Ben Brereton Diaz

[Mattyblue]

Beats having a rehab game at Leyland, I suppose…

[tomphil]

Club before country.

[rog of the rovers]

Sadly, probably the last Chile fixture BBD will play as a Rovers player. This summer being the perfect opportunity to sell him to raise funds, no way can Rovers risk losing him on a free this time next season.

These issues with travel and the club vs. country debate will follow wherever he goes.

[arbitro]

I might be in a minority but I'm happy Diaz played 80 minutes last night. Mowbray has no excuse or reason for not starting him on Saturday now as he has seemingly come through an 80 minute fitness test. It's simple - we need goals and he is our best chance of getting them.

For me it will be another nail in Mowbrays coffin if he doesn't start him.

[rigger]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

I might be in a minority but I'm happy Diaz played 80 minutes last night. Mowbray has no excuse or reason for not starting him on Saturday now as he has seemingly come through an 80 minute fitness test. It's simple - we need goals and he is our best chance of getting them.

For me it will be another nail in Mowbrays coffin if he doesn't start him.

I don't believe you are in a minority, about Diaz getting an eighty minute outing. As you say, there are no reasons for Mowbray not to start Diaz at Coventry.

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

I might be in a minority but I'm happy Diaz played 80 minutes last night. Mowbray has no excuse or reason for not starting him on Saturday now as he has seemingly come through an 80 minute fitness test. It's simple - we need goals and he is our best chance of getting them.

For me it will be another nail in Mowbrays coffin if he doesn't start him.

Whilst I personally agree with you I will be quite shocked if Mowbray starts him.

I think he will start Dack and have BBD on the bench.

[neophox]

Dolan is on fire. I would start him and Breo. 

[rigger]

12 minutes ago, neophox said:

Dolan is on fire. I would start him and Breo. 

Mowbray might agree with you. That doesn't mean he would start them up front.

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

I might be in a minority but I'm happy Diaz played 80 minutes last night. Mowbray has no excuse or reason for not starting him on Saturday now as he has seemingly come through an 80 minute fitness test. It's simple - we need goals and he is our best chance of getting them.

For me it will be another nail in Mowbrays coffin if he doesn't start him.

Actually I think it gives him every excuse not to start him. I didn't watch, but if as the other poster says, he clearly wasn't fit and has been put through 80 minutes on a Tuesday then flown home, starting him on Saturday sounds like a good way to get him injured or a leggy performance at best. I bet he benches him, and I'm not sure I'd disagree for once.

[Ossydave]

4 hours ago, ben_the_beast said:

The Chile fairytale has been great. I've loved watching it. But at the end of the day it's clear he wasn't fit and they've played him for 80 minutes. That's unprofessional and it's putting their star at risk and ours too. 

Not only did they play him for 80 minutes but they were doing so when they needed a 3 goal swing in the Peru game, a 2 goal swing in the Colombia game and obviously for them to win their own game. There wasn't a cat in hells chance before the match let alone at half time and they still kept him on the pitch. I've enjoyed the Diaz story as much as anybody but the debacle of how they've acted in this international break needs to be observed in isolation and its completely unacceptable. 

How's it clear he wasn't fit?  Its almost 2 weeks since OUR last game, things change over that period of time.  I didn't watch their game but it doesn't sound like he was off the pace from the reports I've seen.  If he'd broken down after 10 minutes then yes, he was clearly unfit, but he didn't.

[rigger]

9 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Actually I think it gives him every excuse not to start him. I didn't watch, but if as the other poster says, he clearly wasn't fit and has been put through 80 minutes on a Tuesday then flown home, starting him on Saturday sounds like a good way to get him injured or a leggy performance at best. I bet he benches him, and I'm not sure I'd disagree for once.

My way of thinking is that it would be all well and good resting Diaz, if we had a suitable replacement, at the moment we haven't. These games are shit or bust for the Rovers. Let's try to win the games first, and deal with any consequences when/if they arise.

[arbitro]

36 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Actually I think it gives him every excuse not to start him. I didn't watch, but if as the other poster says, he clearly wasn't fit and has been put through 80 minutes on a Tuesday then flown home, starting him on Saturday sounds like a good way to get him injured or a leggy performance at best. I bet he benches him, and I'm not sure I'd disagree for once.

I actually agree that Mowbray won't start him but surely the vindication to start him is the fact he played 80 minutes against one of the worlds best teams with seemingly no adverse effect. Had there not been internationals this week I think Diaz would have been wrapped in cotton wool and an excuse offered tomorrow by Mowbray as to why he won't play at Coventry. My point is that Mowbray can't hide behind anything now as his fitness appears to have been proven.

[PotterLog]

You’d be mad to start him on Saturday. You can’t come back from two months of no football and immediately perform to your best level in two games in five days, on different sides of the world, with a 14-hour flight sandwiched in the middle. It was the wrong decision to start him last night, smacked of desperation.

