Monk's done with Rhodes?

[quinnssweetshop]

14 hours ago, Sergeant Tibbs said:

That’s right, Rhodes achieved so much under Carlos, Jos and Bullen. 
Rhodes finest moment in our colours - who was the manager ?

Lest we forget Karanka didn’t play him much in his first season at Boro, he didn’t get a look in at Norwich and Bruce chose to sign Scott Hogan instead of Rhodes when he had money to spend at Villa.

Deary me. 

Deary me ?   Take a look back at my posts about Rhodes previously ... deary me ? 
Monks useless, stop kissing his backside. He's played his part like the rest.

[mcmigo]

I will say that Rhodes still shows good movement in the penalty box, he is just rarely in it.

 

If , and its a big if, a unit like Patterson up there, and a faster midfield can get us up the pitch a bit quicker, we might be able to get a tune out of rhodes in the box.

 

 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:

We don't see what happens in training. Things there can be reasons to drop players.

 

True, but if he wasn't pulling his weight in training or had done something daft then I'd expect him to be out of the squad and throughout his career, regardless of his form nobody has questioned Rhodes' approach. Monk found a partnership that brought each a goal and 4 points from 2 games. We now have 1 point from the 2 games that he chose to go with something different. 

 

Paterson had what, 3 days training with his new team - straight in the side - to play up front and take long throws to no target. Did either of our 'strikers' touch the ball in the opposition penalty area on Saturday?

[Bulldog]

Yet another "Rhodes should be given a chance" thread. Carlos didn't play him, Bullen didn't play him, Jos didn't play him, Bruce didn't play him, Monk doesn't play him

I think there's a common denominator in all this.

[@owlstalk]

2 minutes ago, Bulldog said:

Yet another "Rhodes should be given a chance" thread. Carlos didn't play him, Bullen didn't play him, Jos didn't play him, Bruce didn't play him, Monk doesn't play him

I think there's a common denominator in all this.

Exactly

Just like Westwood being left out and untried youngsters played instead

 

No smoke no fire

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Bulldog said:

Yet another "Rhodes should be given a chance" thread. Carlos didn't play him, Bullen didn't play him, Jos didn't play him, Bruce didn't play him, Monk doesn't play him

I think there's a common denominator in all this.

 

Read the thread. Very few are saying Rhodes is the solution to our problems.

His form has been poor and the other managers rightly didn't pick him regularly as Hooper, Forestieri, Joao, Fletcher, Nuhiu etc were all better options playing better than him.

 

We now have zero strikers other than Rhodes and picked up 4 points from 2 games with him starting. We then drop him, play poorly and pick up 1 point from the next 2 games. 

[Bulldog]

Just now, @owlstalk said:

Exactly

Just like Westwood being left out and untried youngsters played instead

 

No smoke no fire

No conspiracy here - I think it's more to do with Rhodes being s*ite 

[Bulldog]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Read the thread. Very few are saying Rhodes is the solution to our problems.

His form has been poor and the other managers rightly didn't pick him regularly as Hooper, Forestieri, Joao, Fletcher, Nuhiu etc were all better options playing better than him.

 

We now have zero strikers other than Rhodes and picked up 4 points from 2 games with him starting. We then drop him, play poorly and pick up 1 point from the next 2 games. 

I refer you to my answer to owlstalk

[OwlBiSeeinThi]

17 hours ago, cookeh said:

So the predictable seems to have happened.

 

Rhodes started the opening match, onyl got an hour, but scored.
Started the 2nd, again just got an hour and this time didn't.

And now seems to have just been frozen out.

That's the "run of games" he gets.. yet again.

 

I thougth he and Windass looked decent up top together. Something that might have grown given matches together..

Not going to be tho, especially with Paterson coming in.

 

Monk just doesn't want Rhodes. There seems no other conclusion to make. And so it's into the freezer for him.

 

I'm sure some will look back at the failure of his time with us and blame the player, but I'm really not sure what those people want Rhodes to do. Every striker needs confidence and games. Rhodes gets the odd 10 minutes here and there and is expected to just magically find the groove. That's not how it works for any striker.

What a sad missed opportunity.

Possibly.

Or 

DC doesn't want Rhodes on the books any longer and Monk is being instructed to build without him.

 

But if he's staying I agree he needs a run of games. The question is can we afford to risk a five game bedding in period when we need the results.

 

Who'd be a manager hey.

