[Archived] Stoke Vs Rovers

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

So its not possible to play good entertaining football and stay up People just want to see Rovers play better stuff like we know they all can, people want to see a formation ditched because it doesnt work or at least a plan b, people want to see the players fired up and giving 100 percent.

I have always been proud to be a Rovers fan because of the work ethic, where has it gone?

The plan worked fine against Fulham, Wigan and West Ham. We lose to Stoke and now its terrible and should be ditched - I cannot understand that logic.

Very few sides manage to play good flowing football and stay up, certainly not many outside of the top 6/7. Without the money to buy great players it's virtually impossible to play like Arsenal each week and expect to do well. Ask West Brom fans.

[Blue blood]

With regards to the long ball vs short ball debate - the best teams can do both.

The long ball clearly wasn't working vs stoke - in fact it was nowhere near working hence we should have tried a more free flowing game to beat them. Plan A (if you can call it that - which seemed to be our backup plans as well) clearly wasn't working. In fact it was clearly failing - badly.

[Roost]

On the assumption Sam doesn't come on here perhaps I can have a go.

Andrews came on for Di Santo when Samba was sent off. Either Di Santo or Kalinic had to come off when we were down to 10 men. You can argue whether it should have been Andrews or Reid who came on but one of them was the only sensible choice.

Chimbonda had a truly dreadful game. Given we had another right back on the bench in my view the wonder was it took Sam so long to make the substitution.

Finally, though I hesitate to resurrect the Andrews debate again here, it beggars belief that fans like Roverite can give Andrews a 0 for his performance yesterday when he only saw him play for 7 minutes.

Would you forgive him these decisions if we get relegated on goal difference?

[beerwins]

The plan worked fine against Fulham, Wigan and West Ham. We lose to Stoke and now its terrible and should be ditched - I cannot understand that logic.

Very few sides manage to play good flowing football and stay up, certainly not many outside of the top 6/7. Without the money to buy great players it's virtually impossible to play like Arsenal each week and expect to do well. Ask West Brom fans.

It worked to a certain degree but Fulham, Wigan and Wet spam all had more than enough chances to have got more out of the game they didnt exactly play well, in all fairness Pulis plays to the teams strengths and buy players suited to there football and that is why they are good at it and look very settled playing that style, our team isnt built for this style of football and we look very unsettled playing it, we looked more acomplished playing like this when Samba was upfront.

[only2garners]

Would you forgive him these decisions if we get relegated on goal difference?

I'm sorry but you've lost me.

[Roost]

I'm sorry but you've lost me.

You need me to explain the +/- effect of goals scored / conceded?

[Amo]

It does not matter if he was playing left back, at this level, we need better finishing. If we want to pick up points and win games that is.

Not the first time this season he has missed a decent opportunity too.

Yes he is young, his parent club is the mighty Chelsea but his finishing ability is currently very poor.

If Di Santo was the finished article, he wouldn't be here in the first place. He's missed a handful of chances at most, over the course of the season. Even Andy Cole needed a few bites of the cherry before he scored - and look at the service he's had over the years. Di Santo is an athletic 6'4" striker, but we hardly ever cross the ball into the box for him to attack. And we're certainly not going to get goals out of him shoving him in midfield.

[beerwins]

If Di Santo was the finished article, he wouldn't be here in the first place. He's missed a handful of chances at most, over the course of the season. Even Andy Cole needed a few bites of the cherry before he scored - and look at the service he's had over the years. Di Santo is an athletic 6'4" striker, but we hardly ever cross the ball into the box for him to attack. And we're certainly not going to get goals out of him shoving him in midfield.

Indeed, I cant lay blame at Di Santo for missing a chance that wasnt as easy as people make out he had at least 3 defenders on him, the fact that we only had that one chance to score is where the the real blame should lie.

[BRFC1995]

If Di Santo was the finished article, he wouldn't be here in the first place. He's missed a handful of chances at most, over the course of the season. Even Andy Cole needed a few bites of the cherry before he scored - and look at the service he's had over the years. Di Santo is an athletic 6'4" striker, but we hardly ever cross the ball into the box for him to attack. And we're certainly not going to get goals out of him shoving him in midfield.

But he has'nt the faintest idea where the back of the net is, and should'nt be here in the 1st place. If he can't finish he should not be here end of story.

