I'd have put Graham up front but with Rothwell, Holtby and Dack behind Gally should get good service and when combined with the opposition quality if he can't score against them he really should give up. Our full backs look weak, very weak and that could cause us some problems. A defensive injury would also cause us a lot of peoblems. Travis has a lot to do as the only defence minded midfielder. That said we're at home verses the divisions weakest team so a fair bit of attacking flair is no bad thing. Still think a home banker. Up the Rovers.

Yes. It's worrying that TM openly admits that it is different criteria for 2 players in the same position. rothwell is about end product - yet Armstrong has none- Armstrong is about qualities. It's an appalling double standard and even worse that he has admitted it. So Bennett is picked by being a good talker rather than ability? Again a crazy admission. Not sure how he drives the team on - conceding penalties and losing his man? Also aside from being gash he also isn't played in his proper/natural position. Madness. The article was just horrible. Horrible, horrible, horrible exposing how deluded TM is. It's almost as bad as Prince Andrew's BBC appearance (albeit on a much less serious topic.) A few other thoughts from the car crash article. 1) Of the 4 players ever present until this game I would happily see the back of 3. Walton isn't fit to be an understudy and Bennett and Williams are very limited squad players whose key attribute is versatility. The fact they have been ever present helps explain where we are. 2) The Dack stuff sounds horrible mismanagement. For a bit of a party boy to be told it doesn't matter about his form as he has goals in him is not going to exact him to higher srandards. Plus it must be a kick in the teeth to many players who are judged on performance - like Rothwell. Hell, it's just bad management to say players can get a free pass regardless of how they play. Can't believe how terrible that is when I paraphrase it! Also it must be bemusing for Graham and Mulgrew who both still had a goal in them but are benchesld and shipped out respectively. 3) The Gallagher part could be entitled "why it's not my fault I spunked £5 million" as TM looks to shift the blame for Gally's inadequacies onto everyone but him. PR to Pune imo. 4) Surprisingly what isn't said is equally damning. Only 4 or 5 likely starters shows how clueless TM is both with his set up and nous as well as his transfer record. Surely for the money spent on them Johnson and the City lad for example should be regular starters although in the case of the former it again looks like another transfer clanger by TM. Overall the interview shows why TM needs to go. Terrible motivation, management and tactical nous all displayed in a speech of waffle and horse manure, and imo some unethical double standards. This guy is a joker and needs to go asap.

Think it was Arsenal in the cup that made me think a bit more favourably of Kean. Perhaps Steele had more experience (hence seeming older) than Kean, although it didn't seem to do him any good. We really are in a bad way to have 2 such bad examples of keeper competing for the title of who is worst within such a short time frame..

Didn't Kean do ok at the start? Can't remember Steele having any run of decent games. Still would go with Steele although perhaps he had more time to show his clangers as you say. Also one was a youth promoted too soon, the other was allegedly an established keeper.

There's a host of issues, even awarding the points to the other team is unfair on any other teams involved/surrounding the team's in question. Let's say in this situation there was a third team involved and they go down as Luton get the 3 points which they haven't earned. It wasn't a guarentee they'd get them if the match had been played so even this isn't representative/fair. The only way to ensure it doesn't happen is to severely punish the team missing the game.

Steele is the worst keeper I have seen for Rovers ever. Certainly the worst to have competed regularly for a number 1 slot. Incidentally the whole keeper argument is which is the least worst option which kidna sums up Rovers issues...

The back then Mulgrew and Graham. I'd take Raya over João and Emnes up front ahead of Gally and Bereton. Also some of them are still in the team - Williams, Bennett, Gally for example - all of whom should be squad players at best. But yes there is improvement as not many would get in. My issue is that there's not been that much improvement and we've still a host of the same problems and imbalances 5 windows and £15 million later!

