Often buzzwords of time, faith and patience are used in the absence of constructive reasoning behind why things will turn around. I would stick with Mowbray for now but sadly that is not remotely based on any signs of progression or overcoming this long run of poor form that I have seen this season. It is solely based on his achievements prior to this season and the credit he still has in the bank from that. There seems to be a lot of talk about moving to a back 3 on here. If that what Mowbray has in mind in terms of this supposed tactical amendment to see us play possession based football, he needs to have the balls to implement it consistently. He needs to decide exactly how that will look, ie 2 number 10s off 1 striker, 1 10 off 2 strikers or even 3 central midfielders. Look at Sheffield United, everyone knows what they are doing, they play it week in, week out, everyones a perfect fit for their respective role. It is a very specialised formation that requires constant training and people who know what they are doing. Its not a formation to flick to and from with regularity. He also needs to then recruit for it. No point signing wingers afterwards and doing it half arsed. He signed Rodwell apparently to play as a centre back in a 3 and never has. Its mystifying. We would need new wing backs, Stevens and Baldock are hardly 10m signings but they know their jobs to a tee. Bell and Williams arent good enough and Bennett is not a wing back in a million years. We would also need reinforcements in central defence. There would be undoubted growing pains with such a change but I suspect that supporters would give such bumps in the road far less worry with an obvious underlying plan beneath it all.

Absolutely. People use the fact that we arent in immediate relegation danger as a badge of honour, and I would say that 15th place is the stat that matters and as a result his job shouldnt be in immediate danger. That being said, survival alone is not enough to justify a successful season, so he needs to be careful. If people want to consider survival a successful season, they should consider our wage budget and our transfer expenditure first. Mid table would potentially be progress IF there are obvious signs of longjevity, of a plan, of a base to build on. All have been totally lost within these last few months. It has not only been our recent form over a couple of months in terms of results but also the manner of the results, the performances, the fragility following a set back, the defensive disorganisation, the over reliance on Dack and Graham to score all of our goals (bar Mulgrew set pieces) and also the lack of impact from our new signings. So many stats back up the fact that the direction we are heading in is totally unclear. Mowbray has often implied that his loyalty to Smallwood and Evans and a more conservative set up is down to trust and reward from last season, but such a set up has led to a goals conceding column marrying up to our season under Coyle, as @blueboy3333 pointed out earlier. Why is he so reluctant to change? Mowbray has often talked about phasing into a more possession based approach. I appreciate that Graham is good enough to faciliate at times the most aimless of punts forward, but it doesnt suit the numerous attacking signings Mowbray has made to be trying to scratch around playing the percentages, and Graham himself is technically sound. There are some direct teams in this league, teams like Millwall and Bolton who dont have budgets like ours. To have (when I last checked) played the most long balls in the entire league is pretty startling. Why mention these philosophies if you have quite clearly no intention of even moderately phasing them in? He also occasionally flirts with the idea of 3 at the back. He tries it out seldomly, plays it for one game then reverts back straight away. Whats the point?! Its a complex formation that relies on the whole team knowing their jobs to a tee. He also signed Rodwell and bigged him up as a potential part of a back 3. Has he played him there once?! As I mentioned earlier, Wilders signings at Sheffield United are signed with quite clear capability of slipping into their progressing side with no real adjustment. They are signed specifcally for the role Wilder wants. Ours arent.

