roversfan99

That may be the case, but the main reason that he manages to score against a soon to be extinct Bury and Doncasters kids is because of the standard of opposition.

I suspect the primary reason that Brereton has had his best games in pre season and in under 23 games is because of the standard of opposition to be fair, its not really achievement scoring in a friendly against a Bury side who were about to go out of business and could barely name a side or against a Doncaster kids team. I think id have fancied my chances. I feel it is a little presumptious personally to second guess the mentality of the squad in this way but there may be some in our squad like in others who would prefer a less pressurised environment, who knows, but then again if a player cannot play in front of a crowd then hes no good for a Championship team.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8341697/amp/Kante-opts-Nervous-Chelsea-star-skips-sides-latest-training-session-coronavirus-fears.html Kante another player not going back.

You are so inconsistent with your points. You admit more than once that the situation is unprecedent and unexpected yet speak about relegation and promotion as if its a normal season with your main reason being the contents of a meeting you have no idea what was said in. Its totally bizarre and illogical. You have just echoed my point about Hull. They are an example of teams voting not for what they think is right but what suits them in terms of league position. You wouldnt have this problem ahead of a new season. I have never said that promotion and relegation wont happen, I know it clearly will but that doesnt mean it should or I think it is correct. And as expected, you have been unable to provide any comeback about my series of ways how the integrity is totally and unavoidably destroyed because there arent any.

So relegations and promotions are an absolute must, and your reason is because this Clarke fells has said so in a meeting to which you are totally unaware of what was actually said or what the reasons are? And that satisfies you? If you dont have a reason, then you cant use it within your argument. The testing is another issue in regards to the morals of using up so many tests to enable teams to have half arsed glorified friendlies. League 2 clubs are quite clearly in unison because it is absolutely impossible to expect any teams at that level to be able to put in place all of the hygeine precautions, to be able to further burden the number of tests required across the country to play these games, and also the cost of the testing and bringing players off furlough, and extending contracts that are about to expire to make the numbers up to play the games. Clubs are naturally voting based on their own self interests as you would expect and understand rather than on the morality of it all. The bigger teams around the play offs are voting to finish the season, led by the loud mouth egotist that is Peterborough's chairman who loves the sound of his own voice. Even in the Championship, Hull have stated that they dont want to finish the season. Do you think that is a genuine ethical opinion that the season shouldnt be finished, or more the case that their season was in free fall with a poor squad unable to cope with selling 2 key players and they were lingering above the drop zone just about after a series of losses? What surely HAS to happen is that if the season is completed against all logic, the point whereby a division that is completed meets one that isnt, NO promotions or relegations can take place between them leagues. Points per game bollocks deciding which teams take the place of teams who have played full seasons is inconsistent, unfair and quite frankly idiotic. The integrity CANNOT be maintained by finishing the season, no matter how much you want it to be. - Four teams have played one less game, meaning that they have to play more of their fixtures behind closed doors. - Teams will have different difficulties of run ins that again effects the integrity. They also have differing balances of home and away games. For example Brighton have more home games than away games. What if they go down - 5 subs is another rule that will further impact on the integrity. What if a 4th or 5th sub scores the goal that sends someone down etc? - Many players will either be reluctant or totally refuse to play. What if Watford go down with a captain unable to risk playing due to having a young boy at high risk? - Teams will gain advantages (including ourselves) due to playing again with players that have recovered from injuries. Our season had stuttered with 3 points in 4 games prior to the season stopping. Once it returns, key players such as Holtby and Evans are back again. Is that fair? I just think it is far easier to scrap things for now, give it a couple of months, re-evaluate and crucially plan for a season in which the various logistics can be planned before teams have personal agendas, whether it be number or difficulty of games played, position in the league etc. I thought that the government wanted to finish it for the feeble reason to "boost the countrys morale" rather than the fanciful idea of the TV money trickling down and saving the day for clubs in the lower leagues?

