v Huddersfield (a) - 28/09/2021

[den]

4 minutes ago, Gav said:

You've not got the greatest record when it comes to spotting a striker, 83 goals in 150 games Jordan Rhodes springs to mind.

Gallagher has started the season well, 3 goals in the league so far I believe, he's doing ok in my book.

He’s a good striker simply because he’s got 3 goals Gav?

and “I” don’t know how to judge a striker?

Ill refrain on the Rhodes comparison. 

[arbitro]

12 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Correct. He should have put the full back we had on the bench on as full back and left DA and HC as proper 2 in the middle.  Moving Bucko meant a change in the middle, so basically Mogadon switched the whole set up after 20 minutes.  Does he have so little faith in his system that he would abandon it so quickly?    Thinks he's clever.  The full backs instincts are the same whichever foot he kicks with, Mogga's had a nightmare.

Changing several positions and systems around for one substitution has become a bit of a trademark for Mowbray. It's probably the best example of him over complicating games and quite often has cost us points. Having watched a lot of football down the years I think he is the manager who needlessly complicates games more than any other. I defy anybody to tell me with certainty what system he was playing after making all his changes last night.

[roversfan99]

12 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I disagree there. 

Why couldn't we signed for example Brighton's Centre midfielder Jayson Molumby on loan instead of Clarkson? Not writing Clarkson but they were other options out there. 

 

1. Let's see how bad the injuries are first. Plus we have players coming back like Wharton, JRC and Dack. 

2. Most championship clubs spent nothing and not likely to change in coming season. We change the loan players and hopefully bring in Maja who would make a massive difference to us. 

3. Depends on the situation of each. 

Where would you have played him? Right back? 

Yeah, I am well aware that playing a left footed left back at right back is not ideal, but it causes far less disruption than bringing on a player so out of his depth to a level that I have never seen before, and then not only that, but changing the shape bizarrely which again put Buckley at right wing back where he couldn't be any less comfortable. Natural full back on for natural full back, I accept it isn't ideal as he is left footed, but there is no way that Magloire on, a back 3 and Buckley at right wing back is a more sensible idea.

Mowbray recently said in the LT when Maja was still "an unknown striker who had not signed on the final day" that he would have been the 5th loan, when asked why he didn't fill all 5 spaces.

I suspect that again, the reason why we didn't move for someone like Molumby was money. Clarkson is wet behind the ears, a total novice, and Mowbray spoke numerous times of wanting more experience but that parent clubs tended to want a decent contribution of their wages, whereas with untried kids, he could "sell them a dream" on how they can gain experience with most of the wage being covered by the parent club.

1 hour ago, rovers11 said:

I thought we did well last night overall. All you can ever ask is that your team gives it their all and never gives up until the final whistle. Brereton and Rothwell were outstanding I thought. What a mess that we've let a lot of our best players enter the final 12 months of their contract. It's unforgivable really. 

Our defence without Lenihan is always a shambles. It went completely to pot when Nyambe went off. Magloire is nowhere near ready for this level but you can't blame him too much. 

Despite the disappointment of last night, I have a much firmer belief now that we may actually have a decent season this year. Yes, we've got a worse team than last year but so have the vast majority of the teams in this league. This surely has to be the weakest league since we got relegated from the prem with most teams cutting back due to financial problems from covid. 

We have started well in general for sure but I can't possibly fathom how anyone ciuld have watched last nights game and felt that we did well. The performance was really poor, really scruffy, really unstructured, the defence was all over the place and the lack of depth reared its ugly head.

There is clearly a good spirit but that doesn't mean that we did well last night.

[StubbsUK]

Hey everyone, don't forget to get your marks in for the performance last night, 2 lucky winners will get a copy of The Turnstyle Mag's Tony Parkes A5 poster, all you need to do is add your marks and 2 winners will be picked at random.

https://www.brfcs.com/magazine/football/match/716905/huddersfield-blackburn

[Bigdoggsteel]

17 hours ago, DE. said:

Tbf those two are known for being injury prone so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, especially the manager. We should be well prepared for the absence of Lenihan, Nyambe and eventually Ayala as well. Instead we're chucking on kids and hoping for the best as we have nothing else in reserve. 

