I dont see the need to go from one extreme to another and start playing the percentages looking for long balls. Armstrong is a prolific striker, Elliott is a stand out talent in this league as is Dack (coupled with a very healthy goal and assist tally) now he is back, none of them 3 suit us playing the percentages, none of our players do, the closest would be Gallagher who is not very good in general and certainly isnt suitable as a target man. I just look at certain aspects of our game whereby we are lacking in ways that reflect badly on the manager. We still concede far too many goals, we have a solitary clean sheet in 10 or 11 games and quite simply having to score at least 2 goals a game to win is creating a very difficult mountain to climb, that is something that Mowbray has failed to fix repeatedly during his time here. I dont think that the midfield is as productive as it could be, as much as we often dominate possession it in no way means that we are in control of games, we dont move the ball quickly enough which counteracts the desire to dominate possession, there is usually a lack of penetration and individually, Holtby is a passenger in almost every game and despite his brilliant goal today Rothwell isnt nearly productive enough either. From set pieces we are particularly poor too, we have attacking players in the 3 I mentioned who will score goals but you need to supplement that from set pieces but our attempts are often poorly executed, Mowbray said the other week that he leaves it to his staff but I dont understand why he hasnt stepped in.

.

Ive been consistent in saying that his performances recently have not been of the very high standard hes set himself. The Bristol City one was probably the worst, the defeat wasnt solely down to him and suggestions that it has damaged morale, that he was playing up to the cameras etc were a total overeaction but of course we have suffered because our prolific goalscorer is not on top form. But as far as im concerned, his performance level defined by his goal output this season and this year does indeed give him a little more scope for patience because he has been so good for us. By all means criticise his recent form but talk of dropping him, selling him while we can, of him being easily replacable, conspiracy theories about why he is taking so many shots (he is a striker so a level of selfishness is natural) are all unnecessary. Armstrongs whole demeanour changed when he moved from playing out wide to being central, he has been a different player. Regarding your last question, the fact that the only alternative is Sam Gallagher, I would probably be especially patient with someone who keeps scoring so many goals that he could return to scoring ways. That being said, for a player who has a longest goal drought of 3 games in 2020, it goes against reasonable evidence that he will go on a massive run without a goal and of course if the goals stopped then its different. Rhodes' goal record was brilliantly consistent over numerous years but in 2020 since he moved centrally Armstrong has scored goals more regularly and at a faster rate even than Rhodes is. The key is to maintain it. I would potentially say that with his pace, and with his ability to score from range, Armstrong has a wider skillset. I always defended Rhodes and always will because hes a goalscorer. Its the same with Armstrong since he moved centrally, scoring goals at such a rate for me gains goalscorers more patience during a rare and/or belated dry patch which all strikers go through, if they score goals at a rate of Another player will at some stage take Armstrongs role in the team, I would be pleasantly surprised if he scored to the same extent because Armstrong has scored more than all but one. I have always felt in recent years that goalscoring has become an underappreciated skill, especially when a striker sets such a high standard as Rhodes did which meant that some people took the goals for granted and looked for flaws especially physically, he wasnt fast, strong etc but his main skill was in his brain which is the case with all goalscorers. Selfishness is a trait within all goalscorers. I would play Dack as a 10 behind Armstrong once the former is fully fit. Not only would that couple 2 goalscorers but it would also allow Dack to slip Armstrong through on goal.

But thats the thing. He doesnt have 9 goals, he has 15. If he had scored 9, which would be not a bad tally, but people would naturally question his contribution a lot more than if he is the second top scorer. I dont understand why you think that is illogical. He has always been greedy, goalscorers often are. Against Bristol City he was particularly poot but it was one game so to start implying that it has impacted on morale or making out as if that game was normal for Armstrong is totally unfair. Hes in poor form in 6 games with only 1 goal and I havent seen anyone denying that but you are definitely underappreciating the number of goals hes scored and seem desperate to discredit him. It would be incredibly difficult to replace a striker scoring goals at the rate that he is.

It would be a total myth to suggest that teams only in recent weeks have tried to remove the space in behind for Armstrong to run onto, and it does him a disservice to suggest that the only goals he can score are from running in behind.

Goalscoring has become an underappreciated aspect of being a striker.

I dont see how he cannot be bullet proof as centre forward. The only other one we have is Sam Gallagher. Ive acknowledged the dry spell hes had in front of goal but that came on the back of a hot streak and within a season in which he is the second top scorer and in a year in which he is the top scorer in the league. Its a little premature to make out as if he is anything other than indispensable or that he has been "figured out." As far as im concerned, the improvement on the 2nd top scorer in the league would be having the very top scorer.

I find as well that a lot of the snobbery is indirect in criticising the way that our opposition play. Stoke received plenty of criticism regarding how they played but they controlled the game in spite of having little possession and we failed to carve out any chances of note. Sheffield Wednesday have again received plenty of criticism but for me its based on an assumption that possession automatically means entertainment.

I dont need to watch the highlights, I watched the full game and I havent doubted that in recent weeks, perhaps due to desperation/frustration that he has made incorrect decisions more often than usual. His goal tally however shows that more often than not over the course of the last year that he HAS chosen the right option. The high quantity of shots is as far as im concerned something I am prepared to accept with a striker when he is scoring the number of goals that Armstrong has. He is a massive part of our attacking armoury and to take him out of our team would massively reduce our goal threat. He played the Swansea game where he couldnt run and then missed the following game v Boro and we failed to score in both games, he came back v QPR and got the 2 goals that got us to win. Was I surprised? No.

