Jock Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Next seasons goal scorers- The Opposition The goal tally- Loads of them.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
beanie Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 If we lose both of the main two strikers we might reach double figures just so this season will be fun.
bboy Posted August 16, 2015 Posted August 16, 2015 Now I've had chance to see the new players Rhodes 17 Kotia 9 Delfouneso 7 Conway 7 Own goals 4 Marshall 4 Brown 2 Duffy 2 Guthrie 2 Olsson 2 Hanley 2 Lowe 1 Taylor 1 Evans 1 Williamson 1 Killgalon 1 We let in 74 -11 gd We finish 15th
thenodrog Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 With the likely departure of Rudy and the 'for sale' sign clearly hanging from Rhode's neck, I was wondering what everyone's views are about who will score for us and how many goals we can realistically expect to net during the coming campaign? To be honest the thought of losing a 40 goal strike partnership with little or no prospect of replacement fills me with dread, as we have proved consistently under Bowyer that we can't keep a clean sheet - without someone to bag the goals, there is only one inevitable outcome that I can see. But I was wondering if anyone else had any strong ideas about how we might push on, and what goals for/ against tally you think is likely next season? No idea.... you are the expert.
scotchrover Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 Now I've had chance to see the new players Rhodes 17 Kotia 9 Delfouneso 7 Conway 7 Own goals 4 Marshall 4 Brown 2 Duffy 2 Guthrie 2 Olsson 2 Hanley 2 Lowe 1 Taylor 1 Evans 1 Williamson 1 Killgalon 1 We let in 74 -11 gd We finish 15th Are those 2 Brown goals, own goals? 😂 Personally, I'm currently thinking Delfounso or/ and Koite will get more than Rhodes this year. From what I've seen so far, Bowyer is intent on isolating Rhodes up front.
AllRoverAsia Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 If Rhodes stays at Rovers he will score 20 plus even if isloated. It's what he does. If Rhodes is not at Rovers the rest can't score enough and we will be relegated. IMO
Rover_Shaun Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Tbh can anyone see someone paying what Venkys want for Rhodes? They seem to want a kings ransom for him yet let Gestede go for peanuts (£6M....no mention of add-ons anywhere except from Kamys source) when compared to Bristol City offering £9m for Andre Gray!!!!!!!!!!
den Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 You're making the mistake of assuming Rhodes's goals equal results ARA. They don't, otherwise we'd have been promoted by now. Team performances equal results. Being a better side than your opponents equal results. On the other hand, if you sell all your decent strikers and either don't replace them, or replace them with the likes of Brown, of course you're going to struggle. IMO.
RevidgeBlue Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 You're making the mistake of assuming Rhodes's goals equal results ARA. They don't, otherwise we'd have been promoted by now. Team performances equal results. Being a better side than your opponents equal results. On the other hand, if you sell all your decent strikers and either don't replace them, or replace them with the likes of Brown, of course you're going to struggle. IMO. You would expect though that if we could score the same number of goals as last season but concede significantly less, we'd do a lot better. That's nothing whatsoever to do with Rhodes.
den Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 You would expect though that if we could score the same number of goals as last season but concede significantly less, we'd do a lot better. That's nothing whatsoever to do with Rhodes. It's to do with every team member Rev. That's why he's never played above the present level and why he can't get in a poor Scotland squad. It's about the team keeping possession of the ball.
AllRoverAsia Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 You're making the mistake of assuming Rhodes's goals equal results ARA. They don't, otherwise we'd have been promoted by now. Team performances equal results. Being a better side than your opponents equal results. On the other hand, if you sell all your decent strikers and either don't replace them, or replace them with the likes of Brown, of course you're going to struggle. IMO. If we had a decent defence maybe they would have. Rhodes goals (and Gestede's last Season) papered over the holes in our defence and which imo are still there. More holes than a colander. Rhodes will score but on his own as a regular scorer it probably will not be enough for top 6 but hopefully will keep us out of the bottom 3. Off to watch the Test on TV - England win the toss and bowl first. Oops wrong thread.
oldjamfan1 Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 It's to do with every team member Rev. That's why he's never played above the present level and why he can't get in a poor Scotland squad. It's about the team keeping possession of the ball. 100% spot on. Although I was at the Wolves game and thought he had improved slightly in that respect, to be fair. You defend as a team, from front to back (in that order!). Strachan has openly said that he doesn't fit into his one-up-top system.
RevidgeBlue Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 It's to do with every team member Rev. That's why he's never played above the present level and why he can't get in a poor Scotland squad. It's about the team keeping possession of the ball. Exactly. If your striker(s) defend ferociously from the front then that's a bonus but it ultimately shouldn't make that much difference to the goals conceded tally. That's down to the midfield and defence. Similarly keeping possession is about how a team get the ball up to and support the striker(s), not merely hoofing an aimless long ball up to an isolated front man with no-one within 30 yards of him.
oldjamfan1 Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Exactly. If your striker(s) defend ferociously from the front then that's a bonus but it ultimately shouldn't make that much difference to the goals conceded tally. That's down to the midfield and defence. Similarly keeping possession is about how a team get the ball up to and support the striker(s), not merely hoofing an aimless long ball up to an isolated front man with no-one within 30 yards of him. Sorry Rev, I would have to disagree with this. It stands to reason that if your forward players are defending ferociously, your opponents will create less chances to score than they would if your forward (s) is (are) bone idle. The butterfly effect.
AllRoverAsia Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 The defenders can't fecking defend properly and you expect Rhodes to bail them out? I personally do not give one if he plays for his adopted country or not as long as he bangs the ball in the sprout box for Rovers. Good defending and good goal scoring is what wins games - and Rhodes has always done his bit.
bboy Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Are those 2 Brown goals, own goals? 😂 Personally, I'm currently thinking Delfounso or/ and Koite will get more than Rhodes this year. From what I've seen so far, Bowyer is intent on isolating Rhodes up front. Even a broken clock is right twice a day
Waggy76 Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 If Rhodes does go , we will struggle to get 35 goals and that will bring relegation , with our porous defence.... Relegation would not be a bad thing if the Venkys go but relegation and the Venkys staying would be doomsday scenario...
Blueandwhitemike Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 If Rhodes stays and plays up on his own for most of the season I could see him getting 30+. If he plays with Koita/Delf he will still get 20+ and hopefully those two can get 10-15 maybe even 20 between them. You don't have to be the better team to win games, lots of teams win games by having one or two players who produce a couple moments of quality, teams like Man U won quite a few games like that last season.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.