[Archived] Boxing Day, Rovers v Weds, 26th December 2013

[Stuart]

Seeing as you're all over this messageboard like a rash that would be very difficult.

Why is it acceptable for you to slap down anyone who criticises your poster boy Rhodes while you post all sorts of nonsense about Lowe at any opportunity ?

Jim, you don't like me, I get it. We have no common ground so you need to accept that we will rarely agree, as I have. As for slapping people down. That is ALL you do with my posts time and again, no matter what the thread. So as far as 'leave it be' how about having some of your own medicine.

"How do we determine when he isn't playing well"?

That explains a lot Stuart.

It was meant to be rhetorical but thanks den.

.

Apologies... that post was aimed at Maj not in reponse to one of yours. Quote facility lets me down since somebody's been fiddling around with the controls.

No probs.

[Gav]

If we don't make the play offs this season then forget laying blame on Bowyer / Lowe / Rhodes etc cos it will be largely down to Dunn missing so many matches.

:lol:

Absolute bunkum Gordon

We all want a fit David Dunn playing week in week out, hes the best player at the club, sadly thats not going to happen, but I'd much rather have Dunn playing 1 in 3 than not playing at all.

[LDRover]

As usual, following a game, we end up discussing the main protagonists who polarise opinion - Rhodes and Lowe.

Neither played particularly well yesterday but one can win you a game and one can lose it for you.

In fact, the nearest we got to losing yesterday was when Lowe played a square ball in our last third straight to a Wednesday player to give him a run on goal. Fortunately Dann got back to deny the strike on goal.

I can never fault J-Lo's workrate but he is atrocious on the ball and, for me, a big reason why we don't play effectively through midfield and, in turn, play to the former's strengths.

[thenodrog]

Taking off the bloke who scores 50% of our goals is a bad solution, imo. We should be looking at changing other areas of the team to try and supply Rhodes better, rather than remove him.

So we take off our two centre halves then? Cos they were the ones belting it at his head in fruitless desperation when we were being penned back.

As far as I am concerned playing two centre forwards in a 4-4-2 is just archaic. Bowyer should take a winning formation and stick with it. I don't like messing around with what the players are most comfortable with and imo the formation that works best with our midfield personel is a 4-2-3-1 with the front 3 in midfield interchanging throughout the match. It obviously works best with Dunny as one but otherwise Rochina should be in there to replace him. Once that is done Rhodes should be the striker to start matches but if he is getting bossed as is happening more and more then Bowyer should not be afraid to sub him.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Two things I found baffling yesterday. Why was DJ Campbell on the bench and when Taylor went down injured why did it take the stretcher going to get Rovers warming up a sub?

[thenodrog]

:lol:

Absolute bunkum Gordon

Is it? I'd wager the results when Dunny figures extrapolated over the season would see us in the top 6.

Any statto's out there with nowt better to do?

[dingles staying down 4ever]

:lol:

Absolute bunkum Gordon

We all want a fit David Dunn playing week in week out, hes the best player at the club, sadly thats not going to happen, but I'd much rather have Dunn playing 1 in 3 than not playing at all.

Actually it is a sad fact about Rovers that we have to rely on a crock for any guile.

Mentally or physically Dunn is not capable to play two games in a week. Rovers need a plan B.

Dunn has always had an attitude problem. It was why Souness fell out him!

[Gav]

How many games on the bounce did he play when his contract was expiring last season?

He does have form. He's done it for bloody years.

Lets not forget Dunn was under the knife 10wks ago, people seem to be forgetting that.

Anyway its not a Dunn thread, he wasn't even in the squad, but the vast majority of Rovers fans would rather have him in the team than not, no doubt about that.

[thenodrog]

Jim, you don't like me,

How do you think I feel?

[DE.]

So we take off our two centre halves then? Cos they were the ones belting it at his head in fruitless desperation when we were being penned back.

