[Archived] The nPower Championship 12/13

[DE.]

Our midfield don't have enough quality to significantly contribute anyway, Even if Rhodes could hold it up, it's not like he'd have any support worth waiting for. It's a good thing he can create goals for himself, because the rest of our overpaid crew of has-beens/never-beens certainly won't do it for him.

If we do ever manage to sign midfielders worth a damn his weaknesses may be more of a problem, though.

[den]

The argument is we'd possibly score more as a team with a striker who contributed more in open play.

We've scored 46 goals in the league this season. Watford have scored 75, and only 4 teams have scored less than us.

Defensively we're good with only 5 teams conceding less.

But with a striker who can't hold the ball up well, coupled with CM's who don't make enough runs into the box or generally support him enough, you could argue having a striker like Rhodes has proved detrimental in that respect.

On the other hand, we don't play to Rhodes strengths, balls into feet and from out wide.

I can't see Prem teams taking a punt on him and no other C'ship team will spend upwards of 5/6 million on a striker so I can see him still playing for us next year if we don't go down.

People can slag off the "show pony" Rochina but he got goals and assists. Not many others do.

dead right (apart from the Rochina bit). while Rhodes has scored the goals, we're still in danger of relegation because we don't create anywhere near enough chances. and before we get the "give him the service" argument, well good strikers create things for themselves and others - and we.re missing that. if Rhodes doesn't score, the team is better off without him.

[Stuart]

Rhodes is the third highest goalscorer in the Championship this season, 2 behind Austin. In all competitions (incl Hudds) he's scored 26 and is second only to Murray, and that includes fewer penalties than both of them. He's also got more assists than those two with 4.

And all this without a decent manager in place for more than half a dozen games all season.

It's extremely churlish to have a dig at him when we have 9 other outfield players we need to sort out first. And for those saying he doesn't make his own goals, we don't have a single player in the top 20 assists table!

If they did their jobs as well as he has done his then we wouldn't be in this mess.

Yes, he possibly needs to bulk up a bit but I'd sooner have Jordan Rhodes that the next Kevin Davies.

When you have a player who finishes as naturally as he does and invariably scores, it's a case of use him or lose him.

I can't believe I'm having to defend him to fellow Rovers fans!

Source: http://www.football-lineups.com/tourn/The_Championship_2012-2013/stats/

[Tom]

I thought he did better in the lone striker role yesterday but was isolated to the point of being near worthless in the frst half. He won some good headers and worked the channels well but nobody was there for the flick ons and nobody got into the box to pull it back to.

I'd love to see Kazim and best in the roles of King and Dunn yesterday but it would be a risk

[den]

It isn't.t churlish, it isn't.t having a dig and it isn't.t about bulking up Stuart. it.s a valid point of view. as a team we create next to nothing and Rhodes is part of that problem. good strikers open up defences as well as score goals and that.s to the benefit of the whole team. we've had many, many strikers like that, in all divisions in the past.

[jodrell]

Chaddy if you read your post's back, you will understand why Stuart and I imagine a few others are frustrated with them. I don't know if you have predictive text on or not if you do please turn it off. If not, my spelling and grammar is not great, but take some time to check your content before posting. Quality is better than quantity.Sorry for going of topic.

[K-Hod]

He's scored half of our goals, the rest of the team is a far bigger problem.

[Stuart]

Can't agree that Rhodes is to blame den. He is being used incorrectly, in much the same way as Kalinić. Except that Rhodes can - and does - find the net.

What's the point of paying £8m for a number 9 and asking him to do the job of a second number 10.

We have been well and truly spoiled by the calibre of strikers we have had in the past - together with the midfielders we have been blessed with. We now have a shocking midfield, devoid of creativity. Sort that out and we'll be more successful.

You don't get rid of the one man who knows where the onion bag is, you help him.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The problem is he's a number 8 being asked to play number 9. He can't lead the line and we haven't the midfield players to enable us to play two upfront regularly. You can't just be a goal poacher nowadays, nobody consisently plays that way anymore. As for Kalinic, he was playing at a much higher level than Rhodes currently is.

