Sure, that logic applies to Adam. But Butterfield as well? Very excessive, we have a huge surplus of CMs already. Agreed, our central midfield only has room for one up and coming youth player on the fringes. I was already wondering which of Davenport and Buckley was going to fill that role of periodically coming off the bench trying to make their mark. That said, I don't know how much Buckley will benefit from a few cameos. A large part of me says he'd be best out on loan til January.

Not necessarily. He's had a really rough time of it with injuries, both here and to a lesser degree at City, for such a young player. It could be the straw that breaks the camel's back - he will have been trying to get himself in contention during pre-season for a squad place. Even if he's only out for a couple of weeks it could put his chances back by months. That said, I'm getting to the point where I don't think we're ever going to see this kid for more than the odd game. Such a shame, I was excited about him when he signed. 3 more years left on his contract. I wonder how it'll be handled a year or so down the line if this continues.

A lot of talk about tactics and formation...to bring it a bit more on track, a thought just occurred to me. Why is Butterfield still training with us? Assuming it's true he isn't under consideration for a contract. He isn't a free agent, he is still under contract at Derby. I'm confused that we are still using our resources for him. I assume he isn't paying us for the use of our expensive facilities, staff, canteen food etc. Small change in the world of football, maybe, but I thought we were trying to watch the pennies these days? If we have no plans to sign him, this should all be Derby's responsibility now. I imagine there is also some youngster who could be getting game time in these u-23 friendlies instead of him. I can see why Adam is still here - we may not 'plan' to sign him, but if our CM situation changed I'm sure he'd be under consideration the way he has played. Well before Butterfield.

I get the concern, but I wouldn't worry too much just yet. These games are about fitness too, and there's availability to consider. Our wing options are Arma, Downing, Rothwell, Chapman, Bennett, and sort of Gallagher and Brereton. Downing was playing his first game and has missed a chunk of pre-season at 35. It wouldn't have made sense to start him if it was deemed best he start off with less than half a game. Chapman has had injury problems and if I'm remembering rightly played in the behind closed doors friendly earlier today. Gallagher has only just signed and wasn't considered ready, and Brereton was started in his proper position. I imagine Bennett and Nyambe will share RB duties on Sunday, a half each to get them both up to speed. That basically leaves Rothwell. He also seems fit as a fiddle, so can probably be considered eligible for plenty of game time on Sunday. Without him, we'd have been looking very short on first teamers for a first team friendly. Amongst other considerations, that would have been unfair to Mansfield and their fans, who have probably been looking forward to this one. He also came off just after 60 minutes, when a youth player coming off may have seemed more obvious. Probably to rest him a little. Travis' situation is a little different, as we have ten to the power of twenty midfielders. However, again he's very fit and should be good to go again by Sunday if needed, and is another first teamer to add prestige and competency to today's lineup. Today's team was also a very young lineup indeed, most of them playing the full 90 minutes, and I can't help but feel that TM used the game to give himself a glimpse into what the future might look like. The answer to which is, very promising. Travis fits that selection methodology. Was Smallwood the only player over the age of 23? Not to mention the vast majority of the players either haven't played a competitive senior game, or have played less than a handful. Travis, Smallwood, Rothwell and Brereton being the only exceptions (apart from the subs) to that rule. So we weren't just looking at what our young players can do against an established Football League side, who finished 4th in League Two, but to a large extent what our emerging, fringe youth players can do. Definitely a positive outcome from that experiment. It's just a friendly, but I'm sure Mansfield were eager to show what they could do against a much bigger name club. They had two trialists playing too, but again, those should have been very eager to prove themselves.

Saw this on the LT's live commentary at 8pm: 'Brereton getting some joy pulling off the Mansfield three centre halves' Amazed the game wasn't called off at that point! The next update was: 'Rovers very fluid in possession. Lot of interchanging of positions' I'm sure this possession of fluids and switching positions could have been saved for some kind of after-match party. No wonder @S8 & Blue's match feed went down for a while.

Christ. I'm not sure Frankenstein's monster is the answer.

I share your cynicism of TM's comments about the defence. They've shifted around quite a lot over the last 6 or 7 months, and I don't like comments like 'we need competition and some bodies added'. He may mean something else by it, and maybe it's smoke and mirrors to keep the prices from inflating, but it reads like signing squad fillers instead of the first teamers we need. That said, I'm genuinely confused that you've been able to take his comments (assuming you've read all of them and not just the one you quoted) and concluded that we will line up with that at the back. The actual defenders, maybe, but he has just said he expects a keeper in the next couple of days, and that we're thinking of adding two goalkeepers. There's almost no chance Leutwiler lines up in goal on the opening day. I agree with a lot of what you say and are concerned about, but lighten up a little Stuart! Don't give fuel to the fire for those who want to brand you a doom and gloomer.

Of course. Of course it's someone who can be converted to another position. Why did I allow myself to think we might sign someone for their actual position, let alone be focussing now on our most critical area of need? So I take it we are really looking at playing a 3-5-2 using wingbacks? Even more important to sign more centre halves.

Seems like one we could do well to try for (from what I've heard rather than seen). We supposedly rate him too, and wasn't the price only about 2 mill? Seems fair.

Is that in 3 games, too? To be fair, he seems to be on fire. Need to remember the standard of the opposition and the fact it's early in pre-season though. We definitely should shift one or two midfielders before considering him though. But he does bring something different, which could be handy in certain games. If his wages are very low and we shift a couple centre mids, I wouldn't object anymore.