As far as I am concerned playing two centre forwards in a 4-4-2 is just archaic. Bowyer should take a winning formation and stick with it. I don't like messing around with what the players are most comfortable with and imo the formation that works best with our midfield personel is a 4-2-3-1 with the front 3 in midfield interchanging throughout the match. It obviously works best with Dunny as one but otherwise Rochina should be in there to replace him. Once that is done Rhodes should be the striker to start matches but if he is getting bossed as is happening more and more then Bowyer should not be afraid to sub him.

I think a better solution would have been to take off Gestede and throw Ruben on behind Rochina, as he's the closest thing to Dunn that we currently have and may have drawn the second Sheff Weds centre back away from Jordan.

On the other hand, I would have started with Ruben rather than Gestede and subbed the Spaniard if things weren't going to plan and we needed to try a different approach. I agree a 4-4-2 is archaic and redundant as a tactic.

[Bucksrover]

I think that at no point did Wednesday look like scoring. All the change did was limit us going forward. To be honest, if Williamson was going to come on it should have been for Lowe. To say Lowe gets so much praise, he is very poor positionally, so many teams do I see opponents getting the ball in the spaces between our midfield and defence, and he doesn't win enough challenges or second balls. Rochina would have given them something different to think about. Williamson for Lowe and Rochina for Gestede.

I agree, in that I don't think Wednesday were a threat until we made them a threat by the Williamson substitution creating our 6 man defence.

I don't think Lowe was doing that badly at what he does - he covers so much ground - assisting defenders and midfielders when the opposition is attacking. It is a shame he scored that wonder-goal in a way as I feel we may have to sit through 50 or so attempts to repeat the feat. Like Josh King, when Lowe is in a decent position his first thought should be getting the ball to Rhodes to do what he does.

I really don't get Williamson. I would use him as a substitute for Lowe only. Neither of them are proper central midfielders (like Jermaine Jones when he played for us) - they are defensive midfielders - someone used the term 'nullify' in a previous post in terms of Williamson coming on to nullify Sheffield Wednesday's threat. In my opinion the 2 defensive midfielders nullified our threat, and penned us back increasing the risk of a Wednesday goal. Wednesday had less gifted players than we had - they had a few physical players who bullied a few of ours, but I think if we had stuck with an attacking approach we could have won.

I think Gestede and Rhodes could work - Gestede put Rhodes through on goal a couple of times and got through on goal himself, and this was his first start.

I have also seen Marshall criticised on this thread - he didn't run the show - but right up until the end he was trying and chasing down the opposition. He has tried quite a few shots from long range which haven't quite gone right - with Rhodes on board maybe he should be looking for a pass. But he strikes a ball really well and I think, like Taylor did, he could come good.

I think these match threads serve a variety of purposes - I think people have to appreciate that posts written just after leaving the ground are going to be done for a different purpose than those written a day later. I was really frustrated from the time Williamson came on and it was really good to vent on here before the long drive home.

On to Brum. Lingard is suspended for them so fingers crossed Bowyer wants to go after them and allows the team to earn some applause.

[thenodrog]

I think a better solution would have been to take off Gestede and throw Ruben on behind Rochina, as he's the closest thing to Dunn that we currently have and may have drawn the second Sheff Weds centre back away from Jordan.

On the other hand, I would have started with Ruben rather than Gestede and subbed the Spaniard if things weren't going to plan and we needed to try a different approach. I agree a 4-4-2 is archaic and redundant as a tactic.

I assume you mean Rhodes DE?

Your second suggestion is what I advocated. Stick to the succesful tactics and swap the personnel is better than switching to unfamilair tactics to accommodate certain players.

[Stuart]

How do you think I feel?

fair enough. Actually, my agreeing with you most of the time is probably why he has it in for me!

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

The league table never lies Theno..they are one of the poorer sides in this tin pot championship.

Wow - then imagine how Leicester and Watford fans must have felt when they recently beat them !

[DE.]

I assume you mean Rhodes DE?

Your second suggestion is what I advocated. Stick to the succesful tactics and swap the personnel is better than switching to unfamilair tactics to accommodate certain players.

Oops, yes, I did.

