I think that might be the one. In one of it's early races it won at about 30 to 1 I think. Some of the blokes I worked with backed it. Next time it won again but the odds were roughly half of that. It won again a couple of times and by then everybody in the workshop but me had backed it. Next time out I backed it and it wasn't placed ! I thought it was in the early 1990,s but I could be wrong there. Mrs Shoelaces has all the luck with horses and she knows absolutely nothing about them. We were out in Spain at the time of the Grand National about 8 years ago and her son had called to ask if she wanted him to back a horse for her. Unusually it was a cloudy day in Spain and she was looking out of the window. As I was reading out the runners I came to either " Cloudy Day " or Cloudy Sky ", I can't recall which one now. Right away she said " Yes that one will do, put me a fiver to win on " Cloudy Day ". It only won at good odds. Edit - I just checked - it was called " Many Clouds " and it won at 25 to 1.

I don't think Holtby has had a dip in form. I think what you see is what you get. 1 very good game followed by 4 very average to poor games. He should be due another good one in a game or two.

I promise not to back any of them, I'm the kiss of death with horses. We used to do a lot of work at a factory in the middle of one of the big horse training areas. Some of my workmates came back with great tips. Winners at really good odds. One was called " More Style ", it just kept winning. After seeing my workmates picking up their winnings from about 4 consecutive wins I backed it. It was nowhere. " More Style " = Less Money.

So that's a 1-1 borefest then ?

No I don't think they work hard enough. Did we work harder than Bristol last week or Norwich on Saturday ? You can bet your house that Rotherham will work harder than Rovers will on Wednesday night. We might out football them and win but chances are we won't out enthuse them. Running off the ball is hard work, especially when you're 99 % sure you won't get the ball. We don't do enough of it. We don't win more tackles, second balls, contested headers, interceptions than our opponents most of the time. When we do we usually win. Having a laugh on Snap Chat or what ever media site they're on doesn't make for team spirit when you're up against it. Have a look at David Speedie on the nostalgia site - that's what " working hard as a footballer " looks like.

We could beat good teams at home some of the time with Big Sam in charge. It was the tough away games that were write offs.

That's your opinion. My opinion is we lack winners with some fire in their bellies. Oh and a manager who knows how to put some fire into them.

It was a strange appointment in my opinion. First season back in the league, I'd have gone for someone with more experience at the lower levels.

The games we've lost when we've gone behind would suggest otherwise. The stats don't lie in that respect. If we score first we're in with a shout, if the opposition score first you may as well switch your TV off.

It depends what you mean by attitude. All pals together on holiday and taking the piss in training - yeah great. Coming back from a goal down - not so great. Too many happy go lucky nice lads and not enough bastards who'd kick their granny to win a game of snakes and ladders.

I wasn't a fan matey. I found myself thinking " how did that get into the back of the net ? " too often with Fred. He was a bit like Robbo in that respect. I only ever saw him have one game that justified his reputation. Away at Burnley when we lost 1-0 to a Gordon Harris penalty. He was brilliant that night. He stopped everything they threw at us and he even got a hand to the pen but couldn't keep it out. I'd say Roger Jones, Gennoe, Jim Arnold were all better goalkeepers.

I think Roy Keane fits into the category of a really great player who struggled all his life to deal with players who 1) Didn't have his ability 2) Didn't have his level of commitment and will to win. Any managerial job he took was always likely to come up against that major obstacle.

Yes, it was a bad one. Just when he was looking the part after waiting patiently for his chance and then grabbing it with both hands. He'll be missed when you consider the other three centre halves are not strangers to the treatment table or the disciplinary committee..

I think Wharton might struggle a bit. What with his leg being in plaster and all that. This time next season he might be ready for a run out.

A bit like some recent performances - out enthused.

Brazil 1970, best team I ever saw. It tells you how good that England team was then because ran them so very close in the heat of the mid day sun in Mexico. I remember watching the players waiting to kick off and shadow of the overhead camera was almost directly overhead.

I'd take a 1-0 win now but I'm not sure we do 1-0 wins anymore.

The point you seem to be missing is - if we paid more, like Leeds have done for example , we could get a better class of manager. I would have thought that was obvious. If your manager isn't the highest paid employee at the club I think you're making a mistake. Do you think Mowbray is our highest paid employee ?

How many managers would say no to the sort of money we spent on Brereton ?

England was the best centre half I ever saw in the flesh bar none. I can't think of many as good that I've seen on TV - maybe DeSailly in his prime or Lucio who used to play for Brazil. He was a colossus. He had size ( 6ft 3 ins when that was unusual ), speed, two great feet, super passing ability both long and short, he could tackle and unlike most tall guys he had a terrific spring in his legs. I've seen him head corners downwards into the top corner of the goals ! He was a centre half without a weakness. Utd wanted him before Spurs signed him but Utd wanted to do a cash plus player deal and Spurs stumped up the full amount. When the " Rothman's Football Annual " came out in 1970 they started a tradition of choosing a UK best 11. Even when he was past his best he was chosen as the centre half for a few seasons. I was privileged to see him at his best for Rovers

This is what I don't understand. A bad manager can lose you more games than a bad goalkeeper, a poor defence, shot shy strikers, anything on the pitch you care to name. So why is it we're prepared to spend £7million on an apprentice striker yet when we come to the most important role in the whole of the club - the team manager - we want to do it on the cheap ? I just don't get that at all.

The game was much different then. You could get by with a much smaller squad. Having said that, as the earlier poster said, we were a couple of players short. The attack was brilliant and could score goals for fun. Defensively we were a bit lacking. John Bray at right back was on the way down and Mick McGrath at left half was also coming to the end of a great career. Two replacements there and a better goalkeeper than Fred Else and we would have been bringing silverware back to Ewood. Losing at Oxford led directly to the loss of Fred Pickering. That was a massive blow in itself but what was worse we blew a chunk of the fee on George Jones from Bury who was a bit of a Brererton type signing, in theory one for the future. That didn't work so well and we already had a ready made replacement for Pickering in John Byrom. We'd have been better off using the Pickering money to strengthen the defence.

Ah well, I've got the hardback version. How do they describe the diagrams on " Audible " ? No I didn't see the Netflix show.

This team could win them all or lose them all. They're only predictable in their unpredictability. Having said that aren't we due another death spiral ? How many points will we need to stay up this season ?

I've got this fancy gadget matey. It's called " a pair of reading glasses ". Sounds like you should invest in pair. I could read great without them until I was about 60. Now I need them for reading all the time. It can happen pretty rapidly . Did you get the hard back version ? I've got another, similar, one " Called Flat Back Four " by Andy Gray. That's interesting.