This referee has given us nothing and Hull everything. Where do we get them from?

Just now, islander200 said:

6 minutes addeď

Why asks Mowbray?

16 hours ago, islander200 said:

 

Do you think Mowbray should be sacked If we don't sign anyone?

No but maybe Waggott should.

18 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

You should of got over it by now.

Well I ofent!

8 hours ago, Stuart said:

Hull will have had this one on their winnable games list. Take Dack out of the equation and they will believe they can beat us.

That said, they’ve got off to a relatively poor start and we need to take advantage of this. An early goal could get the crowd on their back.

It’s the kind of game I’d like to see Mowbray be a little less cautious in and ask us to get forward and cause them problems. Having Bell rather than Williams might help with this.

Mostly the same team that put Carlisle to the sword would be interesting. Replacing Conway with Bennett...

I'd go with that but it's not defensive enough for our defensive minded manager.

2 hours ago, AdamRochina said:

Don'tDon'tthinj The dlub shou ld of said or even the lt should of said we are bringing in a player before weekend unless they were 100 percent confident , as it's looked silly now it's not come off 

I'll have a pint of what you've had but please, please don't use "of" when it should be "have". I know it's a common error but it really irritates me.

Sorry guys I appear to have steered this feature off track. Please feel free to transfer it elsewhere,

I think the biggest change was that in the 50's there was only one centre half but that was to some degree offset by the fact that one of the wing halves (midfielders) was mainly defensive and tended to support the centre half. Also the full backs were purely defenders and rarely sallied forth up the wing, so without formally setting  up as such, there was, to a large degree, a four man defence. The main difference was that the wingers were not expected to defend and whilst the attacking wing half and the number 10 did a bit of defensive work in midfield, they mainly attacked and the number 8 was basically a second centre forward so yes there was probably more accent on attack than defence and from a spectator's point of view it was much more exciting to watch. Although I didn't get there this week, probably much like Carlisle v Rovers.

5 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I'd class Tommy Briggs as a centre forward Al. I was really talking about supporting  strikers. I was there when Andy Mac got 4 against Spurs. That was some game.

Yep you are right. I missed that but Tommy was still well worth remembering.

23 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I've seen some really great goalscorers at the club Stuart. Disregarding the centre forward type players such as Shearer, Pickering, Sutton etc Bellamy was the best in my opinion. I go back as far as Peter Dobing, Roy Vernon, John Byrom, Andy McEvoy, Simon Garner, Matt Jansen ( who I thought was a fantastic player ) , even Damien Duff.

Tommy Briggs - 7 in a match v Bristol Rovers in 1955. I was there at Ewood that day.

4 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16439347.permanent-priority-for-rovers-boss-in-the-loan-market/

Interesting. Looks like we’re chasing a CB, ST and CM all on loans with a view to permenant deals at Christmas.

Words, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

With apologies to the Bard.

13 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16439261.forest-boss-calm-over-future-of-rovers-target-ben-brereton/?ref=mac

Forest boss on Brereton. If he is 3rd choice striker then you wouldn't imagine Forest would want rid unless Karanka doesn't rate him. However, Karanka is certainly not trying to put Rovers off the chase with those comments. There might be something in Brereton not fancying the move though or else he might not have mentioned it as a possible stumbling block. 

File under 'distinct possibility transfer will happen'.

Typical manager speak for "Up your offer".

Just now, OnePhilT said:

OK, so while he's on loan in the meantime, breaks his leg, turns out to be crap, or hell, manager gets sacked or leaves, then we still have to buy him at £6m in January... It seems like a bad idea to me!

Yes because he is effectively our player. I give up now.

21 minutes ago, OnePhilT said:

We can't pay £6m for him now. The window is shut. Apparently, we can agree a binding contract now to pay £6m in January, though. And that's quite alarming... What if he breaks his leg between now and January? Do we still have to pay? Would Forest even agree to a stipulation that says we don't buy him if he breaks his leg? What if we agree to the deal and Forest let him rot in the reserves during the five months? Or what if he comes on loan to Rovers in the meantime but is garbage? An option-to-buy is fine, but an obligation to buy at a fixed price agreed now isn't, to my mind! That's why I'm not sure about the story in the first place. Unless I'm the one that's missing something.

