Glad to see the signing of Hyam wrapped up well in advance hopefully for his first start on Wednesday night. A little surprised that its only a 3 year deal with no mention of an option. Where is this from?

I'd like to think even at our dysfunctional club that the idea that a player would get "instant support" based on family connections wouldn't play a part, not least because it implies that not everyone would.

I think any suggestion of more than 3 signings is beyond fanciful, Tomasson was very firm in dismissing the suggestion yesterday in his interview that we could get more than 3. If it isn't 3, I would suspect that less (breakdown of deals) is more likely. 2 centre backs including Hyam and a loanee and a loanee attacker seem to be the likely remaining business. Talk of Styles and the Malmo winger would take considerable fees and fall outside of what we are seemingly looking for. I suppose it could be seen as 3 and then a potential Brereton replacement at a push, but we said last year that we would get a replacement for Armstrong and we didn't.

I am guessing that this is a cryptic suggestion of Donis. Where is this from? Based on his goal record, he makes our current bunch of non scorers seem prolific.

Suspect we wont as it seems the attacker we want is on loan according to the LT.

There seems to be a lot of knowledge about this Birmancevic, I know he is a left winger but in the absence of ever having watched Malmo, what type of player is he? I suspect that its hypothetical anyway, it seems like if we can get it done, based especially on the LT that our remaining business will be Hyam, another centre back on loan and an attcking player on loan. That coupled with a Brereton sale would leave us desperately short.

Steven Gerrard might see his old manager Brendan Rodgers at the job centre tomorrow.

Definitely very early so they are not major worries but I think that it is justified to question whether we have seen any coherent attacking style or signs of one especially considering how little we have created in the 6 games. I couldn't possibly say with certainty that it will all come together, as much as it needs more time.

Was very impressed yesterday and I would most likely start him on Wednesday with Buckley struggling from a deeper role. I still think we need another central midfielder with more experience because we are one or two injuries away from needing to use Wharton game in game out, and if his form dipped and/or he struggled with the physical intensity especially with mid week games, it would be unfair. But looks very talented and much more at home in the first team picture than Vale or Phillips.

I really wish you'd stop shoving the "time and patience" cliche down my throat and indeed the throats of others every time a point is raised. If I had said that Tomasson needs to go, that he will never be able to sort out the attack or anything like that, it would be a valid comeback. But I have not. I am fully aware that it won't be an instant transformation, I am looking for signs of the transformation rather than the full game plan/ I don't think that the second half yesterday necessarily fitted the style mentioned anyway, there was a natural move to a more attacking team with Stoke sat in, but it was very much Hedges right, Brereton left, not THAT much interchange, and more a case of attack v defence rather than a game plan being carried out from the start. I also don't think that the attacking players have been used correctly either. Gallagher wide right has continued, the make up of Dack up front and Szmodics wide right was bizarre yesterday, these are worries. You also mention blocked shots but we didn't create many good chances which is the key, half chances maybe but the keeper had very little to do all afternoon. Regarding Swansea, against a very predictable team, a clever gameplan was used by Tomasson but yes it was a smash and grab in that we scored basically every chance we got. We sat in and 3 clinical counter attacks were the key, nothing in line with the fluid front4/high pressing/interchange etc that we have heard that he apparently is going to play. I am guessing that you have absolutely zero doubts, concerns or worries but I have not seen the supposed attacking plan in place that was earmarked in the summer, or even many glimpses of what we are trying to do. You say "no doubt he'll adjust" which for me is more of a case of I hope that he will be able to, no way can I have absolute certainty at this stage in that being the case.

My problem was more that I don't get why we chucked in crosses at all rather than trying to get down the sides and in behind the big lumps that licked their lips any time we aimlessly lofted in a cross. Even with set pieces, we never looked like scoring, surely with a smaller team the order of the day was invention and creativity off the training ground?

Does a striker that is good in the air suit us? We don't really have good crossers and play wide men on the opposite side.

I would equally agree that making sweeping statements the other way is not helpful either so no arguments there. Yesterday's game to me had huge parallels to the Derby game last season. The first half saw a side that not only individually had basically everyone off their game, but the whole set up was bizarre, the Bradley Johnson false 9 choice will forever be in folklore and whilst there was nothing that eye catching yesterday, the Dack up front/Szmodics wide right idea made no sense and was coupled with predictable tactics that suited a defender in Aden Flint who is generally poor and very slow but aerially very good. In the second half, logical drastic changes in personnel and shape were made against teams sitting on a one nil lead with the onus on us to attack, but without that many clear cut chances created. So often during the off season we heard about how Tomasson likes to play as if it was clear as day. A fluid front 4, interchange, passing, pressing, none of which I have seen much of so far. I actually have seen more signs that Tomasson's strengths lie in organisation rather than developing a side whose strengths lie going forward. Against QPR, we saw the game out comfortable and the Swansea game was a very good plan for a smash and grab against a predictable team.

