Norwich (a) - 20/3/21

[tomphil]

Wonder if the season might have bore more fruit had we had Harwood-Bellis on loan from the off ?

I'm one who moaned for our own recruits instead of the false economy of these expensive young loans. However both this lad and Tosin though along with Elliot have been good enough to play in a successful championship side.

It's the rest of it that falls short.

[Sparks Rover]

2 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Wonder if the season might have bore more fruit had we had Harwood-Bellis on loan from the off ?

No. Lenihan, left back and right back are all not really good enough and HB has only had a couple of good games.  

We are destined for defensive deficiencies for the foreseeable future as far as I can see with this idiot in charge. 

[tomphil]

1 minute ago, Sparks Rover said:

No. Lenihan, left back and right back are all not really good enough and HB has only had a couple of good games.  

We are destined for defensive deficiencies for the foreseeable future as far as I can see with this idiot in charge. 

I agree back line not good enough overall and never has been since relegation.  Was just assuming signing THB on a season long loan would have proved better than wasting a contract on Ayala.

All comes back to the conductor / organ grinder again though. If could source - in 4 years - at least ONE good defender to buy we'd be a bit better off.

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, Stuart said:

It’s a fallacy Tony. The way we set up is form Armstrong to shoot at every opportunity. His strike rate isn’t actually that great.

We have the players to create chances and score but need a manager to get the best out of them.

Our Achilles heel is not scoring ability but a a lack of consistency at the back - largely due to lots of chopping and changing. Nyambe having to make way for Bennett and then JRC for example.

Armstrong is not the most clinical of strikers but to imply that we set up solely for his benefit when we play possession based football which allows teams to sit off and deny him the space in behind he thrives off is not true, especially to solely get him as many shots as possible. You even recently implied that Mowbrays primary objective is to benefit Armstrong and his value rather than the overall team, which was just beyond bizarre.

I dont subscribe to the opinion either that we have a team full of players who can "create chances and score." I don think Mowbrays tactics help but I dont think our attacking options with Dack injured and Armstrong soon to depart are anything other than desperate. Where is the evidence that Gallagher, Brereton, Rothwell, Dolan etc can score the goals we need?

Defensively we have actually been much better in recent weeks but our goal threat has totally evaporated, not helped by Armstrongs injury problem. There seems to be a growing narrative that we are better off without him and that he is a "bad egg." (totally baseless theory) Without his goals, we would be very much in a relegation scrap, yesterday we looked totally toothless for all the approach play, with the starting front 3 unlikely to have scored had they played all day and night.

[bluebruce]

Very disappointing series of headlines in the LT today. I haven't read them yet, I don't want to vomit at work, but you would think we had given Norwich a hiding instead of being very lucky that they didn't notch one more of the 6-7 good chances they carved out to our 1.

I saw absolutely nothing yesterday that I haven't seen all season. Nothing. We aren't good enough under this manager, we just flatter to deceive.

[Crimpshrine]

 

I know it's called a 'false nine' or something but it looked to me like we were playing 4,6,0 yesterday. This gave us lots of bodies in midfield and helped us stifle Norwich to some extent and we had a lot of possession. But really, it was all to what aim ?

We got a point and Norwich had an off day but it felt like a friendly match with both teams simply sparring without really getting down to the nitty gritty.

Surely, the nature of our goal will make the penny drop with Mowbray that the possession based tippy tappy stuff we have been attempting all season is just pointless. He's not going to change anything though.

At least we are another day closer to Mowbray and Venky's eventually leaving I suppose.

[Stuart]

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Armstrong is not the most clinical of strikers but to imply that we set up solely for his benefit when we play possession based football which allows teams to sit off and deny him the space in behind he thrives off is not true, especially to solely get him as many shots as possible. You even recently implied that Mowbrays primary objective is to benefit Armstrong and his value rather than the overall team, which was just beyond bizarre.

I dont subscribe to the opinion either that we have a team full of players who can "create chances and score." I don think Mowbrays tactics help but I dont think our attacking options with Dack injured and Armstrong soon to depart are anything other than desperate. Where is the evidence that Gallagher, Brereton, Rothwell, Dolan etc can score the goals we need?

