[Archived] Rovers v Oldham

[Guest]

1 minute ago, DE. said:

If they do then we will most likely take 2nd, as Shrewsbury don't score anywhere near enough to make up for conceding more goals. We've scored 16 more goals than them this season so far, we're actually level with Wigan on that front with 56 goals scored each. Just a shame we can't defend anywhere near as well as they can.

I thought you didn't focus too much on Shrewsbury and Wigan? 

[DE.]

Just now, OnePhilT said:

I thought you didn't focus too much on Shrewsbury and Wigan? 

In context of our results, no. I'm only concerned with our own results. 

Interesting to look at the table as a whole though  looking purely at GD you'd definitely expect us to be ahead of the Shrews. Just proves how important a good defence is!

[chaddyrovers]

12 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

How are they more suited to 3 at the back?! Theyve played 4 at the back all season.

Obviously we attacked more in the second half, we were 2 goals down, they sat back, but we hardly carved them apart, Mulgrew scored a worldie free kick, Dack and Armstrong combined well but it was more a case of so many attacking players causing enough pressure to break the door down, its hardly a sustainable tactic over 90 minutes.

Constant change and confusion reigns supreme. Its so bloody frustrating. 

The current match squad is suited to 3 at the back. 

Armstrong should play up front. Dack in hole. Bell and Bennett wide. Lenihan Mulgrew and Williams at the back. Travis and Smallwood in centre back. 

We dont have wingers in the squad. 

3 at the back. Makes perfect sense to me and other fans. 

Like Khod said people who moaned about Bennett have a vendetta against him. Work hard today and played well second half. 

 

[blueboy3333]

There's a lot of putting lipstick on a pig going on. We didn't win because Mowbray got it wrong again.

Just to clear up some of the bollocks I've been reading....First half we started with 4 at the back and Bell as a wide midfielder/winger.  Every time Oldham attacked or had the ball Bell dropped back to more or less the left back spot and Williams moved in alongside Mulgrew and Downing to make it 3 CH's. It was quite clearly a plan to try and cope with Oldhams 2 up front. It didn't work. Davies and that other fella bullied Downing out of the match. It was pitiful to watch. Davies was excellent and gave a lesson on how to play as a target man. But just to be clear our manager played 5 defenders at home because they had two strikers with pace and power. He rightly assumed they would make mincemeat out of both Downing and Mulgrew and they did. However, he played right into their hands first half as he put pressure on the weakest part of our team (the defence) by sitting back and allowing them to get a foothold in the game and giving Byrne the freedom of the park to get it forward to their big front men. Smallwood was very poor, as were Bell & Payne. Bell is not a winger in a million years. He is a defender. Payne is not a winger either. He's a No.10.

Second half was a different story. We had nothing to lose so we went for it. TWO UP FRONT> IMAGINE THAT AT HOME TO THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE ON CURRENT FORM. THE COWARD IN THE TECHNICAL AREA FOUND A PAIR AND ACTUALLY STRAPPED THEM ON.

Travis was excellent, especially when he went in the middle. Bennett looked more comfortable out wide. Graham actually had someone to flick the ball on to when it was blootered at his head and Armstrong scored from his favoured position. IMAGINE PLAYING PEOPLE IN THEIR CORRECT POSITIONs. Mowbray is a tactical visionary. It's like football alchemy. Bell was still shit on the wing/midfield/wherever he was playing, mind. Probably because he's a full-back.

Oh well, another two points dropped because our manager is scared of his own shadow. Although it's really a point gained apparently. Felt like a win etc  

Is it Pompey away next? Terrifying. Maybe 7 at the back and two keepers, Tony?

Credit to Oldham and their fans that aren't idiots. Great vocal backing. They deserved a point for showing some bottle and playing with two strikers.

 

[AllRoverAsia]

Misses the Oldham goals but Rovers goals covered. Mulgrew's is a cracker

 

[JAL]

6 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

The current match squad is suited to 3 at the back. 

