Hull away

[Blueandwhitemike]

 

Anyone going from Manchester/Salford/Eccles area? I fancy going but the train is £40 and I'd prefer to give someone petrol money.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Blueandwhitemike

[philipl]

OK neck out- this is a winnable game and we must win.

A good away win is always great for kick starting a season (Bradford last year) and Hull look likely to be a struggler/also ran. Need Rovers on the front foot from the start for this one unlike letting Ipswich and Millwall run riot for fifteen minutes.

Will be nice to avenge last season's FA Cup defeat.

[Stuart]

2 points out of 6 means you are undefeated. Although we are behind teams with one win and one loss so it’s not really something to champion.

Hiwever, 2 points out of 9 and it starts to look poor.

Let’s hope for our first win.

[tomphil]

Very cheap tickets in the main adult range following on from quite reasonable or average ones at Ipswich for a Southern club should ensure another decent following of around a thousand.

I fear a defeat here but maybe a more open game will suit Rovers, however....

Hull  2   Rovers   2

[chaddyrovers]

my team 

                         Raya

Nyambe Lenihan Mulgrew Bell

               Bennett Evans

Armstrong      Dack       Rothwell

                       Graham

[Bigdoggsteel]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

my team 

                         Raya

Nyambe Lenihan Mulgrew Bell

               Bennett Evans

Armstrong      Dack       Rothwell

                       Graham

Ya, I wonder would Palmer be best utilised as direct competition/back up for Dack. I like Rothwell and Armstrong on the wing, two good all rounders 

[Bigdoggsteel]

3 hours ago, OnePhilT said:

I think that's a bit over the top given that we're only two games into the season.

The longer it takes, the worse our season is going to end up. We need a win quick. Anything else is just window dressing. 

[roversfan99]

27 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Ya, I wonder would Palmer be best utilised as direct competition/back up for Dack. I like Rothwell and Armstrong on the wing, two good all rounders 

I agree with chaddys team but it highlights the issue of perhaps the imbalance of our squad following the window, neither are natural wingers.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

I agree with chaddys team but it highlights the issue of perhaps the imbalance of our squad following the window, neither are natural wingers.

No, but both seem disciplined enough to do the dirty defensive work too. Would someone like Chapman do the same? I'm not sure what Maddison is like definsivley. 

I agree we needed proper wingers, but it seems that's not how Tony rolls! I would like to see Armstrong and Rothwell there. Both seem very mobile and would cause defenders problems. 

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

No, but both seem disciplined enough to do the dirty defensive work too. Would someone like Chapman do the same? I'm not sure what Maddison is like definsivley. 

I agree we needed proper wingers, but it seems that's not how Tony rolls! I would like to see Armstrong and Rothwell there. Both seem very mobile and would cause defenders problems. 

Mowbray said yesterday after the game that Rothwell has been having to understand what it requires off the ball, so im not sure thats true at the moment with him. I'm also not convinced that Chapman is a lot more defensively unwilling compared to Armstrong, so I did feel that at times it was unnecessary caution. I dont recall any goals conceded that Chapman cost us due to defensive negligence, so I felt it was an unfair tag that he got. He was a victim of his own success as a sub perhaps. You can iron out defensive problems as you go.

A wide man has to offer at least something of an attacking threat, or you may as well stick a full back there.

[Bigdoggsteel]

38 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Mowbray said yesterday after the game that Rothwell has been having to understand what it requires off the ball, so im not sure thats true at the moment with him. I'm also not convinced that Chapman is a lot more defensively unwilling compared to Armstrong, so I did feel that at times it was unnecessary caution. I dont recall any goals conceded that Chapman cost us due to defensive negligence, so I felt it was an unfair tag that he got. He was a victim of his own success as a sub perhaps. You can iron out defensive problems as you go.

A wide man has to offer at least something of an attacking threat, or you may as well stick a full back there.

Well I think Armstrong, Rothwell and Palmer can all offer something there albeit playing out of position. Although Armstrongs crosses yesterday were unacceptably poor. 

We seem at risk of going down this tippy tappy craic around the goals with no end product route. If the guys playing inside forward/wingers aren't going to be direct and run at goals, we'll it's a bit of  a waste of time having them there. At least with Chapman and Maddison on the wings, we know what we could get. Direct running and balls into Graham. 

Hopefully Armstrong grows in confidence, but I would really like to see him being more direct with the ball at his feet. When we do this thing where we pass it around in front of a deep defence, like yesterday and many games last season, it means we ultimately will rely on Dack to do something special to unlock the defence. The two guys either side of him need to start contributing more at this level. 

[roversfan99]

27 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Well I think Armstrong, Rothwell and Palmer can all offer something there albeit playing out of position. Although Armstrongs crosses yesterday were unacceptably poor. 

We seem at risk of going down this tippy tappy craic around the goals with no end product route. If the guys playing inside forward/wingers aren't going to be direct and run at goals, we'll it's a bit of  a waste of time having them there. At least with Chapman and Maddison on the wings, we know what we could get. Direct running and balls into Graham. 

