[Archived] Rovers v Oldham

[tomphil]

I was pleased with the Bell signing as Williams had no cover and he plays every game so i'm sure he's carried fatigue and knocks at times plus loss of form. I thought he'd start taking DW off in games with ten or 15 to go to save his legs a bit or add some pace to that position in the form of Bell if needed and work him into the team that way.

All he's done so far with Bell, Armstrong and Payne is try and accommodate them and alter things to suit. They are all good players and decent signings imo but.....

Where is the plan as to why they were identified and signed ?

[USABlue]

21 hours ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

So better to let the game peter out than try and win it with an attacking sub? 

And how is being 2 0 down to 11 man Plymouth away from home a 'similar situation'? 

2-0 down and 2-0 down.  I did miss the last 10 mins bit. Apologies.

As for Samuels contribution I will have to roll over to those who SAW, I only listened so am probably wrong.  He.came on it was 2-0 game finished it was 2-0.  Contribution?

[Leonard Venkhater]

16 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

But Bennett was playing right wing back so bring Samuel would have upset the shape we had. 

 

Triangle, hexagon, circle or cube...Samuel would upset any shape..

[USABlue]

4 hours ago, philipl said:

For goodness sake, no team in this league has a player who can really hurt us.

We should be simply going out onto the offensive and make them worry about what we can do.

 

Who was that fella just scored 2 against us?

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, USABlue said:

Who was that fella just scored 2 against us?

I thought he seemed unplayable on Saturday. What do I know?

[blueboy3333]

Just now, USABlue said:

Who was that fella just scored 2 against us?

Mowbray.

[Gav]

4 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

I thought he seemed unplayable on Saturday. What do I know?

Absolutely, he Scored 2 cracking goals, defenders did very little wrong.

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

he not a attacking midfielder. 

he's wide midfielder or centre midfielder. 

we have enough goalscorer in this team and I will just POINT OUT that Antonsson is our top assist with 4 of them,

For the majority of the season hes played on the right wing (or wide midfield, same thing)Insert other media

Antonsson has 7 league goals and 4 league assists, playing from the other side, 11 direct contributions to goals, Bennett is seriously lagging behind.

To say that we have enough goal scorers to allow someone to hardly contribute is strange logic.

Hes only been in central midfield since Shrewsbury, he was effective there but since hes been wasteful in possession and indisciplined and rash positionally.

[Mike E]

5 hours ago, FGS5635 said:

Aye a good bit of handbags just before Kick off with all stone island hard boys. Its comical watching these plantpots behave

Very funny comparison ?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=552579128439628&id=416208265410049

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

But Bennett was playing right wing back so bring Samuel would have upset the shape we had. 

We were trying to.win the game. Armstrong's header only just went wide and Payne's header was weak and he had time to take it down and place it in the corner. 

Presuming we are talking Bennett here. After the sending off we were basically 3 at the back with Bennett outside right. He wasn't really playing wing back. He was tho playing better the longer then game went on.

However I would have risked the ire the crowd and swapped Graham for Samuel at the end. Just give them something slightly different to think about.

Its ok saying he has done little lately but if you're not going to throw him on when you need a goal, what's the point of him being on the bench.

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

But Bennett was playing right wing back so bring Samuel would have upset the shape we had. 

We were trying to.win the game. Armstrong's header only just went wide and Payne's header was weak and he had time to take it down and place it in the corner. 

And they nearly scored at the death!  

Against ten men you can juggle it round. Putting an extra striker on is another player they have to defend against and worry about. Especially as he is taller than anyone else we had out there. 

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

1 hour ago, USABlue said:

2-0 down and 2-0 down.  I did miss the last 10 mins bit. Apologies.

As for Samuels contribution I will have to roll over to those who SAW, I only listened so am probably wrong.  He.came on it was 2-0 game finished it was 2-0.  Contribution?

No.  We would have been 2 2 when Samuels should have been brought on.. And you also missed the against 10 men part. 

