Thursday deadline.

[chaddyrovers]

10 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I can imagine I wont be the only frustrated fan if he reverts from a successful formation to one that in the main, had more questions than answers last season.

Last night was the first time Mowbray could play what he considered to be his best team, and he played 4-2-3-1, so im hoping he has learnt from his mistakes.

Bell is a left back, he was playing there at Fleetwood. Equally capable as a wing back granted but hardly proof that hes the catalyst for reverting to 3 at the back.

He played Bennett at full back last season because Nyambe was injured, and at full back, not wing back so thats a strange example.

Nyambe is never a wing back in a million years. Hes suited to full back as hes far better defensively than he is going forward.

Mulgrew would be the middle of the 3, therefore the least able to step out. When we played it the other season he was on the left which gave him license to move out knowing there was a defender in the middle as cover.

Lenihan is not a ball playing defender by any means and neither is Williams so im not sure they are suited to that formation either.

Otherwise, we should play 3 at the back...

Bell was used as wing back at Fleetwood in 3-5-2 system.

Us being able to play 2 different systems is very useful to us. Make us less adaptable and give us different options

Just now, Bbrovers2288 said:

Newcastle away to Portugal and have left Armstrong at home, looks like he is moving, hopefully to us. Rafa also wanting to move Aaron’s on, would be a great double swoop

Lets hope so..

[roversfan99]

Just now, bluebruce said:

Lenihan's original position was as a central midfielder. We adapted him to CH. Mulgrew has played quite a lot of his career in central midfield I think? At one point it looked like his best position for us and many fans wanted another CH so we could push him upfield. I may be misremembering, but I thought I'd read before that Williams started out as a centre half too.

Sometimes a player is actually suited to a different position, sometimes to everyone's surprise. I remember Emerton being better at RB when we moved him there, though we had bought him as a RW.

Not to say you're wrong on this lad, and I'm a round pegs for round holes guy in the main, but sometimes things aren't that simple.

I definitely agree with you on how players can actually take their games up a level when they play in positions that arent at that point where they are best known. We signed Armstrong last season as a striker and I would argue that playing wide actually benefited him, and I would consider him a winger more than a centre forward now. (although that may have been the balance of him, Dack and Graham that caused it to be so successful) I agree with your examples as well, I have always been firmly of the opinion that both are far more suited to defence.

However, my point was more aimed at how if you have the freedom of the transfer market, it would make little sense that when theres a specific position that you are looking for, ie winger, that if you can only sign one player, you sign a player who naturally plays in a different position, but "can" play in the position you need.

Thats why my appraisal on the Palmer signing, a player who I definitely rate quality wise, is partially dependant on who else accompanies him in before the window closes. If its Palmer AND a winger and striker, then id be very happy, if it wasnt, then id be puzzled.

A good example of that is last season at Everton. They signed 3 number 10s, Sigurdsson, who can also play left, Rooney, who can also play as a striker, and Klassen, who can also play deeper in central midfield. Everyone praised them for the 3 signings, who took up the majority of the budget. They tried to get Rooney and Sigurdsson at least in the same team, but with no width or focal point after Lukaku had left, their imbalanced squad struggled before Big Sam signed Walcott, got Bolasie back and signed Tosun. Dack, Palmer and Rothwell might seem like a case of you can never have too much quality, but only if signing all of these at once isnt at the cost of the balance of the rest of the attack.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

11 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

How did that work out for England ? And that was with 3 so called mega stars playing that role.

Semi final of World Cup !

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Bell was used as wing back at Fleetwood in 3-5-2 system.

Us being able to play 2 different systems is very useful to us. Make us less adaptable and give us different options

Lets hope so..

He played in both formations I believe. Equally comfortable as a full back or wing back.

The reasons that I dont want us to play 3 at the back are as follows:

- We had far more success under 4 at the back last season, was a big part of our 18 match unbeaten run, please see below article for evidence:

https://roverschat.com/will-three-be-the-magic-number/

- I feel it doesnt suit quite a few of our players, please see my post above.

- I feel like 3 at the back is quite an advanced formation that is not suitable to be alternated with another, rather a formation that a team needs to be expertly and continuously drilled on.

 

[Doaksie]

18 minutes ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

Newcastle away to Portugal and have left Armstrong at home, looks like he is moving, hopefully to us. Rafa also wanting to move Aaron’s on, would be a great double swoop

Graham up top, Palmer, Dack and Arma behind. Davenport and Benno holding. I would be happy with that, but we do need a little more depth to it. Namely the man at the top of the tree. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Doaksie
Being an idiot

[roversfan99]

Just now, Doaksie said:

Graham up top, Palmer, Dack and Arma behind. Rothwell and Benno holding. I would be happy with that, but we do need a little more depth to it. Namely the man at the top of the tree. 

