Blue blood

Caught up on Rumble. Goldberg Vs Drew was better than k thought it would be which was a bonus. That said I'm not a fan of 2 move matches. They are boring and repetitive. That said they did the best of a bad job and inoffensive is a compliment in this case. Banks - Carmella solid. Their match at TLC, which I thought was good, was better. Women's Rumble I really liked. Decent to good all the way through bar the 24/7 nonsense (which was totally unnecessary) and the right final 3 made a good ending. All three were credible challengers, all three came out looking good and it was a mild and pleasing surprise Belair won. Personally having seen her work in NXT I think Belair deserves a shot at the title and a title run. She was really popular in NXT, had some good matches and has a surprising mix of speed and strength that is impressive. Glad she has got the spotlight as I felt she could have had more of it in NXT. Think she will rise to the role. Reigns Owens terrible ending. It ruined the credibility of wrestling when the referee has to stop counting like that. Wonder what they would have done had fans been in the arena? (Remember Razor won the IC title when Jarrett couldn't climb a ladder in time to keep things realistic.) As it was the said botch might have well have just plastered all over the screen wrestling is fake as it destroyed all credibility and drama. The rest of the match I thought was also overdone (there were too many big, nay huge, false finishes) but actually had me watching and curious in a "how far over the top will they go?" kind of way. Male Rumble - very good until the finish . Lots of rivalries were picked up on in the Rumble which is as it should be, a few people really got to shine (Priest and Riddle) and a good mix of contenders and surprise entrants. Good storytelling. And then we got to the final 4 or 5. When Christian and Strowman are two of them it lessens the drama as you know neither has a chance. Orton's run in not working was a bonus and nice switch on the usual formula, but even so Edge winning? He's one of my favourites but he totally didn't need the win. WWE struggle to raise stars as it is. The Rumble is one of the few places left they can do it well. To blow such a shot on Edge seems so shortsighted and wasteful, especially in light of what the Rumble did for Drew last year. Perhaps if the final 4 had been better if would have helped but the two things combined really left an unsatisfactory taste. Shame as up to then it was going really well. So an ok PPV for me. The Rumbles are worth watching but the ending of the men's tips it more towards meh than great. At least there was no Fiend theatrics making things worse.

Didn't realise about him being RB cover as well. Bit revolutionary having a defender as cover for the right back position, wonder if it will catch on? Personally quite reassured by that as hopefully means won't see Buckley or Bennet there anytime soon. Not a big fan of loans and would much have preferred a permenant championship defender but given our sticky tape approach to the defence it's a solid and much needed signing.

I keep coming back to thinking about Bauer. On a free he was well within budget even if his wages were higher than ideal. Good at this level. Would have been around longer than Tosin and more dependable than Ayala. Sure injuries can and do happen but the likelihood is we'd have been better served than by a (very good) loan and a crock. Appreciate its hypothetical but the likelihood of Warton and Bauer getting long term injuries for us is low (appreciate they both do now, but I think the point stands - a competent and fit CB would have been better for us the last 2 seasons)

The poor chap. It's also a big advantage for a manager not selling any players. Also he's had umpteen windows to get it right and we are still struggling

Think it's great we are getting in someone rather than relying on crocks bit likewise wish we had a longer term approach than the sticky plaster loan solution. If we could loan someone with an option to buy longer term I think that would benefit us more. Even if they have less potential than a premier League loan the longevity and continuity I feel would benefit us more (assuming they are still decent.)

Can't argue with much of your logic although why Goldberg needs to be kept strong or used in matches at all is beyond me. Also am not enthused about a Mix win either. Should be nowhere near the title picture even with the east access of the MITB briefcase. However it is what it is and if comes down to how badly they will mess it up. Goldberg's matches can't be made any worse with interference. Rollins/Reigns I could get on board with. Would like a longer build up than a month or two but it would still be solid. Rollins is great and would make Reigns look like a monster. Hopefully with Rollins as face they actually do some background into making him face rather than ignoring most of his 2020 run. Would still prefer a break out star to win but this could still work.