Armstrong should play up front. Dack in hole. Bell and Bennett wide. Lenihan Mulgrew and Williams at the back. Travis and Smallwood in centre back. 

We dont have wingers in the squad. 

3 at the back. Makes perfect sense to me and other fans. 

 

 

Three at the back ? 

If the clubs had the skills at first team level to effectively play this way unfortunately chaddy Mowbray and his staff have proved that they can't do this effectively Christ Mowbray doesn't know what his strongest team is.

Have you totally forgotten what happened early season.

 

[darrenrover]

Just a minor point but did Travis not come on and play right back, even though he's a central midfielder, or am I totally confused.com?

[Exiled in Toronto]

2 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

There's a lot of putting lipstick on a pig going on. We didn't win because Mowbray got it wrong again.

Just to clear up some of the bollocks I've been reading....First half we started with 4 at the back and Bell as a wide midfielder/winger.  Every time Oldham attacked or had the ball Bell dropped back to more or less the left back spot and Williams moved in alongside Mulgrew and Downing to make it 3 CH's. It was quite clearly a plan to try and cope with Oldhams 2 up front. It didn't work. Davies and that other fella bullied Downing out of the match. It was pitiful to watch. Davies was excellent and gave a lesson on how to play as a target man. But just to be clear our manager played 5 defenders at home because they had two strikers with pace and power. He rightly assumed they would make mincemeat out of both Downing and Mulgrew and they did. However, he played right into their hands first half as he put pressure on the weakest part of our team (the defence) by sitting back and allowing them to get a foothold in the game and giving Byrne the freedom of the park to get it forward to their big front men. Smallwood was very poor, as were Bell & Payne. Bell is not a winger in a million years. He is a defender. Payne is not a winger either. He's a No.10.

Second half was a different story. We had nothing to lose so we went for it. TWO UP FRONT> IMAGINE THAT AT HOME TO THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE ON CURRENT FORM. THE COWARD IN THE TECHNICAL AREA FOUND A PAIR AND ACTUALLY STRAPPED THEM ON.

Travis was excellent, especially when he went in the middle. Bennett looked more comfortable out wide. Graham actually had someone to flick the ball on to when it was blootered at his head and Armstrong scored from his favoured position. IMAGINE PLAYING PEOPLE IN THEIR CORRECT POSITIONs. Mowbray is a tactical visionary. It's like football alchemy. Bell was still shit on the wing/midfield/wherever he was playing, mind. Probably because he's a full-back.

Oh well, another two points dropped because our manager is scared of his own shadow. Although it's really a point gained apparently. Felt like a win etc  

Is it Pompey away next? Terrifying. Maybe 7 at the back and two keepers, Tony?

Credit to Oldham and their fans that aren't idiots. Great vocal backing. They deserved a point for showing some bottle and playing with two strikers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

as the 2nd half showed when he got us on the front foot instead of worrying about the opposition.

 

They didn’t score because we sat back, both their goals came from when we were pushed up....yet another one from one of our corners. 

[barry_]

Just now, darrenrover said:

Just a minor point but did Travis not come on and play right back, even though he's a central midfielder, or am I totally confused.com?

wing back to start on a 3 4 1 2 formation, then just where it worked

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Exiled in Toronto said:

They didn’t score because we sat back, both their goals came from when we were pushed up....yet another one from one of our corners. 

And we didn't pose a threat because we say back either. That's the point. We make it very comfortable for teams who come to Ewood.

 

[blueboy3333]

5 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

From what I’ve seen, Bell is a much better wide player than Armstrong, something we have missed desperately for months.

Today totally disproved that. Bell is a full-back. Not a forward/winger. He was out of his depth and out of his comfort zone. Bizarrre tactics from Mowbray. He never seems to learn.

[barry_]

has anyone heard Mowbrays interview on Radio Lancs?

It perfectly suns up his limitations as our manager.

He spends most of the interview talking about how Oldham were, what they were about, how fired up they were for the game.

