I'm really not sure the transfers make sense any way you look at it. Like you say wingbacks leave Downing - who is looking rather impressive - out in the cold. And even with Nayambe as a CB we still look very thin in defence - that would leave 4 CBs for 3 spaces. Again that's still pretty suicidal and also means we've no cover at right back. Likewise our glut of strikers in a 3 at the back system doesn't really work either. If we play 2 up front and Dack that leaves Travis and Johnson looks with a hell of a lot to do. If we play 1 up front with Dack we can't even fit any of our strikers in the wide right position leaving £15 mil of investment out. Or we don't play Dack. And if we aren't playing Dack maybe 442 suits us as well as a wingback formation? Not that I think the current system works brilliantly either and has a whole host of holes in it. When a system relies on two 34 year olds to keep it together you question the game plan.

Well it speaks volumes for the authorities that we have 2 clubs in this situation. But as long as the sky gravy train continues I doubt that they will.care.

Yes Hughes later recruitment of strikers was excellent getting it spot on time after time on reasonable money - opposite of TM really in that regard. My point about the early years of Hughes was in part that we were competitive and got some good results with limited strikers because of all the things you mentioned. The parallels as you state are there to see so TM could (and perhaps should) push on despite the striker issues. The big difference is in season 3 Hughes had McCathy Roberts and Nonda up front... Hadn't thought of Rothwell there - again that might work. Back 3 works with our full back issues and has some attractions but you simply can't play it with only 3 centre backs in the squad. We do and like other formations you mention we very quickly get back to a square peg round hole situation as per cover centre back. (Imo one of the hardest places to cover if not a proper CB). It's frustrating that we seem to have a lot of good players but not a team or a plan. I'm not sure whether next season's mass recruitment - Tosin, Cummings Walton, Mulgrew Graham (age must catch up eventually?) Downing are the minimum I expect to need to move on - makes the situation worse or allows us to finalise a plan and formation.

Some great cautions and yes it is far from foolproof but I think it is worth exploring. Of the 3 issues you raise I think the first is probably why it won't be tried due to it not accomodating Dack. That said due to injury, loss of form or sale the club really should have options in case "plan Dack" doesn't work. Even if a substitution initially enables this to happen and be tried in the latter part of the games - I think we have to experiment in order to find new ways of hurting the opposition as the current set up isn't working. One factor in its favour as well is the current system leaves the best part of £15 million of strikers on the bench. That said finances shouldn't dictate who plays although Gally on the wing is suggesting that it is. As for the latter 2 concerns they could well be stumbling blocks. I'm more encouraged Armstrong could get onto flick ons than Rhodes as he has some pace and movement about him whereas Rhodes outside the penalty area (where he excelled) was very limited. As to whether it would work Vs all teams even having an attacking plan that hurt some of the opposing teams would be better than none! Also we won't know until we try and the combo element may help Gally as the forwards also need to be wary of Armstrong's pace. I am not convinced there's round pegs for the front 3 or 4 spaces but we are where we are in an expensive fashion and we need to find ways of getting some goals out of it. Hughes kept us up and then push for Europe with a - bar Bellamy - very limited set of strikers in his first 2 years. Dickov, Kuqi, Stead none were that great but somehow Hughes got it to work. Admittedly the talent behind them was strong but my point is we managed to do fairly well by utilising what we have. TM needs to do the same with the expensive situation he has us in.

Would not be against Rothwell and Dack and that certainly is an option for us to try. (Seemed to work for us last season.) Likewise I'm saying I'm not averse to dropping Dack if he doesn't perform. No one should be undroppable, especially in poor form. However no arguments on both he and Rothwell albeit I think TM an aversion to that. Way of playing - knock downs from Dack and going back to Graham up front I'd suggest do play to Dack's strengths (albeit Graham is our best striker so it's not solely about supporting Dack.) Style wise I'm not sure with our squad we would play it another way to Dack, plus it suited him well the last 2 years. In short I don't think he can have any complaints about us making it hard for him. Could we do more to get the most out of him - different and interesting question and one I am not sure is possible with current personnel. As for Gally up front - 2 games isn't a huge amount although initial signs weren't brilliant. My point was however having him up front in a 2 and that this could get the best out of him up front. Loads of striker combos have worked well over the years. One that springs to mind is Gestede and King. Either they defend deep to counter King's pace or have a high line to counter Gestede's ability to win headers. I wonder if a less good but functional version of that could happen with Armstrong or whether Graham and Gally could lnk up well or provide too much to handle for long balls. The point i was making is that there may well be scope to get the best out of our expensive and talented (bar Bereton) but not clicking strike force. I really feel both Armstrong and Gally up front in a 2 would really flourish. No disagreements with me he's not really a winger - although as Hughes and Santa Cruz showed their is a time and place for such tactics although admittedly only in specific circumstances. However financially alone we can't afford to bin our expensive strikers and my point is that I think - especially in a 2 - there could be a lot of promise for both Gally and Armstrong. Certainly I don't think we've seen the best of either yet. Is TM the right man to get the best out of them? Not too sure on that one.

