[Archived] Second Striker Syndrome

[thenodrog]

On the subject of getting the best out of JR, how many differing attempts has anyone seen? because every time I watch it's the same, long ball, he doesn't hold it and we lose possession, Kean, Black, Appleton, Berg and GB have all tried this.

You obviously haven't been recently then. You need to keep up to speed and not comment from the comfort of your armchair.

'atypical' means NOT conforming to type.

And it's 'allude', not 'elude'.

Don't worry, I got your back, bro.

An alliance of armchair critics forming I see.

[Amo]

That post just confirms that you know much more about boobs than football Topman.

Handy, 'cause football has its fair share of tits.

btw You obviously haven't seen much of JR live. Did you go to the Bournemouth match?

Post-match threads are about as divisive as they come. As is this debate, also between regulars.

Rhodes' record speaks for itself. We just need the rest of the team to pull their weight. Oh, sorry, I forgot, Jordan is holding them all back from being the free-scoring hotshots they truly are?

[den]

15 points by my reckoning, Neil.

It's a shame this thread is veering onto a Rhodes thread again, the question was if we need someone else to weigh in with 15+ goals alongside him. I can only assume there are a lot of people who think that wouldn't be a good idea.

It's a shame also that the Jordanettes won't or can't debate how the shortcomings of a player contribute to the team performance. Like I said, or tried to say, this topic starts with the assumption that one said individual must play. The question simply has to be "how can we improve team performances"? You're cutting one of the main arguments out of the discussion Stuart. Do you want to debate everything apart from one individual, or are you one of these fans who having watched Ings show exactly what we're missing, still thinks that a lone striker can play 99% of the time offering nothing, as long as he scores his share of goals?

Danny Ings showed how a good striker contributes in every game, all of the time. For us though, we don't need that, do we?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

For me it's simple. As an ex defender who would I rather not have to play against out of those two ? Ings every time for me.

[Majiball]

All done. Again.

I for one most certainly hope it's not all done and you post more.

You obviously haven't been recently then. You need to keep up to speed and not comment from the comfort of your armchair.

An alliance of armchair critics forming I see.

Tis a much better group than the golfers union!!!

[ABBEY]

Haters gonna hate.. Wait til he goes and all the haters will want a goal scorer. .

[Majiball]

But they're not haters, they just see things differently. I'm 100% everyone is grateful for his goals but no-one hates him and has never said such. I wish that term would disappear in that context.

[Stuart]

It's a shame also that the Jordanettes won't or can't debate how the shortcomings of a player contribute to the team performance. Like I said, or tried to say, this topic starts with the assumption that one said individual must play. The question simply has to be "how can we improve team performances"? You're cutting one of the main arguments out of the discussion Stuart. Do you want to debate everything apart from one individual, or are you one of these fans who having watched Ings show exactly what we're missing, still thinks that a lone striker can play 99% of the time offering nothing, as long as he scores his share of goals?

Danny Ings showed how a good striker contributes in every game, all of the time. For us though, we don't need that, do we?

Again, it's a hypothetical debate based on empirical evidence around us. Perhaps you think we should replace Rhodes and Gestede with two different strikers but the point is, they should score 15+ goals each (for my theory to hold).

Now, I think that actually we have one of those goalscorer slots nailed on and we just need a second one. If you want a team performance discussion, why not create a thread?

And I have discussed the weaknesses in Rhodes' game, several times, but I feel that the team would be more successful if we were set up - almost sausage machine style - to get the ball in the right areas for him put it in the net. It really shouldn't be such a controversial or sneered at view.

As for the "Jordanettes" snipe, who cares. If I was an 8 year old, he's about the only player whose name I'd want on my shirt. But who gives a @#/? about hooking the next generation of fan, eh? We don't need to, we've got stability, and that's the most important thing.

'Stability' - the thinking man's 'mediocrity'.

Meanwhile the 8 year olds are all walking around wearing Man City shirts...

[den]

Again, it's a hypothetical debate based on empirical evidence around us. Perhaps you think we should replace Rhodes and Gestede with two different strikers but the point is, they should score 15+ goals each (for my theory to hold).

Now, I think that actually we have one of those goalscorer slots nailed on and we just need a second one. If you want a team performance discussion, why not create a thread?

