[Archived] Rovers v Blackpool

[chaddyrovers]

22 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Chapman on one wing and Armstrong on the other will make teams think twice about playing a high line. 

Payne should be rotated with Dack. Give Dack 60 min, then get Payne on. Payne isn't a winger. He is an intelligent footballer who offers something different to Dack, same position though. 

Wouldnt Dack off at all. 

He is class and our best attacking player this season. Techique, touch, skill, strength and score goals 

Our best player all season

[Bigdoggsteel]

11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Wouldnt Dack off at all. 

He is class and our best attacking player this season. Techique, touch, skill, strength and score goals 

Our best player all season

If we are winning the sensible thing to do it take him off and bring Payne on. We need to manage our best players 

[blueboy3333]

3 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Payne should be rotated with Dack. Give Dack 60 min, then get Payne on. Payne isn't a winger. He is an intelligent footballer who offers something different to Dack, same position though. 

We don't need anything different to 15-goal Dack.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Payne is the Duncan Shearer of this team: there for if the main man gets injured.

[Bigdoggsteel]

42 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

We don't need anything different to 15-goal Dack.

We do. You need two good players in every position. Would you prefer if we didn't have Payne?? 

[blueboy3333]

12 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

We do. You need two good players in every position. Would you prefer if we didn't have Payne?? 

I prefer it if you didn't suggest taking off the 2nd highest scorer in the League so we can give a bloke who hasn't impressed in the slightest a 30 minute run out. It's not Sunday League, although watching Payne on Saturday I did sometimes wonder.

[Bigdoggsteel]

9 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

I prefer it if you didn't suggest taking off the 2nd highest scorer in the League so we can give a bloke who hasn't impressed in the slightest a 30 minute run out. It's not Sunday League, although watching Payne on Saturday I did sometimes wonder.

So making substitution ensure our main man is fresh for the run in is "Sunday league", mmm OK. 

I think Payne has looked decent. To say he hasn't impressed in the slightest  is an odd comment. He looks very tidy on  the ball. No goals yet, bus hasn't he gotten a  couple of assists? 

[JacknOry]

3 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

So making substitution ensure our main man is fresh for the run in is "Sunday league", mmm OK. 

I think Payne has looked decent. To say he hasn't impressed in the slightest  is an odd comment. He looks very tidy on  the ball. No goals yet, bus hasn't he gotten a  couple of assists? 

The criticism of Payne is a bit unwarranted as he has not really been played in his correct position. I dont think he has done too bad either anyway and would certainly prefer him starting in the three behind over Antonsson, Samuel or anyone else. Dack, Payne and Armstrong are the three I would play.

[DE.]

I don't have much of an opinion on Payne, but I don't see the problem with taking Dack off on 65-70 mins if we're 3 up. Any less than 3 and I'd be a bit concerned as we've proven more than once that 2 goals isn't enough of a safety barrier.

[blueboy3333]

9 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

So making substitution ensure our main man is fresh for the run in is "Sunday league", mmm OK. 

I think Payne has looked decent. To say he hasn't impressed in the slightest  is an odd comment. He looks very tidy on  the ball. No goals yet, bus hasn't he gotten a  couple of assists? 

I didn't realise we'd be far enough ahead each game after 60 minutes to have the luxury of being able to take our main man off

[blueboy3333]

6 hours ago, JacknOry said:

The criticism of Payne is a bit unwarranted as he has not really been played in his correct position. I dont think he has done too bad either anyway and would certainly prefer him starting in the three behind over Antonsson, Samuel or anyone else. Dack, Payne and Armstrong are the three I would play.

The criticism of Payne is precisely because he keeps being played out of position. He's not a right midfielder. Playing him there just because on paper he is one of our better players is folly. It's no surprise he gets subbed everytime he starts out wide. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

14 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

I didn't realise we'd be far enough ahead each game after 60 minutes to have the luxury of being able to take our main man off

You're a right slave driver aren't you? 

Dacks style of play means he is always a little leggy looking later in games. I know you love him, we all do, but Payne is a good alternative to have in certain situations. 

[Stuart]

21 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Payne is the Duncan Shearer of this team: there for if the main man gets injured.

If memory serves, Duncan Shearer was bought to stop Swindon beating us to the play-offs.

[philipl]

Just now, Stuart said:

If memory serves, Duncan Shearer was bought to stop Swindon beating us to the play-offs.

That signing was so cynical it was embarrassing even for us.

But it screwed over Swindon's promotion challenge so was £750k well spent and Aberdeen got a reliable Scottish striker on the cheap the following season.

[Rover_Shaun]

I always assumed Shearer (who always scored against us) was signed purely because Newell was suspected to miss the rest of the season (thankfully he never as history would have been rewritten) and like the Jack Walker and Zidane FABLE him being signed to bugger up Swindon was a fallacy. And I still think it is and always will.

[Stuart]

10 hours ago, Rover_Shaun said:

I always assumed Shearer (who always scored against us) was signed purely because Newell was suspected to miss the rest of the season (thankfully he never as history would have been rewritten) and like the Jack Walker and Zidane FABLE him being signed to bugger up Swindon was a fallacy. And I still think it is and always will.

And yet it happened, it worked and he barely played for us. Strange one to call a fable.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/4699297.Forgotten_Shearer_who_helped_Blackburn_Rovers_to_promised_land/

[47er]

16 minutes ago, Stuart said:

And yet it happened, it worked and he barely played for us. Strange one to call a fable.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/4699297.Forgotten_Shearer_who_helped_Blackburn_Rovers_to_promised_land/

I thought that, even when Newell was out Shearer barely featured so that hits that theory on the head!

I think he was bought to derail Swindon's promotion campaign.

[philipl]

And Zidane wasn't a fable. He was offered as an add on to buying Christophe Dugary.

[had.e.nuff]

2 hours ago, Stuart said:

And yet it happened, it worked and he barely played for us. Strange one to call a fable.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/4699297.Forgotten_Shearer_who_helped_Blackburn_Rovers_to_promised_land/

I always thought that Kenny told Jack to get him Shearer and he bought the wrong one.

[Rover_Shaun]

7 hours ago, philipl said:

And Zidane wasn't a fable. He was offered as an add on to buying Christophe Dugary.

I was referring to the " why, we have Sherwood" lie not that he wasn't once considered. Luckily for him he went to Juve

As for dunc Shearer he didn't play because he was crap. Anything else is coincidence and an over active imagination.

[47er]

5 hours ago, Rover_Shaun said:

I was referring to the " why, we have Sherwood" lie not that he wasn't once considered. Luckily for him he went to Juve

As for dunc Shearer he didn't play because he was crap. Anything else is coincidence and an over active imagination.

If he was crap why did Kenny sign him then?

[Rover_Shaun]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

If he was crap why did Kenny sign him then?

Obviously after we signed him. I remember his debut at Barnsley. He was a lummox and nothing like the striker who had buggered us up so many times. I think Kenny realised that afternoon he wouldn't fit our team. Remember Kenny was taking advice from others on players outside the top flight.

[47er]

I honestly believe we signed him to bugger up Swindon!

[JacknOry]

On 3/15/2018 at 07:44, 47er said:

I honestly believe we signed him to bugger up Swindon!

Agree - Kenny wouldn't sign a lummox for no reason. Purely to stuff up the competition - we had the money. Dont understand why this is so hard to believe.