Very interesting point regarding the approach. As you say, when games become glorified friendlies surely developing players becomes more of a priority. I suppose that the problem for us is that we have voids in our squad in 3 positions in terms of not having players contracted to play in net and at left back next season, and we only have 2 centre backs, one of whom is Derrick Williams. As much as we lack natural wingers and perhaps up front with Gallagher and Brereton misfiring, those sorts of problems can no longer be prioritises to strengthen and indeed become luxuries we almost certainly cannot afford. I wouldnt be surprised to see Bell and Leutwiler given deals just because its the easiest choice but I hope not and surely there are better players even on a free than those 2. It seems a little bit presumptuous IMO to assume that all of them players are hamstrung by playing in front of crowds, Brereton for example has been pretty dismal in basically every game, horrendous v Birmingham in front of a nearly empty stadium but having the best game of his career against Arsenal on TV in front of a big crowd. And i think Nyambe has just progressed from the nervy player we initially saw. But to be fair players incapable of playing in front of crowds are of no use to us anyway. Dack said yesterday that he is targeting to be back for the start of the 20-21 season, whenever that is, but with money presumably in short supply across the country, I can't see a queue of teams spending big money on a player not fully recovered from such a serious injury. Lets hope we see him in a Rovers shirt again.

You keep repeatedly saying this without actually stating what that reason is or even mentioning it any further, perhaps to be purposely cryptic in order to not directly address the point. My personal opinion has remained that the season shouldnt be finished by playing out glorified training games at a time of high risk, but of course that seems to be going to be the case. But it is crazy that there is going to be relegation and promotion between leagues whereby one is finished and one isnt. That cant happen if the FA is in anyway serious about maintaining the integrity of the game, which they clearly arent. Regarding VAR, I have seen it mentioned that it may be difficult to have the VAR dependant on where the matches are played. It is one of a number of areas whereby the integrity would be jeapordised. The idea of the TV money trickling down the Football League is in my opinion a bit of an idealistic fantasy.

Dack is still months off full fitness, I dont see many teams signing a player still to recover from such a bad injury. Plus hes our best player. Surely any clubs cant wrecklessly still spend loads of money in the current situation. You cant complain about the dinancial impact of coronavirus then go around signing players for big money. Hopefully at least reduce the furore around the silly event that deadline day has become. Suspect that we might sign a couple of cheap freebies to fill gaps and little else. Sub par players like Bell and Samuel will be given an extra year I am sure. With at least half of next season behind closed doors it is little to get excited about signing players we wont see!

I am of the opinion that I dont see how it can be justified to rush through the finish to the season. Another big if maybe slightly less important reason compared to health and safety, player welfare and the immorality of using up testing unncessarily is the inconsistencies it creates in terms of integrity. If any leagues finish then it means that there has to be a stage whereby a league that has been finished meets and has teams relegated to a league that hasnt been finished whereby they have to make up a flawed system to justify then promoting teams to replace those relegated teams. Ive been told that there HAS to be promotions and relegations but never any reasons why. There doesnt. Thats before factoring in teams playing additional home or away games in front of fans prior to the postponement, a 4th and 5th sub, potentially no use of VAR etc. But it is somewhat unfair to say that Leagues 1 and 2 are being allowed to go to the wall because the financial tapestry of clubs in these leagues is totally different. The Premier League is heavily reliant on TV deals which could theoretically still be completed even if games were behind closed doors. The lack of money from paying supporters is a blow but they would still potentially be able to still fully pay their player wages and also any necessary testing costs. That is totally different from the football league especially Leagues 1 and 2 whereby any TV money is minimal and they are heavily reliant on ticket sales. With this obviously not an option, no matter how much effort was put in to get these leagues on behind closed doors, baring in mind currently furloughed players would need to go back to 100%, that player contracts could need extending beyond June 30th to complete the season with a full team and any testing and hygeine costs, its a no goer, its not negligent or prioritising the strong to say that.

