On ‎14‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 03:37, chaddyrovers said:

Far too early to predict anything

When can we start? noon on Saturday?

I foresee a home loss. For years Rovers have been the most charitable team in England when it comes to handing a new manager an easy win.

Anderlecht have been fined by the Belgium FA for not having a coach with a UEFA Pro license. Said coach is Vincent Kompany; Fine for Anderlecht

It reads like they tried to circumvent the rules and got caught.

Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

The England job is way different from the Championship or club football generally - Owen Coyle got Burnley promoted so you would prefer him to manage England to Southgate ?

Its is. One of the best club managers of his era, Fabio Capello, completely failed with England. Hodgson is another one. A very good club manager who was woeful as England manager. I think that Guardiola would be a terrible international manager. He's too hands on and thrives on details and repetition.

The national team job requires different skills. Hopefully the FA has learned from this that the next boss shouldn't be Mourinho, Alex Ferguson, or Arsene Wenger but someone who can command a room, and have a coaching staff who are good at setting up a team.

3 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I don't rate him as a football manager. He's more of a front man who can handle a press conference adequately. A typical FA " men in suits " appointment.  We'll win nothing with him in change no matter how many talented players we have. He talks a good game but he's a lightweight when it comes to actually winning things. He makes a good figurehead  but we need a proper coach actually running the team.

Southgate has been a breath of fresh air. I think that Allardyce would have been just as good. He would have had plenty of time in between games to develop and exploit the margins.

The England job should be a figure head one. He only has the players for brief periods. His job should be to motivate and make sure that the squad meshes. He's done that.

He can't help that the country is short on quality defenders.

He was also heavily involved in the youth set up prior to him becoming manager. There is no doubt that there are a lot of talented young players in England now.

4-0 at half time. England are cruising against a bad Bulgaria team.

The game has been stopped twice due to racist chanting by sections of the Bulgaria fans.

UEFA should abandon the game, award England the 4-0 victory, then talk about closed door games.

Unfortunately this exists everywhere. It was only last week that I posted an article about a Burnley fan racially abusing Burnley players.

England were woeful yesterday and deserve all the criticism they are getting. The Kosovo game was a warning, the Czech's did the same as Kosovo did; run at England and they'll fold.

It's been an known problem for a while that England's back line isn't top class. Maguire has been good for club and country yet he's now a Man U player working with an inferior manager than Rodgers at Leicester. Keane alongside him isn't an international player. Yet options are limited at the mo. Stones is injured and Gomez (who I think is superb) isn't getting a game for Liverpool. Who else is there? Tarkowski isn't up to it either.

Full backs are also up for discussion. Rose is past it. Chilwell is competent but largely untested. Shaw was touted for years yet after weathering the constant grief from Mourinho week in week out he's now injured again. Trippier deserves credit for going to Spain. He'll improve playing for Simeone but he's another one pushing 30. Trent AA is young and a fixture for Liverpool. He should play every game.

Rice was crap, but is young. Sancho has a future but had a bad game. Kane will score goals but is somewhat immobile, especially contrasted to Sterling and Sancho. 

Rashford needs to leave Man U to fulfill his talent. If Klopp had him he'd be a world beater. Unfortunately he gets shunted around for Martial. 

Winks deserves a shot as he can keep the ball. Also if Phil Foden is the second coming he should be there too.

Chelsea's contingent could help too. Mount, Loftus-Cheek, Hudson-Odoi, Tomori, and to a lesser extent Barkley can all play.

England will qualify. It's what happens after that is the issue.

On ‎28‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 06:45, Mattyblue said:

As I said the other week, look how quickly Garry Monk has ended up back in the game, yet that disgrace of a man hasn’t even had a sniff of a coaching job in the UK in 7 years, says it all.

39 minutes ago, Norbert Rassragr said:

I have nothing against Sunderland, but I'd like him to really screw over another British club in order to prove us right.

I'm with Mattyblue on this. He should never be given the opportunity to manage in Britain again. He's a bust, and a lawbreaker. Even that waste of space Coyle got 3 UK jobs since Kean left Rovers.

