[Archived] Boro Match Thread

[ABBEY]

How could anyone twist what you'd said after the game? As I recall it was only 'off to bed, but good win' or something like that? Not sure how that could be twisted.

I really do just wish the Rhodes debate could be put to bed tbh, it's extremely tedious now. He's gone and he isn't coming back.

nothing fails to surprise me when it comes to word twisting on here .

[JAL]

indeed but the finger to lips ..disgusting.

One more on Saturday would elevate his status for me for sure providing he can keep the opposition out as well.

[tomphil]

The main reason we are stronger in Rhodes absence is because his wages have been spread to bring in 2 decent players with recent Prem pedigree and not just because JR's presence in the team is missing. Don't tell me we wouldn't be even stronger as a squad if he was still here as well as the new boys because we damn well would. That was never going to be possible though and neither would bringing in decent proven talent if GB had stayed in charge and Rhodes had been sold.

We are seeing the green shoots of having an experienced manager in charge at last even if it's a bit bumpy at times and not great to watch. When it does click I think we can beat anyone at home and that's got to be the aim from now on. Win/lose/win is better than draw draw piggin draw surely.

[yoda]

Are Boro stronger with JR ?

[tomphil]

They will be we all know he'll hit 2 or 3 in a game very shortly then go on one of his little runs. He's probably feeling the pressure slightly now as he's in a big pond with a lot of expectation on him. Still getting in great positions and it's only a matter of time.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

My view is simple, Lambert didn't fancy Rhodes for all the reasons I and several other people on this site didn't fancy him. No matter what formation we put out and no matter who he was partnered with it never really seemed to gell for any length of time. Lambert probably knew that before he came I would have thought.

[sambo]

One more on Saturday would elevate his status for me for sure providing he can keep the opposition out as well.

If he scored on Saturday he could run the length of the Cricket Field stand giving us V's for all I care!

[JAL]

If he scored on Saturday he could run the length of the Cricket Field stand giving us V's for all I care!

The 'V' for victory !

It's got to be done surely.

[Amo]

nothing fails to surprise me when it comes to word twisting on here .

Are you being ironic? You're the biggest twisteroo on here.

[mustard]

Are you being ironic? You're the biggest twisteroo on here.

Wow, accusations of being moronic and calling him a kangaroo all in one post...

[Mike E]

Wow, accusations of being moronic and calling him a kangaroo all in one post...

😂

[USABlue]

Makes me laugh. "Can we let the whole Rhodes thing go now?"

Translation: "Can we continue mentioning him just as long as people stick to slagging him off?"

Some people must be genuinely sick to their stomachs that he scored so many goals.

You are right, you did not bring him up. I liked Rhodes but I like us now too. Good luck to the lad I hope he gets em promoted, plays in the Prem, gets us our 2mill and they pip the dingles.

[Stuart]

Lol @ me being given a telling off. Nice edit, btw.

I've decided now that I'll bring up whatever I want, if I feel it's pertinent, regardless of what a few would prefer. I've given up letting it drop - much like everyone else has.

Although given that this is the Boro thread discussion about an opposition ex-Rovers player should be at the very least expected.

Anyway. We won. Now we look to the Bumley game...

[Tom]

The problem is with this place is people see things as black or white!

Last week someone said the loss to West Ham was proof that selling Rhodes was a bad decision - that being the case then Tuesday would be proof it's the right decision.

Naturally we know that the truth lies somewhere in the middle but people seem to choose a viewpoint and stick to it regardless.

[onlyonejackwalker]

Looking at the last sentence, yes we are stronger now we don't have Rhodes but is that because Graham or Jackson or Brown are better than Rhodes or because we now FINALLY have a creative midfielder in Gomez (something Rhodes has never had the good fortune of having behind him) and finally have a battling striker up top in Graham (again, someone Rhodes didn't have the pleasure of forming a partnership with)?

The loss of Rhodes was compensated by our ability to then bring in other players. Your assertion that we would be doing much worse if it was Rhodes lining up instead of Brown holds no weight in my eyes. The reason we are doing better isn't because Rhodes no longer wears blue and white, but because Lambert brought in a number of better players than what we previously had and changed tactics accordingly. I am very aware that this was apparently only possible after netting a shed-load of cash from selling JR. My issue is with your black and white comments. Hell, the one yesterday like "there was a time when suggesting a forward work hard and run the channels was scoffed at". If that wasn't a dig at some posters, then I don't know what is. You never took issue with Gestede being lazy or failing to hold up play or run the channels, but then again, you don't have an irrational dislike of Rudy and he's a big lump. And some of our fans love big lumps.