We've got a first 11 to challenge anyone in this division, but beyond that we are painfully thin. Add in a manager who is frequently shown to be clueless and you're looking at a rough time.

Lenihan had a pretty good run at it last year and we can't just stockpile centre halves. Carter and Wharton look like able deputies and it's a pity the Brighton guy is injured, really we should have loaned a centre half who was ready to go. Magloire was dreadful last night confirms what I had suspected after watching him a couple of times before, he's League 2 standard, at best, possibly lower. I'll be frank, I hope I don't see him play for Rovers again. He's not good enough.

Last night was a textbook Mowbray fuck up(the sub was Butterworth) , but it wasn't helped by Benson messing up the subs procedure with the 4th official, amateur hour, he literally had 1 job. Thant shambolic 10 minute period put us on a  disjointed, downward spiral and I would have ripped your hand off for 2-2 then cos I knew there was only going to be 1 winner. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Yeah, I am well aware that playing a left footed left back at right back is not ideal, but it causes far less disruption than bringing on a player so out of his depth to a level that I have never seen before, and then not only that, but changing the shape bizarrely which again put Buckley at right wing back where he couldn't be any less comfortable. Natural full back on for natural full back, I accept it isn't ideal as he is left footed, but there is no way that Magloire on, a back 3 and Buckley at right wing back is a more sensible idea.

Mowbray recently said in the LT when Maja was still "an unknown striker who had not signed on the final day" that he would have been the 5th loan, when asked why he didn't fill all 5 spaces.

I suspect that again, the reason why we didn't move for someone like Molumby was money. Clarkson is wet behind the ears, a total novice, and Mowbray spoke numerous times of wanting more experience but that parent clubs tended to want a decent contribution of their wages, whereas with untried kids, he could "sell them a dream" on how they can gain experience with most of the wage being covered by the parent club.

We have started well in general for sure but I can't possibly fathom how anyone ciuld have watched last nights game and felt that we did well. The performance was really poor, really scruffy, really unstructured, the defence was all over the place and the lack of depth reared its ugly head.

There is clearly a good spirit but that doesn't mean that we did well last night.

Ah no, I thought we played ok, much better than last season, although it did remind me of last season near the end. 

Totally agree about Magloire. I can't recall a player who looked so out of his depth, although Poveda had a stinker, there is some hope for him I think.

Malumby went to West brom on a  loan to buy, so financial alright. He is more what we needed than Clarkson though. Ireland are worse than crap currently, but he's one of the best coming through, very combative. Clarkson looks a pathetic physical specimen, honestly, he has the build of a 14 year old. He makes Luka Modric look buff 

[DE.]

8 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Lenihan had a pretty good run at it last year and we can't just stockpile centre halves. Carter and Wharton look like able deputies and it's a pity the Brighton guy is injured, really we should have loaned a centre half who was ready to go. Magloire was dreadful last night confirms what I had suspected after watching him a couple of times before, he's League 2 standard, at best, possibly lower. I'll be frank, I hope I don't see him play for Rovers again. He's not good enough.

Last night was a textbook Mowbray fuck up(the sub was Butterworth) , but it wasn't helped by Benson messing up the subs procedure with the 4th official, amateur hour, he literally had 1 job. Thant shambolic 10 minute period put us on a  disjointed, downward spiral and I would have ripped your hand off for 2-2 then cos I knew there was only going to be 1 winner. 

To be fair, yes, Lenihan hasn't done too badly over the past couple of seasons. Averaged about 10 games missing which isn't horrendous. With that said it still really concerns me how much worse we look defensively without him - especially as we don't look that good to begin with. We can't just afford to write off the games he doesn't play. Carter looks OK but I need to see more of Wharton before I'm happy to call him an able backup. He did look decent last season before he got injured, but it was only for a handful of games.

