My point is more that the league table for the under 23s is not that meaningful. The purpose of the league is development, not finishing as well as possible, obviously thats a bonus. Of course, the first statement is an opinion. I dont think that Lewis Travis gets close to Man United team, thats not a slight on him because we arent at that standard, none of our players get close to it. There is also Rashford and Greenwood to consider, special talents who broke through very quickly. I think its dangerous to label a whole clutch of young players as better, worse or indeed equal based on performance in the under 23s league, thats my point. Indeed all youth players need to be judged individually for a start, Travis shouldnt be judged in the same batch as say Magloire as if they are on par, because they arent. That is something you touch on, dismissing our younger players compared to United, but conversely you cant do similar based on their under 23 league position, because as mentioned earlier, the under 23 league is just one of many tools that clubs have to develop their players, not a perfect gauge of how good a clubs younger players are.

Thats an incredibly big claim to say that its all about perception. Did McTominay even play much for their under 23s at United? Travis might be a very good player at our level but he certainly isnt on McTominays level, never mind Buckley. I remember you making a similar comparison between Hudson Odoi and Rankin Costello, but theres no way that the latter makes a big impact for England and Chelsea. The under 23s league is essentially a tool, for example McTominay will be coming up against top class midfielders in training every day. League tables at that level of course are of some relevance but different clubs will use it differently. Another tool is to loan players out and play real football like Wharton has done. Not saying that we shouldnt be placing importance in the kids but at the end of the day the under 23s league isnt geared as a competitive gauge in the same way that a normal league is and indeed sometimes young lads will essentialy bypass age groups. Its hard to assume that our young lads are better or worse based on the under 23 league table. They dont need to be I suppose either. Also worth factoring in that some of our young lads were let go by bigger teams which is a good tactic.

Has Warnock rejoined Cardiff in the last few days?

A quick look reveals that it is another randomer making up rumours to desperately impress a small twitter following. A couple of weeks ago the names were Manning which turned out to be bollocks due to price and Garbutt who went to Blackpool. One to be ignored.

As if he wouldnt walk into our team either.

The commentary wasnt in sync for me on Saturday so I changed to the Derby audio which had no commentary.

We dont need a centre back. (Just always wanted to say that)

Ultimately tonight was only a fitness exercise for Ayala, his quality is undoubted and playing against kids wouldnt have taught Mowbray anything. Ultimately his only real barrier at the moment is 2 clean sheets and 2 wins meaning that Williams and Lenihan have the shirts at the moment.

He could never stay fit either.

Dont tend to watch the under 23s but stuck the first half on once it became clear that Fulham Villa was over and having seen the team. Rovers primary attacking threat was Chapman, when he came in loan he was a bag of energy and pace, he definitely has lost a bit of pace but there is some substance to him and quality. Burns and Mols wouldnt really scare you as a defender. Buckley not as influential as youd want IMO. Hard to judge Ayala in a game like this because his worth comes in proper games facing proper men, but hes very vocal and looks like a senior pro playing with kids who just knows where to be and invariably is in the right place.

To be fair with Joao, he is the type of player who scores a couple of goals and does nothing for a couple of months. Unreliable.

True, I just think it easier to give attacking players cameos, rarely do you see a centre back coming on for 20 minutes unless its in addition to the defenders already to hold onto a league. The 2 week gap might come at a good time in terms of arranging a friendly or two to get minutes into Ayala, Gallagher, and maybe a few on the fringes like Davenport, Buckley, Chapman etc.

Rhodes had his most prolific season playing in his first season in a 4-4-1-1, with either Gomes, Kazim Richards, Dunn and Rochina playing as number 10s, and then towards the end of that season, in a 4-3-3/4-5-1. He got 28 league goals. He consistently scored goals for us regardless of the style played (including when we went direct to suit Gestede) the formation played or the players around him.

He was that good, he is well past his peak now, but at his peak, he was a brilliant and seemingly underappreciated Championship striker.

The 3 players at the bottom are players who were out on loan last season who have since left permanently. Ejaria was there last year, a very talented player who they made permanent.

