Valérien Ismaël: Blackburn Rovers Head Coach

[islander200]

8 minutes ago, Hasta said:

10 wins from 20

4 from 12

3 from 5

And then 0 from 4

Results had taken a downturn once Travis and Tronstadt weren’t available together. They improved a bit before Ismael came in. Now we’ve not won in four and have lost to 3 of the bottom 5. Also facts.

 

Yeah and now Batth isn't available who is just as important as those 2.Our other 2 centre backs looks half the players without him in there 

This happens every season.Even the last 3 games...we haven't won away in 11 matches against newly promoted sides,Struggles at home v Stoke and Hull City struggling at the bottom under Eustace, hammered off Swansea under Lowe.Our team coming up short in important games is not new 

I'm not saying ismael is the answer or was the right appointment I don't think he was but 

The things people are saying now where being said about Eustace last season....Eusless ...yes man...doesn't have a clue.He has had 4 games and results had taken a downturn previous to his appointment 

[Hasta]

7 minutes ago, islander200 said:

He has had 4 games and results had taken a downturn previous to his appointment 

I agree with you somewhat regards to injuries and squad depth and all that, but this statement simply isn’t true. In the last 5 games before him we played Preston, played well and beat them, albeit we tried to throw it away in the last 5 minutes. We were very good in winning at West Brom and we were far better than Plymouth. 
 

Batth missed the Plymouth game and half the West Brom game. However we still looked organised and had desire in those games. That is obviously lacking at the moment. He’s changed too much too quickly.

Brushing it off as “well we were this bad before he come in” simply isn’t true.

Edited March 16 by Hasta

[islander200]

8 minutes ago, Hasta said:

I agree with you somewhat regards to injuries and squad depth and all that, but this statement simply isn’t true. In the last 5 games before him we played Preston, played well and beat them, albeit we tried to throw it away in the last 5 minutes. We were very good in winning at West Brom and we were far better than Plymouth. 
 

Batth missed the Plymouth game and half the West Brom game. However we still looked organised and had desire in those games. That is obviously lacking at the moment. He’s changed too much too quickly.

Brushing it off as “well we were this bad before he come in” simply isn’t true.

I can't argue he has looked clueless but I do think there is a major mentality problem (losing i believe the last 11 away games agsinst newly promoted sides is shocking)with our squad which can be partly blamed on lack of clarity from above and so many players only contracted short term which happens every season and the budget we are playing with we shouldn't be up there .Plus look at some of the players after Derby smiles and practically kisses with Eustace he didn't come into easy environment. Stupid contract we have given him but that isn't his fault 

 

My argument isn't that Ismael is better than Eustace or he was the right appointment just 4 games is to early for me to be labelling someone a donkey or closing my mind to the possibility that he can get the team playing better.Not saying you  but I do remember others saying pretty damning things about Eustace aswell at first 

He needs to use the international break well on the training pitch ,hopefully our players won't cry if he asks them to come in on 1 of their expected days off 

 

 

 

 

 

[M_B]

8 hours ago, Hasta said:

Come on now.

Looking at the starting line up of the win against Plymouth, every one of them was available for the defeat at Derby, plus he had Tronstadt and Ohashi back.

Against Cardiff yesterday only Brittain was missing, again with Tronstadt and Ohashi available.

 

We've lost our top scorer and both left sided forwards. Hyam looks like he's only playing because there's nobody else. 

I'm not defending  the performances, they've  been terrible, but to just trot out those figures as if they're gospel, without any context, doesn't tell the full story.

[Hasta]

2 hours ago, M_B said:

We've lost our top scorer and both left sided forwards. Hyam looks like he's only playing because there's nobody else. 

I'm not defending  the performances, they've  been terrible, but to just trot out those figures as if they're gospel, without any context, doesn't tell the full story.

Eh?

"Looking at the starting line up of the win against Plymouth, every one of them was available for the defeat at Derby, plus he had Tronstadt and Ohashi back."

That is gospel. There's no other context to it. 

