The mysterious case of Joe Rothwell.

[K-Hod]

We’re defensively terrible anyway, how much worse will we actually be if we do the unthinkable and pick an attacking wide player? 

One of my main gripes is for how cautious we are, we still concede lots of goals....

[bluebruce]

4 hours ago, Stuart said:

I wish Mowbray would spend more time publicly admonishing our defenders for not being defensive-minded enough, instead of our most creative midfielder(s).

Spot on. Bizarre approach to take. As others have said, playing defensive-minded mids, including two actual defensive mids in defensive mid at all times, isn't helping anyway.

[BankEnd Rover]

Rothwell is the catalyst we need in the attacking front! 

It's simple, He brings the best out of our midfield. His movements and drive is second to none. Maybe one of the most exciting players we've had in years. How can one man not see this? There's no excuses to not starting him?

 

"He Doesn't cover defensively?" What, does Armstrong? Do our back 4?

 

Like you've all said Its too little too late for Joe. He will be off to bigger and better things. Norwich, Leeds or villa will snap him up.

[RoversClitheroe]

3 hours ago, Blue blood said:

Smallwood was a good signing for last year, just what we needed someone to get stuck in. Not sure he is championship quality bar more than a squad player but he was signed last year to get us promoted which he contributed well to. 

Bell I'm torn on and perhaps not the best example to use. Think he has the attributes but performance and concentration wise - plus reports on here - are mixed at best. Perhaps Armstrong this year would be a better useage. 

Davenport I used because he hasn't played or contributed anything. Same with Chapman. Am sure he has some talent but if they can't or won't be allowed on the pitch they're a poor signing just wasting money. 

That we are differing over examples used rather than the point itself points to how bad recruitment is. 

But then Smallwood constantly gets picked when everyone can see he's not of the standard required. Don't know what's worse. 

[Blue blood]

58 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

But then Smallwood constantly gets picked when everyone can see he's not of the standard required. Don't know what's worse. 

Yes agree that is frustrating and worse contributes to people forgetting the good work he did last season. At least with Smallwood he was very useful and even now is an upgrade on Lowe. Sadly limited defensive mids are a shoe in in our team. Still think there's a role for Smallwood as a squad player coming on to close games out but it is not the role TM has for him. 

 

 

[bazza]

Smallwood is not the problem. Mowbray is.

[Mattyblue]

TM on Rothwell.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/17542185.tony-mowbray-on-why-joe-rothwell-isnt-starting-for-rovers/

Also known as I’ve backed myself into a corner with this lad even though it is blinding obvious he should be starting.

[davulsukur]

Potentially a good attacking lineup within the squad

-------------Graham

Rothwell---Dack---Chapman

Could even sub Graham out for the £7m prodigal son

[BankEnd Rover]

48 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

TM on Rothwell.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/17542185.tony-mowbray-on-why-joe-rothwell-isnt-starting-for-rovers/

Also known as I’ve backed myself into a corner with this lad even though it is blinding obvious he should be starting.

Yawn - Bore off Tony! They all might work hard but going forward neither of them are even close to Rothwells ability.

 

Armstrong is predictable and gets pushed off the ball too easily - I have no comments for the other two.

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by BankEnd Rover

[windymiller7]

Artists & Soldiers. Artists & Soldiers, that's what you said Tony. Well, the artists you put on the field are more like Painters & Decorators and as for the soldiers, the ones I dip in my egg put up more of a fight!

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

TM on Rothwell.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/17542185.tony-mowbray-on-why-joe-rothwell-isnt-starting-for-rovers/

Also known as I’ve backed myself into a corner with this lad even though it is blinding obvious he should be starting.

I don't buy this 'one defensive winger' approach. I mean, why? Either both flanks need that level of defensive cover from the wings, or neither do. Having one attacking winger and one defensive one doesn't somehow average out so that both flanks have some degree of protection and some degree of attacking nous. It doesn't bring 'balance' to the team like he claims, it makes it lopsided!!

I can appreciate that in some games, against certain teams with a particularly dangerous winger, putting somebody more defensive there has its merits, absolutely. God knows why it is a standing policy though almost regardless of who we play.

[Stuart]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

TM on Rothwell.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/17542185.tony-mowbray-on-why-joe-rothwell-isnt-starting-for-rovers/

Also known as I’ve backed myself into a corner with this lad even though it is blinding obvious he should be starting.

He changed the subject quicker than if he had opened a packet of chocolate digestives. “Adam is like a... erm... cup of tea anyone?”.

