The mysterious case of Joe Rothwell.

[arbitro]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

The argument that we aren't playing players like Rothwell, or Chapman during his time here when fit, because they aren't defensively sound enough would stack up if we had a great defensive record. As it stands we are amongst the worst in the league and are apparently picking players in order to protect ourselves.

Christ on a bike.

Excellent point.

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The argument that we aren't playing players like Rothwell, or Chapman during his time here when fit, because they aren't defensively sound enough would stack up if we had a great defensive record. As it stands we are amongst the worst in the league and are apparently picking players in order to protect ourselves.

Christ on a bike.

If we need to improve defensively because we’re shipping goals and making mistakes, it seems easy understand why TM would be more inclined to stick with the Conway’s and Bennett’s, because they’ll always work hard and experience makes less likely to switch off.

Might not agree, or may think it doesn’t stack up - but from my perspective we are limited defensively, especially when Mulgrew, Nyambe and Lenihan are out - whom have all had several weeks off this season.

I understand people may be more attacking in there preferred approach, but I think it’s nowhere near as simple as the binary argument/cliche; “play attackers ffs”

 

[K-Hod]

Just now, Biz said:

If we need to improve defensively because we’re shipping goals and making mistakes, it seems easy understand why TM would be more inclined to stick with the Conway’s and Bennett’s, because they’ll always work hard and experience makes less likely to switch off.

Might not agree, or may think it doesn’t stack up - but from my perspective we are limited defensively, especially when Mulgrew, Nyambe and Lenihan are out - whom have all had several weeks off this season.

I understand people may be more attacking in there preferred approach, but I think it’s nowhere near as simple as the binary argument/cliche; “play attackers ffs”

 

We're rubbish at defending with Conway and Bennett in anyway, so why not have a go with Rothwell or Chapman?

Mowbray knew what these players were like before he signed them, it's not like this is new information for him! This is the second occasion he's managed Chapman, for goodness' sake! 

[JBiz]

Just now, K-Hod said:

We're rubbish at defending with Conway and Bennett in anyway, so why not have a go with Rothwell or Chapman?

Mowbray knew what these players were like before he signed them, it's not like this is new information for him! This is the second occasion he's managed Chapman, for goodness' sake! 

Nowhere near as simple as that for me.

Neither would be playing in front of a confident or competent full back at present, and like I said yesterday, nobody could argue that makes a difference.

Chapman also, it’s like the last 12 months of hardly playing and doing his hammy twice never even happened. Imagine the overreaction if he’d been brought back early and did it again! 

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Biz said:

If we need to improve defensively because we’re shipping goals and making mistakes, it seems easy understand why TM would be more inclined to stick with the Conway’s and Bennett’s, because they’ll always work hard and experience makes less likely to switch off.

Might not agree, or may think it doesn’t stack up - but from my perspective we are limited defensively, especially when Mulgrew, Nyambe and Lenihan are out - whom have all had several weeks off this season.

I understand people may be more attacking in there preferred approach, but I think it’s nowhere near as simple as the binary argument/cliche; “play attackers ffs”

 

Yep and that would all make perfect sense if he'd suddenly reverted to this system towards the latter end of the season to stem the flow of goals. However that's simply not the case - he floated this idea of defensive attackers when we were in League 1. Then, to compound the confusion, he goes ahead and signs players like Palmer, Rothwell, Brereton, Chapman and Armstrong who clearly have no intention of ever fulfilling the role of "defensive winger". 

You have to ask the question that if he knew he was going to stick with Bennett and Conway - he must have - why didn't he spend the £10m available to him shoring up the positions he feels like he has to compensate for? Left back, centre back, right back......

Quite frankly I couldn't give a damn about the excuses. I refuse to believe Rodwell would be any less effective than Smallwood/Evans in centre mid; I refuse to believe there wasn't a centre back available in the summer and I certainly refuse to believe that he didn't consider the risk he was taking in not signing any recognised defenders in the summer despite all the warning signs being there that they simply aren't cut out for this level. The chickens are coming home to roost in a truly abysmal run of games, not even just in terms of results but in terms of application on the pitch. If he's playing Conway and Bennett on the basis they are less likely to make mistakes then the experiment has sadly failed. 

[DE.]

