[Archived] Jordan Rhodes

[FGS5635]

I found this debate very interesting last year when first mentioned by Den, although lads in and around me on the BE had been discussing it for weeks, even at that stage. The debate began after watching Rhodes being totally outplayed yet again by run of the mill defenders, playing for mid table Championship teams, as they completely nullified his contribution and goal scoring threat. Regularly outmuscled, outjumped and outrun by all he faced, even those playing in struggling outfits costing buttons to buy. An interesting subject, topical and relevant and certainly worth discussing as people evaluated whether the money spent on his fee and wages could have been better used elsewhere as we slid towards what appeared to be a second successive relegation.

The discussion floundered however, due to the immediate outrage tumbling from his supporters keyboards as they felt he was the last person who should be criticised in such a ramshackle and disorganised outfit. But he has scored a zillion goals they wailed....

Like many other discussions previously, suddenly you were either for him or against him, which in reality was far removed from the original point made. Seemingly, if you felt that the team may benefit from a more rounded centre forward who could play with his back to goal, hold the ball up well, make chances and create goals whilst bringing other players into the equation on a regular basis you became a "Rhodes Hater" who wanted him sold as soon as possible.

If you felt that Rhodes is our best player, already does the job he is paid to do perfectly well, is the reason we stayed up last season and feel he is completely above criticism in light of shocking contributions elsehwere, then you are labelled as a "Rhodes Lover", unable to see the bigger picture.

For me, playing one man upfront who cannot play that role particurlay well is asking for trouble and in countless games we have seen examples of this. He may as well be sat next to me in Block One when not scoring and the whole team suffers for it. Talk of building the entire team around him is again ludicrous and foolhardy. What happens in the event if he is injured, or suspended, or struggling to make any impact, if the whole team is structured around him? How someone so adept at taking chances first time in such a calm, sure and accomplished manner, can be so cumbersome and clueless elsewhere on the park is a major confusion indeed!

I agreed with Den back in the day. 8 million plus a reported 37k per week in wages could have bought 3 or 4 decent players at least to really strengthen the squad and give us a much improved chance of promotion last term. But with so much money wasted on Etuhu and Murphy and Gomez etc, that argument could have been peddled at a number of players who failed to contribute. A point repeated many times.

In my opinion baby-lining players like Rhodes should be the finishing touch to an already comptetent squad. A man who makes a difference in front of goal when you need it most. Not a player who helps a struggling team week in, week out with forceful, rounded and competent performances against all we play. Personally speaking, I would have been more concerned about building from the back, getting some speed into the team and having a very good midfield ever present at this standard than waxing the ridiculous 8 million on a player like Rhodes, who only comes alive 12 yards from goal. What about the other 80 yards on the pitch?

There is no right or wrong here, hence the debate going round and round and round. I am neither a 'Rhodes Lover', or 'Rhodes Hater', although I confess I like him a lot when he scores... . If he doesn't score now some point to that fact to justify arguments, if he does score, others point to that to justify arguments. It has all got a bit silly now, but the debate remains valid and it is just our inabilty to debate it properly that is poor.

I like Rhodes a lot and have met him a couple of times. Polite, courteous and decent type of bloke as we see on the football field. Very good at what he does. Was he what we needed however to strike fear into those we play? As an ex-centre half I can assure you I would much rather be marking Rhodes than a Duncan Ferguson, or a Peter Crouch, or a Andy Carroll type player.

Match him for pace, stay right behind him, cut out the supply and it is nearly job done if you don't get sloppy and lose concentration in the box. Try doing that with Carroll as he wins every header against you, bullies you in the tackle and holds the ball up almost every time it is played into him. Every free-kick into the box a nightmare!

I would imagine some centre halves have had their easiest day of the season marking Rhodes. I bet they hardly break sweat. Granted, great poacher, finisher and penalty taker, all adding up to a very good goalscorer. Generally poor all round player elsewhere on the field and a frustration probably to players and fans alike as he loses the ball or fails to reach it first, yet again.