Front 4 would be excellent. Lovely mix to it. Smallwood and Evans central for me though.

[Doaksie]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Front 4 would be excellent. Lovely mix to it. Smallwood and Evans central for me though.

You could make a case for all 4 of them. And even more at a push. I can't recall the last time we had that luxury in the centre of the pitch. 

[roversfan99]

Just now, Doaksie said:

You could make a case for all 4 of them. And even more at a push. I can't recall the last time we had that luxury in the centre of the pitch. 

Not sure on Rothwell, think he is more attacking. That said, agreed with Davenport and Whittingham also options.

[Doaksie]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Not sure on Rothwell, think he is more attacking. That said, agreed with Davenport and Whittingham also options.

I actually meant Davenport with Bennett. It's been a long day! Kind of highlights the point though. I have a sneaky feeling Whitingham will offer more this year in this division also. You could throw Tomlinson and Travis's names in the ring as adequate cover also. A nice problem for Tony. 

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

However, my point was more aimed at how if you have the freedom of the transfer market, it would make little sense that when theres a specific position that you are looking for, ie winger, that if you can only sign one player, you sign a player who naturally plays in a different position, but "can" play in the position you need.

Thats why my appraisal on the Palmer signing, a player who I definitely rate quality wise, is partially dependant on who else accompanies him in before the window closes. If its Palmer AND a winger and striker, then id be very happy, if it wasnt, then id be puzzled.

Don't worry, I got your point, and it was a very good post. I will be similarly questioning it if we don't bring at least one dedicated wide player in. Just saying, sometimes all is not as it seems and the manager may have another idea, which could be better than our ideas. Henry was playing on the wing until Arsenal bought him. You said you saw him at Huddersfield in the central role, but I haven't seen anyone say where he played at Derby, or in Chelsea youth.

We will just have to see. Even if Palmer was an out and out winger (or given how we play, an 'inside forward') I'd still be expecting another. We are threadbare there.

[Blueandwhitemike]

 

Hopefully, Palmer is good out wide and TM isn't thinking of trying the dreaded Doncaster home game system of  3-4-2-1 with two '10's which was plain awful.

Given the way almost all players played 90 minutes last night in a 4-2-3-1  I  think(hope) this will be the main system.   I  don't mind once in a  while switching to three at some point in a game to tighten up or get two up top but don't want to see us starting like that.

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

I can imagine I wont be the only frustrated fan if he reverts from a successful formation to one that in the main, had more questions than answers last season.

Last night was the first time Mowbray could play what he considered to be his best team, and he played 4-2-3-1, so im hoping he has learnt from his mistakes.

Bell is a left back, he was playing there at Fleetwood. Equally capable as a wing back granted but hardly proof that hes the catalyst for reverting to 3 at the back.

He played Bennett at full back last season because Nyambe was injured, and at full back, not wing back so thats a strange example.

Nyambe is never a wing back in a million years. Hes suited to full back as hes far better defensively than he is going forward.

Mulgrew would be the middle of the 3, therefore the least able to step out. When we played it the other season he was on the left which gave him license to move out knowing there was a defender in the middle as cover.

Lenihan is not a ball playing defender by any means and neither is Williams so im not sure they are suited to that formation either.

Otherwise, we should play 3 at the back...

You're a fanny hair off becoming a parody of yourself. Some questions;

1. You admit that Mowbray deployed a successful formation at some point, when was this exactly? 

2. What mistakes did Mowbray make in his decisions on formation in our 3-0 victory against one of few teams that haven't been out of the top flight in Lord knows how many years and have just spent £50m on one player? 

 

 

[roversfan99]

10 minutes ago, CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber said:

You're a fanny hair off becoming a parody of yourself. Some questions;

1. You admit that Mowbray deployed a successful formation at some point, when was this exactly? 

2. What mistakes did Mowbray make in his decisions on formation in our 3-0 victory against one of few teams that haven't been out of the top flight in Lord knows how many years and have just spent £50m on one player? 

 

 

What? My point was, Mowbray played 4-2-3-1 for the majority of last season when we got 96 points. We tried 3 at the back a couple of times and he reverted back to 4 straight away each time.

I never said Mowbray made any mistakes against Everton. My point was that it was the first time in pre season that the players were playing 90 minutes, and he picked his strongest available team. He chose to pick said strongest team in a 4-2-3-1 formation. Suggesting thats his first choice formation, potentially anyway. The players all looked comfortable and knew their role, and it was only a friendly but they all look very well drilled.

The points I made about Mulgrew, Nyambe and Bell were all hypothetical. Reasons why I personally think the 3 at the back formation doesnt suit our current squad. 