One thing I find totally bizarre is, reading many peoples thoughts on how we restructure the squad, how blatantly obvious it is that Bradley Dack is suffering from what I would call Jordan Rhodes syndrome. In spite at times of those around him, in spite of the team not playing in a way that necessarily suits him, he has consistently contributed to a very regular number of goals throughout his time here, to the point that it has become grossly underappreciated. When Dack leaves, be in no doubt that it will leave a gargantuan hole in our team. People putting forward Rothwell as a potential replacement of kind, what has he ever done to even suggest that he can get near the consistent level of Dack in terms of getting us goals? Suggesting selling him obviously also has to factor in that Mowbray could not expect all of the fee back to spend on numerous players. And how Dack is very much an exception in terms of unqualified successes from Mowbrays buys in the transfer market, with Brereton an example of what 7 million gets Mowbray. I find Sheffield United an interesting comparison in terms of a fairly common reference point that I have seen our fans use. I don't see anything like the same level of consistency in terms of results, or the same obvious signs of a plan coming into place. They finished 10th last season, doing well but running out of steam. Then came the transfer window, in which their gem David Brooks was sold, admittedly a player who hadnt got the consistency of goals as Dack has for us. But Wilder has progressed in the team in spite of a star player leaving. By spending 7 million on a striker who made his first start in the last game of the year, and has yet to score? No, but by signing a perfect dominant centre back to enhance them defensively, and Norwood, a superb Championship central midfielder to help dictate the play with Fleck. Added to that, he made a very shrewd signing I suggested we should have looked at in David McGoldrick and there are tangible improvements right down the spine of the team. Whereas bar Reed, all of our signings spend most of the time sat on their arses on the bench or in the stands. His team has a clear identity, and no surplus of excess players lacking a specific role within it. You look at aspects of his team, 2 outside centre backs often contributing to attacks, 2 really reliable wing backs, 2 central midfielders who dominate possession and get Duffy in the hole. When Basham was sent off, it didnt seem to affect them one jot, if anything, their red card seemed to confuse our lot! I am not saying we need to copy their style or their formation, I would just like to see an obvious plan, thats when setbacks become easier to stomach because you know they are just bumps in the road, rather than the disarray we seem to have found ourselves in. If he genuinely does have a transformation of style in mind, which he has mentioned numerous times and he will need to change to implement Brereton and Armstrong as strikers as he has discussed long term, the second half of the season has to be the time to phase it in.

Clutching at straws for me. Look at the team under Coyle and most of the time we were edged out. It was the frequency of that happening, and of us leaking goals that made it clear there was nothing to suggest that those fine margins would swing consistently in our favour. A team with the momentum of a promotion behind it and one hardly cheap to assemble and sustain shouldnt be so fragile. There are so many symptoms of a team not working to anywhere near what it should be. In our run of 1 win in 8, weve lost 2 by 3 goals, 1 by 2 goals, 2 more with late goals, weve picked up 1 point from 2 games in which our opponent have suffered red cards and we are leaking goals at a Coyle like rate. The football is boring to watch and weve no idea what our best team is.

Absolute crap yet again, its easy to have team spirit beating shite like Rochdale, Fleetwood and MK Dons but the mere sniff of a setback and we fold like a deck of cards. Amazed to see so much praise pre-match for the team selection, I had my head in my hands when I saw it en route to the game. To have our only 2 goal threats (aside from our set piece taking centre back) on the bench is more madness than brave. His subs again were very poor. Dack up front does not work, to do it whilst a man to the advantage was totally bizarre with Graham on the bench. Einstein had it bang on; the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Palmer was also our best attacking player so to take him off was very strange. Bennett is never a right back, as was already apparent, Williams isnt a footballer and god knows what has happened to Lenihan. Rothwell gave the ball away more often than I remember anyone else doing in recent history. He was shocking and often a liability in silly areas.

You've never liked a player who regularly gets a goal every other game and many assists? And no mention of our other goalscorer amidst a team devoid of creativity? And I'm guessing you didnt go today if Rothwell is his replacement.

Im not really sure what the point you are making is? Yes poor runs are inevitable at some point but of course they will attract criticism. Do you think they shouldnt? If you was a City fan would you currently totally ignore any mistakes they have made lately because"did anyone seriously expect them to not have a bad run of form?!"

You may well be right. I am always assuming that Mowbray has made the final decision in regards to footballing matters. Same with the Brereton deal. I have just assumed that he was the one who signed it off in the absence of anything concrete to suggest otherwise. As you say, he may be limited or have been told to accept certain conditions by those above him.

