1308 days

[deaks1984]

Since someone shouted "PROGRAMMES THREE QUID!!!" so loud that you can still hear the echo now.

[shandypants]

10 hours ago, Dizzys Dad said:

Since we signed the player everyone on here was gagging for. 

Pity DC didn’t have the hindsight, that all posters on here have acquired.

Could have saved himself the best part of £15m.

I wasn’t and there’s the post on here somewhere to prove it. 

I worked with a Blackburn fan and a Middlesbrough fan when we were in for Rhodes - both of them said he had lost his way and that he contributed the square root of fvvck all when he wasn’t scoring. The Middlesbrough fan was praying for us to take him and was doing backflips when we did. 

[Ronio]

I remember at the time when we signed Rhodes, we already had 5 strikers at the club.  Then the January window came and we decided we needed a 6th and 7th striker in Winnall.  

 

The reality was that we didn't need them at the time, it's part of the reason why neither player really hit the heights at their previous clubs.  

 

We never played a system that really suited either player, and then we wonder why they didn't become successful.  

 

I always thought with Winnall, he was a proper goalscorer, but if you don't supply them with decent crosses and balls into the box like Hourihane used to do on a regular basis, then don't expect them to score.  

 

If you look at the stats for Rhodes, his goals started dropping when he was no longer the key player for the team, as he was at Blackburn and Huddersfield.  

 

At Middlesboro, he was in and out of the team, hence the drop in goals, plus he was no longer the main key striker.  You see when Rhodes was a key player, playing week in week out, I'm sure he was the focal point of the managers tactics and strategies, players were instructed to play a certain way that created nice chances for Rhodes to put away which he did on a regular basis.  

 

Now onto Winnall.  Before we bought him, he was a key player for Barnsley, playing week in week out, players like Hourihane knew and were instructed to create specific chances for him which he did, worked a treat.  

 

Then we come along, sign both of them when we were already overloaded with strikers, and then you can see why they didn't score as they were used sporadically in a system that didn't really play to the strengths of either player.  

 

Now coming back to Rhodes, I still believe he is more than a capable goal scorer.  That hattrick he scored against Forest was as good a hattrick as you will see, left foot, header and and overhead kick with the right.  He scored each goal with such ease.  I remember thinking to myself at the time, we should have adjusted our strategy after the game and use Rhodes as the primary focus in the next game.  Nothing happened, and then voila, no more goals.  

 

So to summarise, if we want to get the best out of Rhodes,

 

one he needs to be one of the main strikers.

 

two he needs to play week in week out

 

three tactics and formations should be adjusted accordingly, as in to create chances for the main strikers

 

four our creative players like Bazza, Reach and Brown need to play in sync with the main striker.  They need to know where to put the balls.  No use lumping the ball forward at his head then expecting him to do something.  It's one of those things that annoy me a bit and something we used to do all the time with our other strikers (Wickham, Da Cruz and Windass).  Monk moved the forwards around so much, how do you expect the creative players to then know what type of ball they want in depending on where they were on the pitch. 

 

five player partnerships. To further add to this point, something we did very well in CC's first season, on the pitch partnerships, this part is crucial.  Players who played alongside each other who were in sync with other players.   For example, back to CC's first season, Loovens and Lees, Hutchinson and Lee, Reach and Bazza linked up very well on the left, they knew each others game, where they would be, what kind of pass they wanted, as well as being able to read the other player.   When players know each others game, it gives them an advantage over opposition players.  This is something that has been lacking across all positions on the pitch.  

 

Sort those out and Rhodes will be scoring in no time.   

 

 

 

[Mr Farrell]

The correct answer is 1,308 days the first D Taxi customer has been waiting for his car to arrive.

[steelcityowlsfan]

Since the old ski village was not on fire?

[royalowlisback]

How long it takes to get the taste of sprouts out of your mouth?

[Morepork]

18 hours ago, Watto said:

 

Since we spunked around £8 Mill on someone that is disguised as a professional footballer.

Is there a single bloke on here that has not ejaculated and instantly felt this level of regret......... Glass houses and all that. 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Morepork

[royalowlisback]

3 minutes ago, Morepork said:

Is there a single bloke on here that has not ejaculated and instantly felt this level of regret......... Glass houses and all that. 

