|
Post by bowranger on Sept 3, 2018 13:47:34 GMT
I thought Cousins was about 1.5 Million could be wrong ? Glad he showed some form as has been very injury prone and needs to show what he can do. Ā£1.25m said Sky at the time. I'd also like to see the best of him - it's been a real shame so far because at the time, everything about his transfer made sense. Great age (22 at the time), from the league below and a low price (by current market standards). He was the stand out player by some distance when we played Charlton at Loftus Road, so was very excited to see what he could do for us but injuries put pay to that sadly.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Sept 2, 2018 14:41:05 GMT
Was in the same travelling group as him for this trip, so had been sharing a few good rants on the train, in the pubs and in the stands. Difference is he can somehow dilute his views during a hangover into a digestible, more factual and straight forward piece of writing unlike me!
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Sept 2, 2018 14:36:51 GMT
Good interesting report Bow. It is good to get a view from the away end for those of us who do not get to travel. Thanks for taking the trouble. You provide detail (and emotion) that otherwise we are dependent on Clive's reports on LFW. Also interesting that no-one on here predicted a goalless draw and yet it seems from what you say that both teams were concentrating on keeping a clean sheet. Funny how football goes in phases though. 3 games unbeaten, 2 clean sheets for Lumley and real competition for the defensive positions having conceded 7 at the Hawthorns. Hall, Cameron, Baptiste and Kakay all waiting for Lynch's next injury or holiday and yet he played well yesterday by all accounts. Appreciate that - know I ramble on but it's a nice outlet after the game to get my thoughts down and hopefully it's a useful view from the emotional rollercoaster of the stands. Indeed, Lynch did play well yesterday. Not to take anything away from him but it did stylistically play to his strengths - balls into the box, blocks to make, all stuff he's good at. I think his main weakness is his ability to get rolled/turned but fortunately Jota spent his afternoon having a tilt at Bidwell instead.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Sept 2, 2018 11:19:55 GMT
Basically this. Brum were dreadful, we had the chances to win but didn't take them. And just as we started to create chances, we needlessly shut up shop with 20 minutes to play. I know that seems negative on paper but seriously, watching it in the flesh was frustrating. Brum didn't even challenge or press up in defensive possession, they basically beckoned us to come run at them and we just didn't.Before the game, being early season, I did not think this was a "must win" game, more a "must not lose" game as that would have cut us adrift. Probably the same thoughts that ran through the club and the last 20 minutes of the game . So picking up another point, 4 points from 2 games, and 2 clean sheets, is a foundation to build on and Rome was not built in a day. Disappointed we did not put one in the net - especially Smith at the end although not sure if the ref had given a free kick before he got his head to it.
Interesting observation that Brum beckoned us to come run at them. The question is why - first they did not want to lose either, but more likely because they knew/thought their best chance to get a goal would be to lure us forward and get a quick break through someone like Jota. Maybe Monk v's McClaren tactics evened out. I'm sure if we had played a more open game and lost 2-0 the feedback would have been worse. Not to worry - keep picking up 4 points every 2 games until the end of the season and we will be in the play offs..........................but then JFH got kicked out mid season and mid table because his style of play was not attractive enough (among other things).
The next 3 league games after an international break and time to bed in the new loan players will help tell how much we are progressing. I expect we will see a much tighter defence but to me now we have to sort out the midfield that did well for us last season. Luongo clearly out of form, Eze and Freeman playing wide and not in their best positions (and I assume Scowen was injured yesterday). Maybe time to get BOS or Pawel in to play a real wide role, get behind defences and pull more balls back in the box for our strikers - who can score goals. Who do we leave out? - difficult but on form from what I have seen Luongo drops to the bench until his form returns and bring him on for the wide player when we need to close things up.
