1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

There better be no FA shenangians to help Bournemouth out. Their squad size is advantage enough. Lucky they got knocked out of the cup by that non-league team, the useless f**ks.... 

The race for 2nd is far from over 

Might be a lack of imagination on my part, but I genuinely don't know what they could do, realistically. The last day of the season can't be moved because of the play offs, so they need to play all of their games before then, same as everyone else. They already have more than one game a week (international break aside) until the week before they play us at the end of April - and you'd imagine the Swansea game will probably be rearranged for then. 

Definitely agree that they're catchable. Their last minute win against Blackpool can't mask their very ordinary form over a long stretch, much longer than our recent spell. They've also got a run in March/April which looks similarly horrendous to the one we're hopefully going to come out of after the Fulham game. Not saying we'll do it, or even that we'll necessarily get that close in the end, but they're vulnerable to a team who can put good form together, and our last quarter of a season is much, much kinder than theirs. 

Bournemouth have had their game against Swansea called off because of stadium damage! They'll be playing three games a week until May at this rate!

7 hours ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Always was a terrible over rated player. Offered nothing and was anonymous in nearly every game. I was delighted when he left as he was a massive part of the problem at rovers at the time. I could never fathom what anyone saw in him and why people thought he was good enough to anchor our midfield

I wrote him off by the end of the Bowyer era, but he came close to winning me round a couple of times in the years since. Never fully though, and I wasn't remotely sad to see him go last year, which speaks volumes for a player who was here so long.

One thing I'd say in his defence for the first few years at least is that we were completely mad to sign him and then play him in a 442. He never had anything like the mobility to thrive in that role properly, which should have been obvious before we signed him. When he played deeper in the L1 season and after, he had spells of being quite a lot better in my view, admittedly without ever being brilliant.

21 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Forest getting the plaudits for the FA Cup win. It was against a weak and injury ravaged Leicester who were awful and gifted goals. 

We cannot be as bad as Leicester were.

What concerns me is that Forest have quite a few who will put the boot in. I hope we can cope with that sensibly as in revenge is a dish best tasted cold.

There is no one to fear in this bang average division which gives it it's 'competitive' image.

Competitive doesn't mean good.

Think you're right about Leicester's performance flattering them, although to be fair Forest were still very good.

It'll be a challenge for them to get up to the same level for this one, and we're typically a very tough prospect at home. I fancy us to win this one. 

2 hours ago, Miker said:

We need to survive the next 7 games. 

Minimum 7 points required to stay within the chasing pack. 

3 points at Swansea will be a great start! This sort of game suits us and I think we should be able to get a win even with a weakened squad.

Only concern is with new players coming into the side and all the expectation that comes with it, we might end up with a disjointed performance. 

I think for the automatics that might be undershooting what we need, slightly. Say if we need 87 points to go up, which I think is the average, 7 from the next 7 games leaves us needing 27 from the last 10 games. There's a decent chance that we'll need slightly less than that this season, but still a big ask. 

I think you're right that we need to look at this run as staying in contact though. If after the Fulham game we're within two results of second I'd be pretty happy. I'd guess that probably means something like 12 points, which really highlights how important today's game and Millwall at home are. 

38 minutes ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

I don’t know why people get so bothered about what he says to the media. It’s completely irrelevant. No manager is truthful during interviews so it always needs taking with a pinch of salt.

Having said that I’ve always found his post match comments relatively honest. Certainly an improvement on one or two previous managers I can think of..

A curious development with modern football I suspect, although maybe it's always happened to a degree. I definitely don't think it's just a Rovers thing - media performance seems like another thing which a manager gets judged on which to be honest, I really don't get. 

Even taking an ultra-extreme example of K**n and the nonsense he came out with, I would've been fine with him calling Ribero Dennis Irwin if he was even semi-competent at managing the club. 

28 minutes ago, 47er said:

I blame Huddersfield not Mowbray for that one and I wish them the worst luck in the world.

I blame Coyle almost entirely (and I suppose those responsible for appointing him). The after that I blame Shane Duffy and Anthony Stokes. 

I know some disagree, but I don't really blame Huddersfield at all. We had 46 games to get to the level needed, and I think managers' concerns has got to be on the club that pays them. Put it this way, if we go into the final game having secured third spot but with no chance of coming second, I'd be pretty furious with Mowbray if any of our key players got injured when they needn't have played. 

2 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

They play very much like Rovers did last season, pass it around until you lose it style football.  If we press hard we should be able to take advantage of that.

I think this is completely right. The pessimistic view though is that for all our struggles against solid, well drilled teams last year, there were occasions when we got it right and were genuinely very difficult to get to grips with. Especially when we scored first.