[only2garners]

You need me to explain the +/- effect of goals scored / conceded?

I think I've got that covered.

What I still can't grasp is what leaving on a right back playing dreadfully when you're 3-0 down and only have 10 men has to do with goal difference. At that stage the game had more chance of turning into an Emirates situation when a few more goals go in in the last 20 minutes than the likelihood of us seriously getting back into the game.

[BlueMonday]

For crying out loud. How is Sam meant to be able to work when there are fans who would rather us play good football and get relegated then play so called 'negative' football and stay up. WE'RE 12th NOT 20th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a paying season ticket holder. I've played and watched football for many years. I know what entertains me and what bores me to the point of wanting to gouge my eyes out. We are being served the latter in my honest opinion. I want Rovers to win every game. But over the course of the season I want to enjoy it also.I will watch Rovers what ever league they are in but I am not enjoying what I am seeing. You sound like a 'means to an end' kind of person which is fair enough. But how long will you put up with what you are seeing?

BTW We all know the league positions so no need for over use of the exclamation mark !

[thenodrog]

I still think the real problem is in midfield, we've nobody to get stuck in and fight for the ball. As a result we opt to play five in midfield because our midfield is too light-weight and not aggressive enough. When was the last time you saw Nzonzi or Andrews put in a meaningful tackle, the goal against Man City when Richards ran through the centre of our midfield with no sort of challenge on him whatsoever was a prime example.

Boltons strength was there, right down the spine of the team. The superb skills of Campo sat in front of the defence and the energy and graft of Nolan made formidable opposition for opposing midfields. Add Jaaskaleinen in the nets and Davies up front and it's no suprise that they finished in the top third so often.

If we'd had those 4 we'd have flogged em!

[John]

I am sure Sam would like us to be more competitive/combative/tenacious. He openly said he wanted a central midfielder in January, however more often than not, really good players with Premier League experience too are not within our range - hence the signings of Nzonzi and Lingazi...

[Amo]

But he has'nt the faintest idea where the back of the net is, and should'nt be here in the 1st place. If he can't finish he should not be here end of story.

He's occasionally lacked composure, but he hasn't missed chances left, right and centre. Our midfield hasn't given him the chance, and if you're expecting Chelsea to loan us a striker who can take his first chance you're being incredibly naive.

Why is there still a dichotomy between short ball/long ball? Is there no middle ground here?

[broadsword]

Why is there still a dichotomy between short ball/long ball? Is there no middle ground here?

Not with the long ball there isn't!

[thenodrog]

Anyone else think Robinson should have done better with the third goal? It wasn't hit with any conviction yet still bobbled past him...

Me. But he did redeem himself with other good saves. Didn't help to see Freidel thwarting Spurs time and again.

[thenodrog]

Agreed but many strikers have a natural finishing ability that is present, even in a raw form from a very young age. It is not present in Di Santo. I think age is a poor excuse. I seem to remember Mr Rooney not finding age a big issue.

Di Santo has struggled to find goals regardless of opponent level. He has been given more than enough chances even with our lack of creativity.

We could make a good striker out of two very ordinary ones if we could combine the best bits of him and Derbyshire.

[Amo]

We could make a good striker out of two very ordinary ones if we could combine the best bits of him and Derbyshire.

...Derbyshire?

[thenodrog]

The plan worked fine against Fulham, Wigan and West Ham. We lose to Stoke and now its terrible and should be ditched - I cannot understand that logic.

Very few sides manage to play good flowing football and stay up, certainly not many outside of the top 6/7. Without the money to buy great players it's virtually impossible to play like Arsenal each week and expect to do well. Ask West Brom fans.

We really do need to be much harder to beat MMLP. It's a mystery to me why SA has not instilled a more bloody minded attitude into the squad. That was the first thing that I expected from him.

[Majiball]

Of course I understand.

The formation was something like this

Robinson

Chimbonda Nelsen Samba Givet

Emerton Nzonzi Pedersen Olsson

Di Santo

-----------------------Kalinic

Diouf - "The gaffer has changed the way we play" "We now play 4-3-3 and when we don't have the ball we play 4-5-1. I think this means,

4-3-3 when we have the ball - Di Santo Pedersen and Kalinic

4-5-1 when we don't have the ball - Kalinic up front and Di Santo and Pedersen dropping deep.

The thing is it didn't work.