For the record I wouldn't be against subbing Rhodes if there were other players on the pitch who could chip in with goals, but I just don't trust any of the others to put the ball in the net when we need them to. Lowe has something like 1 goal in 100 appearances? Williamson is no goalscorer, and none of King, Cairney or Taylor have shown any real goalscoring knack. Gestede has no track record of being a goalscorer either - in fact, for a striker his past stats make for embarrassing reading.

Goals win games and without Jordan on the pitch we have far less chance of getting that decisive goal that separates a 0-0 from a 1-0.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

Is it? I'd wager the results when Dunny figures extrapolated over the season would see us in the top 6.

Any statto's out there with nowt better to do?

Yes I have nothing better to do

League appearances -

Yeovil (A) - Won 1-0 (off 66 min)

Millwall (H) - Won 3-2 (on 74)

QPR (A) - Drew 0-0 (on 84)

Leeds (H) - Won 1-0 (off 61)

Reading (H) - Drew 0-0 (off 65)

Brighton (A) - Lost 3-0 (on 62)

Bolton (H) - Won 4-1 (off 58)

Barnsley (H) - Won 5-2 (off 65)

Doncaster (A) - Lost 2-0 (off 65)

Played 9 - Won 5 - Drew 2 - Lost 2

Started 6 - Won 4 - Drew 1 - Lost 1

Cba to work out points per game ratio's etc but there you go

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

I would have gone all out to get in a midfielder rather than Gestede - who is looking a rather poor acquisition thus far. This midfielder would then have been brought on for Taylor. Rochina would have started alongside Rhodes instead of Gestede and Lowe would have been replaced by Williamson if we were still losing that midfield battle.

Oh, and Dunn would have been on a PAYP contract and may well have been 'fit'. DJ would also not have taken up a space on the bench and I would have had Forrester back from his loan.

I am glad you aren't our manager.

[Stuart]

I am glad you aren't our manager.

Which bit would you not have done?

[Majiball]

There's the rub though, Maj.

How do we determine that he isn't playing well? If it's when he is missing chances then I agree. If he isn't getting those chances the I'd say his team mates aren't playing well. Others would say he should then create his own chances - as well as chances for those non-existent players ahead of him when he drops deeper.

When we start playing to Rhodes weaknesses rather than his strengths, we end up where either the whole team seems to drop deeper, or we ping the ball long to Rhodes and watch him beaten in the air, or win the ball and be pushed wide waiting for support that isn't forthcoming.

If we aren't going to play to his strengths then let's get him sold in January while his stock is still high.

In response to your other point, if two players are marking Rhodes, why aren't we taking advantage of the extra man?

I agree we don't play to his strengths. we played it long to him a lot last season under all the managers and we appear to be doing the same again. What's the definition of madness? Dann and Hanley are very guilty in that aspect but at the same time why is nothing said from the touchline?

I would add to the not playing well, not making the game plan work. Yesterday if the tactic was to start playing more direct to the front man for him to hold, then yes if JR is failing to do so I would have perhaps subbed JR for Williamson. The other aspect is working against two is hard physically and JR won't be able to do so every match this season. He needs to be kept fresh and this is definitely not happening.

JR for me is a bit of an enigma, yes he can finish like a poacher but he's built well and appears like he maybe able to contribute more in time. So how too play him? I think for me the most important rules for playing with him would be, don't always hit it long to him and play him with the same players as often as possible (to build understanding). Training, SSG's same players always as when I've seen him play sometimes his teammates don't seem to know what he's going to do. The long balls are obvious for me as it gives the advantage to the defender everytime regardless of who the striker is. I'd then hope. But I'd also speak with JR to see what he thinks in regards to how to get more out of him.

The extra man issue is an easy one to answer, our extra man is Lowe.

[Stuart]

The extra man issue is an easy one to answer, our extra man is Lowe.

Well, I didn't like to say.

[Majiball]

I don't get this being overrun in midfield - at the time of 'the' change we were having our best spell of the game - in fact it was just after Gestede's one on one.

Also surely this would be proven in possession stats - which showed we had more of the ball??