Either youve totally misunderstood my point, or that response has totally confused me. I wasnt criticising Mowbray, I was responding to posters who suggest that they think we will play 3 at the back, saying that I dont think we should. I also expect, especially after yesterdays game, that Mowbray will start the season playing 4-2-3-1. My post was in no way criticising Mowbray.

Edited July 27, 2018 by roversfan99

[Miker]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

The points I made about Mulgrew, Nyambe and Bell were all hypothetical. Reasons why I personally think the 3 at the back formation doesnt suit our current squad. 

Personally I think Mowbray has signed versatile players and we have versatility throughout the squad to play both formations well. I don’t really see that as an issue. We had bad games last season playing 3 at the back, but we also had some fantastic games playing it as well.

I’m sure Mowbray will play whatever system he feels best suits the game and the players available at the time, and sometimes it will come off and sometimes it won’t. What impressed me about Mowbray last season is he knew when things weren’t working and could change it around to great effect (not always, but more often than not).

[Paul Mani]

I think it’s pretty clear that TM would love to play three at the back. (3-4-1-2) But systems depend on context. Three at the back is perfect if you are having to defend and then break on teams. Your three becomes five with two sat in front of it. Then when you attack, the wing backs get forward and you can overload the opposition in midfield with forward runners. Sheff United play this perfectly. The main problem last year was that we had too much possession and teams sat back which leaves you susceptible to the counter attack when you have three at the back. Hence why teams like Man City don’t play it.

I do feel that those who are desperate to see ‘natural wingers’ are likely to be disappointed as neither system (3-4-1-2) or (4-2-3-1) utilises wingers in a traditional way.

Even the likes of Chapman and Conway who could be classed as ‘natural wingers’ were used on the left instead of the right. This is because ‘wide’ players are now expected to sit 15yrds off the byline in ‘the hole’ between fullback and cb. Their roles have changed from getting chalk on their boots to forwards who are encouraged to drift out to inside the box as oppose to the traditional in to out. This leaves space out wide for the fullbacks to attack in order to create an overload. Mowbray played Armstrong, Samuel, Antonsson and Payne in those wide attacking positions last season. None of them are considered wingers. 

I agree that we need players who can carry the ball with pace in those attacking areas (hence the Palmer signing). But ultimately I think he wants fluidity in those attacking roles not out and out wingers.

[RoversClitheroe]

Major withdrawal symptoms without brfcs lol

[Ruaney]

7 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Major withdrawal symptoms without brfcs lol

I have missed my daily dose of misery.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

14 hours ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

Semi final of World Cup !

Yeah and how well did we play getting there ? I would suggest that those three were the major reason we didn't get any further. It's like any system, you need a system that suits the skill set of the players. It doesn't work the other way around.

[tomphil]

19 hours ago, imy9 said:

Isn't our wage bill effectively HALF that? With the added problem of wages rising and transfer fees being mad too.

It is now allegedly although the football squad wage bill and overall wage bill probably don't tally very well but they never have under Vs but that's a different argument.

I'm just saying that income v outgoing is able to be balanced and still be successful if it's done correctly although that means doing it bit by bit.

Not sure if the dingles income was still boosted by parachutes then ? It maybe was but we are rebuilding now after getting a load of mess weighing it down off the books.. again allegedly, oh and a raft of big money sales with no re-investment until last summer. 

No one can argue I don't think that theirs is the model we need to follow, they still had a lot of helping hands from their directors which gave them an advantage over others at times despite what they might say but then they most certainly took it back with interest once they got to the promised land. Fair enough from owners that as long as they don't take the piss and bleed it dry.

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by tomphil

[Ricky]

Pilkington, Tomlin and Bogle all play for Cardiff U23 at Hereford today. I know it’s been mentioned that they are looking like the main ones that Cardiff want to shift. Would we take any of them?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

9 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

I think it’s pretty clear that TM would love to play three at the back. (3-4-1-2) But systems depend on context. Three at the back is perfect if you are having to defend and then break on teams. Your three becomes five with two sat in front of it. Then when you attack, the wing backs get forward and you can overload the opposition in midfield with forward runners. Sheff United play this perfectly. The main problem last year was that we had too much possession and teams sat back which leaves you susceptible to the counter attack when you have three at the back. Hence why teams like Man City don’t play it.

I do feel that those who are desperate to see ‘natural wingers’ are likely to be disappointed as neither system (3-4-1-2) or (4-2-3-1) utilises wingers in a traditional way.

