Bradley Dack

[Ossydave]

9 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Two games now where Dack has come on and not made the slightest bit of difference.

Hopefully just a slow start but I wonder if that new contract was a little premature...

He's not match fit, at all.

However, the reserves don't play again till 25th Jan, he has no other way of getting match fit than these 30 min sub appearances.

[Bigdoggsteel]

13 hours ago, Stuart said:

Two games now where Dack has come on and not made the slightest bit of difference.

Hopefully just a slow start but I wonder if that new contract was a little premature...

Ah, he was decent the last day. The chip to Brereton? The few passes where he turned it around the corner, decent ball to Armstrong (who missed again) 

Dack was non existent last night though. 

No, the contract wasn't premature. We know what he can do. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Bigdoggsteel

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

11 hours ago, Stuart said:

Two games now where Dack has come on and not made the slightest bit of difference.

Hopefully just a slow start but I wonder if that new contract was a little premature...

Dack obviously doesn't think so Stuart. 

[Ewood Ace]

He doesn't fit into a 4-3-3 or whatever system it was we were supposed to be playing after he came on last night. If you want to get the best out of Dack you have to play him as a number 10.

[Stuart]

1 hour ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Dack obviously doesn't think so Stuart. 

?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

?

He had a bit of a run out and then I think he's realised it's going to be a long journey back to his previous form. He might as well sign, " a bird in the hand ", and all that.

[Stuart]

1 minute ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

He had a bit of a run out and then I think he's realised it's going to be a long journey back to his previous form. He might as well sign, " a bird in the hand ", and all that.

Ah ok. Yes, I agree.

This is another reason we should be looking to sell Armstrong next month. Yes, he has been our main goalscorer but an injury could mean we lose him anyway (and the value too) while someone else will get the goals if their only job is “shoot”. We are out of the promotion race and we are apparently absolutely skint.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, Stuart said:

Ah ok. Yes, I agree.

This is another reason we should be looking to sell Armstrong next month. Yes, he has been our main goalscorer but an injury could mean we lose him anyway (and the value too) while someone else will get the goals if their only job is “shoot”. We are out of the promotion race and we are apparently absolutely skint.

There is no good reason to sell Armstrong next month. We might be out of the promotion race, at least for now, but if we lost our primary source of goals then a relegation dogfight wouldn't be impossible.

You can't sell your best players just because you're worried an injury may take their value away. That's how you regress. Armstrong hasn't had any significant injuries in the past.

Armstrong is a little overrated by some fans, but criminally underrated by others. Nobody is replacing the kind of goals rate he is capable, and it would be one less player capable of stretching teams with pace on the counter, which is our main weapon (we just keep forgetting to use it as we are obsessed with tippy tappy).

[Stuart]

24 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

There is no good reason to sell Armstrong next month. We might be out of the promotion race, at least for now, but if we lost our primary source of goals then a relegation dogfight wouldn't be impossible.

You can't sell your best players just because you're worried an injury may take their value away. That's how you regress. Armstrong hasn't had any significant injuries in the past.

Armstrong is a little overrated by some fans, but criminally underrated by others. Nobody is replacing the kind of goals rate he is capable, and it would be one less player capable of stretching teams with pace on the counter, which is our main weapon (we just keep forgetting to use it as we are obsessed with tippy tappy).

Fundamentally disagree.

Just like a new manager would replace Mowbray - either on his terms or ours - a player, or players, would replace Armstrong’s goals. It’s irrational to suggest otherwise. Right now he isn’t scoring but just as importantly he isn’t creating chances for others.

I’m not talking about cashing in, I’m saying a bid north of £15m should be accepted.

[roversfan99]

16 hours ago, Stuart said:

Two games now where Dack has come on and not made the slightest bit of difference.

Hopefully just a slow start but I wonder if that new contract was a little premature...

 

2 hours ago, Stuart said:

Ah ok. Yes, I agree.

This is another reason we should be looking to sell Armstrong next month. Yes, he has been our main goalscorer but an injury could mean we lose him anyway (and the value too) while someone else will get the goals if their only job is “shoot”. We are out of the promotion race and we are apparently absolutely skint.

I think the opposite on Dack, I wonder if he regrets signing a new deal. He has had 2 sub appearances following 12 months out, one in which he made an obvious difference, yesterday he didnt but the side had lost all structure and he was simply being bypassed. He is still a very capable Championship player and a key player for us.

Regarding players getting goals "if their only job is shoot," if it was that simple surely every team would have a prolific goalscorer?

