roversfan99

You are on a rampage of trying to defend Ismael no matter what (without committing to saying that you think hes a good manager or that you are totally happy with him) that you ae not really addressing or reading the posts you are replying to in doing so. As seen by your posts about the Ipswich performance in the LT thread which has very little or even nothing to do with the posts you have quoted. Its not just Ismael. The Lancashire Telegraph stuff has nothing to do with him. The club is being run into the ground and they seem keen to redirect the blame elsewhere at the moment. Ismael is a pretty poor manager but well down the list of problems.

Feels like we have a few players who may have played crap yesterday but should definitely start. Toth, Cantwell, Morishita, Wharton, Tronstad. Then in the other positions, its just about playing those who are the least crap or the least out of position. Pickering didnt do enough so put Ribeiro back in. We only have 2 centre backs so even though hes left footed, McLoughlin in and Miller at RB. Not square pegs in round holes. As expected, there is a big hole upon Travis leaving next to Tronstad. Baradji signed up to the physio room. Tavares is dreadful. TGH probably the best bet although theres a reason Birmingham loaned him out having never established himself at any of the 3 clubs. Out wide is a problem too. Hedges always tricks people into thinking hes coming good with his annual early season goal and couple of decent performances but hes already reverting to the mean. Kargbo is terrible. And De Neve and Henriksson are clearly nowhere near up to it. And up front, maybe give Gudjohnsen a first start.

It didnt seem like his hand was in an unnatural position. But either way, point still stands. Moaning about the EFL, refs, the Lancashire Telegraph, all to deflect from the shit show.

Ideally youd have one left footer and one right footer. But its not ideal to sell our only right footed centre back capable of playing more than 1 match without his body breaking down. We have 2 right backs, and one of them is having to play at centre back, so now the other is injured, the mess we see of a disjojnted defence with players out of position is upon us even earlier than we could have predicted.

We certainly have moved on from the "no excuses" culture we were supposed to be building under Eustace. Yes, it was really bad luck that the game had to be called off. But we just have to move on I think. Yesterday, Ismael was moaning about the referee. There has been an absolute shambles surrounding the Lancashire Telegraph. The club seems keen to deflect blame and make out like everyone is against us. We just need to concentrate on what we can control.

Dismal, gutless, embarassing display today. Deserved to be well beaten by a poor side. I think if we are close to a full bill of health, we can win points especially if we score first and grind it out. But if we need a spark or if we have any injuries, you peel back the squad slightly and thats when you really worry. Take defence as the obvious example. Because Carter is made of glass, our only option is to play a right back at centre back, can see he hasnt played central in a back 4 before. So when our right back gets injured, you then have a second player out of position. 2 injuries in the squad (one to one that is forever injured) and look how makeshift we become. Midfield is a big issue. Many swallowed the propaganda, Travis is easily replacable and isnt that good etc. Tavares is a waster, constant square balls and unforced losses of possesion. A loanee in TGH who really struggled in both positions but will likely be needed more at right back. And a third signing who isnt fit for ages. And look in attack. Need a goal and we turn to absolute wasters in Kargbo and Gueye. Hedges tricks people every season with his 1 early season goal and a couple of half decent performances. We also have signed 2 attackers in De Neve and Henriksson who the manager wont even bring on, he would rather not make all of his subs. The aim this summer seemingly was to build a quick and athletic team. Why did we not sign players with those qualities then, we look lethargic and sluggish.

No comment on the Lancashire telegraph thread?

Sensible decision. Potter is crap.

Wasted energy. He wants whats best for Ipswich, Ismael wants whats best for us. Dont get why so many have been enraged.

What a strange team. When you lose an attacking player, it tells you a lot when none of De Neve, Henriksson and Kargbo are deemed as the answer, instead choosing Pickering in a team that makes no sense. 2-0 Charlton but in the absence of any media, Rovers to report a 1 nil win.

Games have been replayed in similar albeit not identical situations. I gave 2 examples earlier and neither led to any games forced to the point of abandonment on purpose.

This club becomes more and more of an absolute disgrace with each passing day.

Yeah its all a conspiracy against us. Everyone hates us.

