Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 20:11:23 GMT
I for one was expecting Taylor to go in the January transfer window for certain. When signing the summer contract he already spoke of leaving (out the front door, head held high, blah blah..) and insisted on this clause so I always knew he would ship off at the first opportunity. DC should have been preparing for the possibility of losing him right up until the last minute and should have had some irons in the fire, even another loan. In any case realistically were they that bothered about replacing him? Does Wael want us to exceed expectation by getting into the Championship and have to shell out on the playing side for once? When the snake left DC said he had only scored 3 goals in the last 20 scored.... so why replace him when the other player put the ball in the net1/4 of those goals were in one game though!! 3 out of 15 sounds a lot more reasonable if you want to use stats to prove a point. I know its still not great but Taylor had been preparing for his move since the beginning of Jan where we have only won 2 games. He still scored more than most this season so if we had serious intentions of going for promotion we should have got someone else in. Its no coincidence we have stopped scoring freely since snake left, opposition players pay more attention to him and leave spaces for others. Gaffney needs to start scoring too, he does a lot of decent things but the main part of his job isnt one of them (apart from his loan spell)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 20:20:08 GMT
Why does Steve get so much stick for finding time to write a detailed report of every single game? We already know we see games differently, everyone has an opinion and nobody is right or wrong that's the beauty of football. Rather than criticise why not submit your own report? If someone makes statement on the forum - surely the point is to engage with it? Or we could all just write our reports and essentially make this a blog share instead? SteveK attends almost every rovers match and takes time to share his opinion. Fair play to him. However, I disagree with his opinion and challenge his post. Overall, this is a great weekly feature that many gasheads enjoy regardless if they agree or not. Personally, the marks out of 10 get to me more than anything. Luke James is getting 4s where a Taylor would have got 6. There's power to name. LJ ran his socks off yesterday and was part of a really good team performance. Yes, he didn't get around the box enough but thats enough criticism. A 4 implies he's well below the standard required and that clearly wasn't the case. Of course his posts are open for debate, I doubt he would be impressed if nobody replied, but some posters can be a bit "you are wrong and I am right" about it, and making up sarcastic threads mimicking his posts. They are the ones I direct my quoted post at. Personally I dont see the point in marks out of 10 that many on forums and in the media like to give, too many people get their backs up over this on here and I think the comments suit just fine.
|
|
|
Post by madgas on Feb 26, 2017 20:37:00 GMT
If someone makes statement on the forum - surely the point is to engage with it? Or we could all just write our reports and essentially make this a blog share instead? SteveK attends almost every rovers match and takes time to share his opinion. Fair play to him. However, I disagree with his opinion and challenge his post. Overall, this is a great weekly feature that many gasheads enjoy regardless if they agree or not. Personally, the marks out of 10 get to me more than anything. Luke James is getting 4s where a Taylor would have got 6. There's power to name. LJ ran his socks off yesterday and was part of a really good team performance. Yes, he didn't get around the box enough but thats enough criticism. A 4 implies he's well below the standard required and that clearly wasn't the case. Of course his posts are open for debate, I doubt he would be impressed if nobody replied, but some posters can be a bit "you are wrong and I am right" about it, and making up sarcastic threads mimicking his posts. They are the ones I direct my quoted post at. Personally I dont see the point in marks out of 10 that many on forums and in the media like to give, too many people get their backs up over this on here and I think the comments suit just fine. I think when you post a 11 player review and with quantitive scoring the original post itself comes across very matter of fact. Thus, critiques are enagaging at the same level of the OP and are only as equally: "you are wrong and I am right" Calling the poster him/her-self out is wrong. Fullstop. Where is the next win going to come from? afterall- is a question. As much as I disagree with a some of his points I respect the man's ability to open a debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 21:25:50 GMT
After a free scoring early part of the season which also saw the team leak more goals than virtually every other team too ,DC would have realised things needed to change to progress. That change was obvious to everyone. Stop other teams from scoring goals. If rovers had continued even with Judas and got promoted via the playoffs ,championship clubs would have destroyed rovers week after week . So the project changed. It was now make teams work very very hard to get goals. So far this has been achieved with the new defenders arriving to help out PLUS Sinclair being given new roles to perform to aid the defending from the front. If the team can get through the upcoming games...Bolton,Oxford,Southend unbeaten then the confidence will really be there to beat the teams in the next run of games. To get through those games unbeaten [after being unbeaten in the last six]will be a massive achievement. So,where is the next win going to come from ?...another good defensive display ,no gifts to the opposition and one or two of the players nabbing a goal. So Tuesday perhaps ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 21:29:47 GMT
Of course his posts are open for debate, I doubt he would be impressed if nobody replied, but some posters can be a bit "you are wrong and I am right" about it, and making up sarcastic threads mimicking his posts. They are the ones I direct my quoted post at. Personally I dont see the point in marks out of 10 that many on forums and in the media like to give, too many people get their backs up over this on here and I think the comments suit just fine. I think when you post a 11 player review and with quantitive scoring the original post itself comes across very matter of fact. Thus, critiques are enagaging at the same level of the OP and are only as equally: "you are wrong and I am right" Calling the poster him/her-self out is wrong. Fullstop. Where is the next win going to come from? afterall- is a question. As much as I disagree with a some of his points I respect the man's ability to open a debate. Its also one ive been putting to friends and family; James, Gaffney and Harrison dont look like scoring, so the only realistic hope is to sneak a 1-0 from Bodin and opposition players and managers will be wary of him anyway, and handle him well like Scunthorpe did. Like I said ive no problems with debating someones views its just when it edges to borderline personal that I take issue with. We all have players we favour and ones we arent keen on and im sure if we all did reports as regularly this would show over time.