If he was performing I wouldn't care if he joined Ru Paul's drag race. As he isn't performing I wouldn't let him do anything of this sort that could distract him further. Really do think we have the next Dunn in our midst. Great talent but never going to fulfil that potential when so distracted. As an aside years back when I was a kid I think I remember a story about a Sunderland player signing up to go on a waiting list for a commercial tour of space and the club moved in pretty swiftly to stop it.

I wonder if his management of Dack will be his undoing. The system is set up around him yet he isn't delivering at the moment. Given the system limits a number of our other players perhaps the conundrum can simply come down to get Dack performing or change the system. A 4-4-2 with a combo of Graham/Gally/Armstrong up front could cause a lot of problems for teams and give Rovers more attacking presence. Alternatively he could try Rothwell in Dack's position and keep the formation. Going forwards something needs to change without us messing up our newfound defensive solidity.

He didn't fail at Brum. He was sacked for Zola with the team in or around the playoffs and they sunk down the table after he left. By Brum supporting mates were gutted he had gone. That said since then he hasn't done too well and virtually all managers (even Ince!) Have a success or two in their past so not saying he's deffo a good one though. Also Derby are a strange one. Despite their very talented squad, money thrown at them and trying every type of manager they can't get promoted. Pretty certain the Rooney experiment will go the same way. Something is wrong at that club too. Sounds like some excuses for Rowett which isn't my intention. Just my thoughts on how I see things.

Absolutely - that was what I was trying to do. However, relief that we've got some fight in us probably overshadowed some long standing concerns and our recent lack of goals.

Agree. 7 points from last 3 games has turned things round from a terrible start to an utterly average one. Shoring up our comical defence has come at the expense of our attacking play. That said at least this way round we're in with a shout of points. It's easier nicking a goal and winning 1-0 then having to.score 3 to win. I'm personally relieved we have at least stabilised and don't look the relegation certs of the first 2 games. Middle of the road seems about right for us if our first 11 is relatively fit. In honesty our goal threats for the last 3 years has been Graham, Dack and Mulgrew predominantly. One is out of the club and one is not in form. Regardless of how well we have done over the last 6 months this was always a question that was going to need answering. In some ways I'm optimistic as we have players I think can do so, in other ways as evidenced by most of our wide players bar Downing not really fitting in a plan out there suggests the solution is still a way off. I'm still not a fan of TM but the last 3 games have brought him some time imo. It looks like the defence is getting sorted out (bar the inclusion of Bennett) in the short term so hopefully a bit more attention can be spent on getting the right combo/style up front. Personally despite a poor start to the season I think Rothwell is part of the answer as is Chapman as an impact sub. Whether they will feature much is questionable though.

Well he's right we're not standing still. We're going backwards. If it works then that's what matters o we attractive football. Yes a successor to Graham was needed to keep the style going long term and yes the defence needed strengthening but these are improvements on what we had Vs starting again. Another option instead of Graham, and a rock hard CB and LB and I reckon last season's style could've seen us continue to progress. (Oh and a decent keeper coach or if that failed an experienced keeper but hopefully the former would do the trick.) Instead TM has woefully overcomplicated it again.

Don't think Crewe would be asking for her if I'm honest. Clueless given the money, talent, crowds, TV viewings all point to championship being vastly superior. No wonder West ham struggle with her as part of the team.

All the attributes and young enough to grow. Plenty of promise. Understandable dip given dropped unfairly for Bennett and slated by the manager unfairly when other culprits get off Scot free. Players less likely to succeed are pushed heavier as projects but then we didn't spend a ton of money on him so TMs self preservation means this won't be a focus.

