Nottingham Forest Home

[Doug]

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If you were a centre half who would you rather have to mark - King or Rhodes ? Rhodes every time for me. He won't out run me and he won't hurt me.

Agreed. 

[philipl]

Finally seen the highlights. The Lolly goal was ridiculously soft.

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, Doug said:

Yes, they scored goals, but we could not fit Josh King in due to their 'success'.

We scored goals but didn't get promoted! 

King would have been the better contributor to that team IMO and would likely have scored as many as Rhodes, given the service provided.

 

With us, King couldn't hit a barn door at 5 paces, ran down blind alleys like Armstrong does now or else he overran it for a goal kick.

Rhodes was a consummate goalscorer/ poacher with Rovers.

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If you were a centre half who would you rather have to mark - King or Rhodes ? Rhodes every time for me. He won't out run me and he won't hurt me.

He may not outrun or hurt you apart from scoring his customary 1 in 2.

I am only interested in the contribution that Rhodes made at Rovers.

[AllRoverAsia]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Rhodes consistently scored a goal every other game, thats what you want from your strikers. Them 2 were doing their job and then some.

It has always been a mystery to me as to how any Rovers fan can slag Rhodes off.

At Rovers 169 appearances, 84 goals, 13 assists and a major reason why we stayed UP in the Championship as long as we did.

As you say 1 in 2, what more do people want? Probably fecking tippy tappy.

[yeti-dog]

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Theres no way that Rhodes and Gestede could have been broken up, we had a 40 goal a season strikeforce. 

Dack cant be dropped, like Rhodes he is a guaranteed goal scorer.

Maybe not - but he needs to do more than he did against Forest. I thought he was ineffective and kept trying to do too much and losing the ball.

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, philipl said:

Finally seen the highlights. The Lolly goal was ridiculously soft.

We have not had a decent keeper for low shots for a very long time. We gave Lolly all the time in the world (Travis?) and it wasn't that well hit either.

Great pass by Bradley for our goal. Cream rises.

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, yeti-dog said:

Maybe not - but he needs to do more than he did against Forest. I thought he was ineffective and kept trying to do too much and losing the ball.

Apart from creating our only goal.

[yeti-dog]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

Apart from creating our only goal.

Yeah, apart from that he was shit. He has good-will in the pot but too many performances like that and Holtby will rightly deserve a chance.

[rossyrover]

Lolly's goal for forest should have been blocked by Travis but rovers had a warning of his capabilities in the first minutes of the game when his shot flashed by the rovers left hand post getting into the Rhodes discussion he is a goal poacher supreme compare his record with any recent rovers strikers and finally you don't need pace when your a goal poacher just the gift to be in the right place to score.   

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, Doug said:

Yes, they scored goals, but we could not fit Josh King in due to their 'success'.

We scored goals but didn't get promoted! 

King would have been the better contributor to that team IMO and would likely have scored as many as Rhodes, given the service provided.

 

Its bizarre that looking back at a side that failed to get into the top 6, that people instantly question the one part of the side that made us so expectant in the first place due to its consistent goals. Our strike force was as productive as any in the division. It was faults amidst the 9 behind them, not with one of the 20 goal strikers that caused us to underachieve.

2 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If you were a centre half who would you rather have to mark - King or Rhodes ? Rhodes every time for me. He won't out run me and he won't hurt me.

Not the one who repeatedly kept scoring presumably.

17 minutes ago, yeti-dog said:

Maybe not - but he needs to do more than he did against Forest. I thought he was ineffective and kept trying to do too much and losing the ball.

Agreed, the thing with Dack that guarantees him a place though is the numbers. I agree that he was really poor but even in that poor performance he played a superb pass for the goal. He also has 3 recent goals. It shouldnt be him OR Holtby.

[AllRoverAsia]

9 hours ago, yeti-dog said:

Yeah, apart from that he was shit. He has good-will in the pot but too many performances like that and Holtby will rightly deserve a chance.

Dack at Rovers, 100 appearances, 40 goals, 23 assists and yes, inconsistent, if that is the right word. Thankfully as otherwise he would not be at Ewood. Personally I think any inconsistency in Dack is due to the constant changes in personnel and tactics around him.

It should not be Dack or Holtby but both. Mowbray claims to be a master tactician so he should be capable of getting 2 creative players in a starting 11.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The thing about Dack is he's either brilliant or mediocre. There doesn't seem to be a half way house. Teams have learnt if you mark him really closely he struggles to impose himself on the game.  Nothing new there, most players don't like being man marked. And when he struggles, Rovers struggle. That vital link between attack and defence isn't there anymore.

[MarkBRFC]

I think someone else might have mentioned it, but I don't think it helps Dack that the personnel around him is constantly changing.

He's still our key man for me, and I think if you got Rothwell & Holtby in the side around him on a regular basis, not for one game every five then it would help him out tremendously. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by MarkBRFC

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

16 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Its bizarre that looking back at a side that failed to get into the top 6, that people instantly question the one part of the side that made us so expectant in the first place due to its consistent goals. Our strike force was as productive as any in the division. It was faults amidst the 9 behind them, not with one of the 20 goal strikers that caused us to underachieve.

Not the one who repeatedly kept scoring presumably.

Agreed, the thing with Dack that guarantees him a place though is the numbers. I agree that he was really poor but even in that poor performance he played a superb pass for the goal. He also has 3 recent goals. It shouldnt be him OR Holtby.