On ‎08‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 13:20, chaddyrovers said:

The takeover has collapsed now 

No surprise that Ross has been sacked. Alot of Sunderland fans wanted her gone in the summer. 

Current Betting favourite(Sky Bet) is Daniel Stendal 

I read that Gareth Ainsworth has now jumped to number 1.

Why would anyone take the Sunderland job? Ego? Desperation?

On ‎22‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 10:20, scotchrover said:

Would it be wrong to say Stoke and Huddersfield are down already? They’re already adrift and can’t buy a win. 

That would be a feat. Huddersfield down 2 years in a row along with a former Prem regular.

It goes to show that it's not just players who win games. The mentality and culture has to be right. For all the doom and gloom about Mowbray at times on here he seems to keep his players up for it.

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

But you were implying that Gallagher cannot be questioned as he is part of a team that has hit some good form, so surely by the same token if we are judging individuals based solely on the teams results then he was only deserving of criticism during Coyles tenure as even though his goal tally was as impressive as it ever has been in his fledgling career, the team was losing?

Ive not said that he isnt offering anything or that he doesnt have any attributes of any use, because of course he does. I also have read @Atko's Engine and whilst I slightly disagree that hes "mainly" played wide (against Charlton, Fulham, West Brom and Reading he played central, against Hull, Boro and Cardiff wide, as a sub v Millwall mainly central) and I totally appreciate that his game is different to Graham.

I dont believe a striker yet to score's contribution can be described as excellent to be honest. I also think it is very fair to demand that at some point, our (£5m!) striker starts adding goals to his game as we can not be solely reliant on other positions scoring all season in absence of our seemingly now main striker, especially as we are far from free scoring anyway. I have not put specific demands on how many goals, I dont expect him to score 20 goals, or to be honest even match Grahams tally, but we must never lose sight of the main purpose of a striker regardless of what else he might offer, its not enough without goals.

I agree that centre forwards should score goals. However, on what you say above he's only played 4 games there. Give him a chance. Give him a decent run and I'll bet the goals will start coming.

If he's out there causing problems and allowing others to prosper it's still good. Giroud won a World Cup with France and he may only have had 2 shots, never mind goals, throughout the whole tournament.

1 hour ago, Blue blood said:

We're 11th so have had a decent start. If we had a good start we would be higher, if we had a bad start we'd be lower. Pretty average really - as Sparks says midtable mediocracy all the way under TM. 

 

There is a topic somewhere on here from last season trotting out a few stats from Mowbray's reign.

His Rovers teams average 1.5 points per game. This season is 10 points from 7, slighter below 1.5 with small sample.

I don't expect much to change. I think Rovers will be better than last season but will finish outside the top 6 by a good margin.

I'm hoping that the first 2 games were an aberration though and Mowbray has found a winning formula.

As Tyrone said; anyone can win this league. I think Leeds and West Brom will be there or thereabouts for the top 2 come May.

19 minutes ago, J*B said:

The result?

The gap widens even more between the best and the rest. Only City qualify, the other top 4 take a huge hit and all the best players have the choice between essentially, Barca, City, Juve or Bayern.

Only those four clubs can pay the best wages. They win their leagues every single year because they have the biggest budgets and attract the best players. The CL is competed every year by four clubs because commercially they are light years ahead of everyone else. The national leagues are boring as sin because nobody can get close to the CL clubs. 

Terrible idea. 

Good point.

Also the "lesser" teams qualifying for the Champs League give their fans the chance to see the world's best live when the big boys come to town. Celtic make it now and again. They get tubbed but sell out both home and away.

I read plenty on here about Rovers Euro journeys in the early 2000's being wonderful times for many Rovers fans. Limiting the competition to winners only would reduce the opportunities for these away days.

The "it's not a league for champions so I'm not watching it" argument is stale. Ewood Park isn't a park. It's a football ground. Are people going to stop going because they expect swings and a see-saw?

A lot of this thread would not be up for debate if Rovers were a Premier League side. Fans would let it slide. Unfortunately scrapping in the Championship rather than dining at the top table creates animosity. 