|
|
|
Post by barumgas on Feb 26, 2017 22:31:16 GMT
Good post as ever Steve which creates loads of responses which after all is the purpose of the forum
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 22:53:25 GMT
Why does Steve get so much stick for finding time to write a detailed report of every single game? We already know we see games differently, everyone has an opinion and nobody is right or wrong that's the beauty of football. Rather than criticise why not submit your own report? But surely anything anyone puts on here is fair game for praise or negative comment? Are you advocating everyone either saying nothing or saying "well done steve great report"? The op writes a good report but is usually unfairly critical of lee brown,danny leadbitter and stuart sinclair in my view and i believe its completely fair for me to argue for them or on any other opinion he has if i dont agree with it. I think in the past the op has stated hes happy for people to disagree and debate his reports.
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Feb 26, 2017 23:21:13 GMT
The whole ideal of a forum is debate and I have no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with anything I write, after all it is MY opinion and yesterday there would be 8700 opinions and I doubt many would be in total agreement, maybe not even in partial agreement. At the end of the day the only opinion that really matters is the Managers and the decisions he makes are the only one s that really affect the game and of course I have the huge advantage of hindsight when I write the report. As regard favourite players I think from my point of view it is probably more a case of the way I like to see football played that governs my view on individual players . It is a bit strange that people say I have something against Lee Brown or Daniel Leadbitter because that could not be further from the truth and I am sure if you go back through my reports you will find that my marks for those players is rarely particularly low and I would say any mark of 6 or over is a reasonable mark. No way would I ever consider that I was right and anyone else were wrong in their opinions because they are exactly that - opinions. Football would be a sad game if everybody had the same opinions and just think how boring a forum would be!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 23:53:21 GMT
Why does Steve get so much stick for finding time to write a detailed report of every single game? We already know we see games differently, everyone has an opinion and nobody is right or wrong that's the beauty of football. Rather than criticise why not submit your own report? But surely anything anyone puts on here is fair game for praise or negative comment? Are you advocating everyone either saying nothing or saying "well done steve great report"? The op writes a good report but is usually unfairly critical of lee brown,danny leadbitter and stuart sinclair in my view and i believe its completely fair for me to argue for them or on any other opinion he has if i dont agree with it. I think in the past the op has stated hes happy for people to disagree and debate his reports. I think its all pretty pointless and gets repetitive each week (not Steves report, the responses). Brown has been under par all season long and had nobody to fight for his place, Leadbitter has defensive frailties and no end product on the wing, Beard is just the beard; never gonna score many goals or pick out a 30 yard defence-splitter but good at what he does. This whole " XX should have got more than a 5, your reports are so predictable etc etc, all basically saying he is wrong but many without any decent debate to go with it. When responses are like that its Dam boring if im honest.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Feb 27, 2017 7:24:41 GMT
Thanks for the write up Steve. Broadly agree except for Sweeney.
I actually think Saturday was the worst game I've seen him have. Lost quite a few headers and got caught under a couple a-la-blisset.
On balance he was still pretty solid though.
Harris was my MOTM was very good defensively bar the first minute and looked after the ball well and can certainly pick a pass.
