Ahhh another season of Rowett

[Gone]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well since the invention of football the game has always been about scoring goals and trying to stop the opposition from scoring.

It's only in recent times that Sky have convinced everyone that possession is more important.

That being said it annoys me when players cant pass a ball 10 yards to a player in the same colour shirt. 

Isn't Rowett's whole set up based around fast pace attacking?

To answer your question in my opinion, no absolutely not, no way, not on this earth, no never. 

His game is about trying to stifle the opposition and prevent them from scoring. Not attacking them, hence the 2nd leg at Fulham. 

To be honest I don’t give a hoot about possession, a better definition of what I call exciting football is to score more than the other team, if that means winning 5-4 so be it. Rowett is not capable of this 

 

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

To answer your question in my opinion, no absolutely not, no way, not on this earth, no never. 

His game is about trying to stifle the opposition and prevent them from scoring. Not attacking them, hence the 2nd leg at Fulham. 

To be honest I don’t give a hoot about possession, a better definition of what I call exciting football is to score more than the other team, if that means winning 5-4 so be it. Rowett is not capable of this 

We were 5th top scorers in the division this season (I think, without looking it up).

Not sure how the season ended up but in January I think we had won more goals by 3 or more goals than any other team.

[lrm14]

7 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

To answer your question in my opinion, no absolutely not, no way, not on this earth, no never. 

His game is about trying to stifle the opposition and prevent them from scoring. Not attacking them, hence the 2nd leg at Fulham. 

To be honest I don’t give a hoot about possession, a better definition of what I call exciting football is to score more than the other team, if that means winning 5-4 so be it. Rowett is not capable of this 

While hitting them on the break with very fast counter attacks. We're the 4th highest scorers in the league join with Hull, only Wolves, Fulham and Villa have scored more goals. 

The first leg against Fulham with more clinical counter attacking is very obviously what Rowett wants to achieve, and is quite close to doing so. How so many people on this forum can willfully ignore that is beyond me.

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

We were 5th top scorers in the division this season (I think, without looking it up).

Not sure how the season ended up but in January I think we had won more goals by 3 or more goals than any other team.

I have seen that stat, but stats are like mini skirts they look great but hide the most important things. The football was boring, if you ran a poll I think it’s be heavily weighted towards boring rather than not. 

It’s all about opinions I guess, IMO Rowetts style of play is anti football, old fashioned and boring. In your opinion you may like it ?!?! 

[AdamRam]

14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Did Ince mention that his dad had been pimping him out for a move to the Premier League on Sky Sports in the weeks leading up to him moving?

He did indeed, he made reference to that and explained once GR had told him he was going to be sold, his agent (I presume  this is his Dad?) was tasked with finding him a PL club.

Not sure if that answers you question or there was an ulterior motive for asking ?

[Gone]

2 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

While hitting them on the break with very fast counter attacks. We're the 4th highest scorers in the league join with Hull, only Wolves, Fulham and Villa have scored more goals. 

The first leg against Fulham with more clinical counter attacking is very obviously what Rowett wants to achieve, and is quite close to doing so. How so many people on this forum can willfully ignore that is beyond me.

It’s boring

[NottsRam77]

1 hour ago, AdamRam said:

Not quite sure what you are referring to, or have just misinterpreted the whole transfer system.  If they had both asked to leave they would have put a transfer request in, which they didn’t what happened according to Ince is that GR called him into the office and told him he was going to sell him to raise funds.  When the offers came in he expressed his wishes to go.

Will Hughes when told an offer had been accepted (note the part that the offer has to be accepted by the club first) was then asked if he wished to go. 

Of course I’m just going on what has been said on the TV and articles, feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary, I’d happily concede if you can.

