[Archived] Rovers V Stoke

[thenodrog]

Don't get me wrong, most of our players are good enough to play in the Premier League, but there is a lack of real quality within our team. We can go on about systems etc, but ultimately we have to rely on solid management and our best players staying fit in order to finish any higher than 12th (also some luck!).

When I played football I soon sussed that 8 decent to average players in a team plus 3 gud uns was promotion winning material whilst 7/8 decent players and 3 bad uns would see you fighting relegation.

Needless to say we keep selling our best. I've no doubt as we keep being told it's unavoidable but I'd love to know how some other clubs at our level manage to stick onto their stars. Everton providing the biggest mystery btw. How they have hung on to Arteta and Cahill is baffling. It took the two Mancs a hell of a struggle and a hell of a lot of money to eventually prise Rooney and Lescott out of their grasp.

[Drummer Boy]

Following on from the first half of the Portsmouth game, I found the Stoke match interminable and, whilst we got a point, as a spectacle it was dire in the extreme. There's no need to adopt that approach to the game - we have players capable of much better football. As Sam once said, "I'm not a long-ball merchant, I just play to the strengths of the resources at my disposal" - on Saturday's performance this is not so! Surely, we can play a bit as well as "mix it" like we did a couple of years ago? How many on this MB actually enjoyed watching the match? I nearly left early for only the second time in 35 years.

[Stuart]

Following on from the first half of the Portsmouth game, I found the Stoke match interminable and, whilst we got a point, as a spectacle it was dire in the extreme. There's no need to adopt that approach to the game - we have players capable of much better football. As Sam once said, "I'm not a long-ball merchant, I just play to the strengths of the resources at my disposal" - on Saturday's performance this is not so! Surely, we can play a bit as well as "mix it" like we did a couple of years ago? How many on this MB actually enjoyed watching the match? I nearly left early for only the second time in 35 years.

As daft as it sounds, I actually enjoyed the second half. We could have scored at one end but they could well have scored at the other. We seemed to have the better of the chances particularly late on but there was always the threat that they could nick it. Not a game for the purists, no, and quite frustrating at times but it was quite intriguing none-the-less.

[Stonesrick]

Following on from the first half of the Portsmouth game, I found the Stoke match interminable and, whilst we got a point, as a spectacle it was dire in the extreme. There's no need to adopt that approach to the game - we have players capable of much better football. As Sam once said, "I'm not a long-ball merchant, I just play to the strengths of the resources at my disposal" - on Saturday's performance this is not so! Surely, we can play a bit as well as "mix it" like we did a couple of years ago? How many on this MB actually enjoyed watching the match? I nearly left early for only the second time in 35 years.

I have to agree with you totally. For the first time in over 20 years I have not renewed my season ticket and went for the 2 for £20.

Really disappointed in how we set up and our overall game plan.

I am also a little embarrassed tonight after watching 2 Lancashire Championship sides try to play football on the...(try and guess?)

fl**r

de*k

gr**s

Answers on a postcard please

[bazza]

I have to agree with you totally. For the first time in over 20 years I have not renewed my season ticket and went for the 2 for £20.

Really disappointed in how we set up and our overall game plan.

I am also a little embarrassed tonight after watching 2 Lancashire Championship sides try to play football on the...(try and guess?)

fl**r

de*k

gr**s

Answers on a postcard please

Rubbish. Even though it was end to end, there was still a lot of head tennis. And the finishing was woeful. (I compared one chap with a wayward shot to Roberts )

[Paul]

Paul your mood swings are now becoming alarming. Take some advice and try to view football as nothing more than 22 grown men chasing a bag of wind around a big field.

I said the Bolton game was the best I'd seen this season and IF Allardyce continued to give us performances like that one I'd be won over. Saturday against Stoke we went back to the same old rubbish 4-5-1 at home. So having seen a good, entertaining game at the Reebok I was bored to death at Ewood the following week. No mood swing just a reflection of the matches I watched. I'm very consistent in my view.

[thenodrog]

This report's about right imo..... but notice the difference in tone of the two fans giving their opinion at the bottom.

Unfortunately that is also about right and very typical. We have been spoiled over the past 20 years and too many so called supporters have goldfish memories.

Points

1. If key man Dunny had stayed on and we had won I wonder if there would have been quite so much moaning?

2. Also moan all you like about 4-5-1 but we did play two thirds of the match at 4-4-2 and still didn't look any more like scoring. In fact prob less imo.

