v Coventry City (h) - 27/4/24

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, Ewood Ace said:

Perhaps because Mowbray had superior squads (and underachieved) and he was backed much more significantly in the market. Just look at what Mowbray brought in in his final season when we were around the top and what JDT got last season.

In the final season, he wasnt backed at all. He had to sell Armstrong and that summer was all loans and Edun for a nominal fee. Then in January, he spent another nominal fee on Hedges, a couple of loans and Markanday for 500k who instantly tore his hamstring and missed the rest of the season.

The death spirals are a result of us constantly having thin/young squads and never getting backed in January, regardless of manager.

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

In the final season, he wasnt backed at all. He had to sell Armstrong and that summer was all loans and Edun for a nominal fee. Then in January, he spent another nominal fee on Hedges, a couple of loans and Markanday for 500k who instantly tore his hamstring and missed the rest of the season.

The death spirals are a result of us constantly having thin/young squads and never getting backed in January, regardless of manager.

Maybe Mowbray should have loan a striker or used Ryan Giles properly 

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Maybe Mowbray should have loan a striker or used Ryan Giles properly 

Not the narrative you ran with when he was here, similar to Tomasson, and more importantly, not relevant to the point I was making.

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

Not the narrative you ran with when he was here, similar to Tomasson, and more importantly, not relevant to the point I was making.

I did complain how he used Ryan Giles and I did repeatedly he should have changed formation much sooner than he did. Maybe we got playoffs then 

[RoversTilliDie]

We could end the Season with the top scorer in the Championship and still be relegated, it says a lot for this misfiring team, take away Szchmodics 30plus goals and we would have been relegated last Janurary. We need to strengthen big time in the Striker department in the Summer.

[yankfan]

12 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Waggott's job? Yes no problem 

Posh jobs like that are few and far in between. 

[Torgeir]

22 hours ago, OsloRover said:

Why? Leeds are so shit atm even we beat them

Because Leeds have beaten them twice already this season and beat Leicester twice as well. 

[dingles staying down 4ever]

7 minutes ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

It's a balancing act - but was it 3 at the back or 5 ? There are possibly things I would personally have done differently - but though not enough, that point could be priceless come next Saturday. We had enough chances to win the match - having 3,4 or 5 at the back doesn't change the fact that we have limited goal scorers across the team.

Granted there were times when it was a back three, and at least once a back two with Carter appearing in the forward line. But other times especially with Trondstat on the field we were a back six. 

But when we attacked the only player looking to break their two lines of defence was Ayari who tried to pass forward evertime he received the ball. The majority of the ball was side ways and backwards on front of their defence.

When they went down to 10 men there should have been a statement of intent by bringing an attacking player on but he brought a defender for a defender and a midfielder for a midfielder. The crowd

[Bohinen1983]

I see Macfazden getting good reviews in the Telegraph. Whilst I thought he defended well- he's a proper old school centre half, his distribution was appalling.  There was quite a few who's passing was way off.  I used to enjoy how, despite a chronic lack of pace throughout the squad we could punish teams on the counter with our rapid transition.  Sure, we used to get caught out, but at times it was lovely to watch us work out from the back from one end to the other. 

I accept we don't really have the personnel to play this way but we seem to have gone completely the other way and now struggle finding feet and passing the bloody thing.  Why can we not have a sensible middle ground. We don't have the pace at the back to play a high line, nor do we have the pace or hold uplay to hit it long. So surely the only real viable option is to invite teams on to us and have a viable system of counter-attacking football..   

Our pressing is really poor too-  whilst I accept sitting deeper is necessary you'll often see Sammy waving his arms looking back at his team mates as he leads a press alone. Come on man.  We can push up a bit allowing our midfield- which is handicapped due to playing 3 at the back anyway, an opportunity to press..  Why not, if we're going to play three at the back- when we're on the transition, or dominating have defender move forwards into the defensive midfield slot creating an overload..  Lenihan would have been perfect- again, not sure we have the personnel..   Perhaps we could Play Trondstadt in such a position with JRC & Ayari ahead of him.   So when we gain possession he has a licence to push forwards, on the back foot he's a body around our box. 

