Of course, they are incomparable undoubtedly. Kean is in a word of his own in regards to both competence and integrity. It just doesnt sit right with me that anyone, either self inflicted upon themselves or especially trying to quash other peoples opinions based on the notion that Mowbray is a professional and we arent. To use a less corrupt example, Coyle was a professional but should we have reserved opinion on his ineptitude? No one on here in their right minds thinks they are credible options to become the next Rovers manager, but there is no need to sanitise anyone's right to have an opinion, and to share those on here. Mowbray is a professional and there are most aspects to his role that no one on here could possibly do. But he still will make mistakes, he will do things that we dont agree with and he is in a position whereby he is in a position to receive criticism which he will accept I am sure. Even those who want to change managers would want to put in a more suitable (in their mind, at this point in time) professional.

Very fair points @JBiz Kean is incomparable to Mowbray and all who are sane would agree with that. A stain on the history of this club. I am keen however not to allow Keans era to become a benchmark, in the same way that players being praised merely for trying their hardest even if not up to the job, or the owners not allowing us to cease to exist is not worthy of praise. We can set higher standards than that without fearing being deemed unrealistic. Something you touch upon by suggesting that should we finish mid table that Mowbray should go. I am unconvinced it would be productive to even give him that long to be honest, based on what I have seen I think Mowbray having done a good job may have gone as far as he can but either way there is a standard there that ensures that merely not being Steve Kean is not a good enough standard.

I think the point that if you are refusing yourself and others an opinion on the principle that the manager has been a professional for many years then surely Kean would fall into the same category is a very fair one. Making such a point was clearly purely to provoke and wind up otherwise they wouldnt have seeked out a fan opinion forum to make it if their mindset was so black and white.

Did so well for us in his loan spell? He did ok, nothing more really. Definitely should only be considered central as second choice to Armstrong but I think his first spell here is overplayed.

He scored 2 in those games, one at Preston and one at Stoke which was off the bench. There were plenty of games especially in the first half of the season before Armstrong was considered a central player that Gallagher played there and was ineffective more often than not. I presume as someone who is adamant that Armstrong is a number 9 and understandably so, that you also see Gallagher as a back up in that position, unless you see something in him playing wide that only Mowbray does.

He definitely shouldnt play wide but even central which he has played numerous times mainly last season, he was ineffective more often than not. Our current striker is one player within our team to which you cannot doubt his effectiveness. Dack should be back soon so I would suggest playing Dack off Armstrong. Gallagher should be no more than sub striker as far as I am concerned.

"Trusting the professionals" isnt something that should be done at the expense of personal opinion. No one is suggesting that they take over as manager. All teams in the league have professionals, the question is whether the professional in charge at the moment is our best bet to achieve or even surpass expectations.

I have no idea from where you have based this on, but based on the league table, does that mean that Mowbray is underachieving, if he is below a side you have decided we are better than? Theres absolutely no sign or suggestion that we will go up playing "our way" although at least we will seemingly have the consolation of being able to dismiss any teams that play any differently to us.

The last sentence is totally irrelevant. We have no divine right to be anywhere but the main point that people are making is that "less attractive" or more direct football that gets you results is totally fine, and indeed perhaps a way for us to punch above our weight.

The point was that when we played with a pragmatic style and got results, in your head only the results were important. Now we are supposedly playing "attractive football yet its breeding further inconsistency and we are not progressing, its the style that matters. As ever, your points are riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

Im not even convinced how attractive our football is. Quite a few games in recent weeks we have played boring football. None moreso than on Wednesday, after the game I was made up because we won. End of. Anyone who couldnt enjoy us winning even if the football was more pragmatic has got their priorities wrong.

Either way, we have conceded too many goals this season, and kept too few clean sheets, again. Same shit, different season.

I dont want my team to necessarily play as Stoke do. I want my team to win as many games as possible to realise their ambitions, style is not important. We played direct football in League 1 and got promoted and I suspect that your lust for playing "attractive positive possession" based football wasnt prevalent then.

Ayala had the potential to be a good signing, the intention was to sign 2 centre backs and it never materialised. Throw in a poor signing at LB and its little wonder we still dont keep clean sheets.

If you was a Stoke fan and saw your team play as they did and win today, or saw us how we played v Bournemouth/Watford/Newcastle, much more expansively and lost, in which situation would you be happiest post game?

