Jump to content
Neal

Tony Mowbray Discussion

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

To be fair, what have they done wrong since we were relegated from the Championship?

They didn't put any pressure on Mowbray to sell anyone when we dropped into League 1 and gave him further funds to strengthen.

Since going up he's been allowed to spend £12m on two absolute duds (so far) and brought in countless other players permanently or on loan hardly any of whom have come off.

If they have a fault at the moment it seems to be in not twigging that Mowbray has brought his own man in as his boss and not paying close enough attention to what is actually going on down at Ewood. Yet in the past they've been criticised for not leaving things to "the football men".

I don't think you can criticise the support they've given the Club over the last 3 years though, albeit I would have dispensed with Mowbray 18 months ago.

This is a pretty big failing. And there's a hell of a difference between not leaving it to football men and letting the manager appoint their own boss! The non pressure and lack of a proper management structure is costing us dearly. 

Then there's the issue of budgets not being set till late on because they can't be arsed using Skype and the apparent lack of money for defenders which whilst hearsay appears to have legs. They are far from model owners. Better than they have been but not good at all. 

 

That said I agree that TM should shoulder a lot of blame and has in many ways had it far too easy. His money for strikers has been good. He hasn't had any scrutiny in the fact that they haven't worked out either. He's not been under pressure after runs that would be sacked at any other club and he appointed his own boss. For all the disfunction of Rovers TM has done very well out of it and should shoulder a fair chunk of the blame for the current issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ewood Ace said:

The dingles seem to do alright playing it.

I know it will most likely be controversial but I'd be quite happy with Pulis. 

But Burnley don't play with 2 genuine wingers but a very rigid system and long ball. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chaddyrovers said:

But Burnley don't play with 2 genuine wingers but a very rigid system and long ball. 

Nothing wrong with a long ball Chaddy. The only time Rovers have every really looked effective under Mowbray has been when we have played long ball football into Graham and Dack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

But Burnley don't play with 2 genuine wingers but a very rigid system and long ball. 

 

 

Do you agree that the false 9, wide striker experiment needs to be put in the bin and kept there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should have been sacked 5 mins after the transfer window closed last summer ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue blood said:

This is a pretty big failing. And there's a hell of a difference between not leaving it to football men and letting the manager appoint their own boss! The non pressure and lack of a proper management structure is costing us dearly. 

Then there's the issue of budgets not being set till late on because they can't be arsed using Skype and the apparent lack of money for defenders which whilst hearsay appears to have legs. They are far from model owners. Better than they have been but not good at all. 

 

That said I agree that TM should shoulder a lot of blame and has in many ways had it far too easy. His money for strikers has been good. He hasn't had any scrutiny in the fact that they haven't worked out either. He's not been under pressure after runs that would be sacked at any other club and he appointed his own boss. For all the disfunction of Rovers TM has done very well out of it and should shoulder a fair chunk of the blame for the current issues. 

Fair comment.

It appears the owners don't want the indignity back at home of one of their businesses going bust and up to press have been prepared to lob in eye watering amounts of money to keep us open but on the other hand don't have  either sufficient interest or sufficient expertise to keep a really close eye on what's going on or nip something quickly in the bud when it clearly isn't working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Waggy76 said:

He should have been sacked 5 mins after the transfer window closed last summer ...

 

Shortly after Jan 2019 window for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

But Burnley don't play with 2 genuine wingers but a very rigid system and long ball. 

 

 

Burnley are now light years ahead of us as a club.

IMO, it's a myth that Mowbray's Rovers are a footballing team.

IMO, the football, in the main, since Mowbray took over has been dire in the extreme - akin to a Sunday league pub team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roversfan99 said:

Do you agree that the false 9, wide striker experiment needs to be put in the bin and kept there?

I like the 4-3-3 system as such but Armstrong need to be the main striker in the 9 role not as false 9. 

Or you go back to 4-2-3-1 system with Armstrong up front and Holtby as 10. 

4 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

Nothing wrong with a long ball Chaddy. The only time Rovers have every really looked effective under Mowbray has been when we have played long ball football into Graham and Dack.

different managers have different style. But I never said they was anything wrong with the long ball if you have the players to play that. Currently I don;t think we do. Gallagher isn't a Graham type striker. So dont know why we bought him if he was going to take over from him long term. We should have used that money to buy a 1st keeper, centre back and left back last summer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Shortly after Jan 2019 window for me.

