Jump to content
dallydally

Portsmouth v Rovers

Recommended Posts

Just now, darrenrover said:

Dack's been great until no offers came in for him in January and Payne was signed (IMO), just in case they did and he upped sticks.

I'd drop Dack against Bury and play Payne in the role of number 10. It would give him a rest and refocus his attention.

I can see you are all of a sudden a major advocate of playing 3-5-2. I'd be interested to know what attributes you feel our players have to fit that system of play, who you'd play where and why because for me I just don't see it working. Would I also be correct in assuming that you see Dack/Payne as one of the 2 up top in this formation? 

I'd play a back 3 of Nyambe,Lenihan,Mulgrew or Lenihan,Mulgrew,Williams.Wingbacks of either Nyambe or Bennett on the right and Bell on the left. Smallwood and either Bennett,Evans,Travis and Whittingham alongside him.Dack behind a front two of Graham and Armstrong

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, islander200 said:

I'd play a back 3 of Nyambe,Lenihan,Mulgrew or Lenihan,Mulgrew,Williams.Wingbacks of either Nyambe or Bennett on the right and Bell on the left. Smallwood and either Bennett,Evans,Travis and Whittingham alongside him.Dack behind a front two of Graham and Armstrong

Personally I don't see Mulgrew has the pace to play in a back 3, in addition as the back 3 would essentially be just defenders, we would miss his creative passing ability as he has licence to do when he steps forward from a back 4. I don't think we have the defensive players other than perhaps Lenihan to play that formation on a regular basis.

Edited by darrenrover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fraserkirky said:

Graham, did he touch the ball

He certainly did and what a difference he made when he came on, confidence from players and supporters rose just when it was needed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

Difference being our debt is owed to the idiots.

Absolutely darrenrover, and if it remains that way Fantastic, but I think everyone is aware that with a couple of signatures they could dump the lot on the club and scurry back under the rock.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gav said:

Absolutely darrenrover, and if it remains that way Fantastic, but I think everyone is aware that with a couple of signatures they could dump the lot on the club and scurry back under the rock.

 

Aye if anything threatened their empire i'm sure it's set up in a way the club couldn't bring them down they really are not that stupid. If the VH group owned by them and many shareholders suddenly needed money maybe they'd turn to  Venkys London Ltd and say this arm of the firm in England owes the parent company 130 million we need some back - VLL only owns Rovers as far as we know so that would be the only way to get some quick cash back.

No idea if it would actually work that way but.........

Anyway back to the Portsmouth win :rover:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gav said:

Absolutely darrenrover, and if it remains that way Fantastic, but I think everyone is aware that with a couple of signatures they could dump the lot on the club and scurry back under the rock.

 

I think that's a non starter Gav. If you wind the clock back 7 years or so, Rovers couldn't increase their overdraft with Barclays by £10 million based on the club's net assets.

The only reason the 'club' has stupidly been able to accrue a debt of that size is because it's secured by assets in India. I personally don't think we as fans need worry about 'debt' and that it's a red herring. It's an accounting function and nothing more.

Yes, back to Portsmouth, apologies.....

Edited by darrenrover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth does Williams get a game, what is it that he does?

Nyambe looked decent to me. Dack was pivotal.

They got through us too easily with pace at times, it should have been a draw, they came so close in the first half.

A good match all-in-all. But if we go up, then we'll need half a new team, or we'll struggle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, broadsword said:

How on earth does Williams get a game, what is it that he does?

Nyambe looked decent to me. Dack was pivotal.

They got through us too easily with pace at times, it should have been a draw, they came so close in the first half.

A good match all-in-all. But if we go up, then we'll need half a new team, or we'll struggle.

 

 

Yep, at least 5 new players of Championship standard, 3 of them defenders.

Getting ahead of ourselves here though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got back in at about half 3 this morning, so this post my come across as very blunt! This is what I observed over the 90 minutes: 

 

1) We seemed to want to pass it into the net. We need to be far more ruthless!

 

2) Raya isn’t up to it. He’s far too inconsistent for a promotion winning side. It was like watching a clown last night in goal. We need a new keeper. 

 

3) Samuel doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near that side. He’s so lazy, it’s untrue. He needs loaning out to Morcambe or somewhere crap, just like Souness did with Gillespie.

 

4) Mowbray needs to stop pissing around with these daft formations. Just play 4-4-2 for goodness sakes. 

 

5) Balls into the box, when in the air and not a free kick, are awful. The amount of times no one gets anywhere near the ball, when it’s floated in is unreal! 

 

Happy (I know it doesn’t come across as that) to come across with the 3 points, but we got lucky against a very poor Portsmouth side. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Portsmouth are 5th in the home form table and also have the 2nd highest average attenbdance in this league. Its not an easy place to go, especially midweek in crap weather.

We can disect how we played, but which ever way you spin it, its a damm good 3 points

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, broadsword said:

How on earth does Williams get a game, what is it that he does?

Nyambe looked decent to me. Dack was pivotal.

