The Relegation Thread

[tomphil]

Pathetic ain't it matty?

You have to ask yourself why it's come to people unfortunately saying these things. Then just look back at the evidence under Bowyers tenure in regards to Lowe, his selection, results etc. The answers are all there and whilst I don't want a player injured if he was available he'd have been in and it probably would have affected recent performances and results.

Best case scenario here is he gets right then gets loaned out hopefully until he's 100% fit. We all know damn well he'll be back in as soon as he's available. It's a giant achilies heel of Bowyers sadly and he's changed the team just to accommodate this guy several times before so no reason to think he won't again.

[chris_h]

Its a ridiculous over simplification to even consider the improvement as a sole result of that. Besides, Fulham away was the initial game we improved yet lost- Spurr played that game.

Potentially down to a few more things than that? Like maybe something to do with the bloke who didn't score in those 5 first games?

It's a fashionable assumption on here that we have "undroppable" players but I don't buy this favorites malarkey.

Why did he go out and get akpan and Guthrie if he saw Lowe as undroppable?

Stop making sense.

[Mattyblue]

Anyway my point being that this website isn't as out of kilter with the wider fanbase as some try to make out...

[donnermeat]

Its a ridiculous over simplification to even consider the improvement as a sole result of that. Besides, Fulham away was the initial game we improved yet lost- Spurr played that game.

Potentially down to a few more things than that? Like maybe something to do with the bloke who didn't score in those 5 first games?

It's a fashionable assumption on here that we have "undroppable" players but I don't buy this favorites malarkey.

Why did he go out and get akpan and Guthrie if he saw Lowe as undroppable?

A well thought out and balanced post, for much I agree with by the way. Certainly helps that Rhodes has started scoring. It also helps that the cm's get their head up and have been showing more dynamism and looked more comfortable with the ball at their feet.

On your last sentence, although I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, as in theory I actually hope it's true, I will say this; Paul Taylor, Liam Feeney, Chris Brown, Luke Varney, Ousmane Dabo, Yann Songo'o.

We can't say one way or the other if they were brought in to replace Lowe, though Lowe has been selected over both of them whenever he's been available for selection this season. Hopefully that's just down to the others not being match fit.

[tomphil]

We can't say for sure but on the face of it things surely looked like he was finding someone to play alongside Lowe rather than instead.

[Stuart]

Some very well articulated posts from Mattyblue on the Lowe debate.

[joey_big_nose]

A few points here is

1) Guthrie and Akpan are both new to the club and Evans was coming back from serious injury. To a certain extent Lowe did not have competition for his place.

When he returns (which will be a long long time from now) that will have significantly changed.

Bowyer signed Guthrie and Evans so he needs to be given credit for finding players who are showing real quality and are a significant improvement over Lowe and Williamson.

2)Olsson was legitimately dropped as he had a poor start to the campaign and previous to this season Spurr has actually been quite good. It was not controversial when he was picked ahead of Olsson. He then played very poorly, arguably should have been dropped before the QPR game then got injured, Olsson came back in

3) Everyone was saying (including me) Hanley should be dropped end of last season. Bowyer stuck by him and he has been very good.

It's hardly the most damning set of management decisions is it? You could say Lowe would never get dropped, but if that is the case why have we signed three central mids in the window? That's suggests major changes were forecast in that area.

It's a bit of a rubbish argument at the moment. Probably need to wait for Lowe or Spurr to actually come back and be put in the team ahead of better players before really tearing into this one.

[DE.]

A few points here is

1) Guthrie and Akpan are both new to the club and Evans was coming back from serious injury. To a certain extent Lowe did not have competition for his place.

When he returns (which will be a long long time from now) that will have significantly changed.

Bowyer signed Guthrie and Evans so he needs to be given credit for finding players who are showing real quality and are a significant improvement over Lowe and Williamson.

2)Olsson was legitimately dropped as he had a poor start to the campaign and previous to this season Spurr has actually been quite good. It was not controversial when he was picked ahead of Olsson. He then played very poorly, arguably should have been dropped before the QPR game then got injured, Olsson came back in

3) Everyone was saying (including me) Hanley should be dropped end of last season. Bowyer stuck by him and he has been very good.

It's hardly the most damning set of management decisions is it? You could say Lowe would never get dropped, but if that is the case why have we signed three central mids in the window? That's suggests major changes were forecast in that area.

It's a bit of a rubbish argument at the moment. Probably need to wait for Lowe or Spurr to actually come back and be put in the team ahead of better players before really tearing into this one.

Good post jbn, but in regards to Bowyer signing players better than Lowe and Williamson... not that difficult, surely? When you consider two free transfers from Reading have been an instant improvement I think that says it all. I also don't understand the extension for Williamson when we already have so many players in that position. Why not give one of the younger lads that spot?

A bit harsh to say Olsson had a bad start to the campaign - how many games did he play before being dropped? And if that was criteria how in the world did Lowe and Hanley keep their places? Perhaps you can make an argument for Lowe based on fitness of the newer signings, but Kilgallon should surely have been in for Hanley if we're talking players being dropped for poor contributions in the first couple of games. Considering Olsson was our player of the season last term it would be an incredibly harsh decision from Bowyer to drop him so soon into this campaign imo.

Generally agree with your third point, but we've played some really poor teams over the past three games and we gifted Charlton quite a few chances so not convinced about Hanley/Duffy just yet. I would agree that dropping Hanley now would be pointless - not that he would anyway.

Beginning the season with Raya in goal was a strange one for me as well. Steele had been solid for us, and throwing a kid into the first team based on a couple of decent outings at the tail end of last season in dead rubber games was a poor call imo. Thank goodness Bowyer rectified that, though it's hard to say what effect that has had on Raya.

