roversfan99

The idea that Venkys were full of enthusiasm and Mowbray stopped them in their tracks really is a bit of a stretch based on the admittance that Mowbray didnt kick up a fuss for more money once budgets had been agreed. I doubt that most managers have actively asked Venkys for more money. Mowbray is just the one who said it publically. They had that one season where they invested £10m on what was a squad that had been decimated in the lead up to relegation. The problem is, the fact that they are obligated to cover losses each year (bar the freak Wharton sale) is for some reason confused by some as them pumping money in as if its to better the team. Why anyone would try and spin it to make them seem like the good guys is anyones guess.

You have predicted that yearly for about 10 years to be fair.

Mowbray wouldnt belong in the company of those 2. Or Bowyer. Not that he would be someone we should be re-apppointing either, to be clear.

It hasnt been a cockup as he is willing to accept whatever is put in front of him. He wont be going anywhere.

Well thats a pretty obvious one.

Would you prefer Ismael or Mowbray if you had to choose?

At least that will stop him doing something weird like Montgomery at centre back. Cantwell is now "a couple of weeks" and otherwise just constant bleating on again about how unlucky weve been and how great weve been playing.

You say you will judge the manager on results but refrain from calling him out when they continue to be crap. You say you will judge players on performances, praise the good ones like Alebiosu and defer any judgement on the ones who play poorly because you cant bring yourself to criticise. Tronstad is the example people come back to but there are lots of examples of players that signed from abroad, started poorly and failed overall. They wont all do a Tronstad.

RevidgeBlue would have a meltdown if Mowbray came back. He is definitely a considerable upgrade on Ismael but we shouldnt get him back. He has had his time here and has also recently had a life threatening illness since.

Why can any players who have looked good (ie Alebiousu) be judged freely without the caveat of waiting. But the ones who look poor (I wouldn't look at Morishita first, but you can certainly question how he had one good game then faded to the point of being an unused sub at the weekend) you go round shutting down anyone and demanding patience. We cant afford to wait for loads of players to "settle" with one not even fit any time soon. You wont entertain the prospect that some of them may just not be very good.

I havent seen these glimpses. His recent games came off the back of scoring away against France, but he hasnt appeared boosted in confidence. Its not even him totally messing up those 2 sitters in the home games, his general play has been so poor. His inability to hold the ball up and control it keeps leading to opposition counter attacks including one or two goals (the Stoke one, I feel like one of the Swansea goals) coming from him losing it. Obviously we cant and I am not saying that we should give up on him, but Ohashi should start up front.

There will be no heat. The ground will be empty and there will be no heat on anyone even if we do lose which is more likely than not. Even if we continue to do badly over the next few games. The recepient of the most abuse will not be on the owners who deserve it the most, not on Suhail who deserves it, not on Gestede who deserves it, not even on Ismael who deserves some, it will be aimed at the manager whose job became untenable and has been portrayed as a villain and a snake.

You tend to get what you deserve in football. Its loser talk to bemoan how you deserve more. Even if a team has constant pressure on the opposition goal, keeps missing their chances then concedes a sloppy goal or two at the other end, they dont "deserve" to win yet that tends to be the narrative. (Not that it was the case in our games) If you keep finding yourself on the wrong side of games, its not bad luck or undeserved.

Hes been an absolute liability on the ball though, regularly losing the ball leading to dangerous counter attacks. Was one of the goals v Swansea as well as the Stoke one a result of his piss poor play? There was a few times in the first half yesterday when we attacked where he didnt really make much movement. Even when he did have that half chance, had he moved earlier it could have been clear cut.

I just cant fathom the logic behind sticking in a young midfielder who isnt good enough full stop, in at a position he is unfamiliar with, purely to have a right footer at centre back.

Gudjohnsen didnt "battle well" yesterday. His incompetence to keep the ball led to a few dangerous counter attacks which has been a common theme across his 3 starts.

But we only managed to score 1 goal in this apparent majority of dominant play (which is IMO untrue) and conceded 2 through the opponents quality and our incompetent defending. Therefore, we deserved what we got.

Surely considering we only have 2 fit centre backs, you play a back 4 rather than shoehorning a sub par central midfielder into a back 3.

You get what you deserve. Take the Birmingham game, if our players picked by our manager made mistakes leading to 2 goals, how do we not deserve that? There is a lot of evasion for fear of knowing that if you say he needs x points or to be in x position before the next break to keep his job, you wont look as silly when you continue to back him.

Its not that people dont care. Its that it feels like nothing anyone does makes any difference sadly. Obviously the people in the coalition etc have also got work, families etc, it seems unrealistic for people otherwise not doing anything come on here and expect people to have made significant inroads in a way that seems impossible.

It is clear how we are setting up to win games. But I wont tell you. Just watch the losses and it will become clear. Erm.

Youd actively choose Kristi Montgomery to start as a centre back?

P He should have just moved away from a back 3/5. Its not ideal to have only left footed centre backs but we shouldnt have fucked up the summer window so much. Montgomery at centre back was bizarre.

Even if he did personally want these deals. Its likely that he merely agreed at the end, I doubt he was the one picking them. But either way, it doesnt justify them. You say it is only 1 game, he isnt the main problem at the club but I wanted Ismael to go BEFORE that. Its you that has changed from telling me before it that you have faith in Ismael before that, to now opening up the possibility of making a change at the next international break. What sort of situation would lead you to think we should change then, if we are still in the bottom 3? Is there a certain amount of points we would need for him to keep his job? Im not having these hard luck stories, we dont deserve more. I anticipate more of this, us being competitive in most games but a lack of defensive organisation costing us at one end, an inability to score goals costing us at the other, and a lack of experience on the field and quality in the dugout leading us to fail to manage games properly to get results. Even under Coyle, we were competitive in most games. And we are 22nd. Last time I checked, that was in the bottom 3. Or are you saying that you expect us to stay up, rather than we arent there now? In which case, even if we do avoid relegation, which I think is at best in the balance, its a massive downgrade from where you said we would finish previously.

Gudjohnsen has also had big chances. He had 1 in each home game and not only did he mess them up, he didnt even get a shot away. Yesterday, his own poor movement meant that a potential chance in the first half became a half chance. His hold up play has been dreadful too. Regularly, not only does his poor control and awareness not keep the ball for us, it gives it to our opposition for a counter attack. It cost us a goal v Stoke. We also dont have time to "wait and judge" Baradji. We are in the bottom 3. We signed a player knowingly with a long term injury. We can judge that decision as a bloody stupid one.