It was more just a general point about an issue I have with the effectiveness of our current set up. Notably that we presumably play direct, low risk, percentage football with onus on 2 players to get our goals in order to make us solid and hard to beat. The stats prove that they arent doing that at the moment. I feel like both Mowbray tactically and also the individuals themselves, notably Armstrong, Bennett, Palmer, Rothwell etc share the blame for the lack of goals from other areas.

I would like to think that Mowbray isnt necessarily as black and white as that in terms of goalscoring responsibilities. Sadly, im not too sure. I know you will perceive this as me having an agenda etc against Bennett, but I don't believe that you can play wide men that aren't at least partially judged on their contributions to goals. That is as much a criticism of our tactics as much as anything else. Most teams are mostly reliant on their strikeforce for goals but ours, in addition to direct set pieces from our centre back, we are in my opinion far, far too reliant on them. Presumably the reason that we adopt such direct tactics, reliant on knock downs and the front 2 getting all of the goals are mainly geared towards being hard to beat and organised. Considering that only 5 teams have conceded more goals than us, added to our rotten recent form, and surely its time for a re-think!

Going off on a tangent, I have never seen anyone doubt Bennett's work rate, effort or integrity. That being said, that should not be enough to warrant selection alone. We are no longer going through a spell whereby commitment is what we are crying out for. The point in bold does you no favours. I do appreciate Bennett's qualities, and possibly would bring him back into the team when fit again. But theres a middle ground between taking 4 players on and scoring, and simply giving 100%. Giving 100% should be the very minimum anyone can offer, and I dont suspect that any of our players are not giving there all. If thats all we are asking though to get into our team, then there are issues. I have often questioned Bennetts attacking output, ie his lack of goals and assists, and I stand by that over the last year and a half, he hasnt contributed enough to goals. He shouldnt be beyond such conversation solely based on his desire.

Ive not seen many hold the relegation against Mowbray (the fanbase was mainly in approval of him staying on) but no matter how you sugar coat it, the season he came in, his first brief was to keep us up and he failed. Talk about extrapolating his results is worthless, against mainly teams that had nothing to play for. Survival was always a difficult target but one that could have been achieved with one more point. Luckily for us all he did enough to convince us and the owners amidst failure that he was the man to take us into League 1. It was his work last season that has given him a place in Rovers fans hearts. For the record I dont want Mowbray sacked. But I think many have chose to underestimate and downplay their expectations. Our wage bill is 10th to 16th so we are within the range we should be, not taking into account the very generous budget he had on transfer fees which brings up big, big questions. Anyone who mentions survival as the aim is being very unambitious to say the least. You touch upon the key area where Mowbray perhaps has come or may come unstuck and that is in his recruitment. He often talks about x number of windows but based on previous windows, is that going to work as well as he thinks it will? Hes shown no real signs of developing towards the style of play he often talks about and presumably the style to which he intended to use his new signings in, leaving them kicking their heels on the sidelines. Ive always held question marks about him in terms of his recruitment. Overall, and especially this summer, its been poor. Hes totally ignored the foreign market for whatever reason. The Dack deal is very much the exception in terms of recruiting to develop. I feel like his strengths have been what he has got from predominantly the players he inherited and also the team spirit he has managed to consistently foster. We will need more than that as the windows and the seasons move on.

I suspect that it might be Armstrong and Dack both off Graham, rather than Armstrong alongside Graham. Thats how it has been in the past anyway.

Found these comments interesting: https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/17318168.brereton-not-suffering-from-confidence-dip-says-mowbray/ "Danny is an important player for our team,” Mowbray said. “We’re not a possession based, keep the ball, 50 passes team. We know how we play, we try and play in the opposition half as much as we can. “Danny is a big part of that.” Mowbray has preached about changing to a more aesthetically pleasing passing style numerous times. That quote suggests that the direct, unimaginative and often ineffective style that we currently adopt is not going to change any time soon. I dont think there is a right way or a wrong way of playing but I do think that the current way is predictable and it perhaps highlights the deficiencies of our summer recruitment that most of his signings are kicking their heels on the sidelines whilst the adaptation to a style of play Mowbray clearly wants is put on hold.

