[Archived] Rovers v Doncaster Rovers

[neophox]

Just a reminder... its not all over yet.. Sheffield U had 1p after four games.. but it takes a hell of alot work to be done in next games...

[cesus]

9 minutes ago, neophox said:

Just a reminder... its not all over yet.. Sheffield U had 1p after four games.. but it takes a hell of alot work to be done in next games...

Totally get that point and respect that, BUT how many times have this club put any sort of substancial winning run together in the last say 5 years. Mowbray amassed a pretty long unbeaten run last season but there weren't too many wins, a winning mentality is very much missing here and I just can't see it coming back anytime soon especially after this start. I do actually include Carlisle in this start to the season as my worries from that game do seem to be happening every game still. I do hope I am very much wrong but the manager sees absolutely no issue with the way we are playing at the moment except individual mistakes.

[davulsukur]

Just now, cesus said:

Totally get that point and respect that, BUT how many times have this club put any sort of substancial winning run together in the last say 5 years. Mowbray amassed a pretty long unbeaten run last season but there weren't too many wins, a winning mentality is very much missing here and I just can't see it coming back anytime soon especially after this start. I do actually include Carlisle in this start to the season as my worries from that game do seem to be happening every game still. I do hope I am very much wrong but the manager sees absolutely no issue with the way we are playing at the moment except individual mistakes.

Spot on.

Since Venkys rocked up have we ever won 3 on the spin? We struggled for a long time (felt like an ice age) to even win 2 games back to back.

And its like Venkys sold clean sheets to cover the leccy bill.

[chaddyrovers]

23 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Not good arguments chaddy Imo at all.

Firstly you say we've got enough cbs and list Nyambe and Williams as back up being able to play there. THEY CAN'T IF THEY'RE FILLING THE WING BACK ROLES THOUGH CAN THEY? Not even Messi can play 2 positions at once.

So that leaves us 4 cbs - 2 VERY injury prone - for 3 positions. Alternatively we class both guys as cb we've not enough wing backs. Either way we're short somewhere.

As for the rest of recruitment Caddis seems a solid rb but not a wing back at all. So why recruit him if we wanted wing backs? On that point if Williams is the standard for a wing back why the hell didn't we get a left wing back to boot. One that can actually attack.

Likewise Whittingham. Where does he fit in. I like your 4-2-3-1 formation but there's no place for him in it. Doesn't do the dirty work of the 2 nor have the mobility for the 3. Or in yesterday's formation. Clearly as one of the front 2 behind Graham he hadn't the movement to play the role. Horses for courses but we've brought donkeys for these roles.

As for Ward not being able to play in a 4 man defence. Any defender unable to do that should give up the game. It's like a driver saying they don't do main roads.

Annoying thing is I think for a 4-4-2 or even 4-2-3-1 we've got a good squad. Problem is we're going back to square pegs in round holes. Which when you've spent around £1.5 million and have brought in 10 players is a criminal position to be in.

I have to agree that the squad is set up for 4-2-3-1/4-4-2. Already said how I would play and attack. 

Whittingham has been poor and I hope he doesnt turn out tbh another Murphy. 

Yesterday performance was pathetic and formation didnt work and far too deep were wing back and midfield. 

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Forget Coyle. its gone. move on.

Mowbray has had 4 main centre backs at the club so he would have thought we had enough, Plus Williams and Nyambe can play there as part of a 3 man defence. But like I said its time to drop the 3-4-2-1 formation now unless he signed a proper left wing back. But I would stick to 4-2-3-1 formation now as Plan A. could Williams not play centre back and we look to sign a left back with Doyle staying a back up.

I've been impressed by Doyle for the under 23's. His positional, technical good, not scared of a tackle either and get forward. Plenty of potential there and will be a good left back here if develop right.

Recruitment hasn't been flawed as we signed some good players, now we need to fit into a team and formation. Anyway what do you think of my team I posted yesterday?

 

Williams and Nyambe can't play there, in a 2 or a 3, certainly not for a team chasing promotion.

How many under 23 games have you seen though? And no one can judge how he will do yet, we need a proper, first choice left back and we need a better centre back in, because our only 2 competent centre backs are made of glass.

I think that you are either purposely ignoring my point, either that or you are just totally missing it. We might have signed some useful looking players, but not necessarily to solve the issues we have. We had Conway, Feeney, Dack and Gladwin all on the bench/in the stands yesterday, so why prioritise Chapman over a centre back or a left back?

