[Archived] Bowyer

[yoda]

We have barely ever adopted such an approach so it's impossible to make that statement with any certainly.

We've played cautiously for the majority of the season and it has us 4 points off 6th - that's the only fact.

It worked well at Leeds

[Neal]

I can't take you seriously when you describe important members of the team as "anti-footballers". Sorry.

I can't take your argument seriously when you're giving Real Madrid & Barcelona as examples of playing holding midfielders. Come back when Jason Lowe & Lee Williamson can pass half as good as Xavi, Busquets & Alonso. You're talking absolute garbage.

[DE.]

It worked well at Leeds

The same Leeds that then went and lost 2-0 to Rochdale and 6-0 to Sheffield Wednesday? They actually had more possession and shots in the match anyway, so we were no more attacking than they were.

When Evans is back I expect us to become a little more attack-minded. In the meantime with Lowe/Williamson as our options in midfield it makes sense to be cautious.

[jim mk2]

I can't take your argument seriously when you're giving Real Madrid & Barcelona as examples of playing holding midfielders. Come back when Jason Lowe & Lee Williamson can pass half as good as Xavi, Busquets & Alonso. You're talking absolute garbage.

And when Cairney is as good as Messi ? The point is all teams have players who hold the midfield and have an important part to play in the team. All sucessful teams have them , the players who the donkey work for the players with more skill. If you cannot see this you know less than you already appear. And to describe them as "anti-footballers" is stupid.

[yoda]

And when Cairney is as good as Messi ? The point is all teams have players who hold the midfield and have an important part to play in the team. All sucessful teams have them , the players who the donkey work for the players with more skill. If you cannot see this you know less than you already appear. And to describe them as "anti-footballers" is stupid.

maybe there is such a thing as anti-supporters Jim

[Neal]

And when Cairney is as good as Messi ? The point is all teams have players who hold the midfield and have an important part to play in the team. All sucessful teams have them , the players who the donkey work for the players with more skill. If you cannot see this you know less than you already appear. And to describe them as "anti-footballers" is stupid.

You don't seem to be fully understanding my point. I understand that sometimes you need holding midfielders but that playing both of these is not working. Just to further prove my point to shut you up I'll just bring this in from another thread...

'Yesterday, Williamson and Lowe did not do their job properly - stats showed they made ONE successful tackle between in the whole of the match yesterday."

[LDRover]

The same Leeds that then went and lost 2-0 to Rochdale and 6-0 to Sheffield Wednesday? They actually had more possession and shots in the match anyway, so we were no more attacking than they were.

When Evans is back I expect us to become a little more attack-minded. In the meantime with Lowe/Williamson as our options in midfield it makes sense to be cautious.

Sorry DE but this type of 'cautious' sees us shipping 4 at Forest, 3 at Ipswich and Brighton and 3 at home to Birmingham. I don't think it'd have been any worse with a more attacking line up.

[jim mk2]

To Neal:

I understand what you are saying but my objection is to the daft phrase "anti-footballers", which you haven't acknowledged. Perhaps you'd like to provide a definition of an "anti-footballer" ?

[DE.]

Sorry DE but this type of 'cautious' sees us shipping 4 at Forest, 3 at Ipswich and Brighton and 3 at home to Birmingham. I don't think it'd have been any worse with a more attacking line up.

it also saw us get a 0-0 draw at QPR, a 3-2 win against Millwall, a 1-0 away win at Yeovil, a 1-0 win against Boro... etc. It's also ensured our home record reads W7 D3 L3, and has kept us within touching distance of the playoffs. For a club that has had a huge turnaround in players, a negative transfer budget, and witnessed the sale of many key players over the past few years... it's nowhere near as bad as some are trying to make out. There's a creeping overconfidence in certain players - Dann, Hanley and Lowe especially - which is lulling people into believing we could attack more and not be compromised at the back. I firmly believe it is the current tactics that cause our defensive players to look adequate, and should we become more attacking minded we will see their weaknesses once again exposed and it will cost us points just like it did last season before Bowyer stepped in twice to shore things up.

[Stuart]

When you're starting with the likes of Eastwood, Hanley, Dann and Lowe as the spine of the team it's not hard to see why.

He's stuck with Eastwood at the moment and has to go all out to loan a PL (or ex-PL) keeper this month.

Hanley and Dann - although I don't like the attitudes of either have been decent at times this season.

Lowe is a problem all of Bowyer's own making - poor excuse.

Aside from a keeper, Bowyer has the tools to do much better. Poor excuse.

should we become more attacking minded we will see their weaknesses once again exposed and it will cost us points just like it did last season before Bowyer stepped in twice to shore things up.

Like we did against Leeds and second half against Brum?

After those two outings, I thought Bowyer had turned a corner.

Then he put things into reverse.

[DE.]

Using Leeds as an example is nonsense. As I said, they had more shots and possession than us in that match, and they're in a horrific run of form. They lost their next match 2-0 to Rochdale and then were thumped 6-0 by Sheffield Wednesday.

As for Birmingham, it's easy to attack when you're 3-0 down and it's easy to defend when you have a 3-0 lead. It proves nothing.

[Stuart]

Sit through a few frustrating defensive tactical matches, DE, and get back to me.

Even when we win, we are in a knife edge. The best proof is Carney's significantly better contribution from CM. Something that Bowyer removes from our game.

Nice bait-and-switch though, with the 'players aren't good enough' argument.

[DE.]

I've always said the players aren't good enough. Feel free to do a Tris and go through my post history if you don't believe me.

