Stoke (h) Saturday 16th Jan

[USABlue]

21 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Mowbray will point to disallowed goal but overall we didn't deserve to win

Someone tell the manager a match is 90 minutes long, noit just the last 15

Fair do's he admitted it would have been harsh on Stoke.

[USABlue]

21 hours ago, neophox said:

Surely We lose on tuesday to Swansea and cant see us getting anything at Boro surely?

Have to agree with that.  Though Big Club tripped up Boro.  Probably backfire on us.

[PerthBlues]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before so appolgies if it has.

To me, the fact that Kaminski is excellent with his feet is a double edge sword. Too many times now I see our defenders and Mids getting the ball, have a look forward then take the safe option back to the keeper, even when under a bit of pressure. I don't know what the stats are for us versus other teams in using the keeper as a sweeper or extra defender but its getting like a safety net and is removing any positive thought or risk taking by the defence or Mids who drop deep for the ball.

By all means use our keeper like this if it means it then leads to us pushing forward and taking some calculated risks but not if it's just a get out clause for the players where it usually just ends up with a hoof down the field to an opposition that has had time to get organised again so we have gained nothing by tippy tapping back and forth at the back.

I wonder how we would play if Kaminski was as good as he is but not quite as good with the ball at his feet?

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

40 minutes ago, PerthBlues said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned before so appolgies if it has.

To me, the fact that Kaminski is excellent with his feet is a double edge sword. Too many times now I see our defenders and Mids getting the ball, have a look forward then take the safe option back to the keeper, even when under a bit of pressure. I don't know what the stats are for us versus other teams in using the keeper as a sweeper or extra defender but its getting like a safety net and is removing any positive thought or risk taking by the defence or Mids who drop deep for the ball.

By all means use our keeper like this if it means it then leads to us pushing forward and taking some calculated risks but not if it's just a get out clause for the players where it usually just ends up with a hoof down the field to an opposition that has had time to get organised again so we have gained nothing by tippy tapping back and forth at the back.

I wonder how we would play if Kaminski was as good as he is but not quite as good with the ball at his feet?

 

I get really annoyed when outfield players shirk their responsibility when they have a chance to pass the ball down field and then give the ball back to the keeper. Presumably they're outfield players because they're better with the ball at their feet than the goalkeeper, whoever he may be.

[briansol]

2 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

It looked to me as though our bigger guys were run out from under the ball Stoke players moving towards the ball. That left Powell to nip in and get the better of Nyambe who shouldn't really be in that position. I'd say it was a planned move on their behalf.

Their goal was just poor from Nyambe. He was tasked with marking Powell. As a defender you either get the ball, or at least put enough pressure on the man you are tracking. He was first a yard behind Powell, then he overran crashing into Johnson while trying to see where the ball was going. Powell watched the ball, slowed his run and could head unmarked.

Somebody pointed out that the defence play ourselves into trouble with high risk passes, and I agree. When the pitch is unplayable in the middle, then we have to play into the channels and move the team further upfront. 

Also Lenighan need to learn when to challenge and when to fall off, especially when his partner are going for the ball. So many players were off their game. Travis looks nowhere fit to be in the engine room. He also gets a yellow card within 20 mins, so he can't even tackle afterward. Davenport looks a far better option there. Was well impressed with Mikel, always been good on the ball, but also looked pretty fit for a 33-year-old. Nobody could get near him.

On paper the lineup was decent and balanced, but seems that most of the players didn't turn up. Only positive was probably Brathwaite who had a good debut and a decent cameo from Buckley who scored a Dack-equesque goal.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

6 minutes ago, briansol said:

Their goal was just poor from Nyambe. He was tasked with marking Powell. As a defender you either get the ball, or at least put enough pressure on the man you are tracking. He was first a yard behind Powell, then he overran crashing into Johnson while trying to see where the ball was going. Powell watched the ball, slowed his run and could head unmarked.

