Whilst it's one goal we are still in it. A point would be a huge psychological boost, although 2 from 9 isn't great.

Get in. Was saying to my wife (though she wasn't too bothered) that perhaps Norwich would rue their wastefulness. Whilst it's 1-0 there's always a chance.

Surprised Douglas hasn't been better given his promotion track record.

We got a point Vs Brentford when down to 10 and hot a winner v Millwall when we had no shape so we could still turn this round. That said it's looking like a very worrying trend...

Good one twisting my words. Clever that, amalgamating my different suggestions into one so it looks unreasonable. Alternatively it is sneaky and disingenuous and deliberately not trying to engage in debate. I said either get a different top quality addition instead of Ayala, or get a player who is a bit more versatile to increase their game chance. Also never gets injured is different ,(and impossible) to having a decent/good injury record. It's sad that you have to twist every single thing I say so much. The clue was in the use of the word or and different sentences which I think was rather clear. So you either a) have a limited grasp of the English language or b) deliberately meant to twist and manipulate for some reason. I'm fairly confident it's the latter. Not lucky at all. Had he gone for a decent fee i'm fairly confident we could have replaced him with someone as good with a decent transfer record. You've just contradicted a ton of posts you made in another thread a week or two (maybe a month back) where you said no one had an injury situation comparable with ours! (Not a ton were isolations - which is changing your narrative- and it seems a number of other teams have those issues too, especially in Scotland and currently the barcodes.) Also again your logic is faulty. If players were injury prone before it increases the likelihood further. For example if there are a spate of crimes in an area, it's more likely I will be burgled but that doesn't absolve me from leaving my doors unlocked. Am sure you will twist this analogy too even though whilst not exact it illustrates the point. You just can't bare any criticism of TM and its bringing out a rather obtuse and sneaky side to your posts.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. It's the issue of Ayala's fitness in combination with every other defenders fitness that I have a problem with. We can afford one or maybe two injury risks/gambles but not three or four. The more we have the greater the risk is and the more likely it is to cause us problems. As it is we have a fair number and it is causing us problems. As i recall moat fans liked Ayala's pedegree but were worried about his fitness record. Not as easy as football manager. I would never have guessed. However off the top of my head for possible solutions i think I would have got rid of Williams as a fitness concern and had a less injury prone 3rd choice. Or signed someone else of Ayala's quality. Or if more cover was needed someone who can play full back who would be second choice to Nayambe or who could slot in in multiple defensive positions so has more possibilities of game time. We have a truck load of midfielders and I would have been tempted to trade one of their places for another defender. (Again what people said.after signing Downing.) Also let's differentiate between east and possible. I'm not saying it is easy but I am saying to have a less fragile defence definitely was possible. As for the injury crisis everyone has it when it suits your argument but when it's poor old Rovers we have it way worse then every other team. In your defence of TM you are contradicting yourself!

Think you have missed the point on purpose BDS. Will explain again. No one is blaming him for the Warton injury or signing Williams. That would be a bit silly wouldn't it? A question is being raised as to whether the manager should have addressed the fact that many of our defenders are injury prone. With 2 centre backs injury prone and our right back too, the manager should recognise that we are likely to be thin on the ground defensively. Loads of ways he could address this. Buy in more reliable defensive reinforcements or extra cover, sell one or two so the balance is better, not buy other defenders with fitness issues. Ultimately the buck stops with the manager for the squad he creates. He rightly gets the plaudits for the successes and criticisms for the weaknesses - including too many defenders being injury prone and unavailable. That's hardly an unreasonable criticism.

