Sheffield Wednesday (H)

[USABlue]

21 hours ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

I don’t get the wanting us to lose to be honest, if it was fact that if we lost mowbray would be sacked then yes absolutely I’d be for that but as it is we need to stay in this league , relegation would be an utter disaster so 3 welcome points. There has been absolutely no sniff from media or club sources mowbray is in trouble , sadly. I don’t think we are going to get rid that easy with the position of power he has 

It's not so much ToMo's position of power as it is our owner's ignorance.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Stuart said:

Because it was meant to be down to Mowbray’s genius.

And enough with the “we scored and we won” so nothing else matters line. If you’d seen me in the 91st minute you would be under no confusion about how much I enjoyed the goals and result.  

P.S. Nando’s is where KFC customers go when they feel like going gourmet.

And you couldnt stand it if that was Mowbray message to him could you? 

So cheer up man then!!!

Patronising comments About Nandos. Dont eat KFC or Mcds so wouldnt Stuart  

[USABlue]

9 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I'd call repeatedly claiming he "he wanted a draw" despite you having 0 knowledge of what was said on the sideline, whilst refusing to give a jot of credit to a manager who you're the first to discredit, is more "foaming at the mouth" than Chaddy telling you otherwise.

Then again when both sides of the "Mowbray Out" debate are telling you that you are wrong, you are very often wrong.

I personally think Stuart has a good point.  If you are at 0-0 and you are going to bring in a DM who only scores after a Unicorn has walked across the pitch.  NEVER makes a defense splitting path, preferring sideways or backwards and pretty much has a role if spoiler it looks to me like you are wanting to hold what you have.  To change it when we fall behind just adds weight to the argument.  If Evans was meant to help us somehow WIN the game then ToMo would have still sent him on right?  Yeah Stuart is spot on with his assessment.

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, USABlue said:

I personally think Stuart has a good point.  If you are at 0-0 and you are going to bring in a DM who only scores after a Unicorn has walked across the pitch.  NEVER makes a defense splitting path, preferring sideways or backwards and pretty much has a role if spoiler it looks to me like you are wanting to hold what you have.  To change it when we fall behind just adds weight to the argument.  If Evans was meant to help us somehow WIN the game then ToMo would have still sent him on right?  Yeah Stuart is spot on with his assessment.

But we dont know who he was coming on for. 

[BlackburnEnd75]

54 minutes ago, USABlue said:

I personally think Stuart has a good point.  If you are at 0-0 and you are going to bring in a DM who only scores after a Unicorn has walked across the pitch.  NEVER makes a defense splitting path, preferring sideways or backwards and pretty much has a role if spoiler it looks to me like you are wanting to hold what you have.  To change it when we fall behind just adds weight to the argument.  If Evans was meant to help us somehow WIN the game then ToMo would have still sent him on right?  Yeah Stuart is spot on with his assessment.

Tbh I was critical of TM for not bringing either Johnson or Evans on 10 mins sooner as I felt we were getting to stretched in midfield. I felt their goal was coming. Even if with Evans on we would’ve had enough attacking players on the pitch.

Edited November 4, 2019 by BlackburnEnd75

[USABlue]

Just now, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Tbh I was critical of TM for not bringing either Johnson or Evans on 10 mins sooner as I felt we were getting to stretched in midfield. I felt there goal was coming. Even if with Evans on we would’ve had enough attacking players on the pitch.

Valid point and another way of looking at it.

[MarkBRFC]

12 minutes ago, USABlue said:

Valid point and another way of looking at it.

Or you could argue that if he had bought on Evans 10 minutes earlier, then we would have probably conceded two.

[tomphil]

He was clearly going to bring Evans on to protect the point and to be fair all things considered i'm not surprised given the form lately.

Trouble is Evans has never really proved great in those circumstances so it's as big a risk as just leaving things alone imo but it's all a lottery when you are as porous as us.

For balance reading back on twitter Weds fans were going ape that they'd scored then tried to sit back straight away.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

9 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

But we dont know who he was coming on for. 

Thats irrelevant, Stuart is right. Evans coming on was defensive. He was definitely coming on as he was stripped and taking instructions from the management team. As soon as the goal went in he was told to get a bib on and warm up again as the management team decided what to do next. As others have said I could understand it as the game was going away from Rovers.

