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.

Could be higher if we hadn't spunked 12 mill on forwards. We also had highest in league 1 but didn't win the league. Money helps massively but it doesn't equate to success. Likewise it's harder with limited finance but that doesn't prevent success. I could be wrong but do either of them have more recent promotions from the championship then TM. I have a feeling they do but can't be arsed checking. Pulis work at Stoke and McCarthy at Ipswich are recent positives having teams punching above their weight. you only have to look at how Ipswich have done without McCarthy to see what a positive effect he had there and what a good job he did. Must be others of that ilk out there. If we had a proper upper management structure we might uncover one.

We will win a couple of the dead rubbers for sure giving a false gloss to the season. Huge game at the bottom, a loss would shatter Boro's moral. But I think they will edge it sending Hull closer to the drop. Surprised Stoke are making quite such hard going of things. Dark horses for relegation if Barnsley and Luton keep improving?

Living in Leeds I really need us to win this one. And in some ways it is set up nicely for us. They are desperate for points, they will come at us, we prefer being underdogs. No big Leeds following to cheer them on. And Leeds struggled Vs Luton and with Brentford breathing down their necks - all in all a good time to play them. The problem is no left back whatsoever means captain calamity starts there and that will cause all sorts of issue. I morbidly wonder what he has to do, for TM to play someone else there as a stop gap seeing he has been a nightmare there every time he has played. It really does undo us. The false 9 thing clearky isn't working, which means TM will give it a few more weeks. Again this really does not help our chances. Bereton is out and whilst he has still been totally ineffective Gally has to take the worst of the crap strikers award. (In a perverse way, quite an achievement.) With one less name in the tombola there's more chance he will play and play wide right which also is a big weight dragging us down. I can't see us getting a win from this with our self inflicted handicaps but we may get a draw. Cue TM, the Telegraph and others saying how this shows we are serious promotion candidates. 1-1 more in hope than expectation. Samuel to score putting his 237th chance away calmly.

Blaming it all on Lenihen - aside from the whole can a Dad be present at a birth issue (imo yes for a variety of reasons but it feels done to death) - detracts attention from the other culprit of the situation, who made this an issue - TM. Had we had defensive cover of an adequate standard and not been threadbare in defence, Lenihen missing for injury, parental leave or any other reason would have been far less grievous. The fact we only had Mulgrew available 2+ windows after realising he wasn't good enough (and there's a school of thought there was some prior warning to that too, including his age) is shambolic. The fact the only other centre back is also possibly our first choice left back (Williams) and is good enough for neither position really also shows the mess TM has made. If one didn't have to show horn Bennett in and Williams was fit he should have slotted in at left back as he's not an utter liability there unlike Bennett. So we haven't had cover, proper cover, in terms of numbers or quality all season. If this had been a game under Big Sam say or Hughes, no one would have batted an eye as there was plenty of cover in defence. Likewise under Souness. No one wouldve cared had it been Samuel or Gally It's only an issue at all because we have such a terribly unbalanced squad. That's nothing to do with Lenihen whatsoever.

I get what you are saying but in fairness I think some of it is poor planning from TM. In defence he knew Lenihen was injury prone early on (appreciate that's not why he was missing this time) and Mulgrews age wasn't a secret. To not get adequate cover for either of these is poor management. Midfield we have known for years Evans is more injured than fit. It's no surprise as it has been that way for years. Other than Travis the quality of our more defensive minded mids is poor. Had we better quality than Johnson or Smallwood again the miss would have been less. Dack is a blow, a big blow and is unlucky as is Travis so yeah he has had it hard done to. But with Dack he had 2 or 3 players who could fill that role so didn't need to change formation. So he has been unlucky but his blunders have made the situation worse imo.