[waggy]

i expect us to go back to 4-5-1,i will be happy to see chimbonda/grella/diouff/andrews benched,if we are brave and play 2 up front,we will get a favourable result,otherwise doom and gloom with ronald macdonald in charge

looks like i was the only one who knew what lardarse was going to do sat,pathetic option for a home game

[mhead]

People are harking back to the Bolton Away match and saying "Why did we not play like that?" forgetting that at Fulham for 42 minutes we played just like the first half against Stoke. No progressive play, big boots up field from Robbo, and di santo missing a clear goal very early.

Stoke was quite entertaining in the second half and I was grateful for the draw. But in the end we just do not know where this style of football is leading except for inevitable relegation....and its the futility of the wearing down process that hurts.

Seeing Duff score for Fulham and Beattie trying not to score against the Blues also hurts...Missed Opportunities(and cheaper)

[zakk]

players' efforts in the game versus Stoke

http://www.voteplayers.com/Matches/Blackburn-Rovers-vs-Stoke-City-11282009-4018.aspx

[Fife Rover]

People are harking back to the Bolton Away match and saying "Why did we not play like that?" forgetting that at Fulham for 42 minutes we played just like the first half against Stoke. No progressive play, big boots up field from Robbo, and di santo missing a clear goal very early.

Stoke was quite entertaining in the second half and I was grateful for the draw. But in the end we just do not know where this style of football is leading except for inevitable relegation....and its the futility of the wearing down process that hurts.

Seeing Duff score for Fulham and Beattie trying not to score against the Blues also hurts...Missed Opportunities(and cheaper)

That thought did occur to me also during the game. He certainly had at least two golden opportunities to score and somehow contrived to miss them both.

[Hughesy]

I am also a little embarrassed tonight after watching 2 Lancashire Championship.......... sides try to play football on the...(try and guess?)

STOP THERE - Read your line and see the key difference.

Championship.....or Premiership?!!

[T4E]

I was extremely disappointed with the result on Saturday. It was a great chance to pick up another 3 points at home against a team at the same level as ourselves. We all saw how well the 4-4-2 formation worked against Bolton and I don't see why we reverted back to this 4-5-1 formation.

Presumably you weren't at Fulham then. We played 4-4-2, Dunny was rubbish and we created near enough sod all.

I was pleased when I saw we had gone back to Di Santo and Dunny. It's not a 4-5-1 by the way, people need to stop calling it that.

[tcj_jones]

4-4-2 did not work at all at Fulham. I prefer the formation with Dunn off Di Santo and with two more defensive-minded CMs to cover his attacking play.

We shouldn't play 4-5-1 (or variations on that formation) every week, but I feel our style of play and the players within the squad suit this system best.

Either way, the weakness in our team, for me, is in the wide men and not those up top.

[Moppy]

It's not a 4-5-1 by the way, people need to stop calling it that.

I completly agree. The wide men and dunny could all be classed as forwards. 4-2-3-1. We lack creativity and forward momentum when the 3 fail to get forward. They have to remember they have a lot more attacking responsibility than defensive in this formation. When they stay back and dont push forward is when we appear negative. When they push on, as they are meant to we look dangerous. I think the whole reason Pedersen has been dropped (and why is forms been bad) is because he takes on too much defensive responsibility rather than looking to play as a wide forward, against what Sam expects. On the sides he is always telling the wide men to push up as soon as they can.

[tcj_jones]

Sorry Moppy but Pedersen has been dropped because he is a rubbish player who offers next to nothing to the first team, not because he takes on too much defensive responsibility. It's been this way for three or four years now.

[CAPT KAYOS]

It's not a 4-5-1 by the way, people need to stop calling it that.

yes it is - or the way we play it, it is.

Dunny is forever having to go and gather and very rarely do our knock downs fall at the feet of the other striker /am - too often its the long boot to a lonesome Di Santo up front.

[thenodrog]

yes it is - or the way we play it, it is.

Dunny is forever having to go and gather and very rarely do our knock downs fall at the feet of the other striker /am - too often its the long boot to a lonesome Di Santo up front.

Isn't Dunny currently our leading striker with 6 goals?

[T4E]

yes it is - or the way we play it, it is.

Dunny is forever having to go and gather and very rarely do our knock downs fall at the feet of the other striker /am - too often its the long boot to a lonesome Di Santo up front.

Dunny doing that is deviating from the way we have been set up (and I agree with you that he does it).

Sam has never ever sent us out with 5 across midfield. Therefore it's not 4-5-1.

