Well a little consistency would be nice! Glad to see an admission 5 months on that Gally was playing out wide. Also the fact he is playing out wide or as a false 9 now also shows he is being played out of position. He's a pudding but isn't being helped by being played out of position.

If you are crap in two thirds of the games you play, then by any definition, a player can not be said to have a lot of quality. If you are crap in two thirds of the games you play I'd also say that seems fairly consistent to me, albeit not in a welcome way.

Agree Steele never had a purple patch but do remember one (maybe 2?) games where he played well for us. Definitely not a patch but shows anyone can have a good day. The odd good day doesn't make a player, consistency does. The problem is, as you say, when Walton isn't in a purple patch he is horrific. No team can afford that, especially when these account for 60-70% of his performances. Raya may have made errors but nowhere near as many as Walton did. Since the restart alone Walton must take some of the blame for the vast majority of the goals we have conceeded. That's suicidal for a football team, it's giving yourself a handicap. Also even knowing his potential for that must have a huge negative impact on the defence even when he isn't dropping those clangers. I never played at any decent level but even I experience the difference in a team's demeanour depending on if we had a good or dodgy keeper behind us. It totally changed how you would defend. I think for me the long and short is that Walton doesn't just make the errors a young keeper makes- he does far worse then that. He regularly makes mistakes and costs goals when they really shouldn't be goals. All young keepers have a few clangers in them, Walton has a shedload. It's going to require huge improvement for him to get to a level we would want - improving on two thirds of his performances, and significant improvement at that, is not a simple or minor process. That to me shouts out liability and something we should steer well clear of. He can't be classed as anything but an unmitigated disaster. If we had points from just two of the games he has cost us, we would be on course for playoffs. Not that there aren't other reasons for not being in playoffs but you see the point. The man is a hinderance not a help.

You are joking right? Or have I totally made up a previous heated conversation about this topic?!

Firstly there is a world of difference between those players you mentioned and the strikers we have both in terms of quality and type of player. We have no one who matches either criteria even accounting for us being in a lower division. Secondly I am sure you were adamant Gally hasn't been played wide right. He clearly has been both before and after the break and it seems you acknowledge that here.

Even accounting for the drop in quality between these teams and us, we have very different types of forwards. In fact I don't think there are many false 9s who aren't very technically gifted and therefore within our price range. Trying to play this system with the wrong players is asking for trouble.

I'd like to think even TM would do a little bit more scouting then one match where he waltzed past two substandard players. If that's the level of scouting then we might as well just pick names at random to buy.

All I hope is that the European Scouts aren't the same, or of the same ilk as the English scouring ones. After all these scouts have told us Bereton and Gally were worth buying and Walton is a keeper. If we're using the same quality of scouts the only difference will be that we will be disappointed by a variety of nationalities...

Yep I appreciate that offloading those two will be hard. I said that's what I would do and it's the best of a bad situation - appreciate there may be difficulties in this. In fact I suspect what you say will happen, but that is far from the best solution. I don't know how big the contracts are on the other two, although I have heard Gally's is quite high so getting rid is a problem. Perhaps if we offered them on frees or loans out that would recoup some of the wages if nothing else?Going on frees I expect is unlikely to happen as it makes TM look more of a clown but loans out are certainly a possibility. Think a number of clubs would perhaps gamble with them on loans. At the moment they are complete deadwood, in wages and ability. Getting them off the books somewhat, even if partial wages, would be more of a contribution from them than anything they have done this season. Also it's a fresh start and for Ben regular games can only help him. It may, if it goes well, put them in the shop window and make them vaguely attractive. My point is they are doing nothing for us now and we need getting shut of them. Yes it will be hard and, yes it will be at a loss but something is better than nothing. And nothing is what we are getting from them at present.

Whilst it is faint praise it also appears a fact that he is better than both of them. There's no way we can get 3 new strikers in, so someone has to stay as a squad player and i would rather it be Samuel then either of the other two. Given we need practically a whole new defence a 3rd or 4th choice striker realistically won't get any attention or cash so we should focus our energy and resources on more pressing matters.

This sums up Rovers for me. It's strange but when the team is under pressure to perform they simply cannot do it. When there isn't any pressure they look a very good outfit. A few other correlating factors which I don't think are unrelated to today's win: 1) The pressure was off the team but the scrutiny was on TM. Funny how when the fans start getting restless the obvious belated team changes happen and the performances improve. 2) Following on from number 1, it's no surprise we do better when Bennett and Gally aren't in the team. 3) We were clear underdogs and Cardiff needed to come at us. These are games we relish far more than lower league scraps. Sure we get overawed and play too cautiously vs the big clubs in the division like Leeds, but any game where we aren't clear favourites and the opposition comes to us, seem to be the ones we relish. Great win. Shows what we are capable of. Questions need to be asked why we aren't doing it when it really counts.

