Stoke City home

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

Agreed.

So why did you do your usual trolling post before kickoff saying we'd win easily? 

Very simple Jim.

We could and should have won.

If Mowbray had started with the eleven who started at Brentford then, IMO, the points would have been in the bag.

I thought the penny had dropped with Mowbray after the recent run (Nov/Dec) where we won 5 out of 6 consecutive games (drawing the other) with very limited changes.  Seemingly, our manager doesn't learn.  IMO, Mowbray has managerial shortcomings and it's not easy to legislate for what I think are glaring inconsistencies and incompetences. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Mercer

[Pedro]

4 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

No, it's not a genuine question, it's been an arse. I never said possession equates to results, not once. It shows, along with the evidence of watching the game that we controlled the possession and pegged them back for most of the game. I used stats because it seems you couldn't see it or refuse to acknowledge it. Of course it is irrelevant ultimately, as I agree its goals and points that matter. I'm just not agreeing that we were as "shit" as you are making out, or that Stoke were as shit defensively as you are making out. 

I also agree that the laborious tapping around out of defence is bollox. That's on our midfield, Rothwell and Downing in particular to turn and get things going. Games like last night you need someone to score a worldie or you need a bit of luck. If either of those things happened, I bet our performance would look a lot better. The performance was not anywhere near on par with some games I recall like that Wigan game, 

It is a genuine question. Do you go - yes or no?

 

I don't refuse to see it - I mentioned on the night we pass thirty times - all pointlessly. All needlessly.

Nobody has said Stoke were shit. Stop making stuff up.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Pedro

[K-Hod]

3 hours ago, JoeH said:

We're just a team with no wingers. I've said it so many times around 70 minutes into home games this season, we miss Craig Conway way too often.

Nyambe, Bell, Armstrong, Rothwell... none of them can cross a football. We've got Sam Gallagher upfront who clearly wants to get on the end of things with his head, as he managed to twice last night, and he's getting barely any service.

In the summer the main priority has to be two competent wide players, one for each bloody side. 

Well, we miss the one from quite a few years ago, not the one now playing for Salford City....

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

We need enlightened thinking and sadly, IMO, it will never come from Mowbray, Venus, Lowe and Benson who, I think are either tactical dinosars or just plain incompetent.

But yet you back us to win tho before the game tho? But you say out manager and staff aren't up to it. So why back us to win? 

 

[AllRoverAsia]

13 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

But yet you back us to win tho before the game tho? But you say out manager and staff aren't up to it. So why back us to win? 

 

The answer to ''how long is a piece of string'' will be easier to understand

[47er]

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

We never ever looked like we was going to win the game though. With Gallagher spending much of his time on the wing again any hopes of balance were instantly lost. We are dying for some natural width to stretch teams as with Rothwell wanting to come inside we are reliant on 2 full backs to provide the width who between them have less assists than our goalkeeper. 

Its only a few days since most of us were expressing the hope that Gallagher wold never play on the wing again. We were deluded.

This manager just makes the same mistakes without any come-back.

[OldEwoodBlue]

Rothwell is completely shite.

People say he is exciting but its simply a trick of the mind.

Yes he can go past people (4 seconds excitement) but then he loses the ball.

Attacking mids should be contributing 10 goals a season minimum.

He has no goals, half an assist and not many shots because he always loses the ball first.

Talented feet. Useless brain. Crap player.

 

[jim mk2]

19 minutes ago, Mercer said:

We could and should have won.

If Mowbray had started with the eleven who started at Brentford then, IMO, the points would have been in the bag.

I thought the penny had dropped with Mowbray after the recent run (Nov/Dec) where we won 5 out of 6 consecutive games (drawing the other) with very limited changes.  Seemingly, our manager doesn't learn.  IMO, Mowbray has managerial shortcomings and it's not easy to legislate for what I think are glaring inconsistencies and incompetences. 

