riverholmes

Sad to read that Zak Gilsenan suffered an anterior cruciate ligament injury whilst on international youth duty with Ireland. Hope he can come back from it. As for the U23 game versus Liverpool, I think the loanee attacking trio should be involved and some other fringe players to try to build their confidence and form. Maybe, even van Hecke, for the fitness. I was surprised to read the quote from Mowbray: “I had a difficult discussion with Jan Paul this week about how he had to sit on the bench because we were planning on playing this game with a different shape against these particular opponents." I don't want to read too much into a single sentence quote without full context and I'm sure van Hecke will improve with games, but he shouldn't be expecting a starting place at the moment.

I'm concerned to read news that police are investigating after an anti-PIF/Saudi regime/Premiership bosses banner was unfurled by Palace fans in their game against Newcastle. Croydon Met Police have said they they “received a report of an offensive banner displayed by Crystal Palace fans”. They added: “Officers are assessing the information and carrying out inquiries. Any allegations of racist abuse will be taken very seriously.” Whilst there's no suggestion yet of any charge being brought against the Palace supporters group responsible for the protest, Holmesdale Fanatics, the fact that this is even being commented upon by police in these terms and investigated is a threat to free speech. The poster features a cartoon man in traditional Saudi male costume wielding a sword and clearly identifies the character as representing PIF, the Saudi-backed organisation that has bought out Newcastle. It also targets the Premier League by listing widely acknowledged Saudi regime human rights' abuses under the heading of "Premier League Owners Test". The banner is accurate in its accusations against the Saudi regime, down to the symbol of execution, as Saudi Arabia does perform executions. By clearly labelling the Saudi male character with "P.I.F" on his midriff, the banner very obviously seeks to avoid a generalisation aimed at Saudi or Arab males and specify the target to the organisation and its backers, including the crown prince ruler of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). In fact, the Saudi character representing PIF on the banner may well be intended to be MBS. I fear, we are seeing a silencing of free speech and right to protest and debate under extremely weak claims of offensiveness and racism. Even if, as I expect they will, the police don't take this further, the talk of investigation is likely to have a chilling effect on other efforts to publicly comment on the takeover. I disagree with singling out PIF or Newcastle, for whilst it might be the most egregious example of owners connected, in some way, to human rights abuses, it's not the only such case. However, I strongly believe in not just the right but the need to have this debate publicly and to have the free speech right to criticise the Saudi regime and, especially, their UK collaborators, including the government, no matter how much they are investing in the country. Wood26: Perhaps, that could happen in the current format. If sufficient financial gap builds up between the Premiership contenders and the rest? Effectively, then, you'd have a 24/25 club Super League with no relegation, if you treated the Premier League and the top of the Championship together. In a sense, I agree that such is the gulf building up, the European Super League will continue to be pushed. I think the insidious way that it's being done is to expand the Champions's League with more clubs.

The inequality within the Premier League, despite the increased investment all round, is summed up, for me, by the fact that Southampton's current two star players, Broja and Livramento, are Chelsea loanees, in a sense. Livramento might technically be a full Saints player but Chelsea will surely seek to exercise the £25 million buy-back before it expires, if he continues his incredible form. I think Norwich, Leeds and Saints' struggles are showing that competing by playing attacking and passing football, as they are trying to do, is harder than ever given the dominance and strength of the wealthiest clubs.

Khadra, as well as Davenport, haven't made Mowbray's bench lately. There's been no talk of injury or any other reason for enforced absence so I presume it's the managers choice. I disagree with leaving them out. But I expect Mowbray to show he has a plan by continuing to leave them out and persisting with the others. The worst thing to do is to alternate players by fielding them and then excluding them. It confuses and gives no-one a chance to build some form and confidence. A few games ago Davenport came off the bench and then the following week isn't on the bench and then Clarkson is in the team. If Mowbray has the courage of his conviction, he'll give Clarkson a run, rather than vacillating. I hope we see a defender on the bench. We can't expect Johnson to be back-up, as he has been. Edit: Thanks chaddyrovers for the info that Khadra has been out with illness. I suppose, then, he will be on the bench rather than Poveda, though, I'd like to see him start in a 442.