[Rover_Shaun]

On 2/11/2018 at 10:56, Kamy100 said:

I have been reading this thread since yesterday and last few pages there is some hysteria.

Kamy you have read it wrong. There was a mention on a dodgy pie and a mild case of Lysteria.

Other than that you are so wide of the mark as to be a Gary Flitcroft shot

[chaddyrovers]

33 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

For the majority of the season hes played on the right wing (or wide midfield, same thing)Insert other media

Antonsson has 7 league goals and 4 league assists, playing from the other side, 11 direct contributions to goals, Bennett is seriously lagging behind.

To say that we have enough goal scorers to allow someone to hardly contribute is strange logic.

Hes only been in central midfield since Shrewsbury, he was effective there but since hes been wasteful in possession and indisciplined and rash positionally.

Bennett contributes in other ways and i wouldnt drop him at all. 

Indisciplined and rash positionally against Oldham? Really? What game do you watch from the Darwen end where you sit.? Cos you see things that dont happen. 

2 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Presuming we are talking Bennett here. After the sending off we were basically 3 at the back with Bennett outside right. He wasn't really playing wing back. He was tho playing better the longer then game went on.

However I would have risked the ire the crowd and swapped Graham for Samuel at the end. Just give them something slightly different to think about.

Its ok saying he has done little lately but if you're not going to throw him on when you need a goal, what's the point of him being on the bench.

Take Graham for Samuel? Could have be option. Might have work out. 

 

Just now, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

And they nearly scored at the death!  

Against ten men you can juggle it round. Putting an extra striker on is another player they have to defend against and worry about. Especially as he is taller than anyone else we had out there. 

I just dont the point of changing things when we playing so well. 

We have different opinions. Samuel might have cost of the game with change of formation or won us. We never know. 

[Hasta]

8 hours ago, tomphil said:

On the point about the Oldham fans I think it proves again it's time to shove any big following upstairs. Yes they'd probably have to move the handful of home fans but there is no doubt it helped influence their team on Saturday being packed in at ground level, stick em up in the air.

I doubt 2000 Stone Island wearing Neanderthals made Nayambe shockingly fail to win the ball (twice). Nor did they make Mulgrew back off for 25 yards and let a guy shoot. We've beat many a sides with big followings and lost to side with no fans.

 Ive no objection to putting fans up in the gods, but we took a vocal 4000 following to Boundary Park and turned in the most repulsive 90 minutes of the season. I'm not sure it's as big an influence as you say.

[roversfan99]

14 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Bennett contributes in other ways and i wouldnt drop him at all. 

Indisciplined and rash positionally against Oldham? Really? What game do you watch from the Darwen end where you sit.? Cos you see things that dont happen. 

Take Graham for Samuel? Could have be option. Might have work out. 

 

I just dont the point of changing things when we playing so well. 

We have different opinions. Samuel might have cost of the game with change of formation or won us. We never know. 

Hes not a central midfielder and he is caught out on occasions, see their second goal. I never said specifically v Oldham, but no need for the patronising comment. Where I sit is irrelevant.

Contributes "in other ways" suggest that you dont have an actual argument. He has not contributed as much statistically as he should be doing with his calibre, I doubt his opinion on his lack of goals and meagre assist total is "we have enough goalscorers in the team."

Youve summed yourself up with the quote "I just dont the point of changing things when we playing so well. "

...after preaching for weeks as to how youd totally change the formation to a 3-5-2!

 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Hes not a central midfielder and he is caught out on occasions, see their second goal. I never said specifically v Oldham, but no need for the patronising comment. Where I sit is irrelevant.

Contributes "in other ways" suggest that you dont have an actual argument. He has not contributed as much statistically as he should be doing with his calibre, I doubt his opinion on his lack of goals and meagre assist total is "we have enough goalscorers in the team."