Regardless, the goalposts on this discussion are moving a bit. I accept that it is still early in his reign and he doesn't have a full strength squad.

All I'm pointing out is that when people keep saying "our form had already gone before he arrived", it hadn't. People will try and write that as gospel going forward and it's clearly not true. 3 from 5.

 

 

 

Edited March 17 by Hasta

[chaddyrovers]

11 hours ago, Hasta said:

I agree with you somewhat regards to injuries and squad depth and all that, but this statement simply isn’t true. In the last 5 games before him we played Preston, played well and beat them, albeit we tried to throw it away in the last 5 minutes. We were very good in winning at West Brom and we were far better than Plymouth. 
 

Batth missed the Plymouth game and half the West Brom game. However we still looked organised and had desire in those games. That is obviously lacking at the moment. He’s changed too much too quickly.

Brushing it off as “well we were this bad before he come in” simply isn’t true.

He changed too much? Really?.

What changed between that Swansea game then the next 2 games? Same formation and style. Derby got at our defenders and our keeper flapped again. Is that on Ismael or the players? Or 

And 4 wins in 13 games previously suggests things need adapt and changing. We witnessed abit of this on Saturday. 

[Hasta]

17 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

He changed too much? Really?.

What changed between that Swansea game then the next 2 games? Same formation and style. Derby got at our defenders and our keeper flapped again. Is that on Ismael or the players? Or 

And 4 wins in 13 games previously suggests things need adapt and changing. We witnessed abit of this on Saturday. 

 

Against Norwich I thought we did OK. We struggled early in the second half but Tonstadt's introduction changed the flow of the game until Dennis got sent off. However we didn't lose and the performance wasn't particularly bad.

Then we play Derby, Pears flaps, we go 2-0 down and within 20 minutes he has decided that this squad would be better suited to going 3 at the back. 

3 wins from the last 5 Chaddy. As Rafa Benitez once said , "Facts"

 

Edited March 17 by Hasta

[booth]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

Eh?

"Looking at the starting line up of the win against Plymouth, every one of them was available for the defeat at Derby, plus he had Tronstadt and Ohashi back."

That is gospel. There's no other context to it. 

Regardless, the goalposts on this discussion are moving a bit. I accept that it is still early in his reign and he doesn't have a full strength squad.

All I'm pointing out is that when people keep saying "our form had already gone before he arrived", it hadn't. People will try and write that as gospel going forward and it's clearly not true. 3 from 5.

 

 

 

"Rushed back", if we're being honest about it.

You can look at any match thread, even the ones where we won, to see how much we declined since December.

Against Cardiff he rightly dropped Cantwell and Forshaw and our general play was much better but the injury of Dennis and introduction of Duberry swung it in Cardiff's favour. Their winning goal came from them hitting us on the break when ACD lost the ball cheaply.

The players have got to take a lot of blame as for example the defending for Cardiff's first goal was awful. Just a free header when there were players there to challenge. What was Carter doing? We're missing Batth and Beck.

Under Eustace we went shaky defensively when Beck was out.

Edit: The more I see that second goal the more it infuriates me. ACD loses it then has the opportunity to try and get it back and at no point puts in a challenge or makes it difficult for the player with the ball. He couldn't give less of a f***.

Edited March 17 by booth

[chaddyrovers]

10 minutes ago, Hasta said:

 

Against Norwich I thought we did OK. We struggled early in the second half but Tonstadt's introduction changed the flow of the game until Dennis got sent off. However we didn't lose and the performance wasn't particularly bad.

Norwich wide players caused us massive problems first half by playing as number 10's instead. Took us 20 mins to sort that out. I felt that performance overall was decent enough

10 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Then we play Derby, Pears flaps, we go 2-0 down and within 20 minutes he has decided that this squad would be better suited to going 3 at the back. 

we were 2 nil after 7 minutes, nothing to do Ismael, or tactics but the fact they bullied us. Pears and our back 4 were all over the place. going to 3 at the back after Karbgo had to go off, settled us down and we created 2 great chances and scored only one. We played back 3 under Eustace at times aswell like Bristol City away this season

10 minutes ago, Hasta said:

3 wins from the last 5 Chaddy. As Rafa Benitez once said , "Facts"

 

we can all cherry pick stats to suit our argument here. 