As Buckley was the most attacking option left they threw him on. I'll give the Management Team credit they analysised the situation, took there time and changed their mind and got lucky.

Just one question Chaddy about your theory about Downing to left back with Evans coming into midfield. What makes you think that Mowbray was going to change his substitution roundabout of 

i.        Change Centre Forward

ii.        Put Rothwell on and move Downing inside

iii.      Take Downing off, throw on another midfielder

 

The goal changed the Management Team's mind and they got a huge slice of luck for once. It was great for it to happen to us for a change.

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Thats irrelevant, Stuart is right. Evans coming on was defensive. He was definitely coming on as he was stripped and taking instructions from the management team. As soon as the goal went in he was told to get a bib on and warm up again as the management team decided what to do next. As others have said I could understand it as the game was going away from Rovers.

As Buckley was the most attacking option left they threw him on. I'll give the Management Team credit they analysised the situation, took there time and changed their mind and got lucky.

Just one question Chaddy about your theory about Downing to left back with Evans coming into midfield. What makes you think that Mowbray was going to change his substitution roundabout of 

i.        Change Centre Forward

ii.        Put Rothwell on and move Downing inside

iii.      Take Downing off, throw on another midfielder

 

The goal changed the Management Team's mind and they got a huge slice of luck for once. It was great for it to happen to us for a change.

To be fair, Mowbrays substitutions or selections have often warranted the criticism they have got. Only last week, his strange decision to start Bennett in central midfield who obviously conceded another penalty was one thing, but his inactivity in terms of not utilising the experience we had on the bench that the team was crying out for was stupidity.

This week however, I think its totally unfair to focus solely on the subs he would have made in a different situation (if they didnt score) and as a result totally dismissing the fact that as the game did unravel, he did make the sub that won us the game, as you personally do give credit for. We can do that without changing your overall opinion of whether we are best placed to progress under his management, which again I dont think we are.

As a side note, he is bleating on again about the performances against the likes of Luton in the Lancashire Telegraph today as if they warranted more points than what we got. Just opening old wounds with that because we didnt deserve anything, we were shite.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

To be fair, Mowbrays substitutions or selections have often warranted the criticism they have got. Only last week, his strange decision to start Bennett in central midfield who obviously conceded another penalty was one thing, but his inactivity in terms of not utilising the experience we had on the bench that the team was crying out for was stupidity.

This week however, I think its totally unfair to focus solely on the subs he would have made in a different situation (if they didnt score) and as a result totally dismissing the fact that as the game did unravel, he did make the sub that won us the game, as you personally do give credit for. We can do that without changing your overall opinion of whether we are best placed to progress under his management, which again I dont think we are.

As a side note, he is bleating on again about the performances against the likes of Luton in the Lancashire Telegraph today as if they warranted more points than what we got. Just opening old wounds with that because we didnt deserve anything, we were shite.

I agree wholeheartedily about the subs but due to the famly comittments I wasn't at the PNE game so think it unfair to comment as I've only seen very brief highlights but I will say I liked the idea of using Bennett's energy to counter PNE. I was honestly expecting it to be Smallwood recalled.

On Saturday, all I was commenting on was asking why with evidence of previous games, not including the North End game, and the fact that Evans was stripped ready to come on why Chaddy questions what Stuart was thinking was not correct? Mowbrays approach is a duel approach of Management by Numbers and Safety first. There was nothing from Saturday to suggest otherwise. If there was then he wouldn't have Bell on the bench or have two defensive midfielders there, he would have likes of Butterworth, Chapman and Rankin-Costello there as well as Buckley. These are players who change the game positively.

 

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

I agree wholeheartedily about the subs but due to the famly comittments I wasn't at the PNE game so think it unfair to comment as I've only seen very brief highlights but I will say I liked the idea of using Bennett's energy to counter PNE. I was honestly expecting it to be Smallwood recalled.

On Saturday, all I was commenting on was asking why with evidence of previous games, not including the North End game, and the fact that Evans was stripped ready to come on why Chaddy questions what Stuart was thinking was not correct? Mowbrays approach is a duel approach of Management by Numbers and Safety first. There was nothing from Saturday to suggest otherwise. If there was then he wouldn't have Bell on the bench or have two defensive midfielders there, he would have likes of Butterworth, Chapman and Rankin-Costello there as well as Buckley. These are players who change the game positively.