Youve summed yourself up with the quote "I just dont the point of changing things when we playing so well. "

...after preaching for weeks as to how youd totally change the formation to a 3-5-2!

 

Oldham second goal could have been stopped if Mulgrew actually close him quickly we might not have conceded but he kept backing off and off plus Raya should have done alot better than he did. 

As I keep explaining to you and something you wont accept as my opinion is different to you why I would change formations. 

The current 1st team match squad is lack proper wingers and we have 2 quality strikers and Dack. If you look at our second goal on Saturday what excellent link play between Graham, Dack and Armstrong it was. So if we actually them like that from the start we would create more chances. Playing 2 up front and Dack behind would create more space for Dack and Armstrong pace would give us a option in behind the opposite defence and force them to play deeper. Bennett and Bell as wing backs. Bell played that role for Fleetwood this season.and against us at Ewood Park earlier in the season. Travis performances means he must start with Smallwood. Lenihan, Mulgrew and Williams in a 3 man centre defence. Raya in goal. 

If.you dont agree @roversfan99 fine but thats my opinion

[roversfan99]

11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Oldham second goal could have been stopped if Mulgrew actually close him quickly we might not have conceded but he kept backing off and off plus Raya should have done alot better than he did. 

As I keep explaining to you and something you wont accept as my opinion is different to you why I would change formations. 

The current 1st team match squad is lack proper wingers and we have 2 quality strikers and Dack. If you look at our second goal on Saturday what excellent link play between Graham, Dack and Armstrong it was. So if we actually them like that from the start we would create more chances. Playing 2 up front and Dack behind would create more space for Dack and Armstrong pace would give us a option in behind the opposite defence and force them to play deeper. Bennett and Bell as wing backs. Bell played that role for Fleetwood this season.and against us at Ewood Park earlier in the season. Travis performances means he must start with Smallwood. Lenihan, Mulgrew and Williams in a 3 man centre defence. Raya in goal. 

If.you dont agree @roversfan99 fine but thats my opinion

My point was solely based on the hypocrisy of suggesting that we should keep things as they are due to playing so well, and at the same time advocating a major change in system.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

My point was solely based on the hypocrisy of suggesting that we should keep things as they are due to playing so well, and at the same time advocating a major change in system.

Ive fully explained why would change formation so either accept my opinion or stop reply to me. You dont always have to right @roversfan99 you know. You can have different opinions aswell

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Bennett contributes in other ways and i wouldnt drop him at all. 

Indisciplined and rash positionally against Oldham? Really? What game do you watch from the Darwen end where you sit.? Cos you see things that dont happen. 

Take Graham for Samuel? Could have be option. Might have work out. 

 

I just dont the point of changing things when we playing so well. 

We have different opinions. Samuel might have cost of the game with change of formation or won us. We never know. 

.. Because we never tried. 

[Tom]

4 hours ago, FGS5635 said:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/15987968.Tony_Mowbray_on_why_he_went_with_Derrick_Williams_and_Amari_i_Bell_in_Rovers__draw_with_Oldham/

 

 

This sums up a lot of our flaws, every time Tony tries to outwit the opposition manager we seem to fail to win, when we just play to our own strengths we look like we can breeze past teams.

Yet Mowbray persists with trying to over complicate things.

Dread to think how he'd approach a play off game 

[Waggy76]

4 hours ago, FGS5635 said:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/15987968.Tony_Mowbray_on_why_he_went_with_Derrick_Williams_and_Amari_i_Bell_in_Rovers__draw_with_Oldham/

 

 

Unbelievable! 

[Stuart]

Just now, Waggy76 said:

Unbelievable! 

Defending from the front.

Against Jack Byrne!  

[Blue blood]

And that's why he's no more than an ok manager - scared of his shadow. Heaven forbid we should come up against anyone genuinely threatening...

[funny-old-game]

24 minutes ago, Waggy76 said:

Unbelievable! 

Unbelievable considering Williams and Bell when AWOL for Oldham's second