Jump to content

Rhodes dropped


Guest Jack the Hat

Recommended Posts

Guest Jack the Hat
6 hours ago, poite said:

Brian Laws answered why. 

 

Bristol City have both of their main CBs injured and were using a make-shift defence which was slow. 

 

Monk went went for as much pace up front as he could to take advantage. 

 

Rhodes will be back

That worked well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jack the Hat
58 minutes ago, parajack said:

He would have had to start running Friday these days,to get in a goalmouth scramble

 

He will ‘fizz off’ at the end of the season when his contract is up . We will be paying him anyway so why Not play him. He has over 100 championship goals probably 5 times more than the rest of the squad put together. Only Windass looks like scoring in the current squad and he seems to gel with Rhodes anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, shandypants said:

Because Rhodes has scored only 9 goals in 4 seasons and is little more than a passenger if he’s not scoring. The sad truth about Rhodes is that he’s yesterday’s man as illustrated by a terribly out of form Reach is being selected as a sub before him in today’s game. 
 

Carvalhal, Luhukay, Bullen (twice), Bruce and now Monk haven’t played Rhodes as their first choice forward and have brought in others to start ahead of him. That tells you everything. 

This season he is 1 in 2 and was unlucky not to score against Watford, there were no grounds to drop him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kagoshimaowl

Some reight fools on here. Rhodes wasn’t DROPPED. Different matches call for different things. Monk obviously identified how slow their back three was which is why he went with the more mobile pairing of Kachunga and Windass. Definitely the CORRECT decision as it worked to a T in the first half and we should have been 2 up. Why can’t fans understand that some players are left out for tactical reasons, not just simply dropped?

Monk did however screw up by putting Jordan on with only seven minutes left. Now that was ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kagoshimaowl said:

Some reight fools on here. Rhodes wasn’t DROPPED. Different matches call for different things. Monk obviously identified how slow their back three was which is why he went with the more mobile pairing of Kachunga and Windass. Definitely the CORRECT decision as it worked to a T in the first half and we should have been 2 up. Why can’t fans understand that some players are left out for tactical reasons, not just simply dropped?

Monk did however screw up by putting Jordan on with only seven minutes left. Now that was ridiculous.


Too sensible this post, be careful now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jack the Hat said:

Who in wednesdays squad is capable of scoring a hat trick the quality of which Rhodes scored against Forest less that 12 months ago?

 

One afternoon in Nottingham: 1+0 appearances, 3 goals.

 

Rest of his Wednesday career: 43+35 appearances, 11 goals.

 

Which really defines his time at the club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kagoshimaowl said:

Some reight fools on here. Rhodes wasn’t DROPPED. Different matches call for different things. Monk obviously identified how slow their back three was which is why he went with the more mobile pairing of Kachunga and Windass. Definitely the CORRECT decision as it worked to a T in the first half and we should have been 2 up. Why can’t fans understand that some players are left out for tactical reasons, not just simply dropped?

Monk did however screw up by putting Jordan on with only seven minutes left. Now that was ridiculous.

Nail on head for me 

 

Monk's tactics were fine in the first half but as per usual his subs completely mystify me

 

We are loosing with 25 mins left so he brings off an attacking midfielder for a more defensive non creative midfielder and then to top it off takes off a central striker and replaces him with a wide man

 

Surely if we are chasing the game the sensible substitution would have been Brown off, Windass to the number 10 role, leaving Rhodes and Kachunga playing up front. if we end up loosing 2 or 3 nil from that situation then fine but at least we have had a go

 

Whatever peoples opinions of Rhodes he was the only central striker in the squad yesterday and not to use him when we are loosing and needing a goal was terrible management

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jack the Hat said:

He will ‘fizz off’ at the end of the season when his contract is up . We will be paying him anyway so why Not play him. He has over 100 championship goals probably 5 times more than the rest of the squad put together. Only Windass looks like scoring in the current squad and he seems to gel with Rhodes anyway. 