[Stuart]

Must be an older generation one then because he's like no number 8 I've ever seen. Not physical enough for me.

[Amo]

It isn't.t churlish, it isn't.t having a dig and it isn't.t about bulking up Stuart. it.s a valid point of view. as a team we create next to nothing and Rhodes is part of that problem. good strikers open up defences as well as score goals and that.s to the benefit of the whole team. we've had many, many strikers like that, in all divisions in the past.

Matt Jansen finished our promotion season with 23 goals. The same Rhodes currently has. And that was with the likes of Dunn, Duff & Berkovic behind him, not feeding off scraps. Rhodes is the one player who has played to the level expected of him. It's the inept support he's received from midfield (and dreadful management/ownership) that finds us where we are.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Must be an older generation one then because he's like no number 8 I've ever seen. Not physical enough for me.

I'm talking football here not rugby union. If you go off the script that your number 10 should be a playmaker and the number 9 is the guy who leads the line and holds the ball up then what are you left with- the number 8. They used to be the goal hanger who put away the chances made by the other two. I agree about his lack of physicality, you don't have be a big guy but if you aren't you need a nasty streak. A La David Speedie.

[thenodrog]

Rhodes is the third highest goalscorer in the Championship this season, 2 behind Austin. In all competitions (incl Hudds) he's scored 26 and is second only to Murray, and that includes fewer penalties than both of them. He's also got more assists than those two with 4.

A tale in itself. If he doesn't score he's not making up for it with setting them up for his teammates is he? If he had more assists he'd be a more valuable assett by far.

Strange thing is that imo scoring goals is a difficult knack to learn but grafting and making things happen in and around the box is much easier. He's mastered the difficult bit so improvement in the other should be an easy next step if he has the desire to become a really top striker. Some manager needs to knock that into him.

[Stuart]

New one on me, Tyrone. Maybe I've just plain wrong but when I hear "number 9" I'm thinking of Alan Smith, Brian McLair, Chris Sutton, Andy Cole, Ian Wright, Gary Linekar. Out and out goalscorers. The number 10 being the more physical or clever guy creating the space and adding their own goals. Mark Hughes, Dennis Bergkamp, Dwight Yorke, Teddy Sherringham.

Number 8s, I'm thinking of David Dunn, Frank Lampard, Paul Scholes, David Ginola. Playmakers on the edge of the box and further out. Certainly not goal hangers.

A generation thing?

[thenodrog]

I'm talking football here not rugby union. If you go off the script that your number 10 should be a playmaker and the number 9 is the guy who leads the line and holds the ball up then what are you left with- the number 8. They used to be the goal hanger who put away the chances made by the other two. I agree about his lack of physicality, you don't have be a big guy but if you aren't you need a nasty streak. A La David Speedie.

Speedie! What a guy! But not only Speedie the same qualities of nasty streak / desire / hunger were in Bellamy and Shearer too! Much less a natural striker but a small guy with a big heart, a massive work rate and the nastiest streak in the business was Paul Dickov. Centre halves need to know that they have been in a game and those 4 certainly left CH's with that impression. On the other hand Rhodes topically is about as aggressive as his opposite number yesterday... Matt Derbyshire. Centre halves marking them will go home without a bruise and without breaking sweat. Put another way.....If Rhodes goes this summer I seriously doubt it will be to WHU!

[RibbleValleyRover]

If you drop Rhodes then someone or a group of individuals would have to fill the scoring void. If Rovers had quality midfielders/wingers with the ability to chip in with goals on a regular basis then I would be all for trying a different striker up top. But the reality is we don't, if we drop Rhodes and put a Jason Roberts type of striker up front then we aren't going to score more goals. The midfield quality just isn't there.

[K-Hod]

New one on me, Tyrone. Maybe I've just plain wrong but when I hear "number 9" I'm thinking of Alan Smith, Brian McLair, Chris Sutton, Andy Cole, Ian Wright, Gary Linekar. Out and out goalscorers. The number 10 being the more physical or clever guy creating the space and adding their own goals. Mark Hughes, Dennis Bergkamp, Dwight Yorke, Teddy Sherringham.