“His name is Joe, is that why he doesn’t answer when you shout to him in training?”

[Stuart]

21 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I don't buy this 'one defensive winger' approach. I mean, why? Either both flanks need that level of defensive cover from the wings, or neither do. Having one attacking winger and one defensive one doesn't somehow average out so that both flanks have some degree of protection and some degree of attacking nous. It doesn't bring 'balance' to the team like he claims, it makes it lopsided!!

I can appreciate that in some games, against certain teams with a particularly dangerous winger, putting somebody more defensive there has its merits, absolutely. God knows why it is a standing policy though almost regardless of who we play.

Unless he thinks one of his full backs isn’t up to it... well there’s a way to change that too!

[K-Hod]

3 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

TM on Rothwell.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/17542185.tony-mowbray-on-why-joe-rothwell-isnt-starting-for-rovers/

Also known as I’ve backed myself into a corner with this lad even though it is blinding obvious he should be starting.

In other words: ‘I’m shit scared of flair players. How dare they drive forward like that?’

[JBiz]

For someone who’s played 26 times, it’s weird how “he never plays” isn’t it?

How many goals and assists in that time?

It’s strange how the occasions that seem to stand out with Joe are the nearly moments, and the giving the ball away in your own half / not covering the full back.

I’m sure nobody here could argue that the fullback behind his specific role, wide left cutting onto his right, being Williams or Bell doesn’t help his case either!

Nevermind though, he can’t be that good if Tony signed him... he only signs duds ? 

 

[Mattyblue]

He’s not the finished article by any means. But we are safe, so give the lad a run of starts. 

Play him instead of Dack if it helps this mythical ‘defensive work’ that most of the actual defenders don’t even seem to possess.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Mattyblue

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, Biz said:

For someone who’s played 26 times, it’s weird how “he never plays” isn’t it?

How many goals and assists in that time?

It’s strange how the occasions that seem to stand out with Joe are the nearly moments, and the giving the ball away in your own half / not covering the full back.

I’m sure nobody here could argue that the fullback behind his specific role, wide left cutting onto his right, being Williams or Bell doesn’t help his case either!

Nevermind though, he can’t be that good if Tony signed him... he only signs duds ? 

 

You perhaps quite fairly question his numbers but considering a similarly primarily substitute role thus far, havent you defended Brereton and his lack of goals? 

For me, them quotes suggest that he is not considering a change of approach any time soon.

His line about Armstrong is a load of bollocks, he is just as negligent defensively as anyone. But ultimately, he is choosing all 4 midfielders based on their perceived defensive capabilities first and foremost, so surely that is pretty galling considering our defensive record is so poor?! I also dont think Bennett is as reliable defensively as Mowbray seems to think, and hes next to useless going forward.

Also, why even bother signing Rothwell and then go and sign Chapman, if he quite clearly has no faith in them whatsoever?

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

Unless he thinks one of his full backs isn’t up to it... well there’s a way to change that too!

The worrying thing is though, he seems to think the full back not up to it is Nyambe, rather than the dolloper-in-chief Williams (jury a little out on Bell, but I'd rather he was only backup at the moment ideally). I say this because:

1) The defensive winger usually plays on the right, with our most attacking of the two, Arma, playing on the left. Because ya know, we're safe as houses down our left.

2) Nyambe had a brief bad patch back in December was it? Then I think got injured. Then came back, and was still kept out of the team for months, with Bennett often played out of position instead. According to Mowbray this was due to his bad patch in December. A long time to hold a bad patch against someone when most of the first XI have them on a monthly basis.

I really don't think he rates Nyambe. Further signs are from the rumour mentioning we were looking for a RB but no mention of a LB. Granted, numerically, right back seems the bigger issue for squad depth reasons, but Williams is utterly useless and Bell inconsistent. I don't think we're going to see a new LB in summer.

[JBiz]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

You perhaps quite fairly question his numbers but considering a similarly primarily substitute role thus far, havent you defended Brereton and his lack of goals? 

For me, them quotes suggest that he is not considering a change of approach any time soon.

His line about Armstrong is a load of bollocks, he is just as negligent defensively as anyone. But ultimately, he is choosing all 4 midfielders based on their perceived defensive capabilities first and foremost, so surely that is pretty galling considering our defensive record is so poor?! I also dont think Bennett is as reliable defensively as Mowbray seems to think, and hes next to useless going forward.

Also, why even bother signing Rothwell and then go and sign Chapman, if he quite clearly has no faith in them whatsoever?

