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.

I got the impression from the article we would look at the keeper situation regardless of if Walton stayed. That's how I read it. It doesn't say if Walton goes back we will look or we will look in case he goes back but that we will look for someone in January (the inference being Walton hasn't done that well.) It speaks volumes about a keeper that the best slant on the debate is he hasn't been as bad as some have thought! It really shows that we have a very limited keeper as our number one. (Contrast this with how we talk about Tosin or Downing.) Again this doesn't reflect well on the club. If we knew since April we had to get a new one in and still couldn't find one of a desired calibre then it shows the club in an even worse light. I also think this shows Raya was thrown under the bus a bit for our defensive frailties last year.

Interestingly he says we'd address it again in January. That one fell flat. Seems like we were unfortunate in 2 keepers turning us down, but shows the risk of getting rid of players before replacements are lined up. Walton though again seems polar opposite to what we wanted in every sense (according to this article) so it's a very odd back up plan to have. Not sure this puts TM in a good.light.

Most before my time (bar Mimms) I think but yes, we have had a rich history of keepers. In fact the only bad one I can think of prior to Venkys was Fettis and in fairness he was 3rd choice brought in because of bad look with injuries. Since Venkys we have had Steele, Kean and Walton - makes you weep. Incidentally on this had we had better keepers since Venkys and good management perhaps Raya would have had a few more loans out and ironed out his mistakes elsewhere before becoming a top keeper for us, rather than becoming the first choice keeper by virtue of not being appalling. Perhaps not but not occured to me. Good to know we were after better than we got but begs the questions as to why we sold before we had one lined up and why we deviated so much from what we wanted when our original targets said no? The Walton deal seems as far away from what we wanted as possible and makes no sense. Am sure there must have been other experienced keepers out there too, even if just a loan.

The bit in bold does sound a bit huffy! Am not too sure where to start on this as it is a mega piece of deflection, again. Ok, let's start with opinions: He gives 3 or 4 reasons why we won't go up - facts you ignore or have no comeback to. Now - and this is key - just because someone has an opinion doesn't make it correct or valid. I might have the opinion we're going to get relegated or I'm the next Alan Shearer football wise. Now just because I have these opinions doesn't mean they are correct or valid or particularly likely. (Neither of these are btw.) So just stating this is my opinion doesn't make it correct or in line with reality. For example my "we are going to get relegated opinion" - people could point to the number of points between us and relegation, our form, the number of teams below us and their form and so on - all showing that the huge likelihood is we aren't going down. My response of "well that's my opinion" doesn't make my opinion any more credible. Do you see what I'm saying here? At least in your last post you used a fact. Ok, it doesn't answer the issues put to you why we won't get promoted but it is a fact and shows its possible for teams to come from nowhere. My response - engaging with this point -is yes teams come from nowhere so it is technically possible. In fact I think one team will come from nowhere in, and often does so it is one piece of evidence for us possibly making it. However there are still the 3 or 4 issues highlighted going against this fact/Villa case study. Also factor in Villa changed their manager (we haven't) and brought in a couple of key players like Mings (we brought no one) which were the catalyst for this change/promotion push. Given we have neither of these factors to give us a boost I would suggest it is unlikely to see us make a similar upward charge. Hopefully the above engages with your point and shows my thoughts on it. Apologies if this is a bit passive aggressive - not the intent. What I am trying to show is that just stating an opinion doesn't make it valid and that people's points need to be engaged with.

I said it before and I will say it again. Regardless of the disputed level of Raya, this only benefits us if we have a better keeper in. We don't and he's not even ours so it's hardly a cause to celebrate if Raya drops clangers at Brentford. Really hoping we don't sign Walton but get a solid (if unspectacular) keeper who has a bit more experience and consistency. Goodness to go from Flowers, Filan and Friedel in my lifetime to this...

Apart from that though it's going great! The wider context of Ipswich shows Lambert isn't doing that well at all. When you compare McCarthy had them midtable-ish and you think that they have fallen a heck of a way in 2 poor managers. Lambert looking less like a manager with each passing year. Thought he was a good one when we appointed him but actually over time his overall record is rather poor.

That's not particularly fair Chaddy! You ask why not. He gives some reasons why it may not happen. Apart from answering your question (the one you asked!) in a very well reasoned and friendly manner he also used facts- not "attitude" or "opinions". This is why people dislike discussing things with you. You get in a huff when they disagree, you call facts you don't like attitudes and opinions so you can ignore them, and don't engage properly - as in you twist their points, misinterpret them and deflect - with what anyone who disagrees says at all. Really poor do to have a huff when someone dares to disagree with you in a thread all about discussing whether we can get promoted!

Yes it is far from ideal. However Holtby who I really rate as a talented player is however a sicknote and its no surprise he is injured. I don't think that's luck so much as par for the course. The bad luck is Dack's injury. The Rothwell type ones you are always going to pick up over a season but to get such a serious injury to your talisman is a huge blow and very unfortunate. Cunningham likewise was stunningly bad luck as he looked to improve us defensively. Losing him for the season too is a kicker. Heck 2 season ending injuries in one season is horrendous but for them to be to arguably the two most iriplacable players is very bad fortune. TM has made a raft of mistakes but on this can be counted as unfortunate. That said we have had Lenihen for more games than I thought we would and having no cover in defence but few longer term injuries (bar Cunningham) has also been a bonus. Having only 3 centre backs for the first half of the season and one of them covering left back too - we got away with that one. So swings and roundabouts albeit with a negative slanting towards the unfortunate and costly with the 2 long term injuries.

Disagree. Think Walton gets a lot of praise when he has done well (Wigan sticks in my mind.) He also gets a lot of stick when he does badly. Perhaps there would be more patience if he were a long term project but as it's a season long loan we need him consistently good now. As for the game didn't follow so can't massive comment. That said it seems to sum up our season - initially looking like a very promising score but ends up merely a decent result.