Hopefully Armstrong grows in confidence, but I would really like to see him being more direct with the ball at his feet. When we do this thing where we pass it around in front of a deep defence, like yesterday and many games last season, it means we ultimately will rely on Dack to do something special to unlock the defence. The two guys either side of him need to start contributing more at this level. 

Agreed, my point was in regards to the over-caution of picking players in the most attacking 4 positions, specifically wide, that are defensively strong and leaving you with no attacking threat as a result.

In my opinion, from the admittedly limited spells that hes played up front and wide, Armstrong was and is far more effective wide. His ability to penetrate from deep and run past the striker with his speed is what made him so effective.

That brings us back to the importance of having a target man that is capable with his back to goal, like Graham, who works perfectly in tandem with him as Armstrong runs in the space Graham leaves. And why Gallagher would not be the correct type of striker to bring in as he would be too similar to Armstrong.

I agree that Palmer and Rothwell are more likely to find a home in our team wide, especially with Dack.

I just dont believe for one second that Palmer and Rothwell, neither of whom are defensively minded players, are noticeably more defensively responsible than Chapman, who would at least be less guilty of roaming into central positions. 

[Drover]

Might just be me but on the website I can't see any tickets for this game.

Surely not sold out already?

[Blueandwhitemike]

1 hour ago, Drover said:

Might just be me but on the website I can't see any tickets for this game.

Surely not sold out already?

I don't think they are on general sale until tomorrow,  still just season ticket holders and  1875 club members.

[Vinjay]

On 09/08/2018 at 13:15, Gav said:

£18 is great value, especially when you consider Hull fans are being charged £33 at Hillsborough and home fan non members £39!

Did anyone else notice the fencing that's been put up in the away section at Hull? Looked like Villa fans had restricted views down the side, but not behind the goals.

City of culture living in 1970's?

Fencing to split the home/away sections you mean rather than barriers, nets, etc? Of course fencing wouldn't be behind the goals that's illegal anyway. 

Speaking of fencing removed there was a story in the LT not long ago about someone unhappy with a fence outside their house. The reaction though was laughable with stuff like only staying upstairs because they were too distressed to look outside. Goodness sake wait to get it removed (which happened) before you come across as the biggest snowflakes imaginable. Yes it's slightly off topic (I assume that's why my post on the wrestling thread was removed) but it's only 3 lines.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Vinjay17

[Gav]

1 hour ago, Vinjay17 said:

Fencing to split the home/away sections you mean rather than barriers, nets, etc? Of course fencing wouldn't be behind the goals that's illegal anyway. 

Fencing between the Villa fans and the pitch, section down the side, certainly looked that way, could have been netting.

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I agree with chaddys team but it highlights the issue of perhaps the imbalance of our squad following the window, neither are natural wingers.

Most clubs dont play with natural wingers. Wingers nowadays have to do both side of the game. Its the way football gone. 

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

A wide man has to offer at least something of an attacking threat, or you may as well stick a full back there.

Wide players have to both roles attacking and defensive. Thats why I will prefer Bennett in a lot of away games playing wide due to defensive ability. For the Hull game I see that a game we can achieve 3 points and thats why I decide to play Bennett in centre midfield

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

I just dont believe for one second that Palmer and Rothwell, neither of whom are defensively minded players, are noticeably more defensively responsible than Chapman, who would at least be less guilty of roaming into central positions. 

Palmer wasnt good work rate or defensively yesterday. 

Rothwell wasnt really test yesterday so we will find out in time

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Most clubs dont play with natural wingers. Wingers nowadays have to do both side of the game. Its the way football gone. 

Wide players have to both roles attacking and defensive. Thats why I will prefer Bennett in a lot of away games playing wide due to defensive ability. For the Hull game I see that a game we can achieve 3 points and thats why I decide to play Bennett in centre midfield

Palmer wasnt good work rate or defensively yesterday. 

Rothwell wasnt really test yesterday so we will find out in time

I agree that Bennett has a role but yesterday it was too defensive considering the game. Point being you have to offer SOMETHING attacking. Thats my point. You said they have to offer something both attacking and defensive. At the moment, from wide, Bennett only offers defensive capabilities. 

Its a myth that wingers dont exist. To prove it, beyond reproach, here are a list of proper wingers that played in the Championship yesterday, many of whom play on their strong side as very direct wingers:

Albert Adomah, Andre Green, Callum McManaman, Jed Wallace, Craig Noone, Will Buckley, Callum O'Dowda, Niclas Eliasson, Lewis Wing, Jacques Maghoma, Harvey Barnes, Matty Phillips, Gil Dias, Mo Barrow, Jon Taylor, Gwoin Edwards, Grant Ward, Jarrod Bowen, Adam Reach, James McLean, Tom Ince, Sergi Canos, Barry McKay, Bersant Celina, Tom Barkhuizen, Callum Robinson, Harry Wilson, Florian Jozefzoon, Ezgjan Alioski.

Please stop peddling the myth that wingers are extinct from the game. 

Playing players like Palmer wide will actually potentialy give less protection to the full back than actual wingers. Chapman for example never left his full back isolated leading to a goal as far as im aware, I felt Mowbray was too cautious with him.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by roversfan99

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I agree that Bennett has a role but yesterday it was too defensive considering the game. Point being you have to offer SOMETHING attacking. Thats my point. You said they have to offer something both attacking and defensive. At the moment, from wide, Bennett only offers defensive capabilities. 