 

Travis can match Bennetts energy and accompany it with ability but he was dropped as a result. Net effect of a weird blind spot and overriding loyalty was another penalty conceded.

In regards to Mowbray as a manager, I dont doubt the general issues that people have regarding his management as I have the same. I just dont think its fair and indeed tarnishes any other opinions when people refuse to credit him for a decision he actually did get right in favour of focusing solely on a decision he may or was going to (but didnt) make in a different scenario.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Travis can match Bennetts energy and accompany it with ability but he was dropped as a result. Net effect of a weird blind spot and overriding loyalty was another penalty conceded.

In regards to Mowbray as a manager, I dont doubt the general issues that people have regarding his management as I have the same. I just dont think its fair and indeed tarnishes any other opinions when people refuse to credit him for a decision he actually did get right in favour of focusing solely on a decision he may or was going to (but didnt) make in a different scenario.

Id have played Travis and Bennett actually. The penalty was silly I grant you.

As I'd said early the management team deserved credit for getting the decision eventually right but it does not tarnish the opinion that he was making a negative tactic. Even great managers make negative tatical decisions sometimes. He was trying to shore up his defensive options to secure a point, sometimes its necessary. I've no problem with it, I may not like it but I've no problem with it. I have a problem with people who refuse to accept that Mowbray had safety first in mind but refuse to admit it. That's not yoy Roverfan but certain others need to get a dose of realism.

[USABlue]

5 hours ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Id have played Travis and Bennett actually. The penalty was silly I grant you.

As I'd said early the management team deserved credit for getting the decision eventually right but it does not tarnish the opinion that he was making a negative tactic. Even great managers make negative tatical decisions sometimes. He was trying to shore up his defensive options to secure a point, sometimes its necessary. I've no problem with it, I may not like it but I've no problem with it. I have a problem with people who refuse to accept that Mowbray had safety first in mind but refuse to admit it. That's not yoy Roverfan but certain others need to get a dose of realism.

The penalty was soft.  A gimme.  Just like the other one be gave away.

Edited November 5, 2019 by USABlue

[chaddyrovers]

6 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Travis can match Bennetts energy and accompany it with ability but he was dropped as a result. Net effect of a weird blind spot and overriding loyalty was another penalty conceded.

 

Yes Travis can match Bennett's Energy but could he have match his performance to man mark their midfield playmaker out of the game so well.

Evans protect the back 4 very well 1st half. 

So do you drop Dack for Travis and go for high energy midfield 3? I dont know. Thought Dack did very well against Pearson 1st half tbh..

[USABlue]

Anybody got real info on the note, anyone asked ToMo what was in it?  

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, USABlue said:

Anybody got real info on the note, anyone asked ToMo what was in it?  

Tosin posted what it said

[roversfan99]

23 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yes Travis can match Bennett's Energy but could he have match his performance to man mark their midfield playmaker out of the game so well.

Evans protect the back 4 very well 1st half. 

So do you drop Dack for Travis and go for high energy midfield 3? I dont know. Thought Dack did very well against Pearson 1st half tbh..

No, you drop Bennett who contrary to what you keep saying did not do a Makelele like job on Gallagher, and play our best central midfielder Travis with another, Downing, Johnson or at a push Evans. 

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Tosin posted what it said

The fact that you havent taken that as the joke it clearly was is funnier than the actual joke.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

No, you drop Bennett who contrary to what you keep saying did not do a Makelele like job on Gallagher, and play our best central midfielder Travis with another, Downing, Johnson or at a push Evans. 

The fact that you havent taken that as the joke it clearly was is funnier than the actual joke.

it was so clear the job on Gallagher he was move wide and then taking off shortly after. Bennett stopped him playing. 

Yes cos I wanted Travis who is my first choice in centre midfield and Evans next to him. Plus we were playing at all. 

who knows if it was joke or not but yet again who cares. we won, he scored and I won 58 pounds on him scoring aswell

[LDRover]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Tosin posted what it said

Christ Chaddy that's up there with the Croatian fitness coach Runyer Bollocksov

[JacknOry]

15 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Tosin posted what it said

Hilarious.

Seriously, you believed that? After scoring he looked at the note and showed it to Graham, surely there would have been smiles on their faces?

[Amo]

15 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

The fact that you havent taken that as the joke it clearly was is funnier than the actual joke.

I'm not sure he's a real person. I think he's a crafty bot Glenn & Ste B cooked up.