[Stuart]

53 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

 

I think the opposite on Dack, I wonder if he regrets signing a new deal. He has had 2 sub appearances following 12 months out, one in which he made an obvious difference, yesterday he didnt but the side had lost all structure and he was simply being bypassed. He is still a very capable Championship player and a key player for us.

Regarding players getting goals "if their only job is shoot," if it was that simple surely every team would have a prolific goalscorer?

Bit of a straw man you’ve put forward there.

Without wanting to sound sarcastic, every club has a top scorer.

Most clubs have either a prolific (20+ goal) scorer, or two or even three 10+ scorers.

Let’s not pretend that without Armstrong we won’t score any goals. In any case, having a very good run for the first 14 games (during a time when the team was playing well) he has scored 1 in his last 7 games. You might think this proves your point but for me he has done as much good as harm during that time by not passing to others in better positions.

We need promotion. Now that it’s not going to happen we need to make some money instead.

If we are genuinely worried that without Armstrong we will be in a relegation battle then the problem is not the guy up front but the guy in the dugout.

[roversfan99]

Just now, Stuart said:

Bit of a straw man you’ve put forward there.

Without wanting to sound sarcastic, every club has a top scorer.

Most clubs have either a prolific (20+ goal) scorer, or two or even three 10+ scorers.

Let’s not pretend that without Armstrong we won’t score any goals. In any case, having a very good run for the first 14 games (during a time when the team was playing well) he has scored 1 in his last 7 games. You might think this proves your point but for me he has done as much good as harm during that time by not passing to others in better positions.

We need promotion. Now that it’s not going to happen we need to make some money instead.

If we are genuinely worried that without Armstrong we will be in a relegation battle then the problem is not the guy up front but the guy in the dugout.

I havent said that we "wouldnt score any goals" but I think it is a fair suggestion that if a team in 14th place lost the 2nd top scorer in the League, that we would score fewer goals.

Regarding the situation around his future, an ideal scenario would be that Armstrong signs a long term contract and is a key asset for any incoming manager as soon as possible. The problem is that I dont see it as being in his best interests to sign a new deal so ultimately we may have to sell by the summer at the latest.

That Bristol City performance seems to have done more damage to his reputation than scoring 27 goals (a brilliant record no matter how its spun) in a year has done to boost it. All goalscorers have a level of selfishness and usually I think Armstrong's is pretty healthy, last night he chose more than once to pass to better placed team mates when he could have shot. He was awful v Bristol City and whether it was frustration or whatever, his shooting was in that case detrimental. But its one match, he doesnt have 10 (was it?) shots every game.

[Stuart]

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I havent said that we "wouldnt score any goals" but I think it is a fair suggestion that if a team in 14th place lost the 2nd top scorer in the League, that we would score fewer goals.

Regarding the situation around his future, an ideal scenario would be that Armstrong signs a long term contract and is a key asset for any incoming manager as soon as possible. The problem is that I dont see it as being in his best interests to sign a new deal so ultimately we may have to sell by the summer at the latest.

That Bristol City performance seems to have done more damage to his reputation than scoring 27 goals (a brilliant record no matter how its spun) in a year has done to boost it. All goalscorers have a level of selfishness and usually I think Armstrong's is pretty healthy, last night he chose more than once to pass to better placed team mates when he could have shot. He was awful v Bristol City and whether it was frustration or whatever, his shooting was in that case detrimental. But its one match, he doesnt have 10 (was it?) shots every game.

I don’t agree. Losing Armstrong doesn’t mean playing with 10 men. I honestly think he is vastly overrated on account of a very good spell of form at the start of this season.

I must have missed all of those passes you refer to. I don’t remember him even looking up once the ball was at his feet.

Last time I checked, his shot to goal ratio is actually very average, if not poor.

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, Stuart said:

I don’t agree. Losing Armstrong doesn’t mean playing with 10 men. I honestly think he is vastly overrated on account of a very good spell of form at the start of this season.

I must have missed all of those passes you refer to. I don’t remember him even looking up once the ball was at his feet.

Last time I checked, his shot to goal ratio is actually very average, if not poor.

If our striker who has scored 27 goals this year is overrated then I dread to think what the rest of our players are.

He slipped in Elliott in the first minute and then soon after he in a shooting position let the ball run again for Elliott to shoot.

[Leonard Venkhater]

4 hours ago, Stuart said:

Ah ok. Yes, I agree.

This is another reason we should be looking to sell Armstrong next month. Yes, he has been our main goalscorer but an injury could mean we lose him anyway (and the value too) while someone else will get the goals if their only job is “shoot”. We are out of the promotion race and we are apparently absolutely skint.