Number 8s, I'm thinking of David Dunn, Frank Lampard, Paul Scholes, David Ginola. Playmakers on the edge of the box and further out. Certainly not goal hangers.

A generation thing?

I think Pele pretty much redefined a 'number 10' .An attacking midfielder is what I've always understood a 'number 10 to be...

Though granted I may be wrong, I'm sure older posters may be able to correct me!

[Dunnfc]

New one on me, Tyrone. Maybe I've just plain wrong but when I hear "number 9" I'm thinking of Alan Smith, Brian McLair, Chris Sutton, Andy Cole, Ian Wright, Gary Linekar. Out and out goalscorers. The number 10 being the more physical or clever guy creating the space and adding their own goals. Mark Hughes, Dennis Bergkamp, Dwight Yorke, Teddy Sherringham.

Number 8s, I'm thinking of David Dunn, Frank Lampard, Paul Scholes, David Ginola. Playmakers on the edge of the box and further out. Certainly not goal hangers.

A generation thing?

I agree with Stuart, however the modern belief is that a number ten plays in the whole behind the main striker. Ala Formica.

A change in formations over time have probably changed this role, we seem to favour 4-5-1 and 4-3-3 to 4-4-2 .

Previously the number ten was the link player playing just off the main goal scorer providing the feed for an out and out scorer.

Yorke the ball skills and feed

Cole the finisher (after the 4th attempt)

I genuinely believe that is why Rooney is @#/?, there is no place for him in todays formations.

[thenodrog]

He's scored half of our goals, the rest of the team is a far bigger problem.

Too simplistic K-Hod.

[K-Hod]

Too simplistic K-Hod.

True, though Rhodes has worked wonders to get as many goals as he has with the supply he's received....

[DE.]

A tale in itself. If he doesn't score he's not making up for it with setting them up for his teammates is he? If he had more assists he'd be a more valuable assett by far.

What player in our team could he possibly set up goals for? Most of them barely make it past the half way line in most matches. The rest of them don't have a goal between them that doesn't come from a set-piece. I'd love to know which player in the team could have benefited from Rhodes creating more assists. The only ones I can think of are Dunn (injured/out of favour for most of the season), CKR (questionable in front of goal), King (blessed with little other than pace)... and that's pretty much it in terms of "regular" starters. The rest either aren't in the necessary positions or simply wouldn't be a threat in front of goal.

[thenodrog]

What player in our team could he possibly set up goals for? Most of them barely make it past the half way line in most matches. The rest of them don't have a goal between them that doesn't come from a set-piece. I'd love to know which player in the team could have benefited from Rhodes creating more assists. The only ones I can think of are Dunn (injured/out of favour for most of the season), CKR (questionable in front of goal), King (blessed with little other than pace)... and that's pretty much it in terms of "regular" starters. The rest either aren't in the necessary positions or simply wouldn't be a threat in front of goal.

If he started setting them up more I guarantee they'd get up alongside him more.

[DE.]

Not with the way we play. Unless you're saying Rhodes is the only reason we play ultra-defensive?

[thenodrog]

Not with the way we play. Unless you're saying Rhodes is the only reason we play ultra-defensive?

Knock it long to him and any midfielder charging up for a lay off or knock down will be left isolated and blowing bubbles trying to get back and goal side of their opposite number as the centre half clears it with ease. Sure they shouldn't put it on his head and try and aim for his chest or thigh but even those balls don't stick do they? Result is that midfielders will naturally leave him isolated which makes the problem worse.

Appletons godawful tactics suited no one but yesterday the 1st half set up was more a 4-1-3-1 with Dunny the extra man in a roving midfield / attacking role and this appeared Bowyers attempts to play and press higher up the pitch. I do think after the teams had settled down and got used to it that this is probably the best formation for us given our players available. CKR should fit in somewhere too depending on the opposition.

[jim mk2]

I was dahn in London tahn last night and had the misfortune to wander into a Millwall pub off Borough High St during the Leicester match.

What an 'orrible lot they are, Cockney sh!t shovellers the lot of 'em. First and only time in my life I've supported Leicester City.