Its a myth that wingers dont exist. To prove it, beyond reproach, here are a list of proper wingers that played in the Championship yesterday, many of whom play on their strong side as very direct wingers:

Albert Adomah, Andre Green, Callum McManaman, Jed Wallace, Craig Noone, Will Buckley, Callum O'Dowda, Niclas Eliasson, Lewis Wing, Jacques Maghoma, Harvey Barnes, Matty Phillips, Gil Dias, Mo Barrow, Jon Taylor, Gwoin Edwards, Grant Ward, Jarrod Bowen, Adam Reach, James McLean, Tom Ince, Sergi Canos, Barry McKay, Bersant Celina, Tom Barkhuizen, Callum Robinson, Harry Wilson, Florian Jozefzoon, Ezgjan Alioski.

Please stop peddling the myth that wingers are extinct from the game. 

Playing players like Palmer wide will actually potentialy give less protection to the full back than actual wingers. Chapman for example never left his full back isolated leading to a goal as far as im aware, I felt Mowbray was too cautious with him.

 

 

That isnt many wingers as such. Just over 1 per team. Did they all play this weekend? Isnt Celina more of a number 10. 

My point is that teams dont play natural width now like 25 years when they did 2 wingers.  We have 2 fine wingers back then. Still Ripley and Wilcox.

I would love to Barrow back here but very unlikely to happen sadly. I did suggest Mckay which you dismiss but he had a good start so far for Swansea. 500k for him was great bargain for them. Shame Rovers didnt for him

Edited August 13, 2018 by chaddyrovers

[Give 'Em the Axe]

12 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Mowbray said yesterday after the game that Rothwell has been having to understand what it requires off the ball, so im not sure thats true at the moment with him. I'm also not convinced that Chapman is a lot more defensively unwilling compared to Armstrong, so I did feel that at times it was unnecessary caution. I dont recall any goals conceded that Chapman cost us due to defensive negligence, so I felt it was an unfair tag that he got. He was a victim of his own success as a sub perhaps. You can iron out defensive problems as you go.

A wide man has to offer at least something of an attacking threat, or you may as well stick a full back there.

Same as. I honestly can't remember seeing any or reading the fury about it on here. However I do recall a couple of occasions where he was rather green and over-eager in possession in defensive areas of the pitch. Giving it away cheaply or attempting to dribble when a pass or clearance would have been more sensible.  Not disagreeing with you as such, more augmenting your point.

I haven't seen near enough of Palmer or Rothwell to gauge whether or not they'd be more defensively solid than Harry.

Admittedly, the signs are there that they aren't.

[rigger]

I would try palmer against Carlisle as the targetman forward to give DG a rest. His ball control is good perhaps he could be an answer to the lack of a forward problem at least if he tries a trick and it doesn't work possession is lost in their defensive area.   

[roversfan99]

7 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

That isnt many wingers as such. Just over 1 per team. Did they all play this weekend? Isnt Celina more of a number 10. 

My point is that teams dont play natural width now like 25 years when they did 2 wingers.  We have 2 fine wingers back then. Still Ripley and Wilcox.

I would love to Barrow back here but very unlikely to happen sadly. I did suggest Mckay which you dismiss but he had a good start so far for Swansea. 500k for him was great bargain for them. Shame Rovers didnt for him

My point was that you said that most teams dont play with natural wingers. I have just researched for you and given you a list proving that the vast majority of teams in the league have at least one natural winger. We would benefit hugely from having the option of at least 1 natural, out and out winger.

Again on your Ripley and Wilcox point, Chapman and many of the wingers listed are more reliant on pace and getting to the byline, rather than crossing from deep, which suits us because we dont play 2 up front so we need to be more inventive in getting the supply right for our striker. Crosses from deep will usually suit 2 big centre backs as we saw.

The discussion was initially about how you said wingers need to be aware of their defensive duties, something I am not convinced Chapman for example he has shown he wont try to do, and obviously would learn further with games. It was a line used last year in my opinion to cover Mowbray at a time when he was over cautious early in the season. I also stated that whilst Bennett is very good defensively, hes not offering anything going forward, something we differ on our standards of.

I didnt dismiss McKay, I agreed that I would have had him here.

[Ossydave]

Looking forward to it, first away of the season for me.

 

We could do with converting draws to wins sooner rather than later and from what I've seen of Hull so far there's nothing to fear, 2-1 Rovers

[chemosabby]

3 hours ago, rigger said:

I would try palmer against Carlisle as the targetman forward to give DG a rest. His ball control is good perhaps he could be an answer to the lack of a forward problem at least if he tries a trick and it doesn't work possession is lost in their defensive area.   

I totally agree. He's obviously talented but has much to learn at the same time. Finding his best position will be crucial or else he will just become an also ran. target man could work,let''s find out

[Bigdoggsteel]

Lets not try and shoehorn anyone else in a position that isn't their natural one. We have Armstrong and Nuttall who can play upfront against Carlisle