2 wins in Eustace's last 10 league games. 

Also you missed that Swansea battered us in Lowe's final game. 

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

we can all cherry pick stats to suit our argument here. 

2 wins in Eustace's last 10 league games. 

Also you missed that Swansea battered us in Lowe's final game. 

Individual game performances, Ismael's tactics, injuries etc are all subject to opinion. I believe Derby got 2-0 up and then, typically for Eustace, sat back and held what they had. You think we turned the tide of the game due to the tactical changes of Ismael. We don't really know. I can accept people have differing views on this.

 

The issue I'm taking argument that keeps appearing which is a variation of "we were already in bad form when Ismael took over".

We had won 3 from 5. And they weren't lucky or undeserved wins.

Preston - Great win and much deserved. 

Plymouth - Very good win and much deserved. Control the game from the start to finish

West Brom - Fantastic win and much deserved. Proper team performance who were united and stuck together. 

 

The argument "we were already in bad form when Ismael took over" doesn't needs stats to suit it. It's clearly not true.

True we weren't winning 5 on the bounce which was always unsustainable, but we also weren't losing 3 on the bounce to relegation candidates when he walked in the door.

Edited March 17 by Hasta

[M_B]

2 hours ago, Hasta said:

Eh?

"Looking at the starting line up of the win against Plymouth, every one of them was available for the defeat at Derby, plus he had Tronstadt and Ohashi back."

That is gospel. There's no other context to it. 

Regardless, the goalposts on this discussion are moving a bit. I accept that it is still early in his reign and he doesn't have a full strength squad.

All I'm pointing out is that when people keep saying "our form had already gone before he arrived", it hadn't. People will try and write that as gospel going forward and it's clearly not true. 3 from 5.

 

 

 

How many in 10 or 15? How about the last game before he took over?

Once again,the performances have been woeful, carrying on from the Swansea debacle,,but it's a lot more nuanced than just keeping on quoting 3 in 5.

[roversfan99]

There have been changes under Ismael. None of them good.

We have been more passive under him, with no desire to press higher up. We have seemingly tried to keep the ball more, he mentioned that last week, there has been lots more passing slowly, side to side with little

And we have repeatedly started games terribly under Ismael. Norwich missed a sitter after a few minutes, Derby were 2 up in 7 minutes, Stoke scored pretty early and Cardiff scored after 4 minutes.

His team selection against Stoke was derided by all but 1 on here before kick off, defeat was inevitable. He has flirted between formations and the 5 at the back was unsuccessful so he has already shelved it.

Chaddy wont ever consider that any of the above is down to hin.

[Mattyblue]

We end up in 12th and it’s down to this shite appointment, not a chance the wheels would have fallen off to that extent  if JE had stayed.

The performances and morale of the players have very quickly fallen off a cliff.

[chaddyrovers]

25 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Individual game performances, Ismael's tactics, injuries etc are all subject to opinion. I believe Derby got 2-0 up and then, typically for Eustace, sat back and held what they had. You think we turned the tide of the game due to the tactical changes of Ismael. We don't really know. I can accept people have differing views on this.

I was at Derby game, they battered us in the first 10 mins. We couldn't deal with them.  Back 4 and Pears buckled under pressure 

Going to back 3 settled us down and we played better attacking wise for that first half. Second half, we didn't performed, lack of crosses, chances and creativity. 

25 minutes ago, Hasta said:

The issue I'm taking argument that keeps appearing which is a variation of "we were already in bad form when Ismael took over".

We had won 3 from 5. And they weren't lucky or undeserved wins.

Preston - Great win and much deserved. 

1 of Eustace wins of 2 out of 10 games..

25 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Plymouth - Very good win and much deserved. Control the game from the start to finish

West Brom - Fantastic win and much deserved. Proper team performance who were united and stuck together. 

