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.

Deffo a draw for Cardiff-Forest - 3 points is three hard fought Brentford results so a draw there would be great. Think Bristol, Brentford and Derby are unfortunately all favourites so would settle for them all drawing their games, though losses would be nice! Nerve wracking for us but great to see a league so open.

Not to worry. Thought I was having a very senior moment so quite relieved to not be having one!

You are spot on about protecting him Think a loan is best for him to do that. The U23s is fairly pointless imo bar improving fitness. Think he needs a loan away where he can bang them in and get a bit of sharpness and confodence, and develop his technique. Probably a league 1 club or weak foreign league would do that better than the U23s.

Untrue on several levels: 1) it's a false model for assessing transfers on what they may do not what they have done. I mean how can anyone judge any transfer then until they have left the club if it is based on what they may do? Also does this model work both ways? I mean Tosin may make a dozen muck ups in the next few games as we make playoffs. Because he might do that does that mean I can't rate him as a good signing? 2) opportunity costs. What else could we have done with that money? Signed Bauer, maybe Walton (never thought I would say that) perhaps got in an actual winger or better cover at full back. There is a cost to spending that money now, which meant we can't spend it elsewhere. 3) There is a huge difference between Armstrong and Gally and Bereton. For starters at 19 Armstrong had time to develop. Gally at 24 (I think) is at best a late developer and more crucially should be more developed than he currently is. 24 is not a development project. Also Armstrong showed attributes that suggested he could develop - great pace, some goals and a few good performances in league 1 and Championship. Consistency was absymal but he showed evidence - attributes and performances- that he could improve and get better. Bereton has shown none of this and Gally imo has shown little. Assessing the current evidence of whether they wil improve I would suggest that it is unlikely. We can't remove the price tag though can we? That £7 mill is gone. Of course price makes a huge difference to whether a signing is good or not. Smallwood was a good signing for one year on a free. Would he be conaider e as good a signing if he cost £5 mill? Fee matters. And neither Gally or Bereton have been worth their fees. Also your endorsement sounds rather like Jason Lowe - huge difference between cutting it at those levels and in the championship. And all the evidence I have seen of Bereton suggests he is not a footballer. Few strengths whatsoever. I should say I would love for both to prove me wrong. In fact Rovers need at least one of them to. But so far the future looks bleak and a waste of money for.both of them.

This threw me as I couldn't remember saying such a thing, then realised it was part of the post I quoted! I think there is an argument that both Gally and Bereton could come good as they have time on their side to develop but I wouldn't think it is very likely. Bereton doesn't look like a footballer at all to me and Gally doesn't look to have much of a football brain if he does have the physical attributes. At present, since how a player may turn out doesn't really count - Dack could come back crap or Armstrong could go back to his prior form yet these possibilities aren't considered, and rightly so - both are failures in terms of performance level and contribution. Factor in the cost and they're catastrophic errors. Not sure why or how there is so much debate on saying these players haven't been failures as it's pretty clear cut imo.

Actually they can. Even TMs biggest fans can see Bereton has been a waste of money and Gally isn't living up to his £5 mill tag whatsoever. Granted there is time to improve for both but it's not looking likely. There's tons to praise TM for at the moment but just as it is wrong to ignore these when things are going badly, it's just as wrong to ignore these clangers in the transfer market. Thank heavens for some quality midfield signings and Armstrong to redress the balance. But let's not pretend Bereton and Gally haven't been hugely disappointing.

I think it's mainly that Wigan fans weren't bothered about keeping him plus didn't hear much about him in league 1 that makes me say that. For example if he went to Wigan instead of us next season we'd probably be disappointed.

Well if you had asked at the end of 2019 I would have said yes, easily. He was dropping a ton of errors and didn't pull up any trees at Wigan, so Brighton would probably have let go on the cheap with a big sell on fee / buy back clause. Now - I appreciate it is a bit of a different story. A keeper doing well in the championship is probably worth a fair bit of money, more than we can afford. They probably won't want him as first choice yet (nor after a positive 2 months or so is he ready) and not much benefit to him sitting on the bench so they would also be happy with another loan. Its another problem deferred and very risky for us if there is a recall clause but that's the most likely scenario imo.

