Agree. Especially given the bottom 2 don't look like picking up any points or making a decent run anytime soon. Perhaps this could encourage us to go for it a bit more as there's no real risk of relegation.

Think both are important to be fair Chaddy. Gally on the wing or Smallwood are both excellent in attitude and effort but lack ability. So yeah attitude is hugely important but talent is needed too.

Perhaps the worst thing about the players being unavailable due to injury it gives TM an excuse for not making playoffs and hides our lack of progress. Don't get me wrong it's a heck of a kicker and makes us hugely up against it. But I suspect we still wouldn't have made playoffs and TM still would have us gloriously inconsistent - all of which is hidden by the injury crisis that we have. Of course the unbalanced squad, players out of position, no January transfers are still valid criticisms irrespective of our injury situation but again I feel the injury crisis will wash said criticisms away too. Its a shame because with a fitter squad and a key addition or two given how bog awful this division is playoffs would be rather realistic, especially under a different manager. As it is our apathy and lack of nous will be hidden in an. Injury crisis giving TM another free hit of a season.

Perhaps the raft of injuries (including virtually all our creative players injured) and the fact we don't cope well with the pressure of being near playoffs. Even without thinking about league positions and even with a fully fit squad it isn't an easy game - factor in the circumstances and it is a difficult game. So yeah, there's a number of strong reasons to suggest we won't win. That said we do like being the underdog and if I am impressed by the Fulham team I'm not by their manager. So it's far from a given result. That said it's still a tricky game for Rovers. A win would be a huge statement of intent. A draw in the circumstances would not be overly disappointing. Head over heart (and even then a tad optimistic) i'll go for a 1-1 draw.

Never thought I'd say this but he's the one of the ones I fear most leaving. Other than Dack one of our most influential players and unlike Dack (with Holtby around) we have no other striker who a) plays that style which benefits us and b) is likely to get over 10 goals. Taken a while to get there but Arma is developing into a fine player.

Club still run in a corrupt manner but they have wised up to working out of the spotlight a bit more. Anyone doubt the are running the show them answer this: what were the odds of both Coyle and TM being appointed Rovers managers? Neither had recent (or much) success whatsoever and were a million miles from a championship job. Coyle I believe was linked with the Blackpool job the summer he joined us - nowhere near championship wuality.. So for both to be appointed at such unlikely odds with unlikely pedigree - far too much of a coincidence not to be string pulling. Factor in Lambert as well (although on paper a good appointment - recent success with Norwich and had managed in the Prem recently with Villa) and the chances of such appointments are just too uncanny to be coincidence. The parasites still rule the roost at Ewood. So until Venkys go we won't be rid of them. Which is a catch 22 as I'm pretty certain Venkys continue to own us to prevent any dodginess from being uncovered. Sad times.

Interesting. I read it somewhat differently. I think our annual losses for the last 2 years have been over the 13 mill a year average needed to comply so we need to redress the balance somewhat (by selling Dack or likewise)? That said I'm no accountant so could be wrong. That said the EFL are pretty weak and struggle when clubs push back so maybe the whole thing is a facade to not invest (although this is another debate entirely.) However, assuming we have to comply my limited understanding suggests we need some dosh from somewhere to fill in the gaps - much less strengthen the squad.

Sorry perhaps didn't explain it that clearly. With the FFP rules impacting 3 year periods it means that every 3 years we have to balance the books and sell our best players - a bit like we did with Bowyer. It appears we have another 3 year FFP deadline coming up requiring player sales to meet the £39 mill losses "only" mark. It seems as though history is repeating itself (the no Jan signings seems to support this, as do the accounting figures). Therefore there is only a 3 year window to build a promotion winning team and go up before FFP necessitates player sales. This is what clearly happened with Bowyer with disastrous consequences. He built a great team and then it was sold off. It looks like it is going to happen again which is why I question why wasn't there urgency to get promoted this season before this team - which I agree has been rebuilt and is stronger than what TM inherited - has to be sold off to comply with financial constraints. Hope this makes sense?!?!

