Ben Brereton Diaz

[unsall]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

This isn't treason, Brereton's not reading this, he's supported by everyone when he plays, everybody wants him to make good BUT ITS JUST NOT HAPPENING.

Meanwhile we are light upfront. That's an understatement, we are totally dependent on a 32 yearly staying fit.

We should not be in this position and the same goes for centre-back. For 7M we could have solved both these problems and added a keeper too!

 

 

So what are saying,drop Graham,? we play 1 up front with Dack behind, if Graham gets injured he’ll get his chance.

[K-Hod]

17 minutes ago, Biz said:

So Armstrong isn’t an archetypal “square peg” then eh?  

I'd rather have Armstrong wide because of his pace tbh, I'd say striker was his second best position. Particularly with the way we play, I feel our strikers benefit from height advantage. 

[unsall]

Just now, K-Hod said:

I'd rather have Armstrong wide because of his pace tbh, I'd say striker was his second best position. Particularly with the way we play, I feel our strikers benefit from height advantage. 

With respect, Brereton is also very fast and tricky, I know we haven’t seen much of him, mainly I’ve watched the Forest clips and he’s certainly no slouch, if we played 4 4 2 I could understand everybody saying he should play next to Graham, but we don’t, and while Graham’s doing the business he’ll have to bide his time.

[roversfan99]

26 minutes ago, Biz said:

1. You talk as if signing someone else to support or backup graham would be simple. When the likes of Paddy Bamford’s costing you 5m + 25k a week, it’s never easy.

2. Pleading he doesn’t have enough strikers? That’s nonsense mate. We only ever play one out and out anyway.

3. The melodramatic comments are just polarised hyperbole. You call him “very poor” I personally think that’s worse.

1. I never said its easy. But I refuse to accept that it was impossible to bring in a striker. You mention Bamford, he is a proven goalscorer at this level and has won player of the year at this level. Thats why he cost so much.

2. https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/17008496.tony-mowbray-on-whether-he-feels-rovers-are-a-striker-short/ 

Mowbray said here we are a striker short. The fact that his seemingly current second choice striker is Bradley Dack backs that up. We do only play 1 but we only have 1.

3. I just think that comments about not supporting the player, knowing better than the manager or anything like that detract from the debate at hand.

Id like to be proven wrong, your point about Armstrong is valid somewhat I do appreciate and of course I hope that I am proven wrong. But Armstrong fit the position like a glove from the start, it was against much weaker opposition (he has struggle to replicate this season) and his skillset is IMO far more suited.

A key part to my argument is that, with Samuel (now injured) as 2nd choice last season, it was blatantly obvious in the summer that signing a striker was a key priority. Even if Brereton turns into an excellent wide forward, which would obviously be good as an improvement to the team, its like buying a really nice car when you needed a house. It would leave us as lacking in depth up front as we were at the start of the summer. And surely when Graham isnt fit, youd agree that as second choice, Brereton would be higher up the pecking order than moving Dack into a position hes also not familiar with. @unsall you mention when Grahams not here anymore Brereton may play there but when hes not been in the team at times in the last week weve played Dack there!

Another main point is that Brereton gained the reputation he has as a striker. The Forest fan on here was clear and it seems a common theme, Brereton playing wide didnt suit him and it coincided with his form dropping off. He made his name as a central striker, he ran Arsenal ragged as a striker, he impressed both for Forest and Englabd youth teams as a striker.

Its been mentioned that hes being easing in but surely playing the last 20 or 30 minutes up front his natural position where hes more likely to impress would make more sense. Obviously he will be scrutinised but if he continues to play out wide and doesnt do anything, then I sense that the blame has shifted from Brereton onto Mowbray for how hes using him.

 

[K-Hod]

5 minutes ago, unsall said:

With respect, Brereton is also very fast and tricky, I know we haven’t seen much of him, mainly I’ve watched the Forest clips and he’s certainly no slouch, if we played 4 4 2 I could understand everybody saying he should play next to Graham, but we don’t, and while Graham’s doing the business he’ll have to bide his time.

That's true, but, when Graham gets subbed off after 65 minutes every game for Brereton, there's no good reason for Brereton to not directly replace Graham up front really.

