Good question. Depends on which one were sold and whether more than one player could be brought in. If Lenihen went and if it were just a keeper who could be brought in then no. If so we aren't any better off as with Bell, Williams and Mulgrew in front of them they could be the world's best keeper but that would be undone by the defence. If Armstrong went I'd be seriously worried about our lack of goals and pace and feel this would outweigh the benefits of a somewhat improved defence (remember Lenihen would still have a duff partner and left back). As I said before the only one we could afford to replace with a modicum of talent within the squad is Dack as Holtby and Buckley can do that role. So that swap might be worth it albeit the lack of partner for Lenihen and weakness at lb still means the trade off isn't great. I don't think we can afford to lose Lenihen at all or the defence is almost a league 1 embarassment. I don't think we could do a one in for one out with Armstrong either as we will miss too many goals. If we could get more than one player out of the trade I would perhaps be willing to let Armstrong go, if it meant keeping Dack and Lenihen. A big lump of a striker in the Graham mould shouldn't be that hard to find even if not as good as him and could be good foil for.our number 10s. Also if Dack could bring in players more that could offset the loss of Armstrong, especially if more of the defence than just the keeper was tightened up and improved. Under no circumstances would Lenihen be sold - there's too much work to do on the defence as it is. So a one to one swap - I don't think massively benefits us but could if Dack was sacrificed. A two or three of better than we have if not amazing for one swap probably needs to be done. The other thing to factor in is TM isn't that good in the transfer market. This makes gambling on new players all the more risky. Last year he had a 50:50 ratio of success and two of those successes won't be here next year! So maybe better the devil we know given TMs weakness in the transfer market. Cripes it's grim supporting Rovers.

I fear you are right. Nevertheless I think if someone needs to be sacrificed for a decent fee it would be him. From a squad pov I think it makes most sense. Like you say though there are problems with this.

We are imo one player not adequately replaced in a number of positions away from being in real trouble imo. Lenihen goes leaving a back line of Nayambe, Mulgrew Williams and Bell - three of whom aren't good enough. That's a relegation quality defence. Travis goes we have a centre mid of Johnson and Evans (assuming both fit!) That's a relegation worthy centre mid. Armstrong goes leaving the strikers as Bereton and Gally - won't break double figures between them and is relegation quality strike force. IF we have to sell someone imo it is Dack. Between Holtby and Buckley we have some quality and numbers to replace him. For the rest if they go the team looks weaker than that relegated.

Hmm interesting how you think he gets a hard time. Reading your post I think the disagreement between you and I on him is how bad he is, rather than whether he is poor. Perhaps an over reaction to people saying he has been ok / decent? Maybe Steele (agree truly terrible keeper) makes people look more favourably on him? Does the loan situation influence thoughts? Regardless - whilst I do think the t's and C's are warrented - what appears to be undisputed is that he wasn't the standard needed and had a very disappointing season. Given the work that needs doing before sales I am very worried about this window. Imagine Armstrong goes - we have no threat from the strikers whatsoever. Or Lenihen - we will have virtually no defence, certainly not championship standard. Or Travis - Johnson and Evans couldn't manage a full season for one place between them. Any losses and we really are struggling.

The fact you are glad he isn't out keeper suggests that Walton is pretty poor. I get football is subjective and all about opinions, which is part of its appeal. However I really struggle to see how the early clangers and the whole of his post lockdown performances don't get Walton judged more harshly on here.

Genuine question - who are these great prospects we've spent it on? I've yet to see them. Think we could have brought better. For starters not having all our issues come up at once and not having the majority of our back line on loan would long term have seen us in a better position for years to come.

