Even though this post wasnt aimed at me, what do you have to substantiate such a boastful yet empty statement? You say that @47er seems to "resent anyone coming on with a different view." From what he was saying, nothing could be further from the truth. He was encouraging you to give your view, which you stated that you prefer to withhold until it is proven correct. You clearly do care less because you have been quite vocal on the fact that Mowbray knows more than anyone on here, something not one person has suggested anything to the contrary about.

Suppose theres less of an urgency for Davenport to come into the first team imminently with the numbers we have in there at the moment. Never been particularly convinced by Nuttall to be honest, but certainly agree that he needs a loan, and should have been loaned out in the summer. How was Lyons? Thanks again.

Thanks for the updates Stuart. How was Davenport and how did Nyambe look on his return?

Both of you I feel are failing to judge the comments or the individual match in isolation though. I dont think anyone underestimates the job that Mowbray has done. Even Mercer, one of his most obvious critics, acknowledged the job hes done. I also think its very dangerous and counter-productive to seemingly try and create an environment (on a messageboard of all places!) whereby people cannot air their opinions, good or bad, as they go, game by game, team selection by team selection, sub by sub, etc. And i can not fathom why @unsall you refuse to say anything post game, we want more opinions. Mowbray is more qualified than both of us combined but he wont always be right, and I think opinions, whether they agree or disagree with him, should be equally encouraged. If you went onto any messageboard, for example, Man Citys, I bet people will air their opinions too, its part of what football is about, and not every one will match Guardiola's. I personally dont post during games, usually as I'm at the game, therefore I will tend to respond after games when the emotion has simmered slightly. I stand by the thoughts I had when I saw the team line up on Saturday, I wasnt in agreement with the Dack up front experiment continuing, and I still dont think it worked even now after the game. You could turn round to me and say, it worked because we got a point, but I dont think that selection earnt us the point. The 2 primary factors for me were a Reed wonder goal (a very successful Mowbray signing) and unbelievable team spirit on show yet again. (kudos to Mowbray again for that)

Mercer also has a pet nickname for a manager who essentially took us down. One poster isnt indicative of all these fans "who arent keen on him." Even Mercer acknowledged he has done a decent job so far. Backhanded praise but praise nonetheless. No one said "sack the manager hes useless" and such posts suggest you are on a wind up. Chaddy for all his flaws has stated more than once in the last week that he disagrees with this Dack as a false 9 experiment Mowbray has been trying. He also gives the team he would play every week. Hes clearly got his own set of opinions (sometimes hidden away admittedly) which is why he is on the messageboard. Its a game of opinions, whether as a qualified manager or a supporter. Where are all these "Tonys lost the plot" posts?

I know versatility is important but where we differ is that I seemingly place more importance on putting players in their natural positions than you. We had 8 midfielders starting. Some (Palmer, Rothwell) I felt are neither here nor there, they can play them roles only slightly less effectively than their natural central roles. Rodwell (and laterly Williams and Travis) at centre back and Bennett at full back I feel are the result of a slightly imbalanced transfer recruitment, we need more depth there. Dack up front is a failed experiment. My messages towards unsall were in regards to comments stating that he doesnt state his opinions pre match if they are in anyway opposing the selection of Mowbray. The messageboard is a platform for opinions regardless of if they are shared by Mowbray. Just like your (valid) complaint about Dack not being a number 9. Besides, he doesnt need a bodyguard.

You say we all have different opinions but you are refusing to allow yourself one.

Obviously he does! But why are you on a messageboard to discuss Rovers if thats your argument? Have your own opinion, whether that matches Mowbray or not. Coyle knows more than we do too.

Yeah I went. I dont think we were the better team all round, I felt we had the better of the second half before Rayas injury but felt a point was fair overall. Neither side played to their full capabilities. I dont agree with the manager on the issues I raised, notably the experiment of Dack up front. I also feel weve got too many players out of position at the moment. I think overall he is doing a good job though, obviously.

