I think this is a very big, unfair assumption to make to presume that the primary reason for his lack of involvement is off the field hype, being on TV etc. Firstly, I think that your comments under-appreciate the importance of the goals, which have always been the main part of his game. Even last season, he wasnt dominating possession every week. Our tactics are not conducive to our attacking players. We have played the most long balls in the league. That doesnt seem to change much regardless of whether Graham plays or not. If you play Dack and Palmer together centrally with no focal point, you are not playing to his strengths. Mowbray has to take the flak for playing Dack as a striker in a role that totally doesnt suit him, and learn from it and not be too stubborn to stop resorting to it whenever Graham isnt fit enough to start. He has spent 9m on strikers in the summer, he has no excuse. As others have said, he has contributed to the majority of our goals so wed be lost without him. Bell has been consistently bad all season, both of our left backs are crap, and thats the only area of the defence where we have back up. Fair play to disagreeing with the team selection, but going one further, I don't understand how you can even understand it. We are the team most reliant on long balls in the league. To play Palmer and Dack up front (essentially) is stupidity from Mowbray. Why spend 9m on strikers and not play them there? Why are you unable to judge games in isolation? Our league performance has nothing to do with how we played yesterday, in the Preston away match thread. If BRFCS is just a pit of "doom and gloom" why do you even bother with it? No need for that comment.

No he cant but the service is hardly going to be good in that Ipswich team is it?! Graham has been excellent in general this season, in that his hold up has made the best out of very poor service and too many long balls, providing the perfect foil for Dack to score so many. That said, I am happy to say that he has not scored enough goals. You do seem to have a strong liking for Lambert but theres no way of painting 2 points from 3 games in anything but a negative light. First time I have seen them under Lambert but they were poor and a narrow defeat flattered them.

How many games did you see them play may I ask? They arent after good performances, although tonights certainly wasnt a good performance. It wasnt a good game but the scoreline flattered Ipswich. Not too sure where this notion that Lambert wants Gallagher has come from, but he didnt have the Coyle excuse when he barely scored at Birmingham last season.

Ipswich looked poor, 2 points from 3 games is not a good start in anyones book. Lambert actually had a bit of a bounce here (7 points in 3 games) but its not happened at Ipswich. They only gave themselves a chance due to a terrible West Brom mistake putting them through on goal. I still think theyve made a mess of their managerial appointment, to go via another managerial gamble that backfired to Lambert from McCarthy in a matter of months with a poor squad is a recipe for disaster. I also dont think signing a striker who cant hold the ball up and whose goal record is to be kind average will save them. Wouldnt mind seeing them go down as assuming we dont somehow go up then its not a particularly attractive or historically productive away day for us.

I may be wrong but that wasnt that done pre-Mowbray.

First half hour has been shocking.

I personally dont care about any apology from the owners, but I appreciate that it matters to some. Mowbrays comments saying they dont need to apologise shows complete ignorance to whats gone before him. Not as cut and dried as that. A decrease in price of tickets would cause an increase in attendances. Waggott displayed his ignorance towards our history with recent comments about attendances prior to his appointment.

Seems like they can go one of 2 ways, go for a younger more revolutionary manager with onus on a long term project or a McCarthy/Big Sam who can have the team well drilled and efficient from set pieces. You look at Wales for example, they seem to be going through a bit of a transition, not that im convinced by Giggs as a manager, but not only do they have 2 superstars to get them goals when things arent going well, but they also have an obvious few young talents (Ampadu, Wilson, Brooks etc) who they can build an exciting future around. Scotland are under a footballing dinasour but even they have some exciting talent (Forrest, McGregor, Fraser, Christie) that can give them some sort of attacking threat that have been unleashed somewhat recently. I look at the Irish side and going forward I see no bright sparks, no good attackers, nothing exciting coming through. Maybe its ignorance but I dont see them. The best 2 players are Coleman and Duffy, 2 good Premier League defenders. Beside that, very, very little. So I think Big Sam would be the best bet if they could afford him.

I feel more comfortable with Williams at left back personally, especially in terms of Bell's inadequacies, but the main point is that Williams can not cover both positions if needed simultaneously and I feel we do need an additional body there. If you felt like Williams was more likely to play as a centre back then maybe it would be worth bringing in an upgrade on Bell rather than the centre back I would prefer? Agreed on Rothwell, his natural talent lies in taking people on etc, something he cant really do playing deep. It has to be evolution as you say rather than revolution, we dont want to totally lose the tenacity and hard work that a midfield containing all 3 of Smallwood, Evans and Bennett gives us, but we need to look at just adding that bit of technical ability, whether it be by playing Reed more centrally, or playing Rodwell, to give us more when we are on the ball, and also allow us to play through the lines better to get Dack more involved. Considering some of the technical players we have, especially in the last third, it doesnt suit us to play long ball. Definitely would concur that we should bring him back in Jan and loan him elsewhere. Agreed. Specifying home games was a particular curiosity to me, when he is so toothless going forward.

Maguire and Johnson are both out injured for Saturday for Preston but sadly Alan Browne is fine.

The problem is that as soon as you move Williams to be a centre back, for example if Mulgrew is out for say a month, you are doubly stretched in that we only have one left back, the unimpressive Bell. What do we do if Bell and Mulgrew both get injured? If we see Williams as a centre back (which we shouldnt) then we would need a better left back. Need another body. Bennett and Rothwell are not central midfielders in a 2. Rodwell as I said above can be key for us if we want to stop being such a long ball team and create far more chances from open play. That has to be the next stage in our development and one Mowbray has mentioned.