I think in the context of the season so far, your phrase about it being a "must not lose" game is absolutely bang on. As much as I felt we approached this game incorrectly, I also find it understandable and feel that has informed a lot of recent decisions. From the quality of the loans, to the team selections to the conservatism of the substitutions and overall approach to this match - it's the behaviour of a club and a manager who've had an awful start to the season, have clearly been shaken by it and are now looking to settle things down. Considering the pressure on any football manager and how quickly they can be jettisoned, despite my frustrations, I have an awful lot of sympathy for that. On Brum's tactics, I think it's more the former than the latter. Yes, Jota on the break was a (in fact, the only) threat and it's a reason to be weary but it wouldn't be something to define an approach on. Either way though, my issue was less about how we lined up but the game management aspect. It started cage-y but then we started to exploit Hemed's hold up play, Wells' ability to keep picking runs that bamboozled the Brum defence and Eze's freedom to run forward to cause problems or win free kicks (I've not seen us have a player in quite some time who's so good at extracting fouls from the opposition). We actually stumbled on a style of play that was working and we were crafting chances. These aspects didn't rely on our back four pushing up particularly high. Lynch and Leistner remained deep because they're not the quickest, Bidwell and Angel did overlap to some good effect but nothing wildly marauding. So we weren't leaving ourselves too exposed to a sucker punch anyhow - the chance creation came heavily from Hemed, Wells, Freeman and Eze as in, players who do not have much of a defensive remit anyway. But having stumbled on what works and having the game by the throat, we completely backed off. I'd understand it more if it was end to end and we decided after 70 minutes that this was the best we could get and to cut our losses but it genuinely wasn't like that. Birmingham looked nervous, shaky and rattled rather than a team soaking it up confidently to play counter-attacking football. The positive is at least we can play this kind of football - that we can shut up shop. However, this form of shutting up shop is the kind of thing we would have liked to have seen at 3-1 down at West Brom. Or more pressingly for this kind of game, it was a less cynical and less savvy version of what Sheffield United and Preston did to us when they were a goal to the good. While I empathise with the idea of platform building, the other side of that is that we are not going to come up against away matches like this very often at all. If we were banging them in at home or a goal up, it makes more sense. Like you say with JFH, it can be ugly, but if you tend to win at home and look hard to beat away, you actually do OK in this league, which is fair enough. But I think the two late substitutions following the change in style at about 70 minutes lacked guts. We were not under pressure and for all of Jota's efforts to single-handedly haul Brum into the game, we looked comfortable. Twelve shots to their five. 59% possession away from home. Five shots on target to their one. Let's at least build on that pressure for another ten minutes. Why not chuck Osayi-Samuel, a player with pace, guile and brimming with confidence on to scare them? Have a run at them - the whole away end was watching Brum sink into their shell nervously and we just took our foot off their neck. We can talk about platforms but when the potential for three points is laid out on a plate for you in a tight league like this, show a bit of guile. On the midfield, I genuinely am not sure. Width is a bit of an issue, as you say. In the context of yesterday, it depends how ambitious we wanted to be. I'd have probably swapped Cousins or Luongo for Osayi-Samuel and gone a bit more direct for the final 15-20 minutes, shifting Eze inside. More conservatively, we could have swapped Eze out for him, maintaining Luongo and Cousins for box-to-box breakaway prevention with the bonus that Osayi-Samuel's tendency to accelerate and cut in removes a chunk of the pressure for Bidwell to support the attack and therefore keeping another body back to deal with Jota. Your assumption on Scowen is right - out with a minor knee injury apparently. Being collectively poor and losing is bad. Having chances in a tight game but coming back with a hard fought draw is frustrating but understandable. But actually being in the driving seat with the initiative and momentum and then choosing tactically not to use is just a bit sad really. For all of the mitigation, I think the context is what affects my opinion on it. We are frequently so poor away from home so to see us actually play alright, see a team there for the absolute taking and us taking a definitive managerial decision not to take advantage and send the travelling fans home happy is just a bit depressing to be honest. Maybe I am being a bit harsh and that's coloured by having to see it unfolding before my eyes with the benefit of a few pints in me. Maybe this performance will demonstrate that we can take some minimal risks and try put some games to bed in future now results have stabilised and we've got (like you point out) the international break to give us an opportunity to get fitness levels up and push on. Like Harr says, I'm not known for being negative so hopefully that context shows I'm not just trying to have a go at our lot for the sake of venting. It's at least nice to be complaining about us not finishing a team off rather than getting rolled over! .
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Sept 1, 2018 18:17:23 GMT
Sounds like we did well, former R Lee Camp the difference by all accounts. 5 shots on target compared to their 1 Gues you didn't watch the match, Game was dreadful as was Brum, it was 2 points lost through piss poor finishing- again. Never troubled Camp once. Basically this. Brum were dreadful, we had the chances to win but didn't take them. And just as we started to create chances, we needlessly shut up shop with 20 minutes to play. I know that seems negative on paper but seriously, watching it in the flesh was frustrating. Brum didn't even challenge or press up in defensive possession, they basically beckoned us to come run at them and we just didn't.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Sept 1, 2018 18:14:19 GMT
Just in a pub in Birmingham before getting a train home. Can't believe I'm saying this when the last away result was a hammering but that was absolutely infuriating in the end.
I can only hope this was designed to just shore us up after getting mauled away at West Brom, but that was the tactical equivalent of rolling up in a ball like a hedgehog at the very moment we looked dominant. We found a way to cut through a very limited Birmingham side and collectively responded by then doing the absolute opposite.
We allowed ourselves 15 minutes of sustained pressure in the second half. We ran at them, we crafted a few good chances and momentum was well with us. Then inexplicably, we sat back. Time wasting. Lumping it aimlessly into channels. Then two substitutions that were absolutely negative. You will not see another game more suited to Osayi-Samuel. He plays superb and scores during the week in the cup, maybe give him 15 minutes? But no, Smith and Cameron on, shut up shop and go home.
Make no bones about it, Birmingham were absolute crap. I'll be shocked if we play another team so poor and shaky at home. A real missed opportunity. We were on top but were instructed to withdraw any attacking intent.
