Adam Armstrong

[Bigdoggsteel]

Would a good tournament here put him out of our reach I wonder? 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, OnePhilT said:

Rich Sharpe suggested that our loan deal gives us first refusal on him. I think that means that, if we want to talk to him, no other club is allowed to. I may be wrong on how that works, but that's how I understand it.

I think Arma knows that he'll get regular first-team football here, and judging by the England U21 squad, that's a valuable thing for him to have, even in the Championship. Rovers has worked out extremely well for him, and I suspect he'll want to come back and really get recognition next season at the higher Championship level. I hope it happens, as I think he's only going to get better.

I read that too, but my understanding was that this was a gentleman's agreement of sorts between us and Newcastle. I don't think it is contractual or anything. A good tournament and a big bid and I am afraid any agreement will go out the window. 

We would still have to match the fee Newcastle are looking for regardless, unless the first refusal is for another loan deal, which would be fine by me 

[J*B]

2 minutes ago, OnePhilT said:

Rich Sharpe suggested that our loan deal gives us first refusal on him. I think that means that, if we want to talk to him, no other club is allowed to. I may be wrong on how that works, but that's how I understand it.

I think Arma knows that he'll get regular first-team football here, and judging by the England U21 squad, that's a valuable thing for him to have, even in the Championship. Rovers has worked out extremely well for him, and I suspect he'll want to come back and really get recognition next season at the higher Championship level. I hope it happens, as I think he's only going to get better.

Usually first refusal means if Newcastle get a 5m offer for him, we get the opportunity to match it.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, J*B said:

Usually first refusal means if Newcastle get a 5m offer for him, we get the opportunity to match it.

Is that not the case with every transfer? If 2 teams bid the same then, the player chooses who to speak with, or may speak to both clubs 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, OnePhilT said:

Edit: What I've written below is actually a load of bollocks and guesswork. There's a bit more info on first refusals here.

It will be contractual, I would have thought. My understanding is that, when loan contracts are drafted up, permanent transfer fees are agreed for a first refusal, should the buying club wish to take it up, so it's would be legally binding. In other words, if we agreed with Newcastle a fee of £1.5m for a permanent transfer back in January, then we can take up that option, and then it's left to personal terms with Arma. I'm pretty sure that, unless we legally say "we don't want to pursue it" to Newcastle by a given date, that they can't allow Armstrong to talk to other clubs.

So if both clubs bid the same, he has to come here? But can the other club not just outbid us then again anyway?

I am confused! 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[Bigdoggsteel]

10 minutes ago, OnePhilT said:

It's really confusing. In some places, it says that "you're first in line to have the option to buy", which is sort of how I understood it, and relates to the stuff I posted above.

In other places, it says a first refusal is what @J*B suggested. So let's say Norwich put a bid in for £3m for Arma. If Newcastle intend to accept that bid, they have to inform us, so that we have the opportunity to match that bid (or exceed it?). Once matched, I think Newcastle can't accept Norwich's bid and, at the same time, decline ours. Then it would be up to Arma who he talks to.

Maybe someone ITK can clear this up! @JAL do you know any agents?

But wouldn't it always be in a selling clubs interest to let as many bidders as possible know what is on the table for the player already? 

The only way it makes sense to me is if a fee is agreed before the loan, say 2 million, and then we can buy him for that. No one can offer higher. 

[JacknOry]

I would like to see more of him central to see if he really can cut it there in the Championship. He is certainly clinical and a more natural finisher than Graham, more pace and movement too - its just his physicality which is a worry. The team would have to play to his feet or through balls for him to get on the end of.

Would be a good idea to switch him there when DG comes off and bring someone on like Rothwell into the three behind. Better than relying on Samuel or Nuttall in a straigh swap for DG in my opinion.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

If you're a small guy and you're playing up front on your own either you have to be special or the service up to you has to be special. 

[DeeCee]

The "next" Michael Owen"?

[Mike E]

2 hours ago, DeeCee said:

The "next" Michael Owen"?

Well he can't be the same or previous...

[Bepeja43]

I see arms as a potential Bellamy maybe?

[AllRoverAsia]

6 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If you're a small guy and you're playing up front on your own either you have to be special or the service up to you has to be special. 

If Arma gets a go up front we will be looking to Dack and Palmer in particular to supply the bullets. If it works it will be good football to watch.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

8 hours ago, Bepeja43 said:

I see arms as a potential Bellamy maybe?

