Agree. Even assuming it doesn't signal a dip in form I think being 4 points off the playoffs, or worse if we lose more ground, would be too much to turn around in too short a space of time given how many teams are vying for playoffs.

Thanks. It hopefully helps highlight the double standards and also helps me avoid doing my essay...

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. On one hand when you disagree with KHod it is a different opinion, and that is all well and good. Freedom of speech and fine for you to hold your opinion. Your opinion can't be criticised because it is your opinion. HOWEVER when people have a different opinion to you - saying Gally plays out wide for example - you get frustrated and angry they won't accept others opinions. In these cases you think it is wrong to hold a different opinion to you. I can hear your response - where have I said people can't have different opinions? So to quote you: "why can't you accept my opinion?" "He isn't playing wide though. How many times do you not get it?" Both cases here suggest very heavily it is wrong to have opinions different to yours. Yet you also in the quoted text say it's fine for you to disagree with KHod because it is a different opinion. Can you see how this may come across as double standards. Also and this is key opinions are not unquestionable. They aren't all correct or right. For example I think Dack is rubbish. Is that an ok opinion to have? Is it true? The point I am making is that it can be questioned. In fact if opinions can't be questioned and have to be accepted as true we are in a world of trouble. Just think if someone had the opinion racism was ok? Can we leave that unchallenged? Is it true? If opinions can't be challenged there's a world of hurt. It seems however the unquestioning of opinions remains solely for you however. This'll be ignored but hopefully read and seen why this thread is causing you some bother.

Yeah definitely. It doesn't have to be width but as you say it does need a system where all players are contributing to that system to unlock teams. Am ok with us not having wide players in the midfield 3. Ok, I'm not but I can live with it IF the rest of the team was built to accommodate it. But then neither of our full backs are great in an attacking sense (much as I like Nayambe) so as you say there's no system. Then there's the issue that Gally out wide is a passenger and contributes to no system. A bit of thought and a plan when recruiting would go a long way to making us a better team. TM sometimes identifies some really talented players (and some duds) but I am not sure how much he thinks of then fitting together.

The long hair thing annoys me too. He spends far too much game time faffing with it.

Aside from our central defence issues there are a number of other questions. My biggest worry outside of central defence is who partners Travis. Downing would be the obvious choice but does that give too much dirty defensive work for Travis. Johnson - but he looks like he needs a rest. I'd also wonder about Downing at left back as Bell's attacking prowess isn't great. Probably wouldn't with the other defensive issues but food for thought when we are likely to dominate as Bell adds little going forward. (We probably won't dominate this one so perhaps not an issue this game.) Also do we want to try out passing Swansea and would Graham up top with Armstrong wide be better to cause Swansea problems. Oh and the wide right mid issue if Armstrong is up top but that's been done to death. Point is there's a fair few selection niggles and issues as well as our centre back saga.

Fair play on 3 and 4. I hope he scores too. I've detailed in the Stoke game why I think he hinders creativity so won't again, suffice to say width aside there are a number of other ways he stifles our play playing out wide. As for our full backs providing width my big issue with that is that neither are that creative. I don't think Bell should be first choice full back at all for the club (although is ok back up) bit Nayambe has a great engine but not an amazing cross and isn't great offensively. I like Nayambe as he is athletic, solid defensively and his energy stretches the play but he doesn't provide many crosses or killer balls. The best more attacking mid playing on the right with the full back providing the width was the Bentley-Emerton combination. Bentley had the skills to drift inside with the ball, Emerton had the engine to tear up the wing outside into the space generated which gave us two options - Bentley continues inside or plays it to Emerton. It was a killer combination that always excited me. This is far from the case with Gally & Nayambe because 1) Nayambe's final ball/cross is much worse then Emerton's and 2) Gally isn't much good at dribbling and holding onto possession (or passing, or starting wide and dribbling inside to leave the space, or holding onto the ball.) Oh and 3);our tactics are to Welly it head height to Gally which invariably means the tactic wouldn't work even if Gally had the dribbling ability to do so.

Not that people don't get what you are saying Chaddy, it's just that they disagree with you! Btw 1) if he is not playing wide that's part of the problem. He isn't stretching the defence. 2) Call the position what you want but it doesn't stop him having a stinker there. No creativity, no final ball, very few goals, no pace. I think inside forward and winger are both an injustice as they suggest he is offering an attacking threat. Whatever it is called it is not working and Gally isn't offering anything from said position.

We've had the centre back debate elsewhere and so don't think it's worth rehashing. I think for both of us though if we had decent back up at full back we'd feel a lot better about Nayambe moving insiide, even though he's a loss at RB. As it is we're just as thin and poor in quality there too imo. One more defensive reinforcement of a decent standard - better than Mulgrew / Williams and we would be rediculously better off.

