Rovers v Hull

[JacknOry]

Extended highlights if anyone hasn't seen them yet.

[Paul Mani]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I think we're roughly similar in our views on the manager and the team but I enjoyed last night. I thought Saturday was a scandal. Theoretically meant to be chasing a play off place but setting up to try and scrape a point and mustering just one effort on target after going behind.

However I thought last night was much better. Armstrong should have scored from a glorious chance inside 10 seconds and we carved out numerous clear cut opportunities in the first half whereas normally you're scratching your head up to half time trying to remember if we've worked the opposition keeper or not.

Although we did our usual at the start of the second half, and dropped off the pace after a good 45 mins, the tempo picked up again after the introduction of the substitutes and 27 shots in total was evidence of a much better attitude than normal for me.

I completely agree we need to back the result up against Charlton. Whether we do so or not I think will depend primarily on the manager. Will he stay positive with his selections and let the players continue to go out and give it a go? If so it might be an interesting and entertaining end to season. If however he retreats into his more natural containment mode the season will probably fizzle out into a repeat of the last one.

Where has this come from? Aren’t we statistically the team who score the most goals inside the first 15 minutes in the Championship? Doesn’t seem like a team going out to ‘contain’ others. I’m fact I’d suggest it infers that we usually go out to press high and get an early goal.

The games are being massively over thought here. We are currently decimated by injuries to creative players which limits our ability to open teams up.

On Saturday we played a team who’ve spent £120m in the last 18 months and are on a good run so we set up to contain and try to nick one rather than go toe to toe and likely get beaten 3 or 4. (We employed the same tactic vs Brentford and won the game btw).

On Tuesday we played a team who have just sold their two best players and have more injuries than us. So we went after them from the first second and should have beaten them 5 or 6.

Why on earth are people comparing the two games which are obviously so different? You don’t go unbeaten since September with a mid table budget by going all out to beat every team 5-0 at home!

[47er]

Are you seriously contending that TM is not an over-cautious manager? Mind-boggling if you are.

[Inglorious basturk]

I think there are some facts in the post about how we approach different teams .... 

I think I just wish there was more unity about how frustrating things are , the tombola tactics , the groundhog teenager windows . 
 

I don’t know how we fix the predicament we are in but it doesn’t mean we have to be so accepting of it either 

[Mashed Potatoes]

31 minutes ago, 47er said:

Are you seriously contending that TM is not an over-cautious manager? Mind-boggling if you are.

Only West Brom and Brentford have scored significantly more goals than us.

[Dreams of 1995]

38 minutes ago, Inglorious basturk said:

I think there are some facts in the post about how we approach different teams .... 

I think I just wish there was more unity about how frustrating things are , the tombola tactics , the groundhog teenager windows . 
 

I don’t know how we fix the predicament we are in but it doesn’t mean we have to be so accepting of it either 

We aren’t in a predicament though and it’s getting very frustrating trying to get this across. The only crisis we are facing is an injury one and we are so far coping as well as we could have hoped.

[Rogerb]

35 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Only West Brom and Brentford have scored significantly more goals than us.

True but could be argued if TM was not so cautious we would have scored similar numbers and be in a similar position in the table as them. Saturday game being a case in point. More pressure put on Fulham better result.

[chaddyrovers]

21 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

True but could be argued if TM was not so cautious we would have scored similar numbers and be in a similar position in the table as them. Saturday game being a case in point. More pressure put on Fulham better result.

Or been more open could have allow Fulham to score more and Cairney more room to dominate the game

[Guest]

0-0 vs Hull, he brings on an attacking midfielder and two strikers, we win the game 3-0. That is far from cautiousness no?

We've scored 17 goals in the last ten games without our key man Bradley Dack, and with Danny Graham providing none of them either having barely played. If I'd have told you we'd do that in November you'd probably think I was mental.

"who's going to score the goals without those two" is something TM has said consistently since L1 promotion.

To accuse a team that's joint 3rd in the table for goals scored since Christmas of being over cautious seems... odd ?‍♂️

 

[arbitro]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Or been more open could have allow Fulham to score more and Cairney more room to dominate the game

Millwall went after them last night and got a point and from what I saw could have nicked it. Mowbray signalled his intent in his Thursday press conference and his selection. 

[Ewood Ace]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Or been more open could have allow Fulham to score more and Cairney more room to dominate the game

Such little faith in our team. Why talk them down? Show some faith.

[47er]

57 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Only West Brom and Brentford have scored significantly more goals than us.

Come on, we can all pick games where the line-up was too defensive, the wrong players were substituted for the wrong players, the games where we hardly had a shot the whole game and the games where we were behind or level but didn't mount a siege of the opposition's goal for an equaliser/winner.

In addition, his total disdain for wingers is a sign of defensiveness in itself.

if you're not convinced that TM is ultra cautious, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Surprising we're not selling out the ground if we are so attractive to watch!

[Ewood Ace]

1 hour ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Only West Brom and Brentford have scored significantly more goals than us.

Depends how you define significant. One goal can be worth 3 extra points which come the end of the season could prove very significant. 

[47er]

7 minutes ago, JoeH said:

We've scored 17 goals in the last ten games without our key man Bradley Dack, and with Danny Graham providing none of them either having barely played. If I'd have told you we'd do that in November you'd probably think I was mental.

