Jordan Rhodes

[Earlsfieldowl]

12 minutes ago, ka58 said:

 

Well he’s not playing him in the system is he - he’s playing hooper and fletcher who are doing well.

 

what would he do - change the system and drop hooper? Fletcher?

 

abdi has been a waste of time - unfit since the day we got him.

 

i don’t disagree cc has is failings - but you can’t blame him solely for rhodes failings - rhodes has to take some.

 

and if rhodes is incapable of adapting - maybe he’s not the player people thought.

 

Re Hooper and Fletcher, I wouldn't drop either and CC has got this one right, no complaints.  

 

Rhodes has had game time here and struggled from day 1 but Strikers don't just turn to cr*p over night . Imo he should never have been signed in the first place - not needed. 

 

If CC didn't think he was the right fit he a) shouldn't have signed him (if he did) or b) made it very clear to those that did he wasn't needed and couldn't guarantee game time.

 

if Abdi wasn't fit why on earth was he signed?  Just poor decision making, inexcusable at this level. 

 

The way Rhodes has been used has done no one any favours at all.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Earlsfieldowl

[DobbinTheDonkey]

 

2 minutes ago, hugeowl said:

 

You must be naive to think no one has made a shed load of money of our recruitment policy . 

 

You really think, I don't think no-one has . I'll write in a simpler fashion.

 

Our transfer policy has been a complete shambles and I would like to say that someone has probably had the chairman's pants down but writing something like this could cause trouble for the site. You never know it has happened before so I shall write I hope no-one has and write naivety  on it's own in place of the owner possible not knowing what he is doing.

[gurujuan]

9 minutes ago, DobbinTheDonkey said:

Our transfer policy has been a complete shambles and I hope someone hasn't made a shed load of money on the back of naivety.

 

Sadly, look no further than this for the current upheaval Our recruitment has been a disaster, and I choose the word carefully Some will say, how can it be a disaster, we finished in the play offs

Well I'd wager that the team that got to the play off final, would have fared equally as well, without the millions lavished on a further 15 players That is when the recruitment started to go wrong, the last three windows have simply not improv d us Even if we wanted to cut our losses on some of those players, we'd struggle to get our money back Most of those players are at the stage where they won't improve, so we are likely to be stuck with them while they run down their contracts

[Wakefield owl]

18 minutes ago, Earlsfieldowl said:

 

Re Hooper and Fletcher, I wouldn't drop either and CC has got this one right, no complaints.  

 

Rhodes has had game time here and struggled from day 1 but Strikers don't just turn to cr*p over night . Imo he should never have been signed in the first place - not needed. 

 

If CC didn't think he was the right fit he a) shouldn't have signed him (if he did) or b) made it very clear to those that did he wasn't needed and couldn't guarantee game time.

 

if Abdi wasn't fit why on earth was he signed?  Just poor decision making, inexcusable at this level. 

 

The way Rhodes has been used has done no one any favours at all.

 

I think b) was the option but it was very much a last minute (panic?) signing and so opportunity to put point across was  not there

[matthefish2002]

Think not every transfer is going to come off, some for reasons even top managers cant explain just dont work out.

But even with that our recruitment has been woeful ever since the Thai takeover. 

Rhodes seemed to have been signed because he was a big name without any thought of how he would fit in to the team. What other business would spent that amount of money on a piece of equipment wothout thinking how it would fit in?

[DJMortimer]

Statistics of our current strikers whilst at the club...

 

Fernando Forestieri     68+12 appearances (27 goals)

Gary Hooper                53+15 (25)

Atdhe Nuhiu                88+79 (24)

Steven Fletcher           32+18 (14)

Lucas Joao                  29+13 (12)

Jordan Rhodes           17+9 (5)

Sam Winnall               12+6 (4)

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by DJMortimer

[gurujuan]

11 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

Statistics of our current strikers whilst at the club...

 

Fernando Forestieri     68+12 appearances (27 goals)

Gary Hooper                53+15 (25)

Atdhe Nuhiu                88+79 (24)

Steven Fletcher           32+18 (14)

Lucas Joao                  29+13 (12)

Jordan Rhodes           17+9 (5)

Sam Winnall               12+6 (4)

 

 

Thats interesting that Joao's scoring record is pretty much the same as Fletcher's When you think about what else each player offers, perhaps Joao should start

[Guest ka58]

55 minutes ago, Earlsfieldowl said:

 

Re Hooper and Fletcher, I wouldn't drop either and CC has got this one right, no complaints.  

 

Rhodes has had game time here and struggled from day 1 but Strikers don't just turn to cr*p over night . Imo he should never have been signed in the first place - not needed. 

 

If CC didn't think he was the right fit he a) shouldn't have signed him (if he did) or b) made it very clear to those that did he wasn't needed and couldn't guarantee game time.

 

if Abdi wasn't fit why on earth was he signed?  Just poor decision making, inexcusable at this level. 

 

The way Rhodes has been used has done no one any favours at all.

 

I agree with not needing rhodes.  

