Harry Chapman

[JBiz]

How many games has he come off the bench and changed the points total? Obviously Shrewsbury is +1.

I agree with much of what you've said, apart from some of the last part. Certainly agree about teams nicking a goal on the counter early, and then flooding their half. Thing is though, you miss the part that says; more attacking, less likely to track back = more chance of being countered. It works both ways.

19, can't be relied to come on a change a game... but can be relied on to start? That doesn't make sense. I do think the lad could work as a 10 though, but I'd expect Dack to get the nod in that role.

 

[Pedro]

I really like him. Being a winger is a simple science, beat your man and get a decent ball in the box - especially if you can get to the line and pull it back. I also like how is one of only a couple who will carry the ball into the box, he'll get us a few penalties this season. In Chapman we trust.

[blueboy3333]

59 minutes ago, Biz said:

19, can't be relied to come on a change a game... but can be relied on to start? That doesn't make sense

I don't want to be that guy, but again, read what I wrote in context. I said it's a lot to expect of a 19 year old to be expected to super-sub on and rescue us all the time, which he is in danger as being portrayed as. It's less pressure at 0-0 at the start of the game than being shoved on at 1-0 down and expected to get up to speed and make the difference, which he is at the moment.

 

1 hour ago, Biz said:

How many games has he come off the bench and changed the points total? Obviously Shrewsbury is +1.

That's it. Against Dons and Donny when we were losing and he came on we still lost. The games he's come on and had the most impact are the games we were already winning, MK Dons and Rochdale. Seems to back up my point about pressure. Or it may be just coincidence

[frosty]

3 hours ago, Biz said:

Thing is though, you miss the part that says; more attacking, less likely to track back = more chance of being countered.

 

I haven't seen enough of Chapman to know what he's like defensively but I'd go as far as saying it doesn't matter - we're simply that desperate for some spark and creativity in the final third, and someone that can beat a man, that he needs to be on the pitch. Plus I can't see teams in this very low quality league hitting us with a lethal counter attack often.

[JBiz]

2 minutes ago, frosty said:

I haven't seen enough of Chapman to know what he's like defensively but I'd go as far as saying it doesn't matter - we're simply that desperate for some spark and creativity in the final third, and someone that can beat a man, that he needs to be on the pitch. Plus I can't see teams in this very low quality league hitting us with a lethal counter attack often.

I'm not sure it'll be regular lethal counter attacks, that'll be our undoing. I think it'll be mistakes through inexperience, lapses in concentration and all around low work rate.

 

[47er]

We need a winger, we need pace and we need to be able to counter-attack. noticeable in the Shrewsbury game that they got from A to B much quicker than we did.

His non-selection as a starter is just another  example of how everyone but the manager can see a problem and a potential solution.

The ball pulled back from the bye-line---still the most effective move in football.

[blueboy3333]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/15556843.Tony_Mowbray_says_Middlesbrough_loanee_Harry_Chapman__is_a_work_in_progress__despite_impressive_start_to_life_at_Rovers/?action=success#comments-feedback-anchor

Right on cue, Mowbray's excuses roadshow:-

What Mowbray said v (reality)

1) We can't start Harry because the defence consists of a 'certain type of footballer'  (the defence is slow and vulnerable, the defence he had all summer to recruit for but didn't because he was too busy signing midfielders he never plays)

2) If you get a goal teams over commit so Harry becomes useful like against MK Dons when you bring him on (If you don't play Chapman you are less likely to get the first like against Doncaster and Wimbledon so the team loses anyway)

3) If you lose the first goal life become hard (yep, so at home try and get the first goal instead of being so negative and inevitably losing)

4) I'm the expert on tactics (3 defeats in 4 at home on the cards tonight)

5) Statistically getting the 1st goal means you are likely to win (yet he sets up his team to defend and not concede)

6) If you set up your team to score 4 you'll lose (straw man at it's worst)

He'd better win tonight after all that @#/?

[philipl]

Chapman ought to get at least 45 minutes tonight.

[RV Blue]

31 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/15556843.Tony_Mowbray_says_Middlesbrough_loanee_Harry_Chapman__is_a_work_in_progress__despite_impressive_start_to_life_at_Rovers/?action=success#comments-feedback-anchor

Right on cue, Mowbray's excuses roadshow:-

What Mowbray said v (reality)

1) We can't start Harry because the defence consists of a 'certain type of footballer'  (the defence is slow and vulnerable, the defence he had all summer to recruit for but didn't because he was too busy signing midfielders he never plays)

2) If you get a goal teams over commit so Harry becomes useful like against MK Dons when you bring him on (If you don't play Chapman you are less likely to get the first like against Doncaster and Wimbledon so the team loses anyway)

3) If you lose the first goal life become hard (yep, so at home try and get the first goal instead of being so negative and inevitably losing)

4) I'm the expert on tactics (3 defeats in 4 at home on the cards tonight)

5) Statistically getting the 1st goal means you are likely to win (yet he sets up his team to defend and not concede)

6) If you set up your team to score 4 you'll lose (straw man at it's worst)

He'd better win tonight after all that @#/?