If posters took your blinkered view as gospel, they'd think Rovers only beat Boro because they had JR and we didn't, with you failing to mention the complete ineffectiveness of the rest of their squad. Hell, I didn't even know Nugent was on the pitch but nope, all JR's fault they lost. Your posts have always shown you to have a dislike for Rhodes. I don't understand it, considering his goals are (IMO) the only reason we didn't fall to League One under Kean, but you're entitled to your opinion at the end of the day.

thenodrog was unable to go a day without the self-gratification of telling everyone how he predicted Rovers's downfall. Don't fall into the same trap of reminding us each and every day "I told you we'd do better without Rhodes". It's incredibly tedious and I believe your inferences that some are unhappy now we are doing well and scoring without Rhodes is pure folly.

We're still a long way from becoming a complete squad and unless the money is invested, we are at risk of plateauing down the bottom half of the table (where we are now) or falling further. Ball is in Venky's court.

EDIT: Worth mentioning, the two players who have had the most effect in our upturn in fortunes are only loan signings. If they aren't signed permanently in summer then we are back to square one. I was impressed by Watt the other night and Jackson has done well but the jury is still out on whether they're an improvement on JR (do wonder why Boro didn't look into signing them, could have saved them a few bob).

Another long post Mustard. I'm presuming you were bang in favour of keeping Rhodes?

Incredibly tedious? A bit unfair. Den helped raise the Rhodes issue yonks ago. I fully agreed having just watched Shittu crawl all over him. Twice. Hard explaining why we could be better off without him to those who didn't want to listen, or simply didn't / don't get it.

We've all been waiting to see how things would pan out in Rhodes absence. We are all watching Boro's results.

Far from sweeping the Rhodes debate under the carpet we should continue to observe, reference and discuss. Rhodes will remain topical as do most ex - Rovers. The disparity in his salary and golden boy status will have irked, plus often totally ineffective contributions. I for one look forward to having a united team again, sharing common goals. And no more soft arses.

[aletheia]

It’s a messageboard I guess so prejudices and arguments can be extreme (as well as fun?)

But it seems to me that saying we are better off because Rhodes has gone is plainly absurd. There are a whole host of reasons why we are now ‘better.’ Or let’s put it another way –if we had got rid of Rhodes and then just used what was left, would we be better off? I’m certain of one thing –Rhodes would have loved to have played in front of Gomez/Grimes and others with the intelligence of Graham as a partner.

But that also doesn’t mean he should have stayed either. Perhaps it was time and the money better spent in other playing areas. Time will tell but early signs are encouraging. But that doesn’t mean, as some are alleging, that Rhodes was a weak link, or poor or lazy etc. I remember some finishes by Rhodes that were pure class and no one else in the team, recent past or present, could do.

[den]

Looking at the last sentence, yes we are stronger now we don't have Rhodes but is that because Graham or Jackson or Brown are better than Rhodes or because we now FINALLY have a creative midfielder in Gomez (something Rhodes has never had the good fortune of having behind him) and finally have a battling striker up top in Graham (again, someone Rhodes didn't have the pleasure of forming a partnership with)?

The loss of Rhodes was compensated by our ability to then bring in other players. Your assertion that we would be doing much worse if it was Rhodes lining up instead of Brown holds no weight in my eyes. The reason we are doing better isn't because Rhodes no longer wears blue and white, but because Lambert brought in a number of better players than what we previously had and changed tactics accordingly. I am very aware that this was apparently only possible after netting a shed-load of cash from selling JR. My issue is with your black and white comments. Hell, the one yesterday like "there was a time when suggesting a forward work hard and run the channels was scoffed at". If that wasn't a dig at some posters, then I don't know what is. You never took issue with Gestede being lazy or failing to hold up play or run the channels, but then again, you don't have an irrational dislike of Rudy and he's a big lump. And some of our fans love big lumps.

