Millwall

[Amo]

28 minutes ago, Roverinbelfast said:

So now that smallwood and evans dont play, it looks like its Armstrongs turn to take the shit from certain part of the 'support' . 

An under-performing player copping flak from the fans? Oh the humanity!

[OJRovers]

My main issue with 3 at the back is that under Mowbray it quickly turns into 5 at the back, with the wing backs not committing, leaving us with very little going forward.

I'd much rather have Downing as right wing back, at least he can get a decent cross in. Years of Bennett on the wing has shown he is not effective in the final third, which you need to be as a wing back.

[Roverinbelfast]

Just now, Amo said:

An under-performing player copping flak from the fans? Oh the humanity!

Supporters enjoying a good home victory and appreciating the effort put in by ALL the players, how wrong

[Mattyblue]

You can still criticise players after a win. You hear many a conversation in the pub or walking up Livesey Branch Road of folk saying ‘ good win, but I thought player x was poor today’

Was ever thus.

[Stuart]

Just now, OJRovers said:

My main issue with 3 at the back is that under Mowbray it quickly turns into 5 at the back, with the wing backs not committing, leaving us with very little going forward.

I'd much rather have Downing as right wing back, at least he can get a decent cross in. Years of Bennett on the wing has shown he is not effective in the final third, which you need to be as a wing back.

But as we remarked at the game yesterday, who would he be crossing to? Armstrong?

Without Graham we are bereft of a target man. Gallagher is relatively tall but needs a lot of work - and would need to be played where Mowbray doesn’t want to play him.

[chaddyrovers]

41 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Dropped Travis yesterday for reasons unknown and we were very lucky to be ahead until Rothwell came on.

There was a rumour that surfaced after the last game the their were words exchanged and half time (confirmed by Dack) but that the players decided how we played in the second half. That undermines the manager - did we see a reaction to that yesterday?

As long as we keep getting three points, performances like yesterday will be ‘acceptable’. But heaven help we don’t have an injury to Williams now because our unbalanced team is relying on a defence short of depth.

Mowbray still isn’t the man in my view.

Agree on Travis but Buckley played in his place. Probably thinking we see much of the ball. 

How does it undermines the manager? Its shows players understand the game and thinking of the game instead of relying on the manager to do all the thinking. 

Reaction? You mean the change of formation to 3 at the back

The 1st half display defensively was good but we didnt get our attacking play going.

2nd half we play and created chances after chances. Bennett, Armstrong, Rothwell had great chances. 

We are building from.the back. Solid defence 4 clean sheets. And still more to come attacking wise but we havent peak yet  

Edited September 15, 2019 by chaddyrovers

[Ossydave]

28 minutes ago, OJRovers said:

My main issue with 3 at the back is that under Mowbray it quickly turns into 5 at the back, with the wing backs not committing, leaving us with very little going forward.

I'd much rather have Downing as right wing back, at least he can get a decent cross in. Years of Bennett on the wing has shown he is not effective in the final third, which you need to be as a wing back.

It was a result of his cross yesterday we scored the first goal ffs. Man can cross a ball.

[K-Hod]

55 minutes ago, Roverinbelfast said:

Imagine supporters getting behind the team they support. 

The two aren’t mutually exclusive....

[OldEwoodBlue]

Just watched this.

First reaction was screaming at Rippers for needlessly losing the ball in the far corner. 

Fans criticised for criticising players...

What stupidity.

Armstrong is paid to score goals. He needs to score goals. Not sure it's more complicated than that really.

 

 

[neophox]

Rothwell has to be better when starting games. Always seems best when coming on as a sub. 

[Amo]

54 minutes ago, Roverinbelfast said:

Supporters enjoying a good home victory and appreciating the effort put in by ALL the players, how wrong

They're not mutually exclusive. You can enjoy the collective victory while criticising individual performances.

[DE.]

Remember when Jason Lowe was 'the scapegoat'? Now he can't even get into Bolton's starting eleven. When players are regularly criticised it's usually because they are continually failing to contribute. Armstrong's stats prove this so the idea that he's a scapegoat is laughable. He's just not performing and it's rightly being pointed out, particularly because we have other options that aren't being used to try and address that issue. 

Worth noting that it isn't necessarily Armstrong's fault. It might just be that he can't play effectively in the poisition/role the manager has assigned him. Look at Williams. Poor at LB for most of his tenure here, but suddenly looks like a totally different player at CB in a role he's clearly much more comfortable in. My feeling is that Armstrong would be most effective playing with a target man with two up top, but I can't see that happening in the near future so it's fair to question whether he should be in the starting eleven with our current system.

[47er]

51 minutes ago, Stuart said:

But as we remarked at the game yesterday, who would he be crossing to? Armstrong?

Without Graham we are bereft of a target man. Gallagher is relatively tall but needs a lot of work - and would need to be played where Mowbray doesn’t want to play him.

If Graham isn't playing then we have no-one to replicate his role and we are always going to struggle for goals. We need 2 in the middle---presumably Gallagher and Armstrong. Not saying that's ideal but we have to work with what the manager has brought us.

