Norwich (a) - 20/3/21

[Mike E]

If Arma wins POTY, he'll go in summer. Hopefully for good money!

[tomphil]

Figures of 16 million back to Newcastle swirling around now so that would leave us with about 7 mill ?  

After the initial 3 m and 40% sell on discount.  Great deal for them well worth a punt but not so great for us. That'll cover whats already been spent on Brereton probably, i'm pretty sure the signings of him and Gallagher were front loading using the eventual fee for Dack.

That fell through so something will have to cover it but even if not running costs will soon gobble up 7 mill. Even if not what would TM do with it apart from sifting through Boro's availability list ?

[den]

16 hours ago, broadsword said:

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

🙂

22 hours ago, Stuart said:

 

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.

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.

 

You’re right of course Stuart. A Centre forward HAS to contribute to the team game, he has to play his part in the overall team performance. If he can’t do that he won’t succeed in today’s game. 
 

Im sure I used to argue that with you - and you used to say a centre forward only needs to score goals - and where would the goals come from without him?

[tomphil]

Chalk and cheese Rhodes and Arma though, one a pure central poacher / finisher the other a pacey shoot on sight left sided striker.

Annoying as it seemed sometimes Rhodes could be a passenger yet still win games or earn a point.  Armstrong in this Rovers set up has to get up and down a bit otherwise he'll contribute nothing. 

I'd wager Rhodes in Mowbrays possession/stats obsessed style would have earned us a few more points in these close loses Tony rates so much.

[den]

3 hours ago, tomphil said:

Chalk and cheese Rhodes and Arma though, one a pure central poacher / finisher the other a pacey shoot on sight left sided striker.

Annoying as it seemed sometimes Rhodes could be a passenger yet still win games or earn a point.  Armstrong in this Rovers set up has to get up and down a bit otherwise he'll contribute nothing. 

I'd wager Rhodes in Mowbrays possession/stats obsessed style would have earned us a few more points in these close loses Tony rates so much.

Armstrong has to get up and down, but Rhodes doesn’t? Rhodes goals earn points but Arma’s don’t?  
 

Truth is a team will win more games when all 11 contribute with hard work and technique, than when only 10 do it.

 

[tomphil]

43 minutes ago, den said:

Armstrong has to get up and down, but Rhodes doesn’t? Rhodes goals earn points but Arma’s don’t?  
 

Truth is a team will win more games when all 11 contribute with hard work and technique, than when only 10 do it.

 

Nice way to spin it on its head completely out of context. leave that for the politics threads.

I know you're a confirmed Rhodes hater den but you'll just have to suck it up.  He'd score a pon full in this system Mowbray has now.

 

[JacknOry]

Rhodes could finish second only to Shearer in my time. AA was called the mini-shearer, but seriously, he aint a patch on him. Shearer was not selfish - he was clinical. If a chance come to him, you could 9/10 bet your house he scores. AA, needs 5-6 chances. 

 

 

[tomphil]

Completely different players so the like for like comparisons are a bit wide of the mark ( unlike JR 😁 ).

You could probably get away with both of them in a 3 pronged attack because Armstrong is more versatile and suits the wider roles. Rhodes is very much the middle of the attack man.

[Rogerb]

Where would Simon Garner sit in comparison with the Armstrong and Rhodes debate?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

36 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Where would Simon Garner sit in comparison with the Armstrong and Rhodes debate?

Better than both of those.

[Exiled in Toronto]

1 minute ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Better than both of those.

Agreed: great crosser and passer puts him ahead of Rhodes for me, and can add to those a much better headerer than Armstrong.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 minute ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Agreed: great crosser and passer puts him ahead of Rhodes for me, and can add to those a much better headerer than Armstrong.

A lot quicker than Rhodes, more aggressive, more two footed as well. He could also beat a man with the ball at his feet which is more than Armstrong can do. 

[RevidgeBlue]

7 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Better than both of those.

Disagree.

Think Rhodes was way way more consistent than Garner.

Garner was probably better on a going day but catch him in on away day when he didn't really fancy it and he might as well not haallve been there.

Think Garner was better than Armstrong but the similarity between all of them is that they are or were the best players we have or had at the time.

The problem wasn't or isn't with any of them, it's that most of the rest of the team wasn't or isn't up to their standard in their respective positions!

[Rogerb]

When we were playing Barnsley I had a read of their forum. There were a number on there very thankful Garner was no longer playing and that's what thirty years ago from which they still remember him.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

48 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Disagree.

Think Rhodes was way way more consistent than Garner.

Garner was probably better on a going day but catch him in on away day when he didn't really fancy it and he might as well not haallve been there.

Think Garner was better than Armstrong but the similarity between all of them is that they are or were the best players we have or had at the time.

The problem wasn't or isn't with any of them, it's that most of the rest of the team wasn't or isn't up to their standard in their respective positions!

Rhodes had an attack built around him with the sole purpose of creating chances.

If he was playing up front on his own with our current line up he wouldn’t be scoring anything like as often.

[roversfan99]

26 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Rhodes had an attack built around him with the sole purpose of creating chances.

If he was playing up front on his own with our current line up he wouldn’t be scoring anything like as often.

Even in the first season he was here when he scored 28 goals in front of a lazy, inadequate midfield as a lone striker with an attacking midfielder behind him?

[tomphil]

3 hours ago, Rogerb said:

Where would Simon Garner sit in comparison with the Armstrong and Rhodes debate?

Head and shoulders above both.

I dread to think how some present era managers would contrive to waste Garners talent.

Edited March 22, 2021 by tomphil

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

29 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Head and shoulders above both.

I dread to think how some present era managers would contrive to waste Garners talent.

Play him at right back.

[Sparks Rover]

2 hours ago, tomphil said:

Head and shoulders above both.

I dread to think how some present era managers would contrive to waste Garners talent.

He'd never make it through the sanitised academy system caught behind the changing rooms having a woodbine...

[tomphil]

8 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Play him at right back.

He'd be a shoe in for a left or right wide 'forward' these days, imagine the dilemma of having someone who could shoot with either foot.

[Waggy76]

14 hours ago, Rogerb said:

Where would Simon Garner sit in comparison with the Armstrong and Rhodes debate?

Simon Garner a far superior footballer ...

[lraC]

6 hours ago, Waggy76 said:

Simon Garner a far superior footballer ...

Simon Garner is a club legend and neither Rhodes or Armstrong are anywhere near. 

[bazza]

Mowbray would have Garner playing in goal. Can you imagine Garner as goalkeeper?

[tomphil]

56 minutes ago, bazza said:

Mowbray would have Garner playing in goal. Can you imagine Garner as goalkeeper?

He did ok when he stood in.

[bazza]

32 minutes ago, tomphil said:

He did ok when he stood in.

I wondered who would be the first to remind me. CongratulationsTomphil!  😃