markwind
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 92
|
Post by markwind on Mar 2, 2015 5:51:02 GMT
It's a pretty good turnaround considering the last few years we have been terrible away from home! Gone straight from that into 6 months unbeaten. Long may it continue!
|
|
|
Post by brisgas123 on Mar 2, 2015 6:47:38 GMT
Away: W-7 D-9 L-3 - Still not very impressive though, is it?
|
|
|
Post by interceptor on Mar 2, 2015 7:48:40 GMT
I am with the 'positives'. 6 months unbeaten, two runs of 5 wins in a row, average crowds of 6,000 plus with very few away fans to bolster numbers. Fans that have stood shoulder to shoulder and who are the envy of majority of the clubs in the bottom few leagues. .We are in the conference so we have to play the teams there, absolutely no point in talking about where we were. I would take this position with real hope of promotion over the last couple of seasons pain. I believe this squad would perform well in the second division but we obviously need more firepower. That is quite encouraging as well.
|
|
Teigngas
Steve White
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 265
|
Post by Teigngas on Mar 2, 2015 7:50:19 GMT
Away: W-7 D-9 L-3 - Still not very impressive though, is it? Yes. Yes it is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 10:39:53 GMT
life on the ultra negative forum is hard,,,such miserable negative idiots on here makes me laugh Rah Rah
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Mar 2, 2015 12:19:31 GMT
I am with the 'positives'. 6 months unbeaten, two runs of 5 wins in a row, average crowds of 6,000 plus with very few away fans to bolster numbers. Fans that have stood shoulder to shoulder and who are the envy of majority of the clubs in the bottom few leagues. .We are in the conference so we have to play the teams there, absolutely no point in talking about where we were. I would take this position with real hope of promotion over the last couple of seasons pain. I believe this squad would perform well in the second division but we obviously need more firepower. That is quite encouraging as well. We have Jermaine Easter prowling the touchline don't forget, he should be making an appearance anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Mar 2, 2015 12:32:00 GMT
Not sure Lincoln & Grimsby are inferior to the likes of Accrington & Bury? The football pyramid suggests that they are. Bury are in a play off place in L2, Accrington Stanley are mid-table. Both Grimsby and Lincoln, although historically League clubs, are now established 5th tier clubs. I see so in your view every Conference side is "cannon fodder" for the mighty Rovers, surprised we are bothering to worry about the next 9 games then as it seems in your view all we need to do is turn up and we've won.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 12:38:48 GMT
life on the ultra negative forum is hard,,,such miserable negative idiots on here makes me laugh Hooray! Or is that Boo!? Confused.com well if the views are so negative even when your team are top of the league[the only league they can play in at the moment] then the only thing you can do is laugh
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 12:43:50 GMT
what you call 'cannon fodder' I call 'teams about as good as us that we would have lost to at the start of the season' The whole league is cannon fodder! look at league 1 and league 2 ,,easy to say all the teams are cannon fodder,,,,apart from a short period in the 1950"s bristol rovers have always been cannon fodder!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 13:34:44 GMT
The whole league is cannon fodder! look at league 1 and league 2 ,,easy to say all the teams are cannon fodder,,,,apart from a short period in the 1950"s bristol rovers have always been cannon fodder! Really? Looking at the L1 table, most of those teams are at their historical level, with the usual smattering of 'upstarts' like Fleetwood and of course one or two clubs, like Coventry, who have fallen on hard times. That's Rovers' historical level, not scraping 1-0 away wins against Gateshead. Those L1 clubs would be cannon fodder if they were facing Liverpool or Real Madrid, in the same way as village pub teams like Braintree should be for a club with the support base, income and resources that Rovers have. And you've forgotten our couple of years in the 2nd tier in the 1990s.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Mar 2, 2015 15:14:31 GMT
