[Archived] Rovers V Wolves - The Game Itself Thread.

[AggyBlue]

We wont go down - we've too much quality compared to some of the clubs down there.

Are you going to put your house on that?

[G Somerset Rover]

We've got the worst manager and owners in the league by some distance so I'm gobsmacked that anyone can confidently predict we won't go down. Then I saw who made that bold statement.

[joey_big_nose]

Thought we played very well alround offensively. Passed the ball very well and created numerous opportunities. It was often slick and in technical quality better than I've seen in recent years.

At the same time Wolves always looked like they had a goal in them as we were very open through the middle. Was not surprised when they got one.

If we weren't third from bottom and drawn against a poor team today I would have been encouraged by the performance. But we are so not ....

[Leonard Venkhater]

We've got the worst manager and owners in the league by some distance so I'm gobsmacked that anyone can confidently predict we won't go down. Then I saw who made that bold statement.

The whole situation has been engineered to take us down-from player sales to managerial(LOL) appointments.

I have never seen a Rovers team so certain to go down, as early as July!

Without the required changes relegation is a certainty. If changes are made, we may have a chance, but does anybody still believe the owners have any political will for survival?

[DE.]

The whole situation has been engineered to take us down-from player sales to managerial(LOL) appointments.

Sky, again quite surprisingly, actually flagged that up too. They showed a list of players sales and also the overall ins and outs since Venky's came in (£40m net profit on sales), then pointed out that our wage bill has shrunk, we continually sell our best players and replace them with inferior ones.

Obviously, for most of us that much is obvious, but it was a bit of a shock to see Sky being so up front about it considering they've spent the past six years pointing the finger mainly at the fans or just ignoring us completely.

[Leonard Venkhater]

Sky, again quite surprisingly, actually flagged that up too. They showed a list of players sales and also the overall ins and outs since Venky's came in (£40m net profit on sales), then pointed out that our wage bill has shrunk, we continually sell our best players and replace them with inferior ones.

Obviously, for most of us that much is obvious, but it was a bit of a shock to see Sky being so up front about it considering they've spent the past six years pointing the finger mainly at the fans or just ignoring us completely.

That is good to hear. I'll take that, but I can't help think why not 6 years ago...Maybe, someone is not weilding influence anymore!

[Waggy76]

Maybe Kelly knows more than most ?

[oldjamfan1]

Holloway actually mentioned Jerome Anderson, and not in a positive way either!! Shame he got Uncle Jack and the late Wolves owner Sir Jack Hayward mixed up!!

[alcd]

Some pleasing slick football going forward at times but, as the match went on, wide open to runners in midfield and woefully lacking in energy or spirit in the second half. The only surprise was that it took Wolves so long to equalise. Against better and more confident opposition points will be very few between now and Xmas. Relegation is a virtual certainty.

[savage90]

I think we looked tired (I'm not sure why) in the last 15 minutes and Wolves were coming on to us. That is very worrying at home against a poor side.

[McClarky]

Predictable effort really. Superb goal but rest of game trying to hang on and we just can't stop the opposition scoring. Fair enough result overall but not good enough for us where we are.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Centre midfield was weak as p--s. Same old story- none of the midfield have the mobility and running power to get in front of the front two to get in on goal like Edwards did for them. Great goal from Gallhager but he missed a golden chance to wrap up the points. He's still young but for me he's not physical enough. Did he actually win a headed challenge ? If he did I must have missed it. Emnes did ok without much service. We looked solid at centre half and the full backs did well most of the time. Goalie did pretty well, I wouldn't blame him for the goal.

Subs were too late. From about 60 -65 minutes on our legs were going and there must be huge question marks about our fitness.

A draw was a fair result but if anybody was going to win it at the end it was Wolves.

Lenihan my man of the match.

[blondie]

Coyle has no tactical awareness,consistently outthought by opposition.

Players not fit enough,midfield combo no pace or guile.

Lacking leaders,all the hallmarks of a relegation side.

[dallydally]

Get him sacked. Coyle is a liability!

[Mercer]

Get him sacked. Coyle is a liability!

Interesting thoughts. Spoke with an ex pro tonight (Championship level+) who thinks Rovers and Coyley an ideal match.

Don't particularly like the bloke (Coyley) but was on a hiding to nothing from day one.

[DE.]

He was on a hiding to nothing because he's a horrendous manager. Had we appointed Warnock I doubt we'd be in the bottom three right now.

[LDRover]

Interesting thoughts. Spoke with an ex pro tonight (Championship level+) who thinks Rovers and Coyley an ideal match.

Don't particularly like the bloke (Coyley) but was on a hiding to nothing from day one.

If he is on a hiding to nothing it's one that he was completely aware of from day 1 and one he was more than willing to pimp himself out for at a low cost.

There can be zero sympathy for the man, he's a bullshitter of the highest order unbelievably lucky to hold the position he does.

[G Somerset Rover]

His (usually lack of) use of subs continues to do my head in. Has he made an impactful one yet?

And Mercer, for one final time stop calling him @#/? 'Coyley'. What on earth is wrong with you?

[darrenrover]

Interesting thoughts. Spoke with an ex pro tonight (Championship level+) who thinks Rovers and Coyley an ideal match.

Don't particularly like the bloke (Coyley) but was on a hiding to nothing from day one.

I'd be inclined to agree that Coyle and the current Rovers set up are an ideal match.

The sad part is that not many true Roverites can identify with either. Thats the bloody issue.

Venkys out, Seneca in. Lets complete the circle!

edit: apologies wrong thread really

[J*B]

That's it from this point forward every time someone says "Coyley" I'm going to kill a kitten.

[jodrell]

That's it from this point forward every time someone says "Coyley" I'm going to kill a kitten.

what's wrong with coyley i think coyley is a good name in fact i might call next pet coyley.i am telling lies i hate coyley.

[47er]

We looked a static team most of the game. Endless passing back and forth and sideways, playing it safe.

A good advt for that new game "walking football" is it called?

Not bad up front but lacking the guile in mid-field to exploit that front two.

Always looked dodgy at the back with Wolves crosses, Steele does not exude confidence.

[broadsword]

I'm just say on the loo curling out a coyley

[Husky]

I'm eating a Coyley Wurley.

[tomphil]

Interesting thoughts. Spoke with an ex pro tonight (Championship level+) who thinks Rovers and Coyley an ideal match.

Don't particularly like the bloke (Coyley) but was on a hiding to nothing from day one.

Tin hat for me here but we knock it about better and attack quicker at times under him than anyone for a long time. It's more fluid than Bowyers stuff. His recruitment of attackers has been decent although Gallagher and Emnes are far to static at times.

However his defensive recruitment apart from Hoban could and should have been better. I'm talking Greer and Brown here who over a season won't offer nearly half enough of what we need for obvious reasons. Also no cover for full backs etc when other guys for further up the park he's wasted wages on loaning in but won't use them.

He isn't and never has been a defensive manager and poor threadbare sides very rarely play their way out of the bottom three. He's also another who's hopeless with subs.