I cant get my head round a striker scoring 27 goals in 1 year being described as "very lucky." 3 of his 15 this season were penalties. He has consistently scored goals (I think more than any other Championship player in 2020) and its a massive disservice to imply that he needs changing/selling, or just not appreciating how good it is to have a striker to be scoring us so many goals. Id be absolutely amazed even if we got 17m which for numerous reasons (including the sell on) we wouldnt receive all of to reinvest that we could attract a striker to improve upon the goal tally that Armstrong is providing us.

That Stoke game was one game though. One isolated game in which they scored early on and managed the game, factoring in numerous absentees and a hectic schedule to get the win whilst being in full control throughout. Its not fair to judge their style in general on that one game.

I wish we had other players whose goal to shot ratio was masked by being the 2nd top scorer in the league.

Armstrong's sell by date?! Hes a bloody 23 year old striker who has scored 15 this season, 27 this year, and has never gone more than 3 games without a goal. Hes not playing very well at the moment, hes hit a bit of a dry spell (1 in 6 after 5 in 5) but people are massively overreacting if they think he is anything but key to this team. We are too reliant on him.

Once the absentees return... If we go on a run of wins... If we believe in the process... Once we start getting a bit of luck... Tomorrow never comes.

Why do we NEED a target man? Armstrong is not in the best of form which happens to all strikers but hes a bloody effective Championship striker, the second top scorer in the league and if you take him out of this side you take away a massive chunk of any attacking threat. He has also been so much more effective since he moved central at the start of the year.

A load of shite yet again. People are so obsessed with possession stats as if they directly correlate to entertainment but we are awful to watch aside from the couple of times when we have swollen the goals for column with beatings usually against 10 men. Its side to side passing, no penetration, teams even without the ball tend to control games as Stoke also did last week more than we are doing because we are often devoid of ideas. Even today I have seen a lot of snobbery towards Sheffield Wednesdays style but it was a horrible watch from us too, we didnt have a shot in the first half and of course we did have a spell in the second where we had a few chances but that was only because they had a lead to defend. Mowbrays inability to fix the defence continues and is particularly concentrated at LB. Douglas has been a shit signing, and he also compounded that by re-signing Bell so we have no credible alternative, whoever out of those 2 plays will cause us problems. Ayala I am still to be convinced by too, the clean sheet record is simply not good enough. In midfield, Holtby is a myth. He never contributes anything and he personifies the team perfectly, pedestrian and unproductive. Rothwell's goal was superb, he is what he is, slightly more productive than Holtby with occasional brilliance. Johnson was incredibly sloppy in front of the defence, Downing surely has to be considered for starts. Armstrong too often having to play out wide, hes a striker and although hes hit a bit of a lean spell, at this level hes a bloody good one, a bit of overreacting to him and rubbish about cashing in on him etc, so close to hit the post, a few decent runs and always our attacking threat. You take his goals out of our side and we will struggle to replace them. Gallagher a waste of space, Elliott surprisingly quiet. Great to see Dack back and he was involved like hed never been away, so crisp and purposeful with his passing, Brereton has been out for a fraction of the time but I thought he was the one that looks like he has missed a year, he looked like the old Brereton but hopefully that is ring rust. You cant argue with the points tally, we are mid table fodder and will continue to stagnate under the current manager. The season feels as good as over in December.

Is watching Stoke that bad? Cant say I watch them every week but against us, they scored an early goal and with an injury ravaged team and amidst a hectic schedule, they did what they needed to do and we never looked like scoring as a result.

Kaminski Nyambe Lenihan Ayala Douglas Holtby Trybull Rothwell Elliott Armstrong Brereton

Most not at all but I would agree that most managers is pushing it so fair play. Most managers might appreciate Mowbrays net spend coupled with the time hes had to mould his team for sure.

Has anyone said "hes spent loads more than everyone" specifically? If so then of course that is shite, whereas a very competitive budget and more time than all of his rivals would be more accurate.

My theory is simple, why change a position for a key player that worked, to benefit lesser players and to stick to a formation that has not improved results? Hes not some brute who can only play long ball either.

Of course, that is the main issue. For me, I dont see any overwhelming reason to continue with the 4-3-3 if it means any compromise to Dack, a consistent source of goals and assists from a number 10 role, to essentially help far less effective and inferior players, and when the team isnt any more successful playing that formation. Putting Dack as a 10 gives us another major goal threat and him and Armstrong together could be prolific, and it would potentially mean a second central midfielder would add a bit more solidity. Win win for me.

Of course, but he has had more time than any one else and plenty of resources to overcome that. The squad he had wasnt totally worthless either, Lenihan, Williams, Nyambe and Evans all probably get into his favourite squad now, possibly Bennett too, and hes used others that he inherited along the way, Graham, Mulgrew and Raya who was his only sale. Squads naturally will be mainly different after 4 years. Another resource he has over many is a thriving academy.

Mowbrays net spend must be 15m+, he signed 3 strikers for 15m and plenty others for fees with Raya the main player leaving and at only 3m. That thread is rendered essentially worthless, it focuses solely on net spend and not time in the job, wages, control etc. But even specifically regarding net spend, it includes 3 years in which he wasnt here, the cause of our negative figures, doesnt include 2 of the 4 summers he has been in charge where he has spent more than he has received, and im guessing that it shows £0 in the summer prior because we was in League 1 but in which he did spend a couple of million, only selling Steele from memory.

But he has played consistently as a 10 for us, brilliantly, constantly scoring and assisting goals. Why change what was never broken? And logically, moving him further away from goal could limit his main strength. He didnt say he would prefer to play there, Bennett always publically said that he was happy to play right back, doesnt mean that he would personally have picked there,