Nyambe and the right back position in general is a much bigger concern for me. I'd expect to see Bucko or Travis back there covering before Pike gets a chance, which would really weaken our midfield. If Pickering gets injured we're pretty stuffed on the left hand side as well.

[Songman]

Not sure if been mentioned but did anybody see the fight after the game? Grown men who ought to know better and some young kids attacking Huddersfield fans (who were goading but still, absolutely no excuse for that). I don't get to many away games but last night confirmed why I don't.

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Yeah, I am well aware that playing a left footed left back at right back is not ideal,

fair enough

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

but changing the shape bizarrely which again put Buckley at right wing back where he couldn't be any less comfortable.

But the change of the formation isn't the reason we lost but 2 poor pieces of defending where we did. 

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Mowbray recently said in the LT when Maja was still "an unknown striker who had not signed on the final day" that he would have been the 5th loan, when asked why he didn't fill all 5 spaces.

Maja was coming in on loan to buy next season when we can due to FFP rules as @Bbrovers2288posted weeks ago. 

But we can see bring in other loan players but would have sent a loan player back to the parent club if the loan agreement has that in terms of loan deal

[windymiller7]

1 hour ago, StubbsUK said:

Hey everyone, don't forget to get your marks in for the performance last night, 2 lucky winners will get a copy of The Turnstyle Mag's Tony Parkes A5 poster, all you need to do is add your marks and 2 winners will be picked at random.

https://www.brfcs.com/magazine/football/match/716905/huddersfield-blackburn

Is there any way to enter a negative score? I want to give a realistic rating to Poveda as all he did was help the opposition and it won't go below zero.

[alex l]

5 hours ago, arbitro said:

What about the cost of replacing the out of contract players should they leave? If we replace them with Championship ready players it could conceivably cost more. Replacing them with kids isn't the answer neither as that will only end one way. It all points back to Mowbray and Waggott being allowed to spend between 150 and 175% of our income on wages which, over their tenure amounts to tens of millions. 

And didn't Waggott boast about the massive offer to Armstrong to get him to stay. Surely that would have blown the alleged wage structure out of the water. 

Rovers have historically had an income to wage ratio of 100+%, even in the pre venky days I believe. If the current regime had put an end to it, how many fans would be in uproar with the poor quality of player that would likely have meant at the club? As for the offer to Arma, they admitted it would have broken the structure, but on the reasoning he would have commanded a higher fee either this year or in future, assuming he continued to score at a good rate. 

All this discussion goes to show is that running a football club is a balancing act and far from easy. Yet some seem to think it easy and don't consider all aspects. 

[arbitro]

9 minutes ago, alex l said:

Rovers have historically had an income to wage ratio of 100+%, even in the pre venky days I believe. If the current regime had put an end to it, how many fans would be in uproar with the poor quality of player that would likely have meant at the club? As for the offer to Arma, they admitted it would have broken the structure, but on the reasoning he would have commanded a higher fee either this year or in future, assuming he continued to score at a good rate. 

All this discussion goes to show is that running a football club is a balancing act and far from easy. Yet some seem to think it easy and don't consider all aspects. 

The likes of Barnsley, Millwall and Luton amongst others seem to manage on smaller gates without breaching or fearing P&S and have decent, well coached footballers. And we have over spent massively on many poor players and managers, many of the players aren't even ours. 

The high wage to income was amply supported by PL money which meant at the time of selling we were only £20m in debt. The business model over the past decade has been extremely poor whereby a fortune has been spent with nothing to show for it.

 

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

fair enough

But the change of the formation isn't the reason we lost but 2 poor pieces of defending where we did. 

Maja was coming in on loan to buy next season when we can due to FFP rules as @Bbrovers2288posted weeks ago. 