And I agree we are going to struggle to win games without goals and at the moment I can't see where they are going to come from. It's not a great situation to be relying on your midfield to score the majority of your goals.
|
|
|
Post by madgas on Feb 27, 2017 8:41:58 GMT
But surely anything anyone puts on here is fair game for praise or negative comment? Are you advocating everyone either saying nothing or saying "well done steve great report"? The op writes a good report but is usually unfairly critical of lee brown,danny leadbitter and stuart sinclair in my view and i believe its completely fair for me to argue for them or on any other opinion he has if i dont agree with it. I think in the past the op has stated hes happy for people to disagree and debate his reports. I think its all pretty pointless and gets repetitive each week (not Steves report, the responses). Brown has been under par all season long and had nobody to fight for his place, Leadbitter has defensive frailties and no end product on the wing, Beard is just the beard; never gonna score many goals or pick out a 30 yard defence-splitter but good at what he does. This whole " XX should have got more than a 5, your reports are so predictable etc etc, all basically saying he is wrong but many without any decent debate to go with it. When responses are like that its f**king boring if im honest. . Not sure I follow. SteveK himself admits there's a possiblility that the way he views the game there's a chance he has favourites. We all do. I think those who are critical of the OP are only challenging the poster to see what others do. The debate is a little repetitive but that's because often the OPs are. Largely because we play similar in eac match. Finally- it is 'so boring' is hardly as you put it 'a decent debate' Personally, I would like discuss the disagreements of viewpoint on matches but each report gets hijacked by those declaring we must not critique SteveK.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 27, 2017 8:53:41 GMT
Thanks for the report Steve.
You initially liked Roos when he first joined, have you seen more in Lumley at this stage or could he be benefiting from a more solid defence (Sweeney?).?
I guess what I mean is, is it a better keeper, better CD, combination or something else which has meant we are more solid at the back.
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Feb 27, 2017 9:44:56 GMT
stuart1974, That's a very good point. Firstly I actually still think Roos was a far better keeper than many made out and certainly in a different class to Puddy. As regards what has made us tighter as a defence I think the answer is probably a combination of things. Firstly I think one of our problems all along has been the tactics of having attacking full backs which other teams have caught on to and use the space behind them to run into and get a lot of crosses in which immediately puts pressure on the central defenders. Following that logic through it meant that we were getting a lot of high crosses coming in which cries out for a dominant centre half or a goalkeeper who is both quick off his line and confident in the air. For me Roos biggest problem was coming off his line where his decision making was questionable but also Hartley was not the tallest defender and none of our defence were either physical or strong in the air. Add to Roos was his confidence which went as more goals went in and as often happens the keeper loses confidence and becomes part of the problem.
DC to his credit has sorted this out with a young, quick, confident keeper and a giant of a centre half who wins most of the aerial battles. Sweeney is not as good a footballer as Clarke-Salter but has all the qualities that are needed in this division. JCS was not what we needed as was not physical enough for the battle. JCS could well prove to be the better centre half in terms of Premiership quality which makes me think we cannot rule out the possibility of signing Sweeney with add ons in Stolkes favour as they also may not feel he is up to Premier League standard. We still have the tendency to allow wingers to get behind us and get crosses in but we now have the centre half to deal with that and because of this Tom Lockyer has regained his confidence and is back to being the player he was. Partington and Harris both look good defenders to me so at last we have a defence with competition in all areas. That is my thoughts on the situation but feel free to give other opinions on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 10:17:50 GMT
I think its all pretty pointless and gets repetitive each week (not Steves report, the responses). Brown has been under par all season long and had nobody to fight for his place, Leadbitter has defensive frailties and no end product on the wing, Beard is just the beard; never gonna score many goals or pick out a 30 yard defence-splitter but good at what he does. This whole " XX should have got more than a 5, your reports are so predictable etc etc, all basically saying he is wrong but many without any decent debate to go with it. When responses are like that its f**king boring if im honest. . Not sure I follow. SteveK himself admits there's a possiblility that the way he views the game there's a chance he has favourites. We all do. I think those who are critical of the OP are only challenging the poster to see what others do. The debate is a little repetitive but that's because often the OPs are. Largely because we play similar in eac match. Finally- it is 'so boring' is hardly as you put it 'a decent debate' Personally, I would like discuss the disagreements of viewpoint on matches but each report gets hijacked by those declaring we must not critique SteveK.
Like I said before debating someone views is fine, but some people decide to attack the OP by saying he is bias towards certain players or against others. So what? its his report let him get on with it.
