bluebruce

I went with 'too much' because 'too far' had even worse connotations in this context. You've undone my work.

Then pop his cork. White wine going in...if he's too rough, red wine coming out (too much?)

This perpetual pint-flirting between Mercer and Chaddy is hilarious. 'Go on Chaddy, take my pint you dirty bastard'. I think the man needs to learn to take no for an answer, this is becoming alcoholic harassment now. Maybe he thinks Chaddy is just playing hard to get, and before you know it one pint will lead to another and then...

Collectively, they've had the left sided attacker position sewn up. Only players he signed this summer have played there really. They just haven't displaced each other, but that's fine. Other than that, you're exactly right. The squad was strengthened considerably, but for the regular starting XI, only one slot out of 11 has been regularly occupied by new starters. Which is worrying, although he seems to have had an odd lack of faith in his own guys at times when most of us have wanted them to start. Actually I just remembered Reed has played quite consistently too, in a mix of positions...but he's not ours.

In fairness, this is the first time they've ever done that. Assuming this was them this time and not Mowbray (I'm also assuming this, but we don't know it for a fact). Everyone else we've spent a million or more on has been a starter or rotation player right from the off (not counting TM's traditional bedding in period that he would probably even apply to Messi). The only time they spent anything close to this before was Rhodes, the guaranteed starter and goal machine. That's what makes this one so strange. Thought the rest of your post, the bit I deleted to save space, was spot on though.

If you mean that we should have bought him for 7 million right away, rather than in January, you're still wrong and your logic doesn't hold up any better now than it did then (if it was you making that suggestion then and now, and I'm not getting mixed up). In either case we would be left with the player for 7 million, for better or worse, with no way out of it. Absolutely the same outcome. If the deal isn't one we are happy with, it will be lamented equally either way. Anyone who thinks any different is kidding themselves.

He doesn't even need to hold the ball up really, he is a prolific diver! Could win us a lot of free kicks in dangerous areas for Mulgrew. Moreover, why buy any player (let alone for that amount) who you feel doesn't have the attributes to play in the position you ostensibly wanted him for? Sure, strength can be built up in the gym, but probably at the expense of a bit of pace which, whilst he's not lightning, is one of the attributes he does have. Making him a pure target man will also probably take a year or two, if it is feasible, as there is a lot that would need coaching into him (and a lot of things likely to be coached out of him that are assets of his game now). Target man strikers are not the only kind of forward. Whether TM believes it or not, Brereton IS a forward. He just appears to be a different type of forward to the one TM is willing to play with. So again, WHY has he bought him with the intention of completely changing his game instead of buying another striker who plays the type of game he wants to utilise? I'm leaning more to the idea that signing Brereton wasn't really TM's idea.

It really is very strange when you think about it - we now have a side where strikers (Brereton, Armstrong) are preferred in midfield, and midfielders (Dack, Palmer) are used up front. What the hell is that all about?

For any Preston fans having a nosy, that's a Leeds fan saying that.

I never said the manager isn't doing a great job. Don't straw man me please. The manager is doing a great job. Today wasn't a shining example of it, and he does make errors, like any other human being. We're entitled to point it out when they happen without it being Tony hate, or as though we don't think he's doing a great job.

He is honest, he just can't see that he is making the wrong decisions sometimes. If he could see they were the wrong decisions, he wouldn't make them. Still worrying, as I picture him scratching his head wondering what wrong today and in other games when we can (mostly) all see it, but I'm not going to accuse him of dishonesty. I believe he is speaking his mind, but because he thinks moves like Palmer up front are logically sound, he is looking for other failings. To be fair, you don't ship 4 when the defence are on point.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic? Did the manager pick the right lineup today then? Does the manager always pick the right lineup? Is the manager infallible?

Uh nope, I didn't. In fact I wrote that post pretty much exactly because I had seen the tweet from Sharpe saying he hadn't trained for two weeks. That's why I said the question that needed to be asked WASNT why Graham hadn't started.

So, Palmer did well up front today?

The only way I see him as being 'protected' is the fact he isn't being started. Guess we will have to just agree to differ on this one.

Is Palmer more ready to play up front than a natural striker who has experience in this league?

The question that needs to be asked isn't about why Graham gets dropped, which is what I suspect Sharpe will ask or accept for an answer...what needs asking is the thinking behind who he brings in to replace him. Why Dack or Palmer and not Armstrong or Brereton?

Wow, can't agree at all. Nuttall hasn't played at all for ages. I don't necessarily object to him being a bench option, but it should start with cameos from there. Brereton offered bugger all until the last three games, when he has been our best substitute. Last person who needs dropping from the bench (especially with him being our 7 million pound investment, he's never going to realise his potential if he is dropped altogether). Can't see where you're coming from on that one, sorry. For me, he's in form and deserves a chance to finally start or his confidence will go. Granted, I didn't see today's game (work) so don't know about his overall performance, but from the disallowed goal he is clearly consistently having an impact at last.

This really, really needs to be asked. Mowbray is a man who will openly talk football, as honestly as he can, whenever asked. I haven't seen a single article in the LT that had a quote from TM with an answer to this question, or any explanation about why he has been playing Dack up front in other games, which leads me to conclude they haven't asked him. Unless they've asked him and the answer is so bizarre that they don't want to embarrass Tony and print it.

Far from a key player, but saw this in the LT and it seems strange... Meanwhile, Rovers youngster Lewis Thompson has been recalled from his loan spell with FC United of Manchester. The teenager has spent the last three months with the National League North side, playing 14 times in all. But injury to Jack Doyle during a loan spell with Maidstone United has seen Thompson recalled by Rovers. Why would an injury to a different player, on loan at a different club, cause us to recall him? Has Doyle's injury just made us decide we are terrified of people getting injured if they play below the EFL? Odd.

Eh? Brereton is 'taking up bench space and getting on every game in front of others' because in his last three games when doing so, he has created two goals and had one disallowed (possibly wrongly) for offside. He should be starting (especially when Graham is dropped), not dropped from the bench as I think you were implying? Not sure if I've misunderstood you.

For god sakes man, don't ask him to make any predictions! Please!

Cheers, I hadn't read that one, as it said it was a live thing so I figured there'd be too much for me to be arsed reading through. Interesting they didn't add that to the Dack article.

Not really possible to hide that you're going for a Dack replacement though. You'd probably be looking to spend 4 million upwards to get someone even remotely filling the gap (not that they'd be as good), and if we started looking for someone in his position at that money, it'd be obvious what was happening. Other positions though, sure.

LT article mentions the first part, no sign of the second part. Mentioned in the meeting was it?