I'd love to have McCathy here. Would do a cracking job imo and we could have gone for him before his latest gig. Not sure TM is our McCarthy though! £12 million plus of difference from what I can see. That said I appreciate the grass isn't always greener even though it's pretty muddy at Ewood currently. Bowyer had lost the plot but within a year we were in a worse position with Coyle and no budget. No one minded Mulgrew going and we were somehow weaker squad wise when he left. There's always another level Rovers can sink to.

Totally disagree! We have no urgency for a 3 year plan. We talk of long term build and slow and steady progress which is fine in theory - until it all has to be scrapped every 3 years! This means there is no long term build (it's undone every 3rd year) there can't be slow and steady progress because the progress keeps getting reset. So no the club isn't on top of it because their strategy is totally at odds on and off the pitch. To be on top of it the aim has to be promotion in 2 seasons of build OR lower costs to an extent that long term progress is able to happen because it doesn't need to be undone/redressed every third year. Neither option is easy and the latter not that palatable but this current approach will never work unless we get very lucky.

The article makes it pretty clear that we are close. I get the positive only but it's a bit Comical Ali when you have the accounts in front of you. It's clear from this the financial situation is poor, perhaps not clear entirely how stuffed we are/what wiggle room there is but clear enough that it is not good.

Yeah not sure how it can be read any other way. Whether that was intended is another question but: "I won't as (because) a fan" the as implies a causal link between being a fan and their actions/response. Cause and effect - I won't slate because I am a fan - the two are connected. Therefore if you do an opposite action if the response is linked to being a fan or not, the huge inference is an opposite action must have an opposite cause (as in not being a fan.) I'm basically agreeing and saying it is a poor do to infer superior fan status. It's not that ambiguous at all. Put it this way if I posted in response I wouldn't say what X did because I'm not a dick, I'm fairly confident X would pick up the inference straight away. Not saying anyone is and it's just an illustration but shows how strong the inference is. Anyway back to Holtby. Bummer. Huge loss on top of Dack. Changes the way we play in all likelihood - more likely to be trying to grind results out from now on imo. Only saving grace is we won't get relegated even with a huge and damaging injury list as we're too far gone for that.

Well my medical knowledge is very limited - a work first aid course - but I think you have hit the nail on the head here. From the very little I know (in a work context) you get them sorted not just to the stage where they can limp along kind of doing their job. It sounds to me as if our medical team's approach is akin to driving a car around hoping the bad noise will go away. Put it this way, making one wrong judgement call on a player being able to happen is understandable but 3 or 4?! That suggests we're making some serious errors.

Not this injury but every season he is out half the time with various knocks, niggles and strains. So whilst the manner of the injury is unfortunate the chances of him being out injured for a lengthy period of time was quite high anyway.

In all of our spectacularly low standards under the clickers this has to be amongst the lowest. Edit of all the things in the transfer window Bereton not going on loan was arguably the worst. Even if we paid all of his wages it would still be better for us as he would be getting game time away from the pressure and at little risk to us. Goodness knowns he won't develop with the odd 15 minute cameo. And in terms of ability he has 3 strikers ahead of him, several.wingers, and I think Samuel is actually a better player too so we won't miss him. I think Bereton is poor but blimey we're doing everything to ensure he doesn't come good.

Agree about Graham and the formation being best for us with a 10 but unfortunately you are also spot on about the wingers/wide/inside-outside attacking players alongside the 10. There's not one option there who really looks like they will do much. Samuel and Bereton are ineffective in their best position, Gally for all his work rate doesn't do better there either - very little in goals or assists unless he is central. Bennett isn't that great at attacking either leaving some very unitried youngsters. So whilst a 10 suits Armstrong does it suit the team/the rest of the players? My gut reaction is no but with Gally and Bennett wide it does mean we have a hard working 5 man mid which in theory should be hard to break down. Perhaps we'll be grinding out a few points and nicking the odd with winner with this kind of formation. A 4-4-2 I think nullifies Armstrong but is perhaps better for the overall team. That said I think it's a bit defensively frail and outside of playing to Armstrong's strengths we haven't many more players available whose strengths we can play to! Aside from Downing the system is horribly reliant on a paper thin squad. What happens if we lose a centre back to injury? Or Nayambe or Travis? Much lrss quality in Bennett but again he can only play one position at once and we look thin on cover in centre mid, out wide and right back - again one player can't cover it all. Our squad is paper thin and stretched to breaking point. Its a hell of a lot and so I think questions have to be asked. Its hurting us so badly and it's so many that you have to think our training methods must be contributing to some extent. Factor in that another 3 players in the squad are mid 30s and that's a lot of strain to put on a squad. Of course signing injury prone players doesn't help. Lenihen, Evans and Holtby are all reputed sicknotes so not surprising at all that they are out. That brings it down to 10 which is still bad but not the nightmare statistic of half the squad. It does highlight how badly we needed cover in the transfer window though.