I wish. Unfortunately he lacks the aggression that made Bellamy such a difficult opponent plus a yard of pace. What would Bellamy be worth today ? 

[Stuart]

3 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I wish. Unfortunately he lacks the aggression that made Bellamy such a difficult opponent plus a yard of pace. What would Bellamy be worth today ? 

Bellamy’s finishing was also so clinical.

Jeez, we’ve had some great players at this club!

Not many in the last 8 years though.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

15 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Bellamy’s finishing was also so clinical.

Jeez, we’ve had some great players at this club!

Not many in the last 8 years though.

I've seen some really great goalscorers at the club Stuart. Disregarding the centre forward type players such as Shearer, Pickering, Sutton etc Bellamy was the best in my opinion. I go back as far as Peter Dobing, Roy Vernon, John Byrom, Andy McEvoy, Simon Garner, Matt Jansen ( who I thought was a fantastic player ) , even Damien Duff.

[Al]

23 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I've seen some really great goalscorers at the club Stuart. Disregarding the centre forward type players such as Shearer, Pickering, Sutton etc Bellamy was the best in my opinion. I go back as far as Peter Dobing, Roy Vernon, John Byrom, Andy McEvoy, Simon Garner, Matt Jansen ( who I thought was a fantastic player ) , even Damien Duff.

Tommy Briggs - 7 in a match v Bristol Rovers in 1955. I was there at Ewood that day.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

8 minutes ago, Al said:

Tommy Briggs - 7 in a match v Bristol Rovers in 1955. I was there at Ewood that day.

I'd class Tommy Briggs as a centre forward Al. I was really talking about supporting  strikers. I was there when Andy Mac got 4 against Spurs. That was some game.

[bluebruce]

On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 20:35, OnePhilT said:

Here are the highlights of the England v China U21 game, with Arma's contributions.

 

Watching this with subtitles on was highly entertaining. Some of the Chinese names that came out....my fave was 'ending her', closely followed by 'soon we shake' (who got sent off, so it said 'soon we shake scent off').

[Stuart]

Well before my time I’m afraid @Tyrone Shoelaces. Is it fair to say that getting on the scoresheet was easier in the 50s and early 60s? I have this vision of teams with lots of attacking positions (inside forward, outside forward, etc) and regularly high scoring matches because of the tactics of the time. For instance, in 63/64 we had 8 hat tricks - 5 of which were by McEvoy.

More latterly the likes of Shearer, Sutton, Jansen, Cole, Bellamy, McCarthy, Santa Cruz, dare I say Rhodes in the same breath, scored in the era of 4-4-2 and more recently 4-5-1. Granted, all strikers have to take their chances but chances would have been gradually reducing as the game changed over the last 60 years or so?

Happy to be corrected but that’s my perception.

...

Before posting I’ve done a bit of research on the back of that perception. The list below shows that during the 50s and 60s there was a definite change in approach to matches - although I can’t think of any rule changes in that time, so probably more tactical. Whilst it initially increased between 1955 and 1957, goals per game (only top flight stats to give a view) went steadily from 3.5 per game to 2.5 per game and stayed that way for the most part through the 90s and 00s. That’s a reduction of almost a third. So any goal records could (very roughly speaking) be reduced by a similar number compared to later years. By inference, the number of chances must have also been higher. It does beg the question then: are PL-era strikers better than their mid-20th century counterparts due to the game becoming more defensively-minded and chances being less frequent? These rough stats suggest so.

(Obviously there are lots of flaws in this for instance players may not have played every game but being top scorer it is assumed they did).

 

First Division - 22 teams

55/56 = 1529 (3.31) [Lofthouse, 32] ~21

56/57 = 1612 (3.49) [Charles 38] ~25

57/58 = 1721 (3.73) [Smith 36] ~23

58/59 = 1692 (3.66) [Greaves 33] ~21

59/60 = 1618 (3.5) [Viollet 32] ~21

60/61 = 1724 (3.73) [Greaves 41] ~26

61/62 = 1582 (3.42) [Crawford/Kevan 33] ~21

62/63 = G1536 (3.32) [Greaves 37] ~24

63/64 = 1571 (3.4) [Greaves 35] ~23

64/65 = 1543 (3.34) [McEvoy/Greaves 29] ~19

65/66 = 1457 (3.15) [Irvine/Hunt 29] ~19

66/67 = 1387 (3) [Davies 37] ~24

67/68 = 1398 (3.03) [Best/Davies 28] ~18

68/69 = 1213 (2.13) [Greaves 27] ~17

 