Defensively we have actually been much better in recent weeks but our goal threat has totally evaporated, not helped by Armstrongs injury problem. There seems to be a growing narrative that we are better off without him and that he is a "bad egg." (totally baseless theory) Without his goals, we would be very much in a relegation scrap, yesterday we looked totally toothless for all the approach play, with the starting front 3 unlikely to have scored had they played all day and night.

I’ve never said whether he is a bad egg. I’ve no idea one way or the other. However we look more like a team when he doesn’t play. If you can’t see that then I don’t know what to tell you.

From your post I also have to infer that you think when Armstrong leaves we won’t score any goals - even if Mowbray leaves. That’s a ridiculous notion.

”Without his goals we’d be...” is the “if my auntie had balls...” argument. If Mowbray had played another player in that same role, sticking by him through several barren spells, and just told them to shoot we would have done similar.

Armstrong is a decent striker but hugely over-rated. He is the only player who has been given a consistent role in the side with freedom to shoot and without defensive responsibilities, and his ‘competition’ have been marginalised as wingers in favour of him. It’s no wonder he has looked good.

We are where we are because of Mowbray being useless at setting up a team to win football matches, and his obsession with a possession-based style that champions backwards and sideways passing over more effective options.

Since the start of February our record has been W1D4L7. Armstrong played in 8 of those games, 6 of those being defeats. He scored twice, out of five goals total. Without him we have 2 draws and a win from 4 games, scoring four.

We have avoided relegation because of a great start to the season with some very high scoring wins and a purple patch in January. We have 12 other goal scorers this season, 7 of whom have scored three or more. Given a the chance and support that Arma has none of them could have scored as many? We could equally argue that without Elliott’s ten assists we would be in the relegation places.

For comparison (shots per goal - on or off target) :

Dack 4.33

Elliott 4.40

Dolan 5.00

Gallagher 5.17

Armstrong 5.58

Rothwell 6.67

Brereton 8.20

Bear in mind he is front and centre and takes our penalties (four in league games, without which his ratio drops to 6.80).

 

Out of interest, what evidence is there that with someone else playing in that role instead of Armstrong we won’t score goals?

Edited March 21, 2021 by Stuart

[broadsword]

9 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

 

At least we are another day closer to Mowbray and Venky's eventually leaving I suppose.

If only we knew the date it would happen, I'd put myself into a cryogenic chamber with instructions to revive me VV day plus one

[bluebruce]

9 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Without him we have 8 draws and a win from 4 games, scoring four.

9 results from 4 games? Well that really is impressive. If dropping Arma enables that, I'm all for it.

[chaddyrovers]

 

 

 

[Stuart]

2 hours ago, bluebruce said:

9 results from 4 games? Well that really is impressive. If dropping Arma enables that, I'm all for it.

Well spotted. Now corrected.

[roversfan99]

4 hours ago, Stuart said:

I’ve never said whether he is a bad egg. I’ve no idea one way or the other. However we look more like a team when he doesn’t play. If you can’t see that then I don’t know what to tell you.

From your post I also have to infer that you think when Armstrong leaves we won’t score any goals - even if Mowbray leaves. That’s a ridiculous notion.

”Without his goals we’d be...” is the “if my auntie had balls...” argument. If Mowbray had played another player in that same role, sticking by him through several barren spells, and just told them to shoot we would have done similar.

Armstrong is a decent striker but hugely over-rated. He is the only player who has been given a consistent role in the side with freedom to shoot and without defensive responsibilities, and his ‘competition’ have been marginalised as wingers in favour of him. It’s no wonder he has looked good.

We are where we are because of Mowbray being useless at setting up a team to win football matches, and his obsession with a possession-based style that champions backwards and sideways passing over more effective options.

Since the start of February our record has been W1D4L7. Armstrong played in 8 of those games, 6 of those being defeats. He scored twice, out of five goals total. Without him we have 2 draws and a win from 4 games, scoring four.

