One Man Team?

[Stuart]

A few years ago we had a manager called Gary Bowyer. He had a few decent players and a goal machine in Jordan Rhodes. In his last full season he had peaked, finishing 9th, and the side was regressing after Venkys turned off the taps. Rhodes’ goals kept us up but things didn’t look good and a rebuild was required.

We now have Mowbray having gone through the same phase and has totally relied on feeding Armstrong to paper over the massive cracks that have been showing; cracks in some cases created by him trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

When Rhodes left in January 2016 the squad wasn’t invested in and it struggled to adapt to the vacuum that his departure left. We got lucky with a loaned PL experienced striker and the introduction of a more professional regime under a PL standard management team, we survived, finishing 15th.

This Summer we will sell Armstrong. We simply have to. Players come and go and when their stock is at a certain point you must cash in. You are only an injury away from no cash and no player, and then every chance that the player you had is gone even if he stays (see Dack 2020/21).

If Mowbray stays then we will likely need another player to step into that role of striker. They will be given 10 chances per game, every game, and will need to take 2 of them. If Gallagher became that focal point and was given 90 minutes every single week - regardless of form - would he get 20+ goals? Maybe, maybe not.

But is that even the most effective approach? Teams trying to get promoted tend to have two players scoring goals: one 25+ and one 15+. (Although Watford are an exception due to having a very miserly defence - something Mowbray cannot or will not fix).

IMHO Rovers under Mowbray (and Bowyer) is (was) a one-man team.

If we don’t replace the striker or the manager then we are in real trouble. Especially given the huge gaps in the current squad and Mowbray’s tendency to bring in squad players ‘to help the lads’.

 

[Proudtobeblue&white]

Play Gally/BB, I think we have two great wingers in Ripley and Wilcox, who can feed their hunger. 

We are buggered!

[roversfan99]

We are definitely a one man team in the sense that we are overly reliant on one man to score too many of our goals. The expensively assembled supporting cast dont contribute enough in terms of their numbers.

Its misleading to suggest that whoever our central striker is will have 10 chances a game. Armstrong is possibly the best striker in the Championship in terms of finding himself on the end of chances, he is obviously really quick, the timing of his runs has improved noticeably and he anticipates chances in and around the box, I think today was the first time he has scored from outside the box this season. I dont think we have a team full of creative players who supply and I would be amazed if Armstrongs replacement necessarily found themselves with a similar number of chances per game. I think based on the isolated example of Bristol City away that his number of chances is often put down to pure greed that is deconstructive to the team as a whole, something which I feel is unfair. Many of the chances he misses are also good chances rather than pot shots, quite a few are one on ones and whilst his ability to find himself in goalscoring positions is brilliant, he is clearly not as clinical as the likes of Pukki etc which in my opinion may well prevent him from thriving at the highest level.

I would agree that unless he wants to sign a new deal which he would be mad to then we need to cash in but I think we need to sign not only a striler but a couple more attacking players because without him and Elliott, there are not many goals in our team.

[Stuart]

19 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I would agree that unless he wants to sign a new deal which he would be mad to then we need to cash in but I think we need to sign not only a striler but a couple more attacking players because without him and Elliott, there are not many goals in our team.

The reason for that is how this manager sets up the team.

Nobody else has been allowed to stay King the team as an ever present when they have lost form. Sometimes players have been dropped even when in form. Armstrong has always been given special treatment.

(I’m speculating that’s because he sees having a consistent main striker as important and not because of where he was born).

[roversfan99]

58 minutes ago, Stuart said:

The reason for that is how this manager sets up the team.

Nobody else has been allowed to stay King the team as an ever present when they have lost form. Sometimes players have been dropped even when in form. Armstrong has always been given special treatment.

(I’m speculating that’s because he sees having a consistent main striker as important and not because of where he was born).

Even when he lost form, he was our biggest goal threat. A striker with considerable dips in form does not score 28 goals. The idea that the teams sole purpose is to get Armstrong goals is flawed and the idea that he gets preferential treatment is nonsense in my opinion, would you have at any point dropped him this season and for whom? And do you think that other teams could have strikers on 28 goals (or more based on Armstrongs lack of clinical nature) if they had tactics to what you perceive to be the same benefit to the central striker that we do? Do you think he has had an excellent season or do you just think its the norm for any striker within our tactical framework? 

[Blue blood]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

The reason for that is how this manager sets up the team.

Nobody else has been allowed to stay King the team as an ever present when they have lost form. Sometimes players have been dropped even when in form. Armstrong has always been given special treatment.

