Get your very own personalised Roverite's Place gifts!
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Greg Cunningham

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,813

    Greg Cunningham

    Strong rumours of him in talks however we have competition.
    I really hope this happens
    Bell isn't the answer at left back.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,961
    Wow? Even before Hart has kicked a ball? He really does have no faith in our lads.
    What is the point of our academy? We can't keep asking Venkys to continue ploughing in millions every season, then when a good prospect comes through, ignore him and go get someone else in? I'd have thought Hart was plenty competition for Bell this season. Especially when you factor Williams into that aswell.
    Bell is not improving like he should be, but I still don't think he is anywhere near our worst player. A new LB leaves 2 perfectky ok players sitting around doing nothing. And still doesn't address the problems at RB and CB.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,062
    Bell simply isn't good enough and Hart unknown. LB is our weakest position and Cunningham has experience and can walk straight into the team.
    Exactly what we need.
    Jeez Champs TM can't do right for doing wrong

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,961
    Quote Originally Posted by seventwo View Post
    Bell simply isn't good enough and Hart unknown. LB is our weakest position and Cunningham has experience and can walk straight into the team.
    Exactly what we need.
    Jeez Champs TM can't do right for doing wrong
    I can see that. And I think I need to chill for a while, as all I am doing is moaning.
    My own opinion, I don't feel Bell is the reason we ship goals. And I don't think he is that bad. I quite like him going forward. But I accept he isn't improving. Is anyone?
    My final say until we get a few months into this season is .....this LB as good as he is, won't stop the goals Bennett will keep shipping, and he won't improve Mulgrew. That glaring problem still exists.
    I'd say a LB will have little or no impact, while a CH with experience was something I felt we had to sort. And after Sat, a RB. All young players like Hart will remain unknown while they don't get a chance.

    But time will tell.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,062
    Oh Yes the defence still needs more work. Nyambe at RB and the City kid, hopefully, at CH. A better midfield in front of them needed too. I really like the look of Johnson, best player in the squad.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,961
    Quote Originally Posted by seventwo View Post
    Oh Yes the defence still needs more work. Nyambe at RB and the City kid, hopefully, at CH. A better midfield in front of them needed too. I really like the look of Johnson, best player in the squad.

    Its all about balance. I agree about Johnson. He looked good on Sat. But playing 3 other identical player to him will mean we just wont create anything. If I was Johnson I would be worried playing in front of that defence.
    If I was Tosin, I wouldn't want to play alongside a good few of our defenders. So hopefully they settle in, and we find a system that suits these players. The current one won't.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,614
    We shouldn't forget Williams. It looks as if Cunningham and Hart are now the ones in contention for the left-back position, with Lenihan, Tosin, Williams, Mulgrew and Grayson as the centre-back options. I'm very disappointed that we didn't get Dann or Hanley, but it isn't the end of the world. (I've never been particularly bothered about Bauer, as he was another unproven choice).
    At right-back, I really do hope Nyambe is given an extended chance - without the crowd immediately getting on his back again. For his own security (if nothing else!), TM really has to give up on the idea of playing Bennett there, because of his dramatic drop in form and confidence. I am pleased to see Rankin-Costello didn't go out on loan. He will presumably will get a squad-number now, as he can be used to cover full-back and the midfield positions.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,614

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by champs95 View Post
    Its all about balance. I agree about Johnson. He looked good on Sat. But playing 3 other identical player to him will mean we just wont create anything. If I was Johnson I would be worried playing in front of that defence.
    If I was Tosin, I wouldn't want to play alongside a good few of our defenders. So hopefully they settle in, and we find a system that suits these players. The current one won't.
    The good thing about Johnson is that he looks like a decent defensive player, but provides more in the way of go-forward than people like Evans, Smallwood and Lowe.
    Playing alongside him should help Travis develop the same skill-set.

    It looks as if Mowbray is still going to favour THREE advanced players of various types (from Graham, Gallagher, Dack, Samuel, Brereton, Butterworth, Armstrong, Rothwell, Chapman, Gladwin). There has been some talk of Rothwell as a central play-maker, but it is pretty clear Mowbray doesn't see him in that role.
    Effectively, therefore, what we are looking at is a third midfielder.
    What are the options there (in addition to Johnson and Travis)?
    Downing, Bennett, Smallwood, Evans, Davenport, Buckley, Rankin-Costello.