To play devils advocate and put the shoe on the other foot, would you have a similar desire to develop a young loanee if he was here from another club? Look at Palmer for example. We signed him as well as Rothwell and Armstrong, and his game time has diminished as a result. Chelsea could have the same complaints of us as we do of Lincoln. Think the best bet mind you is to recall him in January and loan him out to someone lower down in League 2. We have 3 natural centre backs, one of whom is seemingly not up to standard in Downing, clearly in the managers eyes too hence his reluctance to use him. Id move him on personally. The other 2 are more than capable but injury prone. In regards to Williams, I prefer him at left back in his natural role especially as I think that Bell is not of the required standard to play anything but a bit part role. Rodwell has had the odd cameo at centre back but has looked good in midfield (seemed a class apart at Bolton) and for me he could play a key role in becoming better technically on the ball through midfield as Mowbray has discussed. We need to be more creative from open play, we have played the most long balls in the division and have only scored 5 in 9 home league games from open play. Whilst im not saying that Williams and Rodwell's versatility may not prove useful on occasion, a natural centre back would not only leave us only relying on square pegs in round holes very much as a last resort, but it will allow 2 players to consistently be available in their natural positions where they are key. Without going over old ground Brereton impressed at Forest central, struggled wide there, and even here in the last 2 games has been more central and far more effective. I would like to see him played there as an alternative to Graham.

Im sure I read the other day that they signed him on the back of a very successful loan spell last season, but the reason for him falling down the pecking order was the unexpected summer arrival of Jason Shackell.

You dont get the number of goals and assists that he gets without being a very, very good player, even with top class team mates. He is a player who has developed his game under Pep from the raw player that joined City to be one of the best of his type of player around, and trusted more by Guardiola even than the excellent Leroy Sane.

Absolutely no suggestion that he will get rid of 3 of his favourites (Evans, Smallwood and Williams) any time soon. He has a striker to directly challenge Graham, a very expensive one who in his last 2 cameos has shown promise. Centre back has to be prioritised.

I am not aware of any fan club, nor was my genuine question an attempt to provoke you to play the victim again. Please can you repeat the answer as I have not seen it.

Stop being so soft, it was a genuine question. Surely wanting to sign a centre back somewhat contradicts your assertion that we are well covered there with Williams and Rodwell? Have to look into who we loan our players too in future, if Platt was only ever going to a back up then surely try and loan him to a League 2 club where he would be more likely to get the playing time he needs.

You mention Baeur again but arent you of the opinion that we are fine at centre back with Williams and Rodwell "able" to play there?

I dont understand the desire to want very average players back that have had previous spells here. I presume its just familiarity. Sam Gallaghers name always crops up, but Mowbray played him wide once Graham was back. Hes very weak, cant hold the ball up and his goal record in the last 2 years has been average to say the least. If he came in on loan, would people select him over Danny Graham or a striker weve invested 7m in whose just started to show glimmers of being able to make an impact? Same with Joao. Hes a bit of a donkey and seemed to totally fall out of favour last time. If we do go for a striker, and lets be honest, Nixon talks out of his arse, hopefully our recruitment will be slightly more imaginative.

Rothwell cost a fee too.

Allardyce got an indian summer out of him to be fair, giving him a free role led to him scoring 10 goals in a season that he did suffer a few injuries in.

I see youve reverted back to the phrase "regardless of cost." If ever 3 words came across as ignorant and out of touch... One thing you need to grasp is that we arent dealing with hard core fans. That said, the fact that they arent doesnt mean that you can turn your nose up at them. The club can either go, right people arent interested enough, what more can we do, or they can actively look at making it attractive as possible to get more people in. The fact that the team is committed is not enough to provoke a surge in ticket sales and it is naive to suggest otherwise.

I think its unfair to blame Ferguson specifically for the culture that definitely existed of club rivalries overriding any attempts at fostering a healthy national team spirit. I remember watching Ferdinand, Lampard and Gerrard all air similar views on how they were unable to see past their club rivalries. I believe the Spanish team have had similar problems in the past. Ferguson also wasnt alone in being very reluctant to allow his players to go on international duty for friendlies. Thats a club managee mindset that still exists prominently now. Definitely agree on so many big egos clashing but thats one of many factors id argue that held us back. Tactical insufficiences, ie famously sticking to a 4-4-2 and trying to cram too many similar players into the same team. The psychological block that seemed to grow as the years without a major tournament victory went by, and the subsuquent media pressure. Weve often been lacking in depth, for example even when we had that brilliant team around 2004, we lacked pace and had players like Darius Vassell as important subs, plus weve had a couple of famous injuries at bad times. Southgate has done very well to foster such excitement and enthusiasm I must say.

I suspect the main reason for his inability to reach the incredible heights that he reaches at Man City is presumably psychological based on the disgusting way that he is treat by the English media and public towards a top, top young player. He is still effective as an England player but he appears at times to have the world on his shoulders in an England shirt.

"It seems" is hardly proof but you seem totally unable to grasp that no one is saying that the majority of potential walk ons are put off by the surcharge, in fact ive even given numbers of roughly how many people it would take to financially override any additional revenue caused by the surcharge. It is obviously a minority, but there are examples within this thread of people offput by the surcharge, and if that is happening to anyone then it has to be of concern and worthy of investigation. Your second platitude is meaningless. And as other people have said, these potential additional fans are not the hard core. They are those who arent as interested/emotionally invested as us, those who have fallen out of love with the club, those who have yet to get attached, those who have other things to do should they not find value in buying Rovers tickets. Your comment is ignorant and desperate, urging people to "support the team" rather than offer a constructive point about tickets/attendances/surcharges.