Don't take this as too negative because there were positives. We arguably had better chances than in the Wigan game, Freeman had a golden opportunity but drove his shot straight at Lee Camp. It's also 4 points in 2 games, which after our start is nothing to scoff at. It's a platform.
But I hope this is not an indication of how we are now approaching away games against the poorer teams in our division because it is a hell of a lot of money and time to come see us show such a fundamental lack of ambition.
Still. It's a point innit.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 31, 2018 9:52:22 GMT
Hahaha soon as I typed it I thought I heard the skies darken and a rumble of thunder...
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 31, 2018 9:46:10 GMT
Good luck to him. But that's a lot of money wasted by QPR It's a shame it turned out that way, he had a good record and looked a decent signing at the time. Peterborough have a bit of a weird habit of producing decent looking strikers who they sell for good money who either don't manage the step-up or excel. On the failure side, Washington with us, Mackail-Smith failing at Brighton (now playing at Wycombe), Aaron McClean at Hull. On the other hand, Britt Assombalonga and Dwight Gayle. Common feature is them all being sold for a big, big profit. Barry Fry still an expert at bringing the cash in!
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 31, 2018 9:39:10 GMT
Conor Washington's contract terminated by mutual consent! Ooo yeah, up on the offish: www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/striker-conor-washington-departs-loftus-road/I guess if we need the wages off the books now and he was out of contract come the summer, it works out best for both the club and Washington (presuming he didn't have a sniff around the first team). Least now it means he can look for a deal somewhere as a free agent and we've got a little more wage leeway for a CB loan. I know he could be infuriating with his chances and just wasn't up to standard in the end but still feel sorry for him. Not like he didn't try. Best of luck to him.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 31, 2018 8:14:41 GMT
Blackpool away on a cold rainy Tuesday night....not as bad as Preston or Crewe or Carlisle but close. Yup, what a crap drawer, near impossible to do on the trains without missing work. Plus side though, we should beat them.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 30, 2018 13:47:09 GMT
Weren't we reported to be pulling back on the Smyth move after Portsmouth fell through? I'm assuming this is symptomatic of our finances - it feels very much like that we need to partially shift some wages off our books from the now over-loaded front line in order to fund a centre back on loan, which remains the priority? I'd imagine the preference is for Sylla or Washington to go, but we can only loan out who other clubs want I suppose, so compromises could be made. To steal a point from another messageboard, do you think that weirdly, Sylla would functionally be better to loan out rather than Washington, because of their playing style.? Up top, Hemed can be covered by both Sylla and Smith, so we don't need all of them. However, Washington (regardless of how poorly we rate him) can be used on either side of a front three or as the 'little man' as part of a front two. So he may actually be more useful as cover than Sylla, even though I rate Sylla as a player more. It looks like all three are up for Grabs now, like you say to pay for our two Strikers and incoming players. I would for sure want Sylla out first. As much as Washington donāt score, you canāt help liking the guy, which is why I would be no good as a Football Manager I think it makes sense to let Sylla and Washington go though, would like to have kept Smyth really but understand the Clubs restrictions. God, same. Washington just cannot buy a goal. Did you see his big chance in the Bristol Rovers game? Slammed the ball, destined for the bottom left corner and big Smith accidentally blocked it off the line. I don't doubt he lacks ability but god, he does get some rotten luck too.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 30, 2018 12:45:29 GMT
Going to naively chuck out a Brum 1 - 2 QPR prediction. Just because it seems to be the only place we win away!
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 30, 2018 12:40:38 GMT
24 v's 29 would be good - repeat of our win at Wembley and revenge for the other days 7-1 - especially if we give them a 2 goal start before we beat them. As long as it's not a 7-goal start... I have a feeling in my water that we're getting Macclesfield away. I'd happily take that. Option of covered seats or a big terrace. New ground for a lot of us to visit (including me). They're doing crap too - played 5, won 0 in the league so far. Odds say....home win haha.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 30, 2018 12:35:01 GMT
The club are trying to offload Idrissa Sylla and have made Paul Smyth and Conor Washington available for loan moves ahead of Fridayās deadline. Trying to offload these three then... Weren't we reported to be pulling back on the Smyth move after Portsmouth fell through? I'm assuming this is symptomatic of our finances - it feels very much like that we need to partially shift some wages off our books from the now over-loaded front line in order to fund a centre back on loan, which remains the priority? I'd imagine the preference is for Sylla or Washington to go, but we can only loan out who other clubs want I suppose, so compromises could be made. To steal a point from another messageboard, do you think that weirdly, Sylla would functionally be better to loan out rather than Washington, because of their playing style.? Up top, Hemed can be covered by both Sylla and Smith, so we don't need all of them. However, Washington (regardless of how poorly we rate him) can be used on either side of a front three or as the 'little man' as part of a front two. So he may actually be more useful as cover than Sylla, even though I rate Sylla as a player more.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 30, 2018 12:22:35 GMT
Just 2 points highlighted above that I would comment on. The first is that I wonder how much of a change of tone and direction has actually taken place under McClaren, and how much is it a case of fans perception of the situation, or the actual situation not matching their expectation. The second is that while it is true that Holloway blooded these youngsters at the end of last season - with mixed results - he only really did so once we were safe.