Never done it a glass house, too exposed and somebody might throw a brick.

[Watto]

6 hours ago, Ronio said:

I remember at the time when we signed Rhodes, we already had 5 strikers at the club.  Then the January window came and we decided we needed a 6th and 7th striker in Winnall.  

 

The reality was that we didn't need them at the time, it's part of the reason why neither player really hit the heights at their previous clubs.  

 

We never played a system that really suited either player, and then we wonder why they didn't become successful.  

 

I always thought with Winnall, he was a proper goalscorer, but if you don't supply them with decent crosses and balls into the box like Hourihane used to do on a regular basis, then don't expect them to score.  

 

If you look at the stats for Rhodes, his goals started dropping when he was no longer the key player for the team, as he was at Blackburn and Huddersfield.  

 

At Middlesboro, he was in and out of the team, hence the drop in goals, plus he was no longer the main key striker.  You see when Rhodes was a key player, playing week in week out, I'm sure he was the focal point of the managers tactics and strategies, players were instructed to play a certain way that created nice chances for Rhodes to put away which he did on a regular basis.  

 

Now onto Winnall.  Before we bought him, he was a key player for Barnsley, playing week in week out, players like Hourihane knew and were instructed to create specific chances for him which he did, worked a treat.  

 

Then we come along, sign both of them when we were already overloaded with strikers, and then you can see why they didn't score as they were used sporadically in a system that didn't really play to the strengths of either player.  

 

Now coming back to Rhodes, I still believe he is more than a capable goal scorer.  That hattrick he scored against Forest was as good a hattrick as you will see, left foot, header and and overhead kick with the right.  He scored each goal with such ease.  I remember thinking to myself at the time, we should have adjusted our strategy after the game and use Rhodes as the primary focus in the next game.  Nothing happened, and then voila, no more goals.  

 

So to summarise, if we want to get the best out of Rhodes,

 

one he needs to be one of the main strikers.

 

two he needs to play week in week out

 

three tactics and formations should be adjusted accordingly, as in to create chances for the main strikers

 

four our creative players like Bazza, Reach and Brown need to play in sync with the main striker.  They need to know where to put the balls.  No use lumping the ball forward at his head then expecting him to do something.  It's one of those things that annoy me a bit and something we used to do all the time with our other strikers (Wickham, Da Cruz and Windass).  Monk moved the forwards around so much, how do you expect the creative players to then know what type of ball they want in depending on where they were on the pitch. 

 

five player partnerships. To further add to this point, something we did very well in CC's first season, on the pitch partnerships, this part is crucial.  Players who played alongside each other who were in sync with other players.   For example, back to CC's first season, Loovens and Lees, Hutchinson and Lee, Reach and Bazza linked up very well on the left, they knew each others game, where they would be, what kind of pass they wanted, as well as being able to read the other player.   When players know each others game, it gives them an advantage over opposition players.  This is something that has been lacking across all positions on the pitch.  

 

Sort those out and Rhodes will be scoring in no time.   

 

 

 

 

Rhodes is done, sadly we have to put up with him because there is no other striker currently at the club.

[DJMortimer]

10 hours ago, Ronio said:

I remember at the time when we signed Rhodes, we already had 5 strikers at the club.  Then the January window came and we decided we needed a 6th and 7th striker in Winnall.  

 

The reality was that we didn't need them at the time, it's part of the reason why neither player really hit the heights at their previous clubs.  

 

We never played a system that really suited either player, and then we wonder why they didn't become successful.  

 

I always thought with Winnall, he was a proper goalscorer, but if you don't supply them with decent crosses and balls into the box like Hourihane used to do on a regular basis, then don't expect them to score.  

 

If you look at the stats for Rhodes, his goals started dropping when he was no longer the key player for the team, as he was at Blackburn and Huddersfield.  

 

At Middlesboro, he was in and out of the team, hence the drop in goals, plus he was no longer the main key striker.  You see when Rhodes was a key player, playing week in week out, I'm sure he was the focal point of the managers tactics and strategies, players were instructed to play a certain way that created nice chances for Rhodes to put away which he did on a regular basis.  