There's a hell of a difference between being respectful and being overly cautious and fearful of the opposition. IMO it's clearly the latter. . Why is it not his fault? He's had 6 transfer windows, a free hit of a 3 month assessment period in the relegation season, £15 million plus spent on transfers, not had to sell a single player he didn't want to. Why's it not his fault? What's the excuse? :Lack of funds - he's had more than Bowyer, Lambert and Coyle. Time - he's had 3+ seasons of it, and been pretty bomb proof results wise in that too. Forced to sell best players - up till now he hasn't. Players forced upon him? Other than Bereton, which we don't know is the case, there doesn't seem any fishy transfers. So how is TM exempt from the team having holes in? I've a few issues with this. Firstly timing - who are the great young prospects on board? Our youngsters from the academy or the likes of Gally? As I recall, Cunningham was a late addition to the squad in the window, certainly great young prospects weren't added after him, or any transfers for that matter.. As for the not his fault two of these were crocked most of the season. For Dack it was half a season, and there's the big issue that neither of them were replaced, that's most definitely his fault. Also placing all the misfortunes on these injuries, I don't think that washes either. It was his fault we spent huge on two non-scoring strikers, didn't buy enough cover in defence, had 5 of our 6 summer signings be short term, now buy any wide strikers/midfielders etc. It was his fault he messed up the keeper situation (more on that later.) Dack and Cunningham's injuries didn't prevent any of these problems from happening. There are also TMs faults with false 9s and wide forwards amidst a host of other issues, but since this is about the squad strength I will ignore these for now. Hang on you say he should have got rid of Raya for his errors, only to bring in someone who did more errors? That's a hell of an error in my book. Also reasonable stopgap is not a way I'd describe Walton. In fact he stopped very little, and there were lots of gaps. Poor till Christmas, appalling post lock down - that's a terrible stopgap. Also why couldn't we buy a keeper last summer, rather than wait till this one? Or wait until we had someone lined up before offloading Raya? Not sure how it needed to wait to the summer. Again, that all these problems are coming at the same time is down to no one but TM. Yes he couldn't have foreseen the pandemic but he could have foreseen that needing to replace all his loans and his aging players at the same time - before we even get to other places where the squad is thin - was going to happen. Covid 19 or not - Tosin et al would return, Graham, Downing, Mulgrew etc. would get older. The pandemic has made the situation worse, much worse, but TM dug us into that hole in the first place.

What annoys me about this situation is that it's so flipping unnecessary to be caught so short. I get that injuries happen, transfers don't work out, and clubs couldn't have foreseen the pandemic, but even accounting for this the squad is in remarkably bad shape. For starters we knew Mulgrew and Graham, two of our best players when TM started, were heading towards the end of their career even as we headed to promotion in league 1. Their age alone meant that replacements were needed. One we haven't tried to replace, and the other 12 million later hasn't got a like for like replacement. The goalkeeper situation, we've known about for ages, and yet had no one lined up. It was patiently obvious Walton was a short term solution - if he were any good he'd stay with Brighton next season, if he was bad enough to be released, then he's not good enough for us. With several years of experiencing Leuts as well, and recognising he wasn't worth a new contract i find it astounding that we hadn't done some groundwork at the very least on a second keeper prior to now. We've had over a season to plan for a good pair of keepers and instead are left with none. And this is the one position players can't do a job in or be converted to. Defensive numbers are thin on the ground. We've had years of knowing Bell and Williams aren't good enough at lb, We've known Cunningham isn't likely to be the solution for a fair while too (both through the fact he is a loan, and we didn't have a buy agreement, and also because he was injured for most of the year.) Likewise we know Lenihen has injuries, Mulgrew has been fading, and Williams can't cover one position much less two (which is a tall order for anyone tbf) leaving us thin on the ground, and yet defensive reinforcements are minimal. We've limped along with 3 centre backs for a lot of the season, and yet we don't have any defensive reinforcements. Midfield there's still no natural partner to Travis. Evans I guess, but there's been a number of clues he isn't going to be available to on a regular basis. So three years on there's no natural first team quality upgrade in this position. Then there's the wide forwards. Taking away Armstrong who is a raging success, and a credit to TM, who else plays the wide forwards or the wide midfield roles? Assuming we are still with the 4-2-3-1 - because if it's 4-3-3 with false 9s as a way forward TM should be shot for ripping up three years of dubious progress and starting with something even more unweildy - who are the wide attacking players? Downing I guess but that's not a long term fit/solution. For the rest - Rothwell, Holtby, Bennett, don't really look comfortable there at all. You'd think we have someone who could call that position their own, bar Armstrong, three years in. As for Gallagher there, don't get me started on how terrible an idea that is. Then up front. We are in a position where we have one striker who can be depended upon to score. (And if we count Armstrong as a striker, it makes the wide forward/midfielder position look all the more threadbare.) Three years in to have one striker we can rely on to score goals. In Bereton, Gally and Samuel (*appreciate he's now left mind) there might just be a decent player in there if you merged the three of them, but none could be relied on to score regularly, or cause regular problems for the opposition. The only bit of the plan that seems to be covered and have some longer term thought to it is the Dack/creative player in the hole position, with Dack covered by Holtby and Buckley - the latter of whom could develop to ensure the system works for a fair amount of time. Outside of this though, and what annoys me the most, is that there seems no long term, or even medium term planning whatsoever. 5 of our 6 signings last season were short term and liable to not be useful/available for us next season. Many of the threadbare areas of the squad have been threadbare for ages. Slow build? I don't see any thought to the future whatsoever in building this squad. Which is why we are up without a paddle this summer as many of our short and long term issues are laid bare at the same time. That said, and I get working for Venkys must be hard, the not knowing budgets stuff is a bit of a cop out. There's a school of thought that you can plan for different eventualities. So if you have a budget of X, you buy Y, if your budget is less, then your target changes to Z. It's not a complicated principle, people do it every day in budgeting. It feels like we won't even start making a list until we know what budget we have which is the wrong way round imo. Get the lists, have your A list good budget target and your B list cheaper canny options and crack on with it. All the rumblings are the budget is low, so start working on getting that list of players in.

