Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS, SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Blue blood

Members
  • Posts

    6353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Blue blood

  1. Yep proper manager plus the squad they have. They will be safe now. Both teams are struggling more than I imagined with new managers. In fairness Stoke seemed to have a lot wrong and a huge squad with issues which will take time to sort out. And Huddersfield were hopeless, winless in ages before the new manager took over so both jobs were/are big jobs. I'll be honest I think the ex premier league factor blinded me to the size of the job in both cases. As Sunderland kindly showed with their comedy drama being an ex premiership club doesn't prevent there being huge issues.
  2. Now whilst he is a prime dolloper it has to be said that even so TM doesn't have him playing anywhere near his limited best. He has put in the odd good performance but all of these have come centrally. So put him central. TM is delivering a master class on how to make a bad situation worse. I still maintain that with the right management Gally might hit the heights of a useful player but it would take a far greater manager than TM to do that. I'd get rid of Gally in a second but I don't think we will, no one will be interested based on his performances or wages so we have to find a way to make the most of a bad situation. That way is not arsing about on the right wing.
  3. Last week showed why TM is a decent manager. Today showed why he is not a good manager. The only consistencies at Ewood are: our inconsistent performances, players out of position and favourites played long after they need dropping (and dropping only coming when TM is in the last chance saloon.) These weaknesses seem unchangable in TM, and for all the promise at times, they totally hold us back and form a glass ceiling. Venkys with their lack of interest, delayed decision making and their lack of appropriate senior management appointed at the club are another equally impenetrable glass ceiling. The two together are a horrific mess which is only going to destroy the club by a thousand cuts. TM should be credited for bringing in the youngsters he has (although with Nayambe in particular I wonder if he hindered rather than helped.) However he should be thankful we have such a damn good academy because they've really covered his weakness in the transfer window. The fact we have 4 strikers I would happily ship out (albeit one for age reasons) speaks volumes for his poor squad planning. And it's a drum I've banged on for years but we haven't replaced either Graham or Mulgrew as they have aged to build our team around. Add in the age of Johnson and Downing, the return of the loanees - although good riddance to Walton - and you really see how much work needs doing on the squad. Heck replacing the aged may mean we don't get anywhere near to replacing our uninspired forward line. Maybe I am particularly negative after a loss and just need to rant, but take away a poor result today, and if we narrowly missed out on promotion with some good performances the problems would remain the same. Same squad issues, same players out of position. (I mean Gally at right wing, on what basis does that ever look good or has worked? How many times does Bennett need to get done before he is dropped.) These are glaring errors, huge, obvious rookie errors. That TM makes them continually suggests he is incapable of learning or improving. Not that he will leave. Safe as houses is our Tony. And they'd only replace him with worse. What a crap position to be in.
  4. TMs fault we lost. For all his good work, his stubbornness continues to cost us. Rovers had periods where we dominated, and almost scored, and I can't help wondering that had we not carried two outfield players (Gally and Bennett) whether it would have been enough to get us over the line. Bennett is ridiculously weak at left back. With someone a bit better there, would they have been on top at times as much? I don't think so. Likewise, someone with a bit more predatory instinct then Gally, with a marginal amount of talent, and we probably would have converted at least one of our chances/made something of our possession. If this was a one off that would be fair enough but everyone on this board knew they would be the weak links, and they have repeatedly shown that that's the case. In light of this there is no reason or excuse for TM to be starting them. It's his stubborn nature and favouritism that is costing us. As for Walton, two weeks, and at fault for two goals. He simply isn't good enough. We've had a crap sandwich from him: terrible till December, good till the break, and then appalling since we have come back. Overall that suggests a poor keeper. Also the frequency of individual errors seems to be much more regular than Raya. Don't get me wrong, Raya had them in him, but Walton seems to produce them more regularly than Raya did with us. Another downgrade. Him not being on a permanent contract, may be a blessing after all. No team can carry 3 substandard players. Johnson always blows hot and cold. He's either very good or very poor. In some respects what should we expect for an aging journeyman defensive mid, but I suspect he was brought with a more central role in mind, and that his wages don't match the reality of what he actually is. Controversial after another solid showing from Bereton, who isn't the liability he has been previously, but even with his improved performances I'm not sure he is at the appropriate level required, or perhaps I should say needed, for Rovers. Ditto Samuel since his return from injury. Better, but not good enough. Overall, it's no overreaction or doom mongering to say the season is probably over. Yes, we should keep going in case the unlikely happens, but the reality is now we need a number of teams to slip up for us to get back into serious contention for the playoffs. It also requires us to do the business as well, which on this showing isn't that likely.