 

Now onto Winnall.  Before we bought him, he was a key player for Barnsley, playing week in week out, players like Hourihane knew and were instructed to create specific chances for him which he did, worked a treat.  

 

Then we come along, sign both of them when we were already overloaded with strikers, and then you can see why they didn't score as they were used sporadically in a system that didn't really play to the strengths of either player.  

 

Now coming back to Rhodes, I still believe he is more than a capable goal scorer.  That hattrick he scored against Forest was as good a hattrick as you will see, left foot, header and and overhead kick with the right.  He scored each goal with such ease.  I remember thinking to myself at the time, we should have adjusted our strategy after the game and use Rhodes as the primary focus in the next game.  Nothing happened, and then voila, no more goals.  

 

So to summarise, if we want to get the best out of Rhodes,

 

one he needs to be one of the main strikers.

 

two he needs to play week in week out

 

three tactics and formations should be adjusted accordingly, as in to create chances for the main strikers

 

four our creative players like Bazza, Reach and Brown need to play in sync with the main striker.  They need to know where to put the balls.  No use lumping the ball forward at his head then expecting him to do something.  It's one of those things that annoy me a bit and something we used to do all the time with our other strikers (Wickham, Da Cruz and Windass).  Monk moved the forwards around so much, how do you expect the creative players to then know what type of ball they want in depending on where they were on the pitch. 

 

five player partnerships. To further add to this point, something we did very well in CC's first season, on the pitch partnerships, this part is crucial.  Players who played alongside each other who were in sync with other players.   For example, back to CC's first season, Loovens and Lees, Hutchinson and Lee, Reach and Bazza linked up very well on the left, they knew each others game, where they would be, what kind of pass they wanted, as well as being able to read the other player.   When players know each others game, it gives them an advantage over opposition players.  This is something that has been lacking across all positions on the pitch.  

 

Sort those out and Rhodes will be scoring in no time.   

 

 

 

 

That's about as one-sided a post as I've ever read on here with every negative excused or mitigated and positives presumed in their best light as if that makes them true.

 

All the signs are that Rhodes, for whatever reason, has been consistently ineffective for five years now. That's 4 different teams, something like 9 managers, countless team mates and who knows how many tactical approaches. Time after time he has been relegated behind other players in his position. When resources have been stretched, he's stayed on the bench. Especially at Hillsborough, numerous players have taken this same service and scored considerably more frequently. Even the much ridiculed Atdhe Nuhiu outdid his entire Wednesday output in just 4 months. Despite the well known financial desperation and willingness to play just about anybody else in his place, there has been almost no interest in taking him from us. We are way, way beyond simple explanations or mere coincidences.

 

You cite the need to start games consistently, yet even before he left Blackburn the production was drying up. He ended there with 17+1 appearances and 4 goals; one of those against a lower league team in the FA Cup. When he first came to us he started something like 16 of the first 20 games and he responded with a paltry 3 strikes. Aside from his spell at free-scoring Norwich, this has been a persistent, long term malaise. Usually, I find rating forwards by goals in isolation the sort of thing that teenagers should be growing out of as like defending, attacking is a collective effort. But even Rhodes' most enthusiastic supporters acknowledge he offers little other than finishing.

 

And despite all of this, one remarkable half of football in Nottingham is allowed to override the rest of this large body of evidence in a way I don't understand as if Halley's Comet's appearances every 76 years make it a regular visitor. Admittedly, two of those goals were very good, but it should also be acknowledged that one was about as straightforward as it's possible to be with the keeper still conscious.

 

Hope is not totally lost yet, but he is a liability until he consistently proves otherwise. 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by DJMortimer

[cowl]

10 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

Hope is not totally lost yet, but he is a liability until he consistently proves otherwise. 

 

That's the long and short of it with Rhodes.

 

His purchase has come to represent a very specific type of dual-failure for us over these last 3.5 years. Both on the pitch but also financially has it been a failure - and yet here we are pretty much forced to pin hopes on a player that at most other clubs would've been jettisoned long ago.