Your wage figures are total guesses. I am willing to agree that he will be on a less wage than the likes of Bamford and Grabban. But I find it baffling that a player who cost an initial fee of probably close to the combined fees paid for various players since the summer we signed Rhodes and Best is not a risk in your eyes. It IS a big transfer fee. The main point that I have been making is that thus far, I have not seen any potential that has made me think there is a player there to be had if he develops over time. He does have time but from what I have seen, there is no element of his game that strikes me as having potential. To be fair youve even acknowledged that it hasnt worked out on the pitch thus far. As I said above I totally appreciate the notion of signing players to profit on. Bar Dack, I believe that the other signings he has made under that criteria would either incur a loss or at best breaking even but you arent appreciating that all of them deals combined didnt cost as much as Brereton. To answer your questions, A is a no and C at the moment looks like a no.

I dont think there is a magic number in regards to % of experience v youth, but I do totally empathise with a model of signing predominantly younger players to develop. I do think however that its not as black and white as that, in that each signing or "investment" has to be judged on the merits of that individual player, something which at times many of those defending Brereton have failed to do. Yes I understand signing younger players to develop, thats not the issue I have with him. Dack is very much a perfect example of such a policy. Signed for less than a million with a promising reputation, now his value has multiplied many times over. Also with a nod to the experience left in the side, he is tangibly benifitting from having Graham alongside him. I sadly do think that he is the only one thus far that shows strong signs of potentially reaping a profit. Mowbray could argue that Dack alone would cover the cost of the rest of his "projects" but I still would argue that the recruitment has been poor on that front. In terms of any of his other signings under the idea of a project, how many of them have shown that we can profit from them? From last season, he signed Bell who has not developed and I would suggest we would be lucky to recoup the fee we paid for him. Samuel like Bell had raw phsyciality on his side but last season at a lower level he failed to justify his 500k price tag and I suspect we wouldnt have recouped that even prior to his injury. Nuttall would be a maybe having been picked up for free but any fee would be nominal. Moving on to this season and Davenport and Rothwell had all the hallmarks of potentially profitable assets, Davenports passing range and Rothwells ability to beat players, coupled with fees of below half a million suggested that they were low risk and high reward signings. Davenports not kicked a ball yet and Rothwell has been for some reason totally ignored really. You then look at Armstrong, and he seems to be having a bit of an identity crisis and there arent signs that hes developed since we bought him outright. Brereton in terms of cost is a massive, massive investment, regardless of how much @Biz tries to downplay the finances. All of the other deals I have mentioned have been at a fraction of the Brereton fee. The low risk element of all of the other deals is eliminated when you spend 7m. And most worryingly, I saw something in all of the other players that made me think, "I understand what he is, I can see an obvious strength to his game that could be nurtured" even if it hasnt worked out like that. Bell, Armstrong and Samuel have pace, Rothwell an ability to run at players, Nuttall an ability to score goals, Davenport a passing range. Dont see anything from Brereton as of yet. I do think signing younger players in the main is a healthy philosophy to have but we need to be more successful in terms of both finding and then developing those players once they sign. I do think that bar Dack, the 3 players that have developed the most under Mowbray have been Nyambe, Raya and Lenihan. All 3 make their share of mistakes but all 3 have an obvious talent. All whose time at the club precedes Mowbrays time here.

Mowbray has often stated that he strives for a scenario where its a struggle to name an 18 and leave a few players out. A matchday squad isnt an open and shut case and injuries/poor performance by others will inevitably open the door for him again sooner rather than later. I personally would have Palmer on the bench, and Brereton would be removed in favour of Nuttall. Yes Gladwin has been a poor signing, and we all hope (contrary to some) that Brereton turns into anything but. All I am saying is we can only judge Brereton on 4/5 months and thus far I don't see any signs, any glimmers, any raw attributes that could develop into him