The last striker brought for big money and dropped after 2 league games was Davis after a £7 million flop from Southampton. Gallagher came in, resumed his partnership with Sutton and started scoring/us getting a few points. I can see both the positive and negative similarities to that situation...

Spot on. Put it towards a signing on fee for Bauer if he was asking for silly wages - i.e. the signing on free mitigates/lowers the wages a bit (And Preston can't be paying more than us.) At least we would be our player too and as you say we'd get either a couple of seasons out of him or a good return on our investment. If we paid a loan fee for Walton that makes that move even more stupid.

Or concerns are raised at the last minute and seemingly unplanned nature of it - doesn't seem on the face of it that it was an ability assessment that led to this (still captain and starting in first game of the season, it being out of the blue.) Even that is forgivable but not sourcing a replacement is terrible.

I hadn't seen this. Yes that is a bit odd indeed. Perhaps nothing and a false alarm, or perhaps signs of unrest. That's the problem with everything going badly - you are much more likely to see the worst in things.

Factor in 2 novice managers of teams low on confidence after initial poor results - a great time to play both teams imo. Excuses excuses even when it's to our advantage.

I think it's more the lack of long term planning - no captain change was poor and no replacement is terrible. A past it Mulgrew is better than no one at all. Even good moves it seems are done badly at the moment. I agree it's very reminiscent of Souness's last days. No visible team or plan, no strategy and a directionless ambiance that's hard to define. Whilst TM has fallen out with less players there seem to be more holes in this squad then the one Souness left behind. Regardless of the tangibility of the air of unease I think many are sending it and that there's something very badly wrong at Rovers (aside from the permanent burden of Venkys) at the moment.

Didn't the Chelsea players tipping point come when he criticised the female doctor? Think she was in a relationship with Ivanovic (sp)? One incident may not lose the dressing room but it can push an unhappy one over the edge.

A number of posters at the match say that's where he began playing in the first half before later moving inside to be a two with Bereton later on. If he didn't (although several posters were said that he was) then I'm glad because that would be utter madness. Still doesn't change the fact he losing the plot albeit I would be slightly less worried if such a clanger wasn't made.

Quite possibly the case. Regardless I think he's pretty injury prone and that should factor into decisions. All squads can take a couple of gambles on injury prone players, especially if they have quality - which Lenihen does, he's our best cb albeit not much of a compliment. But you can't perhaps rely on this as much as we do. Certainly running with only 3 CBs when one is injury prone is madness. Would still keep Lenihen in the squad/team though as the pros ourweigh the cons still imo. Besides 1 keeper (ideally 2) a lb, 2 CBs, Graham and Downing replacements before any transfers out that are forced is quite enough to do in one summer.

The Graham as a left winger tactic is the oddest thing and the biggest sign he is losing it imo. All his other decisions are bad and wrong but not so left field (pardon the pun) as to be madness. The centre back situation is stupid - especially with Lenihen's record - but there is a very miniscule chance no more than one CB gets injured. (Actually I don't think there is on reflection but it is theoretically possible that the injuries won't coincide.) Bennett has played a couple of games at RB as cover before so whilst appalling again there is a bit of previous - it's not totally new. Again, you'd like to thing performances and more than the occasional game there would factor into the decision but still. Graham at left mid though? Why? We've a few players who can play there instead. Graham has to my knowledge never played there before. His main ability is his areal prowess and holding up the ball. He has no pace and isn't really creative. Graham has been great foil for the person in the hole role. So why on earth randomly stick him on the wing, nullifying his strengths, highlighting his weaknesses in a complely new position. At best it is an experiment. But with the raft of players who can play left mid and a host of strikers more suited than Graham to left mid (although not that suited at all, just better than Graham) and Graham being our best target man what's the point in the experiment? It's the most inappropriate badly thought through idea since... Well since the 3 centre backs only idea. This isn't bad judgement but plain stupidity.

This is the truth of the situation! We're stuffed for most formations. 4-4-2 seems best bar it doesn't suit Dack our best player. As you say 4-2-3-1 leaves us with an excess of strikers, 3-5-2 struggling for defenders. It really is a sad indictment of TM's tenure that all formations aren't a natural fit.

Possibly. But I still think we're light. Nayambe might be a CB in that system, but Bennett and the new lad will occupy the wing back slots. Bell is cover lwb but who would be back up rwb? And 4 for 3 places isn't great either. Agree Bennett and Bell would benefit more but I think we're still pretty stuck. Oh for squad planning.