Let's be honest we're both speculating and won't change the others opinion so let's just leave it as we both know best lol

And it's getting rather tedious I'm sure you'll agree 

What I will add

in terms of the football transfer system my best mate of 30 years was a football agent, small time granted and only for  about 2 years but subsequently I know how transfer system works 

99 times out of a hundred if a player puts in a transfer request they automatically wave any outstanding clauses written into their contract 

Just might throw some light onto my logic 

but anyhow by and by now 

[Gone]

5 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

While hitting them on the break with very fast counter attacks. We're the 4th highest scorers in the league join with Hull, only Wolves, Fulham and Villa have scored more goals. 

The first leg against Fulham with more clinical counter attacking is very obviously what Rowett wants to achieve, and is quite close to doing so. How so many people on this forum can willfully ignore that is beyond me.

How so many people on this forum think it’ll be successful is beyond me. 

[DRBee]

3 hours ago, NottsRam77 said:

Clearly none of us will never truly know the answer 

but u think rowetts or any manager would leave a player out of his ability if Hughes and his agent hadn't made it clear he wanted to leave 

just common sense isn't it ? 

No it aint.

[lrm14]

16 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

It’s boring

You thought the first leg against Fulham was boring? Really?

12 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

How so many people on this forum think it’ll be successful is beyond me. 

Yeah, because no team has ever won anything with counter attacking football have they. Madrid winning the CL with it, Atletico winning the Europa league and La Liga with it, Leicester winning the PL with it, etc. etc. we imagined it all. You're right its a terrible strategy and will never be successful anywhere ever.

[NottsRam77]

7 minutes ago, DRBee said:

No it aint.

Brilliant 

care to expand ? 

actually don't bother mate I'm done with this subject we clearly all have our own opinions on what went off and with none of us actually knowing the truth it's all rather tedious now 

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

You thought the first leg against Fulham was boring? Really?

Yeah, because no team has ever won anything with counter attacking football have they. Madrid winning the CL with it, Atletico winning the Europa league and La Liga with it, Leicester winning the PL with it, etc. etc. we imagined it all. You're right its a terrible strategy and will never be successful anywhere ever.

We were lucky In the 1st leg, we got hammered. A brave performance and great night which I enjoyed because of the event/atmosphere  and the backs to the wall situation we were in.  However and moreover the football was poor from us, boring and predictable. We got battered and should of lost on the night. We didn’t but The 2nd leg showed that up, to think you can defend against a team like Fulham for 180 mins is criminal, in fact he should be sacked for that alone. 

We are not Real Madrid we are not Athletico and we don’t have a Vardy or Mahrez so no with our team and management we won’t be successful IMO.

 

[lrm14]

9 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

We were lucky In the 1st leg, we got hammered. A brave performance and great night which I enjoyed because of the event/atmosphere  and the backs to the wall situation we were in.  However and moreover the football was poor from us, boring and predictable. We got battered and should of lost on the night. We didn’t but The 2nd leg showed that up, to think you can defend against a team like Fulham for 180 mins is criminal, in fact he should be sacked for that alone. 

We are not Real Madrid we are not Athletico and we don’t have a Vardy or Mahrez so no with our team and management we won’t be successful IMO.

 

No, we weren't. If you honestly believe we were hammered then there's no point having this discussion.

We are not those clubs no, but you were asserting that the style Rowett has opted for (counter attacking) is boring, archaic and won't be successful. Those examples, along with the absolutely massive list of clubs who employ similar tactics (such as Burnley, Bournemouth and Watford since their promotion) just show you're wrong and trying to needle Rowett. It's really depressing to read how negative some of you are in this place.

 

[Gone]

7 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

No, we weren't. If you honestly believe we were hammered then there's no point having this discussion.

We are not those clubs no, but you were asserting that the style Rowett has opted for (counter attacking) is boring, archaic and won't be successful. Those examples, along with the absolutely massive list of clubs who employ similar tactics (such as Burnley, Bournemouth and Watford since their promotion) just show you're wrong and trying to needle Rowett. It's really depressing to read how negative some of you are in this place.