England for me.

I've never been the most passionate Rovers fan, even when I lived in East Lancs and had a season ticket. Before the development of Ewood I stood on the Enclosure as I wanted to watch. My pals were singing it up in the Blackburn End. I went to watch the game and enjoy myself. When the game was over I went back to whatever I was up to. A loss never ruined my evening. A win never sent me giddy either.

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Anyone labelling the Champions League as boring last year can presumably only do so in a position of ignorance having not watched it.

The Ajax v Real Madrid and United v PSG last 16 games, the City v Spurs and Ajax v Juventus quarter finals and both semi finals were all games packed with quality, drama, stories, comebacks, entertainment, everything you watch football for. 

The group stages I can somewhat understand people suggesting a change to the format but even then there was some excitement and it was far from the foregone conclusion people are making out. Spurs in a group with Barcelona, Inter Milan and PSV had to get a result in the Nou Camp to secure progression on the last day. Liverpool needed a win at Anfield against Napoli, another very good side and United needed an incredible result in Turin to ensure they went through ahead of Valencia.

Many people seem to take issue at the fact that it isnt just Champions, and even at the pedantic naming of the competition issue. But it undoubtedly improves the quality of the entertainment to see some other top teams, the likes of Tottenham, Liverpool, Dortmund, Real and Atletico Madrid etc over having additional champions of more obscure countries.

 

You forgot the Liverpool-Barcelona semi final. They were 2 tremendous games. Liverpool bossed the first but came out 3-0 losers thanks to Messi's brilliance. The return leg was one of the best games I've ever seen.

The analogy of the group stages being like the WC/Euro qualifiers is apt. It's rare that the top teams don't make it through, but they have to turn up.

Watching the best players perform against each other is what is worth watching.

19 minutes ago, Proudtobeblue&white said:

We will never win any major championship. We cannot defend. We should be out of sight at 5-1 at HT. Unbelievable! 5-3.

England were never going to get beat.

Kosovo's goals were all from England mistakes. Rather make them now so that the coaching staff can deal with it.

11 hours ago, rog of the rovers said:

Just me then!! ?

As you were

 

[End Thread]

I watch. However, I live in the USA where there's constant coverage so it's very easy to do.

I don't have an affiliation to any team. Until Tom Brady and his coach are no longer together I can't look past the Patriots to win it all.

2019-2020 group stage draw;

Group A: Paris Saint-Germain, Real Madrid, Club Bruges, Galatasaray

Group B: Bayern Munich, Tottenham, Olympiakos, Red Star Belgrade

Group C: Manchester City, Shakhtar Donetsk, Dinamo Zagreb, Atalanta

Group D: Juventus, Atletico Madrid, Bayer Leverkusen, Lokomotiv Moscow

Group E: Liverpool, Napoli, Salzburg, Genk

Group F: Barcelona, Borussia Dortmund, Inter Milan, Slavia Prague

Group G: Zenit St. Petersburg, Benfica, Lyon, Leipzig

Group H: Chelsea, Ajax, Valencia, Lille

On ‎25‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 06:53, Husky said:

The problem is that England went into their shell a bit too much and didn't score enough runs. In a situation where the chance of a draw was pretty much 0% that was fatal.

I've never really understood playing for close in circumstances where the batsmen are in and conditions favourable as you just have to come back the next day against fresh bowlers and start again with not many runs knocked off (and in this case with a shiny new ball due in just 8 overs).

R.I.P. Ashes 2019.

On ‎25‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 10:42, matt83 said:

Heroes to zeros in 6 weeks. 

Forum gold from you two yesterday. I'm reading through the topic now. Brilliant.

25 minutes ago, bigbrandjohn said:

At any moment any club owner can do that and it’s curtains. Many cut their losses fairly quickly, acknowledge that football is not their core competence and leave their club in the Tom tit. 

Thats all all I am saying. 

Fair enough. You bring up a good point. How many clubs are wholly beholden to their owners? A lot of Prem clubs should be OK if the owner walks. Certainly Burnley, they are swimming in cash.