When you have to compare Walton to a man between the sticks in the park to say he has talent, you really are clutching at straws. I think we need to have a bit of perspective here. Compared to the average Joe of course Walton has talent. For a professional footballer representing Blackburn Rovers however, that talent level is nowhere near enough. Even excluding the horror show post lockdown - and knowing he has that in his game should be an automatic veto - the rest of his season was very mixed. His first half of the season was very poor too and it wasn't till Christmas that he began to pick up. That again should raise question marks about quality and consistency. Add in the fact he clearly didn't do the extraordinary like Raya could do in those worldie saves, and Wigan weren't bothered about not getting him back and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence Walton isn't good enough for us. When talking about footballers talentless, useless, crap etc are all relative terms, but my word compared to other professional keepers Walton deserves those adjectives based on last season.

Whilst I agree with this one thing the Mulgrew fiasco showed us when he went to Wigan is that no player is even worse than the worst of dross. Right now despite getting rid of a pair of the worst keepers ever to grace this club we somehow are in a worse situation because we haven't got anyone. Less than a month to go. We are hugely down on standing still much less improving, and that's before we consider the dross in the squad we would want to shift too.

Yeah but apart from this we're playing a blinder.

You know Chaddy it's a wonder why all these clubs have been doing them for all these years despite some (most?) of them having the facilities themselves. Either blind tradition or something useful about going away for a time? Am fairly certain I've not heard you or anyone else criticise these as a waste of money prior to Rovers not doing one either...

I am amazed it's that high. That said there are a fair number of international games these days.

Am sure someone said we need a ball playing centre back who is fast. Sounds the opposite of this guy so will be interesting to see how spun if we sign him. He sounds a bit limited really - if not good enough for Stoke why are we looking at him? With other managers I would have more confidence that he is a hidden gem/diamond in the rough but hard to see that with TM. Mind you the whole thing is fanciful as it involves spending money on a defender which never happens.

What gets me is the say what you like about the start of their tenure, at least they have hung around and paid the bills. Without going into a huge rant on each point there are more holes in this than a Swiss cheese. 1) For starters when does later behaviour/performance negate crimes? You don't see in court the defence yep them murdered them but you should see all the humanitarian work they have done since. And it doesn't work that way in the real world. If I bumped off a relative you wouldn't give a toss about my charity work. 2) Both analogies however are flawed as it's only because of Venkys that we need them to keep us financially afloat. Not sure how this has been forgotten or us overlooked. Surely it is a reminder of their crimes rather than a positive, but that doesn't seem to be the case. 3) There's also the overlooked issue of why they keep us afloat. Imo it's because to sell or admin reveals too many dark secrets. It's not out of the kindness of their hearts. No one praises kidnappers or hostage people for keeping their captives alive or think they are good eggs because of it. 4) The argument falls down massively because we are still a circus and run badly. The manager is overseen by his mate, budgets aren't set at appropriate times, managers come from a third rate agency and results don't seem to matter too much. Even magically forgetting points 1 to 3 it's still a farce and no way to run a club. Not sure why this isn't obvious to most Rovers fans but that clearly isn't the outlook. No idea why not either.