The team was set up for the away counter attacking game for which it is suited at Charlton and Brentford. I don't blame him for changing it against a team that was likely to park the bus and come for the draw but it's down to him how it played .... the slow, passing, backwards and sideways style was never likely to work.

Even without the "creative players", Rovers should surely be able to beat these teams by raising the tempo and forcing errors but Mowbray's teams rarely do.

Please don't keep forecasting "easy wins". It's tiresome and Rovers just don't do it that way.  

[tomphil]

18 minutes ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Rothwell is completely shite.

People say he is exciting but its simply a trick of the mind.

Yes he can go past people (4 seconds excitement) but then he loses the ball.

Attacking mids should be contributing 10 goals a season minimum.

He has no goals, half an assist and not many shots because he always loses the ball first.

Talented feet. Useless brain. Crap player.

 

Another playing above his true level if truth be told. There's such a lack of flair or pace in the squad that any little bright spot gets the hopes up.

Edited February 27, 2020 by tomphil

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

But yet you back us to win tho before the game tho? But you say out manager and staff aren't up to it. So why back us to win? 

 

Any football manger whether good, bad or indifferent will win some football matches.

You didn't rate Owen Coyle yet he manged to win promotion to the Premier League with Burnley! 

Even Kean won some football matches even in the PL and at places like Old Trafford!

Edited February 27, 2020 by Mercer

[Mercer]

39 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

The team was set up for the away counter attacking game for which it is suited at Charlton and Brentford. I don't blame him for changing it against a team that was likely to park the bus and come for the draw but it's down to him how it played .... the slow, passing, backwards and sideways style was never likely to work.

Even without the "creative players", Rovers should surely be able to beat these teams by raising the tempo and forcing errors but Mowbray's teams rarely do.

Please don't keep forecasting "easy wins". It's tiresome and Rovers just don't do it that way.  

My gripe was Mowbray, IMO, inexplicably preferring Gallagher to Samuel and leaving out Buckley who, especially at home where we will enjoy a lot of possession, is one of the few players we have who has a key to move the feckin bus!!!

IMO, Mowbray's team does lack imagination, verve and purpose, mirroring the manager.

As for "easy wins", it's only what I feel we should do and what my gut instinct is - by the way, you disregard the number of times I forecast Rovers to win by the odd goal, or draw or even lose!  

[G Somerset Rover]

51 minutes ago, Mercer said:

As for "easy wins", it's only what I feel we should do and what my gut instinct is - by the way, you disregard the number of times I forecast Rovers to win by the odd goal, or draw or even lose!  

Largely because I could probably count those times this season on one hand.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Gavlar Somerset Rover!

[Exiled in Toronto]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

My gripe was Mowbray, IMO, inexplicably preferring Gallagher to Samuel and leaving out Buckley who, especially at home where we will enjoy a lot of possession, is one of the few players we have who has a key to move the feckin bus!!!

IMO, Mowbray's team does lack imagination, verve and purpose, mirroring the manager.

As for "easy wins", it's only what I feel we should do and what my gut instinct is - by the way, you disregard the number of times I forecast Rovers to win by the odd goal, or draw or even lose!  

The equivalent of forecasting racing wins when the jockey is fat, old and falls off regularly.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

8 hours ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Rothwell is completely shite.

People say he is exciting but its simply a trick of the mind.

Yes he can go past people (4 seconds excitement) but then he loses the ball.

Attacking mids should be contributing 10 goals a season minimum.

He has no goals, half an assist and not many shots because he always loses the ball first.

Talented feet. Useless brain. Crap player.

 

I think you are a little harsh on Rothwell. There is a talent there but it needs a lot coaching. There is also a question of the lack of other player's movement to create space and give him options. Usually when he sets off on a run, like in most areas of play, we are too static or at best slow to move. Now this maybe one reason he'll run into a blind alley and give the ball away or the other reason is that his head is down and not looking. Personally think both are true.

4 seconds excitement is still 10 seconds more excitement than watching Gallagher on the other wing! 

