Blackburn Rovers away match thread

[Kibs]

8 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Cotterill left the bench half empty to make a point (that ended well), Pearson would always fill the bench no matter what, and a number of the young lads benefitted with minutes, and now we are back to a Manager leaving it half empty. Wonder if he's sending a message to Jon and Sid?

Manning said in an earlier interview that academy players wouldn’t always sit on the bench just to make up the numbers. 

He said he wants them to earn the right to be there, not just be there due to us being short on numbers. 

Not saying whether that’s good or bad, just thought it was worth clarifying.

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, archie andrews said:

Lets hope hes had a big kick up the khyber.... 

Bell has got to shake off his poor form and start contributing, simple as that now. He's no longer the kid that we make allowances for (like Yeboah would be), he's being picked by Managers on merit and therefore has to produce. Or have a rest, train hard and come back firing at a later date.

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, Leabrook said:

How many are we allowed? We have 8. I think it’s 9.  What school did you got too?

One where the highlighted bit makes sense when written in English....................

[FNQ]

7 minutes ago, Super said:

Don't mind that team let's hope they deliver reckon we'll come back with something

I agree… but to give us a chance LM really needs to leave Sykes on the pitch and not keep bringing him off on the hour mark.

[Leabrook]

Just now, Numero Uno said:

One where the highlighted bit makes sense when written in English....................

Haha touché MF.  

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Leabrook said:

I do think that fans need to stop obsessing over set formations as the modern game is so fluid.  The game has moved on and many managers in interviews won’t talk formations 

I’m probably the biggest proponent of “formations don’t win matches” and I’m not changing that view either, but…

…if we are matching up, and continue to match-up regularly going forward, you’d have to assume LM at least sees it important to his game-plan, yes?  And if so, we can start to draw conclusions from that.

[Leabrook]

1 minute ago, FNQ said:

I agree… but to give us a chance LM really needs to leave Sykes on the pitch and not keep bringing him off on the hour mark.

Being bought off for fatigue reasons and/or lessening chance of injury I reckon 

[Hxj]

Is Robinstv working for anyone internationally?

Edited December 12, 2023 by Hxj

[Numero Uno]

4 minutes ago, Kibs said:

Manning said in an earlier interview that academy players wouldn’t always sit on the bench just to make up the numbers. 

He said he wants them to earn the right to be there, not just be there due to us being short on numbers. 

Not saying whether that’s good or bad, just thought it was worth clarifying.

I do get the logic but find it interesting, as I said in another post, that a bloke who has managed way better players in his career wasn't so bothered by that and gave the youngsters a go.

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, Leabrook said:

I do think that fans need to stop obsessing over set formations as the modern game is so fluid.  The game has moved on and many managers in interviews won’t talk formations 

A valid point on one hand and I can see for example a fluid switch between the following:

Back 4 and back 3 if you have Naismith in here- he more than most we have can drop. However he's injured.

McCrorie if back could possibly double up as a wing back and full back. However he isn't available.

Tanner not so much.

4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3

Certain phases Knight e.g. can drop into a nice solid 3, other phases up there supporting Sykes, Bell, Conway e.g..Weimann can also if in form play along the front a bit.

However there are definite differences between the 2, wingbacks can be pinned back more readily in a 2 v 1 or bypassed, but a front 2 can cause their CBs issues if you're going 3-5-2 e.g.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Bell has got to shake off his poor form and start contributing, simple as that now. He's no longer the kid that we make allowances for (like Yeboah would be), he's being picked by Managers on merit and therefore has to produce. Or have a rest, train hard and come back firing at a later date.

Assuming he feels Bell is the outlet on the counter tonight?

We shall see.

[Leabrook]

Just now, Davefevs said:

I’m probably the biggest proponent of “formations don’t win matches” and I’m not changing that view either, but…

…if we are matching up, and continue to match-up regularly going forward, you’d have to assume LM at least sees it important to his game-plan, yes?  And if so, we can start to draw conclusions from that.

I think what he sees important is in and out of possession tactics. Saying ‘we are 4-2-3-1’ doesn’t make sense under Manning 

[Robbored]

Just now, Kibs said:

Manning said in an earlier interview that academy players wouldn’t always sit on the bench just to make up the numbers. 

He said he wants them to earn the right to be there, not just be there due to us being short on of numbers

Not saying whether that’s good or bad, just thought it was worth clarifying.

I remember him saying that but would disagree on the grounds that even if the academy player wasn’t going to be used they would benefit from being involved in the matchday set up - it’s good experience for a young player especially if it’s an away fixture.

SC had a similar attitude towards younger players - that didn’t end well………

[Leabrook]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

A valid point on one hand and I can see for example a fluid switch between the following:

Back 4 and back 3 if you have Naismith in here- he more than most we have can drop.