[Sergeant Tibbs]

51 minutes ago, quinnssweetshop said:

Deary me ?   Take a look back at my posts about Rhodes previously ... deary me ? 
Monks useless, stop kissing his backside. He's played his part like the rest.

Take a look my posts, I’m not kissing anyone’s backside, just pointing out the obvious. 
6 consecutive managers don’t rate him, but yet again pile it on Monk. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Exactly

Just like Westwood being left out and untried youngsters played instead

 

No smoke no fire

 

Somebody was backing him to lead us to safety this season..... 

 

10 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Did you start this thread?

The title is 'All Rhodes lead to safety'

 

 

 

[@owlstalk]

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Somebody was backing him to lead us to safety this season..... 

 

 

FAKE NEWS

[Holmowl]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Read the thread. Very few are saying Rhodes is the solution to our problems.

His form has been poor and the other managers rightly didn't pick him regularly as Hooper, Forestieri, Joao, Fletcher, Nuhiu etc were all better options playing better than him.

 

We now have zero strikers other than Rhodes and picked up 4 points from 2 games with him starting. We then drop him, play poorly and pick up 1 point from the next 2 games. 

Exactly.

 

Posters saying Rhodes isn’t good enough need to look at our other options. 
 

We don’t score from wide or midfield. We need a front two who will get goals.

 

Paterson - Windass

Paterson - Kachunga

Windass - Kachunga

 

?

[billyblack]

9 hours ago, ashley8 said:

Sad thing is we don't have anything better. Signings have never done what he has and unfortunately never will. Play him don't play him. If he doesn't like him fine but why then bring in three strikers who can't score goals either.... clueless.... thank fizz transfer deadline day is 16th for us. From over spending to peanuts. Need big signing pulled out of the hat from somewhere.....

We cant sign anybody good because we have no money

[billyblack]

13 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

Exactly.

 

Posters saying Rhodes isn’t good enough need to look at our other options. 
 

We don’t score from wide or midfield. We need a front two who will get goals.

 

Paterson - Windass

Paterson - Kachunga

Windass - Kachunga

 

?

Well thats what we have.

 

Thank the chairman, not Monk.

[billyblack]

4 hours ago, Jim said:

 

We’ve won the last 2 he’s not started, haven’t we?

Nothing to do with Rhodes not playing at all.

 

Theres a reason why Rhodes isnt playing, its complicated so bear with me.

 

Hes not good enough.

 

End

[billyblack]

15 minutes ago, billyblack said:

We cant sign anybody good because we have no money

Glad you find that funny Barmyarmy. I dont. 

[Holmowl]

12 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Nothing to do with Rhodes not playing at all.

 

Theres a reason why Rhodes isnt playing, its complicated so bear with me.

 

Hes not good enough.

 

End

And Paterson, Kachunga, Windass and Reach are good enough? In your opinion.

 

Because it’s all about picking the best front two we have.

[billyblack]

4 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

And Paterson, Kachunga, Windass and Reach are good enough? In your opinion.

 

Because it’s all about picking the best front two we have.

Nope, nowhere near.

 

They are just better than Rhodes. Although i wouldnt play Reach anywhere near the front. Waste of time. I just think that Windass, Kachunga etc are the least worst options. Kachunga is a winger mind and shouldnt be playing up front either.

 

IMO with our current squad we would be better playing 4411, with Brown or Windass playing behind the striker, which at the moment should be Patterson. Desperately need a decent forward, i doubt with our financial woes we will get anybody good enough though. 3rd favourites for relegation for a reason.

[@owlstalk]

10 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 And Paterson, Kachunga, Windass and Reach are good enough? In your opinion. 

What has happened is we reached for the stars, put Carlos in charge, nearly got there, but then hit a wall with a hard smash, the senior pro's went sour and we smashed the FFP rules to bits and got busted

So now we're paying for it

We've had to downgrade the squad

We're now in the process of filling the team with literally anyone we can get our hands on - literally anyone - whether they've not played for months since breaking their legs, or  have reputations of being really quite poor and not making the grade, never having played a first team game EVER etc

We are having to do that. We have no choice. We breached FFP (badly)

Because of the actions of the past Monk is having to deal with the consequences (forget whether he's the right man for the job or not for a moment)

So we're buying players along the lines of Gary Taylor-Fletcher and hyping them up to be these exciting young prospects

90% of our players are simply not good enough

That's why fans getting all upset about the manager/tactics etc  are right do so but at the same time mistaken that we can do anything about the quality of the squad

And guess what?  It's gonna get way worse before it gets better