[JacknOry]

20 minutes ago, unsall said:

So what are saying,drop Graham,? we play 1 up front with Dack behind, if Graham gets injured he’ll get his chance.

But he isnt getting his chance though - this is part of the debate. When DG comes off, they put Dack up front instead of BB and todays comments suggest that if DG is not fit for QPR, BB will unlikely be getting a chance in that either as a striker. 

People understand the kid is young and are not laying the blame at his feet but are just commenting that the transfer has them a little puzzled when so much money has been spent on somebody who seemingly is not being trusted to play in the position he was originally bought for.

[unsall]

Just now, K-Hod said:

That's true, but, when Graham gets subbed off after 65 minutes every game for Brereton, there's no good reason for Brereton to not directly replace Graham up front really.

Yeah agree on that, depending on the score, if we need a goal and Graham is subbed, give the lad a go, but you know me, I probably trust Mowbray that he knows what he is doing, and before the usual jump on me, I know he doesn’t get it right every time, but with seeing them training every day you would think he knows better than most.

[K-Hod]

6 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

But he isnt getting his chance though - this is part of the debate. When DG comes off, they put Dack up front instead of BB and todays comments suggest that if DG is not fit for QPR, BB will unlikely be getting a chance in that either as a striker. 

People understand the kid is young and are not laying the blame at his feet but are just commenting that the transfer has them a little puzzled when so much money has been spent on somebody who seemingly is not being trusted to play in the position he was originally bought for.

You've just hit the nail on the head. Good work. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by K-Hod

[unsall]

3 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

But he isnt getting his chance though - this is part of the debate. When DG comes off, they put Dack up front instead of BB and todays comments suggest that if DG is not fit for QPR, BB will unlikely be getting a chance in that either as a striker. 

People understand the kid is young and are not laying the blame at his feet but are just commenting that the transfer has them a little puzzled when so much money has been spent on somebody who seemingly is not being trusted to play in the position he was originally bought for.

Yeah do understand that, probably the reason is that he dosnt seem to hold the ball up and play back to goal as well as Graham, whether that improves with training or he has to play a different role, time will tell, just a feeling he will end up a decent player, certainly hope so.

[JacknOry]

Just now, unsall said:

Yeah agree on that, depending on the score, if we need a goal and Graham is subbed, give the lad a go, but you know me, I probably trust Mowbray that he knows what he is doing, and before the usual jump on me, I know he doesn’t get it right every time, but with seeing them training every day you would think he knows better than most.

Debating and having differing opinions is not being jumped on. None of us believe we know more than TM.

It is a concern that what TM is seeing in training is somebody that he does not believe is good enough to be considered back up to Graham up front right now. 

[JacknOry]

Just now, unsall said:

Yeah do understand that, probably the reason is that he dosnt seem to hold the ball up and play back to goal as well as Graham, whether that improves with training or he has to play a different role, time will tell, just a feeling he will end up a decent player, certainly hope so.

Well, highly rated, played for England youths and has 50 Championship games under his belt already, so there is obviously something there. Am sure he will come good in some capacity but right now we need somebody that can help DG to carry the slack.

[unsall]

4 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

Well, highly rated, played for England youths and has 50 Championship games under his belt already, so there is obviously something there. Am sure he will come good in some capacity but right now we need somebody that can help DG to carry the slack.

So are you saying he should play next to Graham, which we would have to change our system, or are you saying he should replace Graham if subbed.

[JacknOry]

Just now, unsall said:

So are you saying he should play next to Graham, which we would have to change our system, or are you saying he should replace Graham if subbed.

No, I meant to help carry the slack through the season. DG rarely plays 90 minutes so it would be good for BB to replace him. Or perhaps have BB start and DG to come on later. 

[JBiz]

32 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I'd rather have Armstrong wide because of his pace tbh, I'd say striker was his second best position. Particularly with the way we play, I feel our strikers benefit from height advantage. 

So there’s no such thing as square pegs then? Or has Brererton shown you he doesn’t have a second best position already? Roversfan99 uses the Forrest’s fan’s judgement on Brererton, remember what Bolton fans said about Armstrong out wide?

What if he’d come on for DG upfront 3 times already but not scored... would you be advocating we try him out wide?