Probably won't stay up for it due to work but will catch up the next night or so. The idea of Goldberg or Mix as champion cannot get more off-putting if they tried. (Also didn't Miz fail his cash in at TLC? The briefcase has been terribly used this year.) Talk about developing stars, WWE really struggles with this. Men's Rumble - feel Orton, Fiend or Rollins. Agree should use it to elevate non main event stars though. Rollins is very talented so wouldn't be too gutted with a win for him. Either of the other two would be meh. Women's Rumble - it will be either Charlotte or Alexa Fiend/Bliss. Neither are an inspiring choice imo as both have been overused in the main event picture. There are a ton of very talented women though so hoping for a surprise win.

We often are looking. My worry is more in the acting and getting deals across the line! But good to know it is on our radar.

I think another centre back could make or break our promotion push. We are one injury/suspension away from trouble at CB. Even our stand in CB Johnson is injured and lacks stamina. Ayala has really struggled when he isn't fully fit which makes him a liability for those games. Kipre could be the difference between us making playoffs and crashing and burning.

I always have a bit of a dislike for Luton. It's a tad irrational and probably stems from their tactics, the fact I am somewhat embarrassed we are in the same league as them and work sometimes sends me to Luton which is a fair trek. So I'm delighted we got another three points and the victory yesterday. I'm really torn on the performance. On one hand you can only play badly and win so many times before your poor performances catch up with you. On the flip side this has happened a lot this season - Millwall, Rotherham, Boro and yesterday off the top of my head. It's getting a bit much to be a fluke and perhaps is the sign of a decent team. On reflection it probably means the better teams will put us to the sword but we will get away with it with the weaker teams. Is that enough for playoffs? I'm really not sure...

Think you have called this right. Lenihen is a bit of a fair weather player. Put him in a decent defence with some competence around him and he really shines. Put him with dross and it really affects his game. I know all players are impacted to an extent as to who they play with but I can't think of many who it has such an impact for as our captain. Mind you if you have a decent defence this really shouldn't be an issue.

I think this is my fear took Tyrone. That and the fact we are one defensive injury away from calamity again. It is a tad worrying that we don't know our best team of formation and and we are playing poorly - these things often catch up with you. BUT the flip side is despite all of this we are three points of playoffs. Imagine if just a little of this is fixed, a bit more of a settled team or a bit more consistency in our play. If we're just outside with all these faults, with a few improvements playoffs are very feasible. And the 4 subs also show we have strength in depth. As it is, history and our defensive frailties to me means that if I had to bet that the negatives we are seeing , our mental fragility and our history for bottling it will mean we just miss out. It's a shame though as playoffs are eminently doable in this league.

Without a trace of irony... The stuff people say to try justifying a manager. It's never a good sign when your defence of the manager and club is a criticism of the manager and the club!

I've thought about this. Swag screen shots the league table now, and makes sure this is the only one that TM and the players can see. They will happily churn out wins whilst we are a way off. Only reveal when playoffs are secured the real table. In fact I wouldn't even want to reveal the true table then but i can't think how the team and manager wouldn't notice the playoffs were a tad different.

I have to say I am very surprised as Reading really looked a mess the last couple of years. It makes mockery of TMs project time. Even if they fall away a bit they have achieved in one season what we have achieved in three. Mind you we see it everywhere but Rovers with excuses trotted out that we simply cannot compare the two. Boro were by all accounts absymal under Woodgate and cutting their cloth quite severely and Warnock has shifted that emphasis within a year. Stoke were a rotten club with noone having success as manager - young or old - for years, and yet somehow it has been turned round. Not exact like for like examples but I think there is enough evidence that the slow build is a load of bull. Having said all that we amazingly aren't too many points off the top 6. It shows what a rediculously forgiving league this is, giving you chance after chance. I recall the same last season too. Makes things even more frustrating.

To be honest if you have Armstrong up front, Dack in the hole and Elliott wide right in a 4-2-3-1 formation it doesn't really matter who the other one of the 3 is, we have our best attacking players in their best positions. That should more than be enough offensively for us. Get Travis and Davenport as the 2 protecting mids. Mobility and steel and it's looking a pretty solid team. Same with Kaminski as keeper. As for the defence... It picks itself from the least worse and available options! Hopefully Lenihen continues to look decent now he has a partner with him, Nayambe can be very good. Outside of a shaky defence that looks a very strong championship team with a lot of options from the bench. Certainly enough to get a win. 2-1 Rovers

All managers do it but it's a double edged sword for the manager as they should really know if the player is up to it or not having previously worked with them. Hence they are often judged more harshly and managers receive more criticism when they go wrong. Which is fair enough imo - if you have worked with them you should know what they are capable of.

That could feasibly be 15 points or none! Which sums up why we aren't going anywhere.

Yeah and I said at the time in principle someone with English experience makes sense. It's the fee and quality i have issue with. I think we could have got just as good a quality a second choice keeper with UK experience without having to cough up a six figure fee. First choice keeper hunting out has been a fantastic success no arguments there. Yeah the Boro fan was really not complimentary about Pears and the fact Warnock shipped him out so quickly also bares weight to this assessment. So when you consider fee, quality and length of contract j think you can make quite a case for favour for a mate/lazy signing. Of course it doesn't help ease suspicion when we have signed a number of Boro players! Sorry I meant Lenihen. And again with him and Williams on the books plus potentially Nayambe too signing a centre back with fitness issues is very risky. My Boro colleague said of Ayala great if you can get him to play and said he was one of the most injury prone players he had seen. So yeah not an exact science but really don't think we helped ourselves here. Agree about the young and old pairing btw. Should perhaps have posted the Boro fan I know's comments here. Yes it does seem he had fitness issues. Not huge but more than warranted. Blimey the defence would still be underfunded but given we seemed to struggle to pay fees I think it certainly could have been spent more on the defence. A few buy for fee options were mooted and I wonder if the Pears fee would have been better spent on perhaps bringing them in. Yeah I hear that you look to see what your youth can augment and that may save you a few fees. Thing is we still have been short on numbers of defenders, especially as some of the youth aren't ready. We've been thin on defensive numbers for years regardless of Warton stepping up this year. Last year Williams was our sole back up at lb and CB at the same time for example, Bennett and Downing have played full back, we've thrown in a few youngsters at CB (not Warton) who weren't ready. Even before you get to the problems caused by too many injury prone centre backs you have to conclude that we haven't had enough defenders in the squad for years. The injury prone nature of the defenders has added to that problem. So whilst there may have been more need for attacking reinforcements - with Travis Lenihen Nayambe, Warton and JRC coming through the defence still needed work in terms of numbers and this was neglected. And that's before we even get in to debating whether the current defenders are good enough or whether the money spent on the forward line was well spent! Thing is for me it's a build from the back situation and we really haven't. Look at under Hughes for example - we had a year of Kuqi and Dickov as strikers accompanying Bellamy but because the defense and midfield was solid it worked. When Big Sam and Hughes both came in the defence was sorted first. Sure we may have needed attackers but the defence has been woefully neglected. These 2 transfers are a part of that imo. Yeah it's not simple but if 1 year is too short and 3 too much the answer is pretty clear. Also if we were actually more on the ball with these things then perhaps shorter contracts would be less of an issue. I agree it isn't simple or straightforward but 3 years for an over 30 injury prone defender seems risky even taking complexities into account.

If he had said that I would have handed him his P45. Brentford (much better run I admit) prove that you can compete with those clubs with more financial muscle. No parachute payments there. Boro and Reading making a decent stab of competing too. As have Preston, Millwall etc over the years and Huddersfield and Norwich when they got promoted first time round. Also in a league where any team can and does beat any other this defeatest attitude particularly grates. Not saying it is easy, we have an automatic right to be top 6 or anything like that but the idea we can't compete is not true.