Possibly the Brentford debacle !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Shortly after Jan 2019 window for me.

Should never have been appointed.

I honestly can't see a single managerial strength.

IMO, almost a completely disasterous appointment.  We are not much better of than when he arrived.

Edited by Mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mercer said:

IMO, it's a myth that Mowbray's Rovers are a footballing team.

IMO, the football, in the main, since Mowbray took over has been dire in the extreme - akin to a Sunday league pub team.

He has certain managed to create some myth for himself. It always staggers me when I hear all these so called experts on TV talking about how Mowbray likes his side play attacking front foot football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chaddyrovers it's not too long ago that you were advocating Mowbray should be given a 5 year deal.

Views now?

Sack or back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Miller11 said:

Anyone calling for Mowbray to go, please just remember one thing...

Any replacement will come from HSH (the reincarnation of SEM). 
Venkys have always and continue to only appoint managers from their “trusted advisors”

HSH represent Mowbray, Coyle and Lambert

HSH = Honeyman, Sheron, Horner

One former SEM director, 2 former SEM employees.

Do a quick google search on Sheron... see who he has worked with and what they got up to.

 

 

Lessons learned? Bollocks.

 

if TM is a client of HSH then I pointed out a while ago that Smallwood was also definitely a client of theirs and this was a really unhealthy conflict of interest as TM might feel obliged to act in the player's interest rather than the Club's.

Since then of course we've seen this play out in practice with Smallwood sitting on his arse doing nothing for 12 months on full pay, and then getting a short term contract extension to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I like the 4-3-3 system as such but Armstrong need to be the main striker in the 9 role not as false 9. 

Or you go back to 4-2-3-1 system with Armstrong up front and Holtby as 10. 

different managers have different style. But I never said they was anything wrong with the long ball if you have the players to play that. Currently I don;t think we do. Gallagher isn't a Graham type striker. So dont know why we bought him if he was going to take over from him long term. We should have used that money to buy a 1st keeper, centre back and left back last summer

Have to have a number 10 because Dack and Holtby play there. Absolutely scandulous that there are NO players (for either system) that can play those wide roles. None at all. Shambolic. An area that needs fixing in the summer as much as any. With no money its gonna be hard.

Good chance we wont even beat last years points tally of 60. Progress? What progress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

if TM is a client of HSH then I pointed out a while ago that Smallwood was also definitely a client of theirs and this was a really unhealthy conflict of interest as TM might feel obliged to act in the player's interest rather than the Club's.

Since then of course we've seen this play out in practice with Smallwood sitting on his arse doing nothing for 12 months on full pay, and then getting a short term contract extension to boot.

I think the club needs sweeping clean from top to bottom.

IMO, Waggott, Cheston, Mowbray, Venus, Lowe, Benson all need bulleting for starters - third raters at best.  Can anyone tell me what value they've added to the club? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mercer said:

@Chaddyrovers it's not too long ago that you were advocating Mowbray should be given a 5 year deal.

Views now?

Sack or back?

currently back him. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

if TM is a client of HSH then I pointed out a while ago that Smallwood was also definitely a client of theirs and this was a really unhealthy conflict of interest as TM might feel obliged to act in the player's interest rather than the Club's.

Since then of course we've seen this play out in practice with Smallwood sitting on his arse doing nothing for 12 months on full pay, and then getting a short term contract extension to boot.

Spot on Rev. The club is still corrupt just more discrete about it these days. The Smallwood example is just one of it. The last 3 managers being from there another. Which when that lands you with Lambert, Coyle and TM it leaves the club in a very bad place indeed. 

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I like the 4-3-3 system as such but Armstrong need to be the main striker in the 9 role not as false 9. 

Or you go back to 4-2-3-1 system with Armstrong up front and Holtby as 10. 

Go back to the second formarion. We don't have the players for 4-3-3. The strikers struggle as wide strikers and it means we play (or should play) less of the failing lot of them in the other formation. It also stops us playing a false 9, although to be fair I thought that was a description of our strikers rather than a position. It also works well when Dack comes back and you can slot him and Holtby in the team. 

Quote

different managers have different style. But I never said they was anything wrong with the long ball if you have the players to play that. Currently I don;t think we do. Gallagher isn't a  striker.

