[Archived] Jordan Rhodes

[Bucksrover]

The fans, and I was one of them, were applauding the fact he had run from the halfway line, beat a couple of players and hit the target with a reasonable shot. Only player in our team capable of this (I am generally a critic of King but credit where it's due)

I was there too and don't get me wrong - he was the only player to create anything. But his talent is beating players, so if we can get him to pass to rhodes when he has done so we will score more goals

Fowler and Rhodes. Very similar players eh?Not in a million years Bucksrover.

I am not saying rhodes is as good. But fowler did very little other than score - he wasn't quick and was no target man. In these ways i was using him as an example of a specialist player with one great talent - similar to rhodes.

[roversfan99]

Jordan Rhodes only scores goals - but so did Robbie Fowler and his fans nicknamed him 'God'.

If Rhodes gets a clear-cut chance in or on the edge of the box - 9 times out of 10 its a goal. The problem is that between our other 10 players we struggle to create those chances for him. Our most (only) effective creative player is currently King and he is not keen on passing even though for the most part his shooting is weak. He had a couple of shots from the edge of the area against Brighton and they were identically poor - but fans were applauding him.

We either need a target man to partner and help Rhodes (Best only helps Best and sometimes doesn't even do that) or we need the likes of Dunn, King, Taylor and Marshall to be up and around the attacking third to create chances for Rhodes.

I have read a couple of interviews where Bowyer is trying to get the likes of King and Lowe shooting more - I would say to them and the rest of the team that if they can set up Rhodes in such a way that he will have the same opportunity to score, then they should mostly pass to him because he is the only naturally gifted finisher in our team.

You mention Bowyer asking King and Lowe to shoot more. Our problem isn't necessarily a lack of shots, in many games this year we have had many shots, its just that the vast majority have been off target. We don't create enough clear cut chances, many of our shots are in hope more than anything. Our attacking players haven't clicked this season.

[Parsonblue]

I can barely believe I'm having to argue this tbh. It's like this thread is one big joke and I just don't get it.

It is a message board after all DE. All things connected with Blackburn Rovers are up for discussion. The issue about Rhodes playing as a lone striker is something which the friends I travel to games with often discuss. It was something we talked about on the way back from Brighton. I'm not sure why you think it is a joke talking about how we might improve the side when playing away from home in particular. What we are doing now certainly isn't working. We continue to use Rhodes as a lone front runner and in away games in particular it just doesn't work. We are asking him to do things he is not particularly good at. Clearly, Gary wants to play this system and therefore it is up to Rhodes to make some adjustments to his game. Personally, I'm not sure he can and therefore I would prefer us to try two up top in away games. A decent target man would free up Rhodes to do what he does best. I really can't see anything wrong in discussing such matters on a Rovers message board.

[den]

I am not saying rhodes is as good. But fowler did very little other than score - he wasn't quick and was no target man. In these ways i was using him as an example of a specialist player with one great talent - similar to rhodes.

Fowler dropped deep, brought others into play, scored goals from anywhere on the park, had a superb first touch and had excellent movement. Unlike Rhodes, he rarely got marked out of a game. Apart from that, they were similar.

[DE.]

Or perhaps I should record a few of Rhodes performances for you so that you can formulate your own opinion rather than listening to a no doubt biased version from your mates?

Actually my friends hold a very different set of opinions - one even rated big Keef! - so another swing and a miss in the assumption stakes Jimbo. The bit in bold sounds bloody brilliant though, get it up on YouTube without the irritating adverts at the beginning and we're sorted.

[Stuart]

Perhaps you, Stuart and K-Hod can start another thread? 'The Jordan Rhodes Appreciation Society' and I can promise you that anyone willing to discuss anything other than the following will not be present.

Clever dick.

No-one is saying he can't improve. No-one is saying that at all. And the are "not saying it" a lot.

Some people however, think that if Rhodes adds these things to his game, not only will no other teams then come in for him, meaning he will continue to contribute to Rovers for the foreseeable future, let alone the end of the season, but all of our problems will be solved!