No mention of his awful tactics, of his porous defence, no talk about his team.

Sickening.

[aletheia]

2 points lost.

Pathetic first half performance –simply not at it, they were half a yard quicker, stronger and simply wanted it more. Men against boys. We looked jaded. Unacceptable for a side with any pretensions of promotion. That’s the second time recently Nyambe has been weak in a one on one situation. Just outmuscled when he was favourite and strong play from a big old fashioned centre forward on a bumpy pitch. Second half could have been equally disastrous and they looked just as likely to go 3 up. Fortunately, with the quality strike from Mulgrew and the energy of Travis and Armstrong, a little belief was generated and we started playing. Our second goal was class. A lovely deft header from Graham after a long rescue clearance from Raya, lovely skill from Dak to dummy and create half a yard for a pull back and the energy of Armstrong to get in there and scuff/shin? his finish. Then of course, it was the usual Ewood huff and puff, especially helped by a sending off (Bennett was cute there.)

There is a real softness there - mentally, physically and organisationally. You say to the opposition: “If you are going to score against us, it is going to be a worldy that we could do nothing about, it’s sheer quality because you’ve got more money than us, you’ve worked bloody hard to get it, you’ve had a massive slice of luck or you’ve had the right end of a dodgy referee decision.” You do not say: “You can have a goal, maybe two, because we were mentally asleep, we were simply not decisive or strong enough in key defensive areas, we were not fit enough or we gifted you a goal.”

[barry_]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

Today totally disproved that.

there's a big difference between playing as left back to a winger and for me, Bell didn't have what it takes today to fill the roll.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

And we didn't pose a threat because we say back either. That's the point. We make it very comfortable for teams who come to Ewood.

 

I thought we didn’t pose a threat first half because they out-fought us all over the field and there was no leader in the pitch to change that. We didn’t earn the right to play.

[blueboy3333]

6 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

Just a minor point but did Travis not come on and play right back, even though he's a central midfielder, or am I totally confused.com?

He started as a full back/wing back/wide midfielder and he did ok but when he crossed one into row z he was swapped with Bennett. Travis was excellent from then on. Always looking to pass forward into the feet of Dack and Payne. He certainly looked better in central midfield than out wide.

[JAL]

2 minutes ago, barry_ said:

has anyone heard Mowbrays interview on Radio Lancs?

It perfectly suns up his limitations as our manager.

He spends most of the interview talking about how Oldham were, what they were about, how fired up they were for the game.

No mention of his awful tactics, of his porous defence, no talk about his team.

Sickening.

Quite clear to see why Mowbray and his staff don't win anything yet some want go to Wembley for the play offs.

[Bigdoggsteel]

We need to practice corners. offensive and defensive 

[roversfan99]

18 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

The current match squad is suited to 3 at the back. 

Armstrong should play up front. Dack in hole. Bell and Bennett wide. Lenihan Mulgrew and Williams at the back. Travis and Smallwood in centre back. 

We dont have wingers in the squad. 

3 at the back. Makes perfect sense to me and other fans. 

Like Khod said people who moaned about Bennett have a vendetta against him. Work hard today and played well second half. 

 

Youve just repeated the team youd play as if its gospel coming from your mouth.

No but firstly you said we dont need wingers during the trnasfer window! And your side has Bennett wing back (not his position), Bell at wing back (hes played in a back 4 at Fleetwood recently, as a left back) and Williams (not played at centre back in years) so having no wingers is hardly an excuse. Payne and Armstrong looked at home there v Walsall, Payne was one of our better players today, Antonsson has shown he can be effective wide and Chapman is back soon, your formation means he wont be getting a game again.

If you can not understand, that randomly changing to such a complex formation, with no/little training on it, ahead of a Tuesday game, so long into the season, is a massive gamble and an overhaul we do not need only 1 point off 2nd, then there is little point continuing this conversation.