And I have discussed the weaknesses in Rhodes' game, several times, but I feel that the team would be more successful if we were set up - almost sausage machine style - to get the ball in the right areas for him put it in the net. It really shouldn't be such a controversial or sneered at view.

As for the "Jordanettes" snipe, who cares. If I was an 8 year old, he's about the only player whose name I'd want on my shirt. But who gives a @#/? about hooking the next generation of fan, eh? We don't need to, we've got stability, and that's the most important thing.

'Stability' - the thinking man's 'mediocrity'.

Meanwhile the 8 year olds are all walking around wearing Man City shirts...

Just one point Stuart - and I'm not sneering at you - the point about giving Rhodes better service. He's already scoring 20/25 goals a season. We can't expect him to score more goals can we? I certainly don't. That's not the discussion. The problem is that if your lone front man is getting marked out of the game regularly, especially away from home, then no one else is going to get you the other goals your topic is asking for.

That's why these points are relevant to this (ongoing) debate. If we can't hold the ball while the midfielders get up to support the front man then we're going to be on the back foot throughout. Just as we have been for the past couple of seasons. You mentioned Ings and Vokes at Burnley. Don't you think they get the goals - and Burnley are going up this season, in the main because of they affect ALL the games they play? For me Burnley are where they are, not just because they have a couple of goalscorers, but because they have attacking players who Influence games for the whole 90 minutes, most games. If they disappeared like Rhodes does, they wouldn't be going up, even with the same amount of goals between them.

[Stuart]

Just one point Stuart - and I'm not sneering at you - the point about giving Rhodes better service. He's already scoring 20/25 goals a season. We can't expect him to score more goals can we? I certainly don't. That's not the discussion. The problem is that if your lone front man is getting marked out of the game regularly, especially away from home, then no one else is going to get you the other goals your topic is asking for.

That's why these points are relevant to this (ongoing) debate. If we can't hold the ball while the midfielders get up to support the front man then we're going to be on the back foot throughout. Just as we have been for the past couple of seasons. You mentioned Ings and Vokes at Burnley. Don't you think they get the goals - and Burnley are going up this season, in the main because of they affect ALL the games they play? For me Burnley are where they are, not just because they have a couple of goalscorers, but because they have attacking players who Influence games for the whole 90 minutes, most games. If they disappeared like Rhodes does, they wouldn't be going up, even with the same amount of goals between them.

I'm (by definition) not asking Rhodes to score more (although he probably could). I'm suggesting that we need someone else to get 15+ goals. Am I saying it wrong?

As for Burnley, it's an opinion that they have an attacking midfield (which I infer from your post) but it's a 'fact' that - like the other clubs above us - they have these double acts.

I honestly believe that if we had another forward who had scores 15+ goals, we would be on the play-offs. It's the fact that defenders have two threats to worry about and not one.

I think it's a valid opinion to say that we need to trade Rhodes in for two 15 goals per season strikers. I don't necessarily agree but I can see the merits. But I'm reaching the opinion that although he could score more - if used correctly - that he needs someone else alongside him to become more of a goal threat. The benefit being two-fold: first the goals they bring but, second, the space they provide Rhodes through being an additional threat.

However, I would not drop Rhodes, I would look to set the team up to create chances but look for a second goalscorer rather than a flick-on man. Trouble is these people cost money.

I await the 'haha' posts but at least I'm attempting to take a different view (even as a Jordanette).

[Proudtobeblue&white]

Jordanette!! To see you in a ra ra skirt with Pom poms......now there's a reason to go to Ewood!

[Majiball]

Jordanette!! To see you in a ra ra skirt with Pom poms......now there's a reason to go to Ewood

Please for the love of god could someone embed the below link? lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw39f8hqIjM

[thenodrog]

Tis a much better group than the golfers union!!!

Childish that maj.... Commenting with so much authority from an armchair if that is what you did means nowt. If that is indeed the case then as with most things you are basing your opinion on statistics and 2nd hand reports and the wisest move would be to keep a lower profile for fear of looking foolish.

btw golfs for Sundays.

[thenodrog]

Haters gonna hate.. Wait til he goes and all the haters will want a goal scorer. .

'Critics are gonna criticise' might be closer to the truth AND serve you better Abbs.