Firstly, out of curiosity did you attend the game yesterday? And which was the second stone wall penalty appeal? Quite simply, there were not only 2 players out of position. You seem to have muddied the waters between a players natural, favoured position and positions in which Mowbray may feels players can play/do a job in. I appreciate that versatility is important but you want to keep players in their correct positions where possible. Rodwell is a central midfielder, not a centre back. He played most of the game at centre back with a left back alongside him, until Rodwell himself had to go off and be replaced by a midfielder to play at centre back in Travis. Going into midfield, Palmer and Rothwell are not natural wingers, and Conway as you say was out of position. Dack was also out of position, and practically ineffective. I must say that the players showed the team spirit and work rate that weve come to expect from them in difficult circumstances yet again, in a game that I felt was sorely lacking in quality from both sides. I just think that we need to look to try and play players in their correct positions. That brings me on to imbalanced recruitment. I've no doubt that Mowbray has brought in some shrewd additions, but we are lacking in certain areas, and this becomes much more difficult to understand when we spend 7m on a striker who either makes cameos out wide, or doesnt feature at all. Something @Mercer pointed out earlier, and you subsequently laughed at. Mowbray has 3 centre backs, one of whom he clearly doesnt trust at this level. He also doesnt have any natural wide men, and also only one natural right back. I am a fan of tactical consistency and players knowing exactly what they are doing, something that was evident during the second half of last season. I have tended to think that when Mowbray has tinkered with the formation, whether it be 3 at the back or Dack as a false 9, neither experiment has worked.

regarding not playing a striker think that’s the only game he’s done so don’t think it will be a regular occurrence - did it for half an hour v Leeds and Swansea, therefore its clearly not a one off. he didn’t set up for a point - he didnt play any strikers! Going back to Coyle, he religiously played 4 4 2 every game - the reason for his ineptness was not playing the same formation every week. Klopp plays 4-3-3 every week, Sarri plays 4-3-3 every week, Guardiola plays 4-3-3 every week, in our league Wilder plays 3-5-2 every week, Lampard plays 4-3-3, there a lot to be gained from tactical consistency and a team of players knowing their exact role. Thats why Mowbray gets criticism for playing too many players out of position. Dack doesnt look at ease as a 9, nor does say Brereton wide or Bennett at right back. Or Smallwood in net! At times, one of Mowbrays historical un-doings has been him over complicating things tactically, for example changing formations, playing players out of position and over respecting opposition players. Hopefully the Dack as a number 9 experiment will be cast into the failed experiment section.

As much as I would love Reed permanently, Dack is a level above and is our main goalscorer.

Isnt that his first ever goal? Wouldnt believe a word that man says chaddy.

Turned into a very good point which I would have taken before the start. The main positive, it is undoubted that Mowbray has built a team with an incredible bond and team spirit which was really tested once Raya went off. Never seen an outfield player go in net live before and it was a bit terrifying but luckily they didnt muster any shots up in that time. As I will go on to in a minute, that team spirit may often get us points like yesterday against the odds. Thought West Brom were really poor in general, and lacking in ideas. Also the performance of Reed in midfield was a real plus, and his wonder goal was needed in the absence of strikers. I stand by the fact that the team selection was full of square pegs in round holes, and that Mowbrays team selection sprung up more questions than answers. Once Mulgrew went off, it was only him and Lenihan that we were missing yet we used 2 midfielders and a left back as centre backs. We all know that we needed a centre back in the summer and need to hope that Mulgrew and Lenihan can be patched up until January. I dont understand why the Dack up front experiment is being persisted with but it again didnt work. All the while our best player this season in Graham and our 7m striker Brereton get splinters on the bench. Palmer, Rothwell, Bennett and Conway also all out of position. And then Smallwood! I think that it was a very good point in the circumstances, and another occasion in recent times where I have come off a game feeling proud about the current team. That said, I feel that Mowbrays team selection yesterday and some of the tactical selections he keeps making (some of which are caused by imbalanced transfer recruitment) were very strange and I hope we dont continue to do them.

To clarify, is your opinion of Brereton still that we shouldnt use him wide? (or Dack central) Amidst your repeating of Mowbrays interviews, I am unclear as to whether that has changed in the last 3 days.

All free agents.

The criticism is about playing a 6m striker out of position then complaining that he doesnt have enough strikers. How is that undeserved? Just because he has done a good job in general doesnt exclude him from criticism when warranted.

A player will be less effective in a position that is not his favoured position, how can you possibly deny that? Not that they should be given a free pass, but he showed marginally more in his last 2 games but it is clear that he is hamstrung by playing out of position, and therefore Mowbray should take the majority of the flak should it continue. Another top level comparison, from many years ago. If they are your standards then you will be disappointed. What I would say is that age alone is not an asset. You have to see something in his game that could be improved, I would agree if you had said that. But rhyming off top level youngsters does nobody any favours. Total rubbish. No one has ever said anything remotely similar to stating that you shouldnt be saying positive comments. 99% of our fan base thinks Mowbray is doing a decent job. The fanbase is fully united behind him, stop trying to make out otherwise. As with anyone, they will be judged game to game. Look at the Leeds thread and youll see constant praise for both him and the players, for example him targetting set pieces, playing an up to then out of sorts Armstrong etc. Look at the Swansea thread and youll see criticism headed his way, for example that he had half a team playing out of position. Please stop making out as if its a negative only zone.