Decided to use my (ahem) formula on a few candidates for worst player ever. Each category out of 10. These are just the ones in my living memory and there are many duffers I’ve left off because the impact, i.e. number of games they played and cost are too low to make worth considering. If it’s solely on criteria 1 – how bad they are – then that’s a different ball game. But often, especially when we were a normal club, the cost and influence was minimal, a low risk experiment that did little harm to the club; for example, Fowler under Hughes, or Diawara under Souness. Low risk, minimum impact, no worries they didn’t work out. I’ve done a few of the chancers I’ve seen in a Blue and White shirt. I’ll admit the King Kenny years (and Hartford’s first season) were met with young and not very discerning eyes so there are no inclusions from this time. Sadly however, these eyes were made somewhat more discerning by Rovers mixed fortunes. Here are a few who’ve stuck out in my memory, I am sure there are more though and others will come to me. Christopher Walton Inability – 8 - he seems a bit more comfortable in the air (sometimes!) then some we’ve had but kicking, shot stopping, and reactions, were all sketchy at times and his command of the area was erratic too. Impact – 7 – a promising middle of the season was sandwiched between a poor first half of the season with a string of unimpressive displays, and then after the restart, he literally attempted to throw away any chance of playoffs missing virtually everything that came at him. In fact such a poor run of games haven’t been seen by any bad keeper at Rovers before. Two thirds of the season as a liability, with a number of mistakes leading to dropped and lost points that could have been the difference between playoffs and also rans. It was only one season though! Cost – 6 – hard to say. On the plus side he was a loan, meaning we aren’t lumbered with him. On the negative side it means that we don’t have a keeper for next season and replaced a promising prospect with a loan, which is a very costly switch. Total Score: 21/30 Darren Peacock Inability - 8 - totally not Premier League class, turning circle of an oil tanker, touch of an elephant. Whether Premier League or Championship opposition, he always looked uncomfortable. Legs had gone too. Impact - 8 - replacing Hendry a rock at centre back with him was always going to be a huge mistake and asking for trouble. It was a huge downgrade and really weakened the team. Can't go higher than an 8 though as we had money to buy more centre backs (and did, and provided another candidate for this list) so we weren't stuck with him as first choice for the whole of his time with us, but he still played a lot more than he should have. Cost - 3 - will have been on a good amount of money but given he was a free, this wasn't one of Roy's disaster buys financially. Total Score: 19/30 Christian Dailly Inability – 6 It’s not that he was a total duffer, he wasn’t terrible; it’s just he wasn’t very good. Certainly, nowhere near £5 million plus worth of good. In the championship he was decent, in the premier league he fluctuated between weak and ok. The term jack of all trades master of none could have been written for him. Impact – 6 – he didn’t replace Hendry either, albeit Roy playing him all over the defence really didn’t help his cause and is a mitigating factor. In the championship/division 1 he was bog standard, and if not pushing us towards promotion, wasn’t a prime culprit for us treading water in the first division. So, no positive contribution, but less negative contribution than some candidates. Cost – 8 – massively, massively overpriced. Cost three times what we sold him for which sold him for which is pretty much his epitaph, he was about a third of the player we needed. Doesn’t get a 9 or 10 as there was plenty of money still to be spent that season so it wasn’t that restrictive. Total Score: 20/30 Jason Steele Inability – 9 –worst keeper I have ever seen, only saved from a 10 by the rare good game that he had (all two or three of them) and that he didn’t do as many calamity errors as certain keepers. Couldn’t kick, made errors, poor in the air, bad at saving shots, and kicking was terrible. Not sure there was anything that remotely hinted at being a Championship level keeper… Impact – 7 – two (three?) years as our number one. Given we had a pretty decent defence at times he was covered a lot more than expected, but who knows how much better we would have done had there been a decent keeper behind the defence? Cost – 6 – I could be wrong but this is the only money ever spent on a keeper in Venkys tenure. That it was blown on this waste-of space really shows how much of a missed opportunity it was. That we spent anything on him at all also shows that we overspent. Total Score: 23/30 Alan Fettis Inability - 9 - I mean he was pretty terrible. Only the recent antics of Walton and Steele make me appreciate there are more depth that can be plumbed in goal keeping. Impact - 5 - whenever he played, we were at a disadvantage. Hard to rate as technically he was brought in as a third-choice keeper due to an injury crisis, so the quality that could have been brought in that situation was more limited. That said he did play because of the injury crisis and cost us a fair amount of goals (practically every shot.) However, given we had Filan and Flowers in net for part of the season and whenever either was vaguely fit they played instead of him, and he only played a handful of games -a one season blunder - it's hard to go over a 5 on this. Cost - 4 - don't think he cost too much but it was more than a division two level keeper should cost, and especially seeing as for we could have got a loan of better quality fairly easily. Total Score: 18/30 Leon Best Inability – 5, He wasn’t a terrible player, in fact he was ok, an average Championship journeyman. However, he mainly couldn’t be bothered and so was poor be choice and lack of effort rather than being a poor player. Not that he was anything special mind. Impact – 7 – his attitude alienated fans and management alike and sometimes it was like playing with 10 players. That said when he did put a shift in, he was pretty solid, which prevents it being higher than it is. He also had a terrible injury which also means he was unable to offer us anything, even when he did nothing. That said, if getting injured prompted the signing of Rhodes, then it was Best’s most significant positivecontribution. Cost – 9 – obscene contact that needed paying off. Only the fact that it didn’t prevent us signing Rhodes stops this being a 10. But my word he didn’t half contribute to the debt and FFP issues. Total Score 21/30 Myles Anderson Inability - 11 I know it's a score out of 10 but someone who shouldn't be a footballer whatsoever, in any league (not good enough for Barrow) is a spectacularly special case. It's beyond a parody and like the Southampton-Souness incident when someone conned their way into pretending to be George Weah's nephew or something. Top marks plus for this. Impact - 5. On the team itself none, as funnily enough not even K**n would play him. In terms of the culture it set, it being used for propaganda, blatant corruption and a test of how far the boundaries could be pushed, full marks. So for off field issues I'd knock it up to 5. Cost - 3. I bet he was on a decent contract but even so for a premiership club with their income and given the financial irregularities and gross overspending elsewhere this was a drop in the ocean. Total Score: 19/30 Chris Brown Inability – 9 – maybe he roughed up defences and held up the ball but I can’t remember seeing it. No goals either, and didn’t look like it either. A woeful player who was somehow powerful and yet still didn’t cause defenders problems. Impact – 6 – not first choice, for which we should be forever grateful, but did stop Gestede or King from playing at times which meant he did more harm to us by playing then he did the opposition. The no goals is a particularly noteworthy achievement given we’ve had a range of terrible strikers who’ve managed to score for us (Goodwillie and Stokes springing to mind). Cost – 4 – decent wages no doubt and a waste of them at that, but realistically on a free as a squad player he wasn’t a terrible piece of business, and just a poor