I don't think you understood my point. It's like a purchase but you do not pay until January.

32 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

There’s no way on God’s Earth we bought Gladwin for £1.5m. Think he’s got his wires crossed. At the time i heard around 400k.

That's about right. The biggest fee was Dack at £750grand.

34 minutes ago, OnePhilT said:

Rich Sharpe reported the deadline day bid that we put in for Brereton in excess of £5m. The latest £6m bid has been reported by Alan Nixon in The Sun. I can't see how Nixon's story works - a bid to buy him right now for January? I can't see why we'd take such a stupid risk to agree to a purchase now for a player that we'll get permanently in five months time. And even if he's on loan here, who knows how it will go. I can only imagine that it's an option to buy, if there's any truth to it. And that's not the same as a bid.

What is our negotiating strategy?

I may be missing something but I don't see the difference between paying £6mil for a player now or loaning him with a contract to pay £6mil in the next window. In the end he has still cost the same and he is still your player whether he is a success or not. It makes no difference.

32 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Personally not at all averse to flair players, had many a debate with chaddy about how Bennett for example being defensively capable is not enough for him to get a place in our attacking 4, in my opinion.

I just feel that Armstrong has to come in with his pace, Graham and Dack are obvious, so that leaves one of Rothwell and Palmer, 2 similar flair players and Palmers end product was very poor, and I felt Rothwell did more than him and deserves a start over him, of course dependant on tomorrow night.

It wouldn't do for us all to have the same opinion. Personally I feel that Palmer has a greater range of skills and it's up to the manager to harness those skills, however over the course of a match there is room for both. Rothwell had an excellent ten minutes and then disappeared. They both need managing.

On ‎11‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 19:40, roversfan99 said:

Think, subject to new signings, we need to start Armstrong and Rothwell over Smallwood and Palmer, and impose our game from the start. As Mowbray said post-match, we need to get a first win as soon as we can, Hull is a winnable game.

Palmer starts for me. Too many on here are averse to flair players. I love them.

I use skygo on my laptop a lot. It works fine at home on my normal sky broadband and at the hospital on their free wifi when I'm on dialysis at Accrington Victoria hospital. It must be a problem with your broadband. It works perfectly well for me.

I trust that nobody bought season tickets on the back of Mowbray's promises.

3 hours ago, neophox said:

Have everyone forgot we got Davenport?

He's an unknown quantity and therefore tends to be ignored until he proves himself.

15 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It's only your opinion and not a matter of fact that the window so far has been "decent". I'd say that very much depends on the impact that Armstrong makes at Championship level. If he fails to make the step up and no-one else comes in I'd hazard a guess we'll probably be looking back at it as a poor window.

Conversely if he scores 20 goals I Don't suppose anyone will care if Rothwell Davenport and Palmer don't do anything much.

Still three days to go as well so things might look considerably different by tea time Thursday.

It will only become a "decent" if we get another centre forward to share the position with Danny Graham. We can't go on with Nuttall or Samuel up front for the last half hour of every match or when Graham is not available. Ideally we could do with at least one proper winger too instead of the "make do and mend" wide forwards that we are employing at the moment and the "way past his sell by date" Conway. Right back is also a problem with "pub team player" Caddis the only fall back if anything happens to Nyambe, who also needs to continue to improve.

These weaknesses are obvious to me and probably to everybody who watched the team last season and urgently need to be addressed.

7 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Yes but more than we thought. I'd resigned myself to Armstrong coming in perm a cheap centre back and then loans. 

I want a centre forward brought in but if finances also allow McGinn then I think he would be a very good signing 

We really need a centre forward. We can't afford to spend the last half hour of every match without a target man for an outlet and what if Graham is injured or suspended.

It could be because we have too many players who can't last 90minutes. The team that finished yesterday were not a patch on the starting eleven.

10 minutes ago, JAL said:

Think the little lad could struggle then would I, want to witness that Al. Hope I'm wrong though.

 

You don't witness anything if you don't see it and therefore lose the right to a believable opinion.