I think this highlights the problem in part. We are reliant on our best players to produce a moment of magic to unlock the park a bus team rather than have an overall.strategy, involving the whole team, for beating them. Yes brilliance is important - and again only a couple of players seem to have that magic in the team, one of whom is injured (hence we need more of it. But when these players are crowded out, as you point out, we struggle. If we had a better overall team strategy for bearing these teams we wouldn't be so vulnerable to teams crowding out our best players.

No there may be more to it then we see. The captain to exile is odd. As to who is to blame - mix of TM.and Mulgrew. Mulgrew for ending the loan/forcing our hand a bit and being poor, TM for not sourcing adequate defensive cover and leaving us in this mess.

He did it in league 1 and has a load of energy. I think that's his best position. Whether that is good enough is a different question (not sure he is) but I think his best games for me are there from what I have seen of him.

Again you are missing my point although I might not be making it as clear as I think I am. By weaker I mean weakest. As I said before we struggle Vs teams that park the bus Vs us. Those are the type of teams I am talking avout. And there's more than 1 or 2 examples - this season alone I can think of 4 or 5. There are loads of positives too but that doesn't negotiate this weakness. In contrast I'd feel more.confident going up against any of the division away from home. But equally the negative is I worry we don't have a strategy to beat the park the bus teams at Ewood.

The evidence of the clause is he isn't in the squad when there are literally no other defenders. Why else wouldnt he be when there is literally no-one else? I'd say that's quite compelling. I'm not going to disagree with you about how poor he is or how much I have slated him. He is poor no question about it. Thing is it's not so much "any port in a storm" as "only port in a storm." He's poor but the nearest thing we have to a competent centre back. A fair way off and I'm nervous about him playing too, but there aren't any other choices - unless you take Nayambe in there but he 1) isn't great at CB 2) is good at RB and 3) Bennett is also poor at RB. It's the least bad option imo although firmly in the bad category too. Bit unfair about the retired lark. Read an article a while back on Charlie about his vegan diet and wanting to play till he is 40. We can question his ability (and it is questionable!) but don't think he is thinking of retiring yet.

I wonder why Mulgrew won't drop the clause? He'd be playing football, maybe even get into the playoffs. It's a game of chicken with our manager who will break first and one I don't think will work. As the Gally situation shows TM is happy to weaken the team to stick to his principles. (Cue outrage but see squad unnecessary rotation, length of time Smallwood and Bennett kept their places for proof of this.)

Well if it is least disruption it has to be Mulgrew. Yep he's poor but is he a) worse than Nayambe at centre back and Bennett at right back? I'd say not. Plus he has played at this level this season. If Carter was ready I reckon he'd have been involved in the squad earlier, not just when we are down to the bare bones. So it's a crap option but the least crap one imo.

Agree. No one else goes into the game with so few defenders in the squad. Sure Cunningham was injured for the season and it is a blow, but we've been fortunate that Lenihen hasn't missed more of this season with injuries given his history. And we have known and been able.to adjust for Cunningham for months. Realistically we've had one injury to Williams, who is not that good, and that has scuppered us defensively. That's criminal. Without Cunningham that's 5 defenders in the squad, with him it is 6. No idea how we think that is anywhere near the level needed. For context we have 5 strikers and only play one up front. Has to be. There was literally no one else and he doesn't get on the benchm that can't be for footballing reasons.

Lower yes - that's not what I am saying. Logically given where we are in the table there's more teams below than above us of which we will have beaten. I said weaker - or to be more specific the weakest teams who come and park the bus, the teams who on paper we really should be beating. Note this is quite a bit different to lower than us. It's been a challenge throughout TMs tenure and whilst we have beaten a couple of them, there's a fair number we have struggled to beat and not done so. Just this season alone Luton and Charlton bear us and Wigan drew - a Wigan team without a win in 26 league games. That's terrible away form and one that we should have punished. Even the Barnsley game which we won we made heavy weather of. So yes, no exaggeration, we struggle Vs the weakest teams in the division. TM struggles to stop the park the bus approach. I think that's a pretty fair comment borne out by the evidence.

What hasn't moved on is our inability to beat weaker teams at home or play players out of position. That's been a constant, and will be why we remain in this division. Oh, and the constant of an unbalanced squad.