1) it's also based on reports from Boro fans I work with.as well as 3 poor games, which seems to be in keeping with their reports. Also I said not very good which is less dramatic than your summation. Have to say both on reports from previous and what seems it appears a fair assessment of him. Also given he is a number 2 he isn't going to get huge amounts of games is he. Leuts only made a handful prior to him and Raya leaving but it was enough to see he was poor. 2) if anything this makes signing him worse. Him being a crock would have been much less a gamble had our other defenders been more robust. In fact it would have probably been a more worthwhile gamble to take in those circumstances. As it is with two other centre backs badly injury prone it was playing with fire. 3) Not sure the goalposts are being moved. Both the defence AND the keeper situation really needed badly sorting. Yes we needed a couple of keepers, no arguments from me there - I agree with you. We also however really needed to strengthen a depleted and injury prone defence. That the money went on a second keeper when we already had the Greek lad as back up, and we badly needed defensive reinforcements too, seems a poor use of the money. Don't think that's hindsight whatsoever. 4) Maybe it was key to us signing him, in which case we were had. It's bad business regardless of how much it happens in football as we don't come out well from it. I'm not sure why eyebrows can't be raised at Pears contract. Is a second choice keeper who hasn't really performed really worth a 4 year deal? I would have expected he would have had more to prove to justify being locked down for that long. It's not like a Dack or Armstrong situation of tying down your star players. What I will say though is if it was longer for a lower wage than perhaps that makes sense and I would withdraw that criticism as I could see why you would want that situation.

Probably because 1) Pears isn't very good. 2) Ayala is a crock adding to a list of other defensive crocks - not what was needed. 3) We paid a fee for a second choice keeper when we already had a second choice and haven't spent a fee on a permanent defender since 1066. 4) Despite ability and fitness doubts respectively they got overly long contracts, 4 and 3 years respectively. Overly generous is an overly generous way of describing such details. No issues with managers using contacts they have Hughes with Savage and Bellamy, Souness with Tugay and Friedel. The issue is when they aren't up to standard or the details of the deal seem questionable then it's unsurprising that people start to grumble and ask questions. As it is for the reasons above the deals seem at best unwise and at worse negligent.

Agree the hope kills you. Even then the 3 away games you list there's room for optimism. None of the three teams have been infallible and we could in theory well take at least a point in each of those games. The problem is though in theory and practice we are more than capable of losing a lot of those winnable games as well as getting the three points. Factor in our mental fragility as well and though theoretically possible I very much doubt we will get in the playoffs.

Thing is you may have given your reason for why 2020 isn't a good year to use but your reasoning is to put it bluntly, wrong! It's untrue, it's false, it is not factually or logically correct. 1) The global pandemic impacts ALL clubs. (The clue is in the global part...) It's not as though Rovers are the only team affected by it. 2) Combined with point 1, many clubs seem to have done alright in the pandemic. Liverpool were still awarded the Premier League, Leeds the Championship - these things didn't not happen because of the pandemic. Closer to home Stoke, Boro and Reading have all turned round their fortunes within a global pandemic. All of this evidence proves success was possible in a pandemic. 3) What are said effects that have made it harder for Rovers rather than others? Empty stadiums, less spending power? Given bigger clubs have tightened their belts if anything this may have levelled the playing field a bit financially. Or perhaps the pandemic didn't allow for squad changes to be made? Surely a club with a manager in post for 4 years may have had more pieces in place than those who have had less time? I struggle to see how pandemic effects make it specifically worse for Rovers. Yes I am sure that said poster is longing for us to be even more chaotic and struggling even more. Top of their wish list. Also the idea that the only options are Mowbray or mess if a false dichotomy. There are other options as well as those two choices. Appreciate you probably mean to say it could be worse if TM goes (not that you would ever take anything literally) but it has to be acknowledged those aren't the only 2 options on the table.

Rev I can guarantee that's exactly how we will play this one if it comes about.