He should have decided on his main formation BEFORE the season. Not only did the players not look like they were playing for Mowbray, which is worrying in itself, but half of them seemed like they didn't know the role that was expected of them yesterday.

I don't necessarily agree with most people in saying it has to be 4-4-2, I think 4-2-3-1 is equally as simplistic and it is based around our main signing, but we will need Dack to be getting 15 goals again. That can be changed to 4-4-2 very easily if needed aswell. 

[booth]

5 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

the last 3 teams to win this league has played that formation. that is a Fact!

Havent I said since yesterday that Mowbray needs to sort it quickly and not have us over playing and playing a quick tempo style

Chaddy this is why any kind of discussion with you is painful. 3 teams winning the league playing that formation may be a fact I wasn't disputing that, but how many have won it and not played that formation? A lot more than three, which tells you something doesn't it?

[chaddyrovers]

10 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Williams and Nyambe can't play there, in a 2 or a 3, certainly not for a team chasing promotion.

How many under 23 games have you seen though? And no one can judge how he will do yet, we need a proper, first choice left back and we need a better centre back in, because our only 2 competent centre backs are made of glass.

I think that you are either purposely ignoring my point, either that or you are just totally missing it. We might have signed some useful looking players, but not necessarily to solve the issues we have. We had Conway, Feeney, Dack and Gladwin all on the bench/in the stands yesterday, so why prioritise Chapman over a centre back or a left back?

He should have decided on his main formation BEFORE the season. Not only did the players not look like they were playing for Mowbray, which is worrying in itself, but half of them seemed like they didn't know the role that was expected of them yesterday.

I don't necessarily agree with most people in saying it has to be 4-4-2, I think 4-2-3-1 is equally as simplistic and it is based around our main signing, but we will need Dack to be getting 15 goals again. That can be changed to 4-4-2 very easily if needed aswell. 

a few under 23's games.

do we have the budget to recruit 3 more players? a left back, centre back and another centre midfielder. if we are bring in another left back then Williams has to leave then.

maybe Feeney is leaving soon as the Daily Mail during the past week that he is free to leave Rovers. maybe that why Chapman was brought in?

When we were signing Whittingham, Smallwood, Dack and Gladwin, I assumed and thought that the main formation would be a 4-2-3-1 formation with each player bought in to play specific role within the team style and formation. When I seen us play at Morecambe I was impressed in the first half by the team playing in this formation. I know it was a only friendly but I was surprise by how much we played 3-4-2-1 in pre season.

for me, plan A would be 4-2-3-1 formation and plan B would be 4-4-2.

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, booth said:

Chaddy this is why any kind of discussion with you is painful. 3 teams winning the league playing that formation may be a fact I wasn't disputing that, but how many have won it and not played that formation? A lot more than three, which tells you something doesn't it?

so why do keep going on about it for then?

what a boring pointless discussion this has been. very painful with me.

[booth]

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

so why do keep going on about it for then?

what a boring pointless discussion this has been. very painful with me.

As you keep pointing out, this is a discussion board isn't it?

You really are the most passive-aggressive troll I've ever witnessed on the internet.

[roversfan99]

19 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

a few under 23's games.

do we have the budget to recruit 3 more players? a left back, centre back and another centre midfielder. if we are bring in another left back then Williams has to leave then.

maybe Feeney is leaving soon as the Daily Mail during the past week that he is free to leave Rovers. maybe that why Chapman was brought in?

When we were signing Whittingham, Smallwood, Dack and Gladwin, I assumed and thought that the main formation would be a 4-2-3-1 formation with each player bought in to play specific role within the team style and formation. When I seen us play at Morecambe I was impressed in the first half by the team playing in this formation. I know it was a only friendly but I was surprise by how much we played 3-4-2-1 in pre season.

for me, plan A would be 4-2-3-1 formation and plan B would be 4-4-2.

And that is enough for you to conclude that he can be first choice left back for a side striving for promotion?

This is my point! Having a competent left back, or a third competent centre back, is surely more important than signing so many attacking players, baring in mind Mowbray has a budget to adhere to, albeit a much bigger one than anyone else in the division.

Yesterday, we had Conway, Antonsson, Feeney, Chapman, Dack, Samuel and Gladwin all not in the side. 5 of them were signed by Mowbray. And even if we had played 4 at the back, we would have still had to field Ward and Williams, both of whom are not good enough. So if hes got limited finance, or limited places in his squad, then surely prioritise a left back and a centre back over 1 or 2 of them.

