Adam Armstrong

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

So you want to move the club best striker in Armstrong wide in front 3 when he already scored 4 goals from the 9 position. Why would anyone do that? 

I wouldn't be changing formation either. This 4-3-3 formation is working and the performances are very good this season. Holtby is in form and Rothwell has produce from the role. 

I would use Dack from the left of the 3 man forward line with Armstrong centre and Dolan right. Plus all this Dack is all back on when he will be back which won't be the next few weeks so why we are so concern about how we get Dack in the team at the point is mooted. Plus Dack is going to need a few under 23''s games aswell, so you are looking at November time before he is available for 1st team selection. We should be performing on players available and get results. If the front 3 keep playing well why would Mowbray drop any of them? 

on the subject of new contract, working for a manager who has develop him and is now playing him in his favour role of striker should count for something, it probably doesn't for most players in current football

 

we have no idea the type of player he will be when he back. He had a set back so I wouldn't be relying on him pre Christmas time. 

I never said that I would play Armstrong wide left in a 3.

I think that Mowbray will put Dack back in, he has regularly mentioned his importance during his absence and you have clearly forgotten quite how good he is. 24 goals in 62 starts at this level. When Mowbray inevitably does put him back in, you will totally agree with the idea anyway!

Theres no way that Dack can play wide either. Armstrong, Dack, Rothwell, Dolan, Rankin Costello, Brereton, Gallagher, Chapman, even Holtby, the most important 2 out of all of them are the first 2, the 2 are the goal scorers that can set us apart. The thing Mowbray needs to do is build the team to ensure that both of them

How that happens, I am still unsure. Does it come within the 4-3-3, and if so, how? The 2 options would be Armstrong coming in from the left to the centre with Dack as a false 9, the second option would be Dack and Holtby in front of a sitter, Armstrong still central. I am very skeptical about both of those options. 

Maybe 4-2-3-1? That is beneficial because Armstrong can play as a striker and Dack in his favourite position. We can still play similar tactics, high press, possession based etc, but we have a secondary big goal threat, and also Armstrong has a better source of creativity in Dack. Still scope for Rothwell, Dolan etc from the 2 wider roles, maybe the biggest problem would be Holtby although why couldnt he play in a 2 with a sitter, maybe Evans until Travis returns? Really all that has happened is that the shape of the central three has been tweaked.

I also think that you are overplaying the success of the 4-3-3. We have won one and lost one in both League and Cup, having not picked up many points last year with it. Not saying that we shouldnt continue with it for the time being but the importance of Dack outweighs the importance and success of this formation. We have to maybe have a bit of trial and error but the potential rewards should we get Dack and Armstrong firing together are enormous.

I have never suggested that we need to rush Dack back, when he will be back, but it is likely that he will return this season at some point. When it suited your agenda, he was the player with the mystery (and seemingly fictional) £10m bid over him, why would anyone bid for a player who is not going to play any time soon to the point that his return shouldnt even be considered?!

You are incapable of viewing Armstrongs position without blue and white glasses on. He is a player who's stock is rising and is at a club that has yet to demonstrate the ability to push for promotion. If he has any ambition, he will be working towards becoming a Premier League player and challenging himself, and of course enjoying the added wealth that he will bring. He would be crazy to agree to tie away potentially his key years and weaken any negotiating position should a bigger club come in for him, solely on the notion that he is been promised to play in his favourite position. If we are outside the play offs and a Premier League offered for him in January, you would be deluded to think that he wouldnt want to go.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

we have no idea the type of player he will be when he back.

Say what? He's not coming back as a centre half. He'll be a goal scoring AM like he always has been. 

[Blue blood]

23 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Say what? He's not coming back as a centre half. He'll be a goal scoring AM like he always has been. 

Now, now, lets not use logic. 

4-3-3 does raise questions as to where Dack plays in the system. But you should realise it's apparently wrong to question the club on anything really. 

[roversfan99]

If Mowbray had said when bringing in the 4-3-3 that it was a temporary adjustment and that we would revert back 4-2-3-1 once Dack returns I suspect the rhetoric would be very different.

As it is, he hasnt said if he sees this as our permanent formation, or a temporary one in Dacks absence, so it is difficult to try and second guess him and thus the only thing left to do is put the problem off, downplay his importance and go off on a tangent implying that merely debating what we do when our best player returns is trying to rush him back and even making out that he could be a shell of a player or that we are about to sell him anyway!