But we can see bring in other loan players but would have sent a loan player back to the parent club if the loan agreement has that in terms of loan deal

The change in shape certainly caused additional confusion and didn't help. You could put every individual goal down to individual errors/brilliance from the other team specifically, but in regards to the general game, it was a strange move and it hindered us.

Out of interest, would you have agreed and put Edun on at right back, or did you think that Mowbray was correct to put on Magloire and put Buckley as a right wing back? What would you have done?

I would agree with @Bigdoggsteel that I wouldn't want to see Magloire play in a Rovers shirt again, he is so far out of his depth despite loan spells away, he will never be good enough, and for his personal sake, let him go and try and manufacture a career in the lower leagues/non-league. 

I also think that Buckley should never play as a right wing back (or right back) again, he cannot cover that position.

Whether it had a loan option/obligation is purely speculation. We still have a loan spot but even if we use it, it would be a huge change of policy if it was anything other than another raw kid with no/minimal first team experience that we could afford.

[riverholmes]

Just read about Magloire having a bad game. It's completely unfair on the player to have used him. He has a poor loan spell in Scotland, as a CB, and then struggled in sub appearances before this match. He should be in the U23s or on loan trying to rebuild his career, rather than being thrown in the deep-end. My impression is that he's struggling with his confidence and more high level exposure isn't really helping.

Mowbray failed massively in not signing a strong defensive midfielder. They would have provided an option for Travis to go to full back, if needed. His transfer policy, this year, has been disastrous, minus Pickering and, perhaps, Khadra. We wait on van Hecke.

Edited September 29, 2021 by riverholmes

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

5 hours ago, booth said:

You've been a contrarian and apologist for all sorts on here over the years. I took it as you were seeking attention, so I usually just ignore but as you quoted me I replied.

Normally I would be insulted by this - but seeing as it is you and having read your previous opinions, it really isn't worth the bother.

[booth]

3 minutes ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

Normally I would be insulted by this - but seeing as it is you and having read your previous opinions, it really isn't worth the bother.

But it was worth the bother to reply.

I refer you to your original snarky response. If you don't like it don't start it.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

2 minutes ago, booth said:

But it was worth the bother to reply.

I refer you to your original snarky response. If you don't like it don't start it.

Why snarky - you said we had a better option - I bowed to your greater knowledge of a player I haven't seen play in either full back position.

[booth]

2 minutes ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

Why snarky - you said we had a better option - I bowed to your greater knowledge of a player I haven't seen play in either full back position.

Yeah that's not snarky at all.

We did have a better option on the bench on the night but the player I would have picked is on loan.

Do I think Edun should play there all the time? No.

Would I have used him there temporarily? Yes.

Do I know Magloire is a poor defender? Yes.

So for those reasons I'd have chosen Edun at full back.

[Bigdoggsteel]

6 hours ago, DE. said:

To be fair, yes, Lenihan hasn't done too badly over the past couple of seasons. Averaged about 10 games missing which isn't horrendous. With that said it still really concerns me how much worse we look defensively without him - especially as we don't look that good to begin with. We can't just afford to write off the games he doesn't play. Carter looks OK but I need to see more of Wharton before I'm happy to call him an able backup. He did look decent last season before he got injured, but it was only for a handful of games.

Nyambe and the right back position in general is a much bigger concern for me. I'd expect to see Bucko or Travis back there covering before Pike gets a chance, which would really weaken our midfield. If Pickering gets injured we're pretty stuffed on the left hand side as well.

Ya, I thought Travis to right would have made sense. Edun on for Nyambe then. The subs yesterday were poor, no glossing over that. In timing, personnel and performances. The triple threat. 

On Lenihan as well ya, when I saw he was out I thought we are in trouble here , when Nyambe went off I felt it was game over. That's a huge problem. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

The change in shape certainly caused additional confusion and didn't help. You could put every individual goal down to individual errors/brilliance from the other team specifically, but in regards to the general game, it was a strange move and it hindered us.

Out of interest, would you have agreed and put Edun on at right back, or did you think that Mowbray was correct to put on Magloire and put Buckley as a right wing back? What would you have done?