Just to say Chaddy I this is one of your best posts as you give reasons for your thoughts and I can see the logic and evidence of some of them. As I've said before, just because you have an opinion doesn't make it correct or valid (for example I could think the moon is made of cheese, which isn't an opinion that should be taken seriously.) In this case however, I think you do name some very valid strengths of TM, showing he's not a complete duffer. Do these outweigh the negatives - I massively disagree on that. I think the spunking of the budget (more of that in the next post) would be a huge negative. Overall I don't think his record in the transfer window is very good, but will admit from this when he gets it right he gets it very right. Sadly that's not often the case. His constant playing players out of position is another. And keeping players playing long into badly performing runs is a third issue. Given the first has huge implications for us and the second and third are so basic and shouldn't be happening, for me it's a taken us as far as he can. No good manager would make such basic regular mistakes which are massively hurting us, and the loss of £12 mill plus in resources is something we cannot afford. I'm a bit less convinced with this one mind. I get there is an element of hindsight but there was some evidence at the time. Certainly the fees paid represented an outlay that only should have been spent on proven talent, and as you yourself have said, you'd have spent the Gally money on a keeper and couple of defenders (which I agree with.) None of that is hindsight. We all knew what sort of quality that sort of money should bring in. We all knew the defence needed more strengthening. And we all knew what type of player Gally was like. I honestly think Samuel is the best of the three strikers he has brought (excluding Armstrong.) At least he gets into positions even if he fluffs them. and Samuel isn't that good but for ten and twelve times the amount Samuel cost, you have to be getting much better and we didn't The risk was huge and it has come back to haunt us. Plus even if it was pure hindsight (and I'd say it's not as scouting, common sense and previous experience should mitigate this) the fact is it hasn't worked out and the blame for that rests on TM. Basically I think he could and should have known better on both signings. Buying players isn't a lottery, it's educated speculation. If we go down the we can only know with hindsight route, then we can't credit him with the signings of Dack or Armstrong either. So do think he has to take the blame on this one. No ducking, diving or excuses. He mucked up. Captain does matter on two levels. Firstly they lead by example and a good captain can make a big difference to team attitude and moral. Secondly you have to play your captain, so if your captain is a player who shouldn't be playing, and you play him anyway because he is captain, you are weakening the team. So it does matter, because it affects the quality of your first 11. In Bennett's case he shouldn't be first choice at right back or right mid, and definitely shouldn't be playing at all at left back which is suicidal. So yeah, the captain makes a difference. To think we've gone from the likes of Flitty and Nelson to Bennett.It's a hell of a comedown. (And I don't mean we're at a lower level, I mean as in the role and character the captain has in the team.) A much better state then when he came. I'd agree better, but not on the much. Bare in mind as well that this really is a tallest dwarf competition - we'd had years of Venkys pulling the plug, and living solely off frees, selling our best talent and replacing them for peanuts. We'd also had a clueless manager with not even a shoestring for a budget, and had languished under his ministrations. So yeah, 6 windows and 12 million plus in fees later, it's no wonder we are in a better position. That said we're not in that much of a better position. We go into next season with no keeper and half a defence. We have 4 non scoring forwards .Our best two players when he arrived - Mulgrew and Graham are both aging and haven't been adequately replaced, whilst the likes of Johnson and Downing are also getting on and will need replacing. (Johnson doubly as he is so poor at times.) We need at least 5 players next year just to stand still, let alone improve. We still don't know our best formation, our style or best 11 three years after he has joined. For me that isn't much progress, that's a mess. Interesting we compare vs Coyle, which is no comparison at all, but how does this team and squad compare to the Bowyer one pre FFP. Rhodes and Gestede are streets ahead of our current strikers, with King as another tasty option. Out wide the creativity, flair and supply of Conway and Marshall, as well as Cairney gave us loads of attacking options. We also had Hanley and Duffy as centre backs. Did we have Olsson at left back too. Sure there were a few duff ones, a favourite shoehorned into the side even at full back and a terrible keeper. Doesn't seem that dissimilar to now. But the first 11. I;d say it was better then, or that fewer pieces of the puzzle were needed.

Spot on Rev. The club is still corrupt just more discrete about it these days. The Smallwood example is just one of it. The last 3 managers being from there another. Which when that lands you with Lambert, Coyle and TM it leaves the club in a very bad place indeed. Go back to the second formarion. We don't have the players for 4-3-3. The strikers struggle as wide strikers and it means we play (or should play) less of the failing lot of them in the other formation. It also stops us playing a false 9, although to be fair I thought that was a description of our strikers rather than a position. It also works well when Dack comes back and you can slot him and Holtby in the team. Fixed it for you. He's not a wide forward or midfielder or footballer either imo.b Agree with where the money should have been spent. I think TM did however see him as Graham's replacement. I mean if he's anything at all he should be that kind of striker. The problem is he's not very good and it's a demanding role to play leading the line alone, so he isn't a suitable successor. Yep strengthen the defence instead looks a much smarter bet, especially with Armstrong improving. We already had 2 substandard strikers on the pitch. The chopping and rotating between the 3 and Graham and anyone else TM decides to play as a striker must make it even harder for them to develop. Perhaps without Gally one of the others would have had a run and found a bit of form. Unlikely, very unlikely, but better odds then the chopping and changing.

Hart still thinks he is premier league quality and should be in the Burnley team. He's delusional and would no way stoop to a lowly championship club. He's also not very good. Crap in fact, premier league second keeper standard not even good enough for any odius premiership team that plays in claret. That speaks volumes. He's rubbish. That said he's still head and shoulders above Walton and Steele so would be an improvement for us. (Probably better than Raya too right now but their trajectories may mean that changes soon.)

This is a pretty big failing. And there's a hell of a difference between not leaving it to football men and letting the manager appoint their own boss! The non pressure and lack of a proper management structure is costing us dearly. Then there's the issue of budgets not being set till late on because they can't be arsed using Skype and the apparent lack of money for defenders which whilst hearsay appears to have legs. They are far from model owners. Better than they have been but not good at all. That said I agree that TM should shoulder a lot of blame and has in many ways had it far too easy. His money for strikers has been good. He hasn't had any scrutiny in the fact that they haven't worked out either. He's not been under pressure after runs that would be sacked at any other club and he appointed his own boss. For all the disfunction of Rovers TM has done very well out of it and should shoulder a fair chunk of the blame for the current issues.