Nottingham Forest Home

[AllRoverAsia]

47 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

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

Nonsense. The clue is in the word 'Strikers'. There are goals at the ends of the pitch for a reason.

The rest end up as utility forwards not much use at anything.

We have a few of them on the books now.

 

[AllRoverAsia]

29 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

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.  

Nail on head

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

Nonsense. The clue is in the word 'Strikers'. There are goals at the ends of the pitch for a reason.

The rest end up as utility forwards not much use at anything.

We have a few of them on the books now.

 

Well thats your opinion my opinion is very different. A number of the strikers who has played for us over last 25 years could all done a number of things i named before. Strikers like Shearer, Newell, Sutton, Jansen, Santa Cruz, McCarthy, Roberts..

Look at which team King playing for whilst Gestede and Rhodes are stuggling to even make the bench for their clubs. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by chaddyrovers

[47er]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Well thats your opinion my opinion is very different. A number of the strikers who has played for us over last 25 years could all done a number of things i named before. Strikers like Shearer, Newell, Sutton, Jansen, Santa Cruz, McCarthy, Roberts..

Look at which team King playing for whilst Gestede and Rhodes are stuggling to even make the bench for their clubs. 

I was one of those criticising the then manager for not playing him. Were you? Or did you back everything Bowyer did till he was sacked?

[47er]

On 04/10/2019 at 02:27, AllRoverAsia said:

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.

What about the Cup games? Took his chances there I thought but back to the bench when the League games came round again.

Ran Swansea, then a PL Club, ragged. Never saw Rhodes do that.

[Maji]

Back then we had 3 great options up front. It's a real shame that they couldn't be played together as I don't really see how you fit them together as a unit. 

Gestede and Rhodes were very good as a 2, perhaps King could have played wide, with another on the opposing flank. But that would have left us weak in the centre. I am unsure how you fit them in. 

He was phenomenal at times and has risen higher than the other 2, but if being honest, I didn't see that coming. 

[AllRoverAsia]

5 hours ago, 47er said:

What about the Cup games? Took his chances there I thought but back to the bench when the League games came round again.

Ran Swansea, then a PL Club, ragged. Never saw Rhodes do that.

I saw that one. Took his goals well, great assist by Gestede as I recall.

The fact is with us he missed far more chances than he scored from.

Anyway, he wanted out, the same accusation that I have seen levied at Rhodes.

There is the small matter that King and Rhodes were completely different players.

[MCMC1875]

8 hours ago, 47er said:

What about the Cup games? Took his chances there I thought but back to the bench when the League games came round again.

Ran Swansea, then a PL Club, ragged. Never saw Rhodes do that.

Stoke City.

[Doug]

2 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

I saw that one. Took his goals well, great assist by Gestede as I recall.

The fact is with us he missed far more chances than he scored from.

Anyway, he wanted out, the same accusation that I have seen levied at Rhodes.

There is the small matter that King and Rhodes were completely different players.

Now we are getting somewhere. Nobody would suggest that Dack and Rhodes goal scoring record isn't anything but excellent.

The point I'm trying to make is that when they aren't having their 'moment' its often like playing with 10 men and no outlet.

So, for arguments sake, Rhodes / Dack scores one, opposition dominate and score 2, Rhodes / Dack have great stats, but Rovers don't get promoted and other good players don't get a game.

Hope this makes sense (I know what I mean!!).

Edited October 5, 2019 by Doug

[chaddyrovers]

11 hours ago, 47er said:

I was one of those criticising the then manager for not playing him. Were you? Or did you back everything Bowyer did till he was sacked?

After I see witness their chemistry between King and Gestede against Stoke I said we have played them together more. I was always a fan King and he has kick on to performing weekly in the PL whilst the other 2 haven't kick on imo onto anything better than they were at Rovers IMO. 

on Bowyer, I was very worried over the type of replacement we could get. When Lambert got the job I was delighted we appointed him. I still remember his 1st game at Preston away like Yesterday. 

[47er]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

After I see witness their chemistry between King and Gestede against Stoke I said we have played them together more. I was always a fan King and he has kick on to performing weekly in the PL whilst the other 2 haven't kick on imo onto anything better than they were at Rovers IMO. 

on Bowyer, I was very worried over the type of replacement we could get. When Lambert got the job I was delighted we appointed him. I still remember his 1st game at Preston away like Yesterday. 

It is absurd that Bowyer could put together the collection of players that he did and yet still not even make the play-offs.

[roversfan99]

Where the 3 players now is totally irrelevant. The only question you ask is, at that time, was the strikeforce of Rhodes and Gestede consistently scoring a level of goals as high as anyone in the division? As the answer is yes, the decision was correct to leave them to do that, and it was the failings of the manager and the rest of the side that cost us.

[darrenrover]

7 hours ago, Dr X said:

Back then we had 3 great options up front. It's a real shame that they couldn't be played together as I don't really see how you fit them together as a unit. 

Gestede and Rhodes were very good as a 2, perhaps King could have played wide, with another on the opposing flank. But that would have left us weak in the centre. I am unsure how you fit them in. 

He was phenomenal at times and has risen higher than the other 2, but if being honest, I didn't see that coming. 