That's not a squad, that's a horror story! And pretty compelling. That's a nightmare of a squad. Think my point is - or perhaps more clearly stated or ammended to - not so much we're not in a better position but that we've not improved that much given 5 windows and £15 million. The first choice keeper is still appalling, The defence is still threadbare - most bar the City lad are still the same as the ones who got relegated - and the squad is still very unbalanced. In fact I'd suggest the striker options that year are better than now. Most of all both squads have a horrible short termism to them with age and loan returns meaning there is no sustainability or momentum to them. Honestly that previous squad was a joke and utterly appalling. I'm not sure we could have a worse squad. But for us to be marginally better is not much of an achievement. Certainly given the time and money spent to have far too many similarities with this squad is a travesty. Yes there is improvement but not enough to write home about. In fact in the circumstances so little improvement is a sad indictment of TMs reign.

Spot on! And this is the key issue. A decent manager would be getting miles more out of the squad then TM or Coyle did. It really is obvious that if you get in a good manager, the team will do better, yet we only get bargain basement managers. I'll be honest on the vastly better squad I'm undecided. I flip between thinking it is strong if unbalanced and not much different. Perhaps it is better but the situation isn't much different as I would like. We've a patched up defense, a terrible keeper, an unbalanced squad and at the end of the season will need a massive rebuild, with 2 of our promotion asserts reaching the end. Certainly there's not 5 windows and £15 mill worth of tangible improvements. That said with an exciting academy producing decent championship players, the likes of Holtby, Rothwell and Dack there should be more than enough there for a decent manager to get a tune out of that is at least not struggling Vs relegation. As you say, this all comes down to a competent manager.

Sounds ideal for us then. Certainly no worse then the rest of the clowns. As USABlue says an interest from someone in the family would be a step up.

Imagine if (and I know Liverpool won) they decided not to play the City game recently to prevent them catching up on them. This is what the current ruling opens the door to.

What's the far better position? Graham and Mulgrew are years older and fading. A nice collection of midfielders aside the squad still looks unbalanced and weak in places. We've spent £15 million and have no credible replacement for Graham. We have a keeper who is Steele-esque at times (who we don't even own), we have a limited right midfielder as captain and right back, we're woefully short on defenders and in the summer will need to replace 5/6 players just to stand still! Yes we have some very good midfielders - Dack, Holtby and Travis -and I do think a better manager could get us doing much better with the squad we have, but when so many players aren't performing well, the squad is so unbalanced, we've spend £15 million on little return and we leak 2 goals a game I struggle to see massive improvement.

Not too surprising as the talent/potential was there if not the performances. I'm more surprised by a fan giving us a 5/10 for performance and stating it's disappointing. I'd go a 3/10 and flipping depressing...

See this is what annoys me most of all. Is that we spend money replacing our young talent with worse. Caddis for Nayambe (thankfully didn't work out), Walton for Raya, Samuel for Nuttall. I'm not saying ant of the youngsters are world beaters but to replace them with worse at cost seems a really stupid and financially irresponsible thing to do.

Spot on. He hasn't even addressed the areas we have tried to address - still.loiking for a Graham replacement £15 million on! As for the defence the neglect is horrific. Thinking back to that season we had to drop Lenihen and Mulgrew back into there - the latter I'm convinced wasn't intended as a CB at all - making our lack of signings in defence utterly criminal. Fiat kop for TM doing that for a season to try staying up, but not addressing it since has been very negligent - especially given he has had 5 windows to do so.

Spineless by the FA. Opens a can of worms allowing anyone to miss games as they like. Also makes the Boro relegation after missing our game seem totally out of kilter with this ruling.n Also I could be mistaken but I thought deferred meant it becomes actual if they do it again within a set period. So for the first game the penalty of deferment should count if they do within the next 2 years - or say within the next 2 months. The integrity of the competition is destroyed. What if a team doesn't turn up to prevent the opposition getting 3 points to get into playoffs/out of relegation or to avoid a goal.differendr stubbing or the like?

When did that happen? Don't believe in coincidences at Ewood these days. That said if it was recent Caddis was preferred to Nayambe so maybe TM has had a downer on him since the beginning.

And yet we don't sign defenders. This is why I find the whole set up at Ewood crooked rather than barren - if we can give him a contract but not a centre half - not even a freebie from the free agents list - then you know something is up.

