[Archived] The Big Match Preview: Rotherham Away - 30Th April

[Stuart]

And they still looked like two blokes who'd never met before they ran out onto the pitch !

Just imagine if they'd 'clicked' then. It would have been unprecedented!

Mind you, with a better defensive record that season their 40-plus goals would have seen us promoted. 😮

[Stuart]

We aren't a big club, den.

"Where will the goals come from" suggest you didn't see the problems in playing him.

But conversely, you only saw his weaknesses. Your face must have been a picture whenever he scored.

"Take away his goals and what have you got?"

Tell you what, how about NOT taking away his goals? How about NOT cutting off his supply by selling his strike partner associate and creative midfielders, including moving one to right back? How about NOT doing that?

We've traded an asset for NO assets, and we didn't get the results required - that you assured us Rhodes was personally preventing - to get near the play-offs. Presumably that's STILL Rhodes' fault.

But, again, for the record, and before people jump on me again, it was not I that brought up Rhodes - which apparently you, and most others, are meant to be bored of. And when I point this out, I'm still shot down: "I'll post what I like".

[K-Hod]

I'm not even bothered who started it, I just find the whole debate tedious now. (I'm saying this as a poster before people think I'm throwing my weight around!) It's been done to death before and after we had Rhodes at the club. What are people hoping to achieve by continually dragging it up? He isn't coming back in any event.

[gumboots]

Perhaps that extra cash well get if the Boro get promoted is why Cheston only said a 6 million loss of parachute payments

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just imagine if they'd 'clicked' then. It would have been unprecedented!

Mind you, with a better defensive record that season their 40-plus goals would have seen us promoted.

They were never going to click. Their respective skills sets weren't complimentary. One of them at least needed to be a grafter and one needed to have a bit of pace etc.

[punerover]

They were never going to click. Their respective skills sets weren't complimentary. One of them at least needed to be a grafter and one needed to have a bit of pace etc.

We already have such people - aka browny and delfy

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

We already have such people - aka browny and delfy

Yeah, Did I leave out the bit about needing some football ability as well ?

[den]

They were never going to click. Their respective skills sets weren't complimentary. One of them at least needed to be a grafter and one needed to have a bit of pace etc.

You can't form partnerships in the 6 yard box either.

[den]

Tell you what, how about NOT taking away his goals? How about NOT cutting off his supply by selling his strike partner associate and creative midfielders, including moving one to right back? How about NOT doing that?

Stuart, we scored MORE goals AFTER he left.

[punerover]

Stuart, we scored MORE goals AFTER he left.

Not true. Rhodes was sold on final day of the window.

Goals For up till 31st Jan = 24

Goals For after 31st Jan till date = 19

[LewisF]

Not true. Rhodes was sold on final day of the window.

Goals For up till 31st Jan = 24

Goals For after 31st Jan till date = 19

up until Jan 31st we played 27 league games compared to 18 league games since, so your argument is flawed

[J*B]

up until Jan 31st we played 27 league games compared to 18 league games since, so your argument is flawed

Its not - before Jan 31st we scored an average of 0.88 goals per game. Afterwards we've scored 1.05 goals per game. So he has a point, its just not the point he was hoping for.

[Stuart]

They were never going to click. Their respective skills sets weren't complimentary. One of them at least needed to be a grafter and one needed to have a bit of pace etc.

No, I guess not. Scoring over 40 goals together shows how useless a pairing they were. I'm so glad that Gestede left and wasn't replaced leaving Rhodes to struggle to reach 20 goals (for about the 6th season running).

Its all moot now anyway. I'm just glad that you and den are so happy with how things have panned out.

[den]

Not true. Rhodes was sold on final day of the window.

Goals For up till 31st Jan = 24

Goals For after 31st Jan till date = 19

Rhodes left the hotel the night before the Oxford game.

Since he walked out we have scored 23 goals in 20 games

Previous to that we scored 17 goals in 20 games

The argument that we shouldn't sell him and reinvest the money to strengthen the squad was that we wouldn't score goals without him.

Why that can't be accepted - I just don't know.

[Stuart]

Stuart, we scored MORE goals AFTER he left.

Even if that were true (in the league), the difference is not an improvement between Rhodes being here and Rhodes leaving (he scored his goals with virtually no service).

The difference has been the arrival of Graham and some attacking support.

