roversfan99

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

Rovers: "How much for Stergiakis?"
Sofia: "£500,000"
Rovers: "That's way too high"

Deadline Day, still not been sold, need the cash

Rovers: "How much for Stergiakis now?"
Sofia: "£200,000"
Rovers: "Great".

The deal being done so late is purely down to the selling club realising this is their last chance to cash in, rather than the buying club stalling and not being fast enough. I'd argue that's more than likely the case 90% of the time.

There should be a rule, if its all done by the designated time, good, if not, youve had months so tough.

Not with Rovers specifically, although i am happy if we benefit from it, but it is absolutely stupid that you can get an extension to a window that has been open for months.

Why is there this running joke that it wont count as a European signing? It was one solitary comment from someone who comes on here purely to provoke. (Mercer) Holtby was before the scouting network was established wasnt it? This will be a second one and im sure we will sign before. As it stands, it is only 1 as of yet, 2 if you count Holtby.

Of course we have no idea if the signings are successful yet.

As for the player, like everyone else I know zilch about him. Hope the fee is low in terms of ensuring that we have the resources to get a left back to start, not compete, but it will tick a box that we needed as a sub keeper for sure. May not play all season but we know that Fisher isnt up to being a deputy so makes sense and it would be the goalkeeping situation sorted.

Whilst actually adding new players is exciting, the transfer window and especially transfer deadline day is a total ballache. People pestering journalists on social media every day, every hour, any transfer news, any news, as if someones gonna turn around and say yeah Rovers are about to sign someone I just forgot to mention. The folk at Sky Sports rolling around like pigs in shit, Jim White, Darmesh Sheth, Kaveh Solekal acting as if they have loads of top secret information. Fake ITK attention seekers who must have a very sad life. When did it become like this? They should shorten the window, well before the season starts. 4 games in and we are no closer to doing half of our business. Same with many others. Chaos.

1 hour ago, philipl said:

 

- in fact not having the crowds in at Ewood may benefit Rovers. The Ewood home crowd is amongst the most aggressively critical of home players anywhere. The fog horn know nowts berating their pet hate are to be heard all round the pitch at Ewood- be honest. Players are professionals but they are also young lads who hear those choice invectives. Not having a home crowd will probably positively help a good proportion of the Rovers team and backroom staff.

This is the biggest load of crap I have seen on this forum in some time!

I havent heard these fog horn know nowts berating their pet hate which I should be able to seeing as they can be heard all around the pitch. And "aggressively critical?!" Have a word with yourself.

Just now, bluebruce said:

Yeh hasn't gone unnoticed. I don't think Sharpe is much better though, the club don't let much leak these days, and when it does happen you usually see it tighten up further for a while after (after the Kipre fail it has gone very quiet in terms of seemingly reputable rumours)

No, if a transfer story breaks he is rarely at the start of it, but unlike Crooke he seems to have a direct line to be able to deny targets that can be dismissed rather than cryptically speculate, and is less cryptic in his answers to queries.

Off on a tangent slightly but I dont get why people set up accounts to put up false rumours. Being a genuine journalist would be a nightmare with all of the people on there harassing for rumours, updates, "announce" requests etc. Must be an ego thing because its chaos.

49 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Got to say, Crooke's report on the new guy came across pretty amateurish... he either read about it on here, which is fairly likely and not a problem as such (hi Jacob) or he used the same google translate that the lad who posted the translation in here used. He really should have made some obvious alterations though...but it was funny to read in an 'official' publication Aleesami twice talking about 'driving medically' instead of 'driving for a medical'. Don't think you're supposed to drive when medicated!

Not to mention the 'the end of the transition window', which makes it sound like he's nearly done with his gender reassignment surgery.

His stories very much are re hashed stories from other sources, whilst his responses to the bloody thirsty transfer mob on twitter asking about rumours every day cause a bit more problems, he usually tries to get a best picture from whats in public domain and be as a cryptic and non committal as possible to make it look like he knows what he is on about.

2 minutes ago, Torgeir said:

It's a coin toss. Bell has more raw ability but gets let down by his lack of confidence and decision making. Aleesam is diciplined but doesn't offer much going forward despite having a decent cross when someone sets him up. They remind me of each other in that they both stand off too much and are often times 'too nice' to their opponents. Not particularly quick, nor quick on the turn, and along with Bell not decisive enough for me going forward. He would offer depth, but I'm not sure he'd displace Bell at this given time. 

 

That would be worry, raw ability and Amarii Bell arent things I would put in the same sentence!

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

The game fizzled out cos Cardiff were defensively solid and very well organised with 10 men. 

You can complain about us not breaking them down but you have suggested nothing that would have led us to break them down and move them out of position. Would you have gone 4-4-2 and long ball to Gallagher like some people have said? and what subs would you have made thats Mowbray didn't make yesterday?