We've managed 4 points from our last 30. It's not like trying something a little different can have a catastrophic effect at this point. At the very least at home to teams like Stoke and Bolton we need to be trying to put ourselves on the front foot as opposed to playing the defensive game. We've already proven we can't defend, but we've scored enough goals to know we can attack. If Mowbray wants to continue being cautious with our remaining away games then okay, but at least try to give the fans something to cheer about at home.

[JBiz]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

Yep and that would all make perfect sense if he'd suddenly reverted to this system towards the latter end of the season to stem the flow of goals. However that's simply not the case - he floated this idea of defensive attackers when we were in League 1. Then, to compound the confusion, he goes ahead and signs players like Palmer, Rothwell, Brereton, Chapman and Armstrong who clearly have no intention of ever fulfilling the role of "defensive winger". 

You have to ask the question that if he knew he was going to stick with Bennett and Conway - he must have - why didn't he spend the £10m available to him shoring up the positions he feels like he has to compensate for? Left back, centre back, right back......

Quite frankly I couldn't give a damn about the excuses. I refuse to believe Rodwell would be any less effective than Smallwood/Evans in centre mid; I refuse to believe there wasn't a centre back available in the summer and I certainly refuse to believe that he didn't consider the risk he was taking in not signing any recognised defenders in the summer despite all the warning signs being there that they simply aren't cut out for this level. The chickens are coming home to roost in a truly abysmal run of games, not even just in terms of results but in terms of application on the pitch. If he's playing Conway and Bennett on the basis they are less likely to make mistakes then the experiment has sadly failed. 

There’s loads there I can’t be arsed going into and in just to add in hindsight I think letting Downing go was an aberration too, because for many games in our poor run, Nyambe, Williams, Magliore and even Bell at times have had to play centreback. 

That’s the biggest factor in our poor form for me, nothing to do with which wingers he’s chosen. Defence needs rectifying ASAP.

[Ewood Ace]

10 minutes ago, Biz said:

Nowhere near as simple as that for me.

Neither would be playing in front of a confident or competent full back at present, and like I said yesterday, nobody could argue that makes a difference.

Chapman also, it’s like the last 12 months of hardly playing and doing his hammy twice never even happened. Imagine the overreaction if he’d been brought back early and did it again! 

Chapman played for Boro 3 months ago and still hasn't even made the bench for us, I'm all for not rushing him but come on. Also there is such as thing as defending from the front, perhaps we ought to try it

[Blue blood]

Another of many holes in TM's theory is that Armstrong offers the square root of naff all defensively yet keeps his place in the side. Not sure how he can call for defensive wingers and play Armstrong . And Armstrong hasn't contributed much to the attack either. We've a manager utterly stuck in playing favourites and it's costing us big time. 

[Dreams of 1995]

5 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

Chapman played for Boro 3 months ago and still hasn't even made the bench for us, I'm all for not rushing him but come on. Also there is such as thing as defending from the front, perhaps we ought to try it

To do that we have to push up high Ewood Ace and we currently have a centre half/centre midfield partnership that turns like milk!!!

I wouldn't bet a penny of anyones money on us if a team broke and we had Smallwood, Evans, Rodwell and Mulgrew at the back providing cover. 

[BankEnd Rover]

Just now, Blue blood said:

Another of many holes in TM's theory is that Armstrong offers the square root of naff all defensively yet keeps his place in the side. Not sure how he can call for defensive wingers and play Armstrong . And Armstrong hasn't contributed much to the attack either. We've a manager utterly stuck in playing favourites and it's costing us big time. 

This is what drives me up the wall! Tony comments just don't add up! The argument isn't about fans 'overating' Rothwell or Chapman, the argument is that they are both a class above Armstrong. The manager can't see this and like you said, if no changes are made, will cost us!
 

 

[bazza]

We are safe from relegation now.  There are only 7 games left. Now is the time for Mowbray to be playing a host of youngsters from the kick off in every game. Get them ready for next season.

Knowing TM he won't. And that is why I say get rid.

[Bbrovers2288]

Rothwell- massively overhyped with fans happy to pin their hopes on the lad changing our fortunes whereas the truth of the matter lies a lot deeper than rothwell not starting. 

Mowbray is the problem but rothwell is not the soloution. 