[only2garners]

9 hours ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Rothwell is completely shite.

People say he is exciting but its simply a trick of the mind.

Yes he can go past people (4 seconds excitement) but then he loses the ball.

Attacking mids should be contributing 10 goals a season minimum.

He has no goals, half an assist and not many shots because he always loses the ball first.

Talented feet. Useless brain. Crap player.

 

I seem to remember having made the same point at the end of last season and in the Autumn. He looks great at first sight because he can run past a few defenders. But he invariably makes the wrong decision, usually giving the ball away, he can’t defend and his positional sense is awful - he just wanders away from his position all the time.

I’m away right now and haven’t seen any games since Middlesbrough but before that I thought Buckley was twice the player despite still being a bit too lightweight as yet. He doesn’t dance past players at will, but just passes the ball past them.

[OldEwoodBlue]

12 minutes ago, only2garners said:

I seem to remember having made the same point at the end of last season and in the Autumn. He looks great at first sight because he can run past a few defenders. But he invariably makes the wrong decision, usually giving the ball away, he can’t defend and his positional sense is awful - he just wanders away from his position all the time.

I’m away right now and haven’t seen any games since Middlesbrough but before that I thought Buckley was twice the player despite still being a bit too lightweight as yet. He doesn’t dance past players at will, but just passes the ball past them.

Agree 100%

Twice the football brain.

[Paul Mani]

21 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

We're miles behind a target of 1.8 points per game. If we were on track we'd be on 63 points after 28 games. We're only on 52.

Edit: We also now need more than two points per game from the remaining eleven to get to the normal sort of benchmark of 75 points.

At the start of the three game run this week we needed 1.8pts per game. A win on Saturday brings us back into line with that.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

18 hours ago, JoeH said:

We're just a team with no wingers. I've said it so many times around 70 minutes into home games this season, we miss Craig Conway way too often.

Nyambe, Bell, Armstrong, Rothwell... none of them can cross a football. We've got Sam Gallagher upfront who clearly wants to get on the end of things with his head, as he managed to twice last night, and he's getting barely any service.

In the summer the main priority has to be two competent wide players, one for each bloody side. 

How can you get to this level and not be able to cross a ball ? It's beyond belief. What do they do in training ?

I remember watching Marshall and Carney in that competition were they were trying to score direct from a corner. Cairney got the ball in the net from both wings in a couple of goes and Marshall wasn't far behind. If you can do that you should be able to cross a ball.

[Commondore]

14 hours ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Rothwell is completely shite.

People say he is exciting but its simply a trick of the mind.

Yes he can go past people (4 seconds excitement) but then he loses the ball.

 Attacking mids should be contributing 10 goals a season minimum.

He has no goals, half an assist and not many shots because he always loses the ball first.

Talented feet. Useless brain. Crap player.

  

I wonder how many Championship midfielders live up to that?

[Bigdoggsteel]

19 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

We never ever looked like we was going to win the game though. With Gallagher spending much of his time on the wing again any hopes of balance were instantly lost. We are dying for some natural width to stretch teams as with Rothwell wanting to come inside we are reliant on 2 full backs to provide the width who between them have less assists than our goalkeeper. 

Ya, 100% , the game was screaming out for someone like Chapman. Someone who could beat a man or two from nothing and just the break the line of defection and get Stoke stretched and worrying 

[47er]

3 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

At the start of the three game run this week we needed 1.8pts per game. A win on Saturday brings us back into line with that.

Its taken you a while to think that one up! Never known you so quiet. 

And who says we needed 1.8 points per game? Its not a computer game. We need every point we can get, wherever, however. What we needed was to beat a team struggling against relegation at home. We needed a win to compensate for a future loss.

Are you seriously saying we've drawn the last two games and we're on track and everything's under control?

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

19 hours ago, bluebruce said:

Not sure their top level players are in defence though.

They kept a clean sheet in their previous game, but before that they conceded 11 in their last 4 games.