Give him 25 mins from the bench on Sat.

[Miller11]

5 minutes ago, PotterLog said:

You’d be mad to start him on Saturday. You can’t come back from two months of no football and immediately perform to your best level in two games in five days, on different sides of the world, with a 14-hour flight sandwiched in the middle. It was the wrong decision to start him last night, smacked of desperation.

Give him 25 mins from the bench on Sat.

If we had adequate attacking options you’d be right, but considering we don’t, plus what’s at stake and how few games are remaining, we’d be mad not to start him.

[PotterLog]

20 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

If we had adequate attacking options you’d be right, but considering we don’t, plus what’s at stake and how few games are remaining, we’d be mad not to start him.

In that case I can understand the logic of the risk but you might well end up with an hour of a leggy ineffective player rather than 25 minutes of someone who can afford to be a bit more explosive and influence the game. Tricky one

[yankfan]

5 hours ago, arbitro said:

I might be in a minority but I'm happy Diaz played 80 minutes last night. Mowbray has no excuse or reason for not starting him on Saturday now as he has seemingly come through an 80 minute fitness test. It's simple - we need goals and he is our best chance of getting them.

For me it will be another nail in Mowbrays coffin if he doesn't start him.

Agreed. No excuse for the question if he’s fit. Also the lads been off for a month so two games 4 days shouldn’t be an issue. Our CB injury situation is though. JVH, Ayal, Lenihan all potentially missing out. 

[yankfan]

6 minutes ago, PotterLog said:

In that case I can understand the logic of the risk but you might well end up with an hour of a leggy ineffective player rather than 25 minutes of someone who can afford to be a bit more explosive and influence the game. Tricky one

Rather is the 25 min to start than at the end when we’re desperately trying for a goal against 11 behind the ball. 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

13 hours ago, PotterLog said:

And they kept him on for 80 minutes 😂

Yeah,fooking hilarious that!🙄

[arbitro]

1 hour ago, PotterLog said:

You’d be mad to start him on Saturday. You can’t come back from two months of no football and immediately perform to your best level in two games in five days, on different sides of the world, with a 14-hour flight sandwiched in the middle. It was the wrong decision to start him last night, smacked of desperation.

Give him 25 mins from the bench on Sat.

In truth I don't think anybody wants or expects him to be at his best. We need a goal of two and the meagre return of the rest of the team means he is absolutely our best chance. Statistically the team scoring first in the Championship has something like, from memory an 80% chance of winning. That is one of the main reasons I would start him and and not bring him on when the game could be set. And his presence should give the team and supporters a lift.

[rigger]

1 hour ago, PotterLog said:

In that case I can understand the logic of the risk but you might well end up with an hour of a leggy ineffective player rather than 25 minutes of someone who can afford to be a bit more explosive and influence the game. Tricky one

Or you might not. If you do not try, you will never know.

[bluebruce]

57 minutes ago, arbitro said:

In truth I don't think anybody wants or expects him to be at his best. We need a goal of two and the meagre return of the rest of the team means he is absolutely our best chance. Statistically the team scoring first in the Championship has something like, from memory an 80% chance of winning. That is one of the main reasons I would start him and and not bring him on when the game could be set. And his presence should give the team and supporters a lift.

This is true, although we also have a statistically very solid defence since November. Keeping it level and bringing him on at 60 mins against other tired legs could be the best chance of him notching. Lenihan and possibly Van Hecke being unavailable puts a bit of a dampener on that though.

Tbh, I think we are fucked and not going up regardless.

[arbitro]

42 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

This is true, although we also have a statistically very solid defence since November. Keeping it level and bringing him on at 60 mins against other tired legs could be the best chance of him notching. Lenihan and possibly Van Hecke being unavailable puts a bit of a dampener on that though.

Tbh, I think we are fucked and not going up regardless.

Has it been confirmed about Lenihan and Van Hecke being out?

I agree about not going up but I really want, in the words of Bowyer to have a really good go. That to me means taking a risk of two, something that Mowbray doesn't do too well.

[roversfan99]

6 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Has it been confirmed about Lenihan and Van Hecke being out?

I agree about not going up but I really want, in the words of Bowyer to have a really good go. That to me means taking a risk of two, something that Mowbray doesn't do too well.

Said in the LT yesterday. There is a chance fot Van Hecke and Lenihan is a potential for Blackpool.

[ben_the_beast]

6 hours ago, Ossydave said:

How's it clear he wasn't fit?  Its almost 2 weeks since OUR last game, things change over that period of time.  I didn't watch their game but it doesn't sound like he was off the pace from the reports I've seen.  If he'd broken down after 10 minutes then yes, he was clearly unfit, but he didn't.

If he was fit he would have been on the bench against Brazil just a few days ago. After being out for a couple of months to go from completely unfit to 80 mins in just a few days to me means they definitely gambled on him

[DeeCee]

Start him Saturday, and Dack, fuck me we're in the last chance saloon now.