Now you've got me thinking about Gordon Lee and what he did with the Tony Field money-or some of it.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

I don’t agree. Losing Armstrong doesn’t mean playing with 10 men. I honestly think he is vastly overrated on account of a very good spell of form at the start of this season.

I must have missed all of those passes you refer to. I don’t remember him even looking up once the ball was at his feet.

Last time I checked, his shot to goal ratio is actually very average, if not poor.

If you look back at the " highlights " of the Sheff Wed game,  early on he takes a left footed shot from about 25 yards out on the left hand side of the pitch. I'd let him have another 99 shots left footed from that position and I'd bet not one of them would end up in the back of the net. I like to see a striker back his ability but that was just plain stupid.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Stuart]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

If our striker who has scored 27 goals this year is overrated then I dread to think what the rest of our players are.

He slipped in Elliott in the first minute and then soon after he in a shooting position let the ball run again for Elliott to shoot.

Lest we forget he came into form when we lost our previous best player...

Players come and go. If we don’t cash in he will likely walk for half of what he’s worth now - possibly even did nothing.

If we were in 7th or 8th and a couple of points of the top six I would have a different view mind. Well, Mowbray not withstanding.

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

I think the opposite on Dack, I wonder if he regrets signing a new deal. He has had 2 sub appearances following 12 months out, one in which he made an obvious difference, yesterday he didnt but the side had lost all structure and he was simply being bypassed. He is still a very capable Championship player and a key player for us.

Regarding players getting goals "if their only job is shoot," if it was that simple surely every team would have a prolific goalscorer?

I would agree Dack is probably the one wondering was it the right call. From rovers point of view it was a no brainer. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I havent said that we "wouldnt score any goals" but I think it is a fair suggestion that if a team in 14th place lost the 2nd top scorer in the League, that we would score fewer goals.

Regarding the situation around his future, an ideal scenario would be that Armstrong signs a long term contract and is a key asset for any incoming manager as soon as possible. The problem is that I dont see it as being in his best interests to sign a new deal so ultimately we may have to sell by the summer at the latest.

That Bristol City performance seems to have done more damage to his reputation than scoring 27 goals (a brilliant record no matter how its spun) in a year has done to boost it. All goalscorers have a level of selfishness and usually I think Armstrong's is pretty healthy, last night he chose more than once to pass to better placed team mates when he could have shot. He was awful v Bristol City and whether it was frustration or whatever, his shooting was in that case detrimental. But its one match, he doesnt have 10 (was it?) shots every game.

27 goals, accross 2 seasons. Last season the pressure was off. You would be pointing this out if someone else said it. 

The types of goals he scored last season, were different than the ones he scored this season. That should be a good thing, yet he only seems to do one or the other,or none at at all, as is the case now. 

Hopefully this is the season where he is consistent across an actual season at this level. He has the foundations laid. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

If our striker who has scored 27 goals this year is overrated then I dread to think what the rest of our players are.

He slipped in Elliott in the first minute and then soon after he in a shooting position let the ball run again for Elliott to shoot.

So letting it run counts as a pass now? You are definitely grasping at straws 😂

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If you look back at the " highlights " of the Sheff Wed game,  early on he takes a left footed shot from about 25 yards out on the left hand side of the pitch. I'd let him have another 99 shots left footed from that position and I'd bet not one of them would end up in the back of the net. I like to see a striker back his ability but that was just plain stupid.

He's always at it 

[TheRoversReturn]

Every player has a price. If we get a very good offer for any player next month, then we should look to sell. 

Heck, not as if we're likely to finish anywhere but mid-table anyhow!

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

12 minutes ago, TheRoversReturn said:

Every player has a price. If we get a very good offer for any player next month, then we should look to sell. 

Heck, not as if we're likely to finish anywhere but mid-table anyhow!

Depends what happens to the money we receive. And if the players we sell get replaced. We, aren't even safe from relegation yet. 

[TheRoversReturn]

Well set-up clubs of our size sell their players when at they are their most valuable and reinvest a portion on a replacement they already have their eye on. It was what Hughes did spectacularly well for years. Bentley, Santa Cruz and so on. The likes of Burnley, Leicester City and Southampton have been doing it competently for years to first establish them in the prem and then push them upwards. Unless you have the likes of Abramovich or Abu Dhabi bankrolling you, then it's what good football governance is all about. 

I've no doubt we don't the system in place and would bugger it up by looking at Boro castoffs, but it doesn't negate the general principle. What we could do for a steady hand like John Williams today, rather than Mogga's mate in charge. 

 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Good lad Dacky. Great to have you back!