I'm sure that the lower down the leagues you go the worse it gets.

16 hours ago, bigbrandjohn said:

Let’s take a moment to acknowledge  the dire plight of two neighbors due to awful ownership  that could put put them out of business imminently.

Let’s recognize that for all the false starts and bad decisions more from naivety that anything else, our owners have stayed the course and given our manager money to spend. 

We can dream of 1995 but time is now and I am happy that we are building something here not having it destroyed in front of our very eyes with lifelong fans chained to the railings outside. 

"I'm lucky. My boyfriend only hits me. I've not been murdered like those other 2 girls."

I see where you are coming from, it's the old "it could be worse" thought. However it's still not good. At any moment Venkys can turn the tap off and it's curtains for Rovers.

My match predications are based solely on what I read on this board. Tonight has loss written all over it.

4 hours ago, philipl said:

The obvious thing is for the Neville brothers et al to take either Bury or Bolton over but they have a vehicle with constrained costs and no baggage at Salford which works for them. I would be astonished if their people haven't at least run the numbers on Bolton and Bury and the silence is deafening..

 

I've wondered what the Neville brothers' take on Bury is. Both are locals who's dad worked there for years.

I think you provided the answer though; why sink money into a losing proposition when they can get plaudit after plaudit for their Salford interest?

9 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

My “what a load of old nonsense” was in response to your assertion that there wasn’t much running in the Sunday league. Pretty ignorant  point of view tbh. It wasn’t just about getting kicked from pillar to post at that level. As is the view that an 18 year old can’t hack 3 games a week in the lower leagues (and it isn’t every week anyway). Presumably they are all built like Olympians as well?

Ignorant? No. I’m realistic. I think that you need to take your rose tinted glasses off. You will never convince me that Sunday league football is full of running. Lads playing park football are a million miles away from the professional game. It’s the lowest level of competition there is; amateur football for people that want a game. I grew up in the 80’s across the road from corporation pitches. I watched game after game every weekend when I was a kid. I saw a lot of beer bellied lads enjoying themselves. I didn’t see finely tuned athletes honing their craft. 

The “lower leagues” as you stated are 10 pillars or more above Sunday league football. It doesn’t warrant comparison. 

35 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

What a load of old nonsense - of course it wasn’t up to the professional level but believe me it was a school of hard knocks and the Blackburn Sunday league (at the top end of it) was akin to semi professional football in the late 70s and early 80s. Most of the lads we played with and against would be turning out for the likes of Accy Stanley, Great Harwood, Darwen etc on Saturdays. And plenty of ex pros like Metcalfe and Marshall Burke played in it too.

 

Nonsense? No chance. I'm not the one saying that getting booted every game by lads playing Blackburn Sunday league in the 70's is akin to the physical stress put on a League 1 footballer today. Getting kicked from pillar to post by a hungover thug is not at all comparable to the rigours of professional football.

I'm in my early 40's and witnessed the inception of the sports science era. Football has moved on. Training methods, nutrition, targeted weight training, mental focus activities and the like is now standard across all 4 English pro leagues and down. The game is so much faster - and I'm not saying that pro's from back then weren't good, or wouldn't be today - players are better trained and in better shape. This enables a game to be played with more intensity, which for a young player if not managed well will do them harm.

Just look at today's players. They are built like Olympians.

Here's 30+ James Milner;

For comparison here is Graeme Souness (one of the best midfielders to have played the game) and Trevor Steven. Both fit but with nowhere near as much muscle mass;

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

It really does sum up the current snowflake society we live in when there are objections to kids playing three or four times a week. I remember when people played on Saturday, Sunday and midweek depending on the time of year (there probably still are some now).

And went to work/school too.

Cue Hovis music.

24 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Big difference between playing at that level and having 16 year olds being lumped about by professional players in League 1 though. 

I'm with you on this. Professional football is a world away from oldjamfan's examples. Sunday league? There's not much running going on there. 

Bodies are still maturing at 18. 3 to 4 games per week for a continued period will result in plenty of injuries. There are exceptions, as with all things in life but there are reasons why managers get annoyed at fixture congestion.