I think that pretty much nails it. 38 pages wasted, just read this

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Why oh why would you want a proven goalscorer to leave the club that he's almost single handed kept the club from moving down a tear and the same player that is scoring the goals that have kept us where we are in the league.

Fickle to say the least.

I am with OOJW on this one - you could argue that Rhodes goals kept us up - or you could argue that Rhodes inability to hold up the ball, or beat a man for pace was one of the reasons we were towards the bottom in the first place.

IMO Rhodes is the conundrum that will define how successfull Bowyer is as a manager. He has a choice - get as much cash as he can in January and invest in a striker with pace that can hold the ball up - definitely won't be as good a goal scorer, but would add more to team play - or alternatively somehow get the best out of Rhodes (which may involve playing two up front). Personally if I was manager - I honestly don't know which way I would go.

[davulsukur]

I am with OOJW on this one - you could argue that Rhodes goals kept us up - or you could argue that Rhodes inability to hold up the ball, or beat a man for pace was one of the reasons we were towards the bottom in the first place.

Eh?

Either Rhodes scored goals which kept us up or he didn't create goals for others so we struggled?

How does it make a difference? Either Rhodes scored the equaliser and we got a point, or Rhodes passed to someone else who scored and we got a point.

[T.J.Newton]

maybe if king was actually able to put a decent cross or killer pass in, Rhodes could have scored at least a couple against reading.

[FGS5635]

maybe if king was actually able to put a decent cross or killer pass in, Rhodes could have scored at least a couple against reading.

Thats a fair point and for all Rhodes perceived weaknesses he needs to work on, king has them a plenty to. Mind blowing that after nearly a full season playing left wing he still cant use his left foot.

WTF do they do all week in training?

He needs switching to the right side IMO and if GB insits on wasting cairney out wide also then he can go left side and at least provide crosses from that side occasionally

[booth]

I am with OOJW on this one - you could argue that Rhodes goals kept us up - or you could argue that Rhodes inability to hold up the ball, or beat a man for pace was one of the reasons we were towards the bottom in the first place.

You could if you wanted all your family and friends to disown you on the grounds that you're dangerously stupid.

[arbitro]

Thats a fair point and for all Rhodes perceived weaknesses he needs to work on, king has them a plenty to. Mind blowing that after nearly a full season playing left wing he still cant use his left foot.

WTF do they do all week in training?

He needs switching to the right side IMO and if GB insits on wasting cairney out wide also then he can go left side and at least provide crosses from that side occasionally

That's a good point about playing players in their natural positions. The theory is that they can come inside and shoot but at times they look like square pegs in round holes. Surely they would be better off playing on their stronger side and getting some decent balls into the box. How often did Beckham or Giggs play on their unnatural side?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I think that pretty much nails it. 38 pages wasted, just read this

I agree, the way we play at the moment he wouldn't worry Darren Peacock and Christian Dailly !

That's a good point about playing players in their natural positions. The theory is that they can come inside and shoot but at times they look like square pegs in round holes. Surely they would be better off playing on their stronger side and getting some decent balls into the box. How often did Beckham or Giggs play on their unnatural side?

This fashion for playing guys on their wrong wing is foolish to me. It just leads to them being shown inside into an already congested midfield. Watch the goals programme on BBC, how many goals come from long shots from guys cutting in off the wing and how many are scored from the defence getting turned around and the strikers getting onto crossed balls both high and low into the box.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

You could if you wanted all your family and friends to disown you on the grounds that you're dangerously stupid.

Or if you were clever you would realise the pressure it puts on a team when your centre forward can't hold the ball up - and doesn't have the pace (except against the slowest central defenders) to threaten with a ball over the top (especially when playing 4-5-1)

When a team stops having faith in a team mate to hold up the ball, or head it on - they stop making runs to support him. The player becomes more isolated - the situation worsens and the midfield and defence struggle to relief pressure.

