If we are going to go with 4 at the back, it would be remiss not to start our only competent right back, surely? I think the chances are minimal.

I never said that.

That would have been a move akin to Ince bringing in Nigel Winterburn to work with our defenders.

Why on earth would anyone say that, considering where we are?

Sentimental nonsense. Why dont we only consider people who have played for us while we are at it? Appoint the best man and allow him to pick whoever he wants.

What is with the obsession of sentimental selections of peoples coaching staff including ex players? It should be a simple case of appointing whoever and letting them pick who they want.

Terrible performance again, I suspect that the chance of a play off finish are incredibly low now. Mowbray got his tactics wrong again, Giles on the right was bizarre. Gallagher showed off his many weaknesses which mean that merely chucking him up front will noticeably improve him, horrendous touch, cant hold it up, clumsy, cant bring others into play, and wont score many goals. Dolan was poor, as often is the case there were plenty of stationery stepovers but hes not productive in the final third and wasted a great chance on the counter attack with a needless and poorly executed flick.

If he had already agreed a contract for the summer, I very much doubt he willingly shaved over 200k off a potential signing on fee to join. Youve also got the additional wage for half a season to consider, even if it was say 8k over 25 weeks that would be another 200k so how could he possibly have been cheaper now?

Nations League doesn't matter really. And is there much scope for experiment, basically every player has already been capped and ultimately the tournament isn't for 8 or 9 months at which point the landscape of form and fitness will have turned on its head. Ultimately some teams have important qualifiers so I do to an extent understand the need for this international break, perhaps not right now. But it doesn't change the fact that for me and the majority, a friendly v Switzerland and one v the Ivory Coast mean nothing but an unwelcomed break from the club schedule at a key point in the season.

Feels like the season as it gets to the business end grinds to a temporary halt in favour of 2 pointless friendlies.

Under Venkys we have seen a general culture of apathy and a total lack of care and pride.

Now manager watch is a thing. This bizarre obsession about how he behaves on the touchline, thats just how he is as a person. It doesnt need reading in to the point of baseless conclusions that he doesnt care, that he is sulking, whatever crap people want to say.

If FFP was genuinely stunting the owners who otherwise had genuine ambitions to push the club on, they wouldnt have declined the 2m cost of refurbishing the pitch.

You haven't really addressed what I am saying going back to your suggestion to revert back to playing like we did with Graham. Gallagher couldn't be any more different to Graham and is not a target man. If Dack does play behind Gallagher, the tactic of playing off him wouldn't work, we would have to play things a lot differently to the Graham days. There is no reason why we can't retain the back 5 and still have Giles wide left and Gallagher central. I am also surprised that you would consider starting Dack 2 cameos and a week after you was painfully telling anyone who dared to mention his name that he wouldn't be fit this season.

Was early enough to win the game, that is what matters. And of course it was the managers decision.

But Dack wouldn't be in a 4-3-3 anyway, as you said, he would be best in a 4-2-3-1 which you are wary of playing at the moment without him because we don't have anyone similar. Once Dack comes back, it won't be as simple as him playing off a big man simply because we don't have anyone similar to Graham, nor is Dack this one dimensional player anyway that can only play off a big man. And the back 3 has been working defensively, and there is no reason to suggest that we couldn't have that same front 3 of Giles left, Dolan right and Gallagher central, with Travis and Rothwell as the 2 midfielders, and the solidity of a back 3 behind that. We could even play Giles as a wing back and have an extra attacking player ahead of that. Khadra has been crap for quite a few games now, so I would drop him personally.

Surely if Dack isn't fit enough to start, then we stick with the 3 at the back unless it means playing Rankin Costello?

I would be wary of moving away from the back 3 to be honest. I think the 2 main questions would be whether Dack is fit to start and whether Nyambe is fit as Rankin Costello is crap. I would definitely go with Dolan, Gallagher and Giles from right to left, Travis and Rothwell in central midfield. Dack if fit enough in a number 10 role but I doubt he is, in which case I would bring Nyambe in, failing that either have Buckley reluctantly at right wing back and the usual back 3, or Buckley as a number 10 with Lenihan at right back.

We didn't though because he changed it, making early changes. Some of the posts on here after the Derby game and the mental gymnastics employed to withhold any sort of praise towards the manager has been laughable.

The owners shouldn't be interfering with footballing decisions. End of.

You've taken my comment out of context. Specifically at holding the ball up, bringing others into play, being a focal point, he is piss poor. You mention Brown, obviously Gallagher is better in general, he is powerful compared to Brown who couldn't run, he does offer some sort of goal threat (not prolific by any means though) whereas Brown never scored a goal, but at holding the ball up, Brown was better. Gallagher is not a player that we can play off and couldn't be any less similar to Graham if he tried, so they are not comparable. He is a very average player, he is not the answer in general but he deserves a start centrally on Saturday,

How do they know what players are worth? I can only presume that you are on the wind up if you genuinely see no problem in the owners interfering with transfer decisions.

"Last night was one of the worst displays of football management you could witness." Presumably it would have been THE worst display of football management in footballing history had we not won by 2 clear goals!

There is absolutely no way on earth that we should use Gallagher in a similar way to Graham. There is this constant expectation that has been around since he signed that he would take over once Graham was phased out. They could barely be any more different. Dack thrived playing off Graham because he was an expert with his back to goal, he had a good touch, he was good at knocking the ball down with his head, he was intelligent in working off defenders, Gallagher is as poor as any striker I can remember in a Rovers shirt at those things. Graham was also a penalty box predator who anticipated chances and had the composure to often convert, Gallagher rarely sniffs out chances and when he does he is often clumsy and un coordinated. On the flip side, Graham was ageing and slow whereas Gallagher is a powerful runner especially over long distances and he does have a spring on him. They work in opposite ways. Gallagher was good last night, but lets not make conclusions about a player he clearly is not, either in style or in quality. He has proven consistently that he is a very limited footballer, should he start centrally at the weekend? Yes, but is he the answer as a central target man in general? Not in a million years. "He will score goals" whilst true literally is not something he will do with any consistent regularity, or if he does, it will be the first time in his career. You could basically say that about any tactical tweak ever. One extra player in x position, revolutionary.

You perhaps have perfectly illustrated the point I am making, that he gets no praise for what he does right and only focus and criticism for what he does wrong. Would you say that he also deserve the praise during that time for keeping us tight and resolute at the back, with us having the most clean sheets in the league I believe? And do you think universally that he gets that praise? Most if not all people (me included) didn't think he was capable of organising a defence, but he has done and even throughout our barren run, we kept 7 clean sheets in those 13 games that we only scored 3 in. The lack of goals has been a huge issue and he has got loads of warranted criticism for that, again from me included. Having our main goal threat from this season in a 20 goal striker would hinder every team in the league, on top of our other main goal threat also being out to long term injury and his January signing being injured too. So mitigating circumstances, but 3 in 13 is unacceptable no matter how its dressed up, no team should be so bad in front of goal and Mowbray deserved stick for it. The thing is you are like many not allowing yourself to judge Mowbray without your pre-conceived opinion of him to spill over ahead of any neutrality. Take Allardyce for example. manager I think you understandably rated highly, but one that always prioritised results over performances. If he had won a game after making a tactical error with his starting 11, but made a double change at half time which saw us quickly take the lead and in the end win comfortably, would you equally say it was only a "good 20 minutes" against "a bottom 3 team" (technically true although 16th best based on points) and start implying that it was the players who instigated the turnaround and not the manager? No you wouldn't. We won the game, he deserves at least some acknowledgement. As much as I am onboard with the criticism of the bizarre initial tactics, he fixed it.