Agreed but the players united but at Swansea battered us in Lowe's last game. 

25 minutes ago, Hasta said:

The argument "we were already in bad form when Ismael took over" doesn't needs stats to suit it. It's clearly not true.

True we weren't winning 5 on the bounce which was always unsustainable, but we also weren't losing 3 on the bounce to relegation candidates when he walked in the door.

Like I said you are cherry picking facts/stats to suit your argument. You used 5 games but why not the last 10 games or 15 games. Cos it doesn't suit your point. 

 

[chaddyrovers]

22 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

There have been changes under Ismael. None of them good.

We have been more passive under him, with no desire to press higher up. We have seemingly tried to keep the ball more, he mentioned that last week, there has been lots more passing slowly, side to side with little

Yes we witnessed us trying to keep the ball against Cardiff and created more chances. What wrong with that? We won 4 games in 13 games pre Ismael's appointment. 

22 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

And we have repeatedly started games terribly under Ismael. Norwich missed a sitter after a few minutes, Derby were 2 up in 7 minutes, Stoke scored pretty early and Cardiff scored after 4 minutes.

Stoke scored 19 minutes and as usually with you the players get a free pass every time when we started slowly or get no credit for our league position. Our league position was all down to Eustace and feck all with the players performances.

Is Ismael responsible for The back 4 and Pears buckling at Derby under their fast start? Do the players take feck all responsible about that start? 

22 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

His team selection against Stoke was derided by all but 1 on here before kick off, defeat was inevitable. He has flirted between formations and the 5 at the back was unsuccessful so he has already shelved it.

You slammed every team selection pre game. Nothing to see here. 

22 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Chaddy wont ever consider that any of the above is down to hin.

You cant answer the most simple and easier of questions. Just ignored them or deflect the answer. So how you can complain about any poster is bewildering. 🤔

I have made criticism of Ismael since he came in. His subs on Saturday being one. 

Yes we all know you were against his appointment but even your choice Rob Edwards was doing much worse with a Luton this season but you were willing to appoint him even he was sacked with them near the bottom of the league. So why was he the right choice? 

Edited March 17 by chaddyrovers

[Hasta]

20 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

You used 5 games but why not the last 10 games or 15 games. Cos it doesn't suit your point. 

 

OK. Lets remember they were probably tougher games as well. I'll take out the cup win at Boro.

 

With Ismael

4 games - 1 point - 0.25 points per game

Before Ismail 

5 games - 9 points - 1.8 points per game

10 games - 12 points - 1.2 points per game

14 games - 14 points 1.0 points per game

15 games - 17 points - 1.13 points per game

 

Suits my point.

And before anyone says, yes we will look at it again at the end of the season which will be a longer period of time and a fairer barometer to judge his impact. But the team's form under Ismael's is currently worse than before he came. Fact.

Edited March 17 by Hasta

[chaddyrovers]

10 minutes ago, Hasta said:

OK. Lets remember they were probably tougher games as well. I'll take out the cup win at Boro.

With Ismael

4 games - 1 point - 0.25 points per game

Before Ismail 

5 games - 9 points - 1.8 points per game

10 games - 12 points - 1.2 points per game

14 games - 14 points 1.0 points per game

15 games - 17 points - 1.13 points per game

 

Suits my point.

And before anyone says, yes we will look at it again at the end of the season which will be a longer period of time and a fairer barometer to judge his impact. But the team's form under Ismael's is currently worse than before he came. Fact.

Every game is tough one at this level. 

I have said Norwich game was a decent point but he didn't change much. 

Derby bullied us and our back 4 and keeper buckled under pressure. Is that on Ismael? Or the players? We got back into the game and second half we were poor. I put the blame on the players and Ismael? Can we agree on that?.

Stoke away, Hyam's pass cost us but our performance were poor? Is that on the player and Ismael? I would say so..