This is so true. Buckley started doing well in the midfield 3 and was dropped and before that there were a ton of players dropped after a good game. Others have stayed in even in terrible form. TM is hugely inconsistent in this. 

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

(I’m speculating that’s because he sees having a consistent main striker as important and not because of where he was born).

I think it was because he has to show an asset worth something to get a sale and plus points off the owner and that clearly isn't going to happen with Ben or Gally. 

[Stuart]

10 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Even when he lost form, he was our biggest goal threat. A striker with considerable dips in form does not score 28 goals. The idea that the teams sole purpose is to get Armstrong goals is flawed and the idea that he gets preferential treatment is nonsense in my opinion, would you have at any point dropped him this season and for whom? And do you think that other teams could have strikers on 28 goals (or more based on Armstrongs lack of clinical nature) if they had tactics to what you perceive to be the same benefit to the central striker that we do? Do you think he has had an excellent season or do you just think its the norm for any striker within our tactical framework? 

I think it’s what I’ve already said. He has been given time and patience and a consistent, appropriate role in the side that others haven’t. He misses a heck of a lot of chances and certainly isn’t a sharp shooter like Rhodes was.

I guess your last sentence is part of my own question. Other players have been in and out of the side, rotated even when fit, and have not been allowed to find consistency - if anything they have been played out of position and sacrificed for the sake of Armstrong (and keeping the rest of the squad happy). We stayed up (not the original season target) but if we get £30m for him (we won’t) and it was to be reinvested (it wouldn’t) then it may have been a master stroke.

In terms of life after Arma, if Mowbray gives his replacement the same preferential treatment and sticks by him, having him shoot on sight, and helping to make him more consistent at the expense of others then it may well work and we may again see another high scoring striker. I’m not sure it is the best thing for the team though. 

Some interesting stats (obviously I’m going to be selective to suit my point):

Armstrong

Shooting accuracy: 45%

Goal conversion ratio: 14.8%

Rovers scorers

29 = Armstrong

8 = Gallagher

7 = Elliott, Brereton

3 = Rothwell, Dolan, Dack, Johnson

1 = JRC, Buckley, Holtby, Davenport, Williams

Rovers second highest goalscorer has 21 goals less than Arma!

Armstrong has scored more goals than our next five highest scorers combined and 43% of our total player goals for the club in 2020/21.

Shots per Game

Armstrong 4.7

Gallagher 1.2

Elliott 1.0

Brereton 1.8

Given how low Armstrong’s conversion rate is and how many shots he has per game compared to others, it could be argued that he has actually held Rovers back this season, hogging the chances while other players have been marginalised. Quantity over quality.

We have had a very odd season though, with high goals scored (65 - the fifth highest in the division) and average goals conceded (54 - only three team finished higher than us while conceding more). This is largely because we had a handful of games where we battered teams, scoring 4 and 5 goals. In fact, in our five highest scoring games we scored 23 and conceded 4. In those five games Armstrong scored 12 times including 3 penalties. Hugely inflating his stats against poor teams - so he is clearly better at punching when an opponent is on the ropes. Take out those five games (yes, I know, if my aunty had balls…) but that’s 16 goals in 41 games (still good but nobody is coming in with stupid offers).

I say that it is 50/50 with Armstrong having a good season but in a large part due to the commitment and preference shown to him by Mowbray. Will Mowbray be as fortunate again or will he have to change his approach back to his West Brom promotion season. Back then he recognised the need to share the goals around: perennial scorer Kevin Phillips was the stand out with 24 but two other strikers scored 16 each and two midfielders got 10 each amongst others. Or maybe Arma shoots at times when he should pass…? (Which has been mocked previously).

 

Sauces:

https://analytics.soccerment.com/en/player/155511/adam-armstrong-1997-02-10/stats

https://www.whoscored.com/Teams/158/Show/England-Blackburn

Of course, stats should be taken with a huge pinch of salt - for example, on one site, Barry Douglas was our second best player this season - but it makes for interesting debate.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

If I had to choose between Armstrong or Rhodes it’d be Armstrong every time for me. Premier League clubs are seriously interested in Armstrong, none of them ever gave Rhodes a second glance.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If I had to choose between Armstrong or Rhodes it’d be Armstrong every time for me. Premier League clubs are seriously interested in Armstrong, none of them ever gave Rhodes a second glance.

I'd be exactly the opposite.

Rhodes (at his peak) every day of the week for me.