Its been said before - but having the highest scorer doesn't necessarily lead to a high league position - last season showed that for a number of teams.

As I said - I could understand if Bowyer decided to cash in - but personally I have always said that I would prefer to somehow accomodate him in a team pattern that doesn't leave us so exposed at times (in these days of 4-5-1 not certain how we could do that though).

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Eh?

Either Rhodes scored goals which kept us up or he didn't create goals for others so we struggled?

How does it make a difference? Either Rhodes scored the equaliser and we got a point, or Rhodes passed to someone else who scored and we got a point.

Because Rhodes struggles to hold the ball up - in a 4-5-1 formation - the ball was never held up front to enable us to formulate many attacks. The ball quickly comes back - putting the defence under pressure. His lack of pace means that defences can push up - knowing that a ball over the top isn't so much of a threat, This further adds to the pressure on the midfield - which becomes congested and offers little room and time for the likes of Murphy to operate.

[FGS5635]

I agree, the way we play at the moment he wouldn't worry Darren Peacock and Christian Dailly !

This fashion for playing guys on their wrong wing is foolish to me. It just leads to them being shown inside into an already congested midfield. Watch the goals programme on BBC, how many goals come from long shots from guys cutting in off the wing and how many are scored from the defence getting turned around and the strikers getting onto crossed balls both high and low into the box.

At least switch them for periods mid game. We've had like a gazzilion managers in last few years so I cant remember who did it. But one of them used to swap the wide men a couple of times a game. May have been sam, not sure

[1864roverite]

Forest can not afford the fee and wages, they are in as much debt as us.

Worth noting Rovers debt is funded by Venkys.

Only Wigan have the funds in the Championship to even try a bid. There is no hope he will go to Palace, they are a ship wreck of a club on their way down.

Other than that he remains a Rover.

[davulsukur]

Because Rhodes struggles to hold the ball up - in a 4-5-1 formation - the ball was never held up front to enable us to formulate many attacks. The ball quickly comes back - putting the defence under pressure. His lack of pace means that defences can push up - knowing that a ball over the top isn't so much of a threat, This further adds to the pressure on the midfield - which becomes congested and offers little room and time for the likes of Murphy to operate.

Which is why we didn't use Rhodes as a target man and played 4-2-3-1 instead.

*for some reason I can't paste a link to YouTube on my ipad, goto YouTube and type Jordan Rhodes, there is a video of his goals from last season. Enjoy.

Plenty of goals from the ball over the top, through balls, crosses, and strikes from the edge of the area.

[Sparky Marky]

There is no hope he will go to Palace, they are a ship wreck of a club on their way down.

.

Don't you think Pulis will keep them up?

[RevidgeBlue]

Because Rhodes struggles to hold the ball up - in a 4-5-1 formation - the ball was never held up front to enable us to formulate many attacks. The ball quickly comes back - putting the defence under pressure. His lack of pace means that defences can push up - knowing that a ball over the top isn't so much of a threat, This further adds to the pressure on the midfield - which becomes congested and offers little room and time for the likes of Murphy to operate.

I really don't understand this seemingly widespread belief that the only way to retain possession is to hoof it up 40 or 50 yards to a lone striker who then holds the ball up and theoretically brings the rest of the team into play. I think too many people are fixated on the way we attempted to play under Sam.

What are the other nine outfield players apart from said lone strikwr and in particular the midfield meant to be doing whilst all this is going on?

[Stuart]

Which is why we didn't use Rhodes as a target man and played 4-2-3-1 instead.

*for some reason I can't paste a link to YouTube on my ipad, goto YouTube and type Jordan Rhodes, there is a video of his goals from last season. Enjoy.

Plenty of goals from the ball over the top, through balls, crosses, and strikes from the edge of the area.

You must be mistaken davul, he only does tap-ins.