[frosty]

Aye, Olsson being dropped after 2 below par (that's all they were by the way, he didn't even play badly) performances, after winning POTY last season, wasn't on at all.

[Amo]

Aye, Olsson being dropped after 2 below par (that's all they were by the way, he didn't even play badly) performances, after winning POTY last season, wasn't on at all.

Especially when he doesn't treat his favourites with the same standards.

[philipl]

The full quote in context for jbizzie:

We have been lucky in the injuries we have suffered. Guthrie apart, the players we lost are pretty well up the list of players the fans would have dropped given half a chance.

That should answer your puzzlement.

As for Spurr at Fulham- he was an utter liability in that game. The rest of the team rallied in spite of his performance.

[tomphil]

Good post jbn, but in regards to Bowyer signing players better than Lowe and Williamson... not that difficult, surely? When you consider two free transfers from Reading have been an instant improvement I think that says it all. I also don't understand the extension for Williamson when we already have so many players in that position. Why not give one of the younger lads that spot?

A bit harsh to say Olsson had a bad start to the campaign - how many games did he play before being dropped? And if that was criteria how in the world did Lowe and Hanley keep their places? Perhaps you can make an argument for Lowe based on fitness of the newer signings, but Kilgallon should surely have been in for Hanley if we're talking players being dropped for poor contributions in the first couple of games. Considering Olsson was our player of the season last term it would be an incredibly harsh decision from Bowyer to drop him so soon into this campaign imo.

Generally agree with your third point, but we've played some really poor teams over the past three games and we gifted Charlton quite a few chances so not convinced about Hanley/Duffy just yet. I would agree that dropping Hanley now would be pointless - not that he would anyway.

Beginning the season with Raya in goal was a strange one for me as well. Steele had been solid for us, and throwing a kid into the first team based on a couple of decent outings at the tail end of last season in dead rubber games was a poor call imo. Thank goodness Bowyer rectified that, though it's hard to say what effect that has had on Raya.

It was mentioned a bit back that Williamson had played enough games last season to automatically trigger a clause for another year. Maybe they were going to look to phase him out last season but the injury crisis forced otherwise ? If Lowe wasn't injured I could've maybe seen them letting him go in Jan or out on loan.

[Neal]

Just thought i'd resurrect this.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Whatever you think is the real cause for 2 wins in 13 I think it should be pretty unanimous that this team is in real trouble. Looking at the 5 next five games:

@ Leeds - 29th Oct

@ Brum - 3rd Nov

Brentford - 7th Nov

@ Preston - 21st Nov

Sheff Wed - 28th Nov

Leeds is the only game I would be confident in winning because of all the turmoil they are going through but away games are not a gimme. Brum are around the promotion places and Brentford and Sheff Wed are mid-table so they are in and around where we are. Preston away could be tough, another derby game and form can matter little in those types of games.

Rovers have to find a way to pick up some wins in those next 5 games before the hectic Christmas period when games come thick and fast.

Edited October 24, 2015 by RibbleValleyRover

[Mike Graham]

I reckon 0 out of 15 points for the next 5 games.

[Amo]

I reckon 0 out of 15 points for the next 5 games.

I wish I shared your optimism.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Amarillo

[Mike Graham]

Some great potential grounds for us to visit next season: Bury, Burton, Southend and Shrewsbury.

It was a long time since I saw Rovers win at Southend. Me thinks it was 2-0.

Edited October 25, 2015 by preston blue

[yoda]

Some great potential grounds for us to visit next season: Bury, Burton, Southend and Shrewsbury.

It was a long time since I saw Rovers win at Southend. Me thinks it was 2-0.

Don't forget F troop

[Husky]

Some great potential grounds for us to visit next season: Bury, Burton, Southend and Shrewsbury.

It was a long time since I saw Rovers win at Southend. Me thinks it was 2-0.

Any chance of Stanley getting promoted this season?

[TeamGB-11]

.. Gloop gloop, fneep! Fneep!

Edited October 25, 2015 by TeamGB-11

[allanncd]

After today's dismal surrender, a third successive game without a goal (and scarcely a clearcut chance), it is only realistic to restart this thread. Under PL there have been streaky wins against struggling Rotherham and 10-man Bristol City and in the last two matches wins for opponents (Reading and Bolton) who have forgotten what it is to win. Although other results were favourable today, there are plenty of other opportunities for the teams below to catch-up and overtake as there are visits to Rotherham and Charlton.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The squad of players we started the season with was a squad that I thought would quite probably have been relegated. Nothing player wise has changed, they are still a collection of players devoid of everything you need to be a successful football team. We have a squad without balance and without any real leaders on the field, they play like boys in a mans game.

I had hoped our new management team ( all very experienced football men ) would have had more of an impact by this point. Maybe I underestimated the task in hand.

I remember feeling like this when Mark Hughes took over, for a month or two we were equally bad albeit at a much higher level. Then he brought some MEN in who were prepared to get stuck in, run furthest, and get more than their share of 50/50 balls, contested headers etc.

Let's see what the window brings.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[jim mk2]

We need 5 players at least, I would say, starting with a new centre forward

The question is, how good are the contacts of Lambert and his staff? Presuming the new players are loans, who does he know who will do him a favour?

Football managers can live or die by the names in their "little black books".

[Stuart]

We need 5 players at least, I would say, starting with a new centre forward

Agreed, Koita isn't what we need to support Rhodes and thrive from the space he creates for others in the box.

Maybe he still has friends in high places at Villa and can loan the big man back.

[DE.]

A right back, two centre midfielders, a wide man and a striker are the very least we require to replace/challenge Henley, Guffrie, Akpan, Marshall, Koita, Brown and Rhodes. Ideally we'd get rid of at least 75% of those players in the process, but doubt there will be many takers.