look at league 1 and league 2 ,,easy to say all the teams are cannon fodder,,,,apart from a short period in the 1950"s bristol rovers have always been cannon fodder! Really? Looking at the L1 table, most of those teams are at their historical level, with the usual smattering of 'upstarts' like Fleetwood and of course one or two clubs, like Coventry, who have fallen on hard times. That's Rovers' historical level, not scraping 1-0 away wins against Gateshead. Those L1 clubs would be cannon fodder if they were facing Liverpool or Real Madrid, in the same way as village pub teams like Braintree should be for a club with the support base, income and resources that Rovers have. And you've forgotten our couple of years in the 2nd tier in the 1990s. It seems to me the notion of a 'historical level' is a slightly dodgy one. I mean I agree that Rovers being lower than a 3rd tier team should always be considered unacceptable. But English football has always been pretty fluid and at least partly reflective of changes in the geography of power and wealth in England. If you look at the history of football you would probably say that London is the great underachiever given the size of the place but that is beginning to change. The North West was the cradle of the game in England but from 1950s onwards Burnley, Blackburn, Blackpool, Preston etc went into a pretty massive decline only partly offset by the odd sugar daddy and it's only the big old City clubs that maintain their status now while the ones on the real periphery like Oldham, Stockport, Tranmere etc are struggling to survive. Is 'historic level' a good way of thinking about those clubs? The same goes for the West Midlands and what on earth has happened to Yorkshire clubs? Would you say the natural level of Sheffield Wednesday is Premier League these days? Wednesday fans probably think it still is. Reading was always a tiny lower league club - but the place has expanded massively in the last 25 years and the football club's status has risen accordingly. Peterborough maybe in the long process of doing something similar. The Welsh clubs have been pretty crap for most of their history yet Swansea seem an establish Premier League club now and Cardiff could conceivably join them. How on earth do you account for a club like Stoke in that kind of narrative? Founder members of the football league, club of Stanley Matthews etc, Became a mid-ranking kind of club for most of the 20th Century then seem to go into terminal decline before re-emerging apparently as an established Premier League side. What does that make their 'historical level'? In truth I think the English football system is actually extremely fluid; the reality for most teams is a rollercoaster not stability. Rovers years of wheelspinning 3rd tier mediocrity made us unusual I think. I mean I can remember Oxford United in the top division and winning cups and then out of the league, Cambridge United on the verge of the Prem then out the league; Stockport as a good second tier team now a regional club, Tranmere and Grimsby as perenial Premiership promotion challengers now stuck in the doldrums etc. I think the more important question might be why Rovers haven't risen as the city of Bristol has? Why are Rovers perpetually in the doldrums? It's a bit odd to have a 'historical level' of 3rd tier after all because 1/3rd of that league changes every season.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 17:47:17 GMT
look at league 1 and league 2 ,,easy to say all the teams are cannon fodder,,,,apart from a short period in the 1950"s bristol rovers have always been cannon fodder! Really? Looking at the L1 table, most of those teams are at their historical level, with the usual smattering of 'upstarts' like Fleetwood and of course one or two clubs, like Coventry, who have fallen on hard times. That's Rovers' historical level, not scraping 1-0 away wins against Gateshead. Those L1 clubs would be cannon fodder if they were facing Liverpool or Real Madrid, in the same way as village pub teams like Braintree should be for a club with the support base, income and resources that Rovers have. And you've forgotten our couple of years in the 2nd tier in the 1990s. the promotion teams of 73-74 and 89-90 struggled almost straight away at the higher level thats why i didnt mention them,,,remember wimbledon and wigan went all the way to the top from non league so historical level isnt that relevant the club have failed badly without a doubt but at least we have a team busting a gut to get back in the league thats something to be encouraged about surely? without outside investment or a new ground maybe the futures not so good but ive enjoyed the football this season
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 18:23:06 GMT
Really? Looking at the L1 table, most of those teams are at their historical level, with the usual smattering of 'upstarts' like Fleetwood and of course one or two clubs, like Coventry, who have fallen on hard times. That's Rovers' historical level, not scraping 1-0 away wins against Gateshead. Those L1 clubs would be cannon fodder if they were facing Liverpool or Real Madrid, in the same way as village pub teams like Braintree should be for a club with the support base, income and resources that Rovers have. And you've forgotten our couple of years in the 2nd tier in the 1990s. the promotion teams of 73-74 and 89-90 struggled almost straight away at the higher level that's why I didnt mention them,,,remember wimbledon and wigan went all the way to the top from non league so historical