Well Gav it's nice to see you so dismissive of fellow Rovers fans. I get football is all about opinions and they will differ. I also understand some opinions are way off base with nothing to back them up, which would perhaps be what is fair to call clueless. it seems this is where you'd class anyone who expresses doubts about TM - as clueless. Problem is though, aside from being arrogant and patronising, your post might have a few issues with it, itself Firstly the best football comment. Have a few problems with this. For starters surely best football is subjective, it's opinion based. Personally for me, what I find the most exciting football is wingers getting to the byline and whipping in crosses for strikers. Perhaps a bygone age now, but it's what I grew up on and what I see as most exciting. You can disagree, which is fine as best football is subjective. Also if there is such a thing as best football, surely it is winning football? I think you have confused style and substance. After all if I worked for you and produced for you visually impressive reports but with a host of inaccuracies, I doubt you would be that pleased. Substance is more important than style, results more important than "nice" football, even if we can qualify what good football is. Secondly let's take the clueless majority not liking TM/wanting him out. That would suggest, to be clueless, that there were/are no flaws with TM. Both in league 1 to now there have been issues - some of which have been quite longstanding: overcomplicating things, bad runs, some poor transfers, players slow to be dropped, players out of position to name a few. Now whilst it can be debated whether TM has has done more good than bad, the inference of clueless is that fans have no idea about football. The inference is there is zero evidence that suggests TM might not be the right manager. However, as I've listed there are a number of reservations about him, suggesting fans actually have some understanding about what is going on! Continuing onto this season - no understanding if you can't see the progress. Let's ignore for a moment all the reservations from previous years which may make people sceptical of said progress. On this season alone the facts are we are not in the top 6 where we want to be. We seem to have bottled it midweek when that opportunity arose to get there. And we haven't beaten a team above us. Those facts seem to suggest that said progress is not as fullsome as you suggest. And if we do dip into previous seasons of bottling it, again the evidence for progress seems more limited. It seems fair based on the evidence to express doubts as to the extent of the progress. (FWIW my view is we have progressed somewhat but not nearly enough to get promoted.) Finally, speaking of clueless, opinions without evidence there's the crap budget comments. I'm struggling to see the evidence to back up this opinion. Compared with Coyle for example his budget looks.generous. the likes of Coventry and Rotherham would be scratching their heads at such comments As would Millwall and Preston who I believe finished about us last season. Our wage budget is reputedly average for this league. Many teams couldn't spend £12-15 million on strikers. Our net spend is positive, and he hasn't had to sell anyone he doesn't want to. The evidence of a crap budget just isn't there. Sure it isn't the amount that the premiership relegated clubs have, but when in the Prem we weren't the biggest spenders either but it didn't stop us from competing. It didn't act as an excuse for Ince's mismanagement say. Likewise some clubs with better budgets like Brentford have made that the case through smart transfer business - simply nothing that we couldn't have done ourselves. So this crap budget stuff, seems to have no evidence whatsoever. So aside from an arrogant comment it seems to me to miss a whole selection of evidence and facts on our situation. It comes across as somewhat ill informed. Of course there are a ton of positives with TM too, and I acknowledge that, but the fact there is good and bad both generates the debate and shows that fans aren't clueless on where they land on TM as their opinions are based on evidence.

It might also be seen as the managers fault for having so many injury prone defenders. It's not just the games they miss which is the problem but the ones getting up to speed as well.

So if you don't like TM or have reservations you are clueless? Nice measured response that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55245689 Article about Lennon and Celtic, but the few bits on TM are not flattering. In particular the slow build approach. As others have said, it's not taken Warnock that long at Boro to get them to a comparable place. He's not terrible, he really isn't, he's just a decent manager which is why we will remain midtable.

In other words we aren't where we want to be! 5 points means we need to win 2 and the top 6 screw up twice to get in there. Outside of being unrealistic I'm sick of relying on other teams arsing up for us to succeed. Agreed. But what if they don't come back as hoped or we get other injuries or some other teams gets top quality managers and go on killer runs? We are always hoping for the best but never planning for the worst.

Also call me pedantic but we somehow accept almost as being good enough. It drives me mad. We are near the playoffs. We're almost there. Swap it to another objective and you see it's a failure. I nearly scored a goal - I didn't score. I almost got the job - I don't have the job. I nearly missed getting hit by that bus - the bus hit me. Almost is not good enough. Apart from at Rovers where it's the height of success.