All this boils down too, if you’ve or anyone has come to a judgement on his abilities already, you’re making yourself (in my opinion) sound a bit stupid. The cost argument from last week is negated by the fact wages/fees have been going up exponentially for 30 years. 6/7m is literally peanuts when you factor in we paid Dixon Etuhu nearly twice that in wages.

[unsall]

1 minute ago, JacknOry said:

No, I meant to help carry the slack through the season. DG rarely plays 90 minutes so it would be good for BB to replace him. Or perhaps have BB start and DG to come on later. 

Ok, think while Graham’s playing as he his, he would have to start, IMO.

[JBiz]

42 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

1. I never said its easy. But I refuse to accept that it was impossible to bring in a striker. You mention Bamford, he is a proven goalscorer at this level and has won player of the year at this level. Thats why he cost so much.

2. https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/17008496.tony-mowbray-on-whether-he-feels-rovers-are-a-striker-short/ 

Mowbray said here we are a striker short. The fact that his seemingly current second choice striker is Bradley Dack backs that up. We do only play 1 but we only have 1.

3. I just think that comments about not supporting the player, knowing better than the manager or anything like that detract from the debate at hand.

Id like to be proven wrong, your point about Armstrong is valid somewhat I do appreciate and of course I hope that I am proven wrong. But Armstrong fit the position like a glove from the start, it was against much weaker opposition (he has struggle to replicate this season) and his skillset is IMO far more suited.

A key part to my argument is that, with Samuel (now injured) as 2nd choice last season, it was blatantly obvious in the summer that signing a striker was a key priority. Even if Brereton turns into an excellent wide forward, which would obviously be good as an improvement to the team, its like buying a really nice car when you needed a house. It would leave us as lacking in depth up front as we were at the start of the summer. And surely when Graham isnt fit, youd agree that as second choice, Brereton would be higher up the pecking order than moving Dack into a position hes also not familiar with. @unsall you mention when Grahams not here anymore Brereton may play there but when hes not been in the team at times in the last week weve played Dack there!

Another main point is that Brereton gained the reputation he has as a striker. The Forest fan on here was clear and it seems a common theme, Brereton playing wide didnt suit him and it coincided with his form dropping off. He made his name as a central striker, he ran Arsenal ragged as a striker, he impressed both for Forest and Englabd youth teams as a striker.

Its been mentioned that hes being easing in but surely playing the last 20 or 30 minutes up front his natural position where hes more likely to impress would make more sense. Obviously he will be scrutinised but if he continues to play out wide and doesnt do anything, then I sense that the blame has shifted from Brereton onto Mowbray for how hes using him.

 

Good points in the main but just to make a point about the last part - we should be bringing him on to benefit the team not his experience or “how he looks” ie if the wingers looking bolloxed or we need to keep a target man on, perhaps he is better suited to that berth.

Things can change rapidly in football though and I think that B.B. offers us more of a standard striker for changing to 2 up top. I know TM ain’t done this yet, but that’s because we’ve lost 5 games in 12 months playing with one up top.

Another aspect- 

I’d also suggest, without evidence obviously, that the signing of Armstrong including wages will have probably cost us more in the 2018/19 season budget. Firstly because I think AA will be more likely on 10k+ a week and his fee seemed to be all in one. Secondly because I’d expect Brererton to be on less than that and his deal to be structured, appearance and promotion based

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

I remember a few weeks back Mowbray said Brereton scores the most goals in training. So maybe try him up font Tony. Just an idea 

[tomphil]

I think I've said before Mowbray will throw him on there when we least expect it and I think he will at some point he's just waiting for what he thinks is the right moment or it may even take something to force his hand when there are no other options.

Personally I think there have been a few good opportunities to do so but then again i'm not the boss.....I should be but i'm not !

Edited November 2, 2018 by tomphil

[Mattyblue]

To me, as much as anything he seems short on fitness and confidence.

So, considering he didn’t play a minute at West Brom and the U23s played on Monday, therefore giving ample rest till tomorrow, why wasn’t he involved with them?

[tomphil]

Just now, Mattyblue said:

To me, as much as anything he seems short on fitness and confidence.