Cardiff at home, you could see how he wanted to play, get the ball wide and into the box, trying to create more. But defensively we were poor and Pears should have stop both goals. Can we agree on this overall?.

Ismael has made mistakes so far, on Saturday, I didn't understand what his plan was on Saturday when he brought on Woodrow and Cantwell. I still don't get it even not. He should have taken Tronstad off for Buckley to add creativity to the centre of the pitch. 

[roversfan99]

31 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yes we witnessed us trying to keep the ball against Cardiff and created more chances. What wrong with that? We won 4 games in 13 games pre Ismael's appointment. 

Stoke scored 19 minutes and as usually with you the players get a free pass every time when we started slowly or get no credit for our league position. Our league position was all down to Eustace and feck all with the players performances.

Is Ismael responsible for The back 4 and Pears buckling at Derby under their fast start? Do the players take feck all responsible about that start? 

You slammed every team selection pre game. Nothing to see here. 

You cant answer the most simple and easier of questions. Just ignored them or deflect the answer. So how you can complain about any poster is bewildering. 🤔

I have made criticism of Ismael since he came in. His subs on Saturday being one. 

Yes we all know you were against his appointment but even your choice Rob Edwards was doing much worse with a Luton this season but you were willing to appoint him even he was sacked with them near the bottom of the league. So why was he the right choice? 

Obviously it is both players and managers. We have an average squad of players, so Eustace was the key variable in getting them to perform to their absolute maximum and getting results beyond the quality of those individual players. Conversely, Ismael has got results well below the level of these individual players.

The vast majority of goals conceded can be broken down to someone making an individual error. You cant just say, well it wasnt the manager that did it. Why have we repeatedly started slowly under him? When patterns like that develop under a manager, you question the manager.

Playing slow, passive football doesnt suit these players and to be honest isnt the approach that got Ismael his brief moment of managerial success. We havent created much in any of his games, 2 chances isnt something to boast about. The players dont look like they know what he wants from them. He has changed to a back 5, it didnt work, back to a back 4, didnt work. First it was about not changing much, now he seems to want to totally change how we play. Feels like he is just hoping that something works rather than having a plan.

Rob Edwards was someone I perceived to be the best of a very sorry bunch of linked candidates having taken over Luton successfully in a similar situation. I made it very clear that he would be a downgrade on Eustace and I would want someone better but again like when I am asked which players I would sign, I dont have an in depth knowledge of every possible candidate.

[chaddyrovers]

23 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Obviously it is both players and managers. We have an average squad of players, so Eustace was the key variable in getting them to perform to their absolute maximum and getting results beyond the quality of those individual players. Conversely, Ismael has got results well below the level of these individual players.

So the players and head coach gets both the credit and blame when needed. Just not when it's suits your argument 

23 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The vast majority of goals conceded can be broken down to someone making an individual error. You cant just say, well it wasnt the manager that did it. Why have we repeatedly started slowly under him? When patterns like that develop under a manager, you question the manager.

At Derby it's was on the players. They buckled it. Disagree there? Pears flapping at Derby or poor keeping on Saturday on Ismael or Pears? 

Stoke, didnt start that show..

Didnt start slow on Saturday but not closing ball down and Pears shit keeping were the problem with both goals? How can you disagree with that? 

23 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Playing slow, passive football doesnt suit these players and to be honest isnt the approach that got Ismael his brief moment of managerial success. We havent created much in any of his games, 2 chances isnt something to boast about. The players dont look like they know what he wants from them. He has changed to a back 5, it didnt work, back to a back 4, didnt work. First it was about not changing much, now he seems to want to totally change how we play. Feels like he is just hoping that something works rather than having a plan.

It's about creating more chances cos otherwise we will never win games unless we score first. How many games in the last 2 seasons have we conceded first but won or draw the game? Bet not many. 

As a team we don't created lots of chances. Why not look to improve? Or should we just stick Eustace's tactics and not looking at improving our chances created? 

Explained the back 5 things at Derby and the game as I witnessed from my seat..you disagree, so why carrying on discussing it with yourself? 

