A top/very good manager could get 75% of clubs in the championship promoted imo. It's that right a league with much of a muchness and with bottom of the table teams being able to upset those at the top of the table. It's a fantastic league for excitement, though low on quality.

I always thought I would be excited to see Williams go. A useless football, just about ok at centre back, terrible at left back. I sometimes wonder if I viewed his centre back performances more positively then they were simply because they weren't utterly incompetent, which his left back displays often were. And yet, the feeling of him going somehow makes me sad and worried - simply because he is the only defensive cover we have at centre back and left back. My word, Rovers can get even the correct decisions wrong. That'd leave us so lacking defenders it would be surreal. . On the positive note for TM I'm sure we can put more midfielders in defence. And if it allowed us to sign someone better I'd be all for it. However as the Mulgrew debacle showed, getting rid of deadwood is only beneficial if someone replaces them.

This should have closed the thread down as it shows how much work the team needs in the summer. Classing Chapman and JRC s first team footballers (and possibly Buckley) is very positive given how little football they have played. Mulgrew won't play for us again. All in all, that's not much guaranteed first team dependables whatsoever (although I hope our youngsters can push on.) Then if we get pedantic about quality Williams and Bereton shouldn't be on that list, and I don't think mulgrew or Johnson will have the legs for next season. Grim times. This season really is do or die.

Not saying they have/do but this is the club that only gets its managers from one agency, employed K**n, drowned out protests at the ground, let various agents and others lump us with all sorts of players, get no criticism in LT and when they do there is a big backlash against it, etc. So I don't think we can rule out anything at our club! The dark forces at work at the club, comment is correct, albeit misdirected, not the fans but the owners, agents and those running the show, and imo is still in place. Which is why I wouldn't rule out the club influencing any online media about the club. Not saying they are, just with their past record it's hard to rule out.

Without trying to be patronising or incur a ban this is a much more balanced post. Had you put this with all the players needed to play the inverted winger role I think I would have had a lot less issues with it. I still disagree mind! But more in an agree to disagree kind of way. Buckley and Holtby are better playing in the middle; the former really looks lost out wide. Also 4 players for 2 positions isn't much - especially when you consider a) 2 are youngsters still cutting their teeth, b) one is injury prone and c) they are also covering Dack's position as well. So it's 4 (2 arguably unproven) across 3 positions which isn't great. Unless it's centre back in which case 3 for 2 positions with one covering elsewhere as well is fine... Factor in Dack is also missing till Christmas (which I had initially forgotten) and then it's 4 across 3 positions which is a bit thin. Unless we switch to a 4-4-2 but then the wide players have a somewhat different role. I guess you could say Downing and Bennett cover these positions too but they aren't inverted wingers but do much better on their usual side and are more wide midfielders. Also both are often needed elsewhere as well. So yeah, disagree we have enough for said system but appreciate the acknowledgement that TM has some batnuts thinking of what a wide/inverted-wide player looks like.

In the past few days you have suggested that we have all the players we need to play our inverted winger system (despite Gally and Bereton playing there, the latter regularly) and suggested the club (not your opinion or idea but the club) brought Bereton as understudy to play the Dack role. That's hardly balanced. A positive tone is fine, and for all TMs frustrations he's not a total dud because we are where we are - he has to have something about him. But there are some glaring holes in his style. (Incidentally if he were a total dud I think there'd be less criticism of him. Everyone would accept he is useless and that'd be it.)

What's interesting is there are a ton of debatable issues. Could Gally be useful as a striker? Should we sign Walton? What is our best defence sans Lenihen? (Imo the answers are barely, we can't afford him and put he who can't be named in at centre back, but I appreciate there is some debate.) Some issues however are clearly obvious unless one has an agenda. Gally out wide and Bereton being a decent signing being two such issues. Lack of defensive cover and 3 of the back 5 being loans are another two imo, especially as the former impacts the latter.