[roversfan99]

4 hours ago, Stuart said:

I think it’s what I’ve already said. He has been given time and patience and a consistent, appropriate role in the side that others haven’t. He misses a heck of a lot of chances and certainly isn’t a sharp shooter like Rhodes was.

I guess your last sentence is part of my own question. Other players have been in and out of the side, rotated even when fit, and have not been allowed to find consistency - if anything they have been played out of position and sacrificed for the sake of Armstrong (and keeping the rest of the squad happy). We stayed up (not the original season target) but if we get £30m for him (we won’t) and it was to be reinvested (it wouldn’t) then it may have been a master stroke.

In terms of life after Arma, if Mowbray gives his replacement the same preferential treatment and sticks by him, having him shoot on sight, and helping to make him more consistent at the expense of others then it may well work and we may again see another high scoring striker. I’m not sure it is the best thing for the team though. 

Some interesting stats (obviously I’m going to be selective to suit my point):

Armstrong

Shooting accuracy: 45%

Goal conversion ratio: 14.8%

Rovers scorers

29 = Armstrong

8 = Gallagher

7 = Elliott, Brereton

3 = Rothwell, Dolan, Dack, Johnson

1 = JRC, Buckley, Holtby, Davenport, Williams

Rovers second highest goalscorer has 21 goals less than Arma!

Armstrong has scored more goals than our next five highest scorers combined and 43% of our total player goals for the club in 2020/21.

Shots per Game

Armstrong 4.7

Gallagher 1.2

Elliott 1.0

Brereton 1.8

Given how low Armstrong’s conversion rate is and how many shots he has per game compared to others, it could be argued that he has actually held Rovers back this season, hogging the chances while other players have been marginalised. Quantity over quality.

We have had a very odd season though, with high goals scored (65 - the fifth highest in the division) and average goals conceded (54 - only three team finished higher than us while conceding more). This is largely because we had a handful of games where we battered teams, scoring 4 and 5 goals. In fact, in our five highest scoring games we scored 23 and conceded 4. In those five games Armstrong scored 12 times including 3 penalties. Hugely inflating his stats against poor teams - so he is clearly better at punching when an opponent is on the ropes. Take out those five games (yes, I know, if my aunty had balls…) but that’s 16 goals in 41 games (still good but nobody is coming in with stupid offers).

I say that it is 50/50 with Armstrong having a good season but in a large part due to the commitment and preference shown to him by Mowbray. Will Mowbray be as fortunate again or will he have to change his approach back to his West Brom promotion season. Back then he recognised the need to share the goals around: perennial scorer Kevin Phillips was the stand out with 24 but two other strikers scored 16 each and two midfielders got 10 each amongst others. Or maybe Arma shoots at times when he should pass…? (Which has been mocked previously).

 

Sauces:

https://analytics.soccerment.com/en/player/155511/adam-armstrong-1997-02-10/stats

https://www.whoscored.com/Teams/158/Show/England-Blackburn

Of course, stats should be taken with a huge pinch of salt - for example, on one site, Barry Douglas was our second best player this season - but it makes for interesting debate.

I think this idea that our whole gameplan is to simply get Armstrong opportunities to shoot from wherever he is is our main point of difference. You are even doctoring stats to suit, I could take 5 games out in which he didnt score to make his goals per game record even better. I am unsure if its done partly to use it as a further stick to question Mowbrays approach which I do understand but that isnt even necessary, could you perhaps argue that his tiresome and boring possession obsessed tactics do not suit a striker with such pace that Armstrong has, allowing teams to close spaces in behind?

I think that this idea that he just is allowed to shoot on sight is flawed and has stemmed from that game at Bristol City where I would be the first to admit that he allowed frustration to get the better of him. But that was one game. I do agree that he isnt clinical for example like Rhodes was, but as I mentioned, his pace especially (but also his anticipation and intelligence) gets him into goalscoring positions more often than Rhodes and indeed the majority of players, a large proportion of his missed opportunities are not pot shots from stupid positions but in fact very presentable chances including one on ones that as I mention have stemmed from his pace and movement regularly getting him into them positions. The likes of Gallagher and Brereton dont have those same instincts, indeed strikers that do tend to be the ones that get the goals and are worth the money.

The reason that Armstrong starts as our central striker is because he is undoubtedly better than any of the alternatives (and most in the league) in that position.