23 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Rob Edwards was someone I perceived to be the best of a very sorry bunch of linked candidates having taken over Luton successfully in a similar situation. I made it very clear that he would be a downgrade on Eustace and I would want someone better but again like when I am asked which players I would sign, I dont have an in depth knowledge of every possible candidate.

More excuses here yet again from you. 

Edwards has promotion on his CV but Eustace hasn't. How the hell is that downgrade? Wow.

[ben_the_beast]

Formation and players selected tell very little of what's being asked of the squad. On the ball I don't think we're a million miles from the style of play we had under Eustice. Although probably a little more direct. 

It's off the ball that there is a big difference. We used to sit and were hard to break down. 9 times out 10, we'd make the opposition work for a victory. Ismael seems to want the team to press the opposition and it leaves gaps everywhere. Especially when the squad aren't used to this being asked of them. I'm inclined to think Hyam looks more out of depth because we're not compact, rather than him missing Danny Baath (though I do think this rings somewhat true).

We may see an upturn in form from what we've witnesses so far, but only once the players are used to the system, and that's likely to be the last few games of the season, or even next season. For me, it shows the incompetence once again at board room level. A very 2 dimensional view on manager styles of play. It doesn't show Ismael in the best light either, whilst I also have worries about how a small squad will cope next season in a system which is more explosive and physically demanding. 

All in all, it is looking a bit grim.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Also you missed that Swansea battered us in Lowe's final game. 

When the players probably knew Ismael waa coming in.

In the time honoured tradition on here of unfairly claiming or denying victories or attributing or not attributing defeats to managers Im tempted to mark that one down to VI as well.

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Every game is tough one at this level. 

I have said Norwich game was a decent point but he didn't change much. 

Derby bullied us and our back 4 and keeper buckled under pressure. Is that on Ismael? Or the players? We got back into the game and second half we were poor. I put the blame on the players and Ismael? Can we agree on that?.

Stoke away, Hyam's pass cost us but our performance were poor? Is that on the player and Ismael? I would say so..

Cardiff at home, you could see how he wanted to play, get the ball wide and into the box, trying to create more. But defensively we were poor and Pears should have stop both goals. Can we agree on this overall?.

Ismael has made mistakes so far, on Saturday, I didn't understand what his plan was on Saturday when he brought on Woodrow and Cantwell. I still don't get it even not. He should have taken Tronstad off for Buckley to add creativity to the centre of the pitch. 

I cant really argue against much of what you say there Chaddy. I agree with most of it. 

It's purely when people say something along the lines of "the rot had already set in" or "all he's done is continue the bad form we were already in" that is bugging me. It's not true. We had just played very well and won recent games. I'm not sure how that is being disputed. 

 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, Hasta said:

I cant really argue against much of what you say there Chaddy. I agree with most of it. 

It's purely when people say something along the lines of "the rot had already set in" or "all he's done is continue the bad form we were already in" that is bugging me. It's not true. We had just played very well and won recent games. I'm not sure how that is being disputed. 

 

 

I think it's fair to say in general our form had been dropping off since Luton at home in mid December.

It hadnt been dropping off to the extent it has under Ismael though and we werent conceding goals after 3 or 4 minutes of games.

Needs stressing again I think, the opening gal conceded inside the opening 20 mins of the last 3 games.

That has to stop or his tenure will be a particularly unhappy one.

 

[martonrover]

24 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

When the players probably knew Ismael waa coming in.

In the time honoured tradition on here of unfairly claiming or denying victories or attributing or not attributing defeats to managers Im tempted to mark that one down to VI as well.

Ismael is a square peg in a round hole.

It’s not just about the downturn in his career, he clearly just  wasn’t the right fit .

Edited March 17 by martonrover

[booth]

Looking at our form since Dec 21st, our form under Eustace was better but it's not exactly glowing is it.





Prior to our 6 game unbeaten run.



We had a decent start, then it went to pot a bit, then a six game unbeaten run and then since the injuries and lack of investment, in my opinion we've been shit.