Well, no, actually they won't. We have problems with defending and a gaping hole where a midfield general should be. We have Lowe being groomed for the captain's armband and we are rudderless until he gets there.

The issue is that we have far more to get right in the team before turning on the one bloke doing his @#/? job and scoring goals. Once we've sorted out the majority of those other issues, then we can get greedy and start to ask for more from Rhodes.

At which point he'll be sold to a PL team (or one knocking on the door) and do the business for them.

[RevidgeBlue]

You're right. It's an absolute joke to discuss our £8m signings inadequacies, even though they are blatantly keaning obvious. Rather we should discuss how great his finish was against Barnsley in August, and keep quiet and ignore the areas of his game he can improve.

Perhaps you, Stuart and K-Hod can start another thread? 'The Jordan Rhodes Appreciation Society' and I can promise you that anyone willing to discuss anything other than the following will not be present.

1. How fantastic he is

2. What great value for money he was

3. Reminiscing about goals past and present

4. What a keaner Strachan is for having the audacity to point out the weaknesses in his game.

5. What a dark and desperate place the Jordan Rhodes thread is

Get a grip and stop being such pansies. If you can't see and/or discuss Rhodes weaknesses without flying off the handle at anyone who suggests he may have some, then you either shouldn't watch football or you just don't go to the football at all.

The system we saw employed against both Barnsley and Bolton - could be great to see again. No doubt Rhodes will score if fed opportunities by Rochina or Dunn.

Unfortunately those two aren't exactly reliable.

Toys out of pram major fashion with that post jimmy.

To coin one of your dad's favourite expressions I guess the "know nowts" may soon get to see how we fare without Rhodes for a few games and my view is it won't be too pretty.

[Tom]

Because recently it's been working so well with him in....

He is by far our best asset in the striking department but as parson said if we are to play one up top he has to do something's differently

Clearly the preferred option is to play someone to compliment him but that doesn't seem to happen often, maybe try king off him just to try something different

[RevidgeBlue]

Fowler dropped deep, brought others into play, scored goals from anywhere on the park, had a superb first touch and had excellent movement. Unlike Rhodes, he rarely got marked out of a game. Apart from that, they were similar.

The comparison between Rush and Rhodes however is a course a completely irrelevant one as Rush would command a fee of 50m plus in today's market.

A more accurate comparison with the Rhodes debate imo would be to go back to the 80's and complain Simon Garner should be dropped, despite being our best or one of our best players, because he wasn't as good as Kenny Dalglish.

[SoldierMo]

So anywayzzzz since Rhodes looking to be out for a few games who would you start in next game as i think cambell still suspended id go for king and dunn up top or jutkiewics IF He is signed

[Tom]

I shouldn't be surprised at how sarcy and snappy people get on here when others don't see it their way, no idea why people can't accept that there is two sides to it without resorting to pettyness.

It's almost like people want us to fail without him in so they can say I told you so, reminds me of the departure of Big Sam all over again.

Anyway if he is out for a sustained period we need to draft someone in, best and DJ may work well together but they haven't proven that and have proven we can't rely on them. It's been obvious for a while we have needed more strength in depth up front it's just disappointing that it may take an injury to our lead scorer and only scorer of any real amount to take action

[den]

Some people however, think that if Rhodes adds these things to his game, not only will no other teams then come in for him, meaning he will continue to contribute to Rovers for the foreseeable future, let alone the end of the season, but all of our problems will be solved!

Making things up Stuart.

Well, no, actually they won't. We have problems with defending and a gaping hole where a midfield general should be. We have Lowe being groomed for the captain's armband and we are rudderless until he gets there.

So many people can't see that the best way to defend, is to retain possession.

[Amo]

So anywayzzzz since Rhodes looking to be out for a few games who would you start in next game as i think cambell still suspended id go for king and dunn up top or jutkiewics IF He is signed

Depending on how long Rhodes is out, I'd like to see Rochina/Dunn at some stage... for a limited time only, of course.

[den]

The comparison between Rush and Rhodes however is a course a completely irrelevant one as Rush would command a fee of 50m plus in today's market.

