Rodwell signs

[blueboy3333]

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/17374409.tony-mowbray-on-likelihood-of-charlie-mulgrew-return-v-hull/

Rehash of story on official site.

Mulgrew or Rodwell? Lets have a vote....

 

[philipl]

46 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/17374409.tony-mowbray-on-likelihood-of-charlie-mulgrew-return-v-hull/

Rehash of story on official site.

Mulgrew or Rodwell? Lets have a vote....

 

Both especially the way Hull play. 

[SBlue]

I reckon Mulgrew would have looked immense against Millwall and Ipswich too. 

Rodwell played well, especially considering how nervous I was with him being in the 11 prior to kick off, but I genuinely can’t say that he should replace Chico yet or that he is better than him after two decent showings and four games at centre half.

But for now we should go with form and with who has the shirt - it’s healthy competition. For the same reason I was disappointed that Downing was dropped after Sheff Wed.

Edited January 22, 2019 by S8 & Blue

[Bigdoggsteel]

45 minutes ago, philipl said:

Both especially the way Hull play. 

Lenihan has been one of our best players the last 2 games, dropping him would be harsh to say the least. 

[Mattyblue]

Rodwell has done well, but it was against two of the poorest teams in the division,

Was it Swansea away that he was pulled over the place and looked anything but a centre half? He's probably grown into the role since, but lets not get silly re Mulgrew.

[Norbert Rassragr]

Mulgrew. I'd like to see Rodwell stay as it sounds he really has responded well to being here and rediscovered his motivation for the game. Fingers crossed we get him and he doesn't then go crap like Gresko all those years ago (good on loan but then pants when signed).

[joey_big_nose]

I think we'll probably stick with 4 at the back as we've won the last three with that. If that's the case Mulgrew will definitely play if fit ahead of Rodwell due to his goals and he's the club captain.

[RevidgeBlue]

On the evidence of the last 2 games should be Rodwell. Wonder if we'll play 5 at the back like against Newcastle to shoehorn all 3 centre backs into the side though.

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, joey_big_nose said:

I think we'll probably stick with 4 at the back as we've won the last three with that. If that's the case Mulgrew will definitely play if fit ahead of Rodwell due to his goals and he's the club captain.

Mowbray has pretty much said he won't. Plenty of club captains don't start every week 

[Bigdoggsteel]

46 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

On the evidence of the last 2 games should be Rodwell. Wonder if we'll play 5 at the back like against Newcastle to shoehorn all 3 centre backs into the side though.

As some fans are suggesting we should? Or the even more ludicrous suggestions that Mulgrew should play midfield or full back? 

And they very same fans question some of Mowbrays decisions! 

[Sparks Rover]

4 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Rodwell has done well, but it was against two of the poorest teams in the division,

Was it Swansea away that he was pulled over the place and looked anything but a centre half? He's probably grown into the role since, but lets not get silly re Mulgrew.

Agree...rodwell has looked very iffy at CH against some of the better teams. Straight balls were killing him in a game I was at....cant remember who against. 

[SBlue]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

As some fans are suggesting we should? Or the even more ludicrous suggestions that Mulgrew should play midfield or full back? 

And they very same fans question some of Mowbrays decisions! 

Might not want to change a winning formula, but I think some people are unduly nervous of the 3 at the back.

It can work well in this league.

We aren’t talking about Ward and Caddis this time you know.

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

Might not want to change a winning formula, but I think some people are unduly nervous of the 3 at the back.

It can work well in this league.

We aren’t talking about Ward and Caddis this time you know.

It can of course work, but I think we can agree it hasn't for us yet?  You need the 3 center halves to know their zone. Sometimes, even with 2 at the back one of our centre halves leaves it for the other.  If we were to do it , I would have Mulgrew in the middle. 

                                Raya

                 Lenihan  Mulgrew  Rodwell 

Nyambe                                                  Bell 

                                Evans

              Travis                          Reed

                                Dack

                           Graham 

I think I prefer 4-2-3-1 though 

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Bigdoggsteel

[SBlue]

Lenihan central sitting for me, he’s the least effective at bringing the ball out and would allow him to suicide bomb towards every high ball as he already does, but with cover either side.

Anyway, I think it could work, in time.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, S8 & Blue said:

Lenihan central sitting for me, he’s the least effective at bringing the ball out and would allow him to suicide bomb towards every high ball as he already does, but with cover either side.

Anyway, I think it could work, in time.

Good point

Pretty sure Sheffield united play something like the above formation 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Bigdoggsteel

[SBlue]

It’s just very flexible, if we get the 3 right we can go more 3-4-3 if we’re going after people (Armstrong up top too), or pack the midfield more as yours suggests. It’s tough to play against.

Wouldnt be surprised if the season gets away from us a little then we start working on it again.