So, considering he didn’t play a minute at West Brom and the U23s played on Monday, therefore giving ample rest till tomorrow, why wasn’t he involved with them?

Another thing I touched on the other day, he's 19 so taking him out of the front line now and again and letting him play upfront with the U23s wouldn't do any harm at all and a goal or two would do his confidence good.

His agent wouldn't be happy though as I doubt there's much appearance money on offer at that level !

[Bigdoggsteel]

58 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

To me, as much as anything he seems short on fitness and confidence.

So, considering he didn’t play a minute at West Brom and the U23s played on Monday, therefore giving ample rest till tomorrow, why wasn’t he involved with them?

True and he would be if he didnt cost such a high fee(for us)

Strange one 

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, Biz said:

Good points in the main but just to make a point about the last part - we should be bringing him on to benefit the team not his experience or “how he looks” ie if the wingers looking bolloxed or we need to keep a target man on, perhaps he is better suited to that berth.

Things can change rapidly in football though and I think that B.B. offers us more of a standard striker for changing to 2 up top. I know TM ain’t done this yet, but that’s because we’ve lost 5 games in 12 months playing with one up top.

Another aspect- 

I’d also suggest, without evidence obviously, that the signing of Armstrong including wages will have probably cost us more in the 2018/19 season budget. Firstly because I think AA will be more likely on 10k+ a week and his fee seemed to be all in one. Secondly because I’d expect Brererton to be on less than that and his deal to be structured, appearance and promotion based

 

My main qualm with the quote from Mowbray, and id like to state that like you inferred earlier, that we dont know the full context again. I don't understand why he is seemingly solely being seen as a wide man, no grey areas, hes not a striker in Mowbrays eyes short term. Especially considering how light of depth we are otherwise there.

I appreciate that Forest fans stating that Brereton is no good wide is not foolproof in terms of how he will do here in that role either, your Armstrong example proves that, but nor should it be discarded. Added to that, when he has featured there in matches he has looked uncomfortable. He made his name at Forest and in the England youth teams as a central forward. His most accomplished performance that got him all the media attention was against Arsenal as a central striker.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/17197021.rovers-boss-mowbray-happy-with-the-options-available-to-him/?ref=mac

Just going off the recent selections, and the comments in the above article:

Would you agree that Brereton (natural striker) should be higher in the pecking order for that position than Dack? 

Would you agree that Brereton should be higher in the pecking order for that position than Kasey Palmer?

Would you agree that if Brereton isnt considered ready enough to even become an option to be number 9, then Joe Nuttall certainly isnt ready?

Like you said, there may be the odd occasion when it suits the team. Off the top of my head, if we are losing, we dont want to break up the Dack and Graham partnership, but we want another attacker on, get Brereton wide rather than moving Dack. And I would totally accept that.

My main points are to summarise:

- I dont believe Brereton is best suited to be playing wide

- If he has been signed to play wide, then I think Mowbray maybe needs to point questions towards himself as to why he feels short in terms of strikers. I dont think anyone could doubt that hes improved the quality of the squad. He made some good signings in the summer. But we have only 2 trusted natural centre backs, we have 1 natural right back, we have 1 trusted central striker, yet we have 4 players battling for that wide role as the third attacking player (2 natural strikers, 2 10's) and 1 or 2 too many in central midfield.

 

[Al]

3 hours ago, unsall said:

Yeah agree on that, depending on the score, if we need a goal and Graham is subbed, give the lad a go, but you know me, I probably trust Mowbray that he knows what he is doing, and before the usual jump on me, I know he doesn’t get it right every time, but with seeing them training every day you would think he knows better than most.

Yes Mowbray sees him in training when it doesnt matter. We see him in matches when it does. That’s the difference.

[unsall]

Training doesn’t matter,!! training is everything, that’s the basis on picking the side, you haven’t seen enough of him to make any judgement yet.

[Al]

6 minutes ago, unsall said:

 

 

6 minutes ago, unsall said:

Training doesn’t matter,!! training is everything, that’s the basis on picking the side, you haven’t seen enough of him to make any judgement yet.

Neither has anybody else in a match environment. Matches are where points are won and lost and that’s where players are judged not in five a side kick abouts.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Al