buy. Total Score: 19/30 Bradley Orr Inability – 7 – a championship level full back. He wasn’t a total liability and devoid of talent though which many of the players in this list are, but certainly playing for us was a level above his ability, which is lower championship. Influence – 9 - Not a patch at all on Salgado who he was replacing. In fact a huge downgrade which cannot have helped the team. Bonus points given for the interview and the impact this had on public perception and in alienating the fans. Cost – 7 – rumoured not an exorbitant fee (I think?) but still way too much for a reserve championship defender. I mean how does that work? We pay for a player they don’t want. Madness… Anyhow his contract needed paying off again causing an opportunity cost and adding to the debt. Ben Bereton Inability – 8 – genuinely other than being able to run a bit at people, and even that not brilliantly and only on occasions. Not sure what his other/actual strengths are and comfortably looks at least a level below what we are. Impact - 6 – 2 goals in 2 seasons, often looking like a lost child who’d accidentally wandered onto the pitch when he plays. When the best he does is look as if he may have potential, it really is a poor do. He really doesn’t look like a footballer. Would be higher if he played more but our 5+ other strikers and numerous false 9s – an appellation that surely applies to Bereton in a different sense – and a couple of goals saves him from a higher score. Cost – 10 – in a cash strapped era, blowing all our budget on one player really cost us. Nowhere near a £7 million player even in today’s crazy market, and stopped us strengthening. Also could be argued it forced us to direct money onto a striker again the following season, further costing the club. Man alive, this would have been a bad buy at £700,000. Total Score: 24/30 And of course, the number 1 culprit: Danny Murphy Inability – 8 – there were two Murphys: BR and AR. BR, Before Rovers he seemed a solid midfielder who could pass the ball well and popped up with a few goals. AR, At Rovers was a different matter altogether. A kind person might say he was tidy on the ball when not under pressure, but creatively, defensively and athletically he looked pretty dire. In fact athletically was perversely impressive he looked so far off the pace. Impact – 9 – not one meaningful game is quite an impressive stat. Rather than nice passing, games simply passed him by. Bonus points are awarded on this count for two reasons: firstly, as captain he set the tone and had a huge influence, which unfortunately was negative. Secondly, he put in two or three strong nominations for worst ever performance in the history of Rovers. I genuinely have never seen such none effort outside of the deliberate sabotage from Duffy (vs Cardiff?) and to put in two or three performances where he almost literally stood in the centre circle and did nothing, is something I have never witnessed or seen from any other sort of player. Cost – 9 - saved by 10 for being a free transfer, he was on an exorbitant transfer fee that added hugely to the debt and needed paying off. He was also hugely restrictive in terms of opportunity costs as for that kind of money we could have had one or two excellent midfield signings, or a whole team of solid championship pros. We also probably went for him as a leader, preventing someone else from leading the team, someone with a bit of passion, so it was a waste of an influential position too. Total Score: 26/30 Get it’s subjective but these are a few of my thoughts on the topic. Am sure others may rate these players and others differently, and time certainly heals wounds – especially pre Venkys ones. There’s a school of thought that post Venkys ones shouldn’t count, especially the chaotic first years, as worst signing suggests something has gone wrong, where as much of our transfer dealings in my opinion were deliberate verging on malpractice and corruption (well, that’s what it seems like). Perhaps these years should be omitted for these reasons. Regardless, these years, give a number of candidates including our winner and some strong (or should that be weak?) also rans. Decided to use my (ahem) formula on a few candidates for worst player ever. Each category out of 10. These are just the ones in my living memory and there are many duffers I’ve left off because the impact, i.e. number of games they played and cost are too low to make worth considering. If it’s solely on criteria 1 – how bad they are – then that’s a different ball game. But often, especially when we were a normal club, the cost and influence was minimal, a low risk experiment that did little harm to the club; for example, Fowler under Hughes, or Diawara under Souness. Low risk, minimum impact, no worries they didn’t work out. I’ve done a few of the chancers I’ve seen in a Blue and White shirt. I’ll admit the King Kenny years (and Hartford’s first season) were met with young and not very discerning eyes so there are no inclusions from this time. Sadly however, these eyes were made somewhat more discerning by Rovers mixed fortunes. Here are a few who’ve stuck out in my memory, I am sure there are more though and others will come to me. Christopher Walton Inability – 8 - he seems a bit more comfortable in the air (sometimes!) then some we’ve had but kicking, shot stopping, and reactions, were all sketchy at times and his command of the area was erratic too. Impact – 7 – a promising middle of the season was sandwiched between a poor first half of the season with a string of unimpressive displays, and then after the restart, he literally attempted to throw away any chance of playoffs missing virtually everything that came at him. In fact such a poor run of games haven’t been seen by any bad keeper at Rovers before. Two thirds of the season as a liability, with a number of mistakes leading to dropped and lost points that could have been the difference between playoffs and also rans. It was only one season though! Cost – 6 – hard to say. On the plus side he was a loan, meaning we aren’t lumbered with him. On the negative side it means that we don’t have a keeper for next season and replaced a promising prospect with a loan, which is a very costly switch. Total Score: 21/30 Darren Peacock Inability - 8 - totally not Premier League class, turning circle of an oil tanker, touch of an elephant. Whether Premier League or Championship opposition, he always looked uncomfortable. Legs had gone too. Impact - 8 - replacing Hendry a rock at centre back with him was always going to be a huge mistake and asking for trouble. It was a huge downgrade and really weakened the team. Can't go higher than an 8 though as we had money to buy more centre backs (and did, and provided another candidate for this list) so we weren't stuck with him as first choice for the whole of his time with us, but he still played a lot more than he should have. Cost - 3 - will have been on a good amount of money but given he was a free, this wasn't one of Roy's disaster buys financially. Total Score: 19/30 Christian Dailly Inability – 6 It’s not that he was a total duffer, he wasn’t terrible; it’s just he wasn’t very good. Certainly, nowhere near £5 million plus worth of good. In the championship he was decent, in the premier league he fluctuated between weak and ok. The term jack of all trades master of none could have been written for him. Impact – 6 – he didn’t replace Hendry either, albeit Roy playing him all over the defence really didn’t help his cause and is a mitigating factor. In the championship/division 1 he was bog standard, and if not pushing us towards promotion, wasn’t a prime culprit for us treading water in the first division. So, no positive contribution, but less negative contribution than some candidates. Cost – 8 – massively, massively overpriced. Cost three times what we sold him for which sold him for which is pretty much his epitaph, he was about a third of the player we needed. Doesn’t get a 9 or 10 as there was plenty of money still to be spent that season so it wasn’t that restrictive. Total Score: 20/30 Jason Steele Inability – 9 –worst keeper I have ever seen, only saved from a 10 by the rare good game that he had (all two or three of them) and that he didn’t do as many calamity errors as certain keepers. Couldn’t kick, made errors, poor