I'd hope that the next manager was appointed as part of a plan for the club based on rebuilding and surviving (even, thriving). I don't what that strategy would be exactly, but, with the Premier League being carried into the inflation stratosphere by wealthy owners and Brexit, I believe, potentially affecting overseas recruitment (I have very little knowledge on free movement at the moment, but this is what I understand), the richest picking for lower level clubs with be in young Irish and British players. I'd like Rovers to rekindle their youth scouting in Ireland and Scotland, where, in the past we've found some talent. Disaffected Premier League fringe players would also be an area to add to the first team. And, if we can also have international scout looking out for the next Kaminski, ready-made for the first team, that would add greatly to the team. This is just a small aspect of a potential strategy but, if we have a developed plan along these lines, we can attune the criteria for a manager accordingly. I'd even be tempted to try and bring back Billy Barr, in some senior capacity, given the job he did with the U23s. Alternatively, Damien Johnson as assistant manager, to provide that link with the youth set-up. Edit: An active youth-senior progression strategy is important too, even if, simply to raise transfer fees. Blackpool actually paid money for our ex-reserve strike Joe Nuttall. I suspect it was not just for his Rovers U23 goals - but also, because he had Rovers senior caps.

I wouldn't write off Armstrong. He has pace and positional intelligence and a powerful strike, which are all important attributes. I seem to remember that he struggled at times with Rovers, especially, when starting out in a wide role in our team. Borja is an exceptional talent, so I suspect Armstrong might have to sit it out for a while, if they go with one forward but he'll be in the goals eventually, I guess. And, the homecoming to Newcastle might eventually happen, if he does start scoring.

As an increasingly pessimistic fan, I would be interested to know, do others really want to see Rovers in the lucrative cartel that is the Premier League, without a mega-rich investor owner? Obviously, it would be a huge financial boost but, the cost of players to try to compete would also be astronomical - and even more so as inflation is likely to continue to rise with the latest oligarchs investing. Even then, Rovers would likely be humiliated every other game and get relegated. Efforts to stay up would likely necessitate resort to ultra negative tactics, only to delay the inevitable. It may be the best model for Rovers to try to follow Norwich and Fulham and be a "parachute payment" club that jumps up and down but a season of humiliation in the Premier League barely interests me. Perhaps, I'm being overly pessimistic, for Brentford fans might be quite satisfied at the moment, suggesting that you can compete with the right style. But, I suspect, they will only enjoy it for a season or two. Obviously, these thoughts are far removed from Rovers reality, which is not really in the promotion mix. Edit: I suppose occasionally getting into the Premier League and absorbing the financial injection is a pre-requisite for staying competitive in the Championship and long-term survival as a club. So the answer must be yes to the Premier League, despite everything.

I'm going to add to the negativity, so apologies. However, our first team are performing dreadfully and, meanwhile, our U23s' top scorer has just gone off on a 1 month loan to non-league FC United. It doesn't bode well for our future, at all.

Poor choice by Mowbray not to have a defender on the bench, again. If a CB gets injured or fatigued, then the team will be in trouble. Edit: The team may have to shift to 4 at the back, if it happened.

I'm not sure if there will be any club to pay a transfer fee for Lenihan, Nyambe, Rothwell or Chapman in January, when you merely wait awhile for a free. (Nyambe turns 24 this December, so, as I understand it, that rules out any compensation should he leave on a free). The club would have been wise to sell one of them in the summer - or last - perhaps, Rothwell, who, to my mind, is the least vital to the side, though, now a regular. That's assuming anyone would want to buy him for a real fee, which is no guarantee. Earlier this year, Mowbray said that if the players didn't sign on, they'd see out their contract. Now he is talking about potential sales in January. It seems that there has been no real planning. If anything, the club should be thinking about the next potential batch of exits, in Kaminski and Brereton. I note, also, that Mowbray keeps talking about the pandemic affecting clubs ability to pay transfer fees. I understand the sums paid for Aynsley Pears and Stergiakis are likely comparatively low but the fact remains that in 2020, we did pay reported undisclosed transfer fees for these new signings.

I would suggest that Lenihan and Kaminski have international football ambitions, alongside, the financial, as they enter their theoretical peak playing years. Even playing at a club that finishes in the top half of the Championship, instead of, consistently, the lower half, might give them an edge, in Lenihan's case, to get picked for the Rep Ireland squad, and, for Kaminski, to retain his squad place and get a game or two for the Belgians. I don't know if there were exceptional reasons for it, but Kaminski wasn't in the latest Belgian nations league squad. Edit: Looks like Koen Casteels of Wolfsburg is Belgium's No.2 or 3 keeper, alongisde Mignolet and Courtois and Kaminski benefited from him having surgery over the summer to take his place in the squad. It would be a coup to sign Kaminski to a new deal but it's hard to see it happening at the moment.

Re. Sam Burns joining FC United on a one-month loan. I can't think of much evidence of Rovers youth players benefiting from short-term non-league loan deals. The short-term nature of it means that it's hard for players to establish themselves and learn and the lower standard and different style may make it that much harder to adapt quickly. To my mind, a longer-term loan makes sense and, if not, they should be kept in the U23s with a view to loaning out elsewhere when the window opens. Sam Burns is one of our better U23 players and, I would suggested, his decision to take this loan suggests impatience and frustration with the opportunities at Rovers. Whilst I don't know if he's good enough, I can't blame him if you consider the opportunities given to, last season, Bennett, Evans, Downing et al. and, this season, Poveda and so on. Whilst they haven't performed so well this season, my big concern are for players like Garrett, Whitehall, Cirino, Barnes and McBride. They look, to me, technically, the best young players, reaching the age where they need the next step, and with promise, which I hope the club encourage, rather than discourage.

I understand where Mowbray is coming from, in that, there are fewer specialist positions, with players interchangeable and teams like Liverpool playing like a pack, in that they seem to defend and attack as one. I'd guess that the stats might show that there is more running involved in the modern game than even a few years ago. Nonetheless, it's an error for Mowbray to say that there is no structure or formation in the modern game. Liverpool always, as far as I know, play with three fairly deep lying central midfielders that shield the defence and allow the full backs to get forward. Klopp also plays with three forwards and the wide attackers are always extremely pacy, in order to press the opposition defence and lead the counter-attack. Hence, when Harvey Elliot returned to Liverpool he played in central midfield because he doesn't have the pace to fit into the attack under Klopp's style. Mowbray went on to say in that interview: “It’s how well you can play your style against their style and that’s all I’m trying to do, to give these young players ideas and pictures of where we go with the ball, how we disrupt the opposition,.." I'd suggest he doesn't have much of a style. If Liverpool were loosely the model that Mowbray was going for, then Gallagher wouldn't be on the wide attack role. There is no style if one game Gallagher is in the right forward role and then, the next game, it's Poveda, or someone similar. To be fair to Mowbray, I don't think he's the only manager struggling to come to terms with the fluidity and intensity of the modern game. Even in the Premier League, managers like Arteta and Bruce seem to be at a loss to make sense of the shift away from 4-4-2.

Strongly agree with this. Part of the issue has been the formation and tactics, with a lack of numbers in the middle and winger-forwards not defending but, personnel is an issue too. A lot of reliance is on Travis but his positioning and form hasn't been great. It was imperative for Mowbray to sign a strong central midfielder in the summer. I suspect that Bradley Johnson will be the man to come in to strengthen, once he's fit, but we know from last season that he has a tendency to drift upfield and is, also, coming to the end of his career, so probably, will not improve things greatly.

And had to stay on because Mowbray didn't have a defender on the bench and was wary of switching to 4-4-2, I presume. Presumably, Johnson would be the emergency defender if someone got injured. Credit to the team for a good first half but it is hard to have any enthusiasm for what is, as suggested above, a directionless team. Butterworth and Burns should be on the bench and getting minutes ahead some of the loanees. Khadra, if fit, should be the only one there, whilst Clarkson and Poveda should be proving themselves in the U23s, based on current form. Again, I'm reluctant to fault these young loanees too much, coming into a disorganised team and, in Clarkson's case, being played out of position in an attacking midfield role. If I'm not mistaken, Poveda was false 9 at one point. They may well be excellent players but if they're not making an impact, they should be building their confidence and form in the U23s.

Looking at a Forest forum and it seems that at the time of the transfer, their fans were disappointed he was going, even though he hadn't established himself in the team. They saw him as having potential as a striker, as yet, unfulfilled. It's notable that some faulted his tendency to dive, run with his head down and his decision-making, which, I believe, are still issues with him. It seems as if, for England and Forest U23s, he played as a striker and scored a lot of goals. However, when played by Aitor Karanka in the Forest senior team, he was often on the wing, which, some say he struggled with and it affected his confidence. It's interesting to read that in some of the England youth team squad get-togethers, he was selected with the likes of Mason Mount, Hudson-Odoi, Reece James and Jadon Sancho. He won and finished joint top scorer at the U19s 2017 Euro championship in an England team featuring Mason Mount, Aaron Ramsdale and one, Tayo Edun. I think England youth call ups (Adam Armstrong and Harry Chapman won international tournaments at youth level) can give players additional development opportunities, which makes it all the more disappointing that selection is not always based on merit. One would have thought that at least one of Rovers players Barnes, Cirino, Whitehall, Garrett and Burns might have got an appearance or two by now. (I haven't heard of any such call-ups, but I haven't paid that close attention, so might be wrong). Edit: This would be the wrong thread but for all the attention Brereton is getting - the next contract to really, really worry about is Thomas Kaminski. He's far more important to our team and is surely on his way out but his valuation is decreasing with his contract expiry approaching. I hope the club are looking for a replacement.

Although Brereton is surprising me with his improvements, especially, since joining up with Chile, I'm still sceptical about the extent of his potential. He looks to have improved his shooting, which was weak and has more confidence. I am sure that he can be a decent Championship striker long-term but, his lack of technique, at times, and decision making is still lacking, I think, to be considered a top league forward. He gives the ball away a lot which can't go unnoticed. I still think that we haven't seen the best of him at Rovers. If he was relieved of most defensive duties, and played as a striker, I think he would do even better. As well as the Chile call-up, he's benefited from patience and game time from Mowbray. If only more talented young players were given such opportunities to acclimatise.

Football owners and authorities, as in other areas of life, tend to insist on the separation of politics and sport. It is often couched as concern for the enjoyment of the fan base and, perhaps, sustainability of a game dependent on corporate sponsors. However, as mentioned above, sports and politics are intertwined inextricably. Politics is not limited to political parties but concerns power relations and control. The emergence of the Super League was a political matter, as is racism in the game, sponsorship by betting companies, the financial inequality and involvement of tyrants, plutocrats and oligopolists and others in the game. If we separate all these issues as being non-football related, then we are not really talking about the modern game. There is widespread self-censorship online on these matters from, I believe, at least partly, the fear of being de-platformed by cynical tech companies. This is especially notable, it seems to me, in the world of fan channels. Their emergence has had an empowering effect for fans of many clubs but, crucially, companies are using the threat of de-platforming to control the parameters of the debate and restricting their true potential for fans. It is too simplistic to simply attack a particular country, sponsor or industry for its role in football without looking at the structures that enable it but we need to at least have that discussion. Saudi Arabia is a terribly repressive regime, which is known to export extremist ideas, fund terrorism, repress its own people, deny women basic rights and mistreat religious and ethnic minorities, including migrant workers. However, it is enabled in much of this by the world's dependence on oil and other resources and, also, investment; hence, its strong support in weapons sales and diplomatic cover from Britain and others. Britain's government and corporations have a mutually beneficial relationship with Saudi Arabia and other tyrannical regimes. We can also raise the question as to the damaging and, sometimes, criminal, activities of UK and US banks, private equity firms and other prominent investors in football. Not only are they an integral part of the global economic system that the Saudis and others are part of, they created, with government acquiescence, the 2008/09 global economic crisis that was used by cynical politicians to usher in a decade of austerity and cuts that have continued to devastate lives. So, really, the question comes back home. Do we have to prioritise and defer to profit and why doesn't the government and Premier League work with the rest of the governing bodies to put more controls on who can control football clubs and enable fan involvement in boards and ownership, to stop football clubs from being play things for individuals? (Which, incidentally, has a detrimental effect on the whole game, including those lower down the food chain). Clearly, the answer is money and the other answer is fan mobilisation. I can't see the game protected from turning into a farce without it. However, at every turn, fans are undermined. Fan channels have, I believe, encouraged a potential mobilisation and contributed to the protests against the Super League. However, they are being muzzled by fear of being suspended by the tech platforms and sponsors that they rely on. I can't blame them. It's all too easy for a well-intentioned but, perhaps, ignorant or poorly communicated comment to be bring about collective punishment which acts as a form of censorship.

Last season, the bottom three clubs earned a combined 17 wins, which, I believe, is a record low since the the Premier League has been in its present format, with 20 teams. In the three seasons from 1995-1998, the bottom three clubs were earning around 26/27 combined wins per season. This sharply drops after 1998. Clearly this measure is limited in what it shows but I think it's a small indicator of where we might be headed, for newly promoted and smaller clubs. There was a 10 year period, between 2005-2015, when this measure started creeping up, reaching 24 wins, in 2013/14. I speculate that this may well have been influenced by a cooling of the financial bubble of football, only for the new wave of owners, such as Sheikh Mansour at City and FSG at Liverpool to come in and the transfer market inflation went rocketing up. Number of wins for the bottom three clubs in the Premier League (my quick calculations, so accuracy not guaranteed) 2020/21 - 17 2019/20 - 22 2018/19 - 20 2017/18 - 21 2016/17 - 20 2015/16 - 21 2014/15 - 23 2013/14 - 24 2012/13 - 19 2011/12 - 23 2010/11 - 23 2009/10 - 21 2008/09 - 22 2007/08 - 19 2006/07 - 23 2005/06 - 18 2004/05 - 20 2003/04 - 21 2002/03 - 20 2001/02 - 22 2000/01 - 21 1999/00 - 21 1998/99 - 22 1997/98 - 27 1996/97 - 26 1995/96 - 26

If the deal goes through, from one perspective, it is more of the same rather than a disruption of the status quo. After all, it will be more financial inequality in the game and the richest owners buying success. Given how much talent and money is in the Premier League, goals like Salah's against City, and dribbles like Bernardo Silva's, in the same game, should be commonplace. Instead, they're rarities in a game which is so commercialised that it is dominated by fear and profit and, the engine for its growth is hyperbole and the super rich. The Grealish and Ronaldo signings are the epitome of this, in my opinion. I don't think Grealish and Ronaldo were signed primarily to help the team long-term. Rather, they help to create narratives around the club, as archetypes. Grealish is the 'everyman genius' and Ronaldo, the prodigal son and hero. Whether intentionally or not, the rich clubs are turning to knitting stories which, actually, take precedence over the reality on the grass. I think it's part commercial branding and part collective hysteria. By the time the reality emerges, they're onto the next signing.

I haven't seen much of them but my guess is that Saints have the same problem as Norwich. The standard of the league is incredibly high at the moment. I don't follow the Premier League that closely but my sense is that this might be peak Prem, given the influx of money and players and the relative declines of foreign leagues. Even Newcastle are not going down without a fight, led by Saint Maximin. Any other season, I think Norwich and Southampton would be doing quite well but not now and it will probably take a shift in style, towards more direct football to save themselves. I think Armstrong will get goals eventually. He's got all the attributes and a manager that seems to understand that he plays best through the middle.

I'm struggling to see what Rovers' strategy is with their reserve and youth goalkeepers. The U23s seem to alternate between Stergiakis, Eastham and Dowling a lot. Joe Hilton, on loan at Hamilton Academical where he's on the bench, I believe, was given a contract extension to 2023. It's good to see players getting experience and, obviously, the club need to keep a number of goalkeepers on the books for the various teams, as well as in reserve for the firsts. Aidan Dowling, as the youngest, is presumably, deputising when Eastham and Stergiakis are absent. I think injuries have played a part and, perhaps, Stergiakis has been on youth international duty and missed games for that reason? Aynsley Pears is No.2 but I wonder whether the club are nurturing any of the current youth keepers to compete for the first team, or, perhaps, they'll be looking to bring in signings again. It doesn't appear that there is a clear No.1 for the U23s, which leads me to think that the latter will occur.

Magloire got a lot of blame for the two Blackpool goals, as well as his performance but just going on the highlights, which are limited, admittedly, I can't see him doing a lot wrong for the first goal. He is out of position because the left winger is dropping off and there is no-one else picking him up. Travis, Rothwell and Buckley are all caught up field or out of position as the ball drops into central midfield and Magloire is left with little option but to close the forward down and leave his right back position. Then Ayala, I think it is, barely makes an effort to block the shot, for some reason, when it's finally struck by Lavery. For the second goal, clearly, Magloire lets the winger come in field and get the cross in but there is no team-mate backing him up, as you'd expect if you had a novice centre back playing at right back. It does sound that Magloire struggled badly, especially, in the first half, but the manner of the goals, in particular, are no surprise. We've seen similar conceded for the last two seasons, with Nyambe and others at full back. Time and again, the full back is left isolated and the central midfield all caught up field. If you have four attacking players who don't defend much, as we do in our 4-2-3-1 then the remaining have to be very disciplined, otherwise, you're asking for conceding goals. With the formation we play, I think Travis and Rothwell should barely be getting over the half-way line, to try and plug the gaps left by the four in front, as well as full backs going up. PS. Really was a great cross from Buckley for Brereton to score. Brereton was four versus one in the box and got picked out at the far post.

Thomas Kaminski, Darragh Lenihan, Joe Rothwell, Ryan Nyambe, Jacob Davenport, Ben Brereton Diaz, Daniel Butterworth and Jordan Eastham are the players whose contracts expire in 2022, according to the site, Transfermarkt. In some cases, there may be unilateral one year extensions available to the club, to keep them until 2023. Such a clause was exercised with Harry Chapman, who will now likely leave in 2022. Players under 24, who leave on a free, might carry a compensation payment, if they reject a new contract, but the amounts are far from certain and often largely dependent on their future careers. Tony Mowbray said of Nyambe, Rothwell and Lenihan, in August this year, as reported in the LET: “For me, talking to the club, let’s get this window finished and see if we can address some of the situations, see where we are financially, and if we can’t offer new improved contracts then they are going to run." A simplistic short-term view would suggest hang on to all these players until their contracts expire. However, for the long-term future of the club, we either need to sign them to new deals - without jeopardising the financial state of the club - or to recoup some income from some of the players, whilst retaining sufficient strength in the squad. I do not know the situation with Venky's and how much they're going to continue to sanction transfer fees but I don't trust them to continue long-term. Moreover, the global economic situation might press them to stop investing - if they are. (I have no idea how the transfer fees are currently being financed, so, perhaps, someone else can comment on that). Last season, Mowbray had Evans, Bennett, Downing and Holtby sitting on the subs bench, especially, towards the end of the season, when fit. I mentioned before, at times, we had four or five central midfield players on the bench and no forwards, just to accommodate them. All of their contracts were expiring and it was known that most had no future at the club. For the planning for this season, it made no sense to have all of them there, at the expense of players we might have something to contribute and are developing, rather than being in the twilight of their careers. There was at least one occasion that there was no forward on the bench and Buckley was utilised as a false 9. I would suggest a comparable scenario is arising now, with our loanee players, Khadra, Poveda, Clarkson and, eventually, van Hecke, set to be on the subs bench, having not established them yet as first teamers. I reserve judgment on all, as they are young and have had little opportunities. When they have come in, it's been into a team lacking structure, organisation and direction, so I can't blame them. Khadra has shown promise and I'm sure we'll turn to van Hecke. However, if it becomes apparent that any of them are not going to contribute much to the present and Rovers have no interest in signing them, just like Evans & Co. they should not be sitting on the bench. It makes more sense to feature Butterworth to test his fitness and form and encourage him to sign on. Given the players that look to be leaving next summer, and the reality that we stand little chance of being promoted, the club must be planning for the future - whilst, always ensuring that the current team is strong and doing the best it can be doing. For example, it may be hard to hold onto Kaminski and though he is vital to our team, if the club could earn a good transfer fee (perhaps £5 million plus?) in the summer, I'd suggest we should sell. However, it is a balancing act of recruitment, retentions and sales and maintaining a motivated and aspiring squad, which only those involved closely in the team have all the relevant information to make decisions upon. It would seem that we're losing Lenihan, Rothwell and Nyambe next year for nothing but we need to start acting for damage limitation and rebuilding. Edit: Removed Hayden Carter from the list, as I see that he has signed to the club until 2024.

Worth thinking that Lenihan and Nyambe, who we missed today, have not signed new deals at the club. As far as I know, Nyambe can leave on a free next summer and Lenihan might be the same, or, perhaps, the following year. Perhaps, we saw a glimpse of the size of the rebuild job in that first half?