Adam Armstrong

[47er]

9 hours ago, OnePhilT said:

Our best performances have come from playing 1 up front with 2 wide attackers. I can't see Mowbray going for 2 up front. If he does, I suspect that means the dreaded 3-5-2 formation. I'm expecting Arma to be playing as a wide attacker, and not up front.

I agree! I only brought up 3-5-2 because it seems to tie in with TM's signings, not because I want it.

[joey_big_nose]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Different league now. Our squad now and with signings already made it suggest to me 4-2-3-1 should be main formation. No reason why you play Armstrong for the last 10/15 mins of games tho. He played this wide forward role excellent and with finishing, pace and movement. No reason why he cant do it again

Plus Dack is the main man. 

Nothing personal but don't get this at all. How can we play 4231 when we have only one wide player in Conway and he is really struggling. We'd need to sign 2/3 wide players to persist.

[joey_big_nose]

7 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

The current squad would suggest 4-2-3-1 in most games depending on form and injuries. 

Why do you think that? We've got loads of number 10s and no wide players beside Conway. Plus we've got a signing sitting on the bench in Bell

 

 

[islander200]

2 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Nothing personal but don't get this at all. How can we play 4231 when we have only one wide player in Conway and he is really struggling. We'd need to sign 2/3 wide players to persist.

We played 4-2-3-1 last season what genuine wide player did we have then?

[Oldgregg86]

8 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

As a mod, why do you always get involved in this? You never comment to anyone with a more, cautious(negative) outlook picking up on their discussion point. One sided moderation is a slippery slope! 

There is a lot of unreasonable moaning and negativity on here. If a poster points it out you jump in "oh you can't be saying that, they are just being reasonable". Well no, not everyone is reasonble. Some posters are just negative moaners. 98% are not.

Some fans were saying all summer we wouldn't sign anyone for more than we spent on Dack. They said we couldn't afford Armstrong and would be "scurrying around" "begging"  for loans from Premier league clubs. In fact the window so far had been decent, with more to come it would seem. 

Is the world gone so politically correct that those who got it wrong can't be called out on that for fear of upsetting them? Nobody is insulting anyone, nobody is swearing. You would think we are 5 year old children with what can and can't be said sometimes. Seriously. 

? Shh you can't say that

[chaddyrovers]

4 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

Nothing personal but don't get this at all. How can we play 4231 when we have only one wide player in Conway and he is really struggling. We'd need to sign 2/3 wide players to persist.

Wide players dont stay wide all game. You allow the attacking freedom and movement instead of being rigid and restrict them. Allowing your full backs to push on and provide the width

[SBlue]

8 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

Nothing personal but don't get this at all. How can we play 4231 when we have only one wide player in Conway and he is really struggling. We'd need to sign 2/3 wide players to persist.

The 3 are forwards. If you prefer think of it as a 4-3-3 but with Dack in a advanced, free role instead of CM and DG as a pure target man.

Not sure why people are starting to doubt or not get their heads around this now. I mean, yeah, if only we’d just had nearly a 100 point season playing this way then perhaps it would be easier to understa... oh wait. ?

[joey_big_nose]

8 hours ago, islander200 said:

We played 4-2-3-1 last season what genuine wide player did we have then?

Fair point. We had Chapman but he was mostly injured.

I guess we could go 4231, but it seems daft when we don't have the personnel. We can go ultra narrow with Palmer, Samuel and Armstrong filling in, but it's square pegs.

Just think if we were serious about 4231 we would have signed at least one wide player. 

[Mike E]

38 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Fair point. We had Chapman but he was mostly injured.

I guess we could go 4231, but it seems daft when we don't have the personnel. We can go ultra narrow with Palmer, Samuel and Armstrong filling in, but it's square pegs.

Just think if we were serious about 4231 we would have signed at least one wide player. 

A narrow 4231 only works if the 2 can hassle, the full backs can support the attack, and the 3 can roam and change and move.

I think Armstrong increases the possibility of a roaming 3.

[SBlue]

1 hour ago, joey_big_nose said:

Fair point. We had Chapman but he was mostly injured.

I guess we could go 4231, but it seems daft when we don't have the personnel. We can go ultra narrow with Palmer, Samuel and Armstrong filling in, but it's square pegs.

Just think if we were serious about 4231 we would have signed at least one wide player. 

I think we do have the personnel for our interpretation of it.

We've swapped Antonsson for Palmer or Rothwell and got Armstrong back for one of the slots - should be an improvement.

The 3 should be a number 10 like Dack, and then two more attacking minded midfielders/strikers who prefer to get in behind or cut inside, support the centre forward and get into the box - not really traditional "wide players" or wingers. Width comes from the fullbacks as in pretty much any system these days, and they get protection when forward from the midfield two.

Found this that explains it a bit better than I can - https://7500toholte.sbnation.com/2016/1/31/10878956/football-tactics-basics-the-4-2-3-1-formation-explained

But I thought it worked pretty well last season, don't you?

Certainly not square pegs for round holes. I think Armstrong is great at this and it's devastating and exciting when done right.

Not saying I wouldn't have minded someone like Edwards or Maddison though, for flexibility if nothing else - I may be wrong though but I thought Maddison in particular has always played more like an attacking midfielder in this kind of system? Someone like him would probably play "inverted" anyway, negating that "width" either way.

The winger is dead! Long live the fullback and four strikers! ?

 

 

 

-------

Of course I will pretend I never said this if we sign an out and out winger.

Edited August 7, 2018 by S8 & Blue

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Not many full backs get to the bye line, they're usually lumping it in from about 25-30 yards out. You end up with the worst of both Worlds - players who aren't particularly good at attacking or defending like Williams. Modern football ! They've lost the plot, we'll end up with a goalkeeper, a centre half, a centre forward and eight midfield players.