They got through us too easily with pace at times, it should have been a draw, they came so close in the first half.

A good match all-in-all. But if we go up, then we'll need half a new team, or we'll struggle.

Williams’ distribution has been abysmal recently. I’m not quite sure what’s happened to him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In williams defence he has been moved about a bit of late. Left back, left wing back, left of a 3 at the back, in a back 2. All this at a time when we have spent relitavley big money on someone you'd imagine will take his place.

Also had Payne infront of him a few times who really goes wondering and offers williams no help/protection from a defensive stand point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the people who keep suggesting we play 4-4-2 Who do you play as wingers?

Until Chapman returns we don't have any pacy wide man who can create so in my opinion 4-4-2 isn't an option for is at this time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, scotchrover said:

I got back in at about half 3 this morning, so this post my come across as very blunt! This is what I observed over the 90 minutes: 

 

1) We seemed to want to pass it into the net. We need to be far more ruthless!

 

2) Raya isn’t up to it. He’s far too inconsistent for a promotion winning side. It was like watching a clown last night in goal. We need a new keeper. 

 

3) Samuel doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near that side. He’s so lazy, it’s untrue. He needs loaning out to Morcambe or somewhere crap, just like Souness did with Gillespie.

 

4) Mowbray needs to stop pissing around with these daft formations. Just play 4-4-2 for goodness sakes. 

 

5) Balls into the box, when in the air and not a free kick, are awful. The amount of times no one gets anywhere near the ball, when it’s floated in is unreal! 

 

Happy (I know it doesn’t come across as that) to come across with the 3 points, but we got lucky against a very poor Portsmouth side. 

Play 4-4-2?Who are your wingers if we play that formation?We don't have any decent options out wide until Chapman returns

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darrenrover said:

I think that's a non starter Gav. If you wind the clock back 7 years or so, Rovers couldn't increase their overdraft with Barclays by £10 million based on the club's net assets.

The only reason the 'club' has stupidly been able to accrue a debt of that size is because it's secured by assets in India. I personally don't think we as fans need worry about 'debt' and that it's a red herring. It's an accounting function and nothing more.

Yes, back to Portsmouth, apologies.....

I'm sure everyone hopes you're right darrenrover.

Ive given up trying to second guess this lot.

Edited by Gav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, darrenrover said:

Personally I don't see Mulgrew has the pace to play in a back 3, in addition as the back 3 would essentially be just defenders, we would miss his creative passing ability as he has licence to do when he steps forward from a back 4. I don't think we have the defensive players other than perhaps Lenihan to play that formation on a regular basis.

I Disagree, the centre of a 3 man defence is perfect fit for him

More opportunity to step out with the ball as he has cover of the other two. more options to hit also.

And defensively, he's flanked by more mobile players, so he's not exposed to pace especially on the break like he is in a four when our full backs join the attack. He can also sweep things up nicely as he reads the game so well.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, scotchrover said:

 

4) Mowbray needs to stop pissing around with these daft formations. Just play 4-4-2 for goodness sakes. 

Personally think thats a load of rubbish. I don't understand this obsession some people have with us playing 4-4-2?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a nightmare journey down, only arriving in Portsmouth 30 minutes before kick off, and not getting home until 3am, whilst taking a days holiday all worth it in the end with 3 points to bring back. We've had a lot of fruitless long midweek away trips and soul searching 5 hour drives back from Norwich, Ipswich and Brighton on Tuesday nights in recent seasons so I'll always be very grateful when the 3 points come.

Thought we did ok last night. I felt we were a better side than them and I just had a feeling in the second half that we would get a chance to win it even though it looked unlikely at times. Portsmouth a typical Kenny Jackett side. Hard working and organised but not much quality in their ranks. It would have been a travesty had we lost and a point was the least we deserved.  Some concerns - Played some good stuff and had lots of possession but seem to struggle to turn that into goalscoring opportunities and more than a few concerns about our defence when under pressure, particularly on the counter attack or when the ball is in the air - but a good result is all that matters and it doesn't matter how it comes. If we win our next few in the 87th minute having looked unlikely to do so then I'll be more than happy.

Put simply I think we can see that we have far more ability within our ranks than the likes of Portsmouth, but our difficulty is at times putting that into practice as a consistent and ruthless performance.

Need to find a way to overcome bottom of the pile Bury on Monday night and heap more pressure on the top 2.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoroughly enjoyable overnight stay in Portsmouth. It’s a good city with lots of pubs! Surprised at some of the negative comments on here. I was very critical of us against Oldham but credit to the players for bouncing back. Anybody who was there last night or indeed has been to Fratton Park before will vouch for what a cauldron it is. I was concerned some of our players may wilt but it was the opposite; we started on the front foot and had a purpose about us which has been lacking the last 2 games. Thought we played very well at times and the win was deserved.

Special mention for Bennett who was relentless again, Mulgrew who won everything aerially, and Lenihan when he came on. The latter looked lean, strong and sharp; certainly didn’t look like somebody who had barely kicked a ball in 9 months. His return could be a defining moment for us.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, darrenrover said:

Dack's been great until no offers came in for him in January and Payne was signed (IMO), just in case they did and he upped sticks.