[RibbleValleyRover]

More like a 4-4-1-1, Dunny is clearly playing in the hole (AMC role) behind the lone striker. He has free role though which means that he can float around or drop back to help defend if needed to.

Playing a lone striker formation requires a couple of key things for it to work successfully:

1- Striker- has to hold up the ball well and lay off to the AMC and others.

2- The AMC and wingers in particular need to support the lone striker.

It has worked for us often this season largely down to Dunny playing so well, in some games though he has been marked out of the game or has been nullified so he can't get into the game as much. Also we have had mixed performances from the wingers, if we had pacey wingers or wingers that could supply decent service to the lone stiker or AMC then it would be far more effective.

The reason why i don't like the formation for this team is it is we don't have the quality to make it shine often enough. If Dunny doesn't play or is nullfied then we look devoid of creativity, if the wingers and AMC doesn't support the forward often enough then it won't work either.

I think looking at our side two strikers is a better option, Dunny showed against Bolton he could play in the middle in a box to box role, Grella or N'Zonzi could play a holding role. Having two strikers means they can play off each other and give the opposition more of a headache in terms of defending and marking.

[47er]

More like a 4-4-1-1, Dunny is clearly playing in the hole (AMC role) behind the lone striker. He has free role though which means that he can float around or drop back to help defend if needed to.

Playing a lone striker formation requires a couple of key things for it to work successfully:

1- Striker- has to hold up the ball well and lay off to the AMC and others.

2- The AMC and wingers in particular need to support the lone striker.

It has worked for us often this season largely down to Dunny playing so well, in some games though he has been marked out of the game or has been nullified so he can't get into the game as much. Also we have had mixed performances from the wingers, if we had pacey wingers or wingers that could supply decent service to the lone stiker or AMC then it would be far more effective.

The reason why i don't like the formation for this team is it is we don't have the quality to make it shine often enough. If Dunny doesn't play or is nullfied then we look devoid of creativity, if the wingers and AMC doesn't support the forward often enough then it won't work either.

I think looking at our side two strikers is a better option, Dunny showed against Bolton he could play in the middle in a box to box role, Grella or N'Zonzi could play a holding role. Having two strikers means they can play off each other and give the opposition more of a headache in terms of defending and marking.

Dunny showed he could play that way against BOLTON, not necessarily against the better sides. Not criticising Dunny by the way, its the quality of those around him that is in question.

[Stonesrick]

Rubbish. Even though it was end to end, there was still a lot of head tennis. And the finishing was woeful. (I compared one chap with a wayward shot to Roberts )

Yes.. I suppose you are right on that point Bazza. Billy Clarke cut in and just swung his left foot at the ball and it luckily curled into the corner of the net. The PNE equaliser from Ross Wallace was meant to be a cross but found the top corner.

Woeful finishing?

[CAPT KAYOS]

Isn't Dunny currently our leading striker with 6 goals?

yes ... and your point is? (Dunny has always scored goals)

Tugay4England

Dunny doing that is deviating from the way we have been set up (and I agree with you that he does it).

Sam has never ever sent us out with 5 across midfield. Therefore it's not 4-5-1.

So you agree it is then or the way we play it it is?

Mmmmm ... I could have sworn we started with 5 in midfield at MU -OR is it that thing again ... the way we are playing it?

Dunny IMO is primarily an attacking and goalscoring midfielder -always has been and always will be - depsite what Souness tried to turn in him in to. This I will agree is something SAM has cottoned on to, the problem though is what he has the other players doing by adopting Dunn in a supposed advanced role. It doesn't take Inspector Clouseau to spot that by doing this he really should be having players supporting and taking more responsibilty as posted by RVR, however , as we all can see -its Dunny that ends up virtually being our only creative output which detracts from him being the '2nd striker' as such and reults in ths isolation of Di Santo

[only2garners]

yes ... and your point is? (Dunny has always scored goals)

Erm.. the last two seasons he's managed one goal. If you go back to 2002/03 he got 8 all season. So 6 in 14 looks like a striker's return to me.

[CAPT KAYOS]

Erm.. the last two seasons he's managed one goal. If you go back to 2002/03 he got 8 all season. So 6 in 14 looks like a striker's return to me.

erm... type of player - think injuries may have something to do with his lack previous - but to me he would still be scoring from a 'traditional' midfield role as he did when he first started fromfor us all them many moons ago.

Strange ... (just for comparison in general though not your comments)- Dunn score's 6 from 14 and its a strikers return - Benni scores similar and its not enough for a striker.