Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 16:20:45 GMT
Comparing Newcastle with the likes of Stoke or Southampton isn't probably the best of comparisons, I mean even Swansea are continuing to do well on around an attendance of 22,000 but it does suggest that a better run club despite a low level of support can in some circumstances be more successful than a club with a higher level of support. Walsall appear to be existing on relatively low levels of support but are making a small profit each year but then bring in income from their motorway advertising signs. I'm not really sure we can really compare our situation with any other club whether it's with Newcastle or Swansea or with Solihull or Walsall. I like many others want better than we have and grow frustrated probably like yourself that we have stalled in our development with last season culminating in our relegation. I question as I did at the Q&A sessions about the ability of those who manage this club and whether they are really prepared to challenge themselves why we have landed up in the Conference other than the usual glib responses we get. I've decided I can only do what I do now and go and support the team, players and manager however limited they might be compared to others who have gone before in slightly more 'successful' periods in our history. the comparison Bridgie was for attendance purposes as Bamber keeps banging on about ours compared to Barnet etc. The point I was making is that attendances mean nothing. Obviously the extra revenue is much more but its what you do with it that matters spot on with your last paragraph by the way. Good man.
It now looks like you are saying the same as me, more money, well spent = better results. The only reason that the equation changes in the PL is because TV money makes up such a large part of the revenue the clubs recieve. If it helps you, I'll stop quoting attendances and start talking about raw income? Not all clubs have a sugar Daddy. But if what's reported on here is correct it looks like we have one, it's been said several times that Higgs has so far converted £1,000,000 of loans into equity, and still the losses pile up. Yes, Sollihull make a profit, even with just over 400 paying customers for each home game, sorry if that fact is inconvenient, but it remains a fact none-the-less. I don't expect you to know anything about that club or to even care, but it just shows what can be achieved with careful management. Meanwhile back at Rovers.....
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 31, 2015 16:24:49 GMT
"if my Auntie had a c0ck she would be my Uncle"[/quote]
Not necessarily. She may be hermaphrodite, or going through gender realignment...chicks with Alan D*cks, as they say.
Whatever floats the boat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 16:36:03 GMT
the comparison Bridgie was for attendance purposes as Bamber keeps banging on about ours compared to Barnet etc. The point I was making is that attendances mean nothing. Obviously the extra revenue is much more but its what you do with it that matters spot on with your last paragraph by the way. Good man.
It now looks like you are saying the same as me, more money, well spent = better results. The only reason that the equation changes in the PL is because TV money makes up such a large part of the revenue the clubs recieve. If it helps you, I'll stop quoting attendances and start talking about raw income? Not all clubs have a sugar Daddy. But if what's reported on here is correct it looks like we have one, it's been said several times that Higgs has so far converted £1,000,000 of loans into equity, and still the losses pile up. Yes, Sollihull make a profit, even with just over 400 paying customers for each home game, sorry if that fact is inconvenient, but it remains a fact none-the-less. I don't expect you to know anything about that club or to even care, but it just shows what can be achieved with careful management. Meanwhile back at Rovers..... I was once told not to engage conversation with a condescending arsehole. When will I ever learn? Now
|
|
nsgas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 61
|
Post by nsgas on Mar 31, 2015 17:43:22 GMT
"In the 1998-2007 period spending on salaries by clubs in the Premier League and Championship explained 89 percent of the variation in league position...In short, the more you pay your players in wages, the higher you will finish".