My point is that as a team, we struggle to break teams down that sit in behind the ball. We played at far too low a tempo, constantly passing sideways playing safe passes, and lacked the personnel to get much in the away of serious opportunities. There was no late flurry of chances or proper pressure and the game fizzled out, which we have seen before with the onus on us to score.

You dont have to come to a staunch defence of the manager as if I was saying he should have specifically done x and y. I was just pointing out an area that I think we need to improve, or a point of weakness.

Just now, Paul Mani said:

I know we’ve had a decent start to the season but at what point did we get so good that we no longer think the current Norwegian LB isn’t good enough to depose Amari’i Bell?

The majority of us including you have never heard of him or seen him, have we? Couple of Scandinavians on here who are definitely worth listening to with mixed reviews.

Havent seen anyone else say he is or isnt good enough, but being a Norway international doesnt automatically make him a good signing. Or indeed a bad one.

Just now, islander200 said:

We did break them down though, Gallagher should have put that chance away,he does that and chances are we score more

We only really created that one chance, which we didnt take. There was too much slow and lethargic side to side passing with little idea of how to break them down. That Gallagher chance was minutes after the red card, after that it should have been constant pressure with Cardiff having no intention of attacking. The game fizzled out.

We cant be having "better than Bell" as our benchmark really, theres still plenty of scope above that level that isnt up to what we need.

3 hours ago, JoeH said:

I get your point, but you have to understand that if a team is coming to Ewood to get a point, and then they get a man sent off, they’re literally going to sit all 10 men behind the ball.

10 men is harder to beat because they just block you out. If you’re 1-0 up and the other team gets a red, off to the races we go. See Sheffield Wednesday away last year.

Its not harder to beat 10 men compared to 11, logic tells you that with an extra man, a team is in a better position to compete.

Ultimately it is the change of tactic that causes us specifically problems. We struggle to break down teams who sit in. When they went down to 10 men and sat deep, we had no idea what to do to get through, everything was slow and passive. It is something which we need to work on because there were 2 points there for us if we had the craft and the tempo to get through.

Its probably something that you regularly point out about when poor teams come to Ewood and we struggle to break them down.

Just now, Gav said:

Seriously, do you really mean that?

 

7 points from 4 games is decent to good. Excellent is 10 to 12 points IMO. Plenty of positives and happy enough? Definitely from me. Yes I mean it and I suspect I am only furthering my reputation as spreading doom and gloom.

Just now, Wood26 said:

How did Ayala play today?

Slipped in lacking match fitness and youd never know. Good positionally and dealt with everything with minimum fuss.

Just now, islander200 said:

Their tactics might not be unique but they are more suited to playing those sort of tactics than most in this division and better at it.

It's one game out of four that we have failed to create chances,46 shots at goal in the two games prior to this and we scored twice and had a few other good chances in the defeat at Bournemouth.

I do think the conditions favoured Cardiff's tactics heavily and we got into promising positions only for our final ball to let us down and in fairness even if Gallagher is poor if that chance falls to him a 100 times he will score a lot more than is missed.I do think as the season progresses Mowbray will find a place for Buckley when teams are sitting back against us

2 points a game over the course of the season would see us promoted and our start is a point short on that , its dissapointing of course we couldn't get the 3 points today but plenty to be pleased about,the defence keeping clean sheets being one of them

Absolutely regarding the clean sheets, mentioned that in my initial review including a mention for Ayala.

Specifically about today, my main feeling was regret at 2 points lost. A draw v Cardiff isnt a disaster at all but more because of the circumstances and it wasnt without positives.

Season so far, been a decent start, 2 great wins, 7 points from 4 I am content with and have seen plenty of positives.

With Buckley, played a couple of nice passes but like the other players at that time I didnt feel like any of them played at anything other than walking pace.

Just now, Wood26 said:

Didn’t see game, but Talksport gave Joe a shout out as best player on pitch by a mile.

Thought he was his usual energetic self with nothing at the end of it bar a few terrible shots at the end.

12 minutes ago, Gav said:

Are you being serious 99?

We’ve had an excellent start to the season, you’d predicted doom and gloom, enjoy the unbeaten run, it won’t last forever.

? taken that way out of context..the radio/ifollow question was a genuine question. And I think the comment about Rothwell was fair. Today I was dissapointed that we couldnt beat a team that played a decent chunk with 10 men, hardly unreasonable. And this is specifically a thread about todays game. Im guessing my comments across the last 2 matchday threads have been ignored?

Excellent start is a little over the top but its been decent and plenty of positives which I have posted regularly. When did I predict doom and gloom? 

This is the problem at times on forums. A message is take out of context and made out as if I have a massive agenda of spreading doom and gloom.