Bewildering is the word. It's not even as if it is an out as Gally doesn't hold up the ball. So we don't have all the tools then for said position. No way - I think this is apologist talk. Sorry, that's strong language but I just don't think that's the case. For a ton of reasons that has not been the narrative. 1) No way we spent £7 million to be second fiddle to Dack. 2) Up until this week's "crap we're losing, let's throw on more strikers (and we are out of creative mids) has Bereton played that role. All his appearances have been prior to this up front as a one or a two, or out wide. None of that suggests he is a natural successor to Dack. They'd have played him in that role before the injury crisis if this was the role he had been earmarked for. 3) There has till you mentioned it been no talk of this. Not from TM, who can spin a good line, the fans, the pundits - no one. The intended master plan as Dack successor has gone so far under the radar no one has mentioned it. 4) We also have Rothwell and Holtby for that position as back up - both of whom have played that position ahead of Bereton when Dack is injured. 5) Bereton is a completely different kind of player. No one has listed creativity as Bereton's strength. (Or much else but I digress.) But creativity is key to the Dack role and Bereton doesn't even have that as a perceived strength which again suggests he is not intended as a successor to Dack. So he hasn't really played there, no one has said he is to take this role (inside or outside of the club) and he doesn't have the attributes. I don't mean to come off sarcastic or aggressive but this seems a statement based on no evidence whatsoever in an attempt to justify the signing of Bereton.

Are you seriously suggesting that using Gally, Samuel and Bereton as wide strikers has worked/been successful? That they are the right players for these positions? That seems extraordinary claims given that virtually unanimously (apart from those who refuse to criticise the club on anything) have thought all 3 have been poor on the wing. Don't get me wrong am not knocking the system per se (although I do think more width would help, especially if Gally is up front). But to suggest we have the right players for this when we play a striker there regularly and the vast majority of the time they have struggled seems a little incongruous to me.

Yes that is true. However thinking longer term I imagine he will be back which can help. You're right it could make for a rougher first half of the season especially. I think Holtby and Armstrong could be a really good partnership. Also I was reminded of Hughes first season and a half here - bar Bellamy his strikers were pretty mediocre- Dickov, Kuqi, Stead but with a good team behind them and playing to their strengths they got a few goals. Even now, we're still scoring goals with only Graham to add to that. I was very worried about goals without Dack but we somehow seem to be doing ok. Whether we should be in this position of mediocre at best strikers bar Armstrong £12 mill + in is another question mind!

Why would Brighton sell? Home grown, developing well, I imagine a new contract and a few more loans for a fee are their plans for Walton.

@chaddyrovers I'm not surprised you see nothing wrong with 3/5 of our best back 5 being loans but I struggle to see how this is the case. 1) defending is built on continuity - how can that happen when the defence changes each year? 2) how can you build a long term style when you don't know the players you will have each year? How does it help the rest of the team gel given they have such a changeable back line each year. 3) what if we can't get the players of the right quality in? That's a lot of defensive reinforcements to find. We need 3 successful defensive signings to stay even. That's a lot of pressure to do in the summer, not to mention other parts of the team. 4) issue with loan signings, especially youngsters - what if they are recalled or take half a season to settle. The latter in particular (see Walton) means we're constantly dipping in quality even if we get the loans right. And if recalled where is the recompense for us? Of course there's always a risk and negative to loans but when the majority of the defence is made up of this then those risks and problems become huge. Can't really believe anyone doesn't think this is an unhealthy position to be in. @Oldgregg86 I think you are spot on about how transfers will occur. On the upside whilst I am a tad sceptical of Messer's Bereton Gally and Samuel we also will have Dack and Holtby and hopefully Gally will play up front more which can only help his goal ratio. so not all doom and gloom going forwards, especially if we sign a winger.

Yes I think it is hard be it the pub or internet to find the middle ground. For me I think perhaps for me it's a bit of both - as in he is showing us both ends of the spectrum of how bad and how good he can be. Can remember some awful games earlier on but equally some impressive performances of late. I also wonder if the balance is hard to find based on the prior keeper(s) they are replacing. Anyone after Friedel would have looked bad but more realistically anyone who could catch a cross compared with Raya would look more solid, anyone's kicking would suffer in comparison to Robinson's and anyone after Steele would look like Gordon Banks.

Agree with the latter. Don't think there was much exaggeration of his poor form, although without going back and reviewing it's hard to prove. He certainly wasn't anywhere near the levels he is currently at, which is what we want from a keeper, and what would turn him into a good signing. i'm very glad he has shown that improvement.