So they obviously tightened things up after that. It's O'Neills strength 

Chester, Bath, Collins and Indi are all quality defenders from what I have seen of them. Butland very good keeper for this level. 

Edited February 28, 2020 by Bigdoggsteel

[Bigdoggsteel]

18 hours ago, darrenrover said:

You're quite correct that Stoke defended well, it's what O'Neill teams do and was only to be expected. What frustrates is that why didn't Mowbray set the team up to counteract that? When what he'd started with clearly wasn't working, why didn't he change the formation and pattern of play? 

There's thousands of us that knew what game to expect and that we wouldn't have the nous to break it down, it wasn't a surprise. Mowbray and his team should have had a trick or two up their sleeve but they didn't, as per usual. 

It's so bloody frustrating that we can see it but evidently they can't. Possession where it doesn't matter counts for bugger all.

Ya, I thought we could have changed things earlier, but all it takes is one lucky break and we were on top, just not getting the chances. 

[Blue blood]

Ok, so I think I have finally calmed down after this game. Not sure if I was more annoyed with TM and the team or myself for getting my hopes up. If Brentford showed why we are in contention for playoffs, the Stoke game showed why we won't do it.

I really was hoping that we had turned the corner with regards to beating weaker teams who sit back and defend but clearly an Achilles Heel we've had for 3 years still hasn't gone away. And no matter if you work your nuts off and get good results against the better teams - and Brentford was a refereeing calamity away from a good away win - it makes no sodding difference if you can't beat weaker opponents at home. Yes, there's always the odd blip, but we consistently can't put weaker teams to the sword.

Let's start with Gally. Aside from his dubious abilities as a striker, what is less contentious is that he is terrible at right wing. He's laboured, doesn't create, doesn't threatened, and only looks vaguely promising when he moves into the centre - in other words, away from the position he is playing. Why do we do it when it is clear to everyone of all shades of Rovers fans that it isn't working, is beyond me. Actually it isn't - there are 5 million reasons why he is playing there. It may however cost us a shot at the £90 million from promotion though. My biggest gripe however is how this changes our play. When Armstrong plays without Gally, we either loft it over the top to Armstrong or play it through the defence. When Gally plays we instead whack it towards him instead, rather than playing to the strengths of our best player. Even if Gally wins the flick on, it displays as much accuracy as a piece of governmental PR, meaning we are starving Armstrong of service from these "flick ons" (flick outs would be a better phrase), as well as giving the ball to someone who isn't that good. Sure the defence was deep and so it's harder to make balls to run onto, therefore more options are needed to stretch the defence with width or creatively unlock the Stoke backline. Gally provides neither width nor creativity, making it even harder when teams sit back. Farcical doesn't begin to describe it.

Then there's the lack of magic makers, making something out of nothing. I think we really lack this, and whilst debates with other posters would put Armstrong into this category, either way we looked very short on it against Stoke. This is why I feel there must be a place for Mulgrew on the bench. His free kicks and corners could have tipped the balance and unlocked the defence. Given Stoke weren't attacking a lot there were a number of options as to where Mulgrew could have played - in defence, left back or defensive midfield.

Speaking of midfield I struggle to see how Johnson is rated as a good buy. Sure he gives some 8 out of 10 performances but I think he is just as capable, and gives just as many if not more 4 out of 10 performances. What is patently clear is that he doesn't have the engine for Championship football anymore, certainly not 2 games in quick succession. Against Brentford - against who he looked rather good - he still gassed for the final 10 minutes of each half. I dread to think of him playing another season for us, as he just doesn't have the fitness required to build a team around. 60 minutes every Saturday is the best we can hope for which really isn't enough. The Stoke game was a game too far for him.

That said we had enough options on the bench to change things. If we wanted to play long ball give Graham a good amount of minutes. He still looks the best target man we have. Buckley has bags of creativity and a more passing approach with him coming on as sub should also have been something we could have utilised a lot earlier. Equally Chapman could've provided width, Bennett in the centre instead of Johnson more energy. Yes we have injuries, but we did have (5 by my count including Mulgrew) options that with enough time could have changed the game. Also just don't play Gally out wide that would help.