in the air, bad at saving shots, and kicking was terrible. Not sure there was anything that remotely hinted at being a Championship level keeper… Impact – 7 – two (three?) years as our number one. Given we had a pretty decent defence at times he was covered a lot more than expected, but who knows how much better we would have done had there been a decent keeper behind the defence? Cost – 6 – I could be wrong but this is the only money ever spent on a keeper in Venkys tenure. That it was blown on this waste-of space really shows how much of a missed opportunity it was. That we spent anything on him at all also shows that we overspent. Total Score: 23/30 Alan Fettis Inability - 9 - I mean he was pretty terrible. Only the recent antics of Walton and Steele make me appreciate there are more depth that can be plumbed in goal keeping. Impact - 5 - whenever he played, we were at a disadvantage. Hard to rate as technically he was brought in as a third-choice keeper due to an injury crisis, so the quality that could have been brought in that situation was more limited. That said he did play because of the injury crisis and cost us a fair amount of goals (practically every shot.) However, given we had Filan and Flowers in net for part of the season and whenever either was vaguely fit they played instead of him, and he only played a handful of games -a one season blunder - it's hard to go over a 5 on this. Cost - 4 - don't think he cost too much but it was more than a division two level keeper should cost, and especially seeing as for we could have got a loan of better quality fairly easily. Total Score: 18/30 Leon Best Inability – 5, He wasn’t a terrible player, in fact he was ok, an average Championship journeyman. However, he mainly couldn’t be bothered and so was poor be choice and lack of effort rather than being a poor player. Not that he was anything special mind. Impact – 7 – his attitude alienated fans and management alike and sometimes it was like playing with 10 players. That said when he did put a shift in, he was pretty solid, which prevents it being higher than it is. He also had a terrible injury which also means he was unable to offer us anything, even when he did nothing. That said, if getting injured prompted the signing of Rhodes, then it was Best’s most significant positivecontribution. Cost – 9 – obscene contact that needed paying off. Only the fact that it didn’t prevent us signing Rhodes stops this being a 10. But my word he didn’t half contribute to the debt and FFP issues. Total Score 21/30 Myles Anderson Inability - 11 I know it's a score out of 10 but someone who shouldn't be a footballer whatsoever, in any league (not good enough for Barrow) is a spectacularly special case. It's beyond a parody and like the Southampton-Souness incident when someone conned their way into pretending to be George Weah's nephew or something. Top marks plus for this. Impact - 5. On the team itself none, as funnily enough not even K**n would play him. In terms of the culture it set, it being used for propaganda, blatant corruption and a test of how far the boundaries could be pushed, full marks. So for off field issues I'd knock it up to 5. Cost - 3. I bet he was on a decent contract but even so for a premiership club with their income and given the financial irregularities and gross overspending elsewhere this was a drop in the ocean. Total Score: 19/30 Chris Brown Inability – 9 – maybe he roughed up defences and held up the ball but I can’t remember seeing it. No goals either, and didn’t look like it either. A woeful player who was somehow powerful and yet still didn’t cause defenders problems. Impact – 6 – not first choice, for which we should be forever grateful, but did stop Gestede or King from playing at times which meant he did more harm to us by playing then he did the opposition. The no goals is a particularly noteworthy achievement given we’ve had a range of terrible strikers who’ve managed to score for us (Goodwillie and Stokes springing to mind). Cost – 4 – decent wages no doubt and a waste of them at that, but realistically on a free as a squad player he wasn’t a terrible piece of business, and just a poor buy. Total Score: 19/30 Bradley Orr Inability – 7 – a championship level full back. He wasn’t a total liability and devoid of talent though which many of the players in this list are, but certainly playing for us was a level above his ability, which is lower championship. Influence – 9 - Not a patch at all on Salgado who he was replacing. In fact a huge downgrade which cannot have helped the team. Bonus points given for the interview and the impact this had on public perception and in alienating the fans. Cost – 7 – rumoured not an exorbitant fee (I think?) but still way too much for a reserve championship defender. I mean how does that work? We pay for a player they don’t want. Madness… Anyhow his contract needed paying off again causing an opportunity cost and adding to the debt. Ben Bereton Inability – 8 – genuinely other than being able to run a bit at people, and even that not brilliantly and only on occasions. Not sure what his other/actual strengths are and comfortably looks at least a level below what we are. Impact - 6 – 2 goals in 2 seasons, often looking like a lost child who’d accidentally wandered onto the pitch when he plays. When the best he does is look as if he may have potential, it really is a poor do. He really doesn’t look like a footballer. Would be higher if he played more but our 5+ other strikers and numerous false 9s – an appellation that surely applies to Bereton in a different sense – and a couple of goals saves him from a higher score. Cost – 10 – in a cash strapped era, blowing all our budget on one player really cost us. Nowhere near a £7 million player even in today’s crazy market, and stopped us strengthening. Also could be argued it forced us to direct money onto a striker again the following season, further costing the club. Man alive, this would have been a bad buy at £700,000. Total Score: 24/30 And of course, the number 1 culprit: Danny Murphy Inability – 8 – there were two Murphys: BR and AR. BR, Before Rovers he seemed a solid midfielder who could pass the ball well and popped up with a few goals. AR, At Rovers was a different matter altogether. A kind person might say he was tidy on the ball when not under pressure, but creatively, defensively and athletically he looked pretty dire. In fact athletically was perversely impressive he looked so far off the pace. Impact – 9 – not one meaningful game is quite an impressive stat. Rather than nice passing, games simply passed him by. Bonus points are awarded on this count for two reasons: firstly, as captain he set the tone and had a huge influence, which unfortunately was negative. Secondly, he put in two or three strong nominations for worst ever performance in the history of Rovers. I genuinely have never seen such none effort outside of the deliberate sabotage from Duffy (vs Cardiff?) and to put in two or three performances where he almost literally stood in the centre circle and did nothing, is something I have never witnessed or seen from any other sort of player. Cost – 9 - saved by 10 for being a free transfer, he was on an exorbitant transfer fee that added hugely to the debt and needed paying off. He was also hugely restrictive in terms of opportunity costs as for that kind of money we could have had one or two excellent midfield signings, or a whole team of solid championship pros. We also probably went for him as a leader, preventing someone else from leading the team, someone with a bit of passion, so it was a waste of an influential position too. Total Score: 26/30 Get it’s subjective but these are a few of my thoughts on the topic. Am sure others may rate these players and others differently, and time certainly heals wounds – especially pre Venkys ones. There’s a school of thought that post Venkys ones shouldn’t count, especially the chaotic first years, as worst signing suggests something has gone wrong, where as much of our transfer dealings in my opinion were deliberate verging on malpractice and corruption (well, that’s what it seems like). Perhaps these years should be omitted for these reasons. Regardless, these years, give a number of candidates including our winner and some strong (or should that be weak?) also rans.