Yes he should be playing more and I’d argue he should be given as much time as armstrong has but when I have seen him he tries for the glory ball, rushed passing and no scent of a goal scorer as yet. Not to say he doesn’t have talent and I like his directness but let’s not say we have the next Messi here. Useful squad player 

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, Biz said:

If we need to improve defensively because we’re shipping goals and making mistakes, it seems easy understand why TM would be more inclined to stick with the Conway’s and Bennett’s, because they’ll always work hard and experience makes less likely to switch off.

Might not agree, or may think it doesn’t stack up - but from my perspective we are limited defensively, especially when Mulgrew, Nyambe and Lenihan are out - whom have all had several weeks off this season.

I understand people may be more attacking in there preferred approach, but I think it’s nowhere near as simple as the binary argument/cliche; “play attackers ffs”

 

-Conway and Bennett's defensive qualities are overstated by Mowbray. Even playing one or both doesnt seem to stem the goals going in, indeed when Bennett is asked to be a right back his defensive abilities repeatedly lead to him diving in and getting exposed. Neither of their work rates are ever in question but the defensive quality they provide is.

-Armstrong is also apparently played for his running going back, thats a complete lie. 

-You've repeatedly defended Mowbrays summer recruitment. If we are having to name such a supposedly defensive midfield to protect our terrible defence, surely that says it all?

-It may not work to stick Chapman and Rothwell wide, we dont know yet. But surely if ever theres a time to try it, its now, we are losing with the usual favourites guaranteed a place, and we have little to play for in terms of promotion/relegation, why not give it a go for a few games? 

- Why sign players he clearly has no trust in?

[DE.]

9 minutes ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

Yes he should be playing more and I’d argue he should be given as much time as armstrong has but when I have seen him he tries for the glory ball, rushed passing and no scent of a goal scorer as yet. Not to say he doesn’t have talent and I like his directness but let’s not say we have the next Messi here. Useful squad player 

Part of that is probably because he knows he is going to have to do something special to get noticed by TM. Unlike certain other players he can't coast through games and expect to get an automatic starting spot next time out, so he might be trying too hard to try and impress. Especially with Mowbray unfairly singling him out when discussing our defensive woes. If TM said to him straight up "I'm giving you a run of games from now until the end of the season. Let's see how you do", he might be able to calm down a little and play a more natural game. 

[JBiz]

27 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

-Conway and Bennett's defensive qualities are overstated by Mowbray. Even playing one or both doesnt seem to stem the goals going in, indeed when Bennett is asked to be a right back his defensive abilities repeatedly lead to him diving in and getting exposed. Neither of their work rates are ever in question but the defensive quality they provide is.

-Armstrong is also apparently played for his running going back, thats a complete lie. 

-You've repeatedly defended Mowbrays summer recruitment. If we are having to name such a supposedly defensive midfield to protect our terrible defence, surely that says it all?

-It may not work to stick Chapman and Rothwell wide, we dont know yet. But surely if ever theres a time to try it, its now, we are losing with the usual favourites guaranteed a place, and we have little to play for in terms of promotion/relegation, why not give it a go for a few games? 

- Why sign players he clearly has no trust in?

I know you know, that the two more senior players do the off the ball stuff better, the organisation, keeping shape, making correct decisions in their own half. There’s no way you could argue those two aren’t more proficient at that, although neither good enough at this level long term.

Armstrong covers the pitch far more readily than Rothwell. How much of a difference this makes is another matter. 

As for this “defending recruitment” (I’d just call it having a positive opinion of most of the signings without hindsight) I think we are developing a good squad - and the fact we are lamenting the lack of starts for one of last summers signings suggest he isn’t one of the perennial “duds” TM signs. Definitley work to do in the defensive signing department, no disputing that.

The last question is a moot point. We both know it’s impossible to only sign players that work out straight away. 

If Tony left tomorrow, the championship team he left compared to the one he inherited is a complete different animal. Whilst a few need to kick on, weve a far more exciting and competitive squad outlook - with only one first team player not our own.

[roversfan99]

Just now, Biz said:

I know you know, that the two more senior players do the off the ball stuff better, the organisation, keeping shape, making correct decisions in their own half. There’s no way you could argue those two aren’t more proficient at that, although neither good enough at this level long term.