I think, with fast over-lapping full backs and a striker like Keiffer Moore that'd be brilliant.

That's not us though. We have a state of the art coach to travel in and a decimated underinvested in squad.

We've lost so many players and not replaced them with equal or better. We're shite. Just a really, really bad side. 

Wharton,  JRC, Trondstadt, Szmodic, Dolan, Hedges Ayari

The rest are average at best.  

You'd need to be a miracle worker to get a tune out of this lot. Which JDT did last season- albeit with Brereton, amazing what a difference one or two good quality players make to a team of average ones.

[chaddyrovers]

 

 

[DuffsLeftPeg]

43 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

 

Was the explanation “because we play safety first football and we’d rather not lose than attempt to win & entertain the fans. Steve upstairs is more than happy to lose an extra 5k off the home gate next season as long as we stay in the League” 
 

Also anyone know why this joker replaces Eusless on the touchline during set pieces? Not sure what the point, it’s bizarre

[Hasta]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

 

Funnily enough I may (or may not) have been at the services on the motorway this morning and may (or may not) have seen Mark Robins. I  asked him "Why did you leave two men up front, even with 10 men?" He gave a fairly logical explanation. Here's what he said:-

"Blackburn kept 3 centre halves on the pitch meaning we were not so outnumbered in midfield or at the back. Therefore we kept two up top with the hope to try and nick a goal. What we didn't want was them passing it through us by having an extra man in midfield, but because they utilised their extra man in defence we just though "you stupid bastards" and let them pass it around at the back. I had some defensive players ready to come on had Blackburn gone more positive, but they seemed quite content with a point"

Edited April 29 by Hasta

[roversfan99]

When managers (or in this case, a coach) "explain" their decisions it is always going to be what they thought, but its key not to just take it as being right. He isn't going to admit that they lacked the bravery or were content with a point. It was the wrong decision and the result wasn't good considering the circumstances.

Also I agree with @Bohinen1983 on McFadzean. He clearly purely in defensive terms knows what he is doing, and he is a leader, a proper old school defender through the lower leagues. But his frailties mean that we have to have a 3rd centre back as an attempt to cover them. We clearly dont try to play out from the back nor am I saying we should, but you still need to be somewhat capable on the ball. He just aimlessly lumps the ball in the air more than anyone else. We have limited attackers like Gallagher and Dolan but their job is made impossible when the ball isnt often even lumped in their general direction. He is also so slow that we have to play further back or risk a repeat of the Plymouth game. He should be let go at the end of the season.

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, DuffsLeftPeg said:

Was the explanation “because we play safety first football and we’d rather not lose than attempt to win & entertain the fans. Steve upstairs is more than happy to lose an extra 5k off the home gate next season as long as we stay in the League” 
 

Also anyone know why this joker replaces Eusless on the touchline during set pieces? Not sure what the point, it’s bizarre

He doesn't replace Eustace on the touchline during set pieces. Ben Benson still does that but a couple of times Matt Gardiner did it to the touchline shouting instructions to the players

[chaddyrovers]

24 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Funnily enough I may (or may not) have been at the services on the motorway this morning and may (or may not) have seen Mark Robins. I  asked him "Why did you leave two men up front, even with 10 men?" He gave a fairly logical explanation. Here's what he said:-

"Blackburn kept 3 centre halves on the pitch meaning we were not so outnumbered in midfield or at the back. Therefore we kept two up top with the hope to try and nick a goal. What we didn't want was them passing it through us by having an extra man in midfield, but because they utilised their extra man in defence we just though "you stupid bastards" and let them pass it around at the back. I had some defensive players ready to come on had Blackburn gone more positive, but they seemed quite content with a point"

so my explanation of why we didn't change formation was exactly what I said it was. 

[Hasta]

47 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

so my explanation of why we didn't change formation was exactly what I said it was. 

Yes. And ultimately it meant we didn't score and didn't win against 10 men. Therefore going into the final day in a precarious position against the champions-elect rather than being safe. Bravo.