Ok, so I think I have finally calmed down after this game. Not sure if I was more annoyed with TM and the team or myself for getting my hopes up. If Brentford showed why we are in contention for playoffs, the Stoke game showed why we won't do it. I really was hoping that we had turned the corner with regards to beating weaker teams who sit back and defend but clearly an Achilles Heel we've had for 3 years still hasn't gone away. And no matter if you work your nuts off and get good results against the better teams - and Brentford was a refereeing calamity away from a good away win - it makes no sodding difference if you can't beat weaker opponents at home. Yes, there's always the odd blip, but we consistently can't put weaker teams to the sword. Let's start with Gally. Aside from his dubious abilities as a striker, what is less contentious is that he is terrible at right wing. He's laboured, doesn't create, doesn't threatened, and only looks vaguely promising when he moves into the centre - in other words, away from the position he is playing. Why do we do it when it is clear to everyone of all shades of Rovers fans that it isn't working, is beyond me. Actually it isn't - there are 5 million reasons why he is playing there. It may however cost us a shot at the £90 million from promotion though. My biggest gripe however is how this changes our play. When Armstrong plays without Gally, we either loft it over the top to Armstrong or play it through the defence. When Gally plays we instead whack it towards him instead, rather than playing to the strengths of our best player. Even if Gally wins the flick on, it displays as much accuracy as a piece of governmental PR, meaning we are starving Armstrong of service from these "flick ons" (flick outs would be a better phrase), as well as giving the ball to someone who isn't that good. Sure the defence was deep and so it's harder to make balls to run onto, therefore more options are needed to stretch the defence with width or creatively unlock the Stoke backline. Gally provides neither width nor creativity, making it even harder when teams sit back. Farcical doesn't begin to describe it. Then there's the lack of magic makers, making something out of nothing. I think we really lack this, and whilst debates with other posters would put Armstrong into this category, either way we looked very short on it against Stoke. This is why I feel there must be a place for Mulgrew on the bench. His free kicks and corners could have tipped the balance and unlocked the defence. Given Stoke weren't attacking a lot there were a number of options as to where Mulgrew could have played - in defence, left back or defensive midfield. Speaking of midfield I struggle to see how Johnson is rated as a good buy. Sure he gives some 8 out of 10 performances but I think he is just as capable, and gives just as many if not more 4 out of 10 performances. What is patently clear is that he doesn't have the engine for Championship football anymore, certainly not 2 games in quick succession. Against Brentford - against who he looked rather good - he still gassed for the final 10 minutes of each half. I dread to think of him playing another season for us, as he just doesn't have the fitness required to build a team around. 60 minutes every Saturday is the best we can hope for which really isn't enough. The Stoke game was a game too far for him. That said we had enough options on the bench to change things. If we wanted to play long ball give Graham a good amount of minutes. He still looks the best target man we have. Buckley has bags of creativity and a more passing approach with him coming on as sub should also have been something we could have utilised a lot earlier. Equally Chapman could've provided width, Bennett in the centre instead of Johnson more energy. Yes we have injuries, but we did have (5 by my count including Mulgrew) options that with enough time could have changed the game. Also just don't play Gally out wide that would help. So another year, another disappointment. We are still comfortably outside the playoffs, and are unlikely to get another week where we can make up so much ground on everyone. Sure it's progress from last year but what might have been with a bit more nous is huge and very disappointing.

Think Mulgrew is contractual in part. On 99 appearances I believe. We're desperate for defenders and whilst Mulgrew is poor he has played at this level and in this team so it's not as if he is a completely out of his depth. He is poor I admit but that poor that he doesn't get on the bench with no other defenders, given he has played a number of games and not been terrible for Wigan? I doubt that's solely on ability.

Hence why I feel we needed a centre back. At the moment any quality would be an improvement! Clearly Mulgrew will never play for us again if he can't get on the bench when there are literally no other defenders. Also looks a bit thin in the full back positions too although at least there are people who can play there.

Not sure what the fascination is with Gally for TM. Really don't think he has been very good. Could he be TM's Lowe holding the team back? Also harsh on Samuel who has done a solid job for a couple of games. Outside of that right team imo. Probably a scrap not suited to Buckley who could cause havoc though when people are tiring in the second half.

Didn't realise that Bristol were in such a slump. Thanks for pointing this out. Looking at their goal difference you can tell there's something not quite right for it being so poor for a team just out of playoff positions. Surprised QPR were favourites as Derby have done ok of late. Seems like the bookies were right which is no bad thing in the case of Dodgy County. Glad WBA beat Preston as can see them getting something from the Fulham game.

What a great set of results to come home to. It puts more pressure on us as it's given us a fantastic opportunity to get into the playoffs with a couple of good results. That said a win for Luton and given the other bottom teams getting points at the weekend there's a lot of pressure on Stoke too. Forces them to try for a result which is a good thing for us and our style.