The issue with Graham or Gally next to him is it really changes the way we play and doesn't make much use of the space the creative number 10 goes. Downing there seems the best shout but goodness how many positions does the lad have to play? So far he's our best option at left back (albeit Bell has improved a bit of late) and centre mid partnering Travis and out wide left! Talk about over reliance on a player. And that's assuming his 34/35 years can take the strain of playing each game.

I kind of like that about the game though! Not the prejudices but people seeing things differently and football chat is a lot about the debate. I guess there's an element to which people can view things differently - e.g a poor defensive performance but a good attacking one for example, on which do you focus, or a game where a player contributes nothing but an assist. But yeah, not letting prejudices kick in is also important. Can't think of many players, even the worst ones, who haven't had at least one good game for Rovers.

Tactically this is TMs biggest weakness - he hugely struggles against defensive teams we should beat who play for the point. It has been the same throughout his tenure. I think our run in looks difficult.on paper but in actuality it probably will work out better for us. That and dead rubber games are what suit us more. When the pressure and expectation is therefore we don't seem to do well. May help with a push for playoffs too. With our inconsistent form and hoard of injuries we really aren't anyone's likely bets for a top 6 place.

I think the big worry is does this nullify Armstrong? Armstrong's form has come with us playing in a specific way with a certain type of player behind him. Without that will he go back to his less-than-consistant form? Losing a way of playing may lose us more than just Holtby. I also got the impression he was a bit of a crock. But with a full.squad to manage it I think he's definitely an asset worth having as he is a fantastic talent. Relying solely on his fitness though was always a dangerous place to be in as Tyrone says.

Indeed. I'm all for giving people a chance and promoting on merit and some kind of scouting role plus some coaching would have made Bowyer a very valuable asset. Even a marginally better manager with that squad would have achieved playoffs at the least.

TM speaks a load of bull. What he thinks fans want to hear but with no intention of acting on it. There is an interesting debate on whether Gallagher can be a decent striker. There's very little debate as to whether he can be a good winger or "inside forward" as he has very few of the attributes associated for that position. As a striker and plan B he's probably worth having in the squad (although £5 mill for a back up striker of debatable quality is is still.overpriced.) As a wide forward he is an unmittigated disaster. Would help if TM brought players for the right positions or played them in their proper positions but it seems that's a lot to ask for.

Not surprising. The fans have been incensed for months. Negative tactics, odd selections, prickly post match interviews. To be fair I bet he never expected to manage a club and he's had the opportunity at 3 clubs now. His record since leaving suggests we weren't wrong to part company with him. Would make.a terrific scout and possibly be a solid part of a backroom staff but not cut out for the number 1 role.

Agree. The old don't count your chickens adage. Also with both keepers being foreign it's not that surprising they wanted to stay in their home country. Also one would hope the shortlist was more extensive than that given its such a crucial position. A side thought is I wonder if having a substandard number 2 came back to bite us in this situation too.

Great point. Hadn't thought of this and think you are spot on. Disagree strongly. Don't think many people would say he's been fairly good. I can remember a number of clangers he has made and very few good games. Also as with Raya at Brentford perhaps a better defence makes their stats look better too? A Lenihen-Tosin partnership with Travis in front of them is bound to be an improvement than one involving Mulgrew and Smallwood. From what I've seen, watched, heard and read of Walton he's not looked that convincing or impressive and mistakes or a lack of them are a huge part of being a keeper and unfortunately he has made tons. Even before we get to the loan aspect of his transfer I don't think he has looked that good at all. Contrast it with Downing who has proved an excellent signing or Tosin as a good one and I don't see Walton anywhere near their levels to be considered good. Agree. If you and I could see it (and imo part of the reason was TMs scapegoating) then the club really should have known too and been prepared for it.