Are we really that physical?

[Hazza Has A Gazza]

Darragh MacAnthony has added his name to the list of football people who have branded us a physical team in an interview/rant about Marcus Maddison, saying "we don't want players who don't fancy playing at Rotherham as they're a bit physical".

Is it a cheap label as we have a couple of players over 6ft and one or two who like a tackle? Or are we really the bunch of bruisers everyone seems to think we are?

Through my biased eyes we're a very efficient unit capable of both the silky stuff and the rough stuff. No more physical than 95% of teams at this level which showed when we were getting bullied in the first quarter of the season by teams like Lincoln, Tranmere and Wycombe.

I think this label has a detrimental effect on us, as referees most likely believe what they hear about us and let it get in the way of reality on the field, which might explain some of the diabolical refereeing displays we've witnessed this season.

L1 is, always has been and should be a very physical league, and I just think we suit the environment rather than this notion that we're dirty and love a good scrap.

Thoughts?

[mikemiller]

We've got some strong players, but not really dirty ones. A couple of rash sendings-off may have caught some people's attention though

[mellowmiller]

Personally I couldn't care less what Darragh MacAnthony thinks as he's a bit of a t**t.
I think we are developing into a team that can adapt to play in the best way necessary to get a positive result and surely that's what any team should strive to do.
Interestingly the team we fielded at Peterborough lost because it was not strong enough in midfield as Matt Crooks didn't play and Wiles and Barlaser are simply not physical enough.

[Stovicmiller]

Could not care less what other people think about Rotherham. We are no more physical than any other team.

[Townerslovechild]

Absolutely not, these people need to actually watch the games properly, not go on hearsay.

[Pocket rocket]

Personally I couldn't care less what Darragh MacAnthony thinks as he's a bit of a t**t.
I think we are developing into a team that can adapt to play in the best way necessary to get a positive result and surely that's what any team should strive to do.
Interestingly the team we fielded at Peterborough lost because it was not strong enough in midfield as Matt Crooks didn't play and Wiles and Barlaser are simply not physical enough.

This 100%

[Scum-Triumphant]

If it makes them feel better about themselves when we beat them I couldn’t care less what they say.

[crashbang]

I prefer what some have said.
"A team of lamp posts " 😊

[CAMiller]

The way I see it is that we are more physical than the less physical teams.

[rolymiller]

Think they just want us to roll over and have our tummys tickled by the fancy dan teams. Why should we do that? If its true that fancy Dan palyers like Madison dont want to come up against us then suggests we would do very well against other fancu dan players if we get back into the championship.

I also agree with Hazza that this label does us no favours with refs who probably come with a preconceived idea of how we are going to play yet, interestingly we are only a middle of the road club when it comes to yellow cards and sendings off. A lot less bookings than Ipswich for example who are meant to be the technical footy players.

Warne plays teams to their strengths. They might not be the most tehcnically gifted players but Warne tries to make sure they have all the other attributes a footballer needs. Whats more it is good to watch us steam rolling sides like Ipswich who dont have a clue how to counter it.

By the way to say we are just a physical team ignores the fact that we have players like Ogbene and Barlaser who must be 2 of the most technically gifted players in the league.