level isnt that relevant the club have failed badly without a doubt but at least we have a team busting a gut to get back in the league thats something to be encouraged about surely? without outside investment or a new ground maybe the futures not so good but ive enjoyed the football this season The ''football'' this season has been dire. Hoof and hope, lots of blokes clattering in to each other, officials (and maybe a League) who have their own rules. Almost total inability to do what we were told to do at school, pass and move. Why would we need outside investment to compete with Accrington Stanley or non-entity clubs like Newport? The income available to Rovers' board would be very respectable for L1. If we are promoted at the end of the year then a quick pat on the back for those involved and start planning for next season, no cause for wild celebrations. Rovers are a Middleweight club fighting in a Bantamweight division. Don't want to sound like a stuck record, but a new stadium in itself won't change anything.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 18:48:40 GMT
Really? Looking at the L1 table, most of those teams are at their historical level, with the usual smattering of 'upstarts' like Fleetwood and of course one or two clubs, like Coventry, who have fallen on hard times. That's Rovers' historical level, not scraping 1-0 away wins against Gateshead. Those L1 clubs would be cannon fodder if they were facing Liverpool or Real Madrid, in the same way as village pub teams like Braintree should be for a club with the support base, income and resources that Rovers have. And you've forgotten our couple of years in the 2nd tier in the 1990s. It seems to me the notion of a 'historical level' is a slightly dodgy one. I mean I agree that Rovers being lower than a 3rd tier team should always be considered unacceptable. But English football has always been pretty fluid and at least partly reflective of changes in the geography of power and wealth in England. If you look at the history of football you would probably say that London is the great underachiever given the size of the place but that is beginning to change. The North West was the cradle of the game in England but from 1950s onwards Burnley, Blackburn, Blackpool, Preston etc went into a pretty massive decline only partly offset by the odd sugar daddy and it's only the big old City clubs that maintain their status now while the ones on the real periphery like Oldham, Stockport, Tranmere etc are struggling to survive. Is 'historic level' a good way of thinking about those clubs? The same goes for the West Midlands and what on earth has happened to Yorkshire clubs? Would you say the natural level of Sheffield Wednesday is Premier League these days? Wednesday fans probably think it still is. Reading was always a tiny lower league club - but the place has expanded massively in the last 25 years and the football club's status has risen accordingly. Peterborough maybe in the long process of doing something similar. The Welsh clubs have been pretty crap for most of their history yet Swansea seem an establish Premier League club now and Cardiff could conceivably join them. How on earth do you account for a club like Stoke in that kind of narrative? Founder members of the football league, club of Stanley Matthews etc, Became a mid-ranking kind of club for most of the 20th Century then seem to go into terminal decline before re-emerging apparently as an established Premier League side. What does that make their 'historical level'? In truth I think the English football system is actually extremely fluid; the reality for most teams is a rollercoaster not stability. Rovers years of wheelspinning 3rd tier mediocrity made us unusual I think. I mean I can remember Oxford United in the top division and winning cups and then out of the league, Cambridge United on the verge of the Prem then out the league; Stockport as a good second tier team now a regional club, Tranmere and Grimsby as perenial Premiership promotion challengers now stuck in the doldrums etc. I think the more important question might be why Rovers haven't risen as the city of Bristol has? Why are Rovers perpetually in the doldrums? It's a bit odd to have a 'historical level' of 3rd tier after all because 1/3rd of that league changes every season. I think that everybody understands the massive gap between PL income and that of Championship clubs, hence, Stoke, with good management, are able to survive. Their match-day income will be dwarfed by the TV money they will be getting. Clubs like Blackpool face a huge challenge when they get promoted, do they put in place infrastructure to sustain top flight football, or do they just take the money for one year (and then the parachute payments) and accept the relegation? Of course, it's possible to destroy a club even with that income, just ask Blackburn fans, but what's happened there is no more or less remarkable than Rovers not being able to compete with Newport, Northampton or York.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 19:18:00 GMT