 

I think there was probably a list of strikers put forward that included winnall and we ended up with both. I don’t know but maybe a push from the owners thinking strikers would get us up.

 

abdi - im not sure - on paper he was a good signing - maybe he was fit but hasn’t been since he signed for us. It happens.

 

i don’t think the way rhodes has been used is an issue, other than the original point that he wasn’t needed (long term especially).

 

maybe the club thought with hooper injured he could do that job. 

 

He can’t - and now we’re left with an expensive outcast.

 

i still don’t think cc can be blamed entirely  - whatever involvement he had we ended up with a striker on our books who has a great record in the division. I just don’t think he can now start him, and when rhodes does  come on, he doesn’t do enough to warrant it.

 

cc is not just going to drop players and the system in the hope that Rhodes starts firing. Especially when hooper is doing it anyway.

[Guest ka58]

14 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

 

Thats interesting that Joao's scoring record is pretty much the same as Fletcher's When you think about what else each player offers, perhaps Joao should start

 

I was pleased for Joao on Sunday and whilst I’ve been critical of him in the past he did well to reappear in a game like yesterday and contribute.

 

i think he deserves a chance in the first team squad on the back of that but we shouldn’t change fletcher n hooper unless forced on us. They are an excellent partnership.

[gurujuan]

1 minute ago, ka58 said:

 

I was pleased for Joao on Sunday and whilst I’ve been critical of him in the past he did well to reappear in a game like yesterday and contribute.

 

i think he deserves a chance in the first team squad on the back of that but we shouldn’t change fletcher n hooper unless forced on us. They are an excellent partnership.

 

I think excellent is perhaps stretching it a bit Agree, they are the best proven pairing available Sometimes though, as on Sunday, Fletcher looks very ordinary

No pace, not particularly good at the link up stuff, and strangely enough, easily bossed in the air

[Dick_Turpin]

I used to look at Rhodes' record and wonder why a Premier League team didn't take a punt on him. I think we know why now. 

[Guest ka58]

3 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

 

I think excellent is perhaps stretching it a bit Agree, they are the best proven pairing available Sometimes though, as on Sunday, Fletcher looks very ordinary

No pace, not particularly good at the link up stuff, and strangely enough, easily bossed in the air

 

Okay - maybe. Certainly the best combination.

 

little but harsh on fletcher - agree about yesterday but there have been other games where he’s led the line very well. 

[Guest ka58]

4 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

I used to look at Rhodes' record and wonder why a Premier League team didn't take a punt on him. I think we know why now. 

 

I’m not on here to bash rhodes but there’s also a reason why fletcher keeps getting called up to the Scotland squad but rhodes doesn’t.

[gurujuan]

1 minute ago, ka58 said:

 

Okay - maybe. Certainly the best combination.

 

little but harsh on fletcher - agree about yesterday but there have been other games where he’s led the line very well. 

 

Yes there have been

[Lord Snooty]

Bizarre signing given the way we play.

 

Though I won't be attaching any blame for yesterdays diabolical shambles on him.

[Guest RocketOwl]

It's not Rhodes fault whatsoever but Carlos continually bringing him on for Fletcher and thinking if will change anytging is the frustrating thing. 

 

Would have been muxh better off bringing Nuhiu on in that game or have a different type of attaxker on like Mathias.

[Guest ka58]

8 minutes ago, RocketOwl said:

It's not Rhodes fault whatsoever but Carlos continually bringing him on for Fletcher and thinking if will change anytging is the frustrating thing. 

 

Would have been muxh better off bringing Nuhiu on in that game or have a different type of attaxker on like Mathias.

 

Dont disagree with that. 

 

But imagine if he’d brought nuhiu on instead of rhodes and he’d had the same impact.

 

they would have had is head on two sticks instead of one.

Edited September 25, 2017 by ka58

[mcmigo]

Rhodes looks absolutely shot. A real shame. I would take him out of the squad completely for a couple of months and just get his head right. 

 

[Holmowl]

9 hours ago, rickygoo said:

His record at the *** end of his Blackburn career was poor. He's been average at best for the best part of two years. 

 

Should be a SATs Literacy question for 10 year olds.

 

Fill in the *** to make word.

 

a.  Arris

b. Tale

c. Bell

 

Supposedly there was once a school literacy paper like this, where the kids had to fill in the blanks, using a real word. One of the questions was...

 

I am f***ing tired today

 

The answer was eel, but I suspect that wasnt the most popular answer. Personally if I was marking it I would give double marks for initiative and sense of humour.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Holmowl

[Dick_Turpin]

2 hours ago, Holmowl said:

 

Should be a SATs Literacy question for 10 year olds.

 

Fill in the *** to make word.

 

a.  Arris

b. Tale

c. Bell

 

Supposedly there was once a school literacy paper like this, where the kids had to fill in the blanks, using a real word. One of the questions was...

 

I am f***ing tired today

 

The answer was eel, but I suspect that wasnt the most popular answer. Personally if I was marking it I would give double marks for initiative and sense of humour.

The answer is F*A*G - which the swear filter was unhappy with! As in *** end

Edited September 26, 2017 by rickygoo