I seem to remember that was just in one area? Could be wrong. But as Bigdogsteel said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Bennett played in multiple positions for starters, so if his stats include his time elsewhere it's hugely misleading. Not that all stats are bollocks, you just can't hang everything on them. They're a handy guide if you know how to read them, and use your actual eyes too. I was trying to see if I could find the stats you were talking about on that optasportspro site. Interestingly, what I did see was Lenihan was 6th in the league for winning the ball back and starting a play sequence. 4th for just centre backs. I had a look at just full backs and Bennett wasn't there. It only shows the top 10 though for each position, so not necessarily any shame in that. Liam Cooper and Pontus Jansson, both for Leeds, were the top two centre backs for this stat. Jansson's tackles won per 1000 opposition touches was head and shoulders ahead of everyone else, at 3.21. Cooper's was closest, at 2.28. Seems like Brentford have played a blinder there. Would've been very happy if we could've made that one happen. Edit - just found Bennett by searching for wingers instead. I'm sure it's conflated his stats with his time at full back and centre mid too though, but it has him at number one (for the same stat, of winning the ball and starting a sequence of play). Tbf, as a defensive winger, he does a good job, my eyes agree. Just doesn't offer enough going forward, generally. I find him an odd one...effort wise, he is NEVER found wanting. But his quality with the ball at his feet varies wildly. Sometimes he does genuinely excellent things, other times...well.

Do you also believe in Bennett? And do you want to run with 'there's a player in there' all season at LB, with Derrick 'A Player Is Nowhere To Be Found At Left Back' Williams as the backup? I can stomach us running with potential weakness on one flank, but not both. There's also the issue that whilst you and I believe in Nyambe, it's under serious question whether TM does. He does, however, believe in Bennett, whose other positions have seen competition arrive since January. It seems likely Bennett will be first choice at RB at the start of the season and possibly much longer.

It's probably unrealistic now, unless there's a lot been done in the background and more budget than we think. But it should have been a goal to bring in at least 2, I'd say 3, defenders this summer. This isn't a new expectation people are springing on the manager, it's what they've wanted all summer. It staggers me that some people truly think just one centre half and a different goalie will fix the woeful defence we had last season to a degree where we can expect playoffs. The vaunted new system may ease some pressure but I think people are forgetting just how many atrocious goals we conceded. At this stage, we are probably going to have to accept one CB (having lost two). As long as that's a good centre half (and the goalie is good) I think we can expect around mid table to top 10. Then we will be lamenting our defensive options by the January window. Maybe we will reinforce there at that stage and kick on. Someone who can effectively play either full back position would be ideal, but I accept they're very rare. Or a CB who can do a good enough job in one of the full back slots, to act as cover almost wherever for when injury or form necessitates a change. Like a better Williams. Another problem with signing only one defender - what if they simply aren't as good as we expect, or they get injured? Yes all signings carry those risks, but it would leave us with last year's defence effectively, who weren't effective.

Never heard that one before! He was so good that most of us were shocked we were signing some Liverpool reserve called Friedel (lord forgive us, we weren't to know). I suspect you might be thinking of, or conflated Filan with, Fettis. Who was utter dog shit.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/17773682.expected-feature-rovers-mansfield-rfiendly/ This LT article mentions Carson is one of a number of options being considered. It also says we could sign two keepers, and are considering going overseas, getting a premier league loanee, or a young up-and-comer.

Hmm that can be a recurring problem for pacy players, as young Chapman is finding out. Hope it stays gone.

Yep, although injuries can be a concern sometimes, especially for players who use pace as a key part of their game. Any idea what kind of injuries?

So basically, you don't want anyone called Scott.

The u-23s have now had their friendly with Southport called off due to pitch resurfacing issues. Not saying there is some odd conspiracy (Southport have also cancelled their Blackpool fixture for starters) but this is weird. I can't remember this ever happening to us before? Now it's happened to our first and second team, at two different clubs. Maybe the same pitch consultant referred to in today's LT article about it advised both clubs?

Obviously. But I was asking you about actual defenders, not a goalie. Yes they're a unit blah blah but so is the whole team. When I asked if you agree our defence needs more than one reinforcement, I'm talking about defenders. I think we need two.

True, but with the idea of utilising Graham's excellent hold up play and Arma's pace behind the lines. There were times we used it effectively, and times where it was poor and mind numbingly predictable.

Not if he concedes a bunch more from shots. Wouldn't mind him though.

He absolutely wasn't the best of a bad bunch with Yakubu. He was awful for us in the Prem. I remember him, Lowe and Hanley being the 3 players I felt were most responsible for our relegation (on the pitch anyway, obviously off-field causes were worse). He didn't get to stay in the Prem, he had one and a half seasons with us in the Championship. Like Hanley, he steadily got better in the Championship and started looking good. Once he did, he was off. He earned himself a move back to the Prem rather than getting to stay because he was good in it. Done very well since by all accounts.

I thought that. Probably the last thing he wants when he's tired.

Be fair. It's the Mowbray is thick/useless/deluded/flipflopping/perfect/infallible/saviour topic. Some on the board sit in the middle, looking for balance, picking fault where we see it and giving credit where we see it. To us, both camps frequently look ridiculous (constant negativity or constant positivity) but also make some good points. But that's life, people like to characterise things in extreme terms or morph everything they see to fit their preconceptions (even the balanced ones from time to time). Not trying to say I'm perfect btw, I do try to stay balanced (I imagine most like to think they do). But I know I've, at varying times over the years, been branded or taken for an apologist for the club/manager or a doom-monger depending on which views on a particular subject I expressed at the time. I think the place becomes so polarised that people end up fitting others into either camp based on them saying a particular negative or positive thing. Don't get me wrong, some people have consistently shown they belong in a given camp (not naming names).