Even the likes of Chapman and Conway who could be classed as ‘natural wingers’ were used on the left instead of the right. This is because ‘wide’ players are now expected to sit 15yrds off the byline in ‘the hole’ between fullback and cb. Their roles have changed from getting chalk on their boots to forwards who are encouraged to drift out to inside the box as oppose to the traditional in to out. This leaves space out wide for the fullbacks to attack in order to create an overload. Mowbray played Armstrong, Samuel, Antonsson and Payne in those wide attacking positions last season. None of them are considered wingers. 

I agree that we need players who can carry the ball with pace in those attacking areas (hence the Palmer signing). But ultimately I think he wants fluidity in those attacking roles not out and out wingers.

It's all very well if your wing backs are good attacking players and can do the job. If they're  just trundlers you've got a problem. I like Nyambe but he's not a great attacking player. Enough said about Caddis. Williams isn't much better going forward and I haven't seen enough of Bell to form an opinion. Bennett is good out there but he's good in other positions also.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Tom]

4 minutes ago, Ricky said:

Pilkington, Tomlin and Bogle all play for Cardiff U23 at Hereford today. I know it’s been mentioned that they are looking like the main ones that Cardiff want to shift. Would we take any of them?

Think Bogle could still do a job, not progressed as expected mind 

[roversfan99]

12 hours ago, Miker said:

Personally I think Mowbray has signed versatile players and we have versatility throughout the squad to play both formations well. I don’t really see that as an issue. We had bad games last season playing 3 at the back, but we also had some fantastic games playing it as well.

I’m sure Mowbray will play whatever system he feels best suits the game and the players available at the time, and sometimes it will come off and sometimes it won’t. What impressed me about Mowbray last season is he knew when things weren’t working and could change it around to great effect (not always, but more often than not).

I cant remember when we had "fantastic games" under it to be honest, and statistically we were better playing as a four, as it suits our players better. 

I personally think we will start the season in a 4-2-3-1, and I hope it offers us the same success that it did last year.

9 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

I think it’s pretty clear that TM would love to play three at the back. (3-4-1-2) But systems depend on context. Three at the back is perfect if you are having to defend and then break on teams. Your three becomes five with two sat in front of it. Then when you attack, the wing backs get forward and you can overload the opposition in midfield with forward runners. Sheff United play this perfectly. The main problem last year was that we had too much possession and teams sat back which leaves you susceptible to the counter attack when you have three at the back. Hence why teams like Man City don’t play it.

I do feel that those who are desperate to see ‘natural wingers’ are likely to be disappointed as neither system (3-4-1-2) or (4-2-3-1) utilises wingers in a traditional way.

Even the likes of Chapman and Conway who could be classed as ‘natural wingers’ were used on the left instead of the right. This is because ‘wide’ players are now expected to sit 15yrds off the byline in ‘the hole’ between fullback and cb. Their roles have changed from getting chalk on their boots to forwards who are encouraged to drift out to inside the box as oppose to the traditional in to out. This leaves space out wide for the fullbacks to attack in order to create an overload. Mowbray played Armstrong, Samuel, Antonsson and Payne in those wide attacking positions last season. None of them are considered wingers. 

I agree that we need players who can carry the ball with pace in those attacking areas (hence the Palmer signing). But ultimately I think he wants fluidity in those attacking roles not out and out wingers.

Its a myth that there are no wingers out there who like to get chalk on their boots. I provided a list of wingers at this level who like to get wide and stretch the play.  We would be in a minority if we went into the season without a natural winger. I felt that Chapman was always more of a threat on the right personally, when he was on the left his pace could be nullified more easily. 

Again, I appreciate the comments about fluidity within attacking positions. And also about the different roles the wider attacking midfielders can play, in particular in the 4-2-3-1 that I hope we play, due to previous successes. Naturally more central attacking midfielders such as Palmer (and Payne last year), natural strikers such as Samuel (and Armstrong and Antonsson last year) and also more defensively minded wingers such as Bennett. (who I think needs to do a lot more going forward than he did last year, when he didnt offer enough)

However, having said all that, I feel we will be missing a lot by not having 1 or 2 natural wingers within our armoury. There will be plenty of times when a combination of 2 of Palmer, Rothwell, Samuel, Bennett and Conway will lead to us being predictable. 

 

[roversfan99]

7 minutes ago, Ricky said:

Pilkington, Tomlin and Bogle all play for Cardiff U23 at Hereford today. I know it’s been mentioned that they are looking like the main ones that Cardiff want to shift. Would we take any of them?

Nah. Tomlin too similar to what we already have. Pilkington not the type of player we need either, too slow to give us anything different. Bogle just shite.

[Stuart]

42 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Nah. Tomlin too similar to what we already have. Pilkington not the type of player we need either, too slow to give us anything different. Bogle just shite.

Yeah. Tomlin is too much like Tomlinson for my liking as well.