TRANSFER THREAD - JANUARY 2021

[jim mk2]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

would you want to watch Dyche or McCarthy type of football regular basis and do you agree that type of football has a certain shelf life before fans get bore of it and depend a change of style? 

 

Years ago Charlton fans got "bored" with Alan Curbishley keeping them mid-table in the Prem and look where they are now. Same with our fans who were bored with Sam keeping us in the top league.

I've never in 50 years plus gone to watch Rovers wanting to be "entertained". I want to see us win - full stop. 

I find this argument quite ridiculous. I'd have the likes of Dyche or Sam or Warnock at Ewood tomorrow. 

[Sparks Rover]

15 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

I find this argument quite ridiculous. I'd have the likes of Dyche or Sam or Warnock at Ewood tomorrow. 

Totally agree. 

Dyche first to win at Anfield in about 100 years and Chaddy wouldn't have him down ewood ☺

[Gav]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

Years ago Charlton fans got "bored" with Alan Curbishley keeping them mid-table in the Prem and look where they are now. Same with our fans who were bored with Sam keeping us in the top league.

I've never in 50 years plus gone to watch Rovers wanting to be "entertained". I want to see us win - full stop. 

I find this argument quite ridiculous. I'd have the likes of Dyche or Sam or Warnock at Ewood tomorrow. 

You got bored of John Williams, Jim, probably the best chairman we've ever had, you wanted him sacked and made no secret of it.

Look where we are now.....

I'd have him back tomorrow, to get rid of him was quite ridiculous. 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Gav

[Bbrovers2288]

We don’t have either an attacking or defensive style quite simply we have a disorganised one, absolutely no style to us whatsoever. Mowbray has no stamp on this team despite being given time 

[Gone to seed]

A few days before the end of the transfer window, and here we are, contemplating our managerial navel... Just about sums up the quagmire that is the reality of our club at the moment.. endless going round and round and sinking imperceptibly deeper into oblivion at each cycle.

Transfer thread? Glug, fooking glug,glug..

[jim mk2]

7 hours ago, Gav said:

You got bored of John Williams, Jim, probably the best chairman we've ever had, you wanted him sacked and made no secret of it.

Look where we are now.....

I'd have him back tomorrow, to get rid of him was quite ridiculous. 

 

 

I said he was paid too much .... which at the time he was

I've stopped replying to your posts because you make things up and have nothing worthwhile to say...... the above is one reason why

Edited January 24, 2021 by jim mk2

[jim mk2]

edit - double post

Edited January 24, 2021 by jim mk2

[Gav]

52 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

I said he was paid too much .... which at the time he was

I've stopped replying to your posts because you make things up and have nothing worthwhile to say...... the above is one reason why

Nothing I said was made up, you wanted John Williams sacked, as you acknowledge above.

Apologies if that makes uncomfortable reading, we all get things wrong.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Gav

[jim mk2]

Just now, Gav said:

Nothing I said was made up, you wanted John Williams sacked, as you acknowledge above.

Apologies if that makes uncomfortable reading, we all get things wrong.

 

 

I said he was paid too much - which isn't calling him for him to be sacked. Can't you read or don't you understand basic Janet and John English?

[Gav]

14 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

I said he was paid too much - which isn't calling him for him to be sacked. Can't you read or don't you understand basic Janet and John English?

Last word on the subject.

You wanted him sacked because he put the admission prices up Jim, it had nothing to do with how much Jack paid him, which by the way, wasn’t enough for what he did for the club.

Probably the best chairman in the clubs history, gave managers money to spend but balanced the books.

We all get things wrong.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Gav

[chaddyrovers]

13 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

No I dont. Dyche is the perfect example of a more pragmatic style NOT having a shelf life depending on how it is played. I also find watching Burnley (dislike of them aside) with 2 wingers and 2 forwards more entertaining that watching the likes of Brighton who are like watching paint dry.

Many football fans seem to have lost track of the overall objective of a football match and the latest fads are goalkeepers passing it out and bringing it out from the back. But every team cannot play like that. There is somewhat of a re writing of history regarding the Hughes era. Our defenders were well drilled but hardly the most cultured, our goalkeeper wasnt for playing it out from the back and we tended to have 2 wide players with good deliveries into 2 forwards. We had flair within with the likes of Tugay and Bentley but we built on being well organised and structured. 

I of course would rather be entertained but I have never not been entertained by watching Rovers win and I also dont think that the only form of entertainment is the one set style that seems to be in vogue at the moment.

Also, at the moment, Mowbrays football is neither effective nor entertaining.

Maybe not yet for Dyche but there is plenty of cases of it. I don't know why you mention Brighton in this discussion so why? 

Under Hughes we played attacking football whilst being organised and well drilled. We weren't played defensively after his 1st season here. But Hughes changed his style from when he took over when we played 4-5-1 to playing 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1. We have Tugay, Bentley, Pedersen, Bellamy Santa Cruz, McCarthy. Hughes brought in Quality attacking players and allow us to attack teams whilst keeping our defensive shape. 

 

8 hours ago, Mercer said:

A bit rich!

IMO, in the main, Mowbray has churned out absolutely dire football - his footballing philosophy is a myth.

I would watch a Dyche team every day of the week over a Mowbray team because I knew the team would know what they were doing and it would be successful!

IMO, Mowbray's football, in the main, is both ugly and unsuccessful.  He failed to keep us up, as he was appointed to, and since returning to the Championship we've stood still as evidenced by our league position, points tally and distance from play offs at this stage of the season in each of the three seasons we've been back.

I think it's a feckin awful journey Mowbray has taken us on - stop the train, I want to get off to be sick.

mercer, The same weekly rant at one of my post. why? 

50 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

I said he was paid too much .... which at the time he was

I've stopped replying to your posts because you make things up and have nothing worthwhile to say...... the above is one reason why

John Williams was paid too much? what was he on? 

He was the best Chairman in the PL at that time despite getting the Ince appointment wrong. 

[jim mk2]

1 minute ago, Gav said:

Last word on the subject.

You wanted him sacked because he put the admission prices up Jim, it had nothing to do with how much Jack paid him, which by the way, wasn’t enough for what he did for the club.

We all get things wrong.

 

I said he was paid too much, nothing more.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

7 hours ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

We don’t have either an attacking or defensive style quite simply we have a disorganised one, absolutely no style to us whatsoever. Mowbray has no stamp on this team despite being given time 

That's my main complaint regarding Mowbray. We have no coherent way of playing. We look like a pick up team that just rocked up at the local rec on a Sunday afternoon for a post Saturday night piss up kick about. When you watch a well organised team you can see a method in what they are doing, you can see why each player is playing in the position they are in. Together they amount to more as a team than they amount to as individual players. You can't see that at Rovers. We become less as a team than we are as individuals. That can only come down to one thing - the Manager and his coaching staff.

[JHRover]

Mowbray attempting to further ingratiate himself with the owners by publicly thanking them for their help and support in agreeing to sanction a move for Branthwaite, despite all the budget being spent for the season.

How ridiculous.

Any guesses for what we are paying a week to help develop Everton's player? If the Tom Trybull figures from Rich Sharpe are correct then I expect a few grand a week at the most.

We've probably saved more by sending Harry Chapman to Shrewsbury than it has cost us to bring Branthwaite in. 

It's a six month loan. No transfer fee, no contract, no substantial commitment yet he's going out of his way to hail our great owners for their backing. 

I hope/suspect he's feeling real pressure here having got us into this mess by wasting his resources and ending up with yet again a patched up injury riddled defence and knowing he has had to get a big favour from India to allow this.

If the club is really so hard up that we are struggling even to bring in a short term loan of a teenager without having to hail Venkys for their help we are in a worse mess than I thought.

As predicted though Mowbray dangling the prospect of another defensive addition off the back of the Branthwaite deal has now gone silent. Amazing how this keeps happening.

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

mercer, The same weekly rant at one of my post. why? 

A MB is for debate, discussion, opinions and views.

If you want to post and not expect feedback when views differ then it's time to put away your keyboard and take up fishing or stamp collecting.

[Paul Mani]

I agree that Mowbray has never nailed a style of play. The first time we did this was the start of this season but it hasn’t lasted.

In general, since then we’ve been a pretty poor team playing average football.

[jim mk2]

It's odd this season  - the way we came flying out of the blocks at the start, demolishing teams and looking like world beaters. It was so unlike Tony's teams and you'd almost think that Rovers frightened him into thinking we might just have a chance of promotion here - hang on, I'd better go back to plan A and rein in expectations by mucking around with the team. You have to say it worked./ 

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

A MB is for debate, discussion, opinions and views.

If you want to post and not expect feedback when views differ then it's time to put away your keyboard and take up fishing or stamp collecting.

Mercer, yours post isn't feedback just another rant against my post. I already know that we don't agree on Mowbray and his future, so why keep telling me? I haven't forgotten you know

[roversfan99]

5 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Maybe not yet for Dyche but there is plenty of cases of it. I don't know why you mention Brighton in this discussion so why? 

Under Hughes we played attacking football whilst being organised and well drilled. We weren't played defensively after his 1st season here. But Hughes changed his style from when he took over when we played 4-5-1 to playing 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1. We have Tugay, Bentley, Pedersen, Bellamy Santa Cruz, McCarthy. Hughes brought in Quality attacking players and allow us to attack teams whilst keeping our defensive shape. 

 

mercer, The same weekly rant at one of my post. why? 

John Williams was paid too much? what was he on? 

He was the best Chairman in the PL at that time despite getting the Ince appointment wrong. 

You specifically referenced Dyche as an example of a manager whose "style" has a "shelf life." As a manager who using such a "style" has been in his job for 8 or 9 years with plenty of success, it was a bizarre comment.

I never said that Hughes' style was defensive but it was built on solid foundations, which is similar to Dyche albeit the latter has less resources relative to the competition. (Hughes didnt have much either to be fair but in 15 years the finances across the league make it more difficult)

But no, successful football does not have a shelf life. And those who tend to get "bored" of it should just be discounted.

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You specifically referenced Dyche as an example of a manager whose "style" has a "shelf life." As a manager who using such a "style" has been in his job for 8 or 9 years with plenty of success, it was a bizarre comment.

I never said that Hughes' style was defensive but it was built on solid foundations, which is similar to Dyche albeit the latter has less resources relative to the competition. (Hughes didnt have much either to be fair but in 15 years the finances across the league make it more difficult)

But no, successful football does not have a shelf life. And those who tend to get "bored" of it should just be discounted.

Hughes football was attacking and good to watch where I would say Dyche football is not good to watch and dull to watch. 

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Hughes football was attacking and good to watch where I would say Dyche football is not good to watch and dull to watch. 

In your opinion. He has done a brilliant job regardless and has proved that such a style doesnt have a shelf life which discounts your original point. 

You find Mowbrays football entertaining though so...each to their own.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Hughes football was attacking and good to watch where I would say Dyche football is not good to watch and dull to watch. 

You could argue that Dyche's football is just a means to an end. The longer they stay in the Prem the richer they get. Money can buy you better players which should lead to better football out on the pitch. The Hughes team was pretty attritional in the early days.

[roversfan99]

Dyche plays 2 wingers and 2 strikers, so not sure how defensive it is. They just realise that passing out from the back isnt mandatory which seems sensible.

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

In your opinion. He has done a brilliant job regardless and has proved that such a style doesnt have a shelf life which discounts your original point. 

You find Mowbrays football entertaining though so...each to their own.

Dyche has done a good job there. For me, that type of football has a shelf life before fans get bored of it and want a change. 

I find Mowbray's football entertaining but since Covid happened and we were banned from attending live games I only seen the Rovers games on TV this season. I haven';t bought a season ticket as we cant attend games or bought match day passes as I either asleep or prefer Radio Lancs commentary of the game. I would much rather be watching Rovers live in the stadium. Dont enjoy watching us on Tv or stream as I not been used to watching Rovers this way. 

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

Dyche plays 2 wingers and 2 strikers, so not sure how defensive it is. They just realise that passing out from the back isnt mandatory which seems sensible.

and they arent that attacking either despite playing 2 strikers. 

I haven't mention passing out of the back tho in my post have I? Yet again replying to something I havent post.