So this means either:

Mowbray isn't in control of signings (I'm not saying this is the case, nor do you know otherwise, regardless of what you claim)...

or Mowbray has made a mess of his summer recruitment (not in terms of the quality of signings, but the types of players he has brought in)

 

[Blue blood]

C

44 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

a few under 23's games.

do we have the budget to recruit 3 more players? a left back, centre back and another centre midfielder. if we are bring in another left back then Williams has to leave then.

maybe Feeney is leaving soon as the Daily Mail during the past week that he is free to leave Rovers. maybe that why Chapman was brought in?

When we were signing Whittingham, Smallwood, Dack and Gladwin, I assumed and thought that the main formation would be a 4-2-3-1 formation with each player bought in to play specific role within the team style and formation. When I seen us play at Morecambe I was impressed in the first half by the team playing in this formation. I know it was a only friendly but I was surprise by how much we played 3-4-2-1 in pre season.

for me, plan A would be 4-2-3-1 formation and plan B would be 4-4-2.

You keep changing your opinion. One moment you say we've enough cover/people at cb the next you say we only have enough to play 4 at the back. THE TWO STATEMENTS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!!!

[darrenrover]

Jesus:  formations, formations, formations.

I may be old fashioned but basics are about fitness and desire first and foremost, whilst taking for granted that a certain level of skill should already be there.

4 4 2: you normally have 2 centre halves that are complementary and one attacks the ball while one drops off. Usually one can play a bit and one is uncompromising and takes no @#/?. The full backs defend first and foremost but ideally overlap down the flanks with pace and link up with midfield, playing neat triangles, one twos and the like before pulling a ball back from the bye line to a choice of both forwards or the central midfielders who are in support of the attack. Meanwhile to protect from a potential breakaway one of the midfielders have dropped off a touch...............

Football's not a difficult game, all these formations are talked about like Subutteo, where players don't move unless they're flicked. 

What happened to tracking back, playing in triangles, pass and move, beat the fullback, get round the back etc?

First and foremost get defenders to defend and be uncompromising. Who in their right mind thought that Mulgrew and Lenihan were centre halves? That Ward was any good at centre half? 

I firmly believe that there are people on this MB who would do a better job than TM based on what we've seen to date.

And in terms of management of the club: A Longside conglomerate would do a better job. Oh wait a minute......

 

 

 

[MCMC1875]

Rock Against Venkys.

[Butty]

Anyone who classes Nyambe as a back-up centre back is smoking some seriously strong stuff. Imagine playing a back 4 with him at CENTRE BACK we'd get absolutely Thomas Mullered.

[johnradfordsubbuteo]

 Watch him trying to head a ball.chilling.

[arbitro]

7 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

Jesus:  formations, formations, formations.

I may be old fashioned but basics are about fitness and desire first and foremost, whilst taking for granted that a certain level of skill should already be there.

4 4 2: you normally have 2 centre halves that are complementary and one attacks the ball while one drops off. Usually one can play a bit and one is uncompromising and takes no @#/?. The full backs defend first and foremost but ideally overlap down the flanks with pace and link up with midfield, playing neat triangles, one twos and the like before pulling a ball back from the bye line to a choice of both forwards or the central midfielders who are in support of the attack. Meanwhile to protect from a potential breakaway one of the midfielders have dropped off a touch...............

Football's not a difficult game, all these formations are talked about like Subutteo, where players don't move unless they're flicked. 

What happened to tracking back, playing in triangles, pass and move, beat the fullback, get round the back etc?

First and foremost get defenders to defend and be uncompromising. Who in their right mind thought that Mulgrew and Lenihan were centre halves? That Ward was any good at centre half? 

I firmly believe that there are people on this MB who would do a better job than TM based on what we've seen to date.

And in terms of management of the club: A Longside conglomerate would do a better job. Oh wait a minute......

 

 

 

Ditto Nick. I find it boring beyond belief when I see some of the 'formations' some of these managers come up with. I also find the 'experts' far too condescending when they talk about systems and formations. Football is one of the least technical sports in the world but the modern day managers have found many ways to complicate it. I said after the Southend game that between my friend and me we have been watching Rovers for over one hundred years, played and referred to good levels and watch a lot of football in general. Neither of us had a clue what formation Rovers were supposed to be playing.

By the way what the hell is a 'false nine'?

[jim mk2]

19 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

........