So another year, another disappointment. We are still comfortably outside the playoffs, and are unlikely to get another week where we can make up so much ground on everyone. Sure it's progress from last year but what might have been with a bit more nous is huge and very disappointing.

[Stuart]

2 hours ago, Blue blood said:

Ok, so I think I have finally calmed down after this game. Not sure if I was more annoyed with TM and the team or myself for getting my hopes up. If Brentford showed why we are in contention for playoffs, the Stoke game showed why we won't do it.

I really was hoping that we had turned the corner with regards to beating weaker teams who sit back and defend but clearly an Achilles Heel we've had for 3 years still hasn't gone away. And no matter if you work your nuts off and get good results against the better teams - and Brentford was a refereeing calamity away from a good away win - it makes no sodding difference if you can't beat weaker opponents at home. Yes, there's always the odd blip, but we consistently can't put weaker teams to the sword.

Let's start with Gally. Aside from his dubious abilities as a striker, what is less contentious is that he is terrible at right wing. He's laboured, doesn't create, doesn't threatened, and only looks vaguely promising when he moves into the centre - in other words, away from the position he is playing. Why do we do it when it is clear to everyone of all shades of Rovers fans that it isn't working, is beyond me. Actually it isn't - there are 5 million reasons why he is playing there. It may however cost us a shot at the £90 million from promotion though. My biggest gripe however is how this changes our play. When Armstrong plays without Gally, we either loft it over the top to Armstrong or play it through the defence. When Gally plays we instead whack it towards him instead, rather than playing to the strengths of our best player. Even if Gally wins the flick on, it displays as much accuracy as a piece of governmental PR, meaning we are starving Armstrong of service from these "flick ons" (flick outs would be a better phrase), as well as giving the ball to someone who isn't that good. Sure the defence was deep and so it's harder to make balls to run onto, therefore more options are needed to stretch the defence with width or creatively unlock the Stoke backline. Gally provides neither width nor creativity, making it even harder when teams sit back. Farcical doesn't begin to describe it.

Then there's the lack of magic makers, making something out of nothing. I think we really lack this, and whilst debates with other posters would put Armstrong into this category, either way we looked very short on it against Stoke. This is why I feel there must be a place for Mulgrew on the bench. His free kicks and corners could have tipped the balance and unlocked the defence. Given Stoke weren't attacking a lot there were a number of options as to where Mulgrew could have played - in defence, left back or defensive midfield.

Speaking of midfield I struggle to see how Johnson is rated as a good buy. Sure he gives some 8 out of 10 performances but I think he is just as capable, and gives just as many if not more 4 out of 10 performances. What is patently clear is that he doesn't have the engine for Championship football anymore, certainly not 2 games in quick succession. Against Brentford - against who he looked rather good - he still gassed for the final 10 minutes of each half. I dread to think of him playing another season for us, as he just doesn't have the fitness required to build a team around. 60 minutes every Saturday is the best we can hope for which really isn't enough. The Stoke game was a game too far for him.

That said we had enough options on the bench to change things. If we wanted to play long ball give Graham a good amount of minutes. He still looks the best target man we have. Buckley has bags of creativity and a more passing approach with him coming on as sub should also have been something we could have utilised a lot earlier. Equally Chapman could've provided width, Bennett in the centre instead of Johnson more energy. Yes we have injuries, but we did have (5 by my count including Mulgrew) options that with enough time could have changed the game. Also just don't play Gally out wide that would help.

So another year, another disappointment. We are still comfortably outside the playoffs, and are unlikely to get another week where we can make up so much ground on everyone. Sure it's progress from last year but what might have been with a bit more nous is huge and very disappointing.

You’ll get no credit, possibly instead just ridicule from the “positive” posters, but that’s a great post. Spot on.