We have avoided relegation because of a great start to the season with some very high scoring wins and a purple patch in January. We have 12 other goal scorers this season, 7 of whom have scored three or more. Given a the chance and support that Arma has none of them could have scored as many? We could equally argue that without Elliott’s ten assists we would be in the relegation places.

For comparison (shots per goal - on or off target) :

Dack 4.33

Elliott 4.40

Dolan 5.00

Gallagher 5.17

Armstrong 5.58

Rothwell 6.67

Brereton 8.20

Bear in mind he is front and centre and takes our penalties (four in league games, without which his ratio drops to 6.80).

 

Out of interest, what evidence is there that with someone else playing in that role instead of Armstrong we won’t score goals?

It was another poster that inferred that he was a potential bad egg. And obviously we would have still scored, but and I dont think it is too controversial to suggest that without a 19 goal striker, we would have scored less.

I actually think that he has become under appreciated, in fact I think that our goalscorers in general often are. I felt that Rhodes was and even in our first season back, Dack's general performance level was always the main focus even when he was scoring too.

What I think happens is that our best attacking players have to and have had to cope with far different expectations to the lesser ones. If they go through a dryer spell, or indeed if parts of their game dont match up to their goalscoring prowess, then they are criticised well before anyone points a finger at the supporting cast not pulling their weight.

What evidence is there that we would score as many goals is a fairer question. Do you think that without Armstrong and his 19 goals this season, that someone else would have equalled that deficit? I think the quality of attacking players that Mowbray assembled outside of 2 is desperately poor. Gallagher's best season was in a team perfectly suited to his style, even then, he was just about a 1 in 4 striker. Brereton and goalscoring dont tend to go in the same sentence, he gets praised to high heavens if merely doesnt look like a lumbering clown, such are his expectations. Dolan does his best but to be honest, he has only played as much as he has due to necessity ie the shortcomings of Mowbrays recruitment in general. Rothwell might show up once every 10 games, but he has a lorry load of excuses as to why he doesnt contribute. I could go on, none of these players historically or recently have suggested that they would 

I also think that you are putting too much emphasis on the shots per goal stat, its not as simple as suggesting that if any of those other players shot more, they would score in direct correlation, Armstrong gets into more shooting positions because of his pace and movement. I would concede that one of his main flaws is that he is not clinical necessarily, he does miss chances he shouldnt and I would accept that. But he does score plenty of goals too.

In regards to performances without him, I would again disagree. Yesterday, as a team we did lots well, but the front 3 were nigh on useless, they wouldnt have scored in a month of Sundays and we looked toothless, obviously that hinged around the truly bizarre continuous use of a false 9. When Armstrong missed the Boro game earlier in the season, we were equally toothless. The Millwall and Swansea games were better but hinged on Dack being in the team, who does offer a goal threat, and scored 2 of the 3 goals aside from the one that hit Gallagher. That was then followed up by another toothless display v Brentford.

I would also share much of your criticism of Mowbray, his tactical decisions do baffle me too. I also felt that him playing Armstrong midweek when he was clearly unfit was counterproductive.

[Stuart]

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Do you think that without Armstrong and his 19 goals this season, that someone else would have equalled that deficit?

Yes. But more likely split over two or three players.

[broadsword]

This is all very reminiscent of the discussions that used to take place about Jordan Rhodes

Edited March 21, 2021 by broadsword

[tomphil]

5 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

 

I know it's called a 'false nine' or something but it looked to me like we were playing 4,6,0 yesterday. This gave us lots of bodies in midfield and helped us stifle Norwich to some extent and we had a lot of possession. But really, it was all to what aim ?

We got a point and Norwich had an off day but it felt like a friendly match with both teams simply sparring without really getting down to the nitty gritty.

Surely, the nature of our goal will make the penny drop with Mowbray that the possession based tippy tappy stuff we have been attempting all season is just pointless. He's not going to change anything though.

At least we are another day closer to Mowbray and Venky's eventually leaving I suppose.

We should've seen more of that though this season it's only like the 442 sides used to go 451.  Pack the middle at away games at better sides or just go for it and try and catch them out. 