  5. Well that depend on the transfer fees of the players involved doesn't it? You need to factor in the opportunity costs involved for example the fee of Gally or Bereton could have seen us strengthen in several positions instead. Disagree TMs transfers can be only considered a success if you consider 1 in 3 a good rate which I really don't think is the case. Given most players at a club will be transfers into the club suggesting two thirds of those can be duds/failing doesnt seem at all right. Rough figures for sure but if we say our squad of 18 has 6 youth players within it then that means 12 signings which by your logic 8 can be failures. I don't see how that works. It needs to be a much higher success rate then 1 in 3. TM doesn't have that high a success rate. Of the latest crop Gally and Johnson haven't worked out, they're at best ok but don't add to us, Walton has been very mixed, Tosin Holtby and Downing good. 3 out of 6 isn't great and that's his best years record. That would still result in the team carrying 6 players by my calculations. And that's before transfer fees are involved in the calculations.
  6. Agree with all this. Here's where I disagree. The spending on Bereton and Gally can only really be justified with immediate returns. For that kind of cash they should be! Added to which I'm not sure there's much evidence they wil come good. Gally isn't that young anymore and after 2 spells of working with him TM seems no nearer to getting the best out of him. Sticking him on the wing isn't going to do him or his progress any good either. Likewise whilst Bereton is younger, 2 seasons in he doesn't look like being a 10.goals.a season striker, much less a £7 million lead the line sort of chap. Armstrong is the cites example of a player who after a few years has come good and really taken it up a level and I grant you that's the case. The difference between Armstrong and the other two is that even before his recent improvement, on his day Armstrong looked great. Sure his day wasn't that often but there were enough of them to see there was.some serious potential. I've not seen even that level of inconsistent sporadic excellence from either of the other two. I really want both to come good for Rovers but the evidence really suggests otherwise. Here's hoping we catch them whilst they are rusty.
  7. Can I also point out that Williams isn't the required quality at left back either. He isn't an utter liability there and just poor which makes him better than some options we have played there, but only in a team where Bell, Hart and Bennett are amongst the alternatives is Williams going to look ok. I didn't rate him there in league 1 and don't rate him there now. Sure he's turned out to be an ok centre back but even that he is viewed more positively then he should be because his performances are compared favourably to his weak outings at full back. Not sure Bell is the required standard either and it's a bit frustrating. Theres a player in there, his inclusion in League 1 team of the year also indicates there's potential, and he has the physical attributes but just no football brain. Full back is imo one of the positions that requires football intelligence the most and I'm not sure this can be taught. So Bell lacking this makes me feel we will never see that potential realised. Is it worth the gamble of another season. Can't say I'm convinced. That said I would keep him over Williams If I had to keep one as both are poor but there is a chance Bell could develop into a player whereas there's none of Williams improving. In an ideal world both need jettisoning if Rovers are to progress and improve.
  8. Hmm one of the things I love about this board is the debate on players and formations and how we get the best combinations using the players strengths to make us as good as possible. I've missed this in lockdown. Admittedly I'd prefer it if some of these conversations were able to be more of a positive nature as oppose to who is the best makeshift left back or which of our insipid array of forwards should support Armstrong, but you can't have everything I suppose.