6 players in the Prem have tested positive now.

"I can't get a haircut until mid-July but I can go and get in a box with 19 people and go and jump for a header and nobody could answer the questions, not because they didn't want to, just because they don't know the information." This was a quote that showed how illogical it all is.

Fair play to Troy Deeney as well who has refused to go back to training because he has a little boy with breathing difficulties and carrying the further risk of being from a BAME background. He has said that his families health is more important than the financial side and I am sure he isnt the only player with such a stance.

According to gossip we have yes. Experience may be preferable but amongst many other key criteria, notably quality. If you want an experienced keeper, surely David Seaman would be a good addition? Or less jokingly, someone like Lee Camp, Jason Steele or Adam Federeci, all experienced but all shite? Just because he is experienced doesnt mean he is the one. Interestingly, even during last season when he was supposed to have impressed most for Sunderland, he missed out on the League team of the season to Adam Davies who has since collected dust as third choice at struggling Stoke. I am just pointing out that his calibre is hardly one that in normal circumstances, would have a promotion chasing side jumping for joy. That doesnt mean that he isnt up to it, players that I have been skeptical about in the past who I have had more knowledge about have flourished for Rovers, and conversely players that I have been excited about have underwhelmed or crashed and burned. As it is, my main point that we could be signing anyone and it would be difficult to be overly excited simply because there is a good chance we wont see them play for a long while. With income very limited for the forseeable and money presumably scarce, being pro-active and agreeing to sign a freebie such as this to fill a void considering that we dont have any contracted goalkeepers signed up for next season may be a shrewd move. My main opinion was not a negative one regarding the player, it was about the overall situation and how it may make the signing a better one than expected. In regards to your fanciful ideas about vaccines, this isnt really the thread but it remains to be seen whether a vaccine will ever be created and indeed whether it isnt a judgement call regarding the current rate of infection rather than the full closure of a vaccine as to when the players no longer need to go through the motions behind closed doors. No matter how many speculative and optimistic articles you post about vaccine progress at this stage, I suspect that before the turn of the year, never mind September, for the vaccine to have been created, trialled and tested and then mass produced would be an incredibly welcome but unexpected pleasant surprise.

If there is any chance of that being true, then it would show I think the way expectations may change due to the current situation. In normal circumstances, the signing of a soon to be 33 year old goalkeeper who was dropped earlier in the season by Sunderland and who was released by Burton following his only season at Championship level would be seen maybe as a downgrade on Walton and a very underwhelming signing to be number 1 for a club supposedly with promotion aspirations. As it is, you cant imagine that we will sign any more than maybe a couple of low key free signings such as this to cover the losses of the loan players who will leave, so you would somewhat understand the signing. I suspect that much of if not all of next season will be behind closed doors so it is hard to be enthusiastic about any signing anyway!

Unsurprising considering the lack of interest so far in player welfare from the powers that be.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/growing-number-premier-league-stars-22039746.amp?__twitter_impression=true Seems quite a few players arent happy to play.

I dont know what to make of it really. Obviously there is the novelty of watching live football, a league I wouldnt normally watch much of. I watched the first half of Dortmund, the second half of Leipzig and am now watching Frankfurt v Moenchengladbach and in all 3 games the technical ability and tempo has made all 3 games watchable. That being said, I think once English football and Rovers come back my reaction is something im unsure of. I suspect that I will struggle to be overly enthused about the chances of us getting an unlikely shot at a play offs in front of an empty stadium anyway, I would almost view the games as friendlies I suspect.

Or lets realise that the risk is still too high at the moment and that many players are unhappy/unwilling and seemingly havent been consulted due to the men in suits lust to meet TV obligations. And instead of forcing an unethical, compromised and unfair end to an unprecedented season just call it off for a few months. Health aside, even having a situation whereby 3 teams will be relegated (probably Championship onto League 1) having played only certain fixtures behind closed doors and replaced by 3 teams promoted on the premise of a flawed mathematical formula is absolutely stupid. I think the chances of having a vaccine in place in 3 months readily available is minimal and fanciful in the extreme. But ultimately the risk may be far less than it is now.