I think he’s made a few assists in those spells, if not notched any goals - similar to Ben, I think there is lots of potential for both. 

Armstrong does get up and down the pitch, I think that’s hard to argue really - though how much he offers covering is a more fair criticism! 

Bennett another, Conway too - always prepared to cover both offence and defensive duties.

A squad needs plenty of options, especially if many are young. Chapman cutting in on the right, Rothwell from the left might have to wait till we improve in a few other areas though! Specifically full back.

 

[Stuart]

10 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You perhaps quite fairly question his numbers but considering a similarly primarily substitute role thus far, havent you defended Brereton and his lack of goals? 

For me, them quotes suggest that he is not considering a change of approach any time soon.

His line about Armstrong is a load of bollocks, he is just as negligent defensively as anyone. But ultimately, he is choosing all 4 midfielders based on their perceived defensive capabilities first and foremost, so surely that is pretty galling considering our defensive record is so poor?! I also dont think Bennett is as reliable defensively as Mowbray seems to think, and hes next to useless going forward.

Also, why even bother signing Rothwell and then go and sign Chapman, if he quite clearly has no faith in them whatsoever?

And it’s not even bloody working!

[roversfan99]

15 minutes ago, Biz said:

I think he’s made a few assists in those spells, if not notched any goals - similar to Ben, I think there is lots of potential for both. 

Armstrong does get up and down the pitch, I think that’s hard to argue really - though how much he offers covering is a more fair criticism! 

Bennett another, Conway too - always prepared to cover both offence and defensive duties.

A squad needs plenty of options, especially if many are young. Chapman cutting in on the right, Rothwell from the left might have to wait till we improve in a few other areas though! Specifically full back.

 

Armstrong is undoubtedly quick (as are Rothwell and Chapman) but he doesn't help out going back and doesnt have a defensive bone in his body. I have no idea how he has garnered Mowbrays unwavering trust out wide when Rothwell and Chapman (mainly last season of course) are ignored.

You say Chapman and Rothwell may have to wait but surely if ever there was a time for experimentation (structured, not mass throwing in the youth teams etc) it is now, amidst a rotten extended run of form with very little but pride to play for?

His reluctance to do so makes no sense in that he trusts the likes of Bennett implicitly, and whilst his effort and work rate are unquestionable, his output offensively is dire and defensively he is not that good either, save for always being willing to run around.

[Ewood Ace]

Armstrong offers nothing defensively and is lazy. As for playing Bennett or Conway the big question is why? They offer little in attack and they clearly aren't helping us defensively as we have already leaked 62 goals this season. 

[DE.]

11 hours ago, Stuart said:

And it’s not even bloody working!

Something Tony has never learned and probably will never learn is that sometimes attack is the best form of defence. That's not to say we should go gung-ho as our defence is bad enough as it is without exposing it further, but the opposition will struggle to create chances if they are pinned back in their own half. It's hard for me to think of any games under Mowbray, even against opposition at the wrong end of the table, where we've applied sustained attacking pressure for long periods. I'm sure there are a handful of examples, but generally speaking every game we play is either even in terms of shots and possession, or in the opposition's favour. Setting up defensively does nothing but invite pressure - and it's pressure we can't even release as we have very few quick players to counter attack with, and usually the more technically gifted players are on the bench anyway, making a creative breakaway even less likely. 

It's a novel concept, but the defence might make less mistakes if they have less work to do.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, DE. said:

Something Tony has never learned and probably will never learn is that sometimes attack is the best form of defence. That's not to say we should go gung-ho as our defence is bad enough as it is without exposing it further, but the opposition will struggle to create chances if they are pinned back in their own half. It's hard for me to think of any games under Mowbray, even against opposition at the wrong end of the table, where we've applied sustained attacking pressure for long periods. I'm sure there are a handful of examples, but generally speaking every game we play is either even in terms of shots and possession, or in the opposition's favour. Setting up defensively does nothing but invite pressure - and it's pressure we can't even release as we have very few quick players to counter attack with, and usually the more technically gifted players are on the bench anyway, making a creative breakaway even less likely. 

It's a novel concept, but the defence might make less mistakes if they have less work to do.

That's the issue in a nutshell. Get the ball into your opponents and do all you can to keep it there. Having 4 defensive midfield players will never allow you to do that.

[Dreams of 1995]

The argument that we aren't playing players like Rothwell, or Chapman during his time here when fit, because they aren't defensively sound enough would stack up if we had a great defensive record. As it stands we are amongst the worst in the league and are apparently picking players in order to protect ourselves.

Christ on a bike.