Fairly pleased with the team, for a TM team that is! Bennett and Gally dropped when too late to make a difference. But at least it has happened. Hopefully this is the end of both as regular first teamers. Also Graham in is good as he is still our second best attacker. Samuel meh, rubbish like the other two. At least he gets on the end of chances - who knows he might even fluke one in. Walton should be dropped as no matter how poor the replacement is it's not good for someone to play so badly and be allowed to be kept in the team. Aside from him Johnson and Samuel it's a decent team. Tbh it's one of the better line ups we have seen. One thing the 4 changes again does show is that TM has no clue as to his best team. 3 years in that's a pretty criminal situation.

I think the big thing these days is that the "so that we win games" part is missing or cut off from the criteria bandied about for a new manager or a club strategy. For example we have a foreign scouting network in order to unearth the best affordable.talent so that we win the most games. Or like Swansea used to do before new owners - we have a passing philosophy and select managers in line with this model, which enables maximum continuity when people move on so that we win the most games. Whether it is a recruitment policy, a style of football, a backroom structure - the point of it all is to give you a competitive edge to help you win games. It's a means to an end, not the end in itself. When this is forgotten it all becomes a load.of guff.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. In fact I fear this is the likeliest outcome. However that isn't down to TM being particularly good but by virtue of any possible replacement - given we are run by a third rate agency - being absolutely terrible. TM is mediocre at best, pretty poor in my book, but the same said agency gave us Coyle and Lambert both of whom are worse. The other appointments include Bowyer who was a bit more astute in the transfer market but less so tactically, and Appleton and Berg who didn't seem to be great shakes at all. TM is arguably the best of these by a fair way (maybe Bowyer but his record elsewhere is weak so probably not.) So looking at the evidence the likelihood is we will do worse. Much worse. To me the sad facts of Rovers these days are that TM isn't very good and yet under the current set up is as good as we will get. If the owners were to look at recruiting outside the agency with a bit more ambition TM would be out the door straight away imo as there are good realistic candidates out there. But whilst the owners will only ship in a solitary bargain basement store, we ain't going to get any of them.

Yeah there is a school of thought that a player stands on their own merit. And saying it's only in comparison to Dack that they look bad is pure fantasy. Let's compare them to a few other strikers then. Chris Brown - Beretons goal record is 1 better for 7 million more. Or Goodwillie - more goals then Bereton at a fraction of the cost, and we all know he was dire too. Or how about Samuel - looks similar in ability to the other two at a fraction of the costs. They look bad compared to any signing because they were poor buys. We don't know this for certain. It's hard to use as an argument when it's in the future in uncertain times after the virus. As an aside how much resale value do you think BB and Gally have? The fact it will be a fraction of what we paid might be an indicator they are not very good. Walton equal to Raya?!? Not saying Raya was all that, but Walton has made as many howlers since the restart than Raya made in a season. Walton is having a wobble? He was duff till December and has been terrible since the restart. Only his Gran would say that's a wobble and he hasn't been a bad signing, everyone else can tell he is guff. Also Cunningham is hard to judge on the few games he played. Agree he was looking good but it's not fair to judge off so few games. The flowing point is relevant to this and the all clubs rely on loans comment. You are seriously ignoring the extent of work that needs to happen within the squad. Firstly yes loans augment a squad and are key - although i definitely want better quality than Walton - but they normally are the missing pieces of a jigsaw not the entire side of one puzzle. Having 3 of 5 of the back line changing is asking for trouble. Defences are built on continuity and quality and whilst a key loan in there is absolutely fine, when more of the defence won't be here next season you'll never get the continuity that is needed for a good defence. Also again you underestimate what needs doing to the squad. On top of the replacement loans Johnson, Graham, Mulgrew and Downing are well over 30 and need replacing on the grounds of age. We still haven't got adequate cover in defence, and that's before we even start thinking of improving quality. In terms of youngsters breaking in to have the impact you are saying. Nayambe came in at the end of the relegation season, Travis last year. So one every two years suggests that we won't be hugely building a squad around them. Honestly I think you look at the evidence of TMs transfers and I struggle to see how anyone can be confident he will get the adequate quality needed. Half his signings were successful this year - and that's his best record yet - but half were disasterous. We as a club cannot have that level of hit and miss in our transfers and shows no faith should be put in the manager to improve the squad.

Agree and this is what makes the situation so frustrating. Because none of them will be considered unless they have the right agent. Venkys are still corrupt and destroying us albeit in the shadows these days.

The Bowyer analogy is to me the moat compiling reason to go as he was kept on way after he had run out of ideas and money. The flip side is since getting rid of Bowyer we've had 3 managers to take us exactly back to where we were when Bowyer should have been potted (not that he deserves the job.) I honestly think we are stuck in an almost boom and bust cycle with our stupid owners.

Dunno. Maybe you can find it online.. Given it contains the likes of.TM, Lambert and Coyle I wouldn't hold much store in the list having any good ones.

Good shout but who is his agent? Tbh it is the agency ruling the roost that does it for me. There are plenty of other good managers out there who would be attainable for Rovers BUT we all know an agency picks our managers so anyone not off their client list won't ever get the job.