To me it has to be 4 points, perhaps 3 if I am easy going from Brentford, Bristol and Norwich. If you add the game prior to that my target would be 7. Agree with loads of the rest of your post, especially the reaction part and winning home games. Loved it under Hughes in particular and also Souness that even when the best came to Ewood you knew , heck they knew, they were in for a war. The result would be over our dead bodies. We can't go 4 games without a win, I would put it further and say 3 without a win is not viable for promotion.

Of course there is no reason for pessimism. Just because we cannot beat a team above us, and are bottling another chance of getting into the playoffs, where on earth is there any reason in that to be downbeat?

Also worth saying whilst 9 point from 3 games is great, a likely 10 from 6 is less so. A win Vs Norwich and it looks a very good run from 6 games (including 2 difficult ones). but a 3 game run without a win and you can be certain that we aren't going to be getting into the playoffs anytime soon. Imo 4 points from this 3 game run is what's necessary to keep pace, maybe 3 at a push. Sure the season won't be totally over if we don't but it's yet more evidence we can't do it when it matters.

Good post. I would agree with you that there was some dross in the team that held us back but I would question how big a handicap it was. I mean obviously it didn't help and the Lowe love in in particular caused us no end of trouble. That said I think you perhaps overestimate the problem. Spurr and Baptists were adequate full backs for this league (although appreciate the latter was better at CB) and definitely not liabilities. Likewise we had Evans when fit in cm, and for all I don't rate him he was better than Lowe and Williams. Plus of he played Cairney there more than out wide that means we were "only" a goal keeper and defensive midfielder who were liabilities. Put that way it sounds a problem, and undoubtedly it was. I guess my point is that a lot of the other average players, especially the squad ones I don't think were liabilities. Not great sure, but a Warnock type manager would have used them to slot in and do a decent job. I think the issue was poor management of players good and mediocre rather than having a terrible squad. So we are maybe disagreeing on why Bowyer wasn't that great! This is what it has come to under Venkys.

One consistent thing is we get near top 6 and we fluff it. We can't fall back on the performance was good - by that logic alone people wouldn't be happy with Millwall and Barnsley. Whatever else our failings the clearest one is we have no bottle when it matters. A hearty, nay heroic, performance v Brentford when most would have written us off (and thus the pressure was off). But when it comes to doing the business when the playoffs are in sight we cannot do it. Tough opponents, bottle it. Weaker ones, fluff it. We really can't handle pressure. Gutting

Strongest team available. Good to see. For me this is the most winnable of the games in our tough run so well worth our strongest line up.

Some interesting discussion, which I feel is somewhat tainted by the fact that Venkys are to managerial recruitment what Nero was to good taste! FWIW my thoughts are - no way is TM a great manager. Good is stretching it. His plusses are a promotion with us, some exceptional signings - Dack, Armstrong, Kaminski - and having us looking up the table rather than downwards. Gradual improvement in terms of finishes is also is a plus, ad if the pace is frustrating (which I find it is) the consolation is at least we are heading in the right direction. Also not being an incompetent turd is a big plus from the chap too. Although the fact this qualifies as a positive quality shows how low Venkys has set the bar. His negatives have included several horrific runs, and some good but not great attempts, for example getting relegated - it was a bold effort but not quite enought, getting promoted second when he could have been champions. Add in that he is slow to learn from mistakes, some horrible winless runs, and he hasn't spent big money well on occasions and you see a picture of a far from great manager. Too many mistakes and negatives to be a great manager. Factor in his time outside of Ewood and it paints a similar picture - decent job at Boro, did well at West Brom but that was 10 years ago, and horrific stints at Celtic and Coventry. Again, not the record of a great manager. Where's the tropheys? Where's the teams punching above their weight? It's a decent track record no doubt about it but it's hardly great. I think when constrasted with other managers internally and externally it highlights it all the more. If there's arguments TM has underperformed with Rovers at times, then what Bowyer did was nothing short of treasonous with his squad. Rhodes, Gestede, Duffy, Hanley, Baptiste, Olsson, Marshall, Cairney, Robinson, King is the backbone of a championship winning squad and we scarcely touched playoffs. Comparatively TM is getting much more Rovers than any other manager under Venkys has. The flip side is when you compare him to the likes of Warnock. More promotions, more recent promotions, teams doing better in a quicker amount of time, and more teams punching above their weight. Imo one of Warnock's greatest achievements was getting Rotherham to comfortable safety. When you compare the two, it cannot be said objectively that TM is better on any assessment criteria of success - in fact clearly the opposite. So whilst I'm grateful we don't have a clown in charge, to me TM is just a decent manager. Unfortunately under the loons that's as good as it gets.