Somebody pointed out that the defence play ourselves into trouble with high risk passes, and I agree. When the pitch is unplayable in the middle, then we have to play into the channels and move the team further upfront. 

Also Lenighan need to learn when to challenge and when to fall off, especially when his partner are going for the ball. So many players were off their game. Travis looks nowhere fit to be in the engine room. He also gets a yellow card within 20 mins, so he can't even tackle afterward. Davenport looks a far better option there. Was well impressed with Mikel, always been good on the ball, but also looked pretty fit for a 33-year-old. Nobody could get near him.

On paper the lineup was decent and balanced, but seems that most of the players didn't turn up. Only positive was probably Brathwaite who had a good debut and a decent cameo from Buckley who scored a Dack-equesque goal.

Yes Nyambe didn't cover himself in glory there but that's not a position I'd expect my right back to be covering. Where were the taller guys ? One of the centre halves should have held his position and not gone chasing off to buy a pie. 

[Tom]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

So have you a replay that says the ball was out of play before Elliott plays it back to Buckley? 

I've seen Michael O'Neill's interview with Sky Sports extended highlights of the game and doesnt mention the ball being out of play. 

This is before Elliott makes contact with it, at best it’s borderline but I think it goes out and I’m pretty sure you would have been certain of this had it been the other way around 

 

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, Tom said:

This is before Elliott makes contact with it, at best it’s borderline but I think it goes out and I’m pretty sure you would have been certain of this had it been the other way around 

 

Thanks for picture of it but not the best view or can give us a definitive answer. 

I havent seen any Michael O'Neill's comments complaining about our goal. Have you? This would be significant IMO he had but hasnt as far as I can tell. 

How can be certain until you see it from a PROPER angle? 

[Tom]

So the barometer for correct decisions is if a manager complains?

You seem to have a varying level of evidence required for when a decision is in our favour compared to one that goes against us.

[Miller11]

@JoeHtweeted this out yesterday, the average positions our players took up throughout the game.

We expect a ridiculous amount from Nyambe... a right back being the second most advanced player on the pitch! They clearly tried to swamp us down their left hand side, on more than one occasion it was 3 v 1. I don’t think Elliott did anywhere near enough defensively. None of the midfield that started did.

The other worry is how deep Dack had to come to try and get hold of the ball and get us playing.

This is only really confirming what my eyes tell me. Games when we were entertaining and effective are becoming a distant memory. We are a stale mess at the moment. Subtle tweaks to the formation and personnel aren’t going to rectify this. 

[Miller11]

11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

How can be certain until you see it from a PROPER angle? 

You could say the exact same thing about our disallowed goal.

[DE.]

2 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Football players come with all sorts of temperaments just like in most walks of life. There are the battlers who are always up for a scrap and the artists who don't really fancy the rough stuff much and then there are the easy going guys who'll  battle when they get their mad up.

You need a mixture of all three. Too many battlers doesn't work very often, especially in todays football. However not having any battlers or just one or two is a recipe for getting out enthused in the game as we are now seeing every week. Having two guys out there coming back from serious injuries isn't likely to increase our fighting spirit especially when one of them was your previous battler. They'll be trying to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Yep, I think the players get on just fine but there isn't enough (any?) players in the team really willing to pull the rest of the team up by their collars when things are going against us. We don't have a Roy Keane in there to demand 100% from every player on the pitch consistently. 

Now granted players with Keane's intensity and will to win aren't easy to find, let alone combined with the talent he had, but even looking back to previous Rovers squads we had players like Batty, Sherwood, Short, Savage, Nelsen, etc who would make their feelings known if they didn't like they way things were going. 

This is a team in the manager's image, unfortunately. Meek, unassuming and only able to perform when things are going our way. We have an incredibly soft underbelly and that's proven time and time again by our inability to come back from being behind to win matches under this manager. It happens from time to time but is very rare. If we concede first then it's a good bet we come away with a point at best.

We need a winner in the dugout and at least a couple of proper winners on the pitch, too. It's something we've increasingly seen disappear as Venky's tenure has dragged on. 

[G Somerset Rover]

6 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

You could say the exact same thing about our disallowed goal.

Obviously doesn’t fit with the TM narrative.

[chaddyrovers]

9 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

You could say the exact same thing about our disallowed goal.

Not really. very decent view and the commentators who seen a replay of it from our analysis department plus the reaction of Rovers coaching staff tell you it was onside. 

[Miller11]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Not really. very decent view and the commentators who seen a replay of it from our analysis department plus the reaction of Rovers coaching staff tell you it was onside. 

Bollocks.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Not really. very decent view and the commentators who seen a replay of it from our analysis department plus the reaction of Rovers coaching staff tell you it was onside. 

Clearly onside all day long in my opinion but it was careless play on our part. Absolutely no way should pro players be making a balls of a simple passing play. The pass should have gone earlier. The only reason to hold on to the ball there is if the player you're passing to is a plodder. We all know Armstrong is quicker than most. Bloody awful shot though, right at the keeper, my mum could have kept that out

[roversfan99]

Armstrong seemed to be onside and the ball seemed to have gone out of play for our goal but for both, a camera angle was not available to fully clear either up, there may have been a slight part of Armstrong that was technically offside.

It is laughable yet predictable bias presumably aimed to defend the manager by moaning about one and merely ignoring the other, based partially on biased commentators and Rovers staff!

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Bollocks.

why? 

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Armstrong seemed to be onside and the ball seemed to have gone out of play for our goal but for both, a camera angle was not available to fully clear either up, there may have been a slight part of Armstrong that was technically offside.

It is laughable yet predictable bias presumably aimed to defend the manager by moaning about one and merely ignoring the other, based partially on biased commentators and Rovers staff!

and no comment from Stoke City Manager Michael O'Neill about our goal not being allowed due to ball going out. The Part you miss out every time!

[RoversClitheroe]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Armstrong seemed to be onside and the ball seemed to have gone out of play for our goal but for both, a camera angle was not available to fully clear either up, there may have been a slight part of Armstrong that was technically offside.

It is laughable yet predictable bias presumably aimed to defend the manager by moaning about one and merely ignoring the other, based partially on biased commentators and Rovers staff!

Anyway they both cancel each other out so nothing to really moan about

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

and no comment from Stoke City Manager Michael O'Neill about our goal not being allowed due to ball going out. The Part you miss out every time!

He said he didnt see it and would have to see it again. I havent seen specific moaning from Mowbray about the Armstrong incident either. Neither biased party is relevant though, both seemed to be incorrect decisions to me, one for each team, but both are inconclusive from the angles seen.

[chaddyrovers]

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

He said he didnt see it and would have to see it again. I havent seen specific moaning from Mowbray about the Armstrong incident either. Neither biased party is relevant though, both seemed to be incorrect decisions to me, one for each team, but both are inconclusive from the angles seen.

His data analysis team would have seen it tho just our seen the Armstrong chance. 

So why did our coaching team complain at the linesman and the 4th official as the commentary said they did when being told that he was on side

[Tom]

15 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

and no comment from Stoke City Manager Michael O'Neill about our goal not being allowed due to ball going out. The Part you miss out every time!

O’Neill thought the red card was harsh so does that mean it obviously was harsh?

[rigger]

Neither decision is a reason for our poor performance

[K-Hod]

17 hours ago, Wood26 said:

Irrelevant from our performances. We sold 2k season tickets and another 2k at best watch online on day pass.

Our attendance will stay levels it is unless we go up.

Online fans who don’t watch the team yet jump on this message board and social media to demand change, sure that audience will continue to be here.

If you are making bold claims like this, please can you quote someone who said they aren’t watching or provide some evidence please? I feel like I’ve had to say this to you before too.....