Constructive criticism is fine, but more often than not it isn't, that's my only issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 11:08:46 GMT
I noticed Bob Harris limping a bit 5 mins before coming off. Nice to know Browner is there to replace. Thought Clarke replaced him? Yeah he did - but Browner is better option.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Feb 27, 2017 11:46:46 GMT
But surely anything anyone puts on here is fair game for praise or negative comment? Are you advocating everyone either saying nothing or saying "well done steve great report"? The op writes a good report but is usually unfairly critical of lee brown,danny leadbitter and stuart sinclair in my view and i believe its completely fair for me to argue for them or on any other opinion he has if i dont agree with it. I think in the past the op has stated hes happy for people to disagree and debate his reports. I think its all pretty pointless and gets repetitive each week (not Steves report, the responses). Brown has been under par all season long and had nobody to fight for his place, Leadbitter has defensive frailties and no end product on the wing, Beard is just the beard; never gonna score many goals or pick out a 30 yard defence-splitter but good at what he does. This whole " XX should have got more than a 5, your reports are so predictable etc etc, all basically saying he is wrong but many without any decent debate to go with it. When responses are like that its f**king boring if im honest. I thought Leads had a decent game defensively on Saturday and looked much better. Perhaps having seen Joe Partington play he realises he now has competition and needs to up his game. Harris is good and Lee Brown will now have competition so hopefully he will raise his game as well! UTG!
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Feb 27, 2017 12:23:31 GMT
stuart1974, That's a very good point. Firstly I actually still think Roos was a far better keeper than many made out and certainly in a different class to Puddy. As regards what has made us tighter as a defence I think the answer is probably a combination of things. Firstly I think one of our problems all along has been the tactics of having attacking full backs which other teams have caught on to and use the space behind them to run into and get a lot of crosses in which immediately puts pressure on the central defenders. Following that logic through it meant that we were getting a lot of high crosses coming in which cries out for a dominant centre half or a goalkeeper who is both quick off his line and confident in the air. For me Roos biggest problem was coming off his line where his decision making was questionable but also Hartley was not the tallest defender and none of our defence were either physical or strong in the air. Add to Roos was his confidence which went as more goals went in and as often happens the keeper loses confidence and becomes part of the problem. DC to his credit has sorted this out with a young, quick, confident keeper and a giant of a centre half who wins most of the aerial battles. Sweeney is not as good a footballer as Clarke-Salter but has all the qualities that are needed in this division. JCS was not what we needed as was not physical enough for the battle. JCS could well prove to be the better centre half in terms of Premiership quality which makes me think we cannot rule out the possibility of signing Sweeney with add ons in Stolkes favour as they also may not feel he is up to Premier League standard. We still have the tendency to allow wingers to get behind us and get crosses in but we now have the centre half to deal with that and because of this Tom Lockyer has regained his confidence and is back to being the player he was. Partington and Harris both look good defenders to me so at last we have a defence with competition in all areas. That is my thoughts on the situation but feel free to give other opinions on this. Do you think Sweeney is a better footballer than Lockyer ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 13:17:17 GMT
I think its all pretty pointless and gets repetitive each week (not Steves report, the responses). Brown has been under par all season long and had nobody to fight for his place, Leadbitter has defensive frailties and no end product on the wing, Beard is just the beard; never gonna score many goals or pick out a 30 yard defence-splitter but good at what he does. This whole " XX should have got more than a 5, your reports are so predictable etc etc, all basically saying he is wrong but many without any decent debate to go with it. When responses are like that its f**king boring if im honest. I thought Leads had a decent game defensively on Saturday and looked much better. Perhaps having seen Joe Partington play he realises he now has competition and needs to up his game. Harris is good and Lee Brown will now have competition so hopefully he will raise his game as well! UTG!
He was decent yes, I personally like Leads, he has his flaws but then at this level many do. I'd sooner have him playing for us than against us put it that way. Competition for places can only be a good thing, hopefully Browner will rise to the challenge and we will see him competing with Harris and putting in more improved displays!
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Feb 27, 2017 14:45:49 GMT
Markczgas, Very good question. I would say they are very similar but Sweeney probably makes better decisions and knows his limitations whereas Locks sometimes tries to do things which he probably isn't good enough to do but they are both good defenders. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Feb 27, 2017 21:04:37 GMT
Markczgas, Very good question. I would say they are very similar but Sweeney probably makes better decisions and knows his limitations whereas Locks sometimes tries to do things which he probably isn't good enough to do but they are both good defenders. What do you think? Same as you Steve, Sweeney looks like he is more consistent with his passing and hits a few more accurately on the deck. Both are good in the air (for their height) and with their tackling. They make a good partnership, so far :-)
|
|