PL - 22 teams

92/93 = 1222 (2.65) [Sheringham 22] 31*

93/94 = 1195 (2.59) [Cole 34] 48*

94/95 = 1195 (2.59) [Shearer 34] 48*

 

PL - 20 teams

95/96 = 988 (2.6) [Shearer 31] 48**

96/97 = 970 (2.55) [Shearer 25] 39**

97/98 = 1019 (2.68) [Dublin/Owen/Sutton 18] 28**

98/99 = 959 (2.52) [Hasselbaink/Yorke/Owen 18] 28**

99/00 = 1060 (2.79) [Phillips 30] 46**

00/01 = 992 (2.61) [Hasselbaink 23] 36**

01/02 = 1001 (2.63) [Henry 24] 37**

02/03 = 1000 (2.63) [Van Nistelrooy 25] 39**

03/04 = 1012 (2.66) [Henry 30] 46**

04/05 = 975 (2.57) [Henry 25] 39**

05/06 = 944 (2.48) [Henry 27] 42**

06/07 = 931 (2.45) [Drogba 20] 31**

07/08 = 1002 (2.64) [Ronaldo 31] 48**

08/09 = 942 (2.48) [Anelka 19] 29**

09/10 = 1053 (2.77) [Drogba 29] 45**

 

~ downgraded goals based on 38 game PL season at overall modern rate

* escalated to 1955-1969 scoring rate (comparing 3.5 overall goals per game and 2.5 PL overall goals per game)

** escalated rate plus 38 to 42 game adjustment (assumes all players played every game)

[AllRoverAsia]

What those stats do prove is how bloody good Jimmy Greaves was.

Alf Ramsey with the national team signalled the start of a more tactically defensive formation approach which went quite quickly into league football making goal scoring, imo, a more difficult occupation.

Edited August 17, 2018 by AllRoverAsia

[Stuart]

1 minute ago, AllRoverAsia said:

What those stats do prove is how bloody good Jimmy Greaves was.

Alf Ramsey with the national team signalled the start of a more tactically defensive formation approach which went quite quickly into league football making goal scoring, imo, a more difficult occupation.

Agreed. What a special player. I did mention that when I was drafting the post but I felt it took away from the point I was making. In the modern game he wouldn’t have been the Ronaldo or Shearer equivalent, more like the Wayne Rooney or even Jermain Defoe.

That is a little unkind though and he was certainly at the top of his game and a giant amongst his peers. A shame he didn’t play in the WC Final. (Unless you are Geoff Hurst of course!)

[Al]

5 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I'd class Tommy Briggs as a centre forward Al. I was really talking about supporting  strikers. I was there when Andy Mac got 4 against Spurs. That was some game.

Yep you are right. I missed that but Tommy was still well worth remembering.

[Al]

I think the biggest change was that in the 50's there was only one centre half but that was to some degree offset by the fact that one of the wing halves (midfielders) was mainly defensive and tended to support the centre half. Also the full backs were purely defenders and rarely sallied forth up the wing, so without formally setting  up as such, there was, to a large degree, a four man defence. The main difference was that the wingers were not expected to defend and whilst the attacking wing half and the number 10 did a bit of defensive work in midfield, they mainly attacked and the number 8 was basically a second centre forward so yes there was probably more accent on attack than defence and from a spectator's point of view it was much more exciting to watch. Although I didn't get there this week, probably much like Carlisle v Rovers.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Another aspect of play then was nobody came to  " park the bus ". Teams came to win. If they got beat fair enough but they gave it a go. There wasn't the money in the game then even at the top level so it wasn't a life  and death situation as it is now.

[MarkBRFC]

19 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Another aspect of play then was nobody came to  " park the bus ". Teams came to win. If they got beat fair enough but they gave it a go. There wasn't the money in the game then even at the top level so it wasn't a life  and death situation as it is now.

Exactly this.

I obvs wasnt around for these days but my good old grandad used to laugh at the notion of "playing for a draw" or "being happy with a draw".

If you were not playing to win then there was no bloody point he used to crow! 

Christ knows what he would think of todays posers.