roversfan99

Excellent result and away performance. Arguably more pleasing than Hull in a way as there was no jeopardy at 3 up against a side ravaged with illness. We managed today really professionally and comfortably. Wharton was man of the match, absolutely brilliant. Both him and Carter did very well considering their lack of fitness. Tronstad was also excellent until he went off, getting back to his best. Alebiosu again was very good too down the right. Morishita certainly had an impact on his debut and looks a talent. Not convinced he is a wide player though, there are a number in the squad who I think would be better suited to a back 3, but selling Hyam with no replacement (and pretending it was the plan all along) robs us of that as a serious regular option. Gudjohnsen showed some really nice signs off the bench. Obviously until we see what hes like in terms of when we need a goal, then the jury is out, but he did well today and I liked the look of him. Kargbo as he often does didnt offer that same intelligent play. Miller did well coming on in a back 3 and that position suited him. Tavares was poor again and with the Tronstad potential injury and bizarre Baradji situation that position is a concern.

Ill take that as no, you just take everything they say at face value. Based on your general posting, its a fair assumption.

Ohashi has never played on the wing before. Ismael suggested that with Gudjohnsen adjusting to the league and having only trained once, that he is unlikely to need to be chucked in like Henriksson was.

Also @chaddyrovers was there any point in the interviews whereby you felt that they were not telling the truth, spinning the situation or any points where you felt that further questions were required?

Even if we cant afford to compete with then in particular. A bigger question would be, why are we not in a position to even offer these players better terms than what they signed years ago? Gestede said 2 of Travis/Brittain/Hyam were offered equal wages but with an extra year. They all signed contracts 3 seasons ago. Why is our wage budget capped at such a low amount? Why hasnt it even increased for inflation? Whats the point even bothering with such pathetic offers that they never would sign?

As a supporter of a club. It doesnt mean that you have to go along with everything the tossers who both own and run it say and withhold all critical faculty and any form of standards. When these idiots try and spin everything, there tends to be 2 different sides. We offered them as much as we possibly could - you can either say ok fair enough. Or ask why none of them were willing to sign within that structure, why is the structure so low, why cant we offer competitive wages, what is the pattern, why cant we even sign domestic players When we sign Baradji on loan who is injured for months - you can either say yeah that is good business. Or ask why we are replacing our captain with a bloke on loan who is out for ages injured, is that wise? When Gestede suggests that we are covered by the signing of Miller at centre back - we can either accept it, no questions. Or ask why he signed as soon as Brittain left, why he was signed as right back, why has he never/barely played as a centre back in a 4 before, what would have happened if we had kept Hyam When they say the squad is better but not suggest that we will finish higher - you can either say yeah ok, hard league, need patience, or ask why they think its better? Are they trying to con us by understating the quality of those lost? My advice. Dont just take the propaganda at face value. Question it.

You would literally defend pretty much anything the club do, wouldnt you?

To be honest, theres an argument that TGH is needed more in midfield even now. He is a natural central midfielder and Tavares has looked poor so a strong argument to have him starting there.

The thing is, there was a big gap between him failing a medical and then us revisiting the deal, and also a further gap between him signing and us knowing what was going on. If they were so intent on signing him, could this recuperation not have started far sooner? Ismael said he might be back after the next international break but maybe even the one after that. Basically he cant put a timescale on it. Ill be amazed if we see him before Christmas. An utterly pointless signing and within a squad lacking quality in depth. Although according to one or two, its a very clever bit of business.

What a bit of business that was. Replacement for Travis. Henriksson also out with a broken hand.

I disagree personally on the numbers but my main point was that I dont agree with signing 1 player to cover 2 positions. You still need 2 bodies for 2 positions. If one of those can also cover another position, it can provide extra emergency cover or more flexibility in game which is an added skill, but it doesnt compensate. Miller might be needed at RB and CB at the same time, so it will mean a second player has to be moved around. I dont think our squad is big enough. I suppose numbers and actually viable quality for our first team. Montgomery is a good example, regardless of where he plays for the Scotland under 21s, he isnt good enough at Championship level for either role. Forshaw isnt good enough. Gueye isnt good enough.

But its about quality AND numbers. You say Miller can cover centre back. But hes also covering right back. He cant cover them both if we have injuries in both.

Its being done because of cost cutting. We have historically had squads that have been unable to sustain performance over a season due to a lack of depth. Versatility is a useful tool but you cant compromise on numbers. Say if Carter and Alebiosu get injured. You then need a natural right back at centre back, a midfielder at right back and then you are potentially short in midfield. 23 registered players, including one injured for an unknown period. Adam Forshaw who shouldnt be starting games and is injured. Other players with bad injury history. Makhtar Gueye. Its a long old season, now that versatility is a tool we can use, when you get months into the season and youve got more injuries, its very thin and you have 2 spare spaces.

My point is that versatility is good but not instead of signing players for each position. You cant sign one player to cover 2 positions INSTEAD of signing 2 players. It wouldnt take a "massive influx" of injuries for us to be badly short. We have had bigger squads in recent years and have still not had enough to avoid a massive second half of the season dip.

What was wrong with the old system?

But versatility doesnt compensate for having less numbers. One of 4 centre backs is actually a right back and cant play both at the same time. TGH cant play right back and in midfield at the same time. Neither can Montgomery although I suspect he cant do either to a satisfactory level at this stage. Even before quality, we dont have enough numbers. Before also considering injury records.

Ismael is very comfy on his long deal and very much trotting out the company line in his interview. Not convinced that hes truthfully so happy about business. He keeps talking about versatility. Yes its very useful but it doesnt compensate for a lack of numbers. For example, we are short in midfield with Travis gone, Tavares (who Ismael seems to think has done well in every game which is far from true) and us signing someone who is nowhere near fitness. So Taylor Gardner Hickman should be needed there. But he cant play there and right back at the same time and our right back cover is now considered a full time centre back. And if we are so well covered, Hyam wouldnt have been one of the first names on the team sheet. Theres a continued batting off about the contract situation. No reassurance that anything is going to change and those with 2 years on their deals will be proactively approached.

It was only "time for them to leave" because we are incapable of sorting new deals at competitive rates.

Really? Based on?

I keep saying suggestions as if we have purposefully traded our supposedly limited Championship players in tactically in favour of more exotic upgrades. We wanted to keep all of the key players that left. All 6 of them. We didnt intend to have such a high turnover of players, theyve admitted that. Its only happened because we are totally incapable of sorting contracts out or paying competitive Championship wages. I can only imagine that its people deluding themselves into thinking its a clever plan.

Wont somebody think of the stakeholders.

Surely suggesting to go and support Burnley is equally as unnecessary.

The plan will be different next season. Unless something dramatically changes, Tronstad, Cantwell, Carter, Wharton etc will have to leave.

They also said that they think that the squad is stronger. So why wouldnt they commit to saying that the aim is the play offs seeing as we finished 7th with a weaker squad, in their eyes?

Theres a lot here but you say that some of the players that have left werent giving 100%. What makes you say that?