Harry Chapman

[davulsukur]

47 minutes ago, RV Blue said:

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

Jesus, It was just a bit of messageboard banter. No need to get personal/so serious about it ffs.

You shot down Mowbray (claimed he should be sacked even) for giving an interview where he gave his reasons/game plan for bringing Chapman on from the bench. Hours later, his game plan unfolded exactly as he explained.

It was just the timing of it all.

Forget it, if you can't even put a bit of harmless banter on without people getting so touchy about it, what's the point.

[RV Blue]

2 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

Jesus, It was just a bit of messageboard banter. No need to get personal/so serious about it ffs.

You shot down Mowbray (claimed he should be sacked even) for giving an interview where he gave his reasons/game plan for bringing Chapman on from the bench. Hours later, his game plan unfolded exactly as he explained.

It was just the timing of it all.

Forget it, if you can't even put a bit of harmless banter on without people getting so touchy about it, what's the point.

I apologise if that's the case, it is difficult to pick up what is and what isn't banter on a message board, it came across as if you were being a smart arse... the point of my post is still true though, if you don't trust someone to start a game then it doesn't make sense to trust him when you're 1-0 up.

[davulsukur]

20 minutes ago, RV Blue said:

I apologise if that's the case, it is difficult to pick up what is and what isn't banter on a message board, it came across as if you were being a smart arse... the point of my post is still true though, if you don't trust someone to start a game then it doesn't make sense to trust him when you're 1-0 up.

Yer, I get that it's difficult to pick things up on a message board. People tend to go instantly into defensive mode and start hitting back with insults, which I suppose is to be expected.

I'd have to be smart before I can be a smart arse!

[JAL]

On 26/09/2017 at 21:59, Biz said:

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. 

If Harry isn't here long term then he's got be a part plan B all the time otherwise it just creates a false futurethough fully understand the regulars asking for more.

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, JAL said:

If Harry isn't here long term then he's got be a part plan B all the time otherwise it just creates a false futurethough fully understand the regulars asking for more.

Agree, I was thinking something along these lines when I said Dack could be preferred on the basis he's a permanent signing. Id prefer Bennett also, especially away from the start, he is probably one of the more consistent players so far, along with Smallwood, Evans, Mulgrew et al. He knows how to do both sides of the game and he works hard. We need that work rate.

Would need to be promoted this season though, for HC to become available to us on a permenant (plus hope Boro go up). On that basis, it's another reason to understand why this isn't such a simple decision, despite some fans insistence in him starting.

[blueboy3333]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

Would need to be promoted this season though, for HC to become available to us on a permenant (plus hope Boro go up). On that basis, it's another reason to understand why this isn't such a simple decision, despite some fans insistence in him starting.

Not really, Chapman might want to leave. It might be as simple as him going where he is wanted and guaranteed first team football. That wouldn't be us at the moment.

At the beginning of the season Mowbray said he would make the system fit the players and that a manager should always get his best players on the pitch. Words to that effect. Chapman is, on the evidence so far, one of our better players.

[JBiz]

7 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

Not really, Chapman might want to leave. It might be as simple as him going where he is wanted and guaranteed first team football. That wouldn't be us at the moment.

At the beginning of the season Mowbray said he would make the system fit the players and that a manager should always get his best players on the pitch. Words to that effect. Chapman is, on the evidence so far, one of our better players.

From my perspective, he's looked and performed well because he's been utilised in a way that suits his ability at the current time.

 

 

[Torgeir]

He'll tear this league apart, and I thought it was strange he didn't start ahead of Antonsson (another loanie) on Tuesday. That was my thought before the game, during and after I think Antonsson delivered the goods so can't say Mowbray picked the wrong team. With four at the back and Smallwood, Evans and Bennett in midfield, I don't see the big risk of throwing Chapman in there though. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

9 hours ago, Biz said:

From my perspective, he's looked and performed well because he's been utilised in a way that suits his ability at the current time.

 

 

Coming on running at tired defenders for 20 minutes is very different than starting and doing everything that is required the win an ongoing battle with a full back. He does ,however, seem better at coming on and finishing teams off, than coming on and scoring when behind. 

I would be interested to see how he does from the start of a game in this league 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Bigdoggsteel

[JAL]

18 hours ago, Biz said:

Agree, I was thinking something along these lines when I said Dack could be preferred on the basis he's a permanent signing. Id prefer Bennett also, especially away from the start, he is probably one of the more consistent players so far, along with Smallwood, Evans, Mulgrew et al. He knows how to do both sides of the game and he works hard. We need that work rate.