[SBlue]

I could see Dack being effective anywhere in the front 3, but we need to reserve the central berth for Arma.

Worth a go at least, if we aren’t getting the best out of both of them when he returns then we may have to think again.

[Stuart]

1 hour ago, S8 & Blue said:

I could see Dack being effective anywhere in the front 3, but we need to reserve the central berth for Arma.

Worth a go at least, if we aren’t getting the best out of both of them when he returns then we may have to think again.

Struggling to see Armstrong, Dolan and Dack in the same line up. Unless Arma or Dolan are played out wide and Brereton and Gallagher are both dropped. Or JRC becomes our left back and we play 4-3-3.

A bid above £10m for Arma might just take that headache away...

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, S8 & Blue said:

I could see Dack being effective anywhere in the front 3, but we need to reserve the central berth for Arma.

Worth a go at least, if we aren’t getting the best out of both of them when he returns then we may have to think again.

It definitely might take some trial and error but the potential reward to get 2 goalscorers and our 2 best players working in tandem would be huge.

I do think though that Dack is the least capable of playing from anywhere but a central role. If 4-3-3 is very much a constant, I would have to put Armstrong from the left and Dack central. Because Dack is unlikely to remain right up front, there would be a natural avenue for Armstrong to run inside and get goals when Dack gets involved perhaps with his back to goal. When Armstrong played wide in the 4-2-3-1, it was essentially playing with a second striker instead of a midfielder, and the way we played was rigid so it meant that there was far more responsibility defensively for him and also far more necessity for him to stay wide. The way we are currently playing I think would mean that he would be able to go central and link with Dack far more often, he would have that third central midfielder to help in terms of covering the full back, and we could perhaps have a wider player ie Dolan, Chapman or Brereton asked to stay wider on the other side.

If that did happen, it wouldnt necessary be side-lining Dack. I bet he would enjoy having Dack working with him.

I do also have misgivings about Dack as a false 9 to be honest, so I would potentially lead towards the 4-2-3-1 with Armstrong up front, but of course aligned with our current high press and developing style.

I think that if you asked Mowbray now what his team would be, everyone fully fit, and its a guess of course, I think it would be Armstrong to the left, Dack down the middle, Gallagher right.

[chaddyrovers]

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I never said that I would play Armstrong wide left in a 3.

Suggested you look at the team in posted in the best team thread. where you have put Armstrong on the left of the front 3 with Dack centre. is this incorrect?

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

How that happens, I am still unsure. Does it come within the 4-3-3, and if so, how?

I posted how I would play Dack from the left of the front 3 or in the midfield 3 like his days at Gillingham days where he scored goals and assists. So if Dack plays from the left doesn't mean he is stuck wide but can roam from there and allowing our full back to overlap just like we currently are doing now with our full backs. 

 

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I also think that you are overplaying the success of the 4-3-3.

why? cos you say so. We dominated at Newcastle and should have beaten them as Bruce even said post match. Plus We lost at Bournemouth but we weren't outclassed by them and deserved at least a point. The formation isn't the reason we lost either game but not taking our chances. But when you look at the formation, its working as you have got Holtby and Rothwell in centre midfield with a holding midfielder in Johnson or Travis or Evans. It allowing us more control of the games and currently working very well. 

[roversfan99]

8 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Suggested you look at the team in posted in the best team thread. where you have put Armstrong on the left of the front 3 with Dack centre. is this incorrect?

I posted how I would play Dack from the left of the front 3 or in the midfield 3 like his days at Gillingham days where he scored goals and assists. So if Dack plays from the left doesn't mean he is stuck wide but can roam from there and allowing our full back to overlap just like we currently are doing now with our full backs. 

 

why? cos you say so. We dominated at Newcastle and should have beaten them as Bruce even said post match. Plus We lost at Bournemouth but we weren't outclassed by them and deserved at least a point. The formation isn't the reason we lost either game but not taking our chances. But when you look at the formation, its working as you have got Holtby and Rothwell in centre midfield with a holding midfielder in Johnson or Travis or Evans. It allowing us more control of the games and currently working very well. 

I put Armstrong in the team on the left on the assumption that we have to play 433 but we dont hence why my chosen team was 4231. It is for me the best way to favour our 2 best players.

Im guessing that you didnt regularly watch the mighty Gillingham but Dack is obviously a central player based on his time here and his skillset is not as focused on pace as Armstrong. We could use the concepts of not staying wide and full back overlapping (although if that is Bell then we are struggling) with either player wide. I am not expecting Armstrong to hug the touchline but play inside running into the space in behind. 