the promotion teams of 73-74 and 89-90 struggled almost straight away at the higher level that's why I didnt mention them,,,remember wimbledon and wigan went all the way to the top from non league so historical level isnt that relevant the club have failed badly without a doubt but at least we have a team busting a gut to get back in the league thats something to be encouraged about surely? without outside investment or a new ground maybe the futures not so good but ive enjoyed the football this season The ''football'' this season has been dire. Hoof and hope, lots of blokes clattering in to each other, officials (and maybe a League) who have their own rules. Almost total inability to do what we were told to do at school, pass and move. Why would we need outside investment to compete with Accrington Stanley or non-entity clubs like Newport? The income available to Rovers' board would be very respectable for L1. If we are promoted at the end of the year then a quick pat on the back for those involved and start planning for next season, no cause for wild celebrations. Rovers are a Middleweight club fighting in a Bantamweight division. Don't want to sound like a stuck record, but a new stadium in itself won't change anything. theres a brutal honesty about the conference and league 2 which i like,,,its percentage football without any prima donnas so although i dream of us being in league one i can still enjoy the product on offer,,,there are also plenty of talented players despite the level,some on the way up others down,,im also delighted at the way the players have given everything for the cause this season,,so for me at least its not all bad
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 2, 2015 19:30:25 GMT
The ''football'' this season has been dire. Hoof and hope, lots of blokes clattering in to each other, officials (and maybe a League) who have their own rules. Almost total inability to do what we were told to do at school, pass and move. Why would we need outside investment to compete with Accrington Stanley or non-entity clubs like Newport? The income available to Rovers' board would be very respectable for L1. If we are promoted at the end of the year then a quick pat on the back for those involved and start planning for next season, no cause for wild celebrations. Rovers are a Middleweight club fighting in a Bantamweight division. Don't want to sound like a stuck record, but a new stadium in itself won't change anything. theres a brutal honesty about the conference and league 2 which i like,,,its percentage football without any prima donnas so although i dream of us being in league one i can still enjoy the product on offer,,,there are also plenty of talented players despite the level,some on the way up others down,,im also delighted at the way the players have given everything for the cause this season,,so for me at least its not all bad This is the great Rovers paradox 1973 which you share with the vast majority of fans. "although I dream of us being in league one" How does this square with a 22000 capacity stadium which may be expanded to 35000 seats ? I am afraid that if you dream instead of yearn then you don't want something badly enough. And if you don't want something badly enough you are unlikely to ever achieve it.
|
|
|
Post by gasalight on Mar 2, 2015 19:31:24 GMT
Even when we don't play well we still win which means this league is quite easy. We have just won 5 and we will win the next 5, I garuantee it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 22:59:22 GMT
Even when we don't play well we still win which means this league is quite easy. We have just won 5 and we will win the next 5, I garuantee it. every game ive watched this season has been like a bloody war so how does that make it easy? city were crap saturday im told but won is league 1 easy? if we win the next 5 it will be a hell of an achievement!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 23:05:12 GMT
theres a brutal honesty about the conference and league 2 which i like,,,its percentage football without any prima donnas so although i dream of us being in league one i can still enjoy the product on offer,,,there are also plenty of talented players despite the level,some on the way up others down,,im also delighted at the way the players have given everything for the cause this season,,so for me at least its not all bad This is the great Rovers paradox 1973 which you share with the vast majority of fans. "although I dream of us being in league one" How does this square with a 22000 capacity stadium which may be expanded to 35000 seats ? I am afraid that if you dream instead of yearn then you don't want something badly enough. And if you don't want something badly enough you are unlikely to ever achieve it. i suppose swissgas that when you build a new stadium it has to be based on your ultimate dream but at the moment i can only visualise a more modest dream..league 2 for starters!