No fan of Coyle - he was useless - but saying we are in a better shape then when TM arrived is I think ignoring the wider picture. TM has spent around £12-15 million on players, Coyle sold that much on players and got to invest in fees of a paltry £250,000. Granted there would have been a few signing on fees, but likewise for TM's lot of Downing, Whittingham etc. So £15 million plus and we're in a better state- I'd jolly well hope so given that type of investment. Also we're now fighting relegation as oppose to being relegated which is hardly a ringing endorsement of coming on leaps and bounds. TM is hardly all that whatsoever. Just to clarify, this does not mean I was a big fan of Coyle, and thought him an utterly terrible appointment, that only could have been worsened by the odious one K##n. That said, he had a raw deal financially compared to TM, so it's hard to stomach hearing TM has brought us on leaps and bounds.

Interesting. I think Hughes and Souness's third seasons were both successes, although the latter nosedived in the fourth. Overall though, I agree with the principle. I think our current situation is much worse than the standard 3 season cycle as we nosedived for half a year last season too. Also said school of thought doesn't fill me with much confidence because: 1) There has been a change in style (although cannot comment on training etc. although imagine the change of style might necessitate this) and yet despite changing styles we are actually worse. 2) Changing the players - isn't massively happening. Our back line is much the same, we're still reliant on Dack and Graham, even Gallagher a newish signing isn't that new (or that good, but I digress...) So the change isn't massively happening. That said, the changes that are made sees TM at best have a 50:50 success rate - and that is being kind Even should the change come to the players you worry about the quality we would get.

Not sure if it were for money imo it was to force a move through - but they were 100% deliberate and very blatant too.

Any excuse not to play Nayambe, What he's done to inspire such low regard from the manager is beyond me.

Much as I think Mercer's predictions are often about as reliable as guessing the winning national lottery numbers on this occasion I think he has a point. This has to be a win as they are absymal and anything else would be beyond appalling. Given that Barnsley need the win and can't afford to sit back (what better opportunity will they get for 3 points?) then it should be an open game against weak opposition that is ideal for Rovers. I get that we screw up lots and TM isn't great. However he is barely competent not incompetent and and that should be enough on the day. In the grand scheme of a relegation battle beyond this weekend Rovers need to stall/kill any new manager bounce before it can gain any momentum. A win could do more damage to Barnsley than just this game. So not only should we be beating subpar opposition, we really need to as well.

Well this is a real relegation 6 pointer, no doubts about it. Despite losses at home to the other promoted teams I see this being a Rovers win. And heaven help us if it is anything else! Barnsley's form is dire, and given we aren't that good ourselves Barnsley won't sit back as they need the 3 points even more than we do, and this is their best chance to get it. Add in that Barnsley's squad is poor, whilst ours has flashes of brilliance in it and it really points to a home win. The Graham Dack combo still works, especially against weaker lower league teams of which Barnsley kind of fall into that category. Whether we start with this or not will be pivotal to how comfortable the win is, but i'm pretty sure at some point TM will turn to this. IF we don't win - and there is absolutely no excuses why we shouldn't- then TM slips from being a limited/ok manager to a pretty awful one as there is no way we should be losing this whatsoever. However TM is just about mediocre, and whilst our squad is about as unbalanced as it can get (that's a reoccurring nightmare under the Vs) it still has more than enough quality to see off Barnsley, with our without the manager's guidance.

Sums up my thoughts (albeit a bit kind on Walton imo). Imo I think he could still offer a lot either in the centre or wide left. Yes, there's a lack of pace but if a team was busy with Holtby and Dack as the other part of the 3, I feel the better passing and "making space" would compensate for a lack of pace. Similarly if he were pinging it in to Graham rather than Gallagher we also may see more from him. Finally being played as an inverted winger at least in 2 or 3 games is only going to make it harder for Downing and won't have helped at all. A terrible idea from TM to do that, meaning we had no width on either wing. Perhaps underwhelming is as good as we can hope for in the transfer window under TM and for TM Downing's lack of being abysmal makes him a comparative raging success. I do wonder however whether with a better manager if Downing would be a very astute piece of business.