I would agree with @Bigdoggsteel that I wouldn't want to see Magloire play in a Rovers shirt again, he is so far out of his depth despite loan spells away, he will never be good enough, and for his personal sake, let him go and try and manufacture a career in the lower leagues/non-league. 

I also think that Buckley should never play as a right wing back (or right back) again, he cannot cover that position.

Whether it had a loan option/obligation is purely speculation. We still have a loan spot but even if we use it, it would be a huge change of policy if it was anything other than another raw kid with no/minimal first team experience that we could afford.

Travis to right back. @DE. Mentioned it and it reminded me I thought the same last night. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 hours ago, riverholmes said:

Just read about Magloire having a bad game. It's completely unfair on the player to have used him. He has a poor loan spell in Scotland, as a CB, and then struggled in sub appearances before this match. He should be in the U23s or on loan trying to rebuild his career, rather than being thrown in the deep-end. My impression is that he's struggling with his confidence and more high level exposure isn't really helping.

Mowbray failed massively in not signing a strong defensive midfielder. They would have provided an option for Travis to go to full back, if needed. His transfer policy, this year, has been disastrous, minus Pickering and, perhaps, Khadra. We wait on van Hecke.

It's unfair on us, not really on Magloire ,it's actually very fortunate for him to be given an opportunity way above his ability. Unfortunately, us and the team were punished for it. Obviously a quality DM would have been nice, but it was the Injuries to 2 key defenders  that killed us. Edun can play CM seemingly, so the issues were compounded by Mowbray going full Mowbray with the subs and our goalkeeping coach messing up their introduction. Only at Rovers! 

[roversfan99]

44 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Travis to right back. @DE. Mentioned it and it reminded me I thought the same last night. 

Definitely another more viable alternative than what I expect (Magloire in a back 3, Buckley right wing back) but I fear that we would miss him too much in midfield. Who would your midfield 2 be? Edun, Davenport, Clarkson and if fit Johnson seem the choices.

[SuperBrfc]

Whichever way we look at, we've got a selection headache on Saturday and not of the good kind. Playing Travis at right back might be the best we can do, but then it seriously weakens our midfield with Rothwell already out.

Starting Magloire at right back and sticking with the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 should result in the least disruption, but I'm not keen on seeing him start there. It's a tricky one.

I'm expecting Mowbray to go with 3 at the back. Buckley and Pickering as wing backs, with Travis and Edun as the two in the middle.

[DE.]

I would be really concerned if Travis was relocated to right back. He'd do a job there, but we would be taking the engine out of our midfield which is a massive gamble to take. Particularly as I don't think there is anybody of similar calibre able to step into that role. We are pretty limited in terms of options, though, thanks to our pathetic summer transfer window.

[chaddyrovers]

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

The change in shape certainly caused additional confusion and didn't help. You could put every individual goal down to individual errors/brilliance from the other team specifically, but in regards to the general game, it was a strange move and it hindered us.

Not sure if cause any confusion to be honest but baring in they weren't cutting open regular but 2 poor pieces of defending. 

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Out of interest, would you have agreed and put Edun on at right back, or did you think that Mowbray was correct to put on Magloire and put Buckley as a right wing back? What would you have done?

Has Edun even played right back? Or trained there? 

I would kept the back 4 and played Maglorie at right back. 

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I would agree with @Bigdoggsteel that I wouldn't want to see Magloire play in a Rovers shirt again, he is so far out of his depth despite loan spells away, he will never be good enough, and for his personal sake, let him go and try and manufacture a career in the lower leagues/non-league. 

Abit harsh on Maglorie but he is 6th choice for a reason. He needs a full season playing regular 1st team football. 

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Whether it had a loan option/obligation is purely speculation. We still have a loan spot but even if we use it, it would be a huge change of policy if it was anything other than another raw kid with no/minimal first team experience that we could afford.

What was speculation? Maja coming in to sign on loan for us??