The enigma that is Jordan Rhodes

[Emilianenko]

2 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

Remember all of the self-proclaimed experts telling us three years ago how Rhodes "guarantees goals"TM which was fine because after all, "that's what a striker is paid to do"TM and all those other things that forwards did were boring and meaningless? Well look where we are now. Earnest pseudo analysis about the average position of the opponent's defensive players, how well he can hold the ball up and how much he is responsible for the 0.1 points per game difference of whether he plays or not.

 

 

 

Nobody actually said that really though did they?

[Bouncing Owl]

I don’t rate the lad at all never really have. Just a limited footballer.

 

But, I’d start him again with wickham at the weekend. I’d rather see da Cruz and nuhiu off the bench.

 

Personally, if borner is fit, I’d go with the same starting 11 for the Forest and Bristol city game. 

[DJMortimer]

Just now, Emilianenko said:

Nobody actually said that really though did they?

 

Over and over again; hence how it became a bit of a 'thing' that registered with me and why I mock it so often.

 

[Lord Snooty]

Don't think we should have ever signed him. He was never going to fit into the way that we were playing at the time. Trying to keep things tight and nick a goal. 

 

In fact there's was an is an argument that the sort of player he is are extinct in the modern game which has adapted anyway. 

 

However, he's on the books , we don't have any takers and we don't have many other options. 

 

If we're to get anything out of him it has to be in a 2 man front line with a bustling battler next to him. As he had in Novak at Huddersfield , Gestede at Blackburn and as glimpses were seen when partnered with Fletcher.

 

We have to hope that Wickham might make a decent foil. 

We don't have much choice until we can offload. But at least we're set up now in a way that does at least suit him.

 

I doubt he'll be prolific again. But at least we appear to be trying to find a way of playing and setting up that suits many of the players and their strengths.  If he doesn't start bagging how we're currently set up then he never will.

 

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

Rhodes is done at this level.

[gurujuan]

12 hours ago, Lord Snooty said:

Don't think we should have ever signed him. He was never going to fit into the way that we were playing at the time. Trying to keep things tight and nick a goal. 

 

In fact there's was an is an argument that the sort of player he is are extinct in the modern game which has adapted anyway. 

 

However, he's on the books , we don't have any takers and we don't have many other options. 

 

If we're to get anything out of him it has to be in a 2 man front line with a bustling battler next to him. As he had in Novak at Huddersfield , Gestede at Blackburn and as glimpses were seen when partnered with Fletcher.

 

We have to hope that Wickham might make a decent foil. 

We don't have much choice until we can offload. But at least we're set up now in a way that does at least suit him.

 

I doubt he'll be prolific again. But at least we appear to be trying to find a way of playing and setting up that suits many of the players and their strengths.  If he doesn't start bagging how we're currently set up then he never will.

 

It may well be the case, yes, but a strike force of him and Wickham is too ponderous. Yes previously he’s found success with that type of partner, but rather like the poacher, those sort of pairings are a bit old hat now, and are relatively easy to defend against at this level. A more mobile target man might suit, and provide a better foil. Someone who doesn’t need to be rapid, but is who is quick enough to create the spaces for Rhodes to exploit. Better still though, a completely new strike force, both with attributes that suit the modern game

Edited July 4, 2020 by gurujuan

[pazowl55]

7 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

It may well be the case, yes, but a strike force of him and Wickham is too ponderous. Yes previously he’s found success with that type of partner, but rather like the poacher, those sort of pairings are a bit old hat now, and are relatively easy to defend against at this level. A more mobile target man might suit, and provide a better foil. Someone who doesn’t need to be rapid, but is who is quick enough to create the spaces for Rhodes to exploit. Better still though, a completely new strike force, both with attributes that suit the modern game

So you would prefer we didnt try to re sign Wickham then? 

[gurujuan]

1 hour ago, pazowl55 said:

So you would prefer we didnt try to re sign Wickham then? 