The most important thing is the result which was never in doubt. They scored early and changed the game, always had us at arms length, they had no need to provoke an expansive game. If that was us and we won like that, you would be correctly saying its the result that matters. We didnt create a good chance all game. They are also missing their main 2 keepers so need to protect their young keeper recalled from a League 1 loan, are missing their 3 main CM's in Mikel, Allen and Clucas so cant control the midfield as they may have preferred and are missing Tyrese Campbell, their main threat going forward, so maybe became more pragmatic. We are missing players and blame it to the hilt but they were equally depleted. Snobbiness towards other styles is totally unconstructive and bizarre, they won, we lost, end of.

I dont get how Stoke didnt deserve the win. The game did become played solely in their half but obviously that was as a result of their early lead. They managed the game brilliantly and at no point did we ever appear to be about to score. They allowed us to pass it around in front of them and we never had the guile, the craft or the invention to break them down and even create decent chances, never mind score.

Theres a lot of talk about "the squad" that Mowbay has built. I am not convinced it is as good as we think it is aside from a few (4?) undoubtedly impressive individuals that Mowbray has signed, mainly along the front. Dack when back, Armstrong, Elliott, cant argue with those 3. Kaminski in goal, a big improvement. Defence, basically the same aside from Ayala who cannot be relied upon. Midfield, lots of players who flatter to deceive to varying degrees, Holtby, Rothwell, Johnson, Davenport, Trybull. Gallagher a waste of time. Brereton better but nowhere near 7m. Dolan, Chapman, meh. Sick of the injuries line too, all teams have suffered. Bristol City had 7 or 8 starters out the other week, Stoke had their 2 keepers, 3 main CM's and main attacking player all out amongst others, Norwich had quite a few out, its just how it is this season.

I suspect that goals will be conceded with either to be fair, the answer has to come externally.

Not good enough yet again. Our record v the top half cannot be defended, and we can not defend in general, you do not get anywhere conceding goals in basically every game. Plenty of looking down on how Stoke played, which is baseless snobbiness. Never ever did we look like scoring, Stoke played the game perfectly to ensure that their win was never in doubt, which is why they are in the play off picture and under Mowbray, we wont be. Performance wise, Nyambe was the pick of the bunch. Douglas I thought was better than usual, unlucky not to score and tidy enough, but hes not going to improve our goals against column. Johnson looked out of place for the first few minutes and they scored during that time, after that, him Lenihan and Kaminski could have gone home. Trybull was a bit tidier, Holtby and Rothwell again flattered to deceive, they simply do not do enough to guarantee selection and are lucky that there isnt much pressure, and indeed that Mowbray doesnt think Downing fits with "how we want to play." When Dack is back I would suggest a change in formation with an acceptance that the current style hasnt improved us. Elliott obviously on a different level, Gallagher shocking and Armstrong quiet. The substitutions were bizarre and seemed like they were done for the sake of it. Butterworth and Dolan didnt impact the game, the latter rarely does, he is still very raw. Taking off Nyambe was just absolutely bizarre. If Mowbray is to be believed, we are going on a journey, but it isnt anywhere productive.

Plenty of huffing and puffing, side to side passes, nothing substantial, no shots on target and yet another game without a clean sheet. A lot of totally unsubstantiated snobbery from the commentators towards Stokes style too.

If we cant bring anyone in to strengthen defence in January I suspect we will struggle to have much hope of the top 6 due to how thin on the ground we are. But if we have no money, would it be better to recall Mulgrew? I know that he isnt up to it but he would surely be less of an issue playing him in defence compared to the current alternatives of Johnson and Buckley!

Stoke missing a few players, Adam Davies, Angus Gunn, John Obi Mikel, Joe Allen, Sam Clucas, Tyrese Campbell and Lee Gregory all out.

Bell has been consistently poor throughout his entire Rovers career to be fair, as bad and worse as Douglas has been including midweek when he came on and was as bad if not worse than Douglas. Neither can defend and Douglas is another attempt at patching up our left back problem rather than solve it. But I suppose at least Douglas does have previous history of success at this level even if it seems unlikely that he can get to a similar level. Douglas at least is not technically incapable whereas Bell often shanks the ball back into danger or into touch, and he does offer us something albeit going forward which is not the priority for a left back. Bell has benefitted hugely from being out the team, with people forgetting how bad he is!

Its unsurprising that the defence is the area in which we are exposed. The supposed initial intention was to get 2 centre backs in the summer, instead we got one with a constant injury history. Out of the options remaining, Johnson at CB may prove to be the least worrying, Buckley at RB or Carter at CB both arent up to it. One thing is for sure, regardless of current plans, we HAVE to sign a defender in January otherwise it WILL cost us.