If posters took your blinkered view as gospel, they'd think Rovers only beat Boro because they had JR and we didn't, with you failing to mention the complete ineffectiveness of the rest of their squad. Hell, I didn't even know Nugent was on the pitch but nope, all JR's fault they lost. Your posts have always shown you to have a dislike for Rhodes. I don't understand it, considering his goals are (IMO) the only reason we didn't fall to League One under Kean, but you're entitled to your opinion at the end of the day.

thenodrog was unable to go a day without the self-gratification of telling everyone how he predicted Rovers's downfall. Don't fall into the same trap of reminding us each and every day "I told you we'd do better without Rhodes". It's incredibly tedious and I believe your inferences that some are unhappy now we are doing well and scoring without Rhodes is pure folly.

We're still a long way from becoming a complete squad and unless the money is invested, we are at risk of plateauing down the bottom half of the table (where we are now) or falling further. Ball is in Venky's court.

EDIT: Worth mentioning, the two players who have had the most effect in our upturn in fortunes are only loan signings. If they aren't signed permanently in summer then we are back to square one. I was impressed by Watt the other night and Jackson has done well but the jury is still out on whether they're an improvement on JR (do wonder why Boro didn't look into signing them, could have saved them a few bob).

"Your assertion that we would be doing much worse if it was Rhodes lining up instead of Brown holds no weight in my eyes." - I don't know where you get these quotes from Mustard?

youre obviously still very angry that we've sold him. We couldn't play this high tempo game with him in the side and that's the bottom line. All the top clubs around the world play the game that way. Virtually all the top strikers absolutely work their butt off. If they don't do that the team can't ever be as good as it could be. The top managers know that and won't entertain anything less than full commitment.

Rhodes doesn't do that and it affects performances. Lambert knew that and knew from early days that he had to go. Rhodes wouldn't fit in with the way he wanted to play and he needed the money. Things are looking up for the first time in a long time.

Lol @ me being given a telling off. Nice edit, btw.

I've decided now that I'll bring up whatever I want, if I feel it's pertinent, regardless of what a few would prefer. I've given up letting it drop - much like everyone else has.

Good on you Stuart - and so you should. It's a ruddy football board and say what you want mate. And don't worry if it isn't pertinent.

[Baz]

It’s a messageboard I guess so prejudices and arguments can be extreme (as well as fun?)

But it seems to me that saying we are better off because Rhodes has gone is plainly absurd. There are a whole host of reasons why we are now ‘better.’ Or let’s put it another way –if we had got rid of Rhodes and then just used what was left, would we be better off? I’m certain of one thing –Rhodes would have loved to have played in front of Gomez/Grimes and others with the intelligence of Graham as a partner.

But that also doesn’t mean he should have stayed either. Perhaps it was time and the money better spent in other playing areas. Time will tell but early signs are encouraging. But that doesn’t mean, as some are alleging, that Rhodes was a weak link, or poor or lazy etc. I remember some finishes by Rhodes that were pure class and no one else in the team, recent past or present, could do.

Lambert has basically said he could only bring in the likes of Gomez, because Rhodes had gone.

Rhodes has gone because he wanted to, and I also think because Lambert knew it was the only way to change things around.

It is what happens in the summer that is most important now, will PL be allowed to re-invest the Rhodes money into the squad. We have so many players out of contract there is a big opportunity to completely revamp the squad, and it's clearly needed, a lot of our better players are only here until June, lets hope we don't have that late August trip to India with PL begging for money as we only have 14 1st team players.

[jim mk2]

It’s a messageboard I guess so prejudices and arguments can be extreme (as well as fun?)

But it seems to me that saying we are better off because Rhodes has gone is plainly absurd. There are a whole host of reasons why we are now ‘better.’ Or let’s put it another way –if we had got rid of Rhodes and then just used what was left, would we be better off? I’m certain of one thing –Rhodes would have loved to have played in front of Gomez/Grimes and others with the intelligence of Graham as a partner.

But that also doesn’t mean he should have stayed either. Perhaps it was time and the money better spent in other playing areas. Time will tell but early signs are encouraging. But that doesn’t mean, as some are alleging, that Rhodes was a weak link, or poor or lazy etc. I remember some finishes by Rhodes that were pure class and no one else in the team, recent past or present, could do.