Source: Soccernomics by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski (2009) Page 48.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 31, 2015 19:20:07 GMT
"In the 1998-2007 period spending on salaries by clubs in the Premier League and Championship explained 89 percent of the variation in league position...In short, the more you pay your players in wages, the higher you will finish". Source: Soccernomics by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski (2009) Page 48. Love that book. Note that there are significant outliers though, and I imagine we have been one for a number of years now. Probably for the period of time that we've got through half a dozen managers. Constantly changing managers rarely improves results, but it always causes a lot of waste.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 1, 2015 11:30:16 GMT
Personally I completely agree that Rovers have historically got a poor return on income. What I do disagree with, is your assertion that this is the present manager's doing. I think he's done as well as could be expected, given the circumstances. I think we are in danger of confusing issues here. 1. Clarke should have been shown the door after last season's Torquay farce, it was obvious that he was going to take us down. The Mansfield game alone should have been enough to get him sacked. Nothing that he has done since has convinced me otherwise. The part of the team that he inherited is OK, the rest of it struggles by at a very low level but is far from convincing. 2. I don't blame Clarke for the lack of planning or the shambolic way that the club is run. 3. Responsibility for the return on investment is divided between the manager and the BoD. I accept that Clarke has a reduced budget to work with and several of the high earners from last season are still here, but does anyone think that he could be getting more out of this group of players? Actually I think he has gotten a fair amount of them. I don't think it's that good a squad of players and I do think he has been hamstrung as any manager would have been. Where I particularly disagree is that we have good centre backs and defenders generally. I don't think we do really. It's not just about numbers of goals conceded it's about the type of goals you concede and when you concede them. I think our midfield protects our centre backs very well but I still think the same fundamental problems are there. They're not mobile enough, they're not strong enough and they concede far too often from basic set pieces. I don't think our relative success in the goals against column is mainly down to the defense I think it's down to how we've been set up so that our defensive frailities are not exposed too much, the fact we're playing poorer teams who are often happy to sit back and the fact our midfield tends to deny the opposition the ball in dangerous attacking areas. If we went up I would not be happy if we kept with McChrystal and Parkes; I see them as a big reason why we were relegated. The number of games we played last year where the opposition offered nothing all game yet won 1-0 from one of the 2 corner they had etc. OK, that's the mark of a team that doesn't score enough but it's also poor defending. Just because a team doesn't concede many goals doesn't necessarily mean it has good defenders; there are other factors involved. Likewise you can lose 3-0 but your defenders can have had a good game but been hung out to dry by a poor midfield. I don't like our centre backs at all and I think Brown is too easily beaten for pace by speedy players late in games. I think our goal against column hides a major problem.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Apr 1, 2015 11:59:23 GMT
A bit late for April Fool posts.
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Apr 1, 2015 12:25:22 GMT
I think we are in danger of confusing issues here. 1. Clarke should have been shown the door after last season's Torquay farce, it was obvious that he was going to take us down. The Mansfield game alone should have been enough to get him sacked. Nothing that he has done since has convinced me otherwise. The part of the team that he inherited is OK, the rest of it struggles by at a very low level but is far from convincing. 2. I don't blame Clarke for the lack of planning or the shambolic way that the club is run. 3. Responsibility for the return on investment is divided between the manager and the BoD. I accept that Clarke has a reduced budget to work with and several of the high earners from last season are still here, but does anyone think that he could be getting more out of this group of players? Actually I think he has gotten a fair amount of them. I don't think it's that good a squad of players and I do think he has been hamstrung as any manager would have been. Where I particularly disagree is that we have good centre backs and defenders generally. I don't think we do really. It's not just about numbers of goals conceded it's about the type of goals you concede and when you concede them. I think our midfield protects our centre backs very well but I still think the same fundamental problems are there. They're not mobile enough, they're not strong enough and they concede far too often from basic set pieces. I don't think our relative success in the goals against column is mainly down to the defense I think it's down to how we've been set up so that our defensive frailities are not exposed too much, the fact we're playing poorer teams who are often happy to sit back and the fact our midfield tends to deny the opposition the ball in dangerous attacking areas. If we went up I would not be happy if we kept with McChrystal and Parkes; I see them as a big reason why we were relegated. The number of games we played last year where the opposition offered nothing all game yet won 1-0 from one of the 2 corner they had etc. OK, that's the mark of a team that doesn't score enough but it's also poor defending. Just because a team doesn't concede many goals doesn't necessarily mean it has good defenders; there are other factors involved. Likewise you can lose 3-0 but your defenders can have had a good game but been hung out to dry by a poor midfield. I don't like our centre backs at all and I think Brown is too easily beaten for pace by speedy players late in games. I think our goal against column hides a major problem.
I think people often post things as a cathartic experience to get rid of bees in bonnets. We have the lowest goals against in the league, this is not the issue it's goals for; if the BOD's root and branch review worked this out it must be obvious, only one other club in the top ten has a lower one.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 1, 2015 12:49:09 GMT
Actually I think he has gotten a fair amount of them. I don't think it's that good a squad of players and I do think he has been hamstrung as any manager would have been. Where I particularly disagree is that we have good centre backs and defenders generally. I don't think we do really. It's not just about numbers of goals conceded it's about the type of goals you concede and when you concede them. I think our midfield protects our centre backs very well but I still think the same fundamental problems are there. They're not mobile enough, they're not strong enough and they concede far too often from basic set pieces. I don't think our relative success in the goals against column is mainly down to the defense I think it's down to how we've been set up so that our defensive frailities are not exposed too much, the fact we're playing poorer teams who are often happy to sit back and the fact our midfield tends to deny the opposition the ball in dangerous attacking areas. If we went up I would not be happy if we kept with McChrystal and Parkes; I see them as a big reason why we were relegated. The number of games we played last year where the opposition offered nothing all game yet won 1-0 from one of the 2 corner they had etc. OK, that's the mark of a team that doesn't score enough but it's also poor defending. Just because a team doesn't concede many goals doesn't necessarily mean it has good defenders; there are other factors involved. Likewise you can lose 3-0 but your defenders can have had a good game but been hung out to dry by a poor midfield. I don't like our centre backs at all and I think Brown is too easily beaten for pace by speedy players late in games. I think our goal against column hides a major problem.