Plus the fact remains that they may only have played 2 up front because we stuck with 3 at the back.

Edited April 29 by Hasta

[roversfan99]

It is incomprehensible that if the manager/coaches explained why we didnt move from a back 5, that the logic used could have been a mistake. 

We didnt win a game that was there for us for half an hour, so evidence suggested that their logic was flawed and they made the wrong call.

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, Hasta said:

Yes. And ultimately it meant we didn't score and didn't win against 10 men. Therefore going into the final day in a precarious position against the champions-elect rather than being safe. Bravo.

We might have lost the game or still draw the game or won the game. We will never know

37 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

It is incomprehensible that if the manager/coaches explained why we didnt move from a back 5, that the logic used could have been a mistake. 

We didnt win a game that was there for us for half an hour, so evidence suggested that their logic was flawed and they made the wrong call.

Wrong call? What happened if we gone more attacking and lost the game. I just wonder what your reaction and comments would have been? Guess we never know

[Hasta]

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

We might have lost the game or still draw the game or won the game. We will never know

We know what happens if we keep 3 centre halves though.

0 goals. 0 home wins for Eustace. 1 point against 10 men. Last day peril.

We’ve gone from a manager who believed we could beat any time regardless of the opposition (see West Ham / Leicester away), to one who doesn’t trust his team to go for a win against 10-man Coventry at home. 

Edited April 29 by Hasta

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, Hasta said:

We know what happens if we keep 3 centre halves though.

0 goals. 0 home wins for Eustace. 1 point against 10 men. Last day peril.

We got a point, had 30 shots and dominated the second half. 

Still in our hands going into the last game

[Hasta]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

We got a point, had 30 shots and dominated the second half. 

Still in our hands going into the last game

OK, but irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.

So back on topic, We know what happens if we keep 3 centre halves on against Coventry.

0 goals. 0 home wins for Eustace. 1 point against 10 men. Last day peril.

We’ve gone from a manager who believed we could beat any time regardless of the opposition (see West Ham / Leicester away), to one who doesn’t trust his team to go for a win against 10-man Coventry at home. 

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, Hasta said:

OK, but irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.

So back on topic, We know what happens if we keep 3 centre halves on against Coventry.

0 goals. 0 home wins for Eustace. 1 point against 10 men. Last day peril.

We’ve gone from a manager who believed we could beat any time regardless of the opposition (see West Ham / Leicester away), to one who doesn’t trust his team to go for a win against 10-man Coventry at home. 

I see it as 1 home win for Eustace. He was part of pre match discussion with Johnson pre game, Eustace was on the touchline during the game. His win. You don't. We aren't going to agree. Let's leave it there 

[Hasta]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

I see it as 1 home win for Eustace. He was part of pre match discussion with Johnson pre game, Eustace was on the touchline during the game. His win. You don't. We aren't going to agree. Let's leave it there 

Rovers website disagrees with you. 

My post and point was that we know what happens if we have 3 centre halves. We don’t score and don’t win the game. I’m not sure why you won’t agree with that but it’s a fact. It’s what happened.

 

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, Hasta said:

Rovers website disagrees with you. 

Oh well. I was there. Johnson's post comments confirms Eustace and Gardiner had hours long meeting about Stoke game, Eustace on the touchline second half when the team needed direction and leadership on the touchline. His win. You say it isn't. Let's leave it there cos we won't agree. 👍🏻

1 minute ago, Hasta said:

My post and point was that we know what happens if we have 3 centre halves. We don’t score and don’t win the game. I’m not sure why you won’t agree with that but it’s a fact. It’s what happened.

 

My comment 

We got a point, had 30 shots and dominated the second half. That's what happened 

Still in our hands going into the last 

[roversfan99]

Its all geting very desperate. Trying to include a win he wasnt even officially in charge of having not been appointed 24 ours prior, just because he had a meeting with Johnson and Lowe and he came down after half time. Stat padding because we all know his results have been terrible.

Also echoing Eustace's negative "what if we lose" mentality to justify keeping 5 defenders on against an exhausted 10 men with the prize of survival on offer if we won.