- Forwards, also known as attackers and strikers. Di Santo played as an attacker, out wide, that doesn't necessarily mean he played as an attacking midfielder, more like a second striker.

- They play nearest to the opposing team's goal. Di Santo did that he was just out wide and nowhere near Kalinic.

Attackers??? do you mean Forwards??? Its not the USA here.

Thanks for letting me know what Diouf said, since we've been trying to play the 451-433 system all year, just without Olssons pace out wide I'm going to say Dioufs talking out his arse again.

Second striker, out wide??? Then he's not a ###### striker is he??? He's a ###### winger or wide Forward FFS.

You claim that strikers play nearest the oppositions goal and then tell me Di Santo a second striker and was nowehere near either the goal or Kalinic buts he's still a Striker (you've just told me attackers(forwards) are the same as strikers???)

What, because I totally misunderstood what someone said?

Funny that because what I said about Di Santo and Kalinic has been misunderstood.

It hasn't been misunderstood, your wrong.

[RIML]

It hasn't been misunderstood, your wrong.

Ok yeah I'm wrong because I said we played with two strikers. Even the Rovers matchblog confirms this. Someone said the team selection was wrong and I disagreed.

Robinson, Chimbonda, Samba, Nelsen ©, Givet, Emerton, Nzonzi, Pedersen, Olsson, Di Santo, Kalinić

I don't think any fans could complain about the team selection before the game, with Kalinic and Di Santo on, I really thought we'd give this game a real go and I thought Di Santo and Kalinic would be a threat from set pieces. Obviously not.

Di Santo is a striker and he played out wide. I still wouldn't class him as a midfielder/winger. Anelka and Drogba played in wide positions for parts of the game today against Arsenal. Drogba picked the ball up in a wide position for his second goal.

It was clear against Wigan when Di Santo came on as sub, that he has pace. I think his main role was to pick the ball up in wide positions, run at the Stoke defence and cut inside but it didn't work.

Oh ye I forgot to put "Forwards, also known as attackers and strikers" in quotation marks, my bad it was a quote off another website and before you ask I do know there's a slight difference between a striker and a centre-forward.

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

We really do need to be much harder to beat MMLP. It's a mystery to me why SA has not instilled a more bloody minded attitude into the squad. That was the first thing that I expected from him.

Well i agree that there is a worrying trend of not just losing but losing heavily, but I dont think there is much we could realistically do about that. We all want to see Sam making positive changes to the team and making it more attacking, but that comes with a comprimise, the fact that we're more likely to concede.

If Sam had played Andrews and Grella in place of Di Santo and Pedersen yesterday there would have been uproar. As it was he picked a team which the vast majority of the fans wanted to see, in the formation which had worked well against Fulham, Wigan and West Ham, and yet there are people running around on here screaming for his head and that he doesnt have a clue as to what he is doing.

There are certainly issues with the squad, but there is no need for so many overreactions. We are still relatively safe in midtable and have several winnable games coming up. If we lose them, then many of these accusations would be justified, but right now I dont think its worth getting all upset at being beaten away from home.

[Urgil Masko]

Why do we keep playing 4-5-1, cant Sam get it throug his thik head that i isn´t working.

Di Santo on right midfield, what a tactical blunder, Kalinic alone up front getting nothing to work with, that will do wonders for his confidence.

We have seen time and time again, that playing defensive away from home is just not working.

[RIML]

You know what, I didn't actually know you were a woman until I saw you taking this argument to unprecedented lengths. It's undoubted now.

What's that supposed to mean?

[Ozz]

I know what it means!

As for the result, 3-0 away at Stoke, well that's a terrible result for Rovers, regardless of anything. In 30 years of following Rovers this would stand out as being a tonking.

I only saw the 40 odd minutes on Football First at 8am this morning, and we did appear to put them under pressure in the first half before there second, but only through a succession of corners and long throws, which they dealt with routinely.

Some weeks ago I said the Di Santo wasn't exactly a goal machine, but seemed handy enough up front. Well his miss from 5 yards was awful, almost Roberts like, and looks like he is worth about 500,00K right now on what I have seen.

But the defence was bonkers, and esp Chimbonda, who has been getting worse and worse, and Givet has slumped alarmingly too of late.

Bring Lars back in, Reid in the middle for some protection and drop Emerton, who cannot tackle in the middle of the field.