A more accurate comparison with the Rhodes debate imo would be to go back to the 80's and complain Simon Garner should be dropped, despite being our best or one of our best players, because he wasn't as good as Kenny Dalglish.

You're talking rubbish Simon. Who's asked for Rhodes to be dropped?

[Parsonblue]

The comparison between Rush and Rhodes however is a course a completely irrelevant one as Rush would command a fee of 50m plus in today's market.

A more accurate comparison with the Rhodes debate imo would be to go back to the 80's and complain Simon Garner should be dropped, despite being our best or one of our best players, because he wasn't as good as Kenny Dalglish.

I don't recall Simon ever being used as a lone striker Rev. He always admitted that the players he played alongside him helped to create space for him. Andy Crawford, John Lowey, Norman Bell, Chris Thompson, Jimmy Quinn, Steve Archibald, Howard Gayle, Andy Kennedy, Frank Stapleton all played alongside and complimented him in various ways.

[Stuart]

Making things up Stuart.

So many people can't see that the best way to defend, is to retain possession.

Ah, so it IS Rhodes' fault then?

Thought I was making things up.

[Tom]

Everybody in the team plays their part in success or failure for the most part

He's clearly not saying it's all Rhodes fault I think the only point people want to make is that he shouldn't be beyond criticism

[SoldierMo]

And i would like to see best and dj start upfront if rhodes is out by no means they have won me over but they seem to be pretty close in there instagram "FAM" so they mite just click

[den]

Ah, so it IS Rhodes' fault then?

Thought I was making things up.

Stop overreacting. This whole argument is based around the fact that a lone striker has to be able to retain possession for the team - as every single football manager absolutely knows. The thing is, so do you and many others, but for some reason can't bring themselves to accept how important it is.

[DE.]

The annoyance I have with the Rhodes criticism is not so much the pointing out potential areas of development - although that has been done to death - it's more the notion that if Rhodes started dropping deeper and running the channels suddenly we'd be a much better team. There is usually no acknowledgement that in order to get any benefit out of changing Rhodes' role the team would have to play very differently and we'd likely have to improve the squad to make the most out of it. Rhodes will unquestionably score less if we take him out of the "fox in the box" role, meaning one or two midfielders are going to have to step up and add anywhere between ten to fifteen goals to their tally.

The only way I see that happening is if Rochina and Dunn somehow manage an extended run in the team, as Toppers mentioned, and even then it would be a tall order. The other thing that people seem to fail to realise is that Jordan is likely being instructed to stay mostly in the centre rather than pull out to the wings or drop deep. Certainly in the numerous matches I watched Rhodes in last season (2 under Bowyer) that seemed to be the case as he rarely made any attempt to move away from the upper-middle of the pitch. It looked like laziness but more likely he's playing to instruction. If he wasn't then I think it would be more obvious from the reaction of his team-mates.

[den]

The annoyance I have with the Rhodes criticism is not so much the pointing out potential areas of development - although that has been done to death - it's more the notion that if Rhodes started dropping deeper and running the channels suddenly we'd be a much better team.

He can't play that game. That's the problem.

To stir this up a bit more😇 - and to change direction a little D.E., do you think signing Rhodes has been successful?

[Bucksrover]

Do we know howlong he is out for? If it is not serious we probably won't hear straight away as it will reflect badly on him dropping out of the scots squad

[DE.]

He can't play that game. That's the problem.

To stir this up a bit more - and to change direction a little D.E., do you think signing Rhodes has been successful?

Considering without his goals we would have been relegated last season, yeah.

[Tom]

Considering without his goals we would have been relegated last season, yeah.

Impossible to say that with any certainty but it's likely true

I think the negotiations seemed embarrassingly amateur and we overpaid ('£4m? No how about £8m then?') but regardless of that I'm glad he's a rovers player for sure

[den]

Considering without his goals we would have been relegated last season, yeah.

That had nothing to do Bowyer then? Because without Bowyers input, we would have been relegated even with £8m worth of striker. (According to most on here).

What have we got for £8m + huge contract, so far?