There is chance of a return so its moot but Rhodes proved he is effective even as a lone striker, he scored goals on his own or as a pair. In that first season he played as a lone striker and was incredible. Marshall would also be a good signing as he proved at Millwall last year but again theres no chance.

Your original statement was correct.

Is there not a rule whereby replays have to be priced the same as the initial game?

Most of his cameos in the last couple of months have been central so thats blatantly not true. But youd see some of them attributes (pace, strength, skill etc) even if he was wide. Need to sign an actual, starting winger. I think that Palmer got a raw deal especially compared to Rothwell, who had contributed even less than Palmer (neither has had a fair run or game time in their natural position) and that was evident after the Sheffield United game when Rothwell spent the whole game running the ball into blind alleys, Palmer was much better yet Rothwell seemed to get the plaudits. I dont think Armstrong has had many chances central, in fact I would say that Brereton has played more minutes centrally than him. Armstrong has been poor for most of the season but at least he has shown a bit of promise in terms of his pace and last season his finishing. There is something there to work with at least. If you genuinely think that me or anyone spends their hard earned money to hope that our players fail then you are sadly mistaken. One thing ive said throughout is that we shouldnt sign Sam Gallagher, a similar type of striker to both Brereton and Armstrong, and that signing a striker should be well down the priority list as we cant afford to write off 9m worth of investment down the middle or stunt their development to sign a very average striker of the same ilk on a temporary basis. With Brereton in particular, I am banking quite blindly on him becoming a success. I actually think his price tag works in his favour, would he warrant a place in the 18 over Nuttall if he had signed for free? Not too sure.

The thing is Brereton has not done anywhere near enough in his cameos, nor in his start against Sheffield United, to warrant giving him a start. The only thing that would justify giving him a start is ironically the 7m price tag that many seem insistent on protecting him from in their demands for patience. Its nothing to do with his age. His age would account for inconsistency, assuming a raw potential is there beneath it. Yes hes 19, but hes not a total novice, he played over 50 games for Forest. Armstrong despite his frustratingly inconsistent nature has done far more to feel aggrieved should Brereton start the next game that Graham misses over him as a central forward. Armstrongs end product has been really poor but, on the assumption that we would need to change our style of play to accomodate either as a striker, Armstrong has at least shown blistering pace and we know he can finish from last season. One thing that makes no sense and ties in with this thread is making a temporary addition of another striker who doesnt hold the ball up well enough to play the tactics we currently adopt, in Sam Gallagher. Its also important to note that the "playing out of position" argument loses credibility with each passing game. Strangely since Mowbray commented on why he doesnt see him as a striker yet, he has started featuring predomanintly down the middle.

I may have been watching different games but most of his recent appearances have been central, not wide. I think we should really go to beat Newcastle and then Watford and I dont think Brereton starting over Graham reflects that or is deserved.

Ive seen him live in the vast majority of his games in person and I dont think that his movement is good, he rarely puts himself in a good position especially when the ball is wide, plus I dont think he shields the ball well when he dribbles. Stand by my comments about those saying survival would be an achievement, obviously you do not fall under that category. And yeah most of the budget Mowbray went on to spend was blown on an apprentice.

Palmer will need replacing, ideally with a natural wide man rather than another square peg in a round hole. And not Chapman, one that isnt riddled with injuries and can be a starter, not an impact sub.

Does he? Haha. He failed to score as I said after November.

The usual 2, Gallagher and Chapman! Lets hope we dont stick to the same names.

Nowhere near enough. He did it brilliantly for the second v West Brom but he spends far too much time at walking pace and not enough really attacking the full back.

I saw a couple of tweets saying that maybe he could be worth another chance. With him and Samuel (who didnt score post November in League 1) its often a case of absence making the heart grow fonder. Neither are anywhere near the standard we need.

That then brings us back round to, could we afford to blow most of our budget on someone seen as an apprentice?! That cannot contribute and provide at least pressure on Graham for his spot? Yes hes only 19, but considering his price tag and his reputation following 2 seasons of regular Championship football, I think we all thought he would be seen as more than an "apprentice." Thats the first aspect of why this signing is so dubious. Anyone who was happy with just survivial is both massively unambitious and pessimistic. We have a competitive, mid table budget for wages, we have a very healthy transfer budget (which we choose to mainly splurge on an "apprentice") and many of our players have proven track records at Championship level. Lets not be fooled by a season under Coyle where we had the likes of Brown, Greer, Lowe, Akpan, Feeney, Emnes and Hoban on short term deals that Mowbray managed to shed off with ease at the end of that season. And the second aspect of this signing. We know hes young, hes raw. But he hasnt shown ANY positive attributes. Pace, skill, strength, a first touch, aeriel ability, goal threat, even a first touch or work rate to chase the ball down when hes fresh. I think Mercer makes a very valid point about style of play, our reliance on long balls and reluctance to as of yet even remotely move towards the style of play that Mowbray repeatedly mentions he would like to move towards is a concern in terms of progression; when will we see steps towards this on the pitch? However, to suggest as he has that Mowbray is a "dinosaur" and that we should instantly expect promotion is a bit ridiculous, albeit it is unfair to stretch your "instant gratification generation" comment to anyone beside him, S8 & Blue. And before you mention Brereton, please see my comments above on why he warrants his criticism for me. As you say, it is sensible, normal and realistic to have a plan to gradually develop the team, window by window. My only concern in this regard is Mowbrays success/failure in the transfer market, and how progressive I can see this process being. I feel like his work in the transfer market has left a lot to be desired. Dack was obviously an absolute masterstroke by him but aside from that, its been very patchy. His other signings last year ranged from ones that could have a short term impact at League 1 level (Downing, Armstrong, Antonsson, Payne, Smallwood) to some absolute wasters. (Gladwin, Hart, Whittingham and Samuel has been poor) With greater resources, he hasnt improved the side at all really in the summer bar the temporary addition of Reed, and I also worry that turning a blind eye to the foreign market and seemingly focusing on the same pool of players (Gallagher, Chapman) will stunt our progression. This isnt to say Mowbray is a poor manager or one who shouldnt be trusted. I think a lot of his quality lies with his man management and also his ability to get more from the players he inherited. But he will have to massively improve in the transfer market.

