roversfan99

Sick of hearing that and the window hasnt opened yet.

Is O'Riordan back available for tomorrow? Not seen anything mentioned by Rovers at all. You would think he would be recalled immediately to help bulk the squad out slightly.

"Of course we are ready." Have I been following a different club for 15 years? We will see come next week how ready we were.

Dont talk rubbish. We have our "top spy" on the job.

That is true.

Again, would make more sense to sign 2 more natural strikers in my opinion. 3 Rather than someone who maybe can do a job there but has been playing as a winger. Can you see us signing 2? You dont even think we should sign 2 if i recall correctly. Its all hypothetical. Not convinced that Cleary ends up here.

To an extent, but in reality you just end up with players who are at least somewhat uncomfortable or unnatural in at least one of those formations. The current formation tends to need more specialist players. Because we have signed 2 duds in De Neve and Kargbo, and because Morishita is probably better central, we would have to do a much deeper revamp of the squad to start playing wingers. If 352 is the way forward, I would rather that we recruit in a way where all recruits slot naturally into that formation. I think a traffic cone would be more effective than Henriksson, that is a very dangerously low benchmark! He seems well thought of and talented, but signing players in this way (based on attributes, supposedly flexible) hasnt really worked. It would make more sense to me to sign an actual striker. Sense long left the building at Rovers though. Against Sheffield Wednesday, Ohashi as he tends to do was often seen wide and we had no presence in the box.

It would make more sense to me to actually sign a natural striker. Our team/squad seems to be a growing collection of square pegs in round holes.

Isnt it logical to question the idea of signing a winger when we play a formation that doesnt include wingers?

Great counter argument.

We tried for a big chunk of the season. Ismael has mentioned for example signing a wing back as if we will be playing 352 going forward. Hence why I am asking, why would we sign a winger when our current formation doesnt include wingers? As I suspect you know and are just being obtrusive.

Exactly. It should either be loan him out to play regularly, or keep here with a view to competing for a more natural role. If we did loan him out, it shouldnt be interpreted as a lack of faith in him or victimising an academy graduate. Either step is with a view of at some stage having him playing in his natural position for this football club. He has done himself proud as emergency cover. But in the last 3 games, Alebiosu has been missed, as you would expect. Lets not try and re train Litherland purely to avoid just signing an actual right wing back and allowing us to build up Litherland in his actual position.

Doesnt mean that he will be signing here. He also described Rudy Gestede as a "top spy." As opposed to doing the normal thing and signing an actual player for the position we need. Logic rarely applies at this football club. And people like you seem to try and justify having loads of players in positions they are not natural in. Apparently me contesting this is "making excuses."

Nothing about this makes sense. Why are we even trying to sign a winger when we dont play with wingers? It wont happen anyway, I think thats pretty clear.

"Top spy" Deary me.

Theres a lot of shoehorning going on. Pickering at wing back? Henriksson up front? Kargbo up front? Miller as a wing back? Litherland as wing back? Even McLaughlin in the middle of a back 3? Yeah, all of that is fine, no need to try and improve. To be fair this Cleary rumour screams of a typical transfer window one that grows legs but comes to nothing.

I have not suggested that Pratt should be loaned out, youve made that up. I have been pretty clear that I wouldn't and that I would probably play him over McLaughlin as it stands on the left if we were to sign a centre back for the middle. On Litherland, I have praised him too but just dont think its good either for him or us to consider him the direct alternative to the far more attacking and dangerous Alebiosu for the rest of the season away from his natural position. It should be either a case of keeping hin as a centre back or failing that, a short term loan to allow him to develop like Wharton did physically in preperation to push him on ahead of next season. But if it is easier and needs you to make stuff up to justify, yes I am totally against developing young players. It seems to be a narrative you want to push to justify the inevitable inadequate recruitment about to come. For yourself, you seem to have a policy of lets make do that suits these owners down to the ground. I dont want he can do a job there, I actually want he can thrive there, I want to improve. Pickering is not a wing back, I am unsure what has changed from you repeatedly suggesting his sale up until a few days ago. Miller is really poor on the ball. Its all well and good him playing there for Australia against really weak countries, we have no idea if he actually does that job well for Australia. Playing at centre back is much more suitable for him.

How I wish he hadnt been called up.

Define "enough." Again, comes down to you just listing players. Regardless of quality, or if its their natural position, or if theyve ever played before, or if they are needed elsewhere. Pickering isnt a natural wing back. Powell has never played senior football. So that just leaves Hedges who doesnt do enough going forward. Miller is poor on the ball and at crossing, more suited to playing where he is playing. Litherland isnt a natural wing back. Alebiosu is away. The fact that we are still waiting on Baradji going into the new year probably goes back to my original point about his signing.

"Rovers is a great club for young players as you will get a very good chance to play regularly with our lack of investment in established players and thin squad." Not ones who have any ambition, seemingly. Youll play, but the club wont do well.

I am not criticising him, hes not even a wing back. But he isnt a naturally attacking wing back like Alebiosu is. We are too reliant on him so when he isnt playing, we struggle even more in attack. We badly need 2 strikers, we should have 4 for 2 places. Thats non negotiable IMO. Suggesting only 1 is IMO lowering expectations to make them easier to meet. But we also need some more attacking impetus from other areas. I dont agree with your mentality of use what we have, what we have is not enough. We are terrible to watch, so boring. In our last 3 games, weve obviously been solid but our only 2 goals have been gifted to us by shocking goalkeeping, otherwise we have barely created anything or looked like scoring. The formation needs attacking wing backs and we only have 1 of them who really offers us a genuine threat. We need to sign one on either side. If you personally think or think the club will not bother with either side, thats fine. I dont think the squad will get the 5 players I think are needed as a minimum, certainly not of the required quality, but thats what I think I needed.

You tend to find with those types of players that they often drop deep to try and get on the ball when nothing else is happening, Dack used to do the same. But of our very few chances, he was at the heart of creating themm

Thats blatantly not true. He was a regular at Plymouth and has been at Stoke throughout, where he really impressed last year. He has played far more Championship football and subsequently boosted his reputation (and bank account) far more than he would have done here as 3rd/4th/5h choice, at least up until this season. I dont get why it is always put down to the agent either. A 17 or 18 year old lad offered a big club will often want to move.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/august/24/baradji-brings-the-x-factor--believes-the-boss/ I think it was this that I remembered. Suppose a lot of these words and phrases are interchangeable, mentions the defence enjoying him and calls him an enforcer but also that he is box to box. He obviously has not played as the deepest lying midfielder for us, but whether he can offer a goal threat, we will see. I dont think I would particularly like to see him playing deeper considering how he gave up at one point in the first half last night when running back.

He hasnt been playing in the same position so hasnt been tested defensively as much. Id understand more to keep him as an option at CB.