I am basing my judgements on him based on his appearances in a Rovers shirt. The only time I remember watching him prior to joining was against Arsenal when he put in a superb performance. Why do you keep obsessing about training performances? As much as training is obviously critically important, if a player is unable to have an impact on game then his training performances become irrelevant. We are in an internet messageboard, we dont live in a hypothetical world where we see everything that happens in training and behind the scenes. If for some reason you was picking the team for Leeds away, would you include Kasey Palmer in the matchday squad? Who said we need to "bin them off?" Take the Brereton situation, hes not a impressing when hes brought on, now I am unconvinced by Joe Nuttall in general but considering his recent hot streak in the reserves, and he has shown that whilst his game is definitely raw, he definitely at least possesses the ability to sniff out a chance and take it. Brereton has had plenty of chances off the bench and not suggested that he warrants further ones any more than Nuttall does, I think you could argue, at this moment in time. My judgement on Gladwin was nothing to do with the "tattoos and pints stories" that you reference on here. He looked really poor even aside from the Plymouth miss that I presume that you are referring to.

Of course I am basing my opinion on his time in a Rovers shirt, what else would I judge him on?! I know he is 19, that would justify a rawness to his game, occasional poor decisions, inconsistency. Patience doesnt mean not passing comment on him at all until he reaches a certain age. I don't see any element in his game based on his appearances thus far that makes me think "hes young but he could develop into a good player." He is weak and lacks the ability to hold the ball up, sure he could bulk up in the gym. I was under the impression that he has a bit of pace and could run at players, I've yet to see it at all. There were 2 or 3 times today alone were he tried taking people on and lacked the acceleration to do so. His first touch is shocking and hes incredibly clumsy and cumbersome. He frequently shows a lack of intelligence and understanding both on and off the ball. And his lack of goal threat is given further context when you see his record at Forest. In fact the only 2 things that give me any blind faith are ironically his price tag as well as his reputation. I'm not asking for or expecting the final product or the fully developed player at 19. I expect a rawness, I expect inconsistencies, I expect drops in form, I just want something to say yeah we have a potentially good player here. Its not arrogance to have an opinion contrary to that of the manager, regardless of what he sees in training, and regardless of the fact that hes obviously a manager and we are not. The only time it matters is on a match day when we both see as much as Mowbray does. Gladwin was apparently the best player in training according to Mowbray but on the pitch he was as useful as a dustbin. I think highly of the manager too, but I come on an internet messageboard to see a variety of opinions, just because Mowbray has done a good job doesnt make his judgement perfect or his decision making beyond reproach. If you think Palmer is lazy and clueless, why do you not question his inclusion in the squad? Do you not trust your own judgement and vision? Such a strange thing to say.

But recently he has often come on more centrally. He came on against Birmingham centrally and was equally poor. Hes not showing any attributes to suggest that he could be effective in either position. Absolutely right. Many defend Brereton on the fact that his price tag is too much of a factor in peoples judgements, when it could be argued that its the only thing that keeps him in the 18. Celina is a number 10. The fact that we apparently wanted him is further indicative of Mowbrays bizarre mindset of playing anyone wide bar actual natural wide men. There are 2 elements to your implication that the fans are causing (partially or fully) his lack of confidence and as a result, his poor performances. When he came on, his name was cheered. What we put on a messageboard, on social media or discuss to our friend next to us is totally irrelevant, he is oblivious to that. In terms of a few groans when he messed up or misplaced another pass, thats a natural instinct and reaction, you cant try to stop or blame that. Just as if we score the fans naturally cheer, if anyone messes up, theres a natural frustration. You need people to be brave enough and to have a thick enough skin to carry on asking for the ball. If he lacks that then he needs to be taken out of the matchday squad and out of the firing line. Patience is only warranted surely if a player is showcasing even glimmers of any attributes that could be developed or enhanced (of course baring in mind his age) to make a good player for us. What is Brereton showing? He's not fast. He's weak and flimsy. He cant hold the ball up. He isnt a goal threat, nor does his Forest record suggest he was anyway. He doesnt showcase intelligence in terms of movement or in terms of decision making. He hasnt got a good first touch. What does he do to even warrant a place in the matchday squad at the moment.