 

So in the previous 22 games we scored 29 goals with our best attacking players available! 

See what I mean?

[jim mk2]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

We aren’t in a predicament though and it’s getting very frustrating trying to get this across. The only crisis we are facing is an injury one and we are so far coping as well as we could have hoped.

On the other hand, the injury "crisis" is reducing Mowbray's options and forcing him to play a more settled side (will stand corrected on that). 

Necessity is the mother of invention etc etc. 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, 47er said:

If you're not convinced that TM is ultra cautious, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Surprising we're not selling out the ground if we are so attractive to watch!

There's a difference between cautiousness and attractiveness.

We're not a cautious side, we win most of our home games (or at the very least rarely lose at Ewood). We very rarely bring on defenders as substitutes, unless injuries make it so. Most of our subs, I'd bet 90%+ are strikers like Brereton, Graham coming on or people like John Buckley who are much more attacking minded than defensive minded. It's extremely odd to accuse TM of being cautious, when in reality we score a very decent amount of goals for a side with no goalscoring out and out striker.

I don't think anybody is claiming we're the most attractive side to watch, but it's also not true that we're a cautious side to watch. 70% possession, 26 shots in one game, 17 goals in 10 games... 3 strikers on the pitch...

"cautious". Come off it.

[47er]

Just now, JoeH said:

There's a difference between cautiousness and attractiveness.

We're not a cautious side, we win most of our home games (or at the very least rarely lose at Ewood). We very rarely bring on defenders as substitutes, unless injuries make it so. Most of our subs, I'd bet 90%+ are strikers like Brereton, Graham coming on or people like John Buckley who are much more attacking minded than defensive minded. It's extremely odd to accuse TM of being cautious, when in reality we score a very decent amount of goals for a side with no goalscoring out and out striker.

I don't think anybody is claiming we're the most attractive side to watch, but it's also not true that we're a cautious side to watch. 70% possession, 26 shots in one game, 17 goals in 10 games... 3 strikers on the pitch...

"cautious". Come off it.

Tell me---are we an attractive side to watch? Tony promised us excitement, we'd be watching "on the edge of our seats".

He didn't mean we were counting the minutes till we could go home!

And nobody is claiming we are the most attractive side to watch!!

I wrote, in response to your stats;

So in the previous 22 games we scored 29 goals with our best attacking players available! 

See what I mean?

You didn't address that at all did you?

I agree with Jim, we have quite a few out, TM has fewer options so we have a more settled side. So we are gaining more points.

Just like I've been arguing all season!

 

[47er]

7 minutes ago, JoeH said:

"cautious". Come off it.

True to a point! Definitely threw caution to the wind when he spent £12 million on two strikers who can't strike and when he gambled on Adebayaro and Lenihan staying fit for the season.

So fair enough he can be reckless.

[JacknOry]

Tbf, the majority of those goals have come against a 10-man Wednesday and probably the worst team that has been seen at Ewood for years.

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

Millwall went after them last night and got a point and from what I saw could have nicked it. Mowbray signalled his intent in his Thursday press conference and his selection. 

I watched the game. Millwall got a lucky goal but played well 1st. Fulham second half better team. But even game. Millwall didn't create anything second half

2 hours ago, Ewood Ace said:

Such little faith in our team. Why talk them down? Show some faith.

Cant believe you have posted sort of comment to me who believe we can get top 6. 

I told the board how I would play against Fulham before the game. 

[Ewood Ace]

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I told the board how I would play against Fulham before the game. 

Blimey, didn't realise you had those sort of connections.

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

I watched the game. Millwall got a lucky goal but played well 1st. Fulham second half better team. But even game. Millwall didn't create anything second half

Cant believe you have posted sort of comment to me who believe we can get top 6. 

I told the board how I would play against Fulham before the game. 

Millwall had a different approach to playing Fulham than we did though. There was more intensity to their play and this, particularly in the first half didn't allow Fulham to get their passing game going. I think Mowbray set us up differently last Saturday and adopted different tactics which was done out of respect/fear of Fulham.

[Rogerb]

30 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Millwall had a different approach to playing Fulham than we did though. There was more intensity to their play and this, particularly in the first half didn't allow Fulham to get their passing game going. I think Mowbray set us up differently last Saturday and adopted different tactics which was done out of respect/fear of Fulham.

TM described Fulham as scarey more fear than respect!

[Bigdoggsteel]

46 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Millwall had a different approach to playing Fulham than we did though. There was more intensity to their play and this, particularly in the first half didn't allow Fulham to get their passing game going. I think Mowbray set us up differently last Saturday and adopted different tactics which was done out of respect/fear of Fulham.

The shite pitch did Fulham no favours either 

[RoverKyle]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

I watched the game. Millwall got a lucky goal but played well 1st. Fulham second half better team. But even game. Millwall didn't create anything second half

I switched on for the 2nd half and thought Millwall were very positive. They were pushed back quite a lot as Fulham were trying to get a winner but Rowett made a couple of attacking subs and was pushing for a winner too. Apart from Fulham hitting the bar in stoppage time at the end, the standout chance was Millwall's through Tom Bradshaw, who should've done a lot better when he was put through.