If they were of the calibre of Neves, 30 cap international wanted by huge teams, Guedes, 32 caps and a big money move after a few good seasons at Valencia, Moutinho, 146 caps and glittering CV, Nunes, big money talent wanted by big teams before signing, Nelson Semedo, big money signing from Barcelona, Pedro Neto, brilliant talent wanted by Arsenal and also Sa and Podence, as well as previously having the likes of Jota to help them to become a top half Premier League side, I reckon I could stomach it.

A bit confused with the rumours today, seems like a case (both from the clubs and journalists) of throwing enough shit at the wall and hoping some sticks. In defence, hopefully we can Hyam unveiled ASAP because we need him for Wednesday night, and that Nixon's comments about it being reliant on a Brereton sale first are of his usual inaccuracy. Making a big play for another loanee of the Van Hecke/Van Den Berg calibre (assuming Hyam signs) would seem illogical considering how weak we are elsewhere and that we have limited resources and these loanees will expect game time, especially as both are proven to be good players at this level. If it is Hyam and one of those 2 then Van Den Berg would make more sense as he is able to also play at right back, and Carter would presumably go out on loan. With Brereton, he will be such a big loss as he is our only prolific goalscorer AND also our only competent player from the left side so that would need 2 replacements. Very disappointing to read that it will likely be a loanee, and if that means Brereton out and a loanee in, off the back of the lack of Armstrong reinvestment, it would be piss poor. If Hirst is that man, very underwhelming. If it was a permanent signing, maybe slightly more enticing. Also, with all of these potential loans, so 2 of our 3 last additions added to Morton, it doesn't fit with the constant "journey" narrative whereby people seem almost willing to write off a whole season...

I hate that when people raise genuine questions whether it be about players out of position, what the style is, where the goals will come from etc, that they are shot down by people who will not allow constructive debate about the manager if it involves and doubts or constructive criticisms. Is it not hard to see what he is trying to do? In 6 games we have taken the lead in 3 and managed the games really well from there, grinding them out with heart and organisation. In the 3 games that we have conceded in first, in the first 2 we were totally uncompetitive I think that questioning what the style actually is and whether it is evident at this early stage is valid rather than being shot down as intolerable impatience. I am bothered about the results but in terms of entertainment factor, there has been very little from the first 6 games. very few chances created, players struggling in positions that they aren't best suited to etc. I am questioning that I have yet to see the supposed style or even many if any small signs of the supposed style that so many have outlined in detail as to what Tomasson will play. You mention fitness. Would it not be a worry that Wharton, Gallagher, Brittain, Carter and Hedges have already all missed games due to injuries picked up in training?

Does he have any redeeming features that would make him useful out wide? I just think he isnt very good in general.

I think Brittain and Pickering don't overly concern me if they could play every minute but we are an injury away from having to use 2 very poor back ups as we saw today on the right. There are too many areas whereby an injury would cause a major issue, when Travis was down again it would have been such a blow with all of our other central midfielders being young and lightweight.

Agreed on Dacks position. There were lots more square pegs in square holes in the second half. We definitely showed more attacking threat but it was more a case of a team attacking against a team wanting to sit back and grind out a result and I dont think their keeper made many if any saves. Parallels to Derby at home last season, an abject first half with weird illogical tactics, 2 subs and a reshuffle to 4231 at half time and a change against a side sitting in, although that night we had more of a genuine threat.

I agree that winning is the only important thing, although that doesnt tie in to you criticising other managers because they are "boring." All about results. A mixed bag so far, 3 wins and 3 losses. I am just yet to see any signs that display the supposed attacking style that the manager is looking to implement. Fluidity, pressing, intensity, interchange, excitement all yet to be seen so far.

I understand the fact that it isnt overnight but its not really relevant to the question I asked.

A round of applause would be merited I would suggest.

We played well tactically but we didnt create much at Swansea and were ruthless with very few chances. Today in the second half we naturally were looking for a goal and did improve actually playing players in their correct position but we didnt create that many clear cut chances and it was more of a case of attack v defence rather than signs of the managers style. I have not seen many if any signs of the attacking style you claim Tomasson will play as of yet and there have been cases of him playing players in positions whereby they were ill suited and struggled. Hopefully it will start to piece together ASAP.

Do people think Mowbray would get a good reception here?