10:40, Tue 2 Apr
Did you think we set up negatively?

Did you find watching us enjoyable?

Did we show enough attacking intent?



Just interested to see the reaction, I've seen some say it was classic negative Rowett and others say we should have been 4 up by half time.
H

Consistently correct and proven right.
It was not even close to Rowett ball, not seen the possession stats but we had much than them, and if we didn't overplay it near the box easily 3-0.
BCFC - Letting me down for 50 years
He’s got far better talent available to him and I thought we played well. We attacked but kept for the most a sense of defensive toughness

It was a good game, good performance and a well deserved win.

The highlights in the thread below, show lots of good spells of clever touches and passes.

Enjoyed it
Tam
10:44, Tue 2 Apr
I'm going to say this as someone who hasn't been a fan of Rowettball, or Rowett himself particularly, but I thought that it was pretty entertaining yesterday. I thought that there was plenty of attacking intent and some good football played. Of course, the result helped, and the effort and commitment from the players was evident, but it was also enjoyable to watch. We have some players with ability now.
Make Blues Great Again
10:44, Tue 2 Apr
Truth is somewhere in the middle of that.

We played some nice stuff while looking fairly toothless for most of the first half. Most importantly we looked a lot more solid than under Venus.
Tell you what that crack is really moreish.
10:46, Tue 2 Apr
Super Hans
Truth is somewhere in the middle of that.

We played some nice stuff while looking fairly toothless for most of the first half. Most importantly we looked a lot more solid than under Venus.

We did look toothless, but I don't think that had anything to do with the setup.

We look toothless because we've got a young lad with limited physicality in between two lump centre halves every week.

Stansfield is great, mind. Love the bugger.

I don't think us being toothless was due to intent.
H

Consistently correct and proven right.
10:48, Tue 2 Apr
We had 54% possession I believe, which is pretty good for Rowett football. For me the only thing that was typical Rowett about it was the defensive solidity and winning 1-0, we didn’t look like we’d setup for them to have all the ball and nick it.
10:49, Tue 2 Apr
I don’t even think it’s that, our final ball has been shite for the majority of the season.

James had one yesterday where he had Stansfield and Bacuna both in acres of space in great positions and he smashed it between both of them straight to the ‘keeper.

Regarding the system I think people are doing Rowett a bit dirty when they say we’re boring. We have far better footballers in this team than we did back then, Rowett got the best game out of Miyoshi in a long time yesterday.
Tell you what that crack is really moreish.
not toothless but a team taking the extra touch or looking to pass instead of shooting, to make sure they score - then the chance going, instead of being instinctive which you would do at 2-0
BCFC - Letting me down for 50 years
10:52, Tue 2 Apr
We played really well. Our weaknesses at centre half and having another forward is obvious, but other than that all good.

As much as I’d like Tony back, I think that’s him done, if so, I’d be more than happy with Rowett. He’s a smart guy, who would have learned at what happened at Stoke, had to take his medicine at Milwall and play around with zero budget, etc.

Again. No need to think to far ahead, as the focus is on the next few months 👍
10:53, Tue 2 Apr
Thought it was entertaining myself, we had plenty of chances, looked well organised, played with aggression. Really good performance. Rowett is a quality.
10:53, Tue 2 Apr
I think we slowed the game down. Took an age with free kicks, goal kicks and throw ins. Turned back inside many times, attacks were slow and players didn’t join those attacks but held positions. We won from a mistake by the opposition.

So we had a bit more possession but that was a Rowett performance. Unadventurous, guarded but the game managed.
10:54, Tue 2 Apr
Super Hans
I don’t even think it’s that, our final ball has been shite for the majority of the season.

James had one yesterday where he had Stansfield and Bacuna both in acres of space in great positions and he smashed it between both of them straight to the ‘keeper.

Regarding the system I think people are doing Rowett a bit dirty when they say we’re boring. We have far better footballers in this team than we did back then, Rowett got the best game out of Miyoshi in a long time yesterday.

Thought the link up between Bielik > Paik > Bacuna > Koji was lovely.
11:21, Tue 2 Apr
Nikola Zigic
Did you think we set up negatively?

Did you find watching us enjoyable?

Did we show enough attacking intent?


Just interested to see the reaction, I've seen some say it was classic negative Rowett and others say we should have been 4 up by half time.

I definitely didn't think we looked negative, but our attacking intent in the first half didn't look very productive.

The passing between Paik, Bacuna and Miyoshi was really nice to watch, but Stansfield looked isolated for most of the game, but I think that's because he's not a natural centre forward. If we could start next season with a new striker and three behind: a permanently signed or re-loaned Stansfield on the right, Bacuna on the left and Miyoshi in the middle playing, I think that would be an excellent attacking prospect.
It was dull and boring. VR out!