There are very fair points in there that I agree with, notably that the price is most certainly relevant, that we need to use resources (limited isnt 100% accurate mind) to strengthen the first team, and that moaning about a lack of strikers after spending 8 or 9 million on 2 is crazy. That said, you lose all credibility in your post IMO when you start bringing players like Kylian Mbappe into it, even if its obviously not a direct comparison.

If played in his position, yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/football-league-blog/2014/oct/30/ipswich-mick-mccarthy-championship-premier-league For some clarity, McCarthy spent £10k in his first 2 years. If the club was anyone else, ie there was no link to Mick McCarthy, do you agree that hed be the first and only name on your shortlist right now?

Not in terms of the discussion we are having! I know that he likes his wide forwards, but I dont think that Brereton is a wide forward. Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." I feel that repeatedly playing Brereton wide falls under that definition, therefore patience is irrelevant. If he was playing in his natural role down the middle, and showing some promising signs and also some inconsistency, then telling me to "show some patience" would be relevant. As it is, he is playing in the wrong position, therefore it is not. In this situation, I am frustrated at Mowbray and hope he changes to only using him in his natural position. Brereton is a striker. Mowbray has moaned that he feels he doesnt have enough forwards. That being said, he at the moment seemingly refuses to consider a 6m striker he bought himself for that position, even though that is the position in which he garnered the positive reputation at his previous club to impress Mowbray enough to buy him in the first place. If that situation was to continue, then something has obviously gone wrong somewhere. As @Hasta explains perfectly, just because Mowbray says something, it doesnt mean that it is right, or that you have to justify it. The other day, you stated after watching the Swansea game that Brereton playing wide is not something that works and something that you disagree with. Even though you came to the conclusion that it is a bad idea with your own eyes, I find it quite baffling that just because Mowbray has come out and said soemthing in the press, youve had a total u-turn. The only reason that you are asking for patience is because that Mowbray has said that. After listening to his interview asking for patience, he (and the interviewer) have not acknowledged that much of the frustration is aimed at Mowbray himself. Mowbray also said "the money is not irrelevant" by the way.

Echo many of the other posters on here in their thoughts. The Kean comparison is totally wrong and as people have said, Allardyce is a much more accurate comparison. Big personalities so will not sit idly by and take loads of stick without giving a bit back. And proven to get results above what the expectations are with limited players. There just seems to be a total disregard for the importance and difficulty of getting consistent results. Considering the budget he had, or didnt have, surely you will look back in a year or 2 (even now youve seen in a few months) how impressive his consistent league positions were? Also, Lambert is not going to start playing attractive football. For me, it makes no sense to appoint Hurst and then Lambert. McCarthy seemingly was castigated for his style of play, Hurst was reknown for 1-0 wins (which is fine) but its like sacking the master for a watered down version of him. Then Lambert who has failed to do anything since his success at Norwich and comes into your club with only a merry band of excuses to show from his last 6 years of management. And loads of apparent but in reality non existant new continental methods!

Its not about patience, the main curiosity is about how Brereton is being used by Mowbray. I dont need to hear him say anything to see that he looks poor in a wide role. You dont spend so much money to waste a player in a role he blatantly cannot play. He should either play as a 9 or not at all. He should be 2nd choice behind Graham as it stands. Palmer and Rothwell are far better suited to the role in question. We only play 1 striker! 3 is plenty. Armstrong has prior form for excelling wide, Brereton hasnt and looks like a fish out of water there. As @Hasta touches on, just because Mowbray says it doesnt mean it is right or that we must agree with it.

Mowbrays comments today about us lacking a striker are very concerning. He signed 4 attacking players and yet he seemingly onlly trusts Dack, and beyond that one striker in Graham. The other 4, he needs to learn how to get the best from. He has no right to suggest that hes short up front after spending over 8m on 2 strikers and its worrying that in his recent interviews, unless hes bluffing, that he doesnt seem to be acknowledging that Brereton is the obvious alternative to Graham centrally. If he is going to continue to see Brereton as a wide man, then the general consensus will be that he should have signed a winger instead. Breretons a player who when he did impress at Forest, it was as a striker. He is not a winger and if Mowbray continues to play him there, barring a totally unexpected change in affairs, both he and Brereton (mainly Mowbray) will continue to draw criticism and that signing will really become the elephant in the room.