McCrorie ifbafk can possibly double up as a won't back and full back.

Tanner not so much.

4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3

Certain phases Knight e.g. can drop into a nice solid 3, other phases up there supporting Sykes, Bell, Conway e.g..Weimann can also if in form play along the front a bit.

However there are definite differences between the 2, wingbacks can be pinned back more readily in a 2 v 1 or bypassed, but a front 2 can cause their CBs issues if you're going 3-5-2 e.g.

When we are in possession, it looks like a back 3 to me with Tanner coming narrower unless he’s involved in that attack. Would assume we will see Pring do similar tonight depending on how and where we are attacking 

[archie andrews]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I’m probably the biggest proponent of “formations don’t win matches” and I’m not changing that view either, but…

…if we are matching up, and continue to match-up regularly going forward, you’d have to assume LM at least sees it important to his game-plan, yes?  And if so, we can start to draw conclusions from that.

Wont the most important thing when "matching up" be making sure you score more than the other team...? 

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Leabrook said:

I think what he sees important is in and out of possession tactics. Saying ‘we are 4-2-3-1’ doesn’t make sense under Manning 

Nor does saying “We are playing well for 90 (or even 60) minutes”  make sense under Manning. Hopefully that changes tonight.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Leabrook said:

Being bought off for fatigue reasons and/or lessening chance of injury I reckon 

He also said that he felt Tanner was being left exposed a bit by Sykes.  I watched the second half, first 15 mins back earlier.  It was certainly stretching the point from what I saw.  And he also used that sub to change shape from 3421-box to 4231.  Correlation or causation, but he said we became disjointed in the second half.

Far from jumping to the conclusion that the change caused it, but another little thing to “store away” and see if it becomes something other than a little one-off?

[Leabrook]

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

Nor does saying “We are playing well for 90 (or even 60) minutes”  make sense under Manning. Hopefully that changes tonight.

Not sure we played well for 90 minutes many times under Pearson this season 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Leabrook said:

When we are in possession, it looks like a back 3 to me with Tanner coming narrower unless he’s involved in that attack. Would assume we will see Pring do similar tonight depending on how and where we are attacking 

Unsure it suits us best with the current personnel available but time will tell.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Leabrook said:

I think what he sees important is in and out of possession tactics. Saying ‘we are 4-2-3-1’ doesn’t make sense under Manning 

On Saturday back 3 with WBs in and out of possession!!!

1 minute ago, archie andrews said:

Wont the most important thing when "matching up" be making sure you score more than the other team...? 

Bingo AA.

[Numero Uno]

Just now, archie andrews said:

Wont the most important thing when "matching up" be making sure you score more than the other team...? 

A lot of people are interested in the "how" (in terms of formations and systems) and that's perfectly reasonable and creates great debate on here but it doesn't change the fact that only two numbers really count as you say!!

[harkow red]

The games on Sky sports on the red button.

 

[Atyeo's lift]

COYR

[FNQ]

5 minutes ago, Leabrook said:

Being bought off for fatigue reasons and/or lessening chance of injury I reckon 

Thanks Liam.. settle for a point then.

[Lanterne Rouge]

Just now, harkow red said:

The games on Sky sports on the red button.

 

yep, just started

[exAtyeoMax]

COYRs

 

[Curr Avon]

For those of a nervous disposition, City are wearing the putrid yellow shirts, adorned with a squashed bird, the rare Norwegian Green Parrot.

[Kibs]

Just now, Numero Uno said:

I do get the logic but find it interesting, as I said in another post, that a bloke who has managed way better players in his career wasn't so bothered by that and gave the youngsters a go.

I thought it was interesting position to take. To be fair, there were occasions Nige only selected 8 subs, and there are 3 very young players on the bench so it’s not as though they aren’t getting a sniff.

Aside from the fact that 9 subs is ridiculous, or am I just old fashioned

[BCFC Rich]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

On Saturday back 3 with WBs in and out of possession!!!

Bingo AA.

Got to be honest thought we were 3 at back when attacking and more of a four out of possession. Just often didn't work out that way against Huddersfield, because they were countering so we were still in a three. The few times they passed around thought we dropped to a 4.  

Edited December 12, 2023 by BCFC Rich

[Leabrook]

Just now, Davefevs said:

On Saturday back 3 with WBs in and out of possession!!!

Bingo AA.

Yeah I wouldn’t say the in and out of formations will necessarily be all about the back line.  I think it will be very changeable. My concern is will the players be able to keep up.  Are they good enough to be taught a pretty complicated way (if it does transpire to be complicated).  I’ve heard a fair few managers say that they love Mason Mount because he is extremely intelligent to varying systems. Not always the best player but very reliable and switched on.