I said earlier that JR put a strong shift in on Sat so thats hardly the stance of a hater is it? Other side of the coin and against Bournemouth he was absolutely appalling! Surely you aren't going to say that he played well that night? You might consider my comments to be hate but for my part it was honest appraisal. I say it as I see it and I've over 50 years of seeing it.

btw You must know as well as anybody else that JR is not the finished article (he's still here isn't he?) and has pluses and minus's and anybody with minus's on 40k+pw should bloody well work hard to remove those faults from his game. I didn't go to Huddersfield so I cant comment on that match or his performance but personally I haven't seen much evidence till Sat maybe to suggest that he is.

[Stuart]

btw You must know as well as anybody else that JR is not the finished article (he's still here isn't he?)

This just sums up the stupidity of the anti-Rhodes argument.

"He'll only be good enough when he's too good for Rovers".

[Majiball]

Childish that maj.... Commenting with so much authority from an armchair if that is what you did means nowt. If that is indeed the case then as with most things you are basing your opinion on statistics and 2nd hand reports and the wisest move would be to keep a lower profile for fear of looking foolish.

btw golfs for Sundays.

Childish? I guess everyone must seem like a child from your perspective. you see Theno you do this all the time to others on here, so I'm quite amused you call me a child as truly it's a reflection of yourself. You can dish it, but god you cannot take it, can you?

I notice no-one else is disputing that we knock it long to JR too much? , If others had then you might be right but alas you've been given your medicine and now you want revenge, cause it tasted bad. And you call me a child? Buy a mirror.

No Theno I haven't been in a couple of matches, but alas they've been on TV, so I've seen enough. We can continue down the expertise routeway if you like, but I suggest you look up how knowledge is formed before you do.

If you remember I don't do 'your ways', I'm a poxy theorist apparently and theory tells me Golf is for whatever day i decide it is.

[den]

I for one most certainly hope it's not all done and you post more.

I dunno Maj. There is a valid argument that if you only post negative viewpoints, that for the good of the site, you shouldn't post at all.

This just sums up the stupidity of the anti-Rhodes argument.

"He'll only be good enough when he's too good for Rovers".

Stupidity Stuart? Noone's saying that. I think the argument from some is that despite his goals, his lack of footballing ability means "THE TEAM" is worse off than it might be with different options.

[Stuart]

Stupidity Stuart? Noone's saying that. I think the argument from some is that despite his goals, his lack of footballing ability means "THE TEAM" is worse off than it might be with different options.

Ok. Replace stupidity with folly

Rinse and repeat.

[Blue blood]

Great thread to start, and very thought provoking. The evidence seems to state that you do need a second person contributing a decent number of goals for the team to do better.

Personally I wonder if that needs to be the case - it certainly wasn't last year for Cardiff. But clearly we do need the rest of the team scoring more.

My personal thoughts is someone in the hole, linking Rhodes to the midfield more and bringing the midfield more in to play. Say a fit Dunn/Rochina could contribute 10 goals, but more importantly could bring the likes of Marshall, Evans, King, Cairney and Conway more into the game offensively - that could be massive. If the right player and formation could get more out of these players, and get each of the above mentioned scoring a couple more goals each, we'd be in a much healthier position.

Granted, this is a tad simplistic, but I believe the general principal holds up.

[Stuart]

I can see the logic in that, blue blood. The only thing I would say is that - whilst I do champion his goalscoring and his stats speak for themselves (whatever people think about the easy ride centre backs get) - is that there is an argument against having Rhodes as the only goal threat.

Whilst the midfield chipping in with a few more goals would help, they need to be able to take advantage of any additional freedom brought about where Rhodes is marked out of a game. Ideally, a second goalscorer would offer that additional threat and make defences think (which is why I think Ings and Volkes have worked so well, for instance).

In the absence of that second goalscorer, we need those 5 or six players to get 2-3 goals each to fill that gap. However, genuine promotion contender will probably have this anyway - in addition to a couple of goalscorers.

Cardiff is an interesting one, they had all of their forwards contributing so presumably defenders couldn't keep track of all of the threats (which is possibly the ideal situation):

Aron Gunnarsson 8
Heidar Helguson 8
Peter Whittingham 8
Fraizer Campbell 7
Craig Noone 7
Matthew Connolly 5
Rudy Gestede 5

The top to last year didn't get that many goals compared to this season (and there are still 10 games to go). Although Watford were the highest scoring team and lost out in the play-offs. Troy Deeney got 19, and Almen Abdi got 12, so still that magic 30 mark.