Not at all. How many early mistakes were there in the first half of the season? Go through the game threads and in about half a dozen you see Walton cited by lots of posters as costing us goals and looking unconvincing. If pretending he is still rubbish is a false narrative then pretending he was good in the first half of the season is equally fictitious.

The inference is that the first half of the season was poor! Which it was, with error after error. Second half of the season has been a different story and he's beginning to win me over with some quality displays. The more I think about it though the whole Walton on loan has been an almighty muck up with no permanent option to sign/fee agreed before hand. My reasoning is as follows: 1) First half of the season, him learning on the job cost us a number of points with his errors. 2) If that's your young keeper the errors may be worth it as over the long term they develop into a good keeper. This seems to be what is happening with Walton but he's not ours so we don't get the long term benefits. Just half a season of poor and half a season of good. And then we are back to no keeper. 3) Because he has improved we now won't be able to afford him. So we put in the effort and take the cost of him learning and Brighton get the benefit. We are no further forward than before. So yeah am delighted he has got better and now is an asset to the team but the whole thing has really been done in a way that minimises the benefit to us. Of course there's also the risk that his more natural quality is the first half of the season and this is his best patch. However coming off his best form the price will be higher so even if we can afford him it is a gamble. Added to which there were decent other keepers about. I get that Tosin and ball playing centre backs are rarer and harder to find and therefore a loan may be necessary but the keeper situation has just been overly messy imo.

And yet we only have 5 recognised defenders in the squad. 6 if you count Cunningham but that's still pretty appalling. It's not solely about the defensive improvement, which is highly laudable and a step in the right direction, but the fact we have only 5 defenders and the fact our improvement leaves in the summer! This suggests the "defenders are coming" comment needed an amendment - "but they won't be here for long."

"We probably need to recruit a whole back 4 for competition" TM Nothing like forward planning! Not sure how this counts as a slow build progress needing 4 defenders and a keeper. (Actually 2 keepers if Leuits is the back up). Although if I am honest I may have heard him say this before...

Think you missed my point. Wasnt recommending those guys for positions rather the fact you dislikes them and criticised the job they were doing yet others you champion like Woodgate and Potter are doing much worse. Feels a bit double standards imo. Whilst no guarantee they'd do better with a replacement that's not a reason not to change if the manager isn't good enough. We have a season of evidence that Woodgate isn't cutting it, so the fear the replacement is as bad, is a poor reason not to change. It seems like they are stuffed in they keep with him so a change won't make anything worse. In fact it could make it better. On that point you list a number of examples where it has gone well which suggests it's worth a gamble. Sometimes it works! Not only that even if there isn't enough time it gives the new man extra time to assess and prepare for a promotion push to bounce back. In fact you could say that's what happened with TM. (Ok I think he had time to save us but even if he didn't - and it was a tall order - I'm glad he got time to assess the team and impose some standards before the league 1 campaign.)

Even though he looks like he might get them relegated and they are underperforming? No wonder you are so pro TM when this is where the bar is! Makes me wonder what Houghton and McCarthy did wrong to be villified when rhe likes of Potter and Woodgate are endorsed. Being honest I don't see the logic of this whatsoever.

Hmm, no sooner do we put one player back in his position and it works (Gally), do we move another out of position and it costs us (Bennett.) Think we can score more goals but can we keep Swansea out? Not sure we can.

A good response. Add in Lenihen is injury prone. Add in centre back is a very specialised position. Add in there are only 2 other actual defenders behind these 4 and you see how neglected the defence is. Factor in Cunningham has been injured for ages and we've been happy to only carry 5 defenders in the squad since then is criminal. Heck even with Cunningham there it leaves 6 defenders only for 4 positions. Contrast that with how many midfield and striker options we have and threadbare is an understatement. And that's before we consider quality. Williams and Bell aren't really good enough. Clear neglect imo.

9 if Gally is wide. That said I think Gally will start up front today. TM often goes with common sense when the pressure and spotlight is on. (And reverts back to type when it isn't.)

Bit unfair to Samuel to shunt him out wide. Still think he will do better than Gally did there. No surprise Johnson dropped he was gassed midweek. Bit harsh no place for Buckley. Not sure why on that one. And as for the defence...

Don't suppose their injury list helps them much. Not selling your best players.