Fixed it for you. He's not a wide forward or midfielder or footballer either imo.b

Quote

So dont know why we bought him if he was going to take over from him long term. We should have used that money to buy a 1st keeper, centre back and left back last summer

Agree with where the money should have been spent. I think TM did however see him as Graham's replacement. I mean if he's anything at all he should be that kind of striker. The problem is he's not very good and it's a demanding role to play leading the line alone, so he isn't a suitable successor. Yep strengthen the defence instead looks a much smarter bet, especially with Armstrong improving. We already had 2 substandard strikers on the pitch. The chopping and rotating between the 3 and Graham and anyone else TM decides to play as a striker must make it even harder for them to develop. Perhaps without Gally one of the others would have had a run and found a bit of form. Unlikely, very unlikely, but better odds then the chopping and changing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been here before and will undoubtedly be here again. Calls for his head, poor results, people thinking he will walk and then boom, he pulls out a surprise result against someone, manages to string a few more results together and the picture gets a bit healthier. 

Ultimately we will hit another downward spiral at some point after and the cycle continues.

He isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

currently back him. 

 

For how long and why?

Would you ever sack him and under what circumstances?

Edited by Mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well another trademark Mowbray week. Start it off in a good place, looking up the table, starting to be taken seriously as a play-off contender after impressing against a rival side in Bristol City. 

Ten days later two appalling defeats against two poor sides, two golden opportunities wasted, no goals, four against and ending up a disorganised rabble with baffling subs, lineups, formations. 

In the end he falls back on his career long solution of chucking an array of attackers on for the last 15 minutes in the hope that one of them manages to conjure up some magic, but in the end they rarely do and the scoreline gets worse rather than better as we look completely lost and are wide open at the back. 

He isn't going to change because he did the same thing 10 years ago at Celtic. He is either incapable or unwilling to do it any differently.

He gets sympathy from me insofar as I am gutted that after such impressive performances we have now seemingly lost both Travis and Evans to injury for the rest of the season. Meanwhile who knows what is happening with Bell and Williams but i have my suspicions on that front. Point is that we all expected fatigue with such a schedule of games but to be missing so many so soon after 3 months without a game is a big problem.

But at the same time this is his squad, and the woeful lack of contribution from his signings in Samuel, Gallagher, Brereton, Rothwell and Chapman means he shoulders the blame and must ultimately pay the price for it. 

We aren't ever going to get up from this division with this manager because we can't defend properly and can't achieve any level of consistency in selection, approach or performance. 

There should be an analysis taking place upstairs as to whether they are happy with that or whether their aims are going to be met by this group of staff but instead there will be nothing of the sort. Waggott will tell fans we are lucky to have Tony, they'll go and tell the owners everything is fine and dandy and ticking over nicely, Trav, Nyambe and Lenihan's values have gone up a bit more, happy days and off we go again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mercer said:

I think the club needs sweeping clean from top to bottom.

IMO, Waggott, Cheston, Mowbray, Venus, Lowe, Benson all need bulleting for starters - third raters at best.  Can anyone tell me what value they've added to the club? 

 

You're correct it does but it always leads back to the top, the club will never get the right people in the right places until we have new owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I like the 4-3-3 system as such but Armstrong need to be the main striker in the 9 role not as false 9. 

Is it just me who hasn't got a cue what a false 9 actually is. It seems to me like another example of Mowbray over complicating things. Just stick a a centre forward through the middle, it's not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ewood Ace said:

Is it just me who hasn't got a cue what a false 9 actually is. It seems to me like another example of Mowbray over complicating things. Just stick a a centre forward through the middle, it's not rocket science.

Spot on.

An analogy - a false sh@g is a wet dream!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Twas a dreich night at Ewood last year that Sheff Utd showed up and booted us all over the park. In our faces the whole night and we were feable against 3-5-2. It was at that point we should have copied them and built a side to fit that formation. The under 23s under Johno were using it religiously at that point too. Dack could fit in right behind the little and large strikers. 

The 4-2-3-1 has never really worked for us, and was just a shoe horn to fit Dack into his favourite role without any thought of decent wide men, fast forward a year and we are still dicking around with inside forwards and wide strikers trying to figure out a way to play. It’s a mess, a hot mess in fact. Brutal injuries and bad luck at times but the style of play and formation is all wrong.

Edited by Fraserkirky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.