If you want to get into the top 6 you have to try and take something from every game. Not just this shoulder shrugging we'll play our way and see what happens. I'd rather see them play shite and come away more often will a point or even nick the odd win. Even if it's a bit negative it doesn't matter we aren't going to away games against the top sides to get a pat on the back for playing well but losing.

This is why you need a top 6 focused manage not a guy constantly caught between devil and deep blue sea.

[47er]

4 hours ago, Stuart said:

Well spotted. Now corrected.

You should have done a Captain Mainwaring there Stuart

"I wondered who'd spot that first!"

[RevidgeBlue]

11 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

Do people at the Club actually get paid to come out with that garbage?

Shame he isn't our player either.

Edited March 21, 2021 by RevidgeBlue

[Sparks Rover]

39 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Do people at the Club actually get paid to come out with that garbage?

Shame he isn't our player either.

Yes, but he's only had one good game....many on here were proper slating him last week.🤷‍♂️ even if he stays next season he's only going to be 18 or 19...its just not a basis.  Even though I don't rate neanderthal defender, if he went I don't know what would happen. 

Edited March 21, 2021 by Sparks Rover

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Yes, but he's only had one good game....many on here were proper slating him last week.🤷‍♂️ even if he stays next season he's only going to be 18 or 19...its just not a basis.  Even though I don't rate neanderthal defender, if he went I don't know what would happen. 

Thought we looked pretty solid when Wharton and Lenihan were paired together to be fair. Other than that I've not been overly Impressed.

Anyhow, decent point in isolation on Saturday but I make that 22 points from the last 23 League games. Mowbray should have gone in Feb 19 and nothing has changed. 

2 completely wasted years!

[Sparks Rover]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thought we looked pretty solid when Wharton and Lenihan were paired together to be fair. Other than that I've not been overly Impressed.

Anyhow, decent point in isolation on Saturday but I make that 22 points from the last 23 League games. Mowbray should have gone in Feb 19 and nothing has changed. 

2 completely wasted years!

If everyone is fit Wharton and Ayala seem to be our best 2.....I prefer carthorse to neanderthal 

[Ghost7]

Kaminski Player of the Year for me. Followed by Armstrong and then Holtby.

Although the season did only span across 15 games.

[BlackburnEnd75]

6 hours ago, Ghost7 said:

Kaminski Player of the Year for me. Followed by Armstrong and then Holtby.

Although the season did only span across 15 games.

Holtby?

[Stuart]

6 hours ago, Ghost7 said:

Kaminski Player of the Year for me. Followed by Armstrong and then Holtby.

Although the season did only span across 15 games.

You can bet your neck Armstrong will win it.

[tonyoz]

22 hours ago, Stuart said:

It’s a fallacy Tony. The way we set up is form Armstrong to shoot at every opportunity. His strike rate isn’t actually that great.

We have the players to create chances and score but need a manager to get the best out of them.

Our Achilles heel is not scoring ability but a a lack of consistency at the back - largely due to lots of chopping and changing. Nyambe having to make way for Bennett and then JRC for example.

I’m not a big Armstrong fan, he’s overrated I agree but I have to give him his due.....he’s scored a few this season. That wasn’t really my point though. Watching the game I couldn’t see us scoring from anywhere. I nearly fell off my chair when we scored a header.......no.....when Sam scored a header. It helped that he was being marked by someone a foot shorter.

But who else ever looks like scoring? Buckley (twice) and BB had attempted shots, in the first half, which barely reached their goalie. Rothwell, Evans and even Holtby suffer nose bleeds when they get into shooting territory. There never seems to be anyone smart enough or willing enough to throw themselves into the box.......just on the off-chance that the cross will be a good un. When we make chances there isn’t a decent finisher. Gallagher doesn’t do it for me; he’s had some real shockers. OK, what I really mean....he’s a waste of money..........as, I fear, is BB.

As a Rovers fan I’ve been here before.....lots of times; wondering where the next goals are going to come from.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kie_BRFC]

2 hours ago, Stuart said:

You can bet your neck Armstrong will win it.

Who else deserves to win it?