My scouting career never did take off like I thought it would. Don't understand it

Brilliant footage. Ronnie and Bryan providing commentary at 5 minutes in.

Bill Fox didn't mess about.... 'What it takes'

The arrival of the King...

The sacking of The Don. I'd forgot what the Nuttall Street Stand looked like...and mullets

Even Chapman looked bored today. He hoiked a left-footer down the line at one point rugby style as if to say 'I really can't be arsed with this today' As Mowbray said he looks a right grumpy bugger at times. Still, he provided the only real edge-of-the-seat entertainment today.

You're not going on because we have players in our team who are on loan from other clubs? Yet you constantly slag off Nyambe, a player who has come through the ranks and has acquitted himself pretty well? Can't fault that logic

Self-explanatory I'd have thought.

You can't be that interested if you don't attend games.

Not really, Chapman might want to leave. It might be as simple as him going where he is wanted and guaranteed first team football. That wouldn't be us at the moment. At the beginning of the season Mowbray said he would make the system fit the players and that a manager should always get his best players on the pitch. Words to that effect. Chapman is, on the evidence so far, one of our better players.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/15556843.Tony_Mowbray_says_Middlesbrough_loanee_Harry_Chapman__is_a_work_in_progress__despite_impressive_start_to_life_at_Rovers/?action=success#comments-feedback-anchor Right on cue, Mowbray's excuses roadshow:- What Mowbray said v (reality) 1) We can't start Harry because the defence consists of a 'certain type of footballer' (the defence is slow and vulnerable, the defence he had all summer to recruit for but didn't because he was too busy signing midfielders he never plays) 2) If you get a goal teams over commit so Harry becomes useful like against MK Dons when you bring him on (If you don't play Chapman you are less likely to get the first like against Doncaster and Wimbledon so the team loses anyway) 3) If you lose the first goal life become hard (yep, so at home try and get the first goal instead of being so negative and inevitably losing) 4) I'm the expert on tactics (3 defeats in 4 at home on the cards tonight) 5) Statistically getting the 1st goal means you are likely to win (yet he sets up his team to defend and not concede) 6) If you set up your team to score 4 you'll lose (straw man at it's worst) He'd better win tonight after all that @#/?

I don't want to be that guy, but again, read what I wrote in context. I said it's a lot to expect of a 19 year old to be expected to super-sub on and rescue us all the time, which he is in danger as being portrayed as. It's less pressure at 0-0 at the start of the game than being shoved on at 1-0 down and expected to get up to speed and make the difference, which he is at the moment. That's it. Against Dons and Donny when we were losing and he came on we still lost. The games he's come on and had the most impact are the games we were already winning, MK Dons and Rochdale. Seems to back up my point about pressure. Or it may be just coincidence

I said he comes on we are 'normally losing' I've checked and he's come on three times when we've been losing and three times when we've been winning. Two unused subs. So 50/50, but a s you misunderstood my point I'm claiming a moral victory. Because he's good. He also stood out at home to Burnley when he started by all accounts. The problem is that we aren't winning at home. You haven't acknowledged that. Also because we have very little in the way of an attacking threat when the likes of Chapman and Dack aren't playing it is very easy for teams to sit off and pick us off on the break. Once they get a goal it is then even easier to pick us off as we over commit chasing the game. The reason for playing Chapman at home from the off is that it increases the chances of us getting the 1st goal which then changes the whole complexion of the game. Teams then have to come out and commit players themselves, opening up the space for the likes of Chapman to exploit. Chapman isn't always going to come off the bench and save us, he did at the weekend away from home but he didn't he didn't against Dons or Donny at home. He's 19, he can't be relied upon to be a super sub and get us out of the shyte which he is in danger of being seen as. He needs a start. If Mowbray doesn't trust him out wide then give him a start up front or just off the striker. It's not like we have strikers banging them in. When he signed Mowbray said he could play all along the frontline.

Never said he wasn't. I like people who contribute.

You don't strike me as a quitter

A poor comparison.

I can see it away to some extent but not at home, given how clueless we look at Ewood. Not sure how many minutes he's played this season but he has five assists. We've only scored 12.

He's a Rangers fan.

What's that got to do with Harry Chapman?

The continued refusal to play him, especially at home, is criminal IMO. It's not like we are an effective attacking force blowing teams away without him. I'd wager half our goals this season have occurred because he's been on the pitch, his 'assists to minutes played' ratio must be the best in the country. I also don't understand the supposed rationale for not playing him. At home we have hardly been under the cosh this season because teams come to Ewood to defend. Can we really afford to keep our most effective attacker on the bench because he may not protect possession or protect the full back etc?. Are we really that bad everywhere else on the pitch that we can't give a talented young lad the freedom to express himself and have a go at the opposition? If we played him from the start he might blow teams away by half-time and if not the oppo would be so scared of him they'd put 2 men on him and leave space elsewhere. He is a terrific talent who makes things happen. And whether the oppo have 'tired legs' or not wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Whether it's the 1st minute or the last Chapman is quicker than the lot of them. Get him in the team from the start, not when it's too late. He's under pressure every time he comes on because we are normally losing.

@Mike E 2017 Hybrid Bike Reviews. Also a decent video on the advantages of Hybrids for commuting. http://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-tests/hybrid-bikes-buyers-guide-206065 I've had a Trek Hybrid for a few years and it's been a fantastic bike for me. Some other Hybrid Bike reviews here from down the years which may help in some way:- http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/hybrid/

Villa are another big club. Everton are also a big club but not because they've been finishing in the top 10 of the Prem for the last 10 seasons but never winning anything. They are historically just a big club. Chelsea were a big club in the 50's, 60's and 70's using your criteria. They struggled in the 80's but you only seem you seem to think they have become 'big' since Abramovic took over. You seem to put money and league position before all so we'll agree to disagree. It's all a bit Sky Sports for me, sorry.

By your definition Leicester are bigger than Everton yet you fail to mention them. Liverpool haven't won the league for nearly 30 years, Everton longer. Playing in the top division on a regular basis doesn't make you a big club. Leeds will always be a bigger club than B'mouth even if B'mouth finish 10th in the top division for the next 20 years on the spin. History, crowds, prestige, tradition, trophies won, reputation, infrastructure etc all contribute to being a big club. Not just money and league position.

You need to give him a damn good thrashing and send him to bed without any tea.

He's dunn rather well.