As an example I just look at the team last night - obviously resting some for a big game at the weekend but also giving match time to a whole bunch of younger players - 3 of whom I do not think I had ever heard of or certainly know nothing about. Follow that with McClarens comments about BOS and his future and I do not see that we are far away in terms of attitude from where we were at the end of last season. We have added experience where everyone thought we needed experience and are trying to balance the books by shipping a few out in the last days of his loan window.
Some of the rumours today are strange - Thorn I like but is that a good move unless we swap out Cousins for example. Other rumours are surely clickbait while the stories around Sylla and Washington being moved on are more realistic although I cannot see any immediate obvious takers. I think I will hold fire until September 1st now and re-assess when the loan business is complete and then it will be a question of seeing how the team develops and who plays over the next 10 to 15 games. Having said that I do not see the starting line- ups being much different to last week with the exception of more game time for people like BOS off the bench or when we want to play a wide man.
The interesting thing is that, like you say, it's very much down to perception. That cup line-up is the first time we've made 11 squad changes since World War II! You can view that as McClaren deliberately giving match time to a big slew of young players and taking a look at them. By the same token (and I err more on this), you can perceive it as the Wigan game demonstrating the preferred first team line-up which includes Eze as the sole youth product, us panicking about an awful start to the season and not wanting to risk an injury to anybody. It would threaten our momentum. To be honest, the reasoning is probably, like most things, bang in the middle somewhere. I think the cup result is a very positive shock and regardless of the reasoning behind it, it's only ended up being a very good thing. I think the piss poor attendance demonstrates as much as anything else how poorly QPR have treated cup competitions in recent years - I'm sure we've all lost count about how many times we've seen us field cup starting 11s of fringe players and youth who've barely ever played together in the same shape and line-up and duly got punished by the likes of Swindon and Northampton. Asides from getting through the round though, which is a shock, the players that played seized their chance. Osayi-Samuel in particular has pushed his way back into McClaren's attention, ditto Kakay. Hamalainen was the only youth product who perhaps looked a bit too 'nice'. So whether it was a calculated look at our kids or our usual white flag and two fingers up to the Carabao Cup as per, it's worked out for the best. As we all know, we send that team out and lose, it's seen as essentially hanging our players out to dry. Some would argue that it's an opportunity to take a proper competitive look at players pushing for a place, whereas just as many people would argue that you can't learn much throwing players into a team that's completely different to the first team because you can't see how they interact and read each other. Not to mention the old arguments about lower quality opposition - a good performance is a good performance but is Osayi-Samuel roasting a very poor Rovers' right back enough for McClaren to think he can do that to Maxime Colin in Birmingham this weekend? Like so much of this, I genuinely do not know where I stand on it, I'm just airing out the various perceptions and arguments haha. I don't think that's really the case about Holloway only integrating younger (and fringe) players once we were safe, though it depends on when you consider safety was assured. Technically, while never closer than 6 points from the relegation zone, we weren't safe until the last few weeks of the season. But if you consider it being a good few months before that (as we probably both do?) he was bringing in young players a good while before that. Smyth scored on his debut on New Year's Day, Oteh scored on his debut a couple of weeks later. Wheeler played and scored back in September 2017, Osayi-Samuel made his debut the same month, Manning was playing and scoring in December 2016 (a month after Ollie's re-appointment). There's other examples, but even the latest one is January 2018 when we were down in 17th - hardly cruising on a wave of safety hubris then? In mitigation though, you could argue some of those changes were enforced rather than calculated, but that kind of brings me back to a point made earlier in the thread. Without the injury crisis hitting our back line under Holloway, who's to say whether Furlong would have got his impressive run in the side? By the same token, if Ollie had the option and brought in someone akin to Angel Rangel as cover, I feel like we'd likely be having the same discussions we are this season. We're near the relegation zone in January, someone like Rangel gives us experience and stability, Furlong is too much of a risk, we need cover in that position let's not blood him too quickly because it could break him... All hypothetical, of course and youngsters can sink or swim. But you remove the outlet and there's no way of telling how it could go. The key difference is that Holloway did not have that option and because of his remit, he had to make do. McClaren, in conjunction with the panic caused by our first four results, does appear to though which is what I mean by the potential change of tact. Like I keep saying though, this isn't me disagreeing as such. I think you (and salts) could very well be right on all this, I'm just pointing out that it can shift with perception and there's a lot of different ways of looking at it. I agree that Hemed and Wells are loan signings in a position where we needed them regardless of the four poor results and regardless of who's in the dug out. The miser in me says we didn't need both but they're both very accomplished at our level and we're very lucky to have them. Both are rusty but they made a night and day difference on Saturday for the better. Hopefully you're correct that having established a bit of platform for ourselves and the strong showing on Tuesday from the youth and fringe players, we'll begin to see more of the likes of Smyth and Osayi-Samuel. Because for all the panic and logic in shoring things up, it doesn't change the fact for me that seeing the likes of them in our team, young players who really want to succeed for us, makes me incredibly happy and makes me feel so much better about handing money over to watch this lot.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 30, 2018 11:12:48 GMT