Well I'm going to keep criticising him because the more I seem to do so, the better he gets! Terrible keeper. Seriously though it is looking like a different player in the second half of the season. Watching him closely yesterday he made one error - missing a low cross into the box - but made a couple of good saves and dealt with every routine thing with a minimum of fuss. A very solid display. Is this the real Walton or was the error prone chap at the start the more regularbkeeper? Was it adjustment problems or is this just a purple patch? (I suapext the former). Problem is if he keeps up like this can we afford him? However these are questions for next season and hopefully the improvement continues till then for us.

Games Vs Cardiff, Bristol and Millwall will help us stunt the others charge for playoff (or hand it to them.) Very few really hard games in there which is encouraging although there's no easy games in the championship and we struggle most when heavy favourites.

That's interesting to know, didn't know about the Ipswich situation. Yes, totally agree, I'd he leaves it suggests that the future is very bleak financially should he chose to leave.

Some interesting questions of other clubs. Once again the championship proves it is much more exciting than the championship - anyone can beat anyone and tons of intrigue throughout the table. The jobs at Stoke and Huddersfield by new managers is an interesting one. Both had a long run of brokenness - Hudds about a year, Stoke 3 or 4 years. Especially in the case of Stoke that is not a quick fix. Add in its a league where anyone can beat anyone - Barnsley's wins Vs Fulham and Charlton beating Forest as 2 examples and it shows its not that easy to get clear from danger. Add in how badly both were doing prior to the new managers and even being a few points out of the relegation zone is not bad going. It might not be enough but it shows it's not a poor job they are doing. Boro - have said all along they are prime candidates for relegation with a rookie manager and cutbacks being a terrible recipe for trouble. They have hovered in or just above the relegation zone for most of the season so it hasn't been a great year for them and the negative consistency (as in being in or around trouble) suggests they aren't in great shape or making good progress. The thing to their advantage is the chairman is a fairly smart cookie and may we'll get rid before too late. Would TM go there. I honestly think tbat depends on FFP at Rovers. There's obviously an emotional tug and his record at Rovers will look quite positive on paper despite the relegation. That said Boro aren't any more attractive than us and further behind so why would he go? The only reason would be if we were going to have to dismantle the team due to FFP restrictions or he knows that he won't get the resources to build on what he has done. Past history suggests such a scenario is possible. And whilst there may be better candidates for Boro there are certainly worse, so I think it comes down to plans for us for next season from the owners/board.

Woodgate had them in or around the bottom 3 for most of the first half of the season. Had a mini run driving them up the table for a bit but most of the season they have looked poor and relegation candidates.

Perhaps - and I hope I am mistaken! Am not convinced from what I have seen but as you and Joey say there is a case and evidence Armstrong can do this. So hopefully we do have it in our locker. I'll be honest I still think we don't have enough magic out of nowhere in the team but perhaps the weakness isn't as big as I fear if Armstrong can contribute to this.

Would fancy them vs Fulham who are wobbling. A lot of quality the Fulham lot, but no nous in the manager.

Thanks for the compliment. ? No I don't think he is as he needs through balls and balls lofted over for him to run on to. If the service is poor, i doubt he'd get as many as he has been doing. He's in part imo dependent on others giving him some service. For example I couldn't see him scoring the type of goal the Brentford forward did for their first goal, when it wasn't really a chance but then became one. That said, I do think he is a great player, a huge asset and his pace gives us a huge out and means he can capitalise on mistakes. So yeah, he's a big goal threat, but I wouldn't say when there;s nothing on, he'll make something happen. Hope this distinction makes sense! For me Mulgrew attacking wise was a player who could magic something out of nothing with free kicks from any area, or Duff who could start a run on the byline just inside the opposition half and end up waltzing past a few players and scoring. Can see the argument the other way though, but he doesn't have that X factor, nor do any of the others, that i think one or two other teams had. We had it in League 1, we don't at this level.