Its one thing questioning the way the situation has been resolved. I dont buy the ideas of them purposely screwing over Rovers, they have followed loose precedent but I am not convinced its the best solution in this instance. But the fact that you are still sticking to your belief that the game should have continued on a pitch that was clearly waterlogged is absolutely laughable.

And that it was "only a bit of rain FFS."

Obviously none are exactly the same. You wont get 2 identical cases, only similar ones. Rotherham v Cardiff in 2023 and Leyton Orient in 2023 were both 1 nil, one was abandoned before and one after the time elapsed in our game. Without a red card. My point was that you can question the precedent used in terms of direct comparability. But this game being replayed is not down to some sort of agenda against Rovers, its nothing to do with anything anyone of an Ipswich persuasion has done. Theyve just followed the same treatment as in other abandoned games, even if they arent exactly the same. Whether its fair enough, thats a different question. Ultimately there is no way to resolve this in a truly fair and accurate way, the game was correctly abandoned and that obviously leaves a huge problem. But its not a choice made because anyone doesnt like Rovers.

My point is that they havent made the decision to spite our club or to favour Ipswich. Or to appease McKenna. Historical cases have in the main had the same outcome. You could argue that the precedent is flawed because each case was different in terms of the timing of the abandonment and the state of the game, and its the easy option. But I dont think this idea that they hate us or that it would have been different if the score was the other way round is anything other than unfounded bitterness and frustration manifesting into unreasonable conclusions.

Im not buying this idea that we have been hard done by because of the club we are, as if Ipswich hold power as if they are a massive club who can swing favours from the FA. Totally get why people are frustrated because its a shit situation. But this decision would have been made either way and we dont need a woe is me act. This tends to be how similar situations have been dealt with in the past.

What McKenna and Ismael want is irrelevant because neither is interested in anything other than a solution that best suits their club. I dont really get either why they have both been allowed to put their case forward. No decision will be fair. The pitch was unplayable so the game couldnt carry on. No subsequent solution would match the balance of playing a full game at the first time of asking. Hence why they will likely just insist on a full replay unfortunately, following precedent cases.

I think the problem is that none of them are fair. I think the best opportunity for a compromise (and this wouldnt always work eg if we had midweek fixtures) has gone. That would have been to keep the Ipswich squad in Lancashire, noting the forecast that the rain was to stop just after midnight. And finish the game on the Sunday with the same teams continuing, including number of subs available etc.

Ultimately, the main reason leading to a replay is precedent. Its not the logistics that are a big factor though. The options are either to have a result based on 80 minutes, a game based on 2 seperate part matches in totally different circumstances, or just to replay the game in full. I would love to be wrong but I cant see anything but a full replay and if that is the case I will be annoyed but I wont see it as a miscarriage of justice or an agenda against us.

The problem is, managers (or "head coaches") have comparably less power than ever before. You have non footballing men in suits deciding how the team will play. You have swarms of geeks spitting out "data" and it comes at the cost of individuality and variety.

I would love them to give us the 3 points but theres no way that you can do that in terms of fairness. The most obvious compromise of playing the remainder of the game also has all sorts of issues. Obviously, to get them up to play 11 minutes plus injury time is very unlikely. But also, the fixture loses integrity because it obviously splits into 2. You are then left with a second mini game weeks/months after the first 80 minutes, with different players, in different conditions, with both sides able to approach such a small period as if its a new game, basing tactics on trying to defend or peg back a lead. Therefore, I can only see in line with precedent that they replay the full game. Its really shit and its hard luck but its very difficult to go ahead with any other option. If it does happen, its not some hatred of us from the EFL, its just sadly following precedent and its the only real option which maintains any real integrity and normality in the fixture.

McKenna obviously wanted what is best for Ipswich, ive no issues with that and we would want the same, equally Ismael will have wanted whats best for Rovers. The ref was impartial and made the correct call to stop a game on a pitch not fit to continue a football match on.

Yeah its just a tactic to presumably try and strengthen our case. But whether he or indeed McKenna agreed is irrelevant to whether it should have been called off, both parties are obviously going to want what is best for their team. But the pitch was clearly not fit to continue so the only decision was to abandon the game. Ismael hasnt said he thought otherwise, just that he didnt agree to it. Its now all about them both trying to get not what is fair, as no solution is totally fair. But what suits each individual party.