I think we'll win, but there is an element of danger with this one. Teams that are capable of dominating the ball like they do can cause good teams problems, they took a point off QPR at their place only a week or two ago and could've nicked three. 

15 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Some posters seem to have kidded themselves Gallagher is a 1 in 2 striker.

He isn't, he's a one in four (at best). And that chart confirms the trend, 6 goals from 23 appearances.

The reason he hasn't been starting regularly is, the Boro game apart, he's been crap.

If we need more goals we ain't going to get them from him. The only hope as I see it (unless Dack comes back quickly and fully firing) is to try and get more out of Khedra, Rothwell and Buckley in terms of goals.

Players of that quality should be targeting 10 goals a season.

I don't think many would go as far as to call him a 1 in 2 striker - Rhodes and Rudy only just made that ratio when they were here. 

But if you look at the number of minutes that's played in the league, it's a smidgen over 15 games (let's not forget that he's been brought off injured in those starts). So 6 in 15 is better than 1 in 3 and a pretty decent strike rate. Could be better, but it's a lot better than crap. I'm convinced that if we signed Gally this season, the only gripe we would have (apart from his first touch) would be that he hasn't been fit enough to play more games. 

2 minutes ago, duckson said:

Predicted line up anyone?

 

                   Kaminski

    Lenihan Van Hecke Wharton 

Nyambe Rothwell Travis Giles

     Khadra   Buckley   BBD

 

Straightforward selection for me. And immeasurably stronger than the team that started against Luton, let alone the one that finished it. 

8 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

Sounds like he'll be in at left wing back to start with but once Pickering is back, where else would this lad slot into the team?

At least one of the wide forward spots - but ideally he'll be able to cover Rothwell's role in the centre. Not certain if he can, though I think he played centrally for Cardiff a bit. 

3 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

Not sure where all this pressure talk is coming from, they are in 3rd and 2nd if they win their game in hand.

Its not their first season back in the championship  i understand the frustration because they bid for Rothwell, but to write them off is ludicrous 

Writing them off certainly is ridiculous. Today is more likely to be a big help to their promotion chances then hindering it. 

Equally, signing so many apparently first team players on January deadline day is not the sign of team who think that they only need some fine tuning. Their form has been way short of promotion standard for quite some time now (after an admittedly very impressive start, results wise) and the manager has already shown signs of not being able to get the most out the resources he has, both there & at Fulham.

Deep down my money would still be on them to go up in second, but there's still a good case for them falling short. Today arguably even highlights it.

2 minutes ago, JHRover said:

For Butterworth himself I think a move to League One and regular games is the right thing for him and his career. No issue with that.

I'm just baffled at the logic from Rovers point of view given that is now three attack minded players out the door today and none in. Walking a tightrope to avoid more injuries and suspensions because there are now even less options to fall upon. Of course Dack returning might be a bonus but it seems risky to be expecting him to be a significant contributor given the length of his absence and nature of his injury. 

I know it sounds odd seeing as we were ultra stretched up front vs Luton, but the likelihood of being anywhere near that position again is tiny.

Brereton won't be going to play for Chile again, Hedges has been brought in, Khadra and Dolan are going to be back in the next week or two. Gally might be a little longer depending on his injury, but there's no way that Butterworth gets in front of any of them and we'll be bang unlucky to have any less than 3 of them fit and ready to play at any one time until the end of the season.

Butterworth going makes sense for me. If he's ever going to useful to us, he needs to progress from the odd promising cameo and actually show that he can start games and score goals. No point staying here for 20-30 minutes here and there.

Also, assuming we play the same system from here onwards, we have BBD, Khadra, Hedges, Gally and Dolan fighting for two spots upfront. Several options to play in the Buckley role too. I would've liked reinforcements, but in the absence of that it's still right to get him playing and seeing if he can progress.

4 minutes ago, Hi Mack said:

Bournemouth played a blinder here….upset their promotion rivals players. Don’t sign him and sign several decent championship players!

I just don’t believe TM Waggot and the Venkys are prepared to let this slim chance of promotion pass them by!

Certainly looks that way, but it has serious potential to backfire. There's no guarantee that they'll be able to integrate their new signings overnight, and If Rothwell has anything about him he should be even more motivated to prove people wrong after the way his move has broken down. 

3 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

The signings of Hedges, Markanday & Zeefuik seem to be being ignored…I know Markanday got injured but who could foresee that ?

Giles in, Rothwell retained…that would be decent surely ? 

Decent, yes. And I agree that there's a tendency to ignore that we've got some good business done early this window. 

That said, we're still one more player short of it being a really good window. 

9 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

That was yesterday though, Den said this morning.

I assumed he meant that Trav might have seen the news this morning and regretted liking the post. Happy to be corrected though if something else has gone on.