Of last years other promoted teams (for comparison):

Crystal Palace = Glenn Murray 30 - 13 Dwight Gayle

Hull City (probably a better example than Cardiff) also had no players in double figures, with 5 players scoring 5+ (Koren top with 9). Hull actually scored a pitiful amount of goals, and were promoted automatically with 79 points (the first sub 80 point auto-promotion for 6 years).

Second place

2012/13 Hull 79 pts

2011/12 Southampton 88 pts

2010/11 Norwich 85 pts

2009/10 West Brom 91 pts

2008/09 Birmingham 83 pts

2007/08 Stoke 79 pts

P.S. Not sure how much stock we can put in Gestede either, going off these stats.

[Blue blood]

Stuart I'm not sure that just having Rhodes scoring regularly means he is the only goal threat. I'm fairly confident facing King at full speed, Evans arriving late in the box, Marshall cutting inside etc. all constitute as goal threats. I'd say the argument is having numerous goal threats, so many that all are chipping in, but with a lesser number - a bit like Cardiff last season. (And it seems Hull - great work on the stats.)

I'd advocate this approach more as it seems like it'd work best for our team. I think over the past 2 seasons Rhodes has looked best with someone in the hole behind him, whilst we have a great crop of wingers and midfielders who are capable of scoring.

Your point on Gestede also points to this (although I believe Bowyer to his credit is getting the best out of him.) But the likes of Campbell, Best and the lad from Leeds who's name currently escapes me, all don't strike me as capable of filling the second striker role.

[scotchrover]

Your point on Gestede also points to this (although I believe Bowyer to his credit is getting the best out of him.) But the likes of Campbell, Best and the lad from Leeds who's name currently escapes me, all don't strike me as capable of filling the second striker role.

Luke Varney? I think he is capable of scoring a number of goals for us, as well as being a real pain for defenders. His second half performance against Huddersfield, albeit against some interesting defending, showed this. It seems such a waste putting on the wing to me.

It makes me wonder if him and Gestede could be more effective, instead of Rhodes upfront, especially considering the long balls we often play into the final third. It also makes me wonder if he would be a better loan striker than both Gestede and Rhodes. I think his game is all round better than both them two.

With regards to formations, would a 4-1-2-3 be suitable, based on Rhodes, Varney and Gestede all up top? I think we're missing a real big, aggressive, workhorse to play just in front of the back four though, to use that system.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Why don't we score enough goals ? For me it's simple, we don't get enough bodies in the penalty box. Most of the team are still in our own half.

[somersetrover]

Tonight showed why we need another striker to put the ball in the net, I know we scored 3 but Rudy could and should have score 4 on his own. Sadly he is not a natural finisher like Rhodes, that is where we need another finisher to finish the chances that don't fall to Jordan, the ideal player for me would be Billy McKay at ICT who would work well with Jordan and Rudy. However other than his finishing Rudy was very good tonight as always in the air particularly late on when we went more direct. He will be a key player for us late on in games when we need a goal and want to go more direct, that how Cardiff mainly used him last season.

[Commondore]

Great thread to start, and very thought provoking. The evidence seems to state that you do need a second person contributing a decent number of goals for the team to do better.

Personally I wonder if that needs to be the case - it certainly wasn't last year for Cardiff. But clearly we do need the rest of the team scoring more.

My personal thoughts is someone in the hole, linking Rhodes to the midfield more and bringing the midfield more in to play. Say a fit Dunn/Rochina could contribute 10 goals, but more importantly could bring the likes of Marshall, Evans, King, Cairney and Conway more into the game offensively - that could be massive. If the right player and formation could get more out of these players, and get each of the above mentioned scoring a couple more goals each, we'd be in a much healthier position.

Granted, this is a tad simplistic, but I believe the general principal holds up.

Another general principle that could be applied to your reasoning is that Rhodes shouldn't need a foil to help others create chances. This is of course all speculation, but no player exists in a vacuum on the pitch, and maybe with a bit more footballing intelligence Rhodes would score a few goals less but contribute more assists and thereby raise the total amount of Rovers' goals?