Of course I appreciate that, and in this example, you could think what if Josh King had have played every week. But ultimately, there is no way that Rhodes could have been justifiably dropped. At that point, even though it was clearly him right at the peak of his career, he was performing to an incredibly high standard, and it wasnt a change of striker that was required.

Its difficult giving a defender minutes off the bench though which may be a problem. I would guess that he will get an hour or a full game (or a couple) between now and that first game after the break, either for the reserves or in a friendly or two. Assuming Gallagher is fit enough for the bench on Saturday, and obviously with a gap, a friendly or two in that 2 weeks might help to get a few up to speed.

Ultimately the career that players have post Rovers is irrelevant when judging their performances here. There could be a number of factors as to why Rhodes has struggled since he left. Maybe he was at his peak here, maybe his confidence has suffered, he was loved here, Karanka didnt seem to particularly want him at Boro and then he went at Sheffield Wednesday and got to the stage where he didnt take a penalty in the play offs. Conversly, Josh King only really had one or two good games here and he didnt hit the ground running at Bournemouth. His injuries seemed to decrease, playing with better players and better coaches he improved. Doesnt mean that we werent right to play the 2 strikers scoring 20 goals each. Compare Nikola Kalinic and Roque Santa Cruz, the former has had a far better career since he left Rovers than the other, but it doesnt mean that he was a better player for Rovers.

I know without the use of videos that Johnson was and is a liability at taking the ball on the half turn. The amount of times he played us into trouble last year doing so was plenty. The higher press/different tactics coupled with his seemingly improved fitness seems to suit him, and he also seems to be getting forward more, hence the goals.

We cant rely on kids behind Williams and Ayala. We know that over the course of a season, as much as he has played well in these last 2 games, Williams wont be a first choice CB for a top 6 team over the course of a season, whereas we win far more points with Lenihan playing than without. Keep the 3 and then we have some scope to cover for an injury, Carter and Magloire for example arent ready to continue at the level we need at this stage. Also, regarding sell ons, I still think that people are being optimistic thinking that the money will be added onto the budget at any point. It will surely just go to help cover running costs. Another thing, I heard Watford linked to Ryan Manning on the second tier podcast. Not one that is relevant to us with our budget but worth mentioning.

Johnson is poor at taking the ball on the half turn from the defence, last season he was always good for losing the ball at least once a game. The tactics at the moment seem to not expect him to do that which is ideal.

Theres more than one way to skin a cat. Rhodes throughout his time here was performing at a level worthy of challenging for promotion. It was the rest of the team and the manager that stopped us.

One last thing, and to be fair there is very little going on that is on topic anyway! But it was a myth that we ever built the team around him. He scored goals in a team in the first year in which we were dysfunctional across the team, had a lack of quality out wide, a lazy central pair and a series of different players playing as a 10. He scored nearly 30 goals. Then we changed again to the team in the early Bowyer days and he scored more than 20. Then we signed Gestede and Conway, changed to a 4-4-2 and mainly played to the strengths of Gestede, getting in plenty of crosses, that didnt stop Rhodes scoring. Then we sold most of our best players and Rhodes still kept on scoring until he left. He played in quite a few teams, some that struggled, with different partners and different styles and the only thing that stayed the same was the goals he scored. He often scored crucial goals in games that we didnt play well in.

By the same token, Armstrong was the one who stopped us from getting into the top 6 last year. He only got 16 goals whereas if he had got 25 we might have got into the top 6. Lets not focus on the inept goalkeeper, shaky defence and lack of balance. If a striker is scoring 20 plus goals then he is doing his job, even before you appreciate that Rhodes wasnt quite as one dimensional as people made out. The reasons we couldnt make the top 6 were Lowe and Williamson in midfield, a leaky defence, poor goalkeepers in an overweight Robinson (post blood clot) and a terrible Steele, a manager who rarely outwitted his opposition etc. Not the striker who was consistently one of the top scorers in the division.

What @Hoochie Bloochie Mama said. We didnt miss out on the top 6 because of the strikeforce.