Football's not a difficult game,

Not quite true. Football is a simple game, but it is difficult to play well because it requires a basic technique that alot of players do not have - just go down to your local park and watch!  It is true to say that the professionals over-complicate the game with tactics and formations, particularly in the football league's lower divisions where the players are less intelligent (not in an IQ sense), when all they need is a simple system that they understand, in which they all know their jobs, and are motivated by a strong manager who will give them hell if they don't give 100 per cent. 

[darrenrover]

5 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Ditto Nick. I find it boring beyond belief when I see some of the 'formations' some of these managers come up with. I also find the 'experts' far too condescending when they talk about systems and formations. Football is one of the least technical sports in the world but the modern day managers have found many ways to complicate it. I said after the Southend game that between my friend and me we have been watching Rovers for over one hundred years, played and referred to good levels and watch a lot of football in general. Neither of us had a clue what formation Rovers were supposed to be playing.

By the way what the hell is a 'false nine'?

God knows but glad to see you're going again Tony! Is it similar to a 'faux neuf'? I'm guessing it could be a 'in the hole' or a 'deep lying 10'. Load of @#/?. they're a front 2 in a 442, Shearer and Sutton, Toshack and Keegan and dare I say Beamish and Martin!

Lenihan and Mulgrew are not centre halves. They filled in when necessary last season but what do we know?

[tomphil]

4 hours ago, Speedie's Gonna Get Ya said:

Been a lifelong Rover and various lengthy stints as a ST holder & now back in BB End with my lad. My first true memories of watching Rovers was Howard Kendall's first season.

Yesterday was frustrating to say the least! Not taken the time to read the entire thread but agree with much of the main sentiment.

Regarding formation, I think Mowbray is expecting too much of a team that hasn't even had time to gel yet, by tinkering and over complicating things. That can surely only come from playing in a consistent formation first of all?

It would be interesting to see how we perform under the default bread and butter 4-4-2 and the extent to which this accelerates the gelling of the players.

There are numerous variables at play; defintely room to be concerned and it is still early days.

Other observations from yesterday's game: 

- the players are yet to get to grips with League One refs; the players need to get used to different refereeing standards. Too often it seemed they felt they didn't get the rub of the green and weren't awarded decisions that they'd expect in the Championship;

- the attacking calibre on the bench seemed negative; but to what extent was Mowbray (rightly or wrongly) hoping he could get a result with his starting eleven in order to protect injury 'niggles' early on in the season. An expensive, but perhaps necessary, lesson for him to learn about his squad early on in the season?

- the players seem constrained rather than 'freed up' by the need to pass the ball around, particularly in defence;

- Raya and the CB's need to have the confidence to play the ball out AND put there boot through the ball when necesssry; its decision making;

- Dack, Samuel, Gladwin all showed greater hunger and intent when they came on; Samuel doesn't look the finished article but he made things happen and gave their defence much more to do. Impact substitutions for sure but if that demonstrates their hunger and desire that's what we need. Too many times yesterday Doncaster were first to the ball, primarily because they had more steely determination.

- if we persist with a back 3 with a fully fit squad, should the combination be Wharton - Mulgrew - Lenihan; very different feel to Mulgrew - Ward - Nyambe. Can only recall Mulgrew carrying the ball out of defence once with any effect; surely something the system (and with a player of his ability) allows for?

- where is the leadership in the team and in particular in midfield; 

- what we saw was highly frustrating, we as supporters are going to have to be prepared to be patient during games, due to how our opponents will approach playing 'the big fish', but the level of invention and commitment from the team meant that on this occasion the chant of "your not fit to wear the shirt" was fair and hopefully serve as a timely kick up the backside for them all.

Here's hoping.

An interesting back 3 and certainly an argument for it being better than the present selection although we seem to have another manager over looking Wharton again. Not a fan of 3 at the back at all I didn't like it when Souness used to try it for a spell when we were winning at home it caused more problems than it solved even then with top drawer players. If you don't play it all the time and you don't have the correct types it's better not bothering imo save for the odd in game adjustment from time to time if you've not much choice.

Thought the fans were incredibly patient yesterday right up until the 3rd goal but that reaction was quite shocking but understandable. As I said earlier I think it was a bit of an out pouring of emotion following relegation seeing as the lid was kept on that last season as people backed the team and manager but for the millionth time it begins to look like nothing has changed at all.

Chants were harsh considering half the team are new but if they think they are here to stroll about like big time charlies and get cheered to the rafters just because they've joined a big club they are in for a shock. Everything has to be earned in a blue & white shirt I hope someone pointed that out to them before they signed because clearely a lot haven't been aware of it in recent years.