Where is the team that you posted that you would play?

You get what you deserve in football and ultimately, whilst I am not saying that we should stop playing it, the results/points per game since we started playing it is not very impressive. Until we start picking up regular wins with it the jury will be out. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by roversfan99

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

I put Armstrong in the team on the left on the assumption that we have to play 433 but we dont hence why my chosen team was 4231.

Im guessing that you didnt regularly watch the mighty Gillingham but Dack is obviously a central player and his skillset is not as focused on pace as Armstrong. We could use the concepts of not staying wide and full back overlapping (although if that is Bell then we are struggling) with either player wide. 

You get what you deserve in football and ultimately, whilst I am not saying that we should stop playing it, the results/points per game since we started playing it is not very impressive.

I don't want to change the formation as it suits Rothwell and Holtby in the middle 3. 

Not bothered about last season results as we are playing the 4-3-3 formation very different now to then. Armstrong up front, Dolan and and Brereton as part of the front 3. With Holtby and Rothwell in the middle 3 with Johnson/Travis sitting. Do you accept this? 

 

[roversfan99]

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I don't want to change the formation as it suits Rothwell and Holtby in the middle 3. 

Not bothered about last season results as we are playing the 4-3-3 formation very different now to then. Armstrong up front, Dolan and and Brereton as part of the front 3. With Holtby and Rothwell in the middle 3 with Johnson/Travis sitting. Do you accept this? 

 

Rothwell has only had one good game centrally v Wycombe so I dont agree that we should be building the team specifically around him. Holtby I think maybe you have a point but if suiting Holtby meant not playing Dack, it is not worth it as Dack is more important and besides, there is nothing to stop Holtbt playing in a 2.

Can you understand why I cant fathom why you are reluctant to confirm that Dack is a brilliant player for us and has to play?

I dont feel like you are committing to an answer on Dack when fit being in the team. I think that like with Downing, you are waiting to see what Mowbray does first. 433 has only been played without Dack therefore we have no idea what Mowbray will do but I would be amazed if when fully fit, Dack did not go back into the team. If i had to guess, he will go back to playing a false 9 and have Armstrong and Gallagher either side. 

We have to strive to get Dack in. I couldnt get my head around it if I saw Dack, a regular goalscorer and excellent Championship player sat on the bench whilst Brereton, Rothwell and Dolan played.

[chaddyrovers]

20 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Rothwell has only had one good game centrally v Wycombe so I dont agree that we should be building the team specifically around him. Holtby I think maybe you have a point but if suiting Holtby meant not playing Dack, it is not worth it as Dack is more important and besides, there is nothing to stop Holtby playing in a 2.

Can you understand why I cant fathom why you are reluctant to confirm that Dack is a brilliant player for us and has to play?

I dont feel like you are committing to an answer on Dack when fit being in the team. I think that like with Downing, you are waiting to see what Mowbray does first. 433 has only been played without Dack therefore we have no idea what Mowbray will do but I would be amazed if when fully fit, Dack did not go back into the team. If i had to guess, he will go back to playing a false 9 and have Armstrong and Gallagher either side. 

We have to strive to get Dack in. I couldnt get my head around it if I saw Dack, a regular goalscorer and excellent Championship player sat on the bench whilst Brereton, Rothwell and Dolan played.

Have I said Dack isn't a brilliant player?

But he doesn't have to play but must earn his place in the team especially if the team is playing well and getting results without him. You seem to want to bring in back into the team without earning in. If Rothwell, Dolan and Brereton are performing and winning games/producing results why would you change a winning formula? 

I have just told you where I would play Dack. Either on the left in front 3 or in the middle 3 but not in the false 9. But Armstrong stays up front in the 9 role and not wide. Armstrong record as striker is excellent and him going up front has resulted in 16 goals in 26 games in 2020 compare to 15 goals in 74 games before 2020 for us since signing permanent here. Or 5 goals in 3 starts and 1 sub appearance. Why wouldn't you want him up front? He is striker and not a wide player

If anyone is second guessing Mowbray it is yourself by playing Dack up front and Armstrong wide. Something I wouldn't do. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by chaddyrovers

[roversfan99]

11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Have I said Dack isn't a brilliant player?