Not specifically unbeaten but our start cannot be a flash in the pan and needs to be maintained. And I have never said that it wont.

Just now, islander200 said:

If Sam Gallagher doesn't miss from 2 yards out we would have had 3 points.

The conditions were also terrible today and in seasons gone past we would have got beat. 

It's been a decent start to the season we would have taken 7 points from the last 3 games,2 points per game should be the target and we are just off it,a mixture of poor conditions,their tactics and not being clinical when our chances came about meant we only came away with a point but I do believe it's the sort of game we would have lost last season.

Im not sure we would. But I dont think that I am being negative personally about being disapointed about not capitalising on our opposition having 10 men and getting the win. Nor does it mean that I think its a disaster or that we dont have aspects of the team to be happy about.

Ultimately their tactics arent unique and I fear that we may have issues at time breaking teams down.

7 points is a decent start, 9 would have been a good or even a very good start.

I dont think it is necessarily negative to be disapointed at todays result either.  A home game against a potential direct rival who went down to 10 men. An opportunity to get 2 extra points. As long as its reasonable, which it is, ie nothing saying that its a disaster because its still a point and a clean sheet.

I have mentioned before that I think sometimes our fans (and presumably fans of other clubs) underestimate our side or dont see it as an actual genuine top 6 contender compared to other clubs. It was like when we went 2 up against Brentford last season and then only drew yet the majority of posts were content ones. 

There are of course positives but especially with the circumstances regarding them going down to 10 men for me its hard to not see it as an opportunity missed.

@chaddyrovers based on ifollow or on radio commentary?

I thought Rothwell was a big disapointment. Needed to really impact the game especially v 10 men. No end product as is the case most of the time.

Just now, Preben said:

We've thrashed two very poor teams, something we previously haven't done often.

We've played two decent teams and have a return of just one point.

The most worrying aspect for me was Gallagher playing wide, or playing at all.

Our record against the top teams was actually worse than that against the lower teams to be fair. The notion that its typical Rovers to beat top of the league then lose to bottom of the league is again a mythical one to an extent.

We seem to excel mostly against the teams around the middle of the league.

Just now, HowieFive0 said:

But not statistical ..

I think the lack of points won at the end of games is low since our promotion and also the record of winning games are statistical.

I cant seem to find the article in which Rich Sharpe gave the examples so youll have to write that off as an opinion, as is my reasoning as to why today we didnt score, a lack of urgency, craft and tempo in our play.

Just now, HowieFive0 said:

 

• Members
•  6,919
• 8,804 posts

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted just now

  Just now, HowieFive0 said:

And so do many teams  .this isnt a Rovers trait ...

Ultimately, despite the cliche/myth that is is harder to play against 10 men, it obviously isnt.

Undoubtedly there are challenges that come with it and I am not saying that if it happens, a win is guaranteed, but our record is particularly poor against 10 men, and also at getting late winners, there was a stat at some point showing a series of games in which we had failed to win despite a numerical advantage.

I believe that Rovers in particular are poor at capitalising, we had 25 minutes to get a winner, I knew before that we probably wouldnt and indeed, everything was slow and ponderous and we lacked the craft to look like scoring.

There were 2 points there for a top 6 quality team at home v 10 men, as it was we ended up with a disappointing solitary point.

 

 

How you can put that up as a "Rovers thing"?

We ve different line ups ..different scenarios  in a match ..? 

All on the day ..just like every other game you see on TV involving a ten man side. Some  get done some dont. Lottery.

 

Because over Mowbrays time, we have struggled to break down teams with no attacking intention, as I said, when teams have gone down to 10 men, we have still struggled to go on and win.

We were too slow, there was a lack of urgency and a lack of craft today.

Not only is it against teams with 10 men, but we have had similar problems v poor teams too.

Its not a lottery, I feel like it is a weakness of ours.

On the flip side, we are more dangerous than most teams in the League in terms of blitzing teams and getting goals early in the goal.

Just now, HowieFive0 said:

And so do many teams  .this isnt a Rovers trait ...

Ultimately, despite the cliche/myth that is is harder to play against 10 men, it obviously isnt.

Undoubtedly there are challenges that come with it and I am not saying that if it happens, a win is guaranteed, but our record is particularly poor against 10 men, and also at getting late winners, there was a stat at some point showing a series of games in which we had failed to win despite a numerical advantage.

I believe that Rovers in particular are poor at capitalising, we had 25 minutes to get a winner, I knew before that we probably wouldnt and indeed, everything was slow and ponderous and we lacked the craft to look like scoring.

There were 2 points there for a top 6 quality team at home v 10 men, as it was we ended up with a disappointing solitary point.

To be fair, I dont think it is necessarily about the expectations after 2 thrashings. We often have a problem breaking down teams with one less man, or when the onus is on us.