To suggest that a 28 goal striker has in any way held us back is just bizarre though to me. It also alleviates the supporting cast of any responsibility. I think its warped logic to look at those goal tallies and the discrepancy between Armstrong on the rest, obviously allowing for the fact that a striker will naturally have the most goals, and then criticise Armstrong rather than the rest of our attacking players and their comparatively feebly goal tallies. Assuming that our 3 primary attacking players aside from Armstrong are Gallagher, Brereton and Rothwell, I would suggest that Brereton has played in a role that very much suits him, that Rothwell has played centrally all season as he has craved, and indeed only Gallagher may have grievances as to the position he has played, but never would he be selected above Armstrong by anyone of sane mind because he isnt as good and wont score anywhere near as many goals! 

Armstrongs goal tally this season is very impressive and should be appreciated, and our failings this season have not been thanks to him. I suspect that we will never agree on the topic though.

 

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If I had to choose between Armstrong or Rhodes it’d be Armstrong every time for me. Premier League clubs are seriously interested in Armstrong, none of them ever gave Rhodes a second glance.

I think that is a tough question and one id struggle to answer. Rhodes shared Armstrong's ability to anticipate chances but ultimately found himself in presentable shooting positions much less often, owing to Armstrongs pace which gives him a dimension that Rhodes never had. Conversely, Rhodes was more clinical with the chances that he did have, so Armstrongs ability to get himself into goalscoring positions and Rhodes' ruthlessness essentially balance themselves out compared to one another, and result in almost equally impressive personal seasons.

Both were/are excellent performers more than doing their jobs in otherwise flawed teams under flawed managers yet were/are both grossly underappreciated, especially Armstrong.

[Stuart]

40 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I think this idea that our whole gameplan is to simply get Armstrong opportunities to shoot from wherever he is is our main point of difference. You are even doctoring stats to suit, I could take 5 games out in which he didnt score to make his goals per game record even better. I am unsure if its done partly to use it as a further stick to question Mowbrays approach which I do understand but that isnt even necessary, could you perhaps argue that his tiresome and boring possession obsessed tactics do not suit a striker with such pace that Armstrong has, allowing teams to close spaces in behind?

I think that this idea that he just is allowed to shoot on sight is flawed and has stemmed from that game at Bristol City where I would be the first to admit that he allowed frustration to get the better of him. But that was one game. I do agree that he isnt clinical for example like Rhodes was, but as I mentioned, his pace especially (but also his anticipation and intelligence) gets him into goalscoring positions more often than Rhodes and indeed the majority of players, a large proportion of his missed opportunities are not pot shots from stupid positions but in fact very presentable chances including one on ones that as I mention have stemmed from his pace and movement regularly getting him into them positions. The likes of Gallagher and Brereton dont have those same instincts, indeed strikers that do tend to be the ones that get the goals and are worth the money.

The reason that Armstrong starts as our central striker is because he is undoubtedly better than any of the alternatives (and most in the league) in that position.

To suggest that a 28 goal striker has in any way held us back is just bizarre though to me. It also alleviates the supporting cast of any responsibility. I think its warped logic to look at those goal tallies and the discrepancy between Armstrong on the rest, obviously allowing for the fact that a striker will naturally have the most goals, and then criticise Armstrong rather than the rest of our attacking players and their comparatively feebly goal tallies. Assuming that our 3 primary attacking players aside from Armstrong are Gallagher, Brereton and Rothwell, I would suggest that Brereton has played in a role that very much suits him, that Rothwell has played centrally all season as he has craved, and indeed only Gallagher may have grievances as to the position he has played, but never would he be selected above Armstrong by anyone of sane mind because he isnt as good and wont score anywhere near as many goals! 

Armstrongs goal tally this season is very impressive and should be appreciated, and our failings this season have not been thanks to him. I suspect that we will never agree on the topic though.

You are right, we won’t agree but it’s an interesting topic though.

Armstrong gets more minutes, takes more shots and has more goals than anyone else. The latter being a consequence of the former.

Gallagher playing as CF and being given the same freedom would bring similar results IMHO.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I think that is a tough question and one id struggle to answer. Rhodes shared Armstrong's ability to anticipate chances but ultimately found himself in presentable shooting positions much less often, owing to Armstrongs pace which gives him a dimension that Rhodes never had. Conversely, Rhodes was more clinical with the chances that he did have, so Armstrongs ability to get himself into goalscoring positions and Rhodes' ruthlessness essentially balance themselves out compared to one another, and result in almost equally impressive personal seasons.

Both were/are excellent performers more than doing their jobs in otherwise flawed teams under flawed managers yet were/are both grossly underappreciated, especially Armstrong.