Rhodes would suit best a team with 2 flying wingers who are good at crossing the ball. One of attributes is that he times his movements well close to goal and gets in front of defenders to nick the ball or get a touch. The trouble is there aren't many pure wingers these days let alone teams that play 2 of them.

[tonyoz]

For those of you who like stats, here is a summary from the Boro game from whoscored.com.

Rovers : Boro

Average player ratings 6.8 : 6.5

The top 4 players on the night were all Rovers. Hanley was MoM with 7.7 (followed by Akpan, Graham and Steele).

Graham was 7.3 and Rhodes 6.2!

The other stats are a bit surprising I think:

Possession 48:52

Shots 9:18

Pass success % 66:74

Tackles 12:20

Dispossessed 14:8

Crosses 14:28

But with Grant and Shane you know you’re gonna get:

Aerials won 38:13

In the summary we were assessed as:

Effective at creating goal scoring opportunities from the flanks

Aggressive

Played with width

Gave away a lot of free kicks around the box

All data from https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/959413/MatchReport/England-Championship-2015-2016-Blackburn-Middlesbrough

[mustard]

"Your assertion that we would be doing much worse if it was Rhodes lining up instead of Brown holds no weight in my eyes." - I don't know where you get these quotes from Mustard?

youre obviously still very angry that we've sold him. We couldn't play this high tempo game with him in the side and that's the bottom line. All the top clubs around the world play the game that way. Virtually all the top strikers absolutely work their butt off. If they don't do that the team can't ever be as good as it could be. The top managers know that and won't entertain anything less than full commitment.

Rhodes doesn't do that and it affects performances. Lambert knew that and knew from early days that he had to go. Rhodes wouldn't fit in with the way he wanted to play and he needed the money. Things are looking up for the first time in a long time.

Good on you Stuart - and so you should. It's a ruddy football board and say what you want mate. And don't worry if it isn't pertinent.

I am not angry Rhodes has gone if I'm honest, it's just the black and whiteness of discussion of him that's a touch infuriating. I think, if the money gets invested in the right players, we will be better off in the long run. But Venky's need to stump up the cash in summer or the loss of Rhodes could leave us worse off. I trust Lambert to get it right but I'm not sure I want to get suckered in to trusting Venky's to give him the significant war chest we need in summer.

[Baz]

I am not angry Rhodes has gone if I'm honest, it's just the black and whiteness of discussion of him that's a touch infuriating. I think, if the money gets invested in the right players, we will be better off in the long run. But Venky's need to stump up the cash in summer or the loss of Rhodes could leave us worse off. I trust Lambert to get it right but I'm not sure I want to get suckered in to trusting Venky's to give him the significant war chest we need in summer.

Time will tell if we re-invest the money wisely, but on the other hand look where we where going whilst we still had him. Sometimes you have to take risks in order to try to get success. For my money, it wasn't working, so why not try something new. He wanted out, we needed the cash to make any changes, so everyone should be happy at this stage.

[Veevs]

I am not angry Rhodes has gone if I'm honest, it's just the black and whiteness of discussion of him that's a touch infuriating. I think, if the money gets invested in the right players, we will be better off in the long run. But Venky's need to stump up the cash in summer or the loss of Rhodes could leave us worse off. I trust Lambert to get it right but I'm not sure I want to get suckered in to trusting Venky's to give him the significant war chest we need in summer.

Don't think they have much choice but to stump up some cash.. we are down to 14 players in the summer unless some players renew their contracts.. and that 14 includes Raya, O'Sullivan (not tried), Henley (not good enough), Guthrie (crock) and Lowe (crock) and no strikers at all..

[Stuart]

The problem is with this place is people see things as black or white!

Last week someone said the loss to West Ham was proof that selling Rhodes was a bad decision - that being the case then Tuesday would be proof it's the right decision.

Naturally we know that the truth lies somewhere in the middle but people seem to choose a viewpoint and stick to it regardless.

But there's a 'so what' response to that, Tom. Providing people don't get personal they should be able to be as black and white or as general as they like. Whatever stimulates debate should be welcome. Inference is, at times, the real problem (and I'm as guilty as anyone).

Rovers fans unite. They owd enemy awaits.

[yoda]

What is this black and white that is being referred to, can someone point it out in exact black and white terms ?