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,

As others have pointed out, our stats are skewed within the pre Mowbray years, whilst not including 2 of the 3 summers Mowbray has had in the Championship due to accounts not being published. Net spend of minus £30m prior to his arrival, £8m net spend in his first season after spending a couple of million in League 1. They also miss out the most recent years when Mowbray has continued to spend because the accounts have yet to be published for those years when we have a net spend of another 3 or 4 million. They dont factor in that he has had more time to build than any of those other managers, that is key, even if other teams have spent more specifically in the last couple of years, which isnt shown, it may have been by more than one manager. He also has a very competitive wage budget, he following that graphic has signed Gallagher, Holtby, Johnson, Downing, Kaminski, Ayala, Douglas, Trybull, Elliott etc, our wage bill will be massively increased you would suspect but that is not considered. Even if Mowbray has done a good job, and I would argue he has, it doesnt mean that he is a "victim of his own success" or that he is the manager to take us forward. We seem to be unable to push past inconsistent middle of the road results regardless of tangible improvements made to the squad, Kaminski and Elliott the obvious 2. If we "have a squad that can compete at the top of the division" which is a very subjective comment lacking any evidence until we actually do that, surely he is underachieving? Surely that only validates the opinion of those who feel that we need a change, if we have a side that should be competing at the top and never has done.

Mainly because Dack has been consistently brilliant for us as a number 10. Regardless of the glory years at Gillingham. His numbers are so high and being a number 10 allows him to make an impact as he does in the final third. He is not someone who controls games and when he drops deep he tends to render himself ineffective. Its not as if the change of formation has improved our results and cannot be changed, 4-3-3 has not seen us pick up more points and the effectiveness of Holtby and Rothwell is far less than Dack when he is fit to start. It makes sense to build around our best players, Dack is a 10, Armstrong thrives centrally, Elliott is best on the right and Brereton the left. Have them in a 4-2-3-1 and then Travis can come back in alongside Johnson in CM.

Great news and unexpected to hear that Dack has signed a longer contract. I do fear that he will be squeezed into a midfield 3 which doesnt suit him but I cannot wait to see him back as soon as possible. He is a goalscorer so the number 10 role is perfect, and ultimately he shouldn't be compromised to benefit inferior players.

Has he stopped? Even in the first half of the reserves when watching last night, a couple of times he tried step overs, more often than not he does numerous step overs without getting anywhere so its a sign of how raw his game is which is to be expected, an area that requires refinement and to be used more efficiently. Tricks are obviously a part of his game though so its getting the balance right between encouraging him to be positive and discouraging him from over-doing it, but I havent really noticed any signs that he has been "Mowbrayed."

Thats your theory, not evidence.

Even if people want him sacked, lets be honest, there is no real scope for getting behind anyone at the moment now we cannot attend, and even if we could go, people wouldnt be giving him any stick, so no doubts there.

Mowbray even when needing a goal is unwilling to change the system and even if he is having a poor game, youd never take off Armstrong for Gallagher because the former is always more likely to score. If Gallagher asked to be a striker and a striker only he would be massively reducing any chance of game time and im sure hed rather play out of position rather than not at all. He should only be considered as a striker and very much 2nd choice but I can understand why he doesnt insist on being a striker only.

.

Even if it was agreed that we "are where we should be," which is an incredibly flawed statement in that Mowbray has had more time than any other manager in the league, (bar Ainsworth) the luxury of no key player sales, a competitive budget and there is also the fact that results havent improved in spite of obvious tangible personnel improvements to the playing squad. Being where we should be is of little use. Even if you considered the top 6 to be overachievement, which again makes the publically agreed objective of a top 6 finish not only this season but last season bizarre, then overachievement is what we need. In a league that I think lacks quality in the main to be honest, the scope for improvement from where we are to the top 6 and the reward that brings is much less of a gap compared to the amount we would need to fall to be in serious danger amidst the crap at the bottom. People will point to the previous relegation but that was not long after an embargo, with a skeleton squad and with a manager who was particularly poor to the point that he had no interest in tactics and team shape.