[rigger]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

As some fans are suggesting we should? Or the even more ludicrous suggestions that Mulgrew should play midfield or full back? 

And they very same fans question some of Mowbrays decisions! 

I don't get your claim that trying Mulgrew at left back is ludicrous. If we didn't have a problem at left-back, then it would be ludicrous, but we do. So something new needs to be done if we continue to play 4 at the back.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, rigger said:

I don't get your claim that trying Mulgrew at left back is ludicrous. If we didn't have a problem at left-back, then it would be ludicrous, but we do. So something new needs to be done if we continue to play 4 at the back.

Whatever your views on Williams and Bell, the modern full-back(the 2 lads included) cover a lot of ground up and down the field during a game, far more than a center half does. At 32 years old, with his injury record, Mulgrew should not be playing full-back. I think it's safe to say Mowbrays knows better than to put him there! 

[SBlue]

1 minute ago, rigger said:

I don't get your claim that trying Mulgrew at left back is ludicrous. If we didn't have a problem at left-back, then it would be ludicrous, but we do. So something new needs to be done if we continue to play 4 at the back.

He’s one of the slowest players in the squad, if not the slowest.

I know people say “a defensive fullback” is different but I reckon if you put him up against any half decent forward/wide player down the flank he’d be rinsed. We’d have to sit so far back to accommodate him that we’d get overrun.

I just can’t see it being a good idea, but if we try it let’s hope he proves me wrong.

[rigger]

8 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Whatever your views on Williams and Bell, the modern full-back(the 2 lads included) cover a lot of ground up and down the field during a game, far more than a center half does. At 32 years old, with his injury record, Mulgrew should not be playing full-back. I think it's safe to say Mowbrays knows better than to put him there! 

So what would be your answer to our problem at left back ? Also I cannot see how playing in a different defensive position would be effected by a previous injury record. If you are likely to have a recurrence of an injury it does not matter which position you happen to be playing.

Edited January 22, 2019 by rigger

[rigger]

3 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

He’s one of the slowest players in the squad, if not the slowest.

I know people say “a defensive fullback” is different but I reckon if you put him up against any half decent forward/wide player down the flank he’d be rinsed. We’d have to sit so far back to accommodate him that we’d get overrun.

I just can’t see it being a good idea, but if we try it let’s hope he proves me wrong.

I just cannot see it being any worse than what I have been watching at left back all season. Lets hope the answer can be found.

[Bigdoggsteel]

55 minutes ago, rigger said:

So what would be your answer to our problem at left back ? Also I cannot see how playing in a different defensive position would be effected by a previous injury record. If you are likely to have a recurrence of an injury it does not matter which position you happen to be playing.

Because you run more than full back than centre back. More likely to be isolated one on one and therefore turned by an attacker at full back too. 

I think Bell will do for now. In the summer I would look to move Williams on and get in another left back in. 

[tomphil]

Williams is a league one centre half playing at left back in the Champ so Mulgrew would be a definite improvement on him but agree it's all about keeping it tight there'd be no charging down the flank but Mulgrew doesn't need to with that left peg.

I suppose it depends on who's in front of you and the protection you get but we don't play with a flying winger out there anyway !  It would give TM the excuse to start Conway at least ?

 

[rigger]

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Because you run more than full back than centre back. More likely to be isolated one on one and therefore turned by an attacker at full back too. 

I think Bell will do for now. In the summer I would look to move Williams on and get in another left back in. 

In a properly organised defence you do not run that much more at full-back than at center-back, a full back does not have to bomb forward. He has to get the ball to someone forward of him that can bomb forwards. You also propose to do nothing about the problem and just let Bell, do for now. I would suggest that we now find ourselves in a position, in the league, where we could take risks  in games, trying to come up with an answer to the problem. Rather than make do for now with no plan for the future/present. 

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, S8 & Blue said:

Might not want to change a winning formula, but I think some people are unduly nervous of the 3 at the back.

It can work well in this league.

We aren’t talking about Ward and Caddis this time you know.

Lets not pretend this is a reaction to a one off experiment against Doncaster which ended disastrously.  Every time weve tried it it hasnt really worked. 

As you touched on, we have a winning formula at the moment, so thats reason enough to not play it, just to shoehorn a third centre back into the team.

But 3 at the back is a formation that requires constant training and dedication (not used every now and again as a plan b like Mowbray has) and specialists in each position.

Sheffield United are the example everyone uses. They have O'Connell and Basham, outside centre backs who have the ability to get up and down. They have Stevens and Baldock, as effective as you can wish for in terms of wing backs. 

We would have the obvious 3 centre backs and minimal back up, therefore an injury to any of our 3 centre backs would then lead to a change in formation.

We have no suitable wing backs, Nyambe is our only good full back and he is very much a full back, hence 2 assists in his Rovers career.