Sums it up for me. Compared with any other manager Venkys have appointed he is is streets ahead. On the scale of all managers though he's pretty bang average. In our Venkys world however, that is gold dust.

Maybe it's just me but I prefer us with blue shorts. Ideally blue shorts, white socks, but that could just be me.

We need defenders. Minimum of 1 probably 2. The issue is imo threefold: 10 Quality - get beyond the back 4 and the quality isn't as strong. Certainly at full back the reserves look very thin. Also I think the defence quality wise isn't quite as strong as midfield and attack where we have a couple of very good players. At best are defenders are good. 2) Numbers - we have a ton of options in midfield, and a decent number of forward options, whereas defence seems always a tad reliant on converted midfielders. 3) Fitness - the biggest problem is many of our defenders are injury prone. Ultimately the problems arise because we rarely have more than 2 centre backs fit and both Douglas and Ayala whilst good additions also have injury problems. To an extent quantity and quality debates become academic when the said players aren't available. We are often very short because most of our defence is susceptible to injury - and that's before the cramming in of all the games. One thing that illustrates this is look at how we have managed without Dack and Travis. Two of our better players, and yet in some respects we've carried on fairly well without them. Of course they would improve the team but without them we still have plenty of options. Take any one of our first choice defenders away, and it would be a very different story. So the Transfer Window has to bring Rovers one or two new defenders imo if we are to sustain a promotion push.

This would be the game in our run I'd be disappointed not to get three points with. let's be honest, Bristol aren't that good. Like us previously they seem to bottle it a lot when near playoffs, and there squad isn't that great, so a win should be on the cards. Certainly if we want to get promoted it's the type of game we should be winning. Of course our paper thin defence is the big issue. I do wonder is there any out of contract centre backs who may be worth a punt? We look desperately short across the back line. For all those championing Williams - and I admit he has had some good games of late - he's an inconsistent chap, even at centre back, and has had some poor games as well as some excellent ones. I'm also worried about how long it will take to get up to speed after another injury. Just look at the difference between Ayala at the weekend and on Wednesday. As for full backs, Bell isn't that great at all, so if Douglas not fit would be tempted to slot Downing there, and if there's no Nayambe I've no idea who best for right back. A tallest dwarf situation if ever there was one. The hope is our attacking prowess is enough to see off Bristol. They have problems too, and confidence must be sky high at Rovers after the last few weeks. So it won't be easy, given the situation, but we should get the win.

Brilliant result in the circumstances. Dare I say it a promotion-esque performance. Down to 10 men for.a significant amount of the game it was always going to be hard - even more so with the regularity of games - so to got a point despite a man disadvantage for so long is huge. Negatives: Lenihen sending off. Buckley right back. Poor tactically by TM imo. And most significantly (why both of the others matter even more) once again we are hugely thin in defence. Positives Rothwell is beginning to show consistency along with promise. A very good player. A point we in theory shouldn't have got. Hopefully the goal helps Davenport finally kick start his Rovers career. Strong defending when down to 10 men. Loads to be pleased about and if we were fortuitous in the last couple of games for wins, endeavour won us a point today and was highly deserved.