24 V 22 please, Payback for 1985 and "That" loss. Don't know what you're talking about, that game never happened, remember? If we keep saying that, it didn't exist. Seriously though, I'd quite fancy Oxford away. It's a lower league team so potential for progression (I know, it's QPR...). I've never been to the Kassam Stadium, so that's one to tick off. It's very easy to get to with regular trains. Opportunity to say hello to Jamie Mackie. Plus, an opportunity to purge the memory of us getting tanked 4-1 up there in 1998. I was 11 years old, I was very, very cold and it was one of my most miserable QPR memories. Would also happily take Southampton (so we can say hello to Hughes...), Liverpool away (never been) and West Ham away (walkable). Being QPR, we'll probably get Blackburn away.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 29, 2018 15:38:55 GMT
Where on earth do they find these people, bloody hell.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 29, 2018 10:29:08 GMT
Firstly I agree with Ricky's comments above Holloway. I was against changing mid season but making the change in the summer to me was the right choice. Whether McClaren is the right solution is open to opinion so I will give him the same time and chance as any other we may have chosen. The incoming loans I think have been generally accepted as necessary - especially up front and I feel we have done well to pick up both of these strikers. The area that seems to cause the greatest differences of opinion is the subject of outgoing loans and whether we should be playing more youth. The squad is overloaded in some areas so loaning out those younger players who we feel will benefit and are not yet ready for the first team is the right thing to do, as is loaning out older players who do not fit the current plans. When it gets to how many of our younger players should be on the pitch at the moment I think maybe we are jumping the gun. We got off to a very bad start and putting out a team with 4 or 5 young inexperienced players at the moment could destroy some of them as well as lead us to somewhere we do not want to go. However names such as Chair BOS and Kakay are going to be in and around the squad and will definitely get increasing game time as the season continues. First we can start to blood them by choice when we have a few more points on the board, or alternativel it only takes one or two players to pick up a knock - notably Rangel and they will be straight in. If we use those 3 names just as an example (because everyone has different opinions on who may be ready) add on Eze and we have 4 young players breaking in to the squad and team and they will be getting some game time and experience. If a couple of those 4 play each week even in rotation, as substitutes, or as injuries occur, or according to the needs depending on the opposition we are still heading in the right direction. It's a long hard season and expecting to see all 4 on the starting team sheet every week is unrealistic especially given the experience we have in our midfield and now upfront. What does worry me is that I am not aware of any good young goal scorers or CB's pushing their way into the picture so we need to find some befor the end of this season or we will be back in for loans in a years time. Really well summed up 75. Completely agree with every point you make...except make that 5 young players; you can add Lumley. On the theme of outgoing loans, we can only loan out players who other teams express an interest in. We don't always get a choice in the matter. This may explain why Manning went and not Cousins for example. The club may have preferred to keep Manning and loan out Cousins instead but the offer from Rotherham may have been too good to turn down ie if we held back then the opportunity may have gone and no other offers coming in would leave Manning playing much less football and perhaps getting disgruntled. Or financially it may have a good offer for us. Certainly playing in the Championship means that we will know if he can play consistently well at this level by the end of the season, hence accepting Rotherham's offer before they looked elsewhere and no other Championship team came in for him. A loan to a L1 club would have been far less useful for him or us. McClaren has only worked with the players since June so it's possible that Cousins may have been in his plans more than Manning. Who knows? I think that Wheeler is not our plans at all, unless we get relegated. If that happens though we get a player back next season who is effective at L1 level and has been playing regularly for the previous 12 months. I'd understand it better if it was a question of them playing significant parts in all four of the poor performances and then us taking them out of the firing line. But barely any of them featured and who's to say they'd have done any better or worse? Eze is the exception. Smyth and Osayi-Samuel played bit parts in the first two games, Manning a bit part at Preston. Kakay began the season but has been removed for Rangel for Bristol City at home; no young player other than Eze played and we still got hammered. Unless I'm missing the point, the argument seems to be that more senior players are largely performing poorly (hopefully that's now changing?!) but let them continue with the supplemented benefit of our loans up-front, until things are more stable? If so, I do kind of get that. A key difference for me is that these aren't individual roastings. The example I use for taking a young player out of the firing line for their own sake is Furlong against Arsenal. He got thrown it at the deep end and got hammered all game by a far superior player. I've not seen that this season - our losses have been collective failures in tactics and motivation across the pitch. The outlier, ironically for this debate, is Lumley. He's less experienced at this standard and younger than Ingram, but we think he's worth giving a run to. That seems correct to me, though contradictory to the line of argument. However, I guess