And your Bennett point is childish, because you dont have a constructive argument. He did work hard but I thought he was poor, and I think hes been poor all season, no goals, 2 silly red cards, barely any assists, and quite a few mistakes, hardly the output from the Bennett that scored a few wonder goals in the league above. All points that are based on a vendetta I have against him 

[Exiled in Toronto]

Just now, aletheia said:

2 points lost.

 

Pathetic first half performance –simply not at it, they were half a yard quicker, stronger and simply wanted it more. Men against boys. We looked jaded. Unacceptable for a side with any pretensions of promotion. That’s the second time recently Nyambe has been weak in a one on one situation. Just outmuscled when he was favourite and strong play from a big old fashioned centre forward on a bumpy pitch. Second half could have been equally disastrous and they looked just as likely to go 3 up. Fortunately, with the quality strike from Mulgrew and the energy of Travis and Armstrong, a little belief was generated and we started playing. Our second goal was class. A lovely deft header from Graham after a long rescue clearance from Raya, lovely skill from Dak to dummy and create half a yard for a pull back and the energy of Armstrong to get in there and scuff/shin? his finish. Then of course, it was the usual Ewood huff and puff, especially helped by a sending off (Bennett was cute there.)

 

There is a real softness there - mentally, physically and organisationally. You say to the opposition: “If you are going to score against us, it is going to be a worldy that we could do nothing about, it’s sheer quality because you’ve got more money than us, you’ve worked bloody hard to get it, you’ve had a massive slice of luck or you’ve had the right end of a dodgy referee decision.” You do not say: “You can have a goal, maybe two, because we were mentally asleep, we were simply not decisive or strong enough in key defensive areas, we were not fit enough or we gifted you a goal.”

 

Well said Sir. I can’t remember a goal we let in where you’d say fair do’s. every one of them has at least one of our back four massively failing. I fear we are going to see them bullied a lot from here on in

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Exiled in Toronto said:

I thought we didn’t pose a threat first half because they out-fought us all over the field and there was no leader in the pitch to change that. We didn’t earn the right to play.

That comes from the manager. Wellens had his team in the front foot, getting stuck in and winning the battles. Ours had them sitting back and trying to stroke the ball around the pitch. Gally said much the same on Radio Lancs apparently. This isn't a new phenomenon. It's how Mowbray's teams play. Slow, reactive football. Unless of course it is the players fault which begs the question why he brought them to the club?

[Waggy76]

4 minutes ago, JAL said:

Quite clear to see why Mowbray and his staff don't win anything yet some want go to Wembley for the play offs.

Maybe Mowbray and his entourage , want to go to Wembley ?

It could have been the plan all along , Venkys at Wembley , whoud a  thout that !!

[Exiled in Toronto]

4 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

That comes from the manager. Wellens had his team in the front foot, getting stuck in and winning the battles. Ours had them sitting back and trying to stroke the ball around the pitch. Gally said much the same on Radio Lancs apparently. This isn't a new phenomenon. It's how Mowbray's teams play. Slow, reactive football. Unless of course it is the players fault which begs the question why he brought them to the club?

My theory is our academy lads, Travis excepted, the ones who came down with us last year, and these fancy dan loan players all don’t like it up ‘em. Bumpy pitch on a cold wet Feb day against a bunch of snarling bruisers and we don’t want to know. Poor man’s Arsenal.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Exiled in Toronto said:

My theory is our academy lads, Travis excepted, the ones who came down with us last year, and these fancy dan loan players all don’t like it up ‘em. Bumpy pitch on a cold wet Feb day against a bunch of snarling bruisers and we don’t want to know. Poor man’s Arsenal.

...and yet we battered them 2nd half with most of the 'fancy dan loan players' on the pitch. .

[Exiled in Toronto]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

...and yet we battered them 2nd half with most of the 'fancy dan loan players' on the pitch. .

Hopefully the one or two leaders we have pulled their weight at half time and bruised a few egos. Plus, of course, the manager made some changes which might have helped. We were still soft at the back second half imo, lucky not to lose 3-2 against a ten-men bottom 4 team who still wanted it more at the end.