It's a bit like rugby league since the advent of Summer Rugby. You have a scrum half, a hooker and eleven centres.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Drover]

I agree the trend is toward mobile attacking midfielders/'inside forwards' and if we are going to play this it makes Graham even more vital. He is literally the pivot that all 3 will be running off/looking for knockdowns from. No cover for Graham by 31st of August and we'll be in trouble. 

[SBlue]

15 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Not many full backs get to the bye line, they're usually lumping it in from about 25-30 yards out. You end up with the worst of both Worlds - players who aren't particularly good at attacking or defending like Williams. Modern football ! They've lost the plot, we'll end up with a goalkeeper, a centre half, a centre forward and eight midfield players.

It's a bit like rugby league since the advent of Summer Rugby. You have a scrum half, a hooker and eleven centres.

We've literally scored a goal in the last 72 hours from the full back getting to the by-line. And it was Williams.

[Batman.]

14 hours ago, J*B said:

You're not going anywhere!

 

I remember when I used to enjoy reading the forum. Now I just go through the reported content ticking things off, reply to messages and try and find ways to give people more chances. It's not as fun as it sounds.

The "Messageboard Gold" section is made up of content principally contributed over a decade ago. A lot to be learnt by reading some of those threads. No idea what the moderation is like nowadays as I don't contribute, but it was undoubtedly the main reason why the vast majority of people left this website. It was personal, petty and largely unnecessary. 

The messageboard has never fully recovered from that.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Batman.

[JacknOry]

7 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

We've literally scored a goal in the last 72 hours from the full back getting to the by-line. And it was Williams.

Wish he did it more though. Graham gave him no choice but to go to the byline with that excellent piece of play - I dont think Williams was planning to go there at all.

[K-Hod]

3 minutes ago, Batman. said:

The "Messageboard Gold" section is made up of content principally contributed over a decade ago. A lot to be learnt by reading some of those threads. No idea what the moderation is like nowadays as I don't contribute, but it was undoubtedly the main reason why the vast majority of people left this website. It was personal, petty and largely unnecessary. 

The messageboard has never fully recovered from that.

You say that lots of people have left this website, but then, it’s probably never been busier, so those that left, have been replaced to be fair.

Perception is a strange old thing.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

10 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

You say that lots of people have left this website, but then, it’s probably never been busier, so those that left, have been replaced to be fair.

Perception is a strange old thing.

I accidentally stumbled across the site that some other people have left for the other day. It makes " The Daily Mail " sound like  " The Socialist Worker " . One or two on that have seriously fallen off the edge of the planet.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

24 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

We've literally scored a goal in the last 72 hours from the full back getting to the by-line. And it was Williams.

Come back the next time it happens. I believe he had a nose bleed after, he'd never been that far up the pitch before.

[SBlue]

2 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Come back the next time it happens. I believe he had a nose bleed after, he'd never been that far up the pitch before.

It's not like every time we will score.

But if someone would like to keep a tab on every time Nyambe, Williams, Bell or whoever is playing there gets right up near the by-line then that would be useful! I think you'd be surprised how often they do tbh.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

It's not like every time we will score.

But if someone would like to keep a tab on every time Nyambe, Williams, Bell or whoever is playing there gets right up near the by-line then that would be useful! I think you'd be surprised how often they do tbh.

Given the fact we no longer play with wingers that's always going to happen. My point is a real winger would get there more often and the crosses would be more meaningful. I was watching some old film of Scott Sellars murdering a team from out wide on the left the other day. It was like watching somebody playing another game to what we play.

[Batman.]

21 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

You say that lots of people have left this website, but then, it’s probably never been busier, so those that left, have been replaced to be fair.

Perception is a strange old thing.

That doesn't refute my point that lots of people left though, does it? Also, good use of the word "probably."

The site is "probably" nowhere near as good as it used to be. 

Perception is a strange old thing. 

[Mattyblue]

There's a lot of site traffic with visitors (especially around transfer windows and matchdays) and a hardcore of posters keep a few threads busy, but are there as many regular posters as there once was?

I don't think so. 

[SBlue]

18 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Given the fact we no longer play with wingers that's always going to happen. My point is a real winger would get there more often and the crosses would be more meaningful. I was watching some old film of Scott Sellars murdering a team from out wide on the left the other day. It was like watching somebody playing another game to what we play.

It really is, game is almost unrecognisable from just even 20 years ago.

[K-Hod]

19 minutes ago, Batman. said:

That doesn't refute my point that lots of people left though, does it? Also, good use of the word "probably."

The site is "probably" nowhere near as good as it used to be. 

Perception is a strange old thing. 

It’s easy to look back on the past with fondness, when the present can be even better. Fact is, this is the busiest Rovers messageboard on the internet, so some things are obviously being done correctly.

[Al]

15 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It's only your opinion and not a matter of fact that the window so far has been "decent". I'd say that very much depends on the impact that Armstrong makes at Championship level. If he fails to make the step up and no-one else comes in I'd hazard a guess we'll probably be looking back at it as a poor window.

Conversely if he scores 20 goals I Don't suppose anyone will care if Rothwell Davenport and Palmer don't do anything much.

Still three days to go as well so things might look considerably different by tea time Thursday.

It will only become a "decent" if we get another centre forward to share the position with Danny Graham. We can't go on with Nuttall or Samuel up front for the last half hour of every match or when Graham is not available. Ideally we could do with at least one proper winger too instead of the "make do and mend" wide forwards that we are employing at the moment and the "way past his sell by date" Conway. Right back is also a problem with "pub team player" Caddis the only fall back if anything happens to Nyambe, who also needs to continue to improve.

These weaknesses are obvious to me and probably to everybody who watched the team last season and urgently need to be addressed.