you could argue that out of all the players in our losses to date, Ingram is the only one who's been 'exceptionally' poor. Though there's a minor caveat of McClaren asking him to come in fresh and play as some kind of Libero/Sweeper after two years of sitting on the bench. That was a tough ask, to put it lightly, and it clearly decimated his confidence. There's an argument that we're in poor form and therefore you wait until there's points on the board and a platform to grow from where it's 'safer' to bring the young players in. I follow that. However, are they going to be? These aren't kids fresh out the U23s. There's just as much argument that if that group of players are beginning to grind out points in a new shape, then you let them continue and don't rock the boat. As before, I'm not really disagreeing much with what anyone says here, I'm just noting concern with the change of tone and direction about the place under McClaren. There may be stuff none of us understand going on behind the scenes. For all I know (for the record, I don't think this is the case) Manning is more highly rated than Cousins but Manning is far a more attractive loan option for other clubs and Cousins is our contracted player so it's better to try and make the best of him now. It boggles the mind on a man-for-man basis why someone tenacious like Manning isn't being chucked in to shore things up at West Brom as opposed to a lightweight Cousins, but maybe that's because the loan deal was sorted and we couldn't risk him being injured? There could be all sorts of reasons. As people rightly say, the loan options going out can be as complicated as the loan options coming in - we can only get players in clubs are willing to part with and we can only loan out the players other teams are actually interested in. But the defining feature for me is that Holloway played those youngsters, blooded them, took risks with them, because it was part of his job description. It was explicitly part of the public discourse on McClaren's appointment too, but he isn't. The fundamental thing for me is that I think it's logic after the fact - the loans are here and by comparison, our young players look weaker. To put it another way, if one of Holloway's winless runs coincided with a transfer window where we were allowed to bring in loans of the quality we've seen this season, would we have seen many of the youngsters we now think are so high quality? But these are predominantly footballers who all got extended periods of first team football last season and we were told had big seasons ahead of them. Out of the group mentioned, one is out on loan and the others are now rarely seen outside of cup games. But anyway, it's very early days and maybe this a worry over nothing and that will change.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 29, 2018 9:12:28 GMT
Seems a little crazy to me. Although McClaren has been linked with Thorne and Martin all summer so who knows. Anya can also play RB. Much rather we focus on decent CB, not Bassong. I'm hoping it's an issue of either Derby and/or the players' agents realising they aren't going to get much game time there so are trying to drum up some interest before the end of the loan window. We wouldn't need any of them. Agree that a CB who isn't Bassong is still the ideal. Though Hall getting some minutes does make me slightly less worried.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 29, 2018 8:50:09 GMT
Hoping for Man Ut, Man City etc away: Big Gate...Money coming in...And never know what might happen Same. My head says you want a draw that gives us the best chance of progression and a cup run (imagine!) would be brilliant for momentum but...would love a big away game.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 29, 2018 8:27:46 GMT
Rest in Peace, Ted. You Rs.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 28, 2018 22:39:21 GMT
I'M SCARED. Happy but scared.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 28, 2018 11:47:21 GMT
Really have no idea. We don't do cups...but with everything that's been going on, a little cup run would be lovely and Rovers haven't had a decent start to the season.
QPR 1 - Bristol Rovers 0.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 28, 2018 10:16:03 GMT
Iām more in the Kakay needs more time to be a regular starter but my son is more if the camp of Kakay should be starting every week, rather than an old left back in Rangel Smyth was talking to us before the game saying he hoped to be starting and didnāt even make the subs bench, I see him sadly being loaned out until Christmas at least , probably Pompey. Shodipo got himself injured in the friendly the other day , three months out. Had lots of the youngsters sitting behind me today, seem a really good bunch of kids , really getting into the game from the sidelines, really refreshing. Why sadly? He needs some English League competitive games. Better to go on loan and get some as he won't get many here just yet. Then he's in a better position to challenge for a place here. I think the crux for me isn't the loans themselves but the use and integration (or lack) of our young talent. In the example of Smyth, I think it is 'sadly' because he was getting minutes last season and doing very well. I was very excited to see him getting minutes and improving this season. But now we're apparently at peace with the idea that, for a year, he's surplus to requirements. Doesn't mean he won't develop on loan, does mean he won't be developing with and for us. To me, that is a sad thing. I may be wrong and it's all for the best and he's twice the player in a year's time. But that wasn't the plan. It's like I said before about our new loan signings making sense after the fact. Or to put it another way, if we had only brought in Hemed on loan and the plan was Smyth and Eze playing either side of him in a front three, would we have been upset by that? I don't think so, I'd be absolutely buzzing. That integration was supposed to be crucial for this season and it was the key selling point made by the club for McClaren's appointment - him developing these players further, blooding them further and making them better. Now either that was PR spin and it was never actually the plan or we've seen four games go very poorly and we've panicked. But to quote from Clive's preview from the Wigan game, this isn't what we were sold pre-season: "Ilias