Armstrong covers the pitch far more readily than Rothwell. How much of a difference this makes is another matter. 

As for this “defending recruitment” (I’d just call it having a positive opinion of most of the signings without hindsight) I think we are developing a good squad - and the fact we are lamenting the lack of starts for one of last summers signings suggest he isn’t one of the perennial “duds” TM signs. Definitley work to do in the defensive signing department, no disputing that.

The last question is a moot point. We both know it’s impossible to only sign players that work out straight away. 

If Tony left tomorrow, the championship team he left compared to the one he inherited is a complete different animal. Whilst a few need to kick on, weve a far more exciting and competitive squad outlook - with only one first team player not our own.

Compared to Rothwell and Chapman, I would agree of course that Bennett and Conway would offer more defensively but I don't necessarily subscribe that they are particularly making a difference in terms of making us more solid, they will always put in the effort but Bennett in particular can be very rash. I dont think its the night and day difference between them and the younger lads.

And our exciting younger players are going to need to be given time at some point and now is as good a time as any. You cant pick wingers solely on defensive capabilities.

Im not convinced that we would be a different animal in comparing the competitiveness of the squad Mowbray inherited and the one he has now, aside from Dack obviously who has been a masterstroke of a signing and would be a big difference. Aside from that, not so much. The main hopes are young players with undoubted attributes but we are still in the dark as to whether they are competent Championship players. (Rothwell, Chapman, even Armstrong who for me bar one superb month has been cold much more than hes been hot) Youd still look in numerous areas and suggest that we need recruitment, our squad is very imbalanced.

 Indeed aside from Dack, the main difference is that alot of the crap that was soiling the squad Mowbray inherited (Lowe, Akpan, Greer, Brown etc) was out of contract at the end of his first season and is no longer burdening us. That and Travis' emergence.

[JBiz]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Compared to Rothwell and Chapman, I would agree of course that Bennett and Conway would offer more defensively but I don't necessarily subscribe that they are particularly making a difference in terms of making us more solid, they will always put in the effort but Bennett in particular can be very rash. I dont think its the night and day difference between them and the younger lads.

And our exciting younger players are going to need to be given time at some point and now is as good a time as any. You cant pick wingers solely on defensive capabilities.

Im not convinced that we would be a different animal in comparing the competitiveness of the squad Mowbray inherited and the one he has now, aside from Dack obviously who has been a masterstroke of a signing and would be a big difference. Aside from that, not so much. The main hopes are young players with undoubted attributes but we are still in the dark as to whether they are competent Championship players. (Rothwell, Chapman, even Armstrong who for me bar one superb month has been cold much more than hes been hot) Youd still look in numerous areas and suggest that we need recruitment, our squad is very imbalanced.

 Indeed aside from Dack, the main difference is that alot of the crap that was soiling the squad Mowbray inherited (Lowe, Akpan, Greer, Brown etc) was out of contract at the end of his first season and is no longer burdening us. That and Travis' emergence.

Also, you will know again, if we had a better set of fullbacks, we’d probably seeing more of Rothwell and co out wide.

Equally - the last month or two has seen us resort to full backs and first team debuts at centre half- I’d suggest this had more impact on our ability to defend as opposed to the players in question making little difference!

 

 

[Stuart]

5 hours ago, Biz said:

If we need to improve defensively because we’re shipping goals and making mistakes, it seems easy understand why TM would be more inclined to stick with the Conway’s and Bennett’s, because they’ll always work hard and experience makes less likely to switch off.

Might not agree, or may think it doesn’t stack up - but from my perspective we are limited defensively, especially when Mulgrew, Nyambe and Lenihan are out - whom have all had several weeks off this season.

I understand people may be more attacking in there preferred approach, but I think it’s nowhere near as simple as the binary argument/cliche; “play attackers ffs”

 

But with this in mind, the right approach would be to bolster the defence in January, not weaken it and then blame your most creative midfielder.

His credibility has taken a big hit on this point alone.

[JBiz]

48 minutes ago, Stuart said:

But with this in mind, the right approach would be to bolster the defence in January, not weaken it and then blame your most creative midfielder.

His credibility has taken a big hit on this point alone.