I'm not going to go against others that were there and even parson said it so I'll take there word for it. But the BBC text service seems more us than them at that point. I wonder if Rochina for Gestede straight swap would have opened up more passes through and into midfield with his movement?

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Which bit would you not have done?

IMO you are judging Gestede far too early - he looks to have all the attributes we have been crying out for. With the issues surrounding Best we needed an experienced striker at this level, rather than yet another midfield player. Buy another midfield player - who to replace Cairney, Evans, Lowe ?

Replace Lowe with Williamson - you obviously didn't spot Williamson continually struggling for pace - getting caught of position ?

Dunn's contract - personally I don't know how is contract is made up - do you ? For all anyone knows it could be heavily balanced towards actually playing.

I partly agree with your comment about DJ - but I will always go back to what I have always said - innocent until proven guilty. On this basis - DJ is a recognised goal scorer at this level - may not have done much for us, but his record with other clubs is very good. Though I wouldn't personally pay him the huge salary to purely be a back up for Rhodes - he does represent a good alternative option if Rhodes gets injured or needs resting.

[LDRover]

Believe me Maj, we were never in danger of losing that match BEFORE the 2nd substitution. There's talk of nullifying their threat. If someone could tell me what that supposed threat was I'd be grateful.

Wednesday came for a point and got one. The 2nd sub meant that they coasted it for the last half hour.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

I'm not going to go against others that were there and even parson said it so I'll take there word for it. But the BBC text service seems more us than them at that point. I wonder if Rochina for Gestede straight swap would have opened up more passes through and into midfield with his movement?

My inclination was to replace Gestede with Rochina - but I am not going to beat up Bowyer for going with Williamson. I think many saw the issues we had combating the extra man in midfield - just varying opinions on how best to resolve.

We will never know who was right - bringing Rochina on earlier - he could have easily scored or set up a goal - but was just as likely to give the ball away in a dangerous area and we get beat.

[Majiball]

.

Apologies... that post was aimed at Maj not in reponse to one of yours. Quote facility lets me down since somebody's been fiddling around with the controls.

Don't agree with you there.

So we take off our two centre halves then? Cos they were the ones belting it at his head in fruitless desperation when we were being penned back.

As far as I am concerned playing two centre forwards in a 4-4-2 is just archaic. Bowyer should take a winning formation and stick with it. I don't like messing around with what the players are most comfortable with and imo the formation that works best with our midfield personel is a 4-2-3-1 with the front 3 in midfield interchanging throughout the match. It obviously works best with Dunny as one but otherwise Rochina should be in there to replace him. Once that is done Rhodes should be the striker to start matches but if he is getting bossed as is happening more and more then Bowyer should not be afraid to sub him.

But i do agree with you there and said so the second the team was announced.

Two things I found baffling yesterday. Why was DJ Campbell on the bench and when Taylor went down injured why did it take the stretcher going to get Rovers warming up a sub?

Most teams warm-up for 20-30 mins and yet a sub can do the with some static stretches and watching the match.

Lets not forget Dunn was under the knife 10wks ago, people seem to be forgetting that.

Anyway its not a Dunn thread, he wasn't even in the squad, but the vast majority of Rovers fans would rather have him in the team than not, no doubt about that.

I do agree with that, we need him involved every match.

Yes I have nothing better to do

League appearances -

Yeovil (A) - Won 1-0 (off 66 min)

Millwall (H) - Won 3-2 (on 74)

QPR (A) - Drew 0-0 (on 84)

Leeds (H) - Won 1-0 (off 61)

Reading (H) - Drew 0-0 (off 65)

Brighton (A) - Lost 3-0 (on 62)

Bolton (H) - Won 4-1 (off 58)

Barnsley (H) - Won 5-2 (off 65)

Doncaster (A) - Lost 2-0 (off 65)

Played 9 - Won 5 - Drew 2 - Lost 2

Started 6 - Won 4 - Drew 1 - Lost 1

Cba to work out points per game ratio's etc but there you go

Played = 86.88 points so 87

Started = 99.66 so 100

Well, I didn't like to say.