I think a striker will come in on loan,before the window closes,if they dont than we will have little choice but to probably play Rhodes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yeadonowl said:

Nail on head for me 

 

Monk's tactics were fine in the first half but as per usual his subs completely mystify me

 

We are loosing with 25 mins left so he brings off an attacking midfielder for a more defensive non creative midfielder and then to top it off takes off a central striker and replaces him with a wide man

 

Surely if we are chasing the game the sensible substitution would have been Brown off, Windass to the number 10 role, leaving Rhodes and Kachunga playing up front. if we end up loosing 2 or 3 nil from that situation then fine but at least we have had a go

 

Whatever peoples opinions of Rhodes he was the only central striker in the squad yesterday and not to use him when we are loosing and needing a goal was terrible management

Totally agree,the only thing i can think is,that Monk didnt want to risk a thumping denting CD confidence too much,and the overall morale of the squad.His 'subs' to me spoke more of limiting the scale of the defeat,rather than going for a win/draw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, parajack said:

Totally agree,the only thing i can think is,that Monk didnt want to risk a thumping denting CD confidence too much,and the overall morale of the squad.His 'subs' to me spoke more of limiting the scale of the defeat,rather than going for a win/draw

Limiting the defeat?? We were 1-0 down with 20 mins left

 

Does this mean that every time we go behind Monk is going to shut up shop and hope to keep it to 1-0

 

Every point is vital and at the moment we shouldn’t be thinking of goal difference 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jack the Hat
32 minutes ago, yeadonowl said:

Limiting the defeat?? We were 1-0 down with 20 mins left

 

Does this mean that every time we go behind Monk is going to shut up shop and hope to keep it to 1-0

 

Every point is vital and at the moment we shouldn’t be thinking of goal difference 

Exactly. I can’t believe people are defending such poor tactics. I think it is widely agreed on here that Monks substitutions are poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yeadonowl said:

Limiting the defeat?? We were 1-0 down with 20 mins left

 

Does this mean that every time we go behind Monk is going to shut up shop and hope to keep it to 1-0

 

Every point is vital and at the moment we shouldn’t be thinking of goal difference 

Yes every point is vital,which is why if he thought the match was beyond us,he might have been objective and looking to recover the lost 3,next game(s) it started to look as though some of the defensive uncertainty of last season was returning.

 

A 3 or 4 goal hammering for Dawson,and a defense dithering,instead of clearing..would have set us up potentially for more of the same...going forward, a narrow 1(or as it transpired 2) goal loss to side flying,is more recoverable ,morale wise.

 

I could understand that sort of thinking from a Psychological  point of view,hopefully you can too(even if you dont agree)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jack the Hat
10 minutes ago, parajack said:

Yes every point is vital,which is why if he thought the match was beyond us,he might have been objective and looking to recover the lost 3,next game(s) it started to look as though some of the defensive uncertainty of last season was returning.

 

A 3 or 4 goal hammering for Dawson,and a defense dithering,instead of clearing..would have set us up potentially for more of the same...going forward, a narrow 1(or as it transpired 2) goal loss to side flying,is more recoverable ,morale wise.

 

I could understand that sort of thinking from a Psychological  point of view,hopefully you can too(even if you dont agree)

You have got to be kidding? I really hope monk doesn’t think like this. Who were we playing Bristol St Germain! Flying - it was their third game! Dear me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, parajack said:

Yes every point is vital,which is why if he thought the match was beyond us,he might have been objective and looking to recover the lost 3,next game(s) it started to look as though some of the defensive uncertainty of last season was returning.

 

A 3 or 4 goal hammering for Dawson,and a defense dithering,instead of clearing..would have set us up potentially for more of the same...going forward, a narrow 1(or as it transpired 2) goal loss to side flying,is more recoverable ,morale wise.

 

I could understand that sort of thinking from a Psychological  point of view,hopefully you can too(even if you dont agree)

How is 1-0  down beyond any team with 20 mins left??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...