No. Because it isn't really working. We didn't get near promotion with the new style. And it's a myth as shown by a ton of teams in the Premiership and the Championship that it is essential for success. It's one of many factors but go ahead and ignore that. Money, better scouting and better coaching all factor into it as well. Also using these teams as an example, especially Brentford, we get none of the basics right that they do in terms of recruitment. Let's compare ourselves with Millwall and PNE two teams which have smaller budgets then us but finished ahead of us. They didn't finish ahead of us because they play possesison football but because they did the basics right. Also this whole possession football is better to watch stuff is horse manure. Utter tripe. Tell that to the blood and thunder of Hughes, or the hit on the break of Leicester's title win or Big Sam or Dyche getting unfashionable teams with few resources competing at the top end of the table. Possession football like anything else from European scouting to youth development is a means to an end. The end is being a successful football club. You take whatever means you can to get to the end. When the means becomes the goal then you are going to fail.

You are missing the point. We didn't sign Bauer therefore he is just a basic limited defender. Had we signed him he would have been an astute addition and an excellent defender. It all depends on what the club do as to how players are perceived in certain quarters...

Yes. Am doing said criteria with a number of candidates (will post results later today/tomorrow) but Ben doesn't come out well. The cost criteria alone boosts his score highly. Like you say, hopefully he will come good but it's a faint hope imo