[Neal]

To Neal:

I understand what you are saying but my objection is to the daft phrase "anti-footballers", which you haven't acknowledged. Perhaps you'd like to provide a definition of an "anti-footballer" ?

Ok, so given the evidence yesterday that only 1 of the two holding midfielders made one tackle the whole game... If they don't tackle, don't score goals, don't take set pieces & don't assist (pass) & don't retain possession then playing goes against every single thing you need to able to help their team win a game. Running around lots without doing anything with that spherical thing that bounces around is absolutely useless to us, go and take up long distance running. If they could actually do the job of protecting the back 4 then I'd totally understand picking them. Both of them anti-footballers & it's absolutely pointless picking both of them.

[West Yorks Rover]

Our problem though is who else? By which I don't mean, who else is available/ would take the job as I accept there may be better out there willing and able to come. I mean who else would venkys give the job to? Who would they ask to advise them and whose advice would be any good? There is nobody but Shaw left at ewood so do we let him choose? If we could rely on getting someone in who stood a fair chance of being better, now might be time to change, but we can't rely on anything where our owners are concerned!

Maybe he needs a coach with experience at a higher level to advise him, perhaps the ones we have, just don't have the necessary

expertise.

[den]

Perhaps, but I don't think Gary is doing that much wrong. To take a team in turmoil that nearly got relegated last season, using a negative summer transfer budget, to within 4 points of 6th by the middle of January isn't too bad for a rookie manager though.

Negative summer budget? The neutrals will be thinking he hasn't signed a full starting 11, plus 4 subs.

[DE.]

It means we spent less in fees than we received, nothing to do with the amount of players signed.

[jim mk2]

Ok, so given the evidence yesterday that only 1 of the two holding midfielders made one tackle the whole game... If they don't tackle, don't score goals, don't take set pieces & don't assist (pass) & don't retain possession then playing goes against every single thing you need to able to help their team win a game. Running around lots without doing anything with that spherical thing that bounces around is absolutely useless to us, go and take up long distance running. If they could actually do the job of protecting the back 4 then I'd totally understand picking them. Both of them anti-footballers & it's absolutely pointless picking both of them.

So they had a poor game yesterday but Rovers have won plenty of games with them playing and the team has played well too. They have their limitations but they do a good job for the team. Keeping using the phrase "anti-footballers" is nonsensical and an insult to them as players with qualities of their own.

[Shabani]

We've won games in spite of Lowe and Williamson, not because of them. Most games one or both are passengers

[Neal]

So they had a poor game yesterday but Rovers have won plenty of games with them playing and the team has played well too. They have their limitations but they do a good job for the team. Keeping using the phrase "anti-footballers" is nonsensical and an insult to them as players with qualities of their own.

Well that's rubbish too because out of 9 games with those 2 in midfield we've won 2 out of 9. Without those 2 we've played 10 & won 6.

My point is, these 'qualities' are not being shown as it's overkill to play them both and we're not offensive enough.

Finally, it's 'nonsensical' to call 2 players who don't score, tackle, pass, take set pieces, win headers Anti Footballers? Again rubbish. You have your opinion and I'll have mine.

Debate over Jim.

[arbitro]

Well that's rubbish too because out of 9 games with those 2 in midfield we've won 2 out of 9. Without those 2 we've played 10 & won 6.

My point is, these 'qualities' are not being shown as it's overkill to play them both and we're not offensive enough.

Finally, it's 'nonsensical' to call 2 players who don't score, tackle, pass, take set pieces, win headers Anti Footballers? Again rubbish. You have your opinion and I'll have mine.

Debate over Jim.

The statistic in the opening paragraph is really interesting. I wonder if Bowyer is aware of that.

[Bucksrover]

"out of 9 games with those 2 in midfield we've won 2 out of 9. Without those 2 we've played 10 & won 6."

How frustrating to see what most fans know laid out so clearly.

The brum game illustrated it for me - first half Lowe and Williamson as our advanced centre backs - we are 3 down at half time.

At half-time Williamson comes off, cairney goes central - we score 2 goals without reply. Admittedly gestede being the sub and partnering Rhodes also helped.

[LDRover]

Those stats are incredibly damning and, for those that have been beating the negativity drum, unsurprising.

[Amo]

However you try to spin it, the stats speak for themselves. It's no coincidence that when we play with two holding midfielders and push our most creative one out wide, we're inviting too much pressure, leaking more goals, and not winning enough games. Fans have been saying this for yonks, and yet we're told because Bowyer works with the lads all week, his selections are therefore absolute. Results need to improve, because although we're doing okay for now, we're going to need to actually get into the playoffs at some point, y'know? I can't see that happening whilst we continue to play this defensive formation which doesn't even do what it says on the tin.

[Bluemonday BRFC]

It does seem obvious to most that the Lowe and Williamson combo isn't working, and Cariney needs to play central. Bowyer will need to address this, with every game it becomes more glaringly clear and if we drift further from play off possibility more of the boo brigade will no doubt make their voices heard. The Derby game is crucial if we want to challenge for a top 6 finish.

Having said that, statistics don't give the full picture. I'd be interested to see the fixtures which correspond to this, its all right saying we won 6 out of 10 when the duo didn't start but if that was against weak teams it doesn't really prove anything, does it?

As others have said, its important not to forget how far we've come in such a short space of time. We've had a lot of encouraging performances of late and the corruption caused by Kean feels increasingly (and thankfully) distant. We're still in a transitional period and, for me, I can't praise Bowyer enough for giving us a sense of getting our Rovers back.