Let me be clear on a few things as the TM debate seems to twist things. 1) I am not and never have been grateful for Venkys. They have destroyed the club in so many ways from the £120 million debt through to handing over continuing control to an agency. We were an established Premier League club and until they do not deserve any credit. Even then it would be grudging for the lost years but I digress. Mid table prem team is the standard of my Blackburn Rovers. A medium size club but excellently and passionately run is what we were and what I expect. 2) Instead I have a joke club still a plaything of agents, with a terrible executive structure that doesn't allow virtual meetings and sees the manager answerable to his mate. They are clearly still ruled by agents, still make wrong decision after wrong decision, have rattled through a half dozen inadequate.imcumbants and generally we are now a Micky mouse operation. 3) TM is a bog standard average manager. Whilst he by comparison to most of the jokers under Vs better and has done some things right - getting us promoted, Dack and Armstrong, bringing through some youngsters of quality - proving he is not a total dud, there are too many mistakes for him to be considered a good manager. He is poor overall in the transfer window, and has blown the budget twice which is perversely impressive. He sticks with players for too long, well after they are shown out of their depth. He messes things up by playing players out of position and has winless runs that are clearly unacceptable. Long term the squad looks a mess 3 years in. All of which are huge negatives at best and criminally negligent at worse. Now factors 1 and 3 mean that TM is nowhere near good enough to manager Rovers. However factor 2 means that nothing better will come under Vs. this isn't a lack of ambition, being grateful to the owners, accepting of dumbed down standards as it rails against me that we aren't better run with a better manager. However until 2 goes we are never going to be or do better than TM however loathsome this concept is to accept. In light of this I find it hard to want rid of TM because the odds are almost certainly we will get someone worse and we may go down again and crash even harder. I guess you could say keep changing in the hope we get the right person in who can and does do better. I understand that argument and see the logic in it. The risks however perhaps outweigh the reward. If it doesn't work, the grwatwr likelihood is that is some duffer completely destroys the club. Given the odds, sticking with TM may be best. To use the oft favoured analogy of Rovers under Vs is that of being on critical life support machine, and being dependant on the one who put you on it to keep the machine switched on. In this analogy its like TM is the doctor. He isn't going to get you off life support but he won't shut it down. A new doctor may get you off life support and recovery but the greater likelihood is that he bumps you off for good. The question is do you take that risk? Bugger it. As I'm talking I am talking myself into thinking let's risk it as life support is no way/position to be in. But make no mistake that such a course is very risky and could kill the club for good. In fact is more likely to then to cure it. Anyhow the original aim of this was to show it's not an acceptance of Venkys or being conned that makes people reluctant to change managers but a recognition of how severe the consequences could well be

I'm not so sure you can as whether I would pull the trigger if I had magic wish or something of that ilk, would depend on what would happen next. imo the next would be another crap manager from their stable of washed out has beens, so no real.change. in light of that it's hard to think we would get any better off the back of TM going, which is a very scary fact. IF we were a normal club - too right he would have gone. Definitely last year and again this year. The guy clearly isn't good enough and I have made no secret of my opinion that at best he is average and a normal club he would have gone several times over. Problem is Stuart we aren't a normal club and TM is the best decision they have made. Their decision making combined with the most limited pool of replacements ever makes me very wary about getting rid, even if he is poor. The alternative I think makes poor look decent.

But you cannot seperate what Waggott or Venkys will do. The two are inseperable. If we were to get rid of TM - and that ain't going to happen because a) his mate is his boss and b) a 12 match winless streak didnt bother them so 3 losses on the bounce is nothing - then we get another poor managaer from the same agency. It is groundhog Day and we are trapped in it. That said he's a decent at best manager and should have been booted from Rovers on numerous occasions imo. Problem is we keep getting second rate chancers from the same agency.

If it's any consolation most managers and teams he has faced since have played him big time too. Agree I was overly optimistic and excited by the appointment. Wonder how much of that was due to Venkys taking a sledgehammer to my expectations.

Even deadwood like Gally and Bennett could contribute if they were played in the correct positions and used correctly. Sure neither should be starting but Bennett would be a great impact sub for shoring up games with his energy. A half decent manager might get Gally to put himself about and be a pain for defenders. And if played centrally with a bit of coaching in the physical side of the game, who knows, he might even get a few goals. But yeah, players not out of position, a system everyone knows, a regular and best first 11 with everyone knowing their role. All of this would easily see us as you say 10 points better off. And this is what irritates me. The needless nature of the way TM hampers the team and makes things harder for himself. It's beyond odd.

At this rate I think it could. The way the league is so competitive at both ends of the table, with anyone getting a result Vs anyone it could well be another 50+ pointer to stay up. Got the Hull-Boro prediction wrong. Thought Hull were dead and buried with onfield and off field problems but it shows anyone can get a result regardless of circumstances. (And makes me wonder how much can TM hide behind Venkys...) Still think Warnock will keep Boro up mind but that was a bad one for them to lose.