    Champs feels playing one of the youngsters is going to make a big difference. I'm not so sure, because Buckley and R-C would ideally both prefer a central position, but Travis and Johnson aren't going to be shifted easily.
    Smallwood, Evans and Davenport are essentially 'holding' players. Bennett is completely off his game.
    I can quite see, therefore, why Downing might be the default choice for the time being. Like Craig Conway (and Bennett at his best), he possesses that mixed skill-set of being a combination winger/covering wide-midfielder.
    Last edited by AucklandRover; 09-08-2019 at 01:48 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,062
    Aucks, not sure you noticed but Mulgrew went to Wigan on loan

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,614
    Quote Originally Posted by seventwo View Post
    Aucks, not sure you noticed but Mulgrew went to Wigan on loan
    Well, I've now seen the stuff on the Telegraph, but the weird thing is, there is still no mention on the official site.
    I hope Grayson has his boots dubbined!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,813
    Interesting thing is he was just about to trigger a pay increase because of games played.
    Salgado all over again
    It's not official yet but there is no smoke without fire and this concerns me for team morale,rather than the losing of a past it mulgrew.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,961
    Quote Originally Posted by AucklandRover View Post
    The good thing about Johnson is that he looks like a decent defensive player, but provides more in the way of go-forward than people like Evans, Smallwood and Lowe.
    Playing alongside him should help Travis develop the same skill-set.

    It looks as if Mowbray is still going to favour THREE advanced players of various types (from Graham, Gallagher, Dack, Samuel, Brereton, Butterworth, Armstrong, Rothwell, Chapman, Gladwin). There has been some talk of Rothwell as a central play-maker, but it is pretty clear Mowbray doesn't see him in that role.
    Effectively, therefore, what we are looking at is a third midfielder.
    What are the options there (in addition to Johnson and Travis)?
    Downing, Bennett, Smallwood, Evans, Davenport, Buckley, Rankin-Costello.

    Champs feels playing one of the youngsters is going to make a big difference. I'm not so sure, because Buckley and R-C would ideally both prefer a central position, but Travis and Johnson aren't going to be shifted easily.
    Smallwood, Evans and Davenport are essentially 'holding' players. Bennett is completely off his game.
    I can quite see, therefore, why Downing might be the default choice for the time being. Like Craig Conway (and Bennett at his best), he possesses that mixed skill-set of being a combination winger/covering wide-midfielder.
    All I was saying was you have to have the right balance. You can't have midfielders all doing the exact same thing. And none of them offering any creativity. I didn't even suggest starting Buckley. Personally I wouldn't have. Rothwell is way ahead. I questioned why he didn't start.
    The one thing I would not have done is taken Travis off and bring Buckley on with 12 mins to go. And play Buckley in the foot of a diamond. All the senior pro's where either heavy legged or having a poor day. Or just knackered. I thought it was unfair beyond belief on the kid to bring him on then. Not sure what he expected him to do. Especially when all the side around him where all doing nothing. Play him, of course play him. But is a him correctly. That wasn't the time or place to bring him in. 3 nil up at home having s good day. Introduce him then.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,614
    Champs - I'd like Rothwell to start too. but if he is - in a sense - the extra midfielder, I assume Armstrong, Dack and Graham or Gallagher would still be used.
    That doesn't fill me with reassurance about the protection afforded our defence, unless Johnson and Travis both played a little deeper.
    To be honest, I'd prefer either Downing or Bennett as the third midfielder, and I'd play Rothwell INSTEAD OF Armstrong. I think I'm more naturally cautious than you. Also, I'm not sure how effective this "wide attacker" business is. If were going to play someone to get behind the defence (as opposed to a player from the Craig Conway mould), surely it should be Chapman. That doesn't look very likely at the moment, but I think we will gradually get to see more of him as a half-hour impact player.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,961
    I've been thinking it a while now, and it was the same first game. This winger system just doesn't work. You could revert to it, and like you say play Chapman who is really the only tricky pacey winger we have. I do think we need to change the system slightly to suit who we have. I also think he will change things round tomorrow. Personally I think he should stick with SG and let him bed in. I actually thought he did very well last week and looked decent. And that's who we spent our money on. Dack needs time to figure out his runs and vice versa. That does take time & patience. And I'm in agreement. I'd get Rothwell in ahead of Armstrong. But play him deeper inside. And get Dack closer to SG.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,614
    It almost strikes me that Dack needs to do something special in the first ten minutes to spark him.
    We know that he is "shaky" in character-terms, and if things don't go his way, his head goes down. All the same, it's very difficult to drop him because he does have that "special" quality you don't see much at our level. I just wish he was more consistent. (Although that could be said about nine of our players!)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •