He certainly improved over his time here. Defensively he grew to be fairly reliable by the end, which he certainly wasn't to begin with, but his final ball was still appalling. He'll get much more protection the way that Luton way I suppose, so that might have something to do with it.

He was very good indeed against Sheffield United, but other than that I agree. Plus there's the fact that he's recovering from a serious injury to consider. I wouldn't be dead against it if he came here for buttons as a squaddie on loan - there is some ability there - but I'd hope there would be much better options for us out there.

A bit unlucky that he got Rangers in the second tier at the same time as very decent Hearts and Hibs teams. Anything less than marching through the leagues was obviously going to be unacceptable for a club as big as Rangers, but they were still slightly unfair expectations given the scale of the rebuild that needed to be done there.

I think it's more a case of most managerial appointments eventually end in failure anyway. It's just that we remember them more when there's the story of them being a club legend. Add in the fact that the appointment is more likely to be an emotional one rather than being hard headed in appointing the most impressive candidate, it's not surprising that most end up finishing in tears. Having said that I think Ainsworth's record is seriously impressive for a club so small, so deserves a chance at a bigger one. I'd see it as too big a risk personally, but there's a logic to it which wouldn't be there for 95% of other candidates who happen to have a Rovers connection.

Everyone's rightly talking about how Everton could possibly end up going down after spending hundreds upon hundreds of millions on their squad. We'd be giving them a good run for their money in the late 90s. Irony is we get associated with being money-bags Rovers because of our success until '95 - but actually we we were pretty sensible next to our reputation. Blow outs on Shearer and Sutton, but most of the title winning side cost a few hundred grand or less. It was the late 90s - after Jack initially tried to rein in the spending - when we really started throwing the cash at everyone.

Eye watering. Didn't help that Kidd was almost as profligate with some of his signings, although as an exception Jansen obviously ended being amazing after Souness got hold of him. I could be wrong, but I think we paid more for Dailly than Chelsea did for Desailly around the same time! Criminally wasteful.

Must admit I didn't realise that his spell at PSV was as successful as it was. Sadly, his spell at Derby is far more likely to be an indicator of what can expect if he gets the Rovers job. Also whilst he didn't have a decent budget at Derby, he still massively underperformed with a better group of players than Rooney has worked with. Possibly better than Coyle, but still completely senseless if the likes of Farke are genuinely interested.

That's a fair point. I don't think he's looked too different when played in a four this season either, which he was for the first months of the season and from time-to-time since, but I accept that's a pretty small sample.

I think that's right, but it's much less a feature of his game than it used to be. He seems much more disciplined in his decision making now than he was even 1-2 years ago. I think the penny might've dropped a little earlier had he been paired with a wiser head in defence earlier in his career. I know Mulgrew was experienced but he was never really a defensive leader in that sense.

I still occasionally get angry about that deal, up there with the worst in our history. Arguably the worst. £7.5 million was a lot of money for a player in 1998. How much in today's world? Around £50 million perhaps? To not only pay that sort of money, but to also throw in a future England international & Rovers fan into the bargain in exchange for Kevin bloody Davies. Dreadful.

Agree with this. He seems to be sensing danger and reading the game much better this season - I always thought he was one of those defenders who look the part when going in for challenges, but they often only need to do that to make up for lapses in concentration. Nyambe and Rothwell both have important aspects to their game which will be hard to replace, but Lenihan is the best player of the three by a decent margin for me.

I definitely worry that whoever replaces Mowbray could be worse. There were things to like about Mowbray and, whilst some on here won't agree, I wouldn't see there being any danger of us going down in the medium-term with him in charge. The man thing I disagree with though is the highlighted bit. I think there are logical reasons why any manager might find Rovers a tough gig at present, but it's really hard to come up with any logical explanations about why we (and crucially, Mowbray's other clubs) go on these horrible runs of form every Christmas. It's such a specific pattern which has been replicated over multiple seasons with multiple groups of players, and as we've seen is enough to completely undermine a promotion bid. I'd be happy to say there's been progress of sorts under Mowbray, but these runs of form will always put a ceiling on our ambitions so long as they continue. That's why he needs replacing, but I accept that we could easily get this wrong like we did with Coyle and suddenly Mowbray wouldn't seem so terrible.

Pleasantly surprising. I won't get my hopes up too much until I see him holding a Rovers scarf above his head though. I know that sacked managers often can't be too picky about their next move - even Dyche is vanishingly unlikely to get another prem job - but I'd have thought there would be a bit of a queue for Farke. Hopefully the sign that he's interested is an indicator that we're willing to back whoever takes over.

Probably not, so that worries me a bit. That said, there are a growing number of examples of the 'apprentices' of certain coaches getting gigs elsewhere and doing well. Wagner and Critchley have both worked under Klopp. Arteta and Vieira under Guardiola. The guy at Huddersfield under Bielsa. Wouldn't be my first choice, but there's a logic to it.

Not sure what to think about that. On the one hand obviously a very highly rated coach for City to give him that role. Perhaps not too similar to Neil Critchley before he went to Blackpool. His CV couldn't be more different to the likes of Ainsworth in terms of their different strengths and weaknesses, at least on paper. Obviously a massive risk though. I'd have him in front of plenty of the names you can get decent odds for, but if we can get Farke with two recent promotions to his name, Wilcox shouldn't be getting in the conversation for me.

Yeah, nothing much to be gained from those sorts of markets until the odds are frightening small or they stop taking bets. Farke would be brilliant though, even if I'm not convinced just yet that his/our interest is serious.

Borderline premier league quality at defending, no question.

Think Nyambe has to take his share of responsibility for this too. He's not that young anymore, has been played as a wingback with licence to get forward this season, and his attacking output has been appalling. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if he did a 180 degree turn and signed a new deal, but Nyambe's been given every chance to contribute going forward and hasn't taken it. His performance against Stoke justified him being dropped for me, and it speaks volumes that Lenihan as make shift fullback put in better deliveries than Nyambe has managed in all his time here.

Expect to get completely shot down for this, but I'd be open minded about Appleton in the unlikely event that either i) we'd want him and ii) he'd come back. I've not forgotten how poor some of those games were - the Millwall replay was an unbelievable low point - but to be fair to him the club was absolutely rancid at that point. We needed the summer clear out before we saw some improvement, which he wasn't allowed to oversee. Not saying he'd be at the top of my list by any means, but I wouldn't judge him overly on his last spell at Ewood. I'm really undecided about Ainsworth. On the one hand, getting Wycombe promoted twice, almost staying up in the Championship and getting them in the play offs again with a club that size ha been a minor miracle. He obviously has something about him. Having said that, being a manager of a club like that in L1 & L2 is a world away from competing towards the top of our league. Probably the best of the names at the top of the bookies list anyway.

I'm 30, which makes this thread a bit tricky. Too young to remember the title win. Too spoiled to realise that the Souness/Hughes years weren't going to carry on forever, although they still contain amazing memories. As a recent 'high' of sorts, I was genuinely quite emotional at the Oxford game in L1. Glorious sunshine and full stands of blue and white in every direction. An important reminder of what this club can be.

To clarify Joe, I wasn't really making a moral point. It was more how you can look at these two recent cases of clubs choosing to get rid of key personnel, and see that the differences between them reveal differences in how professionally they conduct themselves. I accept the circumstances are wildly different, but in one instance there's a club that have provided all the professional and support they could to an employee, before a line was crossed and they got rid straight away, and in such a way where they still made very classy and magnanimous public statements about the player. I think this shows a level of professionalism, decisiveness and shared strategy amongst the club's hierarchy that shows Rovers up in how they've dealt with Mowbray as far as we can tell. I think the lack of professional curtesy is an issue too to be fair, so I guess I'm making a bit of a moral point in that sense, but I mainly worry about what it suggests about how the club is run.

Horror session for Lancs this morning. 105-7 at one point. Bit of a recovery from Salt and Bailey now, but still 90 odd runs behind Hampshire's total.

Quite right, it was a mistake to sign him in the first place in my view. Still impressed with the way they dealt with his departure though. I suppose that's the point I was trying to make when comparing them to Rovers. They've sacked a player for ill-discipline, but were still very classy about how they dealt with the situation in public and have obviously got the balance right between a duty of care to an employee who has clearly needed support, and making a difficult hard-headed decision in the best interest of the club. Suggests that the decision makers are proactive, treat their employees fairly and are capable of taking difficult decisions. Contrast that with Rovers and Mowbray - it seems to be the polar opposite, at least as far as we can tell.

I'm concerned about how employees are treated by the club, even if it's an employee who ultimately should be replaced. The lack of professionalism is more concerning though. Fans of championship clubs often looked at the Brentford model in terms of how to have sustainable success at this level. Usually this is more about player trading and spotting value in transfers, but more fundamentally it's about looking at all aspects of how the football club is run and looking for where you can make improvements, large or small. That sort of care of detail and making sure the club is operating at its' maximum is completely at odds with how Rovers are run, outside of possibly the Academy, and the way that Mowbray's future has been handled appears to be the latest example of that. For those who don't follow Rugby League, Wigan have just sacked a player for repeatedly failing to meet their professional standards, and they're taking a hit on losing a quality player in order to preserve the culture of success that they're trying to build, shared by players, staff and directors. Wouldn't it be nice to think a similar level of thought has gone into the setup at Rovers.

It's the hope that kills you!