Harry Chapman

[blueboy3333]

The continued refusal to play him, especially at home, is criminal IMO. It's not like we are an effective attacking force blowing teams away without him. I'd wager half our goals this season have occurred because he's been on the pitch, his 'assists to minutes played' ratio must be the best in the country.

I also don't understand the supposed rationale for not playing him. At home we have hardly been under the cosh this season because teams come to Ewood to defend. Can we really afford to keep our most effective attacker on the bench because he may not protect possession or protect the full back etc?. Are we really that bad everywhere else on the pitch that we can't give a talented young lad the freedom to express himself and have a go at the opposition? If we played him from the start he might blow teams away by half-time and if not the oppo would be so scared of him they'd put 2 men on him and leave space elsewhere. He is a terrific talent who makes things happen.

And whether the oppo have 'tired legs' or not wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Whether it's the 1st minute or the last Chapman is quicker than the lot of them.

Get him in the team from the start, not when it's too late. He's under pressure every time he comes on because we are normally losing.

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by blueboy3333

[DE.]

So far this campaign has been eerily familiar to a Bowyer campaign, just a league lower. An overall slow, plodding style, fast and creative players either left on the bench or shunted onto the wings, slow full backs and a general inability to impose ourselves on a game. We're good enough to hover around mid table but will never get into a playoff position. 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, DE. said:

So far this campaign has been eerily familiar to a Bowyer campaign, just a league lower. An overall slow, plodding style, fast and creative players either left on the bench or shunted onto the wings, slow full backs and a general inability to impose ourselves on a game. We're good enough to hover around mid table but will never get into a playoff position. 

What's that got to do with Harry Chapman?

[Butty]

MUST START ON TUESDAY

[Tormund]

Agreed.

At home you must go for it and there is little risk starting him from the beginning. We are such a slow team, you can’t leave players like him on the bench when you’ve got wingers playing with a lack of pace.

[the original david brent]

Pretty sure Boro didn't loan him to us for him to play 15 minutes a game! 

Really starting to doubt Mowbray - I cannot see the logic in not starting Chapman.

[Tom]

Not sure either way, he could be a perfect sub or he could be just as useful from the start.

Mahoney always looked handy from the bench but woeful when he started.

Earned a chance to start though 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, david brent said:

Pretty sure Boro didn't loan him to us for him to play 15 minutes a game! 

Really starting to doubt Mowbray - I cannot see the logic in not starting Chapman.

I can see it away to some extent but not at home, given how clueless we look at Ewood. Not sure how many minutes he's played this season but he has five assists. We've only scored 12.

[RevidgeBlue]

Excellent post from blueboy. Don't understand all this "he's better as an impact sub" tosh. If he's our most dangerous attacking player he's our most dangerous attacking player end of story and we'll never know if he can sustain it for 90 minuts unless and until he is given the chance.

Even if he cant manage 90 minutes, surely it's better to play him for 75 and bring him off with us hopefully in a favourable position than limit him to 15 or 20 and expect him to plait sawdust in that time.

What do people actually mean when they say he's an "impact player" or a bit "naive" etc. Do they really mean "I refuse to start him as he's only 19" or "He actually tries to make things happen as opposed to going sideways backwards and rarely venturing into the opposition third"

The only sort of player I would define as an impact sub is someone who isnt good enough to start but a big lump you chuck on with 15 minutes to go to try and chuck his weight about in the opposition penalty area to try and cause panic and confusion in there (Kuqi).

Otherwise, if you're a team's most dangerous player you're the most dangerous player and should be starting regardless of whether you're 19 or 35.

[DE.]

5 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

What's that got to do with Harry Chapman?

Similar to how Josh King and Mo Barrow weren't used as they should have been. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

From what I've seen he's an exciting runner with the ball but he's an head down runner quite a lot of the time. He needs to learn to get his head up. Another thing I noticed is he only " lends you the ball " . What I mean by that is his passing is a bit haphazard and he's only concerned with getting it back. He may appear " greedy " to some but being head down leads to very individualistic play.

Having said that if Conway isn't fit I'd give him a start on Tuesday before I'd play Dack or Antonnson out on the left wing.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, DE. said:

Similar to how Josh King and Mo Barrow weren't used as they should have been. 

King was a bit of a strange one as although he was played outside of what with the benefit of hinssight was obviously his best position, he didnt show the merest fraction of what he was capable of until his contract was nearly up and wanted to put himself in the shop window. He should have been capable of a lot better here, even out wide.

I do agree though that I cant see the point in loaning players from Premier League Clubs or Clubs in a higher division, Barrow, Samuelson, Emnes, Chapman etc then either not using them or sticking them on the bench. All things being equal they should be better than what we've got already and should be starting until its proven they're no better or worse than what we've got.

If you're not going to use them fully you might as well just let a young lad from the Academy sit on the bench.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

From what I've seen he's an exciting runner with the ball but he's an head down runner quite a lot of the time. He needs to learn to get his head up. Another thing I noticed is he only " lends you the ball " . What I mean by that is his passing is a bit haphazard and he's only concerned with getting it back. He may appear " greedy " to some but being head down leads to very individualistic play.

Having said that if Conway isn't fit I'd give him a start on Tuesday before I'd play Dack or Antonnson out on the left wing.