The thing is, age alone is not enough to justify a big fee. No one has pointed out any attributes that he has showcased in a Rovers shirt I actually think his price tag is somewhat working to his advantage as im not convinced his form from his cameos has done enough to guarantee a place in the 18 over even Nuttall. You say he is learning from Graham but ive seen no signs of it yet. He does the opposite of Graham, he doesnt hold the ball up, he doesnt press with the same intensity, he doesnt challenge for headers, he doesnt offer a goal threat. Your primary argument against those who suggest that the Brereton money could have been spent far more effectively is that the market is difficult, not every signing is guaranteed to be a success and theres a chance any alternative would have proved equally ineffective thus far. That goes without saying but in no way justifies the deal. @savage90 makes an excellent point on scouting and one that I have also mentioned, I feel that if our transfer list compromises of solely British based players including former players like Gallagher and Chapman then we are working at a disadvantage. Whether that be a restriction from above Mowbrays head, or a choice by Mowbray to solely target British players, and if its the latter I consider that to be a narrow minded principle. Huddersfield are an excellent example of what knowledge of the foreign markets can do. They were pottering around the lower end of the Championship until they exploited in particular the German market, signing the likes of Kachunga, Schindler, Lowe, Hefele and Quaner, blended in with a couple of loans in Mooy and Palmer and of course some British players they were at a massive advantage. You look at strikers like Pukki and Maupay who have been brought into the league by competitors (and we have competitive wages to offer) and it makes the Brereton deal look even less value for money.

Maybe Chapman is quicker over the first 5 yards before his hamstring goes!

I understand that he may bring something different, and I totally appreciate that a different type of forward could be brought in assuming we changed our style. But then my argument would be, Mowbray spent 9m on strikers who prefer to run in behind (albeit Brereton hasnt shown that) but neither have proved effective central as we would have to modify our style and go less direct, something Mowbray has been unwilling or unable to do. Surely if that changes, we should try and base it around at least part of our 9m worth of strikers, because playing Gallagher in our current style would IMO prove as fruitless as it has with anyone bar Graham. I'm not saying that Gallagher is useless, albeit his goal record in the Championship is very modest, I just dont understand prioritising the sort of striker that Gallagher is. I also think going for him and Chapman would be the rest of some very limited recruitment/scouting. Dack over Gallagher and Reed any day! Think it would be incredibly unlikely to see all of the Dack money reinvested, for a start if you plan to spread the cost over 5 players thats a hell of an increase in wages etc.

Gallagher scored quite a few headers due to good movement predominantly so fair play but I stand by that he was weak and unable to play that lone striker role very effectively. Rhodes also scored a number of very good headers, but he wasnt a good hold up man either, although I would argue he was better than given credit for and of course justified a place solely down to his phenomenal goals return, of which Gallagher doesnt offer. Mowbray ended the season with Gallagher in a wide role and Graham in a central role. My argument is based around the fact that I wouldn't want Gallagher in that number 9 role, I don't think he has the skillset to play with his back to goal alot of the time and supplement Dack. I also dont think that Mowbray would see him as a natural replacement when Graham is unavailable, therefore if we are going to have to change our game without Graham anyway, it would surely be wasteful to not try and do that with one of the 2 strikers he bought in the summer for a combined 9m. You are right about Graham, he knows how to play referees as much as he knows how to play defenders, Hes an average striker with a very modest goal total of 17 goals in 89 games. He definitely showed more to his game than Brereton has thus far, I would rather have him on our books now, but for the reasons above I see no point in signing him on a loan deal, especially when I consider both full back positions, a wide man and a centre back to be more needed than a striker, especially one like Gallagher.

