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le football".

[waggy]

I went to a wedding yesterday and have had to make do with MoTD highlights. Imo that was not a penalty. If looked 6 of one to me and no matter Zola's remarks he'd have been livid if it had been awarded against WHU.

definate penalty,but there offside goal evens it up

[gumboots]

definate penalty,but there offside goal evens it up

Definitely not a penalty and nothing evens up a goal that should have been disallowed, unless it's getting a goal yourself that should also be disallowed.

[thenodrog]

definate penalty,but there offside goal evens it up

How on earth can you say that? They were both grappling in fact from the refs view he'd see the WHU player more clearly. As I said 6 of 1.

[JAL]

How on earth can you say that? They were both grappling in fact from the refs view he'd see the WHU player more clearly. As I said 6 of 1.

The referee has to be 100% sure its a penalty, hands on hearts which ever way you look at it theres still the other side to it, that you simply cant ignore, that means you can never be fully certain 100% its a penalty. The referee made the right call though not many seem to be giving him any credit for it. Wheres the respect.

Well done to the referee !!

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Wrong on the first point and wrong on the second.

If one player is standing still and another player runs into him, it's a foul by the player running. No player is obliged to get out of the way of another.

As for your second point - that's never been a law of the game. You can put your body between an opponent and the ball, as long as you are within playing distance of the ball. Otherwise it's obstruction.

As for Diouff and Green, Diouff can stand where he wants. If Green then pushes him - that's a foul. If he moves between Green and the ball [when Green is going for the ball] and isn't within playing distance of the ball [which he most likely wouldn't be] he would be obstructing the Keeper.

The intention of Diouff standing where he stands is to block the keeper therefore it is obstruction. The vast majority of refs will give a free kick for the opposotion as he never makes an attempt to move towards the ball. Secondly on the zig zagging you are correct except the ball is not always within a players control when they are doing it.

[den]

The intention of Diouff standing where he stands is to block the keeper therefore it is obstruction. The vast majority of refs will give a free kick for the opposotion as he never makes an attempt to move towards the ball. Secondly on the zig zagging you are correct except the ball is not always within a players control when they are doing it.

Glad you accepted the second point. You need to accept the first point as well because Diouff can stand wherever he wants, as can anyone else on the field.

[philipl]

If you want to see real obstruction of a keeper, watch what Pompey did to Howard for Crouch's goals against Everton- which stood.

Unfortunately Chris Foy got it into his head that Diouff was obstructing and was going to blow every time just as he got it into his head that every shout of hand ball from the Blackburn End was not going to be given either.

Den is correct- a player can stand where he likes on a football pitch when his side is taking a corner so long as he is not standing on an opponent's toes.

[Hughesy]

Its ok picking on Diouf for the corners and throwings but more often than not he didnt back-in or stand on his toes, he simply stood his ground, which there is nothing wrong with. The ref like you said got it into his head that it was a foul every time.

[LeChuck]

Why do a lot of people insist on spelling Diouf with two 'f's? It's only a five letter name.

[den]

Why do a lot of people insist on spelling Diouf with two 'f's? It's only a five letter name.

Sorry M'Lud.

[LeChuck]

Well, we wouldn't him reading this and getting angry, it's wet enough as it is at the moment...

[American Rover12]

Why do a lot of people insist on spelling Diouf with two 'f's? It's only a five letter name.

And Spit is only 4, even better!

[Alan75]

Why do a lot of people insist on spelling Diouf with two 'f's? It's only a five letter name.

There's no B & Q in Preston either.

[only2garners]

There's no B & Q in Preston either.

And of course only one F in Fulham.