Would need to be promoted this season though, for HC to become available to us on a permenant (plus hope Boro go up). On that basis, it's another reason to understand why this isn't such a simple decision, despite some fans insistence in him starting.

All sounds like another in the long list of many cases where the Rovers fans are being screwed over. Watching somebody else's player who isn't playing for a new contract here.

No wonder the empty seats outnumber the dwindling regulars.

[USABlue]

On 9/27/2017 at 06:13, davulsukur said:

Yer, I get that it's difficult to pick things up on a message board. People tend to go instantly into defensive mode and start hitting back with insults, which I suppose is to be expected.

I'd have to be smart before I can be a smart arse!

You are half way there, got the arse bit covered.

[Tom]

4 hours ago, JAL said:

All sounds like another in the long list of many cases where the Rovers fans are being screwed over. Watching somebody else's player who isn't playing for a new contract here.

No wonder the empty seats outnumber the dwindling regulars.

I didn't for a second feel screwed over watching him on Tuesday!

Who cares if he's on loan, yes we'd much rather think he was here for the long term but he's a delight to watch.

[JAL]

19 minutes ago, Tom said:

I didn't for a second feel screwed over watching him on Tuesday!

Who cares if he's on loan, yes we'd much rather think he was here for the long term but he's a delight to watch.

I'm only interested in Rovers Tom not somebody elses player in our shirt especially in the third division.

You'll find you're in the minority with the majority vacating their seats.

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by JAL

[blueboy3333]

8 hours ago, JAL said:

I'm only interested in Rovers Tom not somebody elses player in our shirt especially in the third division.

You'll find you're in the minority with the majority vacating their seats.

 

You can't be that interested if you don't attend games.

[rigger]

10 hours ago, JAL said:

I'm only interested in Rovers Tom not somebody elses player in our shirt especially in the third division.

You'll find you're in the minority with the majority vacating their seats.

 

As far as I am concerned, whilst they wear the blue and white, they are our players!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, rigger said:

As far as I am concerned, whilst they wear the blue and white, they are our players!

I agree, I didn't have a problem watching Berkovic, J Jones etc.

[JAL]

1 hour ago, rigger said:

As far as I am concerned, whilst they wear the blue and white, they are our players!

Just do not buy into that one bit.

Everybody should be in it together not just for themselves which unfortunately is what our club is all about now.

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by JAL

[JAL]

4 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

You can't be that interested if you don't attend games.

Because the product on show has been unecessarily downgraded that's why. Loanees with no long term future here certainly stops me from attending.

Where's my Rovers gone ?

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, JAL said:

Because the product on show has been unecessarily downgraded that's why. Loanees with no long term future here certainly stops me from attending.

Where's my Rovers gone ?

Practically every club bar the top 4 loans players

[onlyonejackwalker]

4 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

You can't be that interested if you don't attend games.

Why not?

[Mattyblue]

Two loanees in the starting 11 on Tuesday (0 at Shrewsbury), probably a lower number than a lot of other clubs outside the PL.

This summer we actually looked to do permanent deals instead of filling the squad with borrowed players.

[blueboy3333]

6 hours ago, onlyonejackwalker said:

Why not?

Self-explanatory I'd have thought.

[blueboy3333]

6 hours ago, JAL said:

Because the product on show has been unecessarily downgraded that's why. Loanees with no long term future here certainly stops me from attending.

Where's my Rovers gone ?

You're not going on because we have players in our team who are on loan from other clubs? Yet you constantly  slag off Nyambe, a player who has come through the ranks and has acquitted himself pretty well? Can't fault that logic

[JAL]

12 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

You're not going on because we have players in our team who are on loan from other clubs? Yet you constantly  slag off Nyambe, a player who has come through the ranks and has acquitted himself pretty well? Can't fault that logic

That's another one blueboy3333 along with your Jason Lowes of this footballing world.

[Butty]

On 28/09/2017 at 23:16, JAL said:

I'm only interested in Rovers Tom not somebody elses player in our shirt especially in the third division.

You'll find you're in the minority with the majority vacating their seats.

 

Yeah we have 15k worth of supporters not attending because we have signed loan players Crazy JAL is back