Haven’t you got memes to create? Blaming Rothwell? Pointing out his amazing abilities AND weaknesses through interviews in some areas isn’t “blaming” ... Don’t be so sensitive.

I’d need the same overly critical mindset to even get near agreeing with the idea Rothwell 26 appearances being not enough is a “big hit” or major issue. I think the irony is lost on you that he might be looking a good player because the way he is being used.. you know as an impact sub? I said exactly the same about Chapman last season.

I do however think that the inability to get a centreback, and letting Downing go was “an aberration” but as usual, you and the rest of “Echo Crew inc” only interested in the aspects of my posts in which you disagree with!

 

[Neal]

4 hours ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

Rothwell- massively overhyped with fans happy to pin their hopes on the lad changing our fortunes whereas the truth of the matter lies a lot deeper than rothwell not starting. 

Mowbray is the problem but rothwell is not the soloution. 

Yes he should be playing more and I’d argue he should be given as much time as armstrong has but when I have seen him he tries for the glory ball, rushed passing and no scent of a goal scorer as yet. Not to say he doesn’t have talent and I like his directness but let’s not say we have the next Messi here. Useful squad player 

Completely disagree, every time he plays he brings the best out of Dack allowing him to be free'd up, we play through the midfield instead of missing it out, he completely changes the way play. He's the type of player you build a midfield around. To call him a squad player in the same way as garbage such as Smallwood, Bennett, Williams is bloody mental. He's by a long way the best technical footballer we have at the club. Yes, at times he's seemingly tried to hard but who can blame him for trying to make an impression? I've watched him on numerous occasions create more in 15 minute appearances than most of the useless trash we have wandering around on a pitch. It's a complete farce how the manager has handled this one and just demonstrates an alarming ability to see obvious talent, especially as he coaches him every day. 

[Bbrovers2288]

2 hours ago, Neal said:

Completely disagree, every time he plays he brings the best out of Dack allowing him to be free'd up, we play through the midfield instead of missing it out, he completely changes the way play. He's the type of player you build a midfield around. To call him a squad player in the same way as garbage such as Smallwood, Bennett, Williams is bloody mental. He's by a long way the best technical footballer we have at the club. Yes, at times he's seemingly tried to hard but who can blame him for trying to make an impression? I've watched him on numerous occasions create more in 15 minute appearances than most of the useless trash we have wandering around on a pitch. It's a complete farce how the manager has handled this one and just demonstrates an alarming ability to see obvious talent, especially as he coaches him every day. 

Again I think your overplaying his impact. I haven’t noticed us suddenly playing incredible when rothwell has came on. I agree he could potentially be a very good player but he could also go the way of say a Ben Thornley. Needs to be proven, reliable with assists and goals to boot to merit such accolade 

[Neal]

3 hours ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

Again I think your overplaying his impact. I haven’t noticed us suddenly playing incredible when rothwell has came on. I agree he could potentially be a very good player but he could also go the way of say a Ben Thornley. Needs to be proven, reliable with assists and goals to boot to merit such accolade 

 

I don't think I am, I'm simply saying what I'm seeing. I'd agree that he needs to add goals but goals will only come of he actually gets minutes on the pitch. 

[dingles staying down 4ever]

The simple reason why Rothwell is being overhyped by some is the simple reason that Mowbray has an over relience on the same tried and trusted week in week out rather than search for plan B. With every passing game that the tried and trusted fail the more the idea that playing the likes of Rothwell and the reserves is the solution.

The fact that Mowbray has reluctance to search for solutions in the hope that his tried and trusted will come good again is Mowbray's biggest weakness. By the end of the season, in some fans eyes, Rothwell will be better than Messi.

The fact that Mowbray said once we have nothing to play for he would try other options has only added to this. He really needs the fans to see that Rothwell can prove Mowbray's doubts wrong or not by giving him a run of games not 10 minutes here or there.

Edited April 3, 2019 by dingles staying down 4ever

[BankEnd Rover]

6 hours ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

Again I think your overplaying his impact. I haven’t noticed us suddenly playing incredible when rothwell has came on. I agree he could potentially be a very good player but he could also go the way of say a Ben Thornley. Needs to be proven, reliable with assists and goals to boot to merit such accolade 

Just a question...Would you have Rothwell in your Starting 11? Would you play Armstrong over Rothwell?