Chair, Bright Osayi-Samuel, Ryan Manning, Paul Smyth and now Osman Kakay were playing, and now are not. Manning has already been loaned out to Rotherham. Smyth, after one poor 45 minute start against Sheff Utd, is being linked with a similar move to Portsmouth. Kakay has been replaced by 35-year-old Angel Rangel. Chair hasnāt played a single minute. McClaren talks about the needs of āthese young playersā but heās now only picking one of them, Ebere Eze..."Like, crucially I'm not knocking the likes of Wells and Hemed - they're both very, very useful players at this level. But I also think too much emphasis is being put on the idea that "loans = experience for young players = definitively good" while not considering the wider context of the pathway to first team football. I am the first to agree that loans are loads better than sitting in the U23s. But it's not necessarily better than being on the bench and fighting for a first team place. To me, a lot of the players mentioned (definitely Osayi-Samuel, Smyth, Manning and Kakay, less so Chair) are capable of, through the course of the season, getting first team minutes. That's why they were named in the senior squad. I think our difference in opinion comes down to what is worthwhile for them. To me, not being assured of a first team place, but being in the squad, training with the first team, being on the bench, pushing for a start (i.e. fully integrated into the QPR squad) is still a very useful use of those players. Putting them on loan can be seen as them being pushed back a step - it says, we think you're a year away from being involved whereas last season, we saw them on the cusp and all the club communications were about how this was the season where they'd make their mark. Yes they'll get games at the clubs they may go on loan to but regardless of how we feel about them, we were told that they'd get games here. Do I think loans are better when someone has no chance at a first team run? Yes, 100%. Do I think a lot of those players are at a stage where they should be pushing for a start? Yes. Do I think, regardless of how I rate our loanees, that's still a concern for a club of our limited stature compared to the strides made last season? Definitely. Also forgot to mention - definitely agree with 75's point earlier about the tone of debate on this. It's v enjoyable!
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 25, 2018 17:22:55 GMT
In a much better mood walking down the Uxbridge Road in the sun.
Interesting shape today. When I heard the team, I unexpectedly presumed 4-4-2 but it shifted at different times. On paper it was a 4-3-3 with Wells on the right of the three. At other times (more often out of possession) we shifted to Hemed and Wells up top as a two, Eze and Freeman pushed wide behind them and Luongo and Scowen behind them.
Biggest difference was that now the ball actually stuck up the other end of the pitch and Hemed was critical to that. Knock on effect appeared to be that midfielders had an 'out' to their moves. Freeman and Eze cut less frustrated figures, knowing their lofted balls had an outlet - that it was worth pushing up cos Hemed so frequently controlled and laid off the ball back to them (I.e. how the system is supposed to work). It wasn't amazing but it was enough. Early days with the two new loanees.
First half we didn't look much better or worse than the first half of the last couple of games. Wigan pushed with a front three, both teams felt each other out. Our first goal was exactly the kind you need when you're low on confidence- an acrobatic poach amongst a big mess in the penalty area.
Lumley made a superb (if unorthodox) save from a long range effort and it did wonders for his confidence. Some errant kicks but very vocal and assured. He was even marshalling the linesman to keep in line with the last man, which I've never seen before..!
Some hairy moments towards the end. Some poor clearances but some very tasty blocks from us, we definitely dug in to grind the win out.
Anyway, just great to see three points and a win. We really needed that and deserved it. Also really good to see Leistner and Scowen gathering the players together at the end so they all clapped the fans. Uuu Rs.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 25, 2018 10:47:53 GMT
Bircham Donāt be going out now and paying big wages to older players. QPR has always been about developing and improving our own and now weāve started doing that again we have to keep going.
āFFP makes it a level playing field for clubs who are well run and produce good players. Itās what QPR has to look to do and Les and (technical director) Chris Ramsey have made great strides in that respect.ā This makes me feel a little bit less crazy, at least.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 25, 2018 10:46:05 GMT
WBA world beaters as some thought, , just beaten again, didnāt score one. Very average indeed. Just shows how bad our last two performances have been We outplayed Wolves at home and beat Cardiff away last season, you can't draw big conclusions off stuff like that. The Championship is a very weird place. We were absolutely appalling against West Brom but you don't need to be making it even worse by making leaps. Just kicking us when we're down at that point.
|
|
|
Wigan
Aug 25, 2018 10:40:52 GMT
harr likes this
Post by bowranger on Aug 25, 2018 10:40:52 GMT
Have a great day harr & son, hopefully top it off with a win Hope it's a great day for you both, Harr and son. Fingers crossed. On my way down there soon, think of us lot in the normal seats!
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 25, 2018 10:35:40 GMT
Dang guys. Reading page 22 was exhaustive... That being said, loads of good points made by all. Now only if we can score some! It's great to read such intelligent writing and insight, I'm not used to this across the pond when I visit other team forums. Now for my insight: I think strikers were the way to go. If you can't score, you can't win. Scoring lifts the spirits of the team and, of course, the fans. This could translate into better defensive efforts and thus give us a better shot at getting results in these games. I mean, I guess there's an even more basic argument that even if a better attacking performance doesn't translate to better defensive efforts, conceding an inevitable goal is less of a problem if we're scoring two or three at the other end!