But he doesn't have to play but must earn his place in the team especially if the team is playing well and getting results without him. You seem to want to bring in back into the team without earning in. If Rothwell, Dolan and Brereton are performing and winning games/producing results why would you change a winning formula? 

I have just told you where I would play Dack. Either on the left in front 3 or in the middle 3 but not in the false 9. But Armstrong stays up front in the 9 role and not wide. Armstrong record as striker is excellent and him going up front has resulted in 16 goals in 26 games in 2020 compare to 15 goals in 74 games before 2020 for us since signing permanent here. Why wouldn't you want him up front? He is striker and not a wide player

If anyone is second guessing Mowbray it is yourself by playing Dack up front and Armstrong wide. Something I wouldn't do. 

Without earning it? We arent a better team without him on the back of one solitary win. Dack is a very, very good Championship player. Once them 3 players start scoring and assisting like Dack did, then fair enough.

My suggestion is 4231 with the 2 of them down the middle scoring plenty of goals. If you want to wait to see what Mowbray does then fair enough. It might take a bit of compromise but there has to be a way. Our best team when fit doesnt have our best player on the bench.

[chaddyrovers]

29 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Without earning it? We arent a better team without him on the back of one solitary win. Dack is a very, very good Championship player. Once them 3 players start scoring and assisting like Dack did, then fair enough.

My suggestion is 4231 with the 2 of them down the middle scoring plenty of goals. If you want to wait to see what Mowbray does then fair enough. It might take a bit of compromise but there has to be a way. Our best team when fit doesnt have our best player on the bench.

 

Of course any player has to earn their place in the team. Under yourself, you wouldnt then? So if Rothwell, Holtby, Brereton, Dolan are producing the goods and playing well and Rovers winning games you are drop one for Dack then? 

It's based on 4 games this season where 4-3-3 has worked for us by playing it differently from last season something you refuse to even accept? Do you accept this now? No false 9, Armstrong up front, Holtby deeper. 

I not waiting for Mowbray tho. I've said to yourself several times I would play Dack on left of front 3. How is that waiting for Mowbray? Can you answer this very basic question.

It's yourself who is second guessing Mowbray by saying you play Dack as false 9 in our current formation. And move our main striker who is scoring goals for fun wide.

No way on earth would I move him wide. Keep Armstrong up front and he score 25 goals and fire us to top 6 in my opinion

Edited September 20, 2020 by chaddyrovers

[JacknOry]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Have I said Dack isn't a brilliant player?

But he doesn't have to play but must earn his place in the team especially if the team is playing well and getting results without him. You seem to want to bring in back into the team without earning in. If Rothwell, Dolan and Brereton are performing and winning games/producing results why would you change a winning formula? 

I have just told you where I would play Dack. Either on the left in front 3 or in the middle 3 but not in the false 9. But Armstrong stays up front in the 9 role and not wide. Armstrong record as striker is excellent and him going up front has resulted in 16 goals in 26 games in 2020 compare to 15 goals in 74 games before 2020 for us since signing permanent here. Or 5 goals in 3 starts and 1 sub appearance. Why wouldn't you want him up front? He is striker and not a wide player

If anyone is second guessing Mowbray it is yourself by playing Dack up front and Armstrong wide. Something I wouldn't do. 

Dack has to earn it? Sorry Chaddy but that is a joke comment. You were claiming we would have been in the playoffs if Dack was not injured but now he has to earn a place in our team? He is our most valuable player and our best player in recent seasons. Generally, you put your best player in the team. 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

5 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

So if Rothwell, Holtby, Brereton, Dolan are producing the goods

Good one.

5 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I would play Dack on left of front 3

Dack out wide? Crazy

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Why wouldn't you want him (Armstrong) up front? He is striker and not a wide player

 He's more of a wide player than Dack. 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

But he doesn't have to play but must earn his place in the team especially if the team is playing well and getting results without him. You seem to want to bring in back into the team without earning in.

Silly comment. It's like saying Shearer shouldn't have come back into the team after his cruciate injury. He was our best player and main goal threat just as Dack (along with AA) is now. You don't leave goals out of the side. And no-one can say the new 4-3-3 is a success as it hasn't been used enough to judge. So far we haven't won many games whilst using it. A win against Wycombe is indicative of very little and since Dack has been injured our record of winning games is generally poor. 

[roversfan99]

8 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Dack has to earn it? Sorry Chaddy but that is a joke comment. You were claiming we would have been in the playoffs if Dack was not injured but now he has to earn a place in our team? He is our most valuable player and our best player in recent seasons. Generally, you put your best player in the team. 