I'm guessing TM won't do that though.

[BankEnd Rover]

1 hour ago, Roverinbelfast said:

Supporters enjoying a good home victory and appreciating the effort put in by ALL the players, how wrong

Watch him closely. You will realise why he gets stick. He's lazy, can't hit a barn door and simply isn't good enough. If he plays like he did against Leeds last year he would be first on the team sheet. I can't think last time he put a shift in?

Edited September 15, 2019 by BankEnd Rover

[Ossydave]

29 minutes ago, neophox said:

Rothwell has to be better when starting games. Always seems best when coming on as a sub. 

I said exactly the same

[BankEnd Rover]

34 minutes ago, neophox said:

Rothwell has to be better when starting games. Always seems best when coming on as a sub. 

LOL.

[BankEnd Rover]

35 minutes ago, neophox said:

Rothwell has to be better when starting games. Always seems best when coming on as a sub. 

You're saying you'd play Armstrong ahead of him?

[Cherry Blue]

If Graham had started instead of Armstrong he would have held the ball up front and even (more likely to) scored. In hindsight (imo) maybe Armstrong should have lifted the ball over their advancing keeper rather than going for power. The lad puts in 100% but he's not a centre forward. A first half Dack through ball caught him off guard then in a second half similar position Dack maybe thought I'm not wasting another chance. 

Thought Buckley did ok. Only lightweight but his mind is quick and he's not afraid to demand the ball meaning he needs a close watch.   

Full credit to Graham at HT coming to the BBE wall for photos. 

[Stuart]

44 minutes ago, neophox said:

Rothwell has to be better when starting games. Always seems best when coming on as a sub. 

He’s still better than Armstrong.

I’d argue Armstrong should be a better impact sub.

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, Roverinbelfast said:

So now that smallwood and evans dont play, it looks like its Armstrongs turn to take the shit from certain part of the 'support' . 

Didn't hear a peep at the ground, the players were well supported.

If he is reading this messageboard then youd question his mentality in the first place, criticising a poor performer on a forum is not "giving him shit" its giving a player justified criticism for, over a long period of time not contributing anywhere near enough. A goal and no assists in 25 games is unacceptable from an attacking player who has started the majority of those games.

Sadly, posts like these always get lapped up.

[JBiz]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Didn't hear a peep at the ground, the players were well supported.

If he is reading this messageboard then youd question his mentality in the first place, criticising a poor performer on a forum is not "giving him shit" its giving a player justified criticism for, over a long period of time not contributing anywhere near enough. A goal and no assists in 25 games is unacceptable from an attacking player who has started the majority of those games.

Sadly, posts like these always get lapped up.

Forgive me if I’m wrong but I seem to recall him whipping the cross in for Sam Gallagher to head in vs Sheff united less than a month ago.

Stats are only ever half the story. It’s clear he is struggling for confidence in front of goal (also given penalty duties for that cup game and missing) but I don’t think he should be written off.

Young, electric pace, experience of different positions - he’s a good option in my view, and I’d say his performances this season are for from his best.

 

[BankEnd Rover]

Just now, Harry The Bass said:

Forgive me if I’m wrong but I seem to recall him whipping the cross in for Sam Gallagher to head in vs Sheff united less than a month ago.

Stats are only ever half the story. It’s clear he is struggling for confidence in front of goal (also given penalty duties for that cup game and missing) but I don’t think he should be written off.

Young, electric pace, experience of different positions - he’s a good option in my view, and I’d say his performances this season are for from his best.

 

The point people are making is that he should not be ahead of Rothwell. Joe is a better footballer than him. No opinion, only fact.

[JBiz]

Just now, BankEnd Rover said:

The point people are making is that he should not be ahead of Rothwell. Joe is a better footballer than him. No opinion, only fact.

The arrogance of that last line is ridiculous. 

 To me they’re chalk and cheese, JR isn’t anywhere near as fast yet AA hasn’t got the technique. Both lacking final product. Both offer different pro/cons. Both different positions mainly too.

I like both, and I’d like to see Joe start more often too, however; The idea that Rothwell “changed” the game is something that I disagree with, and the irony is not lost on me when people say this and then criticise his lack of starting. Have you considered why he’s used as an impact sub?

I think anyone who believes they know who should be starting, as if their opinion trumps any professional and other punters alike, really should have a bit more self awareness.

 

[AAK]

50 minutes ago, BankEnd Rover said:

You're saying you'd play Armstrong ahead of him?

Id play my grandma ahead of him.

[frosty]

1 hour ago, neophox said:

Rothwell has to be better when starting games. 

Like the end of last season where he was starting, scoring, assisting and we were winning? It’s criminal that that is his only sustained run in the team since he joined. 

If he’s given half a dozen starts in a row and does nothing, then fine, back to being an impact sub, but a player so talented being reduced to 25 mins a match when he’s shown he can do it from the start just isn’t right.