I do really feel sorry for the kid now. It seems the case for the defence has rested looking at this thread. He looked a different player against Boro yesterday than he did in midweek at Reading but I think that was purely because Reading gave him time and allowed him to start running at them. On form, he shouldn't be anywhere near starting for the first team. He should have gone U23's when he first joined and worked his way through. Putting him in there now will probably break the lad and from next season onwards he'll have been here 12 months so he should be making an impact.

Plenty of empty seats yesterday around me in the Blackburn End which are normally taken up by season ticket holders.

In the absence of having addressed the situation in January, Williams until the summer.

It was a chore going down to Ewood today with the season being over Why would I want to have to bother driving or travelling to Wigan or Blackpool to watch a group of people play football I have no attachment to?

Ideally, Bell should only ever be seen again on the wing instead of Conway. Defensively he cannot tackle, close down or control the ball, and he doesn't see danger. People like him because, on the overlap, he's quick and can win a few corner. He can also stretch teams. But a full back needs to first and foremost defend and he can't do it. How many men didn't Berg 'beat' at full back when we won the premier league.

There's 3-way temporary lights up and roadworks at the junction of Bolton road and Branch road. If your coming up Branch road towards Ewood they seem to be on red for quite a while

He gave his opinion on what he thought the team should be. Most people thought Bell was poor on Wednesday. Why the raised eyebrows emoji? I'd save that for when somebody suddenly decides Williams is shite, having said within the last 6 months that he can play well as cover and is more than capable.

Raya Nyambe. Rodwell. Mulgrew. Brereton Rothwell Travis. Evans. Armstrong Dack Graham

Wonder what he's like at left back? ?

Ok thanks for explaining. So you don't pick players on form like you said.

You've ignored the question again Chaddy. You put Reed in your starting line up. After he was dropped and you agreed with the decision, you said "I pick players on form. Reed was poor at Saturday. Smallwood was good and better than Reed. Reed has been poor recently" So why did you put Reed in your starting line up?

You've not quoted and ignored a bit of my post which you seem to refuse to answer. As for the striker position, the problem is when those two have played upfront they haven't taken their chances and excelled. We shouldn't be relying on DG, but following the failed transfer window we are.

Apologies. And as for Reed being in your team initially and then agreeing he should be dropped for Smallwood like you said on the previous page? As for DG, many players look knackered at the end of games and still play 3 or 4 days later. We haven't got the squad to not play our two main goal threats. The performance and result backs that view up Chaddy. If Dack was t playing, and DG could, he should have played.

That was Saturday. What day did we play Reading? And as LDRover says, if it was clear as day why did you pick him? And Reed?

So he could have played but TM thought we would get away with it ("unless we need him").

Clearly never listen to Danny Graham. And of the three games in a week debate, the striker said: “It’s getting a bit boring to be honest. “I’ve played three games in a week already this season. “Everyone goes on about me being 33, it doesn’t matter how old you are as long as you keep yourself fit and right. “I feel as though I’m fitter now than I ever have been at this football club so I think three games in a week is fine for me. “If other people want to talk about it then that’s fine. “In the past the gaffer has even changed players who you think would play three games in a week so it doesn’t make a difference.” Of course, Danny Graham is always going to say that isn't he. And Mowbray is always going to say he was too tired when he drops a tactically clanger like on Wednesday.

This "coming from a lower league so be patient" theme is another thing that I have some issue with. I do not blame Mowbray at all for relegation. Had he come in 2 or 3 games earlier we would probably have stopped up. The team that season were good enough to stay in the league under Mowbray but were undone by Coyle. He's kept a lot of the team together and has replaced from the lineup that went down at Brentford:- • Lowe with Smallwood • Guthrie with Reed • Gallagher with Dack • Ward with Rodwell. He's shifted out some of the deadwood and, in the instances above, has improved the starting XI. Out of the above, only Dack had no Championship experience - and he has taken to it perfectly. Therefore why are we talking like we are a team such as Southend who are playing at a new level for the first time in 25 years. We shouldn't have gone down last time, we have improved since and the players all know what the Championship is about. It's an excuse. Think big.

I'd be happy if Nyambe was at RB, starting from Sunday. Would I sell? Depends if we had someone lined up. If TM has his eye on someone who he felt was superior, would not cost significantly more, and the only way to get him was to sell then I possibly would. But that probably applies to all positions ! Purely on picking a team to win a game, I would play with Williams as I think he is the best of two poor defenders. I've said this all along but his displays at Preston / Wigan were so bad that I started to change opinion. However after seeing the Bristol City and then the Reading games, for me it's clear he's a generally better player than Bell. The dilemma is that I think we obviously need a better player for left back at this level, and there's probably more re-sale potential in Bell. As they are both dodgy, I'd maybe play Bell as the more games he plays, the more he will be classed as having Championship experience. Next season, I really hope we have new left back in and one of these two has left. From a playing perspective I'd like to see Mulgrew and a Samba / Dann / Duffy style bigger defender. I'd still like to have Lenihan as cover. However, if the business model is bring players through and sell for a profit to keep within FFP, then we'd have to keep playing Lenihan until his value is at his peak. Good thread.

Good point well made.

Graham says he can play three times a week. He did it last year. He wasnt injured. He could have started yesterday if required. The fact is Mowbray was never going to say Graham and Dack could have played but he thought the team he put out was tactically better suited to getting a result. We didn't start with our goalscorers and didn't score goals. You keep mentioning the chances we created but all this does is re-inforce the folly of leaving DG on the bench. You can spout all the superfan rose-tinted shite you want but, for the posession and positions we created, the result itself speaks volumes.

If we'd have won last night, we'd only have been 5 points behind 6th place Middlesboro with them coming to Ewood on Sunday. But we lost - because he thought Danny Graham "looked fatigued"

I thought the general play from Rovers until their box was good and the work rate to win the ball back ezceptional, albeit helped by a suicidal Reading strategy to play it out from the back when the players clearly aren't good enough.

He was shattered on Saturday. Its Wednesday night now !! Ridiculous decision to bench them which blunted our threat and contributed to us losing a game we dominated.

WHAT HAPPENED was we created chances that the players Mowbray picked weren't good enough to score. Therefore we lost a third consecutive game, this time to a team in the relegation zone. What we are asking is why dack and Graham were dropped because we all believe, including you I suspect, that they would have been more likely to put those chances away.

Played well by comparison to previous performances. Looked up for it with some great first touches to turn away from defenders. Good cut back to set up a chance after a poor ball by Armstrong. Faded after about half an hour. Fell over a lot. Missed sitter.