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 25, 2018 10:28:52 GMT
I can see many of your points Bow but we need points quickly and playing inexperienced, but promising, players like Kakay is not perhaps the right answer until we get some . He is out of position at times and needs to learn - but not in our first team when we are bottom of the league. Angel can help him develop. We'll play him regularly when it is safe to do so. I'm afraid taking chances is an option that can spell disaster these days. I wasn't trying to single out Kakay for his performance at WBA but was trying to point that a defence that is leaking in goals left , right and centre needs some experience to stabilise it. Good points about Manning but why keep him as cover and play him sporadically when he can play week in week out in the Championship at Rotherham? Of course you can blood players if they aren't here - that's the point in sending them out on loan! We are not going to attract quality loanees if they are not going to play regularly. We need them to stay up as the squad we have isn't quite good enough to keep us up - especially if we persist with the strikers we have. Sorry but I don't classify wide attacking players in a 4-3-3 as midfielders. Take your point about classing wingers as midfielders though and agree that BOS can play as an attacking wide player not just a winger. I definitely see where you are coming from. A big chunk of it for me is probably being traumatised by the layering of the last few years, combined with the young players being one of the key things that keeps me excited about the team at the moment. So it all makes me a bit edgy and I probably over-think it. I find it hard to shake the idea that loans become 'logical' after the fact, if that makes sense? For example, with Kakay, I think a lot of clubs at our 'level' would have a first choice RB and an understudy just like we do. When one gets injured, the other steps in and they just temporarily suck it up - the idea of someone like Rangel coming in as cover isn't the go-to option. But now he's here, the idea of Kakay playing is seen as untenable. I totally agree with you about loans in principle - I think they're a good thing for young players. One of the things I immediately agreed with Ferdinand about was when he said that it's a hundred times better for young players to be playing against rough-housing, adult players in the lower leagues in front of crowds of people than working on manicured pitches behind closed doors against other talented kids. My thought though is always about the pathway the club talk about. In Kakay's example, he's been out on loan twice (Livingston and Chesterfield), has been on the bench last season and got first team minutes and made the senior squad for this year. That should mean that we think he's ready to play when called upon as temporary cover for Furlong. He'll make mistakes, but he'll learn. Ditto the likes of Smyth, it's an investment and those are risks worth taking to me. I can't help but feel like in the same situation, Furlong would not now be missed as our first choice RB. People were unconvinced by him when he began, particularly when he got roasted in the Prem. But we persisted, he got better and better and now we can't imagine life without him. But what if we had brought in a more experienced RB in instead? I like the conveyor belt - loan spell, sub appearances, cup starts, into the senior team. I'd compare it maybe to Lumley. He's less experienced than most of our youngsters but we are (rightly) talking about him coming in for a run now Ingram's confidence seems utterly shot. He's had two loan spells, like many of our kids have and we seem fine about the idea of him starting games at senior level, cos he's a senior squad player. But if we had, say, a 30 year old keeper from another Championship club on loan, I find it hard to believe that we wouldn't be making the same arguments - you can't blood him by throwing him straight in, he can learn from having a more experienced keeper to watch and learn from. You bring in a loan option, we can always make a convincing argument for them to start ahead of our kids - if we want to. I see what you're saying on the players to keep us up but most of them did with something to spare last year because we found a way that just about worked - we adapted to what we had. That happened even with our strikers. Don't get me wrong, we were crying out for something better up top and I'm very glad we've done that. The main weakness is at CB - we've lost our two first choice CBs and only brought one in, we need one more. So I'm not against bringing in bodies on loan when we can't compete in the transfer window. This doesn't prove much, but I think back to Birmingham at home last season - back four of Kakay, Furlong, Bidwell, Manning. Seems mad now, but we won 3-1. I like us when we adapt. But it's still that core thing about keeping that pathway open as much as possible. I am 100% with you that if players won't get experience here, then getting first team experience somewhere else is the right thing to do. But it needs to be balanced by letting our players feel valued. I think we were weak up top but now we're not. We are still weak at CB. Right midfield and the right attacker position off a three is not a position I feel we're weak in, so that's why the potential Smyth loaning irks me a bit. He started games last season, he came on as a sub last season, a loan would be a step backwards in terms of that pathway. Doesn't mean a loan wouldn't be good for him, but it also doesn't mean him being given a platform this season wouldn't be good for him either. If Wells potentially means he doesn't get a run, then a loan sort of makes sense. I just disagree with the situation itself, rather than the loan solution. For clarity, I'm not really disagreeing with you, I think it's a very interesting topic and I genuinely don't have my mind made up on it. You may be completely correct on all this. It's simply me being nervous about layering, being excited about taking some risks with our talented youngsters who clearly love playing for us and being very aware that those kind of developmental risks were what we were sold during the Summer and the McClaren appointment.
|
|