So in one article he says that both Chapman isn't good enough defensively and he's at his best when we are defending a lead?? Which is it Mowbray? At least he likes to think he's very astute tactically . I would have thought that bringing on a player like Bennett would be a better idea when 1-0 up than bringing on a lad who is supposedly a liability defensively. Imagine a Mourinho, for example, bringing on a Martial when he's defending a lead, it doesn't happen. Sack him.

 

[Tom]

Reads like a man cracking under pressure to me:

 

"I understand, I’m not stupid, I see that when he comes on he can beat players and create chances, I’m very conscious of people when we’re out there thinking ‘why isn’t Chapman playing?’,” Mowbray said.

[Bigdoggsteel]

32 minutes ago, Tom said:

Reads like a man cracking under pressure to me:

 

"I understand, I’m not stupid, I see that when he comes on he can beat players and create chances, I’m very conscious of people when we’re out there thinking ‘why isn’t Chapman playing?’,” Mowbray said.

A few of his quotes recently sound like he is getting @#/?, whether thats pressure or annoyance at the players, I am not sure. Probably a bit of both actually

Edited September 26, 2017 by Bigdoggsteel

[arbitro]

Them answers could have been from Kean or Coyle. To be honest I find it insulting after playing, refereeing and watching football for over 50 years that our manager comes out with banile drivel like that. He admits that the defence is not the most mobile in the world and still picks the same players and played Dack out wide on Saturday who couldn't defend to save his life.

I'm rapidly running out of patience with the nonsense he is spouting.

[47er]

2 hours ago, Tom said:

Reads like a man cracking under pressure to me:

 

"I understand, I’m not stupid, I see that when he comes on he can beat players and create chances, I’m very conscious of people when we’re out there thinking ‘why isn’t Chapman playing?’,” Mowbray said.

He's making out a very good case for playing him isn't he?!

[Tom]

Not tonight....

[K-Hod]

Cannot honestly believe he’s not playing again and we’re shoe horning someone who doesn’t play in his position, into his position. Appalling decision.

[JBiz]

34 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Cannot honestly believe he’s not playing again and we’re shoe horning someone who doesn’t play in his position, into his position. Appalling decision.

Strange, I thought he made good changes tbh. I'm not privy to training, but dropping Dack after he performed well on Saturday would've been an appalling decision in my opinion!

 

[davulsukur]

12 hours ago, RV Blue said:

So in one article he says that both Chapman isn't good enough defensively and he's at his best when we are defending a lead?? Which is it Mowbray? At least he likes to think he's very astute tactically . I would have thought that bringing on a player like Bennett would be a better idea when 1-0 up than bringing on a lad who is supposedly a liability defensively. Imagine a Mourinho, for example, bringing on a Martial when he's defending a lead, it doesn't happen. Sack him.

 

[JAL]

Sounds like a good young player that makes you want to go and buy the ticket to see playing. Don't see a problem in the manager using him as an impact sub though.

Is he going to become a permanent Rover though ?

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by JAL

[frosty]

The lad's got too much ability to be on the bench. Give him a start and teams will be petrified of him. 

[JBiz]

Just now, JAL said:

Sounds like a good young player that makes you want to go and buy the ticket to see playing. Don't see a problem in the manager using him as an impact sub though.

 

If it works, it works. I think if you look at tonight - we created umpteen chances to score the second goal and fluffed the chances.

Could HC on from the start suffered a similar issue to Samuel tonight, hit post 3 times? When you've got a player you know can change a game, it creates a solid plan B.

I guess the argument at the minute is should he be plan A? I personally can understand that, but then who is plan B? Bennett isn't the type, for me to do that but will be guaranteed to work his absolute nuts off from start to finish in any position he plays. 

[Tom]

Magic in his boots; decision making still iffy but he sets his sights on goal and things happen

[Peteb2014]

I think last night summed up the conundrum about Chapman perfectly came on created havoc with his pace and directness showing why people think he should be started but then just after his goal he had 2 players unmarked in the box and tries to go for glory showing why people think he should be used from the bench as still has a lot to learn

[arbitro]

58 minutes ago, Peteb2014 said:

I think last night summed up the conundrum about Chapman perfectly came on created havoc with his pace and directness showing why people think he should be started but then just after his goal he had 2 players unmarked in the box and tries to go for glory showing why people think he should be used from the bench as still has a lot to learn

He did but I don't think his inexperience was the issue. This season I have seen several experienced players going for goal when team mates were better placed to score.

[Lancaster Rover]

I agree wholeheartedly with biz here, HC has shown great attacking intent and against a tiring team or when you're chasing an equaliser his style of play is great. That said he offers no protection to his fullback and a generally pedestrian backline, we saw the issues we had against Doncaster when our shape got dragged apart and I fear HC starting could expose the same weaknesses. 

Last night was the most fluid we have looked and everyone worked hard from the front, the press was high intensity and worked really well. The issue is that the minute someone drops the press or the oppo play through it due to poor positioning we are in trouble, especially considering the lack of pace within our backline.

[RV Blue]

12 hours ago, davulsukur said:

? Are you suggesting that last night proves that Chapman shouldn't be starting or are you just a bit thick?