Bang on regarding the argument that Dacks injury supposedly stopped us from getting into the play offs!

Armstrong and Dack are the 2 attackers we build around and play to the strengths of. Until Brereton, Gallagher, Chapman, Dolan, Rothwell, Rankin Costello etc start scoring goals as regularly as them 2 do, then ultimately they are not as important and are not going to stop Dack from coming back in.

[chaddyrovers]

Armstrong has been involved in most goals in 2020 in the top tier of English football.  

Rovers and Mowbray must get Armstrong on a long term deal. 

 

 

[LeftWinger]

On 21/09/2020 at 06:18, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

...and since Dack has been injured our record of winning games is generally poor. 

Last season:

With Dack: W9 D5 L9

Without Dack: W9 D7 L10

Not much of a difference with or without him.

[roversfan99]

I cant see realistically how unless we go up or unless Armstrong suddenly dips in his goal tally, that he will be here next season.

[philipl]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Armstrong has been involved in most goals in 2020 in the top tier of English football.  

Rovers and Mowbray must get Armstrong on a long term deal. 

 

 

That is incredible considering how early we exited the Cups.

[Mattyblue]

Feck the left back, get that window closed!

[joey_big_nose]

I think Tony will try Dack initially in a 433 as a false nine with Armstrong on the left and Dolan on the right. He'll be keen to keep the improved performances 433 seems to have brought out of Johnson, Rothwell, Holtby and the team generally.

If 433 doesn't work for Dack I am sure we will then iterate a bit to find something that does work. I can't see Dack playing wide personally - he's far more a goal scorer than a winger. Probably a move to 4231 or 4411 could be on the cards. But we could end up in a position where what we gain from Dack we lose from others.

It is interesting, that someone else posted, losing Dack did not really impact our results much last year. There could be an argument for dropping Dack if we are playing better without him.

It's certainly true that in terms of players important to Rovers Dack is probably on number 4 (1. Armstrong, 2. Lenihan, 3. Kaminski). 

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, joey_big_nose said:

I think Tony will try Dack initially in a 433 as a false nine with Armstrong on the left and Dolan on the right. He'll be keen to keep the improved performances 433 seems to have brought out of Johnson, Rothwell, Holtby and the team generally.

If 433 doesn't work for Dack I am sure we will then iterate a bit to find something that does work. I can't see Dack playing wide personally - he's far more a goal scorer than a winger. Probably a move to 4231 or 4411 could be on the cards. But we could end up in a position where what we gain from Dack we lose from others.

It is interesting, that someone else posted, losing Dack did not really impact our results much last year. There could be an argument for dropping Dack if we are playing better without him.

It's certainly true that in terms of players important to Rovers Dack is probably on number 4 (1. Armstrong, 2. Lenihan, 3. Kaminski). 

The main reason why Dack's goal input wasnt missed in terms of points was that Armstrong started scoring goals at a similar rate, but I dont think that there is a reason why both cant score regularly together. Also of course, we picked up more points during that time with our defence looking stronger with Adarabioyo next to Lenihan too.

They have never really played together centrally and ultimately Dack has never played within a team that is trying to play football. I have seen suggestions that he wont be as effective without Graham but Dack is technically very good, he can press and obviously he can finish, if anything playing more on the ground might suit him.

Obviously if there is no scope to move away from the 4-3-3, then there might be an element of compromise in terms of the positions of our main 2 attackers, but I think Dack's importance and quality is on par with Armstrong and its easy to forget how good he is. Ultimately it makes sense to do all we can to get them 2 working in the same team because compared to all of our other attackers, Brereton, Gallagher, Chapman, Rankin Costello, Dolan, Rothwell etc, those 2 are in a league of their own, they are not only far more productive than them but they are more productive than the majority of attackers in the league.

I think 4-2-3-1 will probably be best just because you have to play to suit your best players. But if we kept the 4-3-3, the options are Dack wide which for me should be instantly discarded. Armstrong from the left and Dack as a false 9, sceptical about that, I think Armstrong could potentially still be very effective and wouldnt have much defensive responsibility in that system. Or you could try Dack where Rothwell played last time, Dack is obviously far more productive than Rothwell although the main fear would be that he would be too deep.

I think its a bit of a myth that we are playing better without him, the results dont suggest we are but we have to move heaven and earth to build the team to get both Armstrong and Dack together.