I was comparing King with Rhodes. Look where King is playing now and where Rhodes is playing now. As a matter of fact where is Rhodes playing now ? One's doing it every week in the Prem and the other one has never done anything at a higher level than where we are now.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[arbitro]

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

The thing about Dack is he's either brilliant or mediocre. There doesn't seem to be a half way house. Teams have learnt if you mark him really closely he struggles to impose himself on the game.  Nothing new there, most players don't like being man marked. And when he struggles, Rovers struggle. That vital link between attack and defence isn't there anymore.

I agree with you. At Reading I thought he had arguably his best game for us get on Tuesday he was anonymous and was rightly taken off. This inconsistency could well hold him back. That said his ability is beyond question and his record of 40 goals in 100 games is excellent. Off the top of my head I can't recall many chances he has missed in his time here.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I was comparing King with Rhodes. Look where King is playing now and where Rhodes is playing now. As a matter of fact where is Rhodes playing now ? One's doing it every week in the Prem and the other one has never done anything at a higher level than where we are now.

Where they are now is totally irrelevant. At that time Rhodes was scoring 20 goals a season. He was doing exactly what youd want.

[joey_big_nose]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Where they are now is totally irrelevant. At that time Rhodes was scoring 20 goals a season. He was doing exactly what youd want.

He was marmite. Half the fan base loved him, the other half (including me) thought he actually made us weaker due to contributing very little outside of goals.

I would have happily played Gestede and King up front, sold Rhodes and used the money to buy the quality centre mid and keeper we needed then.

[joey_big_nose]

2 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

I think someone else might have mentioned it, but I don't think it helps Dack that the personnel around him is constantly changing.

He's still our key man for me, and I think if you got Rothwell & Holtby in the side around him on a regular basis, not for one game every five then it would help him out tremendously. 

In the front 4 of 4231 we have quite a few options. Dack, Rothwell, Armstrong, Downing, Holtby all look quality on their day. Then you've got Gallagher and Graham who have struggled.

Looking at performances you would say the logical thing is to drop the big men to the bench, and just use the little guys. You can always get Gally or Graham off the bench if it's not working.

However I just think it's a huge ideological shift for Mowbray to drop them entirely. Goes against all his summer preparation and all the money he's spent. But that's what the data is saying....

Personally I think it would be very hard for any defence to handle all of Dack, Holtby, Rothwell and Arma running at them with Downing pulling the strings from deep. All can beat a man, all can drop off, all can pick a pass (well maybe not Arma). Dack and Arma are scoring (which Gally and Graham are not).

You lose the diagonal ball to the big man, but we're trying to pass it out anyway, and Arma gives an out also with his pace over the top.

I would like Mowbray to commit to getting them on the pitch together. He must be getting to the same conclusion.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

In the front 4 of 4231 we have quite a few options. Dack, Rothwell, Armstrong, Downing, Holtby all look quality on their day. Then you've got Gallagher and Graham who have struggled.

Looking at performances you would say the logical thing is to drop the big men to the bench, and just use the little guys. You can always get Gally or Graham off the bench if it's not working.

However I just think it's a huge ideological shift for Mowbray to drop them entirely. Goes against all his summer preparation and all the money he's spent. But that's what the data is saying....

Personally I think it would be very hard for any defence to handle all of Dack, Holtby, Rothwell and Arma running at them with Downing pulling the strings from deep. All can beat a man, all can drop off, all can pick a pass (well maybe not Arma). Dack and Arma are scoring (which Gally and Graham are not).

You lose the diagonal ball to the big man, but we're trying to pass it out anyway, and Arma gives an out also with his pace over the top.

I would like Mowbray to commit to getting them on the pitch together. He must be getting to the same conclusion.

Our lack of size could hurt us defending corners and free kicks into our box. Having said that we aren't great at that anyway. 

Why we never have Armstrong or Rothwell stood on the half way line at Corners I'll never know. The opposing team would have pull two players back to mark them, just leaving one with them is risky. They're not much use at defending crosses but a big boot out of defence and they'll be a goal threat.

Another thing about modern coaching I don't get.

[roversfan99]

46 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

He was marmite. Half the fan base loved him, the other half (including me) thought he actually made us weaker due to contributing very little outside of goals.

I would have happily played Gestede and King up front, sold Rhodes and used the money to buy the quality centre mid and keeper we needed then.

Then you are underestimating the value of goals! Goals are the main thing you want from your striker. 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Then you are underestimating the value of goals! Goals are the main thing you want from your striker. 

You need much more from strikers than goals? 

Pace or strength, ability to run the channels, hold up play, movement, work rate, mobility and creativity

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

You need much more from strikers than goals? 

Pace or strength, ability to run the channels, hold up play, movement, work rate, mobility and creativity

Goals is the most important thing though. If your striker is scoring 20 goals a season hes doing very well. End of.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Goals is the most important thing though. If your striker is scoring 20 goals a season hes doing very well. End of.

Maybe for you. I like strikers who can 4 or 5 of things i named. 

[jim mk2]

18 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Goals is the most important thing though. If your striker is scoring 20 goals a season hes doing very well. End of.

Rhodes was a pure goalscorer - the rest of his game was poor. It's no coincidence he wasn't picked up by PL clubs. The best modern strikers have to do so  much more than score goals. Unfortunately in Gallagher and Brereton we have 2 strikers who aren't very good players and don't score goals either.