  9. I hope so. League position suggests otherwise albeit form dkesnt. Add in the need for a win is great for us and minimal for them and I worry about the pressure on the team.
  10. Some good debate on team selection. Think I'm in the middle of all these opinions. For me the key issue is that this will be a battle, a real scrap and therefore we need to match them at this. With this in mind, I think the team would be influenced to the following selections Downing has to be left back as 99 suggests as Bennett really struggles there. Not sure there are too many other alternatives with injuries, but Bennett's liabilities at full back hugely increase when he is played on the wrong side. In the middle I'd bring in Johnson. He has poor fitness but is a canny battler and I think that is what will be needed. Knowing he will need to be replaced has less of a negative impact when 5 subs are allowed. Bennett could be a good like for like (ish) replacement later on. Up top we have to have our best player playing so Armstrong starts. After that it's a form Vs tactics issue really. Bereton had one of his best showings at the weekend however given it will be a scrap I wonder if tactically a more physically robust striker, either Graham or Gally would be better starting. With the games crammed into a short period I can't see many players starting them all so perhaps not a bad one for Bereton to be benched for. Also i'm not convinced he can make it 2 in a row! Much harder game imo as Wigan are in great form and we generally don't like a scrap or being favourites in a game. Hard game and probably a draw but a win is really needed to keep momentum going.
  11. The fact that we have £12 million of strikers who have half a dozen good games between them and as many goals suggests our recruitment policy hasn't been up to scratch. Don't think either one is good enough to be a key striker next year. If Dack or Armstrong goes I think we will look very vulnerable in terms of scoring next year.
  12. Oh Rovers. There's not that many fans to alienate. A fan can't have a £60 refund but we can help keep Hart in the manner he is accustomed to after contributing nothing. Smart move.
  13. Thing is Chaddy, and I try to say this as respectfully as possible, it's also very different from being a good idea of extending Bell's contract too. I think that's where the issue lay. It seems totally counter to the strategy of waiting to see which league we were in before using up wages.
  14. That makes more sense. Tbh that would be a better way round as it shows the club isn't daft with who it takes on. I can see the point in the clause and hopefully we had enough time prior to this for it to be clear Bell was good enough or if not nowhere near the team that it would be an easy decision for him/the club to make.
  15. There's no guarantee that the keeper would sign either. That's a terrible, terrible non argument. In fact already being here makes it more likely for him to stay. As usual you have been caught out with the double standards. Being at the club and maybe not signing an extension is just as uncertain as the keeper not signing. In fact it's less so as there's the bonus of familiarity and benefit of not moving. You might as well say it's a good move because we play in blue and white, or because I had pizza for dinner. It has just as much credibility. Spot on and well summed up. I mean I wouldn't keep Bell in this division much less the other one. Although given TMs spotted transfer record and not being able to spend money on defenders (and not having any next season) I can see why they did. Still think we should be aiming for better though.
  16. Mental. At least Smallwood has played at this level. Absolute madness. Not that I would have given Smallwood an extension either but I could see the logic in that. Hart never has been good enough, even at league 1 level, so why we have done that is beyond me.
  17. Tell you what Rev, I totally disagree with you on most non-football related stuff but where Rovers are concerned you are bang on the money. I think, like you say, it is scary were he to leave and we don't go up what state the squad would be in. To not even have a decent keeper on the books who is vaguely competent is absolutely criminal. The defence at least has personnel next season but needs at least 2 first team choices and doesn't have any back up whatsoever. As for the striker situation other than Armstrong I can't think of one we would want here if they weren't already. Tbh going into next season that's a pretty shocking state to be in. And yet he still has us on the cusp of playoffs so cannot be totally useless. However I feel things are getting out of control and are going to catch up with us sooner or later. An unbalanced squad is going to tell at some point.