Mixed feelings mate. I’m sure he could be fitter still, and we then might see a bit more, and he’s a lot of money. The key for me though is Rhodes. If we stick with him, then I don’t want his partner to be just as slow, but if we did sign Wickham, then I’d want someone quicker to play alongside. 
These days, you can’t have a pairing completely devoid of pace

[Guest Grez Bez]

2 hours ago, gurujuan said:

It may well be the case, yes, but a strike force of him and Wickham is too ponderous. Yes previously he’s found success with that type of partner, but rather like the poacher, those sort of pairings are a bit old hat now, and are relatively easy to defend against at this level. A more mobile target man might suit, and provide a better foil. Someone who doesn’t need to be rapid, but is who is quick enough to create the spaces for Rhodes to exploit. Better still though, a completely new strike force, both with attributes that suit the modern game

 

Are they? It seems that this is posted on OT a lot without ant kind of evidence.

 

Id say a pacey centre forward is a dying breed. They are used as target men go play on pacey wingers, similar to what Monk is trying to do with us.

[gurujuan]

17 minutes ago, Grez Bez said:

 

Are they? It seems that this is posted on OT a lot without ant kind of evidence.

 

Id say a pacey centre forward is a dying breed. They are used as target men go play on pacey wingers, similar to what Monk is trying to do with us.

Well yes, but more wide attackers instead of wingers, but those are strikers in their own rights, think Mane and Salah It’s the pair of static strikers that I’m not keen on

[Holmowl]

19 hours ago, Carbone said:

 

We don't, it's like playing with ten men when Rhodes plays.

Go back and watch the first half from Wednesday evening. That’s just not true. He was involved in pretty much everything we did well that half.

[83owl]

2 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

So you would prefer we didnt try to re sign Wickham then? 

60k a week, had a major knee injury, played about 15 games over the last 5 years, too old to improve therefore unlikely to ever sell him for a decent fee are all good reasons not to sign him.

 

Hes scored two goals from corners and come back from lockdown in decent shape (as expected for a professional footballer) and is now seen as some kind of must buy player on Owlstalk.

[Holmowl]

Interesting to go back to late 2016/early 2017.

 

Type in Rhodes in title block during that timeframe. Opinion was more divided than I recall.

[Lord Snooty]

3 hours ago, gurujuan said:

It may well be the case, yes, but a strike force of him and Wickham is too ponderous. Yes previously he’s found success with that type of partner, but rather like the poacher, those sort of pairings are a bit old hat now, and are relatively easy to defend against at this level. A more mobile target man might suit, and provide a better foil. Someone who doesn’t need to be rapid, but is who is quick enough to create the spaces for Rhodes to exploit. Better still though, a completely new strike force, both with attributes that suit the modern game

 

Undoubtedly so.

But that's my point.

 

We haven't got any other options at present so the manager is trying to find a way of playing to get the best out of what we do have available..

[Morepork]

Just spotted an error in the thread title......should read ENEMA. 

[Holmowl]

9 minutes ago, Morepork said:

Just spotted an error in the thread title......should read ENEMA. 

Stick it where the sun don’t shine.

[IstillhateSteveBould]

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

 
These days, you can’t have a pairing completely devoid of pace

You can’t really say that when the pigs were promoted with Sharp/mcgoldick and Norwich with Pukki

Edited July 4, 2020 by IstillhateSteveBould

[oldishowl]

1 hour ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

You can’t really say that when the pigs were promoted with Sharp/mcgoldick and Norwich with Pukki

Yep

It’s all about the style of the team.

 

If you play like Brentford then you need a pacy striker.
 

Pigs overload the flanks and generally rely on crosses into the box so pace not as important 

Pukki is all about his movement but he is quick over a few yards but mainly Norwich get their pace down the flanks.

 

The absolute must for Rhodes is he needs to play in an attacking team and not a counterattacking one because of his lack of pace.

 

 

[big john]

I think Rhodes is our best player

 

[DJMortimer]

2 hours ago, Holmowl said:

Interesting to go back to late 2016/early 2017.

 

Type in Rhodes in title block during that timeframe. Opinion was more divided than I recall.

 

I had a look through a 322 page megathread (not all of it obviously) because I was curious about the claim that no one was opposed to this signing when it was made, and you're right. Plenty expressed reservations and for several different reasons. Some couldn't understand why we needed any forward considering how many we already had, some thought he was a limited player, some didn't think he would fit in our style of play, some said the cost was too high and some thought the money would be better spent on other areas of the team. There was plenty of excitement too though to be fair.