roversfan99

At the end of our Championship season, he used Ward in the middle of a back 3. I think when we went down to League 1 when we did play deeper that was only because that Lenihan was injured and our only 3 centre backs were Ward, Mulgrew and Downing, all slow players. So if he did play a back 3 I suspect that Ayala could play in the middle, but it is such a complex formation that it requires continuity and it seemed that it was done last night more out of necessity due to the players remaining.

It is impossible to say really based solely off a friendly and in direct opposition to a 20 million pound winger and its not as if he had a shocker. I just thought that it was worth flagging up that he looks slow and it may be a concern against quick wingers in competitive matches, the key will be if he has the intelligence to compensate for his lack of pace. I also read that his strengths lie going forward although he tended to turn back and at one stage he took too long to get the ball out of his feet and a good counter attack fell apart. He did put a decent ball to the back post at one point that was nodded behind. Obviously a friendly is very much not something to take many conclusions from, it is just interesting to get a first impression of our sole new (sort of) signing and what type of player he is. And id like to think that for a player that cost over half a million and will be our only new addition to last seasons team that will have cost money, that the standards are above merely being better than 2 incompetent players. I think that 3/5 at the back tends to need to be played week in week out like Sheffield United did for players to get that continuity. Does it suit our squad though, thats the question? None of our centre backs seem comfortable in bringing the ball out from the back. I personally think that Nyambe is more suited to being a full back which relies less on his attacking output which is very limited and more on his one on one defending where he is strong. Pickering with his lack of pace may also suit being a full back although im obviously less sure on him having never seen him competitively.

The likelihood of us being that solid every week with kids is very unlikely, and we also have some players to come back in, plus obviously we need more. Its ok doing yourselves proud in a friendly at half pace but when you lose a couple of league games in a row against at times technically average but physical players bullying you, you need experience and proven quality. There is a balance that you need of experience and youth.

Where did I write Pickering off? I passed comment on him having been particularly interested to see how he performed as a new face in a friendly, judging as a one off performance based on what are my first impressions. I even acknowledged Raphinha's obvious quality, but I thought that Pickering looked slower than I had expected/hoped and he also was very conservative when he got the ball further up. But I have not written him off and you concluding that is an exaggeration on your behalf. And I thought that Magloire once or twice did a couple of good bits and pieces defensivsly but technically looked well off it, touches playing himself into trouble etc. Hardly a disaster of a performance or a particularly poor one, just not one that gave me any confidence, although it was a friendly against some very good players. I do think that we need a new CB but even without one he will struggle to get into the first team in my opinion.

I obviously didnt expect any vocal dissent but I was surprised to hear "Tony Mowbrays blue and white army" and even "Mowbrays got them playing the way that the Rovers should."

That only works on the assumption that the player brought in is not very good or not ready. If a loan player is better than what we already have then its a different story and a deal should be pursued. Carter played a few league games for our first team and was well off, signing a Harwood Bellis is a considerable upgrade and is a good signing, maybe with Carter then getting game time elsewhere, as even without a signing there, with Wharton, Lenihan and Ayala, he might struggle for game time elsewhere. Its all about the quality of the loanees. If its a loanee like Reed, get him in, if its a Jack Byrne, may aswell prioritise Davenport and Buckley. If its an Elliott, again get him in, if its a Samuelsen, we may aswell play Dolan. Its not as if Mowbray doesnt play young players, in fact we dont have enough experience, which would be my main worry regarding loanees.

Mowbray said that Rothwell will train tomorrow but missed today and indeed has been hindered in pre-season with a bad back. Seems that one is wrong. No mention of Reach either.

"We had a sponsor picture before the game and because it was a betting company they needed players over 25 and we only had two in the dressing room!" Then goes on to say that we are signing youngsters on loan from "super clubs."

A very backs to the wall performance full of determination by an incredibly young side, really impressive and really good to be back in Ewood. That being said, if the squad is anything like that v Swansea, we are in trouble really. Was looking forward to seeing Pickering and came away underwhelmed. He is rather slow and the admittedly very good Raphinha found it so easy to get past him, and he was very slow and indecisive going forward too. I thought that the wing back formation would suit him but he doesn't seem to be dynamic enough. Nyambe was better although he doesn't really have the end product to be a wing back. I seem to be in a minority but I thought that Magloire looked out of place, very poor technically. Thought Carter and Lenihan were better. First chance to look at Kaminski and he is such a steady presence and made a few very good saves, although like last season, his kicking is poor. Going forward we offered little threat, Buckley was inventive although I am not sure that the position today suited him, some lovely touches though. The formation is an interesting one, not sure if it was done out of necessity due to unavailability or it is something that will be used going forward, I can see pros and cons to it. Davenport full of energy as was Garrett who settled in well although we didnt have the players really to keep the ball. We need strengthening there. The kids that came on did themselves proud in their cameos. Have the prices in the concourses gone massively up, a pint of Amstel for a fiver?!

What an utterly depressing first team squad we have left.

He was last season and on the back of also losing Holtby, Downing, Evans and Trybull, we look so depleted there.

He has but it makes no sense to sign a replacement who has filled in there on occasion. We also need a winger so if Rothwell goes, it just means that we need 3 central midfielders rather than 2.

Reach wouldnt be a direct replacement in that Rothwell has been played centrally whereas Reach is a left winger.

Where is this from?

I would hope not, he was hopeless last season!

I wonder if the weather will put the game in jeopardy?

I meant the bigger clubs will find him more appealing in the likelihood that he doesnt suffer a serious injury. I get why the club is holding out for as much as it can but we are in such a weak position that is self inflicted that the 2 options may be to accept less than we would have ideally liked or to let him go for a free, and the latter cannot be an option.

At the moment, obviously the power is very much in his court, and if we choose not to sell him now, he is best advised to run his contract down. Bigger teams will find a player of his ability even more appealing on a free. The serious injury is unlikely but if it happened, that would of course weaken his power and possibly put off other clubs, but if the options were to release a seriously injured Armstrong or offer him a long term deal, we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we didnt choose the latter, and it would probably be his best option too. So even in the worst case scenario, he would be able to get a contract I suspect.

That would be a concern as he has not shown signs that he is capable of being anything like a key player for a Championship side. What makes you say that?

Even if he did get a serious injury, like Dack he would still be then offered a contract here which he could still take as a secure fall back option. He would still only be 25 at the end of his contract so from our point of view, it would be worth offering him say a 3 year deal and writing off the first. The power is very much with Armstrong regardless and he would be ill advised to renew.

If teams refused to go above 15m, would you keep him?

If we do sign Reach, he should be played as a left winger, thats where he is best.

The Rothwell one is very much the result of a random guessing game, but even if he did leave, surely Reach is more of a replacement for the void filled by Elliott.

He has played for England C, which I think is non-league only, certainly not a full England player. Currently at the Gold Cup with Jamaica although I think they may have been knocked out.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19471899.blackburn-rovers-running-make-adam-reach-first-signing/ Contract offer in for Adam Reach. Would be mixed on this one, good age with experience at this level, has the technical ability to score goals and create goals, but not well thought of at his previous club amid suggestions of cowardice and bottling tackles in a relegation fight! Certainly a downgrade on Elliott but at least he would be a permanent signing. Could be a bit of an acid test, if this one slips away as well then it really would not look good.