Its quite clear that looking at the strikers we have had under Mowbray; Armstrong and Brereton this season and Samuel and Antonsson prior, not to mention Gallagher himself. He has not trusted anyone bar Graham because he has the skillset needed to play as a lone striker (with Dack as a 10) in that he holds the ball up. Gallagher is flimsy, weak, like Brereton in terms of his inability to win flick ons despite his height, and thus is incapable of doing the same job. His assets are more that he is a fairly quick runner who can carry the ball. It would make absolutely no sense to sign another striker who would most likely be stuck out wide, where he is not very effective, and one who doesnt have the skillset to come in when Graham is unavailable to play that same role. He has already spunked 9m up the wall on strikers that he doesnt trust to play that central role due to an inability to hold the ball up. If he wants to modify his style of play when Graham isnt in the team, then he may aswell persist with the 2 permanent strikers he has already signed, rather than loaning in another bang average striker. I think I would prefer Armstrong to play as a centre forward over Gallagher, and Breretons price tag means he is under pressure to at least try and get a return on him. Thankfully I suspect theres at least a chance that it is just lazy journalism. We are linked with the same handful of players, predominantly former loanees like Gallagher and Chapman, hopefully Mowbray is casting his net further than that otherwise we need to look at our scouting structure. Chapman is riddled with injuries and he openly doesnt trust him to start games, and towards the end of his first season, he put Gallagher wide in a front 3 because he didnt trust him in his natural position. Why he would settle for 2 players he clearly has doubts about is beyond me.

Done well? Not sure about that. Rothwell has barely featured and has yet to score or assist. Obviously has something about him but I dont see how he has done well. Bell has been a liability, bar very rare exceptions.

My comments comparing Conway to Bennett and mentioning his inability to play as a full back where about him. The line you quoted was in response to a conversation about the potential of selling Dack for 20m to remodel the team. Our reliance on him and Graham for goals makes them as criticial a strikeforce to a team as any in the league id suggest. Any notion that the likes of Rothwell could come in and replace him are fanciful to say the least. Where is this from?

I just feel that some people are perhaps underestimating quite how crucial he is. Especially his goals. We will really struggle to get near replacing him.

I suspect in terms of his defensive awareness, a move that sort of makes sense but may prove similar to Bennett, ie it might prove to be a change far better in theory than in practice. I also think its more of a hindrance at full back rather than in midfield to be playing on the opposite side. There is nothing to suggest that 20m (we wouldnt get all of it but even if we did) would be of more use to us than Dack. We need him to stay for as long as possible.

I have previously written off Conway but in recent performances, he has obviously similar levels of understanding of the role and hard work going back compared to Bennett, but has also given us an added attacking threat with his crossing. With Bennett, he has shown quite clearly that he is incapable of playing that right back role. His positioning there along with his tendency to dive in makes him a liability when asked to fill in that role. His crossing has been below par lately bar the cross he put in for the goal yesterday which was a brilliant ball in. He should only be considered as a wide man, hopefully Nyambes exclusion yesterday was purely fitness based. I think that Evans has been playing well enough (bar his penalty concession yesterday) to keep him in the team where his style compliments Travis nicely. The only problem is that means having to play Reed in a wide role. If you do that and play Conway or Bennett on the other side, I feel its a little conservative and lacking in pace. But on the flip side, the likes of Armstrong, Rothwell and Palmer have failed to nail down a spot on the other side. The left back position is a massive area of concern. I feel like we must get rid of Williams or Bell and bring in an upgrade or we will continue to struggle in that area.

Thought it was a good performance against a disjointed Newcastle with very little quality in it. Dack and Graham are a reliable fulcrum of goals and our obvious quality in the team; Dacks header was superb from a very good Bennett delivery and the 2 are critical to our chances. Travis was again very good in midfield, tenacious and composed with more risks in his passing, although not all came off. Evans was good alongside him up to his indiscretion that cost us a penalty, a very needless flail of his leg. Conway was industrious but Armstrong was very poor and didnt offer a threat at all. Mulgrew was a rock with some superb deliveries and almost a brilliant acrobatic goal, and Lenihan again was much improved alongside him. Thought Bennett was a liability one again at full back, he cannot play that position quite simply. His cross was superb though as said previously. Bell was not that much better on the left, full back is a really problematic position for us at the moment and needs addressing in the window. Raya as people have pointed out seems never to save a penalty, his kicking was again poor and he spilled one but he made a couple of solid saves. Subs wise, Reed fitted in without excelling, Williams was a very strange sub and Brereton again didnt do anything but his ducking for aeriel duels is rather annoying.

I may have missed them, but who has blamed Brereton for us losing the lead? People have commented on his cameo, which again was underwhelming, either you have added that and us conceding together incorrectly, or I have missed posts saying "its Breretons fault we didnt win" in which case I apologise. The support the team rubbish that is often peddled in defence of him is getting tiresome. We are on an internet messageboard. Its neither supportive or not to either praise or criticise a player on a platform such as this. And in the ground the team is always supported. The general theme is that people would have taken a replay but are dissapointed at the lateness and manner of the equaliser. If you choose to misconstrue that, purposely or otherwise then thats up to you. People have only said that if you take the valid criticism that it is worrying how often we throw away leads out of context. Criticising this recurring theme that keeps costing us wins is not saying how bad Mowbray is.