I'd drop Dack against Bury and play Payne in the role of number 10. It would give him a rest and refocus his attention.

I can see you are all of a sudden a major advocate of playing 3-5-2. I'd be interested to know what attributes you feel our players have to fit that system of play, who you'd play where and why because for me I just don't see it working. Would I also be correct in assuming that you see Dack/Payne as one of the 2 up top in this formation? 

my team for the Bury game would be

                       Raya

      Lenihan  Mulgrew Williams

Bennett    Evans   Smallwood   Bell 

                        Dack

             Graham Armstrong

2 hours ago, darrenrover said:

Personally I don't see Mulgrew has the pace to play in a back 3, in addition as the back 3 would essentially be just defenders, we would miss his creative passing ability as he has licence to do when he steps forward from a back 4. I don't think we have the defensive players other than perhaps Lenihan to play that formation on a regular basis.

I think Mulgrew would be fine in 3 man defence and with Lenihan and Williams with him it would be good back 3 IMO. Mulgrew could still come forward as we still have 2 centre defenders at the back. Bennett and Bell are wing backs and Bell has been playing this role for Fleetwood for most of the season for them. 

It would allow us to play Armstrong up front with his pace and allow him to give us an option in behind which we don't have if he plays wide. Graham plays as the target man and Dack plays the 10 role. 

33 minutes ago, islander200 said:

For the people who keep suggesting we play 4-4-2 Who do you play as wingers?

Until Chapman returns we don't have any pacy wide man who can create so in my opinion 4-4-2 isn't an option for is at this time

exactly, why ive been suggesting us playing 3-5-2 as we don't have proper wingers or wide players to play 4-2-3-1 to its best. when Chapman and Antonsson back I would be very tempt to play the formation again 

8 minutes ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Personally think thats a load of rubbish. I don't understand this obsession some people have with us playing 4-4-2?

 

cant think of many teams within the premier league, championship and League 1 this season from all the games I've seen this season. 

its very outdated formation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I asked people at the game like Parsonblue, JHRover, David Brent and arbitio what you thought of the change of formation and what impact of this on the players and did we adapt to it very well? 

Rich Sharpe the LT reporter did say we adapted very well to the change of formation and players settled into well enough. is this true? 

Thanks in advance to the people at the game who response to me and very good effort for going to the game 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Can I asked people at the game like Parsonblue, JHRover, David Brent and arbitio what you thought of the change of formation and what impact of this on the players and did we adapt to it very well? 

Rich Sharpe the LT reporter did say we adapted very well to the change of formation and players settled into well enough. is this true? 

Thanks in advance to the people at the game who response to me and very good effort for going to the game 

In all honesty I didn't think it impacted on us negatively or positively as the players just got on with it. Moving Bennett out wide had a good effect as most of our play came down the right side after that. Portsmouth had some decent possession around the edge of our penalty area but we closed down well and got some good blocks in. I think it's a system that Mowbray prefers and he may well go with it but for me the jury is out as I don't think we have the players to make it a consistent success.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched the videos of the game from different angles.

Raya's mistake was in the difficult and unfortunate category, not horrendous.

Boy do I see why Samuel gets branded as lazy. Disgraceful efforts- in fact not making an effort.

But this is the key take away.

Both Armstrong goals came from horror mistakes by Pompey- let's be honest. All credit to Arma for being a buzzing razor sharp sort of player to have the anticipation, be alert and quick enough to capitalise. I don't think any other player in the Rovers squad would have got to those loose balls to slot them away. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, arbitro said:

In all honesty I didn't think it impacted on us negatively or positively as the players just got on with it. Moving Bennett out wide had a good effect as most of our play came down the right side after that. Portsmouth had some decent possession around the edge of our penalty area but we closed down well and got some good blocks in. I think it's a system that Mowbray prefers and he may well go with it but for me the jury is out as I don't think we have the players to make it a consistent success.

Thanks for the response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tomphil said:

Any win at Pompey in any division down the years is a good effort and in our case i think it often only comes when we are having a good season so a good marker.

Main thing for me is they stood up to the physical threat and didn't crumble under pressure after they equalised. I thought we were in for a bumpy patch and didn't expect anything down there so it's a massive win, job done.

But it's all about the next game now and i think after seeing what he said the players should just say boss set us up attacking and lets just go out and play, leave the over tactical approach to one sidd for a bit and see how it goes.

Yep - for some reason there has always been a bit of niggle and more than a few kamikaze tackles flying around.  Can still picture Glenn Keeley sitting up on a stretcher pointing at a Pompey player and reminding him what to expect when they next met.  They always seem to have had a few self-professed 'hard-men', Mick Kennedy, Mick Tait, Noel Blake and a few other nutters, and Rovers weren't shrinking violets either - in some ways young Travis is keeping up traditions, but then again football is now a non-contact sport.........

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.