[davulsukur]

Absolutely Stuart, my mistake! He also shrugged off some defenders, beat his man and even ran towards goal and scored before the defender could get back and make a challenge a couple of times too. (I guess that's a bit of pace, strength and skill which he doesn't have either)

[thenodrog]

Forest can not afford the fee and wages, they are in as much debt as us.

Worth noting Rovers debt is funded by Venkys.

Only Wigan have the funds in the Championship to even try a bid. There is no hope he will go to Palace, they are a ship wreck of a club on their way down.

Other than that he remains a Rover.

If they are a shipwreck we are the bloody Titanic!

[thenodrog]

I really don't understand this seemingly widespread belief that the only way to retain possession is to hoof it up 40 or 50 yards to a lone striker who then holds the ball up and theoretically brings the rest of the team into play. I think too many people are fixated on the way we attempted to play under Sam.

What are the other nine outfield players apart from said lone strikwr and in particular the midfield meant to be doing whilst all this is going on?

Any good team will mix it up Simon. Two instances from this weekends MoTD spring to mind .... that daft Soton keeper who chose to play some fancy football rather than to put his foot through the ball with predictably disastrous consequences v Man City's sweeping 6th goal.

Don't get fixated by long ball / short ball think instead good ball / bad ball. Every striker of any note needs to be able to play with his back to goal for large parts of every match because ALL strikers spend 90% + of the match facing backward rather than forward.

[SoldierMo]

Just a thought what if palace offerd us dwight gayle in return? Personally would keep rhodes over gayle but just a thought

[Stuart]

Any good team will mix it up Simon. Two instances from this weekends MoTD spring to mind .... that daft Soton keeper who chose to play some fancy football rather than to put his foot through the ball with predictably disastrous consequences v Man City's sweeping 6th goal.

Don't get fixated by long ball / short ball think instead good ball / bad ball. Every striker of any note needs to be able to play with his back to goal for large parts of every match because ALL strikers spend 90% + of the match facing backward rather than forward.

Overly simplistic view and assumes that the ball will be played into his feet for him to turn and/or bring other players into it which isn't his strength.

If players overlap him and allow him to turn without the ball, and play the ball into him, he is much more dangerous. Or even play a diagonal ball with him playing off the shoulder.

Play to players strengths and get the best out of what you've got.

[den]

Absolutely Stuart, my mistake! He also shrugged off some defenders, beat his man and even ran towards goal and scored before the defender could get back and make a challenge a couple of times too. (I guess that's a bit of pace, strength and skill which he doesn't have either)

Should be starting for Scotland at the very least then, as well as being at a top PL club. Guess Readings centre half is a world beater as well.

what tripe.

[Stuart]

He'll be in the PL before Rovers are, den.

[thenodrog]

Overly simplistic view and assumes that the ball will be played into his feet for him to turn and/or bring other players into it which isn't his strength.

If players overlap him and allow him to turn without the ball, and play the ball into him, he is much more dangerous. Or even play a diagonal ball with him playing off the shoulder.

Play to players strengths and get the best out of what you've got.

Most centre forwards don't even try to turn on an opponent. They keep possession until the midfielders get into good positions, it's called hold up play. As for JR chasing diagonal balls down the channel ... lets be honest he doesn't really have either the pace or the strength for that does he?

In a nutshell if we dont play him in clear on goal at which he does excel then he's a bit of a liability to the team. I may be wrong but recent form suggests that other teams have learned how best to play against him.

[den]

If players overlap him and allow him to turn without the ball, and play the ball into him, he is much more dangerous. Or even play a diagonal ball with him playing off the shoulder.

Play to players strengths and get the best out of what you've got.

Who's going to overlap him when we're away from home, under pressure and ten players are behind the ball? You suggesting he plays on his own up front, but his team mates shouldn't pass to him?

Strange viewpoint, when not passing to him is playing to his strengths. Wouldn't a better option be to have someone up front who you could pass to?