How Rhodes would have loved to play in that sort of team.

[den]

No, I guess not. Scoring over 40 goals together shows how useless a pairing they were. I'm so glad that Gestede left and wasn't replaced leaving Rhodes to struggle to reach 20 goals (for about the 6th season running).

Its all moot now anyway. I'm just glad that you and den are so happy with how things have panned out.

What's that supposed to mean?

Scoring 40 goals and still struggling has baffled some folk.

The transfer fee for him hasn't been reinvested and we still performed better Stuart. Sadly, it doesn't look like much of that money will be available now. None of us would have sold him - or any other decent player - if the funds weren't to be made available to reinvest. Should we call a truce and agree that he hasn't been missed?

[Stuart]

Rhodes left the hotel the night before the Oxford game.

Since he walked out we have scored 23 goals in 20 games

Previous to that we scored 17 goals in 20 games

The argument that we shouldn't sell him and reinvest the money to strengthen the squad was that we wouldn't score goals without him.

Why that can't be accepted - I just don't know.

Why can't you accept that we'd have been a better side if Rhodes had better attacking players in the team, and he didn't get the chance?

Why can't you accept that the £9m was better on the field with the new players tha in Balaji's back sack?

You are wrong on this one, you are trying to make and win a petty argument, and you won't even just let it lie. You continue to keep raking it up.

We are never going to agree with each other, and if I tell you to drop it you get all uppity. So unless you do (drop it - which everyone else also seems to want) then we will continue to go around in circles.

What's that supposed to mean?

Scoring 40 goals and still struggling has baffled some folk.

The transfer fee for him hasn't been reinvested and we still performed better Stuart. Sadly, it doesn't look like much of that money will be available now. None of us would have sold him - or any other decent player - if the funds weren't to be made available to reinvest. Should we call a truce and agree that he hasn't been missed?

What does it mean? The two of you are positively gleeful about this argument! This season has been miserable and you are making out like we somehow markedly improved since January.

Performed better? Does your seat face the pitch?

Most games we don't even look like threatening goal!

Happy to accept a truce but continue to disagree with you.

[den]

Even if that were true (in the league), the difference is not an improvement between Rhodes being here and Rhodes leaving (he scored his goals with virtually no service).

The difference has been the arrival of Graham and some attacking support.

How Rhodes would have loved to play in that sort of team.

Graham has replaced him, that's the point. Which attacking support do you mean - Gomez?, because he's done little. Watt who went home weeks ago? Evans? Lenient? Bennett? Nah mate, the difference was Graham replacing Jordan. Graham got the same level of support as Rhodes did, but does much more with it, which is what strikers have to do.

Shall we call it a day?

Why can't you accept that we'd have been a better side if Rhodes had better attacking players in the team, and he didn't get the chance?

Why can't you accept that the £9m was better on the field with the new players tha in Balaji's back sack?

You are wrong on this one, you are trying to make and win a petty argument, and you won't even just let it lie. You continue to keep raking it up.

We are never going to agree with each other, and if I tell you to drop it you get all uppity. So unless you do (drop it - which everyone else also seems to want) then we will continue to go around in circles.

What does it mean? The two of you are positively gleeful about this argument! This season has been miserable and you are making out like we somehow markedly improved since January.

Performed better? Does your seat face the pitch?

Most games we don't even look like threatening goal!

Happy to accept a truce but continue to disagree with you.

Performed better at Boro, Derby, Burnley then the four home wins on the trot. Some brilliant football at times. Then the three red card games coupled with Watt going home early and Graham being only half fit, meant the rug was pulled from under them. Played well again at Rotherham.

[Stuart]

Graham has replaced him, that's the point. Which attacking support do you mean - Gomez?, because he's done little. Watt who went home weeks ago? Evans? Lenient? Bennett? Nah mate, the difference was Graham replacing Jordan. Graham got the same level of support as Rhodes did, but does much more with it, which is what strikers have to do.

You want it both ways, den! There's no reasoning with you. These players that you are belittling are ever-presents in the team that you believe performed better and scored more!! Graham hasn't replaced Rhodes. He replaced Brown, who himself replaced Gestede. It's no wonder we are at odds.

Shall we call it a day?

That's the first sensible thing you've posted on this subject.

[booth]

Den, are you saying that having Graham up front with someone else (or on his own) is better than having Graham and Rhodes together?