For all those who have repeatedly put forward the flawed view that playing football is needed to save football clubs lower down financially, they are close to agreeing to stop the season. Ultimately they will seemingly have to use a quite frankly ridicilious PPG system because of the supposed and apparent "need" to have promotions and relegated from a season cut short in a pandemic.

Perhaps but suppose thats a further problem with teying to finish a season whereby teams and players have biased self interests and agendas in terms of league positions.

Although he does usually talk bollocks, if theres truth in that, I just dont see how a large chunk or perhaps all of next season if necessary can go ahead in the football league next season financially. 5m for one league only over the space of an intended 5 or 6 weeks.

Troy Deeney, Glenn Murray, Aaron Cresswell, Curtis Davies and Tammy Abraham (who lives with his dad who has asthma) are the latest players to suggest that their welfare is perhaps not being considered and they are being expected to play without being asked of their opinion. I definitely think there should be scope for players to be able to refuse to play and indeed I think some of the negative feedback on account of the amount they (at the top) get paid is a little distasteful really, earning more money does not absolve them from being human beings fearful of a pandemic like the rest of us and with vulnerable family members or indeed themselves. I have seen interviews and comments from players from BAME background for example or a couple (I think Curtis Davies said as such yesterday) with conditions such as asthma. I am not sure it should be that they should be not paid at all but I definitely think there should be agreements in place whereby not playing leads to a heavily deducted wage. It does raise even further questions about the integrity of the game, say Watford go down and their captain isnt playing... I think a lot of people are thinking far too rigidly in black and white terms, ie either start now or you cant until a vaccine is created. Obviously there is a good chance a vaccine will never be successfully made, but it isnt as simple as that, at the moment the risk is still high, whereby as time passes (obviously recent government steps will not necessary help this) the risk we hope will reduce, the rate of infection will reduce, the number of deaths each day will reduce, and thus the overall risk of catching and even dying from coronvirus will go down. Not finishing the season is not ideal but its just becoming an incredibly expensive, rushed and flawed process to squeeze in the last few games in a quick period of time with still high risk. Will a vaccine be available in 3 or 4 months? Almost certainly not but we can hope that the risk is less even if it never becomes totally nil.

Im not saying that at that time England werent mis managed but the reason that Lampard and Gerrard were always in the team is because like Scholes they were all world class midfielders, as good as Dunn was he wasnt as good as them 3. Indeed out of the 3 I felt that Scholes was just about the best and should have played central but you can understand the desire to get them all in. Indeed Scholes retired not because he was played left where he said he did play on occasion for United but because he felt he underperformed. Heskey certainly lingered a little too long but he was a perfect foil for Owen.

To be honest he is similar to Josh King in terms of going on to play at a good level following his departute, indeed King much more consistently and impressively (but perhaps lacking quite the same glamour and intrigue for whatever reason) so I suppose it is understandable that people look back and think they were unfortunate but they both flattered to deceive in the main aside from the odd flash. Both were more gifted than Rhodes or Gestede but failed to show anything like similar output. Rochina would score a worldy or do a clever trick (I remember away at Yeovil people marvelled at a rabona shot he did when it was easily tipped over and indeed a normal shot or pass may have been wiser!) but for the following 6 games he would do nothing but frustrate and obviously that made the fact that he was unwilling to graft a big problem. And King was often injured and almost exclusively ineffective. I am not saying that either benefitted from being at the club in perfect circumstances by any means but I dont think either made a particularly compelling case when they did play that they could feel hard done by. Rhodes consistently performed at that time and then Gestede when he came.

We seemingly have different standarda on whats safe and whats not. Just because a hypothetical scenario could lead to a rise in deaths doesnt mean that its safe now or that we should have played now.