TOMO would have had Gestede instead of DG and Rhodes and King as the 'wide forwards'.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Where the 3 players now is totally irrelevant. The only question you ask is, at that time, was the strikeforce of Rhodes and Gestede consistently scoring a level of goals as high as anyone in the division? As the answer is yes, the decision was correct to leave them to do that, and it was the failings of the manager and the rest of the side that cost us.

Playing King alongside Gestede would have meant opposing teams having to play ten yards deeper to counteract King's pace. As it was with Rhodes and Gestede they could push right up on us because they knew neither of them would win the foot race against 90% of centre backs.

Edited October 5, 2019 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, 47er said:

It is absurd that Bowyer could put together the collection of players that he did and yet still not even make the play-offs.

You are totally correct. 

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Where the 3 players now is totally irrelevant. The only question you ask is, at that time, was the strikeforce of Rhodes and Gestede consistently scoring a level of goals as high as anyone in the division? As the answer is yes, the decision was correct to leave them to do that, and it was the failings of the manager and the rest of the side that cost us.

No it isnt irrelevant at all where the 3 players are now. 

Rhodes cant even get on the Sheff Wed bench under Monk. 

Gestede came on yesterday. 

King is playing regular 1st team football in the premier league. 

We should have King and Gestede together more with Cairney pulling the strings in midfield

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

You are totally correct. 

No it isnt irrelevant at all where the 3 players are now. 

Rhodes cant even get on the Sheff Wed bench under Monk. 

Gestede came on yesterday. 

King is playing regular 1st team football in the premier league. 

We should have King and Gestede together more with Cairney pulling the strings in midfield

At that time, the pair were performing to excellent, consistent levels, banging in the goals, doing their job as well as any strikeforce in the league, sadly the manager and the 9 behind were not at the same level. 

Couldnt give a shit what they are doing now, it doesnt change how well they were doing then.

[OldEwoodBlue]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

At that time, the pair were performing to excellent, consistent levels, banging in the goals, doing their job as well as any strikeforce in the league, sadly the manager and the 9 behind were not at the same level. 

Couldnt give a shit what they are doing now, it doesnt change how well they were doing then.

And the fact is they were bought by "bigger clubs" because of the goals they scored. i.e. proven goalscorers

Whether those particular moves were right for those individuals careers is another matter entirely.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

At that time, the pair were performing to excellent, consistent levels, banging in the goals, doing their job as well as any strikeforce in the league, sadly the manager and the 9 behind were not at the same level. 

Couldnt give a shit what they are doing now, it doesnt change how well they were doing then.

For me King and Gestede would have better all round partnership. 

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

For me King and Gestede would have better all round partnership. 

King would have needed to score more than the 20 goals Rhodes guaranteed to do that.

No one knows whether he would have, but at the time it would have been brainless to drop a 20 goal striker. He was not part of the reason why we underachieved.

[chaddyrovers]

.

Edited October 5, 2019 by chaddyrovers
Wrong thread

[OldEwoodBlue]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

We should have King and Gestede together more with Cairney pulling the strings in midfield

I never rated Cairney at all Chaddy.

Ability, yes.

But I always thought he thought he was gods gift to football and his attitude to playing here stunk. Perhaps that was just because he wanted to be in London but we were never going to build a successful side around that lad.

I consider him one of my least liked Rovers players of all time. The opposite of the words on our badge.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

King would have needed to score more than the 20 goals Rhodes guaranteed to do that.

No one knows whether he would have, but at the time it would have been brainless to drop a 20 goal striker. He was not part of the reason why we underachieved.

I think it would have made us a better all round team. 

Made teams play deeper. 

Sadly Bowyer didnt have the balls to do so all hypothetical now. 

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

I think it would have made us a better all round team. 

Made teams play deeper. 

Sadly Bowyer didnt have the balls to do so all hypothetical now. 

Would it have made us score more goals?

It was having crap like Lowe, Williamson, Chris Taylor, Steele, Spurr etc behind that which was the issue.

Rhodes was a master every season he was here at sniffing out chances. Even when he had shite service, he still got goals. The opposite of Gallagher for whom the ability to sniff out goalscoring opportunities is alien to him.

Edited October 5, 2019 by roversfan99

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Would it have made us score more goals?

It was having crap like Lowe, Williamson, Chris Taylor, Steele, Spurr etc behind that which was the issue.

Rhodes was a master every season he was here at sniffing out chances. Even when he had shite service, he still got goals. 

Who knows until it was used.

Shite service? What you going on about? He has Cairney, Marshall and Conway plus King. How much more service did he need? 

Its all hypothetical anyway. What I will say I.wonder if Rhodes ever regret leaving us even Lambert wanted rid of him for his own number 9 which was Danny Graham. 

My last question to you about Rhodes. If you had to pick one striker between Rhodes or Graham which one would it be? 

[OldEwoodBlue]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

 

Rhodes was a master every season he was here at sniffing out chances. Even when he had shite service, he still got goals. The opposite of Gallagher for whom the ability to sniff out goalscoring opportunities is alien to him.

Rhodes = instinctive striker

Gallagher = lumox

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

My last question to you about Rhodes. If you had to pick one striker between Rhodes or Graham which one would it be? 

Rhodes = instinctive striker

Graham = instinctive striker

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by OldEwoodBlue