 

Take the rose tinted glasses off. Yes we got absolutely battered in the 1st leg, that’s fact. We defended fansticly and heroically but it doesn’t change the fact we got hammered. 

It depressing to read how blind you are to Rowett and think this is good ? Talk about Emperors new clothes 

[sunnyhill60]

20 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

No, we weren't. If you honestly believe we were hammered then there's no point having this discussion.

We are not those clubs no, but you were asserting that the style Rowett has opted for (counter attacking) is boring, archaic and won't be successful. Those examples, along with the absolutely massive list of clubs who employ similar tactics (such as Burnley, Bournemouth and Watford since their promotion) just show you're wrong and trying to needle Rowett. It's really depressing to read how negative some of you are in this place.

 

one shot on target, at home shows how good we were.

[lrm14]

15 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Take the rose tinted glasses off. Yes we got absolutely battered in the 1st leg, that’s fact. We defended fansticly and heroically but it doesn’t change the fact we got hammered. 

It depressing to read how blind you are to Rowett and think this is good ? Talk about Emperors new clothes 

Yeah we were battered then, whatever you say buddy.

It's not about being blind to Rowett, it's about recognising that the constant turnover of managers with contrasting styles is slowly damaging this club in the long term. It's about realising that Rowett is going to be given next season and unless we're near the relegation zone by Christmas, he's going to stay and the stability that will bring will yield rewards in the long run. I don't see any point crying over footballing aesthetics or styles when it's not going to change, especially considering our manager has already improved on his performance last season.

[lrm14]

5 minutes ago, sunnyhill60 said:

one shot on target, at home shows how good we were.

Yes because the shots on target stat really shows the countless breaks we had that were wasted due to poor balls in the final third.

[S8TY]

35 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

You thought the first leg against Fulham was boring? Really?

Yeah, because no team has ever won anything with counter attacking football have they. Madrid winning the CL with it, Atletico winning the Europa league and La Liga with it, Leicester winning the PL with it, etc. etc. we imagined it all. You're right its a terrible strategy and will never be successful anywhere ever.

There is no way Madrid only have 25 % possesion or only 2 shots on target in 2 games , and Athletico are a strong defensive unit but when you watch them they play football and attack and don't look like they're ever getting battered like we do sometimes.

When Leicester won the prem i remember them beating Man City away with creativity, pace and skill , i don't think they parked the bus to be honest like we seem to....forgetting the play off performances just for a minute because the players really gave it there all....think back to some of the games this season...its been turgid, boring defensive crap to be honest.

I don't want to see DCFC giving teams too much of the ball and relying on our defence ( which has been good for the majority of the season ) to grind out a result.

Bournemouth showed how it can be done with young players who scored loads of goals and went for it and i would personally like to see us be a bit more attack minded.....we actually looked better once we went 0-2 down on monday.....we have no need to be frightened of anyone.

IMO if GR cannot produce a young attack minded side who know how to defend when its needed and play a little bit more expansive then for me he is not right for us, just like Pulis or Allardyce or Mcarthy wouldn't be...but its all about opinions and thats football i guess

[S8TY]

Just now, lrm14 said:

Yes because the shots on target stat really shows the countless breaks we had that were wasted due to poor balls in the final third.

That is a fair point 

[Wolfie20]

24 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Take the rose tinted glasses off. Yes we got absolutely battered in the 1st leg, that’s fact. We defended fansticly and heroically but it doesn’t change the fact we got hammered. 

It depressing to read how blind you are to Rowett and think this is good ? Talk about Emperors new clothes 

Fact?

Battered??? Rubbish. Fulham had the possession but did very little with it - we created the best chances and with better finishing we could and should have scored 3 or 4. I didn't see any of the 2nd leg but by most balanced accounts we got what we deserved - nothing.

I have no qualms about eventually losing out - Fulham are a good side and I hope they put one over Villa - but some of the wrist-slashing that's taken place since Monday has been really juvenile and what you'd expect from a four year old.