[AAK]

Don't know about others but I think the defence is such a shambles and poor that some risk are going to have to be taken. Wharton needs to be brought in, seems very capable and got rave reviews from Cambridge, umpteen man of the match awards and was a regular on loan. Williams best football was as a CB so we put him there, he's played there in cup comps and looked a far better player, or we get a new CB to partner Wharton. Mulgrew is a midfielder. Replace Williams with Doyle at LB, another risk but his proper position and changes needed, Bennett hard working and can tackle and has energy and performed well at rb before and from what I've seen from this two, at full back they have the energy and ability to get forward and create as well as defend 

               Keeper

Bennett/Wharton/New CB/Doyle

          Smallwood/Mulgrew

Conway        Dack         Chapman

.                 Samuel

lenihan ls leaving so no point in putting him in

[blackburnforever]

hi guys new to the forum. But had to join to voice my opinions. Ihave watched live football for 34 years and have seen it all apart from george best at his peak!

Never has not getting behind your own team been a good idea, we are in this together. Manager, players and supporters. We must all try to fulfill our roles the best we canie managing the team playing in the team and supporting the team. These are basic requirements Sun TSU (a ancient chinese philospher) said he whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious ! So lets get united.

Well onto team selection. we dont have enough pace in the team to play 3 at the back, not in this league anyway as the ball gets pinged about far to much and can easily leave us exposed at the back. Secondly we need to control the midfield to win games evans and smallwood as the two sitting with evans being the tempo setter like thorne and hughes were at derby and even further back faurlin and barton at qpr worked magic there and was brilliant to watch.

In front we need dack in the middle conway one side gladwin or bennett the other then the striker is the point but with three attack minded midfielders supporting. BUT we dont really have a striker whos natural game is holdup play, so a massive amount of movement and interchange would be required. This is definately possible because of the ability within the team.  A natural tendency would then be to sometimes revert to a 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 the latter if carried out correctly will give you higher possession stats its upto us the to make the most of it. But 3 at the back when the ball is pinged about is dangerous but possible if the 3 and 2 wing backs have the pace and energy to carry it out  - right now we havent so i would go with 4-2-3-1 as our personel siut this system best.We would therefore require in the transfer window somebody who could cover richie and cory for injury and suspension. We have to put the work in to get out of this dreadful division.

thoughts please

[blueboy3333]

19 minutes ago, blackburnforever said:

we dont have enough pace in the team to play 3 at the back,

Agree with some of your post but you've got this the wrong way round. We're playing three at the back because we don't have any pace, so Nyambe is in the centre of the defence to compensate for Mulgrew and Ward's complete lack of pace. As soon as Nyambe went to full-back yesterday we were exposed time and time again at the back, like a bad pub team. Until he buys a CH with pace Mowbray will be picking a team to compensate for the fact he's neglected to address an obvious weakness.

Welcome to the forum.

[Fraserkirky]

Everyone is banging on about formation, but I thought the performance yesterday was down to player selection and individual errors. I don't expect Tony to change his formation but he needs to get some creative players in the starting lineup.

Danny Graham would get a massive hook for me, done the square root of f'all the first two games. Start Antonsson and Samuel upfront and get that partnership going. Play Dack in the attacking midfield role and have Smallwood and Evans in behind. I'd put Bennett at right wingback and Conway at left wing back, both are decent defensively so shouldn't be a big ask, at least they work hard. Nyambe Lenihan Mulgrew at the back. Much more attacking, we could actually create something when we have the ball with that team.

Chapman, I like a lot, could play in behind in Dacks role or could play up front wide left.

-------------Raya-------------

-Nyambe Lenihan Mulgrew-

Bennett---------------Conway

-------Evans Smallwood------

--------------Dack-------------

--Antonsson------Samuel--

[Fraserkirky]

5 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Agree with some of your post but you've got this the wrong way round. We're playing three at the back because we don't have any pace, so Nyambe is in the centre of the defence to compensate for Mulgrew and Ward's complete lack of pace. As soon as Nyambe went to full-back yesterday we were exposed time and time again at the back, like a bad pub team. Until he buys a CH with pace Mowbray will be picking a team to compensate for the fact he's neglected to address an obvious weakness.

Welcome to the forum.

Nyambe was twice as good yesterday as he was at Southend

[blackburnforever]

thanks for your reply appreciate your comments. what would be your chosen lineup if all were fit and what formation. saw sheff utd about 8 times last season on a friends ticket. they played with a real purpose you could see the hunger in their eyes as we were near the tunnel all the time they had a hell of alot of spirit. we need the same.