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Mar 3, 2015 1:49:30 GMT
It seems to me the notion of a 'historical level' is a slightly dodgy one. I mean I agree that Rovers being lower than a 3rd tier team should always be considered unacceptable. But English football has always been pretty fluid and at least partly reflective of changes in the geography of power and wealth in England. If you look at the history of football you would probably say that London is the great underachiever given the size of the place but that is beginning to change. The North West was the cradle of the game in England but from 1950s onwards Burnley, Blackburn, Blackpool, Preston etc went into a pretty massive decline only partly offset by the odd sugar daddy and it's only the big old City clubs that maintain their status now while the ones on the real periphery like Oldham, Stockport, Tranmere etc are struggling to survive. Is 'historic level' a good way of thinking about those clubs? The same goes for the West Midlands and what on earth has happened to Yorkshire clubs? Would you say the natural level of Sheffield Wednesday is Premier League these days? Wednesday fans probably think it still is. Reading was always a tiny lower league club - but the place has expanded massively in the last 25 years and the football club's status has risen accordingly. Peterborough maybe in the long process of doing something similar. The Welsh clubs have been pretty crap for most of their history yet Swansea seem an establish Premier League club now and Cardiff could conceivably join them. How on earth do you account for a club like Stoke in that kind of narrative? Founder members of the football league, club of Stanley Matthews etc, Became a mid-ranking kind of club for most of the 20th Century then seem to go into terminal decline before re-emerging apparently as an established Premier League side. What does that make their 'historical level'? In truth I think the English football system is actually extremely fluid; the reality for most teams is a rollercoaster not stability. Rovers years of wheelspinning 3rd tier mediocrity made us unusual I think. I mean I can remember Oxford United in the top division and winning cups and then out of the league, Cambridge United on the verge of the Prem then out the league; Stockport as a good second tier team now a regional club, Tranmere and Grimsby as perenial Premiership promotion challengers now stuck in the doldrums etc. I think the more important question might be why Rovers haven't risen as the city of Bristol has? Why are Rovers perpetually in the doldrums? It's a bit odd to have a 'historical level' of 3rd tier after all because 1/3rd of that league changes every season. I think that everybody understands the massive gap between PL income and that of Championship clubs, hence, Stoke, with good management, are able to survive. Their match-day income will be dwarfed by the TV money they will be getting. Clubs like Blackpool face a huge challenge when they get promoted, do they put in place infrastructure to sustain top flight football, or do they just take the money for one year (and then the parachute payments) and accept the relegation? Of course, it's possible to destroy a club even with that income, just ask Blackburn fans, but what's happened there is no more or less remarkable than Rovers not being able to compete with Newport, Northampton or York. That's true and I think the Premier League has probably reduced that fluidity quite a lot certainly in terms of the potential to reach the top. There's not going to be a new version of Blackburn. But even then with all the relative odds against them Wigan, Fulham, Stoke, Bolton ,Burnley have all emerged or re-emerged in the PL era from the real depths of the league (and while none of them were poor they didn't all do it entirely off the back of mega rich sugar daddies). When I started watching all of those clubs were considered bottom feeders and unlikely to be much more than that (maybe with the exception of Stoke to be fair). But I'm really more interested in how Rovers fan perceive our status as a club. I remember in the early 90s hearing Danny Baker claim that Rovers and Plymouth were the 2 most boring sides in the football league because they'd never been in top or the bottom division. I kind of think our relative 3rd tier consistency is a)a bit unusual and b)not quite all it seems. It's a bit unusual because we have been remarkably consistent in our mediocrity and even though it was easier before playoffs etc came along and expanded the potential and incentives for clubs to go up it's still surprising. The only modern equivalent I can think of is Oldham who have lasted nearly 20 years in League 1 which is incredible given that 7 out of 24 teams go into the next year in a different league. Just on law of averages you'd think they would have a particularly exceptional or a particularly crap season in that time but it just hasn't happened. I know people talk about Rochdale's run in League 2 but in truth you'd have thought that's to do with being flat out crap really and getting away with it because there weren't fresh teams coming into the league for most of the time putting pressure on them. But the Oldham thing really stands out. The stability isn't quite what it seems because of the number of years we were in Division 3 South. Were we a good team in that league or a bad one? I think in a fair few of those years we were quite bad which wouldn't make us quite the stable 3rd tier team we like to think of ourselves as. Thinking like you seem to about Rovers I'm surprised you don't find the 'natural level' argument something of a crutch which the club has used over the years to excuse mediocrity. We play in a big City after all.
|
|