Not the finished article certainly but in a completely different class to either Conway or Bennett surely?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Not the finished article certainly but in a completely different class to either Conway or Bennett surely?

Yeah you're right. If we don't give him a start we'll never know.

[blueboy3333]

16 hours ago, DE. said:

Similar to how Josh King and Mo Barrow weren't used as they should have been. 

A poor comparison.

[philipl]

I would agree that he should get more game time on Tuesday. We need them worrying about our players. A normal plodding approach will be a gift to their current attacking streak.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Get Chapman and Dack on the field asap and attack teams, worry them. The two of them will create and score goals. The first goal in games is crucial. If the opposition plan on sitting back at Ewood, we need to bring the game to them 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Bigdoggsteel

[DE.]

4 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

A poor comparison.

Okay. Back to lurking then. 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, DE. said:

Okay. Back to lurking then. 

You don't strike me as a quitter

[davulsukur]

1 minute ago, blueboy3333 said:

You don't strike me as a quitter

And nor should he be, he's a good contributor to the boards.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, davulsukur said:

And nor should he be, he's a good contributor to the boards.

Never said he wasn't. I like people who contribute.

[davulsukur]

9 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Never said he wasn't. I like people who contribute.

Yer I know. More of a message to DE. to not quit (if that's what he was thinking of doing)

[Mattyblue]

Is Chapman the finished article? Not by a long stretch, but at the end of the day we are in the third division and there are enough bang average full backs that he can terrorise.

I can understand perhaps playing more of an all rounder away from home - i.e. a Bennett or Conway type that will do their fair share of defensive duties. But at home, when the emphasis is on us to take the game to teams who are often happy with a point, he MUST start.

[JBiz]

On 24/09/2017 at 10:38, blueboy3333 said:

The continued refusal to play him, especially at home, is criminal IMO. It's not like we are an effective attacking force blowing teams away without him. I'd wager half our goals this season have occurred because he's been on the pitch, his 'assists to minutes played' ratio must be the best in the country.

I also don't understand the supposed rationale for not playing him. At home we have hardly been under the cosh this season because teams come to Ewood to defend. Can we really afford to keep our most effective attacker on the bench because he may not protect possession or protect the full back etc?. Are we really that bad everywhere else on the pitch that we can't give a talented young lad the freedom to express himself and have a go at the opposition? If we played him from the start he might blow teams away by half-time and if not the oppo would be so scared of him they'd put 2 men on him and leave space elsewhere. He is a terrific talent who makes things happen.

And whether the oppo have 'tired legs' or not wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Whether it's the 1st minute or the last Chapman is quicker than the lot of them.

Get him in the team from the start, not when it's too late. He's under pressure every time he comes on because we are normally losing.

 

Normally losing.. I wouldn't call winning half your games so far that.

Bringing pace and energy on against tired legs is, has and will be a tactic employed at all levels, forever. Genuine rationale for it. Why do you think HC has stood out so much in his cameos?

Defending from the front is something the teams we've failed to beat have done masterfully, and whilst I'm convinced that Conway and Bennett can protect our fullbacks (also described today as the "worst" fullbacks ever at Ewood), I'm not sure on HC or Dack.

Whilst this is division 3 BB, you've still got to utilise game management, if we get done at a set piece because HC or anyone else for that matter leaves their man, you need to set up a goal to break even. 

Id start HC for Bennett after Shrewsbury, but I'd also be  aware that Bennett isn't going to change the game from the bench if asked too! It's not quite as "brain dead" of a decision that many rovers fans are making out.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Biz said:

Normally losing.. I wouldn't call winning half your games so far that.

I said he comes on we are 'normally losing'

I've checked and he's come on three times when we've been losing and three times when we've been winning. Two unused subs. So 50/50, but a s you misunderstood my point I'm claiming a moral victory.

16 minutes ago, Biz said:

Bringing pace and energy on against tired legs is, has and will be a tactic employed at all levels, forever. Genuine rationale for it. Why do you think HC has stood out so much in his cameos?

Because he's good. He also stood out at home to Burnley when he started by all accounts.

 

22 minutes ago, Biz said:

Id start HC for Bennett after Shrewsbury, but I'd also be  aware that Bennett isn't going to change the game from the bench if asked too! It's not quite as "brain dead" of a decision that many rovers fans are making out.

The problem is that we aren't winning at home. You haven't acknowledged that. Also because we have very little in the way of an attacking threat when the likes of Chapman and Dack aren't playing it is very easy for teams to sit off and pick us off on the break. Once they get a goal it is then even easier to pick us off as we over commit chasing the game. The reason for playing Chapman at home from the off is that it increases the chances of us getting the 1st goal which then changes the whole complexion of the game. Teams then have to come out and commit players themselves, opening up the space for the likes of Chapman to exploit. Chapman isn't always going to come off the bench and save us, he did at the weekend away from home but he didn't he didn't against Dons or Donny at home. He's 19, he can't be relied upon to be a super sub and get us out of the shyte which he is in danger of being seen as. He needs a start. If Mowbray doesn't trust him out wide then give him a start up front or just off the striker. It's not like we have strikers banging them in. When he signed Mowbray said he could play all along the frontline.