Same old story, throwing away points late on with Mowbray banging on about missed opportunities and moving on to the next game. We have very much sleepwalked into mid table mediocrity and are no longer above expectations. I would find it very difficult to empathise with anyone who feels that Mowbrays recruitment over the summer has (bar Reed, temporarily) improved us or developed the team in any way. Thought it was a scrappy and at many points even game but football is often in the small details and we seem too often to be on the wrong side of them and thats no coincedence. Graham was again absolutely outstanding, his ability to make the most aimless punt upfield into an attack is absolutely text book. Which brings me on to Brereton. He shouldnt play wide but he was absolutely hapless in general when he came on. Fed up of all the platitudes about patience, backing, bla bla bla, we can base our opinions on what weve seen, and understand hes young and raw but what can we build on? I see absolutely nothing. He's not fast, hes as weak as a kitten, his first touch makes Lukaku's look expert, and he has a blatant lack of footballing intelligence. A good example would be when him and Graham were breaking on 2 defenders and he instantly kicked the ball at Grahams heels. His movement is poor too. He isnt warranting a place in the 18 at the moment. Evans was decent up until his injury, as was Reed, Smallwood however should never be guaranteed a spot. His lack of passing ability coupled with his irresponsible need to slide so much and be continuously walking a tightrope in terms of his discipline means he should be no more than a squad player, Bell was much improved I thought, bar the odd mistake in possession. Nyambe kept getting forward but his carbon copy instance of being caught out by the same ball as last week is unforgivable really. Dont make the same mistake twice. Lenihan I thought was pretty good again bar some occasional incompetence on the ball, hope Mulgrew is fine for boxing day. Armstrong is never a Championship wide man, Palmer was mixed, he gives us something we lack in terms of a bit more daring and a bit of desire to get on the ball, and he did make an effort to win the ball back, but hes never a wide man either and he can be incredibly lax and indecisive. Dack was very quiet. And what does Rothwell need to do to get a chance? Mowbray, weve won 1 in 7 and hit a bit of a brick wall. Our defence is leaky and our attack is lacking in ideas and totally reliant on Dack and Graham. Its time to move away from the same ideas that are going stale, its time to bring in more of YOUR signings, to stop being blindly loyal to the same underperforming players (Armstrong and Smallwood being 2 examples) and its time to stop the rut.

He is here permanently, he has signed long term, the only reason your mindset could apply is if there was any doubt that it would become permanent afterwards,

The loan spell is a technicality and nothing more. The only reason he is on loan was to allow the deal to go through outside the transfer window, but he signed on a permanent deal straight away for all intents and purposes. It would make no sense to consider the period in which he was on loan as any different from when his permanent contract commences. Im not saying there shouldnt be an element of bedding in, just that the fact that hes technically on loan initially shouldnt make a blind bit of difference.

Absence maybe doesnt make the heart grow fonder, but seemingly youve forgotten how awful he was in the games he played last year, thats before the setback of being out injured for more than a season, very much justifying the ridicule from QPR fans upon arrival. I suspect that Gladwin will never play for us again and I am very happy with that. Hes not good enough, and he never will be good enough. 17 in 76 goals in the Championship in the last 2 years isnt the best. All being said, I hope our scouting isnt limited to former players. I dont think a striker should be priority number 1 anyway to be honest.

Its not hate. Gallagher was weak and incapable of holding the ball up, especially as a lone striker. It wouldnt make any sense to sign him on a temporary deal, his goal record in the Championship is very underwhelming and hes not played all season. Id suggest he is pretty similar in style to Brereton, tall, lanky, not the strongest, and fairly quick. Neither have particularly impressive goal records as of yet. It would bring the signing of Brereton into further disrepute if we signed Gallagher on loan and he played at the expense of our own player whose development would be further stunted. It would also show a lack of imagination in the transfer market to sign them 2. We dont need more impact subs in wide areas, we need a first team one.