I think people often post things as a cathartic experience to get rid of bees in bonnets. We have the lowest goals against in the league, this is not the issue it's goals for; if the BOD's root and branch review worked this out it must be obvious, only one other club in the top ten has a lower one.
No, not at all. I really don't think McChrystal and Parkes are a very good Centre Back pairing. I don't think they're the reason why we have a low goals against column. I think they're an OK Centre back pairing for Conference but I think the reason we're defensively sound is that our midfield deny the opposition the ball and sit quite deep. We are set up as a team to be very solid and hard to break down - teams simply don't get very many chances against us because they never seem to get extra player on us. It's part of this simplistic view of the game that says defenders job is to stop goals, midfielders job is to create them and strikers job is to score them. It is the team's job to do these things and everyone has a part to play. I think when we push up our defenders look horribly exposed because they have no mobility and we do concede far too many goals from basic set pieces where we've either switched off or out centre backs have simply been outmuscled. I think as individual players they are both OK but as a partnership they are shaky. I think our Centre backs are protected by a deep lying midfield that often puts 3 in the middle of the park and I think one of the reasons that we didn't score enough goals last season is because we packed the centre midfield in order to protect a dodgy defence and it didn't work because we were picking the likes of Clucas and Clarke in Centre Midfield who offered nothing going forward. Just like on Saturday we picked Lockyer; who protected the defence extremely well and almost acted as a 3rd centre back at times but really struggled going forward. We need a mobile centre half because it allows your centre midfield to be more adventurous.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Apr 1, 2015 13:10:27 GMT
I think people often post things as a cathartic experience to get rid of bees in bonnets. We have the lowest goals against in the league, this is not the issue it's goals for; if the BOD's root and branch review worked this out it must be obvious, only one other club in the top ten has a lower one.
No, not at all. I really don't think McChrystal and Parkes are a very good Centre Back pairing. I don't think they're the reason why we have a low goals against column. I think they're an OK Centre back pairing for Conference but I think the reason we're defensively sound is that our midfield deny the opposition the ball and sit quite deep. We are set up as a team to be very solid and hard to break down - teams simply don't get very many chances against us because they never seem to get extra player on us. It's part of this simplistic view of the game that says defenders job is to stop goals, midfielders job is to create them and strikers job is to score them. It is the team's job to do these things and everyone has a part to play. I think when we push up our defenders look horribly exposed because they have no mobility and we do concede far too many goals from basic set pieces where we've either switched off or out centre backs have simply been outmuscled. I think as individual players they are both OK but as a partnership they are shaky. I think our Centre backs are protected by a deep lying midfield that often puts 3 in the middle of the park and I think one of the reasons that we didn't score enough goals last season is because we packed the centre midfield in order to protect a dodgy defence and it didn't work because we were picking the likes of Clucas and Clarke in Centre Midfield who offered nothing going forward. Just like on Saturday we picked Lockyer; who protected the defence extremely well and almost acted as a 3rd centre back at times but really struggled going forward. We need a mobile centre half because it allows your centre midfield to be more adventurous. I kind of know what you are saying, although I'm not sure I entirely agree - maybe only partly. I think that both Parkes and McCrystal on there own are decent enough players, but I agree that they are probably not the best partnership, we can lack a bit of pace. There have been a lot of goals conceded from the ball behind / ball over the top (I'd be interested to know how many compared to other teams). We do employ deeper, less creative midfielders to pressure the ball through. I also think that we've missed Smith more than most people recognise - he did so much covering last season.
Perhaps recognition of this fact is why we started the season with 3 at the back.
One thing I noticed when Trotman was playing was that he was constantly talking to Lockyer, having him stay close to provide cover.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 14:57:56 GMT
I think people often post things as a cathartic experience to get rid of bees in bonnets. We have the lowest goals against in the league, this is not the issue it's goals for; if the BOD's root and branch review worked this out it must be obvious, only one other club in the top ten has a lower one.