20 minutes ago, TruRover said:

I’m expecting Joe Rothwell to stay, Ryan Giles on loan until end of the season (quality signing btw which I feel is going a little under appreciated) and a late move for a forward which will collapse at the 11th hour…

I can definitely envisage that. I think Giles and a forward of the right quality (assuming Rothwell stays) would actually be pretty good business to be honest. That would mean four players being brought in to compete for the first team - five if you include Markanday - with no genuine first teamers leaving.

I know we're stretched at the moment, but it's easy to see us about a month down the line a scenario with Pickering, Brereton, Dolan, Dack, Gally, maybe Edun and Khadra all being available. All of a sudden our problem could be having too many options rather than too few, which if last season is anything to go by is not necessarily a good thing!

5 minutes ago, CheshireRover said:

What?

5 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

whats he said or done lol

Liked a social media post which finished by saying 'Tell Rothwell to f*ck off'. Since been deleted though, and to be charitable most of the post was just praising Trav/Rovers, so there's a chance he liked it without reading to the end!

1 minute ago, superniko said:

Wasn't Giles leading the league in assists at Cardiff? Would be a brilliant addition, and I'd be surprised if we pull it off.

The Wolves forum thought he'd be slotting straight into their matchday squad when he was recalled from Cardiff at the start of the month.

On paper he's a near perfect (realistic) loan signing. Can slot in at LWB which short term is a real issue for us, and then gives us loads of options elsewhere once we get a couple of troops back. 

7 minutes ago, 47er said:

I'm basing it on the notion that he's never received a pay rise since he left Oxford to join us.

Do you know any different?

He's had a contract offer on the table for ages which is widely accepted to be a pay rise of some description. My point though is that you said that Rovers could've saved themselves this bother if we offered him a contract which recognises his value. Fine, but we don't know what we offered and what he would've accepted (or if he always intended to let his contract run anyway) so we can't be overly confident that this was a situation that we could have avoided. 

5 minutes ago, JHRover said:

This is the crux of the issue in a couple of sentences.

The shenanigans of the last 48 hours are just the outcome or product of us not having our house in order. Get our house in order = this doesn't happen.

Its another 'told you so' moment from me - I've been banging the drum about contracts and the dangers of allowing them to run down for many many months - this is why - it has put the club in a vulnerable position where we exposed to predators.

A player - whether that is Joe Rothwell or anyone else - wants security. If clubs are offering him good money and a long term contract and are professional in their dealings whilst we have mucked him around with derisory offers then it is obvious which way he is going to go.

The club has had time and opportunity to avoid this situation - and has done nothing.

And if anyone really expects Mowbray/Rovers/Venkys/Waggott to have already lined up a couple of proven quality permanent signings to replace him tomorrow I think you are going to end up disappointed. My expectation is a couple of loans and the usual spiel from Waggott about why things were all lined up but fell through.

Same as my last post, can we really say things like this with any certainty? Bournemouth's offer will make him a higher earner than anyone at Ewood. Our offer has clearly fallen short of that, but that doesn't mean that it as derisory or that he's been mucked about. 

4 minutes ago, 47er said:

If Rothwell helps Bournemouth to promotion what will £3M matter to them? If Rothwell had had regular pay rises commensurate with his value to the team, this would never have happened. Same goes for our other unsettled players.

You can make a purse out of a sow's ear if you want to but you'll never convince me.

This is a real kick in the guts.

The trouble with statements like this is that we don't know what Rothwell's demands were, or whether he would ever have accepted an offer that we could have realistically made. Without knowing the specifics of demands and offers, it's impossible to know how much of the blame the club takes in finding themselves in this dilemma. 

3 minutes ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

I would prefer not to sell Rothwell - as somebody else has said, he is a rare commodity with his ability to run from midfield. In full flow he is like a Rolls Royce gliding over the pitch. In terms of replacement, it is unlikely we will get like for like - however if we get a midfield player with reasonable pace, who doesn't disappear during matches, who can find a team mate on a regular basis, can create and occasionally score - we may well be better off overall. His career at Bournemouth will be interesting - his success this year is very much down to the system we play - as well as an overall improvement in his game. Take him out of that system, with the understanding of his team mates - it will be interesting - and possibly not the success he expects. Having said that, I don't begrudge him his big pay day, he has worked his socks off this season - leaving for a rival does leave an unpleasant taste though.

Though a number of attacking players have stepped up this season - IMO a lot of our success is built on the defence - as shown over the last couple of matches.

Very close to my views, although I'm not optimistic that that we'll find that player who will improve us overall. I definitely think that the defence carrying on as they are will be more important to getting out of this league than Rothwell would have been.

I think you're right that whilst on one level this is very good business from Bournemouth, there is a risk that they're accumulating so many attacking/midfield options that it'll be a challenge to produce a system which suits them all.