  18. I think the reason I mentioned Coyle is that you are utterly unsympathetic to his situation to the point you say "other managers would take the job in this situation" i.e. there is no room for complaint and it isn't a factor in him being a crap manager. Now that is all well and good if that is your position BUT you mention every excuse and extenuating circumstance for Woodgate! It's total double standards depending on whether you like a guy or not. You can't say the circumstances don't matter for one manager, plenty of managers would have dealt with that situation, for Coyle yet plead mitigating circumstances for Woodgate. It's a totally contradictory stance. As it is if you think Could had a good budget you must be a bit disappointed that TM has not done better given he has a Walker or Abramovich type budget in comparison. Remember Bereton cost what, over twenty times what Coyle spent on transfer fees alone. TM never had to sell his best players. TM was able to recruit on top of the substantial wages of Graham and Mulgrew. I suspect you aren't disappointed with TM which again suggests hugely double standards.
  19. Apart from the first half of the season which was error strewn and next season when he isn't here for us. So really hasn't been as good for us this season whatsoever both from a long term view and the half season of muck ups. Bit harsh imo as there was a lot of improvement within 2020 but the first half of the season was absymal. I'd put Steele and Ferris comfortably below him (or should that be above?) in terms of crapness as neither had a run of a few good games which Walton has at least managed. Think with the improvement of late it's easy to forget how weak the first half of the season was. And people say we should move on from Venkys past and forgive and forget. What they are ignoring is things like this that continue to substantially harm the club. Learned their lessons? Nah they are still shafting us with their negligence.
  20. He spent £250 k on fees. That's 24 times less then Bereton alone. I think that's a fairly untenable view for someone to hold unless TM is held to a much much higher standard of account. Funnily enough this argument never is used the other way to temper praise of a candidate they like.
  21. Well I'm not sure we can't blame him and think hes not a bad manager because he might not have made the signings. That seems to be looking for excuses for Woodgate. Also it'd mean we can't comment on anything as we don't know for sure 100 percent that he did or didn't. In fact it's a daft argument as I can equally use it to say you don't know he didn't make the signings and they are rubbish so he is a bad manager. Being honest mate it's a straw man argument and doesn't have any weight whatsoever. It's especially a poor argument given Gibson has a reputation of being a good chairman and supporting his managers in many ways. Aside from his reputation in the game there's evidence from the Monk saga on record that the manager is in control of who is brought. Add in that he has stuck by managers a long time - including Woodgate in what has been a poor season to now - and your claims that Woodgate hasn't been supported is fanciful. You will reply well that's my opinion, but I again will answer, having an opinion doesn't make it true, especially when the evidence shows otherwise. Add in that lots of managers aren't supported as well as they like (even though it's not true but I am running with it) yet still do a decent job. Thinking of TM for example, he doesn't or hasn't had a great structure around him (albeit he is backed very well in other ways) but has done a solid job. Or look at all the managers who do better without a transfer window and with what they are given. Not being backed doesn't absolve the manager of responsibility or prevent him doing ok or well, it just makes it harder. One last thing on this - I have never once heard you defend Coyle for having his hands tied. (Apologies if wrong on this.) There was a manager who was really shafted in transfer fees. Now I don't dispute he was terrible, but more highlight how this not being backed and supported seems to get somewhat of a selective use!
  22. When the best keeper you are linked with is a Sunderland reject it can only add credence to the theory we aren't allowed to spend money on the defence or keeper.
  23. Yep smart move if one that comes rather later than it should. Even with all the circumstances no way should Boro be where they are. Hang on they might have appointed the wrong man in 2016 but they backed him to the hil... Oh wait they didn't. Interestingly whilst not championing Coyle as a good manager no one talks about the poor circumstances he had like they do with Woodgate. Seems a bit double standards to me.
  24. So true. I honestly think the club's motto is 'every little hinders'...
  25. I think James was terrible too. I know the media had an image of him which didn't help but from what I saw away from the hype he still looked pretty poor to me. England went from having a raft of great keepers of the Seaman, Martyn and Flowers era to a long period of absolute duffers. Not sure why this is really.
×
×
  • Create New...

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.