 

There seems to be something deeply perverse about having to talk up his chances of ‘coming good’, but what else can we do?

[Ronio]

46 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

That's about as one-sided a post as I've ever read on here with every negative excused or mitigated and positives presumed in their best light as if that makes them true.

 

All the signs are that Rhodes, for whatever reason, has been consistently ineffective for five years now. That's 4 different teams, something like 9 managers, countless team mates and who knows how many tactical approaches. Time after time he has been relegated behind other players in his position. When resources have been stretched, he's stayed on the bench. Especially at Hillsborough, numerous players have taken this same service and scored considerably more frequently. Even the much ridiculed Atdhe Nuhiu outdid his entire Wednesday output in just 4 months. Despite the well known financial desperation and willingness to play just about anybody else in his place, there has been almost no interest in taking him from us. We are way, way beyond simple explanations or mere coincidences.

 

You cite the need to start games consistently, yet even before he left Blackburn the production was drying up. He ended there with 17+1 appearances and 4 goals; one of those against a lower league team in the FA Cup. When he first came to us he started something like 16 of the first 20 games and he responded with a paltry 3 strikes. Aside from his spell at free-scoring Norwich, this has been a persistent, long term malaise. Usually, I find rating forwards by goals in isolation the sort of thing that teenagers should be growing out of as like defending, attacking is a collective effort. But even Rhodes' most enthusiastic supporters acknowledge he offers little other than finishing.

 

And despite all of this, one remarkable half of football in Nottingham is allowed to override the rest of this large body of evidence in a way I don't understand as if Halley's Comet's appearances every 76 years make it a regular visitor. Admittedly, two of those goals were very good, but it should also be acknowledged that one was about as straightforward as it's possible to be with the keeper still conscious.

 

Hope is not totally lost yet, but he is a liability until he consistently proves otherwise. 

 

 

I'll tell you what, notice you are quick to criticise fans who backed Rhodes when he signed, you keep talking about how you have trawled through hundreds of pages in an attempt to pull Wednesday fans up on it.  

 

Can you please show me one of your posts at the time where you state clearly that, one Rhodes will be a bad signing and two that it will screw us up financially?  

 

The reality is, you can't.  Why because it's much easier to sit on the sidelines, look back with the benefit of hindsight and take pot shots at fellow Wednesday fans.

 

 

[DJMortimer]

4 minutes ago, Ronio said:

I'll tell you what, notice you are quick to criticise fans who backed Rhodes when he signed, you keep talking about how you have trawled through hundreds of pages in an attempt to pull Wednesday fans up on it.  

 

Can you please show me one of your posts at the time where you state clearly that, one Rhodes will be a bad signing and two that it will screw us up financially?  

 

The reality is, you can't.  Why because it's much easier to sit on the sidelines, look back with the benefit of hindsight and take pot shots at fellow Wednesday fans.

 

 

 

How do you know I didn't criticise the signing at the time? Have you checked all those hundreds of pages? I was not convinced regarding his limited abilities as an all-round player, but I won't pretend to have compiled a forensic analysis of him. The numbers didn't make any sense as we already had 6 forwards; 7 if you include Matias. But it was the financial aspects, regardless of reputation, form, fitness or whatever, that made it the utmost foolishness. Not only did it prevent spending on other areas where reinforcements were much more necessary, but given the regulations of an average three year annual loss of £13m, it takes no great foresight to realise we were going to exceed that by a large margin when you look at our activity of those couple of years. Rhodes has probably cost us somewhere in the region of one of those years by himself.

 

And I have not pulled up even ONE fan for their posts back at that time we signed him. That's just a flagrant lie. Transfers can always go either way and the person never lived that scored anywhere near 100% on them; even the best managers the game has ever seen. There's no shame in getting one wrong every now and then.

 

It's a different matter though when you exhibit the bias you did in your earlier post. Why you can't acknowledge the obvious, like so many others have, about his failure over the last five years under numerous circumstances in preference of fantasies and excuses is your issue, not mine. 

 

 

[royalowlisback]

Is it how many games until Kachunga scores for Wednesday?