No, not at all. I really don't think McChrystal and Parkes are a very good Centre Back pairing. Seriously? They were good enough in L2, and that was with no midfield protecting them whatsoever. Despite having a World Cup winning centre back, Arsenal get undone from corners and set plays, but so do every other team in the world, so why you expect a 4th/5th tier defensive duo to repel all-comers is a bit difficult to understand.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 1, 2015 16:45:27 GMT
No, not at all. I really don't think McChrystal and Parkes are a very good Centre Back pairing. Seriously? They were good enough in L2, and that was with no midfield protecting them whatsoever. Despite having a World Cup winning centre back, Arsenal get undone from corners and set plays, but so do every other team in the world, so why you expect a 4th/5th tier defensive duo to repel all-comers is a bit difficult to understand. I disagree completely and you can reverse that argument. No, a World Cup winning Centre Back doesn't become a crap one overnight; as I understand it Arsenal as a team have had some issues defending set pieces. But the reverse is also true because it's a team game not an individual one; so you can also have an excellent defensive team and still have individual/component weak links; it's just that you're really good at not leaving them exposed (though often at the cost of other aspects of the game). I think our defence is good despite of our centre back pairing, not because of it (though that's going a bit far - I don't think they're that bad just that they're not the main reason we've got a good defensive record). In all the games I saw us play last year we either played 3 in midfield or we pulled the centre midfield 2 back to about 5 yards in front of the centre backs. O'Toole was the forward midfielder whoever else played alongside sat very deep or had help and at times even O'Toole was pulled back very deep as well. Yet I still saw goal after goal conceded because our centre backs got turned around or someone got the run on them. The whole team was set up to play a very defensive, passive game last season where we kept tons of men behind the ball and were very difficult to break down. The side was set up to be defensive so it's not surprising we didn't concede that many goals. That doesn't mean the centre backs were necessarily that good. It's a bit like saying Newcastle under Keegan had a crap defence and brilliant forward line - it was primarily because they were set up to play kamikaze football rather than the relative merits of the individual players; Bobby Moore would have struggled in that system. When the whole team is set up to defend then centre backs have a lot of help back there and aren't exposed very often. It's a team game, goals against and goals for columns are not great evidence of what an individual player is contributing; they're evidence for how the team is playing. I'd say under Clarke we play a cautious, safety first, generally narrow style that aims to starve the opposition of the ball in midfield and stop sides getting their wide players into the game. Do that successfully and centre backs don't end up having that much to deal with beyond winning the physical battle with the strikers and our centre backs are both good at that. As individual players they're fine but they are very immobile. If you want a side to play more attacking football, committing men forward, you can't do that with slow centre backs; they will get murdered. I don't expect them to repel everything. However, I also don't expect them to constantly be the ones at fault for bad goals either. The 2 goals we conceded at Halifax were typical for me - terrible panicked clearance by Parkes straight down the middle followed by failure to re-organised for the first and McChrystal switching off then getting outmuscled at the far post; too many goals like that. Parkes looks a good solid citizen until he has to think about anything and then he seems hesitant and makes poor decisions; he's also dragged out of position too easily and isn't mobile enough to cover for his own mistakes. MChrystal is like a very poor man's Andy Tilson; he is solid and does the sensible things but he just doesn't have the legs and he's far too easily turned around. Neither are any good when turned around or when exposed to midfield runners coming at them (and they don't cover in behind very well either). Alongside a more mobile defender (Lockyer can be that player and we've played quite a few games with him in the mix back there this year as well don't forget) I have no problem with either but everytime I've seen those 2 as a partnership they give me the willies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 17:01:11 GMT
i certainly belive that we havnt played a high line and pushed up from the back because we lack pace at the back and its too risky a tactic with our centre-backs,,, trouble is it makes it harder for the whole team to push forward and press opponents because of that and its part of the reason why our midfield dont always get into advanced positions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 17:22:02 GMT
Seriously? They were good enough in L2, and that was with no midfield protecting them whatsoever. Despite having a World Cup winning centre back, Arsenal get undone from corners and set plays, but so do every other team in the world, so why you expect a 4th/5th tier defensive duo to repel all-comers is a bit difficult to understand. I disagree completely Far too long a reply to bother reading, but I get the idea. Please put a pin in the calender on today's date. I have a more positive outlook on something to do with Rovers than another forum member! BTW. I can't see that horrible thread from last night about the England game,the one containing mild to moderate racial slurs, so thank you to admin for consigning it to the bin, where it belonged
|
|
|
Post by ismellgas on Apr 1, 2015 18:57:26 GMT
What racist slur was that??
|
|