Have to say centre halves, ball playing or not, don't really feature in my endless fantasies Tyrone...

I think there are 3 factors: 1) ability, or lack thereof. 2) impact on the club. What was their role and influence? 3) Financial cost. Depending on which sort of criteria is used then you would get a different result. Of course if you scored each bad signing out of 5 (or 10) for each category and got a cumulative score then you could find out the worst player ever which may be a bit different. For example superstar defender Myles would get a 5 or 10 for lack of ability (depending on system) but cost and impact on the club would probably score pretty low. Davies would score pretty highly on waste of money and level of ability (at Rovers) but less so on impact as we had a ton of other forwards both good and bad. Very few players score highly in all three. In fact the only one I can think of is a former captain on an obscene wage on a lengthy contract who moved round the pitch like a octogenarian with a torn hamstring. To say games passed him by was an understatement and really set the culture of entitled mercenaries in our championship forray. Step forward worst player ever - Danny Murphy

Great post. What makes this all the more galling a s we are producing quality youth. Raya, Nayambe, Lenihen and Travis are all solid championship players, and the current crop, whilst early days, also look rather talented. In light of this type of output in terms of quality we really should be having a solid squad as a fair bit of work has been done already. Am sure PNE would love to produce the quality of youth we do on a regular basis. It also shows the myth of the slow build as a fair number of the older players won't be around for us in a slow build.

That for me was the biggest thing. For a good player to go to your rivals who you see yourselves on a par to (higher one season, lower the next) in the kind of deal you could do. If that player was any good we would be steaming/gutted. That they weren't suggests they had reservations. Put it this way imagine Tosin went on loan to Bristol City or PNE next season. We would be gutted to have missed out and there's be a lot of outrage. That there was none of that from Wigan was a bit of an alarm bell. That said I think his form probably has been worst for us. Not that that's any consolation as keepers should be improving not regressing. So he's been either ok or poor the last few seasons, not someone who'd top my list of keepers for next year on that basis!

Yes. If the old manager isn't good enough, and goes because he has gone stale rather than because he is head hunted etc., then it seems really odd to appoint someone who was a part of that staleness. You'd think that as assistant manager he had a fair bit to do with the rut that they got themselves into. So if the manager needs changing, why put someone who had a key role in the problems in charge? Madness. Poor appointment imo.

I think footballers have been immune to reprecussions from their actions far too long, way back from before covid. They know they are too important to clubs and so can do what they like. Derby last season was a prime example of this. So it's no surprise footballers aren't behaving with covid. That's the monster we have created. The problem is rather than "just" (for want of a better word) a few people harmed by their actions with covid it gives the opportunity for far more people to be effected by their bad behaviour. Personally don't think closing the league is right - it would kill the game and livelihoods - but surely players should be banned and fined significant amounts (for them) to deter such action. Let's get footballers properly accountable again, and if nothing else that would be one positive of a terrible 2020.