Yes I agree with that. My point about some  Prem clubs allegedly wanting Armstrong and yet never wanting Rhodes lends a bit of weight to my argument though.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I think if Rhodes had have been on the end of all the chances Armstrong has had this season he would have had about 40 odd goals to his credit. The down side is he wouldn’t have got to some of the chances in the first place.

[roversfan99]

4 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I think if Rhodes had have been on the end of all the chances Armstrong has had this season he would have had about 40 odd goals to his credit. The down side is he wouldn’t have got to some of the chances in the first place.

100%. Thats why that even if you put someone else in Armstrongs central position, say Gallagher, he would still not get anywhere near as many chances or indeed goals.

[briansol]

On 08/05/2021 at 22:04, Stuart said:

A few years ago we had a manager called Gary Bowyer. He had a few decent players and a goal machine in Jordan Rhodes. In his last full season he had peaked, finishing 9th, and the side was regressing after Venkys turned off the taps. Rhodes’ goals kept us up but things didn’t look good and a rebuild was required.

We now have Mowbray having gone through the same phase and has totally relied on feeding Armstrong to paper over the massive cracks that have been showing; cracks in some cases created by him trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

When Rhodes left in January 2016 the squad wasn’t invested in and it struggled to adapt to the vacuum that his departure left. We got lucky with a loaned PL experienced striker and the introduction of a more professional regime under a PL standard management team, we survived, finishing 15th.

This Summer we will sell Armstrong. We simply have to. Players come and go and when their stock is at a certain point you must cash in. You are only an injury away from no cash and no player, and then every chance that the player you had is gone even if he stays (see Dack 2020/21).

If Mowbray stays then we will likely need another player to step into that role of striker. They will be given 10 chances per game, every game, and will need to take 2 of them. If Gallagher became that focal point and was given 90 minutes every single week - regardless of form - would he get 20+ goals? Maybe, maybe not.

But is that even the most effective approach? Teams trying to get promoted tend to have two players scoring goals: one 25+ and one 15+. (Although Watford are an exception due to having a very miserly defence - something Mowbray cannot or will not fix).

IMHO Rovers under Mowbray (and Bowyer) is (was) a one-man team.

If we don’t replace the striker or the manager then we are in real trouble. Especially given the huge gaps in the current squad and Mowbray’s tendency to bring in squad players ‘to help the lads’.

 

Thanks Stuart, very interesting topic. I went to soccerbase.com and checked the last 5 seasons to see any pattern in the teams promoted, and this is what I found:

Of the 14 teams promoted (auto + play-off):

- Only one team had a +=25 and  +=15 goalscorer. (Norwich this year)

- Only 3 teams had two += 15 goalscorers in the same season.

- 4 teams went up without even having a += 15 player. Of those WBA and Cardiff both automaticly went up without even having > 10 goals scorer.

Based on those stats, you might argue that having multiple scorers with 5-10+ gives you a higher chance of success.

Also, it's clear that the promoted teams concedes less than 1 goal on average for a season. 

 

So where does that leave us?

- We have been good when hitting teams on the break which has ended in some high scoring matches.

- We are awful when teams sit back, because we don't have any plan B.  

- Losing far too many even matches, soft underbelly and no winning mentality.

- Defence and midfield score far too little.

The squad is decent but needs an overhaul which it seems we are getting. 

Armstrong needs replacing, and we also problably need a pacy direct winger/forward who can cause trouble. A lot of promoted teams have had wingers on 10+ goals. Gallagher as a central striker makes sense if you're going to put in crosses. In addition we need a central midfielder who will get into the box and finish chances. Can't remember last time we had a midfielder who scored 5+ goals in a season. 

Biggest issue however is assembling a team that is coherent and works as unit defensively. We've been overrun in midfield on too many occasions with gaps appearing all over the place with some naive position and lack of tracking back. The defence has not been that great either, playing itself into trouble and not doing the basics right. 

Can Mowbray fix this? Evidence suggest not. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kie_BRFC]

17 hours ago, Stuart said:

You are right, we won’t agree but it’s an interesting topic though.

Armstrong gets more minutes, takes more shots and has more goals than anyone else. The latter being a consequence of the former.

Gallagher playing as CF and being given the same freedom would bring similar results IMHO.

This part is a wind up surely? Even if you think Armstrong misses lots of chances and is selfish, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest Gallagher would score 28 league goals if he played up top. Zero. 

 

[roversfan99]

It also implies that the striker and his quality is an irrelevance as long as he has the "team built around him" as a central striker.