roversfan99

1. I never said its easy. But I refuse to accept that it was impossible to bring in a striker. You mention Bamford, he is a proven goalscorer at this level and has won player of the year at this level. Thats why he cost so much. 2. https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/17008496.tony-mowbray-on-whether-he-feels-rovers-are-a-striker-short/ Mowbray said here we are a striker short. The fact that his seemingly current second choice striker is Bradley Dack backs that up. We do only play 1 but we only have 1. 3. I just think that comments about not supporting the player, knowing better than the manager or anything like that detract from the debate at hand. Id like to be proven wrong, your point about Armstrong is valid somewhat I do appreciate and of course I hope that I am proven wrong. But Armstrong fit the position like a glove from the start, it was against much weaker opposition (he has struggle to replicate this season) and his skillset is IMO far more suited. A key part to my argument is that, with Samuel (now injured) as 2nd choice last season, it was blatantly obvious in the summer that signing a striker was a key priority. Even if Brereton turns into an excellent wide forward, which would obviously be good as an improvement to the team, its like buying a really nice car when you needed a house. It would leave us as lacking in depth up front as we were at the start of the summer. And surely when Graham isnt fit, youd agree that as second choice, Brereton would be higher up the pecking order than moving Dack into a position hes also not familiar with. @unsall you mention when Grahams not here anymore Brereton may play there but when hes not been in the team at times in the last week weve played Dack there! Another main point is that Brereton gained the reputation he has as a striker. The Forest fan on here was clear and it seems a common theme, Brereton playing wide didnt suit him and it coincided with his form dropping off. He made his name as a central striker, he ran Arsenal ragged as a striker, he impressed both for Forest and Englabd youth teams as a striker. Its been mentioned that hes being easing in but surely playing the last 20 or 30 minutes up front his natural position where hes more likely to impress would make more sense. Obviously he will be scrutinised but if he continues to play out wide and doesnt do anything, then I sense that the blame has shifted from Brereton onto Mowbray for how hes using him.

I dont get why, if the only opinion you are happy to consider is the managers, that you come on a fans messageboard. (This isnt me saying dont come on here before you say it) Obviously the manager knows more about management than me. He knows more than everyone on here. And no one doubts that. Training is different, Ben Gladwin was our best player in training apparently. I judge players on games and have given a detailed reasoning on why I disagree on Brereton playing wide in my post to biz.

The main brunt of the criticism isnt about the player anymore, especially after them comments. They are at the manager. In the summer, we badly needed another main striker. Mowbray was insistent on that. He signed one for 7 million. Now hes pleading that he hasnt got enough strikers, hes resorting to putting a midfielder there when our only main striker isnt available, and even if Brereton is better suited wide and turns out to be really effective there. That would still make him a really expensive luxury we couldnt afford with such a dearth of strikers. That said, Forest fans were insistent that Brereton cant play wide effectively. What weve seen in his cameos back that up, he looks like a fish out of water. Armstrong looked at home straight away on the wing. He is smaller, faster and has the skillset of a wide man much more. That said, the way he utilised him last season was very impressive and im not saying I definitely wont be proved wrong. Mowbray does know better than me but in this instance I feel that he is wrong in my opinion. Some of your comments about support and also about releasing him if he doesnt score in his first start are melodramatic and unconstructive.

Urgh. This nonsense is going to continue. Hes a centre forward, he was for his previous club. He looks hopeless wide and both Mowbray and Brereton will incur criticism if he continues to play him there and play poorly at that.

Weve done the debate of you being happy with people who can do a job there and me being less happy, but the fact that you admitted that youd like another natural centre back suggests you arent totally convinced yourself. I do think its an area that Mowbray needed to but failed to rectify in the summer. If we are without our 2 main centre backs tomorrow, that would cause any team a problem, but due to an understandable distrust in our only other centre back, we will have no recognised, natural centre backs and that has to be a concern. A left back and a central midfielder would be a worry together. You mention Bennett v Sheff United but not Swansea when he was hapless, sliding in too often and forever out of position. As our second choice in that position you wouldnt want him there in this league for a decent period of time. Agree on Dack, im saying that if hes not fit enough leave him out of the 18. Dont do neither one thing nor the other and use him as a sub. On the sub keeper, I acknowledged the difficulty of signing a competent and willing sub keeper but also it surely goes without serving why id be a bit more nervous with a keeper whose barely played in over a year and one with hardly a glittering CV. Im not convinced that Dack is the type of player to be an impact sub. I dont think if hes fit enough that you can justify not starting him, or alternatively risking him if hes not fit enough. I dont think his performance levels have been lower than last season, his main asset has always been his goals, there were plenty of games last season where he wasnt massively impacting a game but you cant argue with his 1 in 2 record so far this season. I agree on Palmer, and I do feel that although I still think Dack and Graham, both individually and as a pair, are a step or 2 up from all of our other attacking players, Mowbrays spent lots of money on bringing 4 new attacking players to the club, so we should have enough to cover their occasional absences.

Centre back has to be a problem. Chaddy youve contradicted yourself saying we are covered in every position but we need a centre back. Im not one for overrelying on players who can do a job in positions, we need at least one recognised centre back who is good enough beside from the injury prone Mulgrew and Lenihan. If its for 1 game or half a game we might get away with it. Same with right back, I dont feel comfortable with Bennett there and felt we was shown up down his side v Swansea and Sheffield United. Travis is seen as a midfielder, as is Reed. Dack is a goal threat even when hes not firing on all cylinders. The best aspect of his game is his goal poaching, hes our primary goal threat. Obviously if hes not fit enough leave him out, otherwise he has to start, youve hinted at leaving him out before news of this injury I believe Bigdoggsteel (may have the wrong person so apologies if so) but its simple with him. If hes fit he has to play. Leutweiler was discarded by Shrewsbury a year and a half ago and hasnt really played since. That said I dont think sub goalkeeper is easy to fill.

How do people know with such certainty peoples exact wage and living arrangements?

At the end of the day, as good and as crucial as Dack and Graham are, Mowbray SHOULD be confident with the resources hes been allowed to improve us in forward areas, with Brereton, Armstrong and Rothwell coming for a large sum of money combined, and Palmer being a very clever loan addition. I partially disagree. Dack and Graham ive touched on above you have a point on, but we are horribly short at centre back. An injury to the prone Mulgrew and Lenihan and we are pitifully short beneath that. Same at right back, and obvious worries with Leutweiler coming in. If Dacks fit enough, he has to start aswell.

If Mulgrew, Lenihan, Dack and Graham all missed out along with Raya, I think id go something like this: Leutweiler Nyambe Downing Williams Bell Evans Reed Bennett Palmer Armstrong Brereton Subs: Fisher, Rothwell, Conway, Nuttall, Rodwell, Travis, Smallwood I dont think Armstrong has done enough when given a place centrally to suggest he is good enough as a striker in the short term. His home may be wide where he terrorised Leeds. Time has to come soon where our 6/7m striker gets a game in his position.

That team news makes for grim reading. Got massive problems at centre back, everyone and his dog could have seen that having 2 recognised centre backs would cause trouble and so it may prove. If Dack doesnt make it, then for me Palmer HAS to be given a go in his best position. If Graham doesnt make it, nows the time for Brereton to be given a chance centrally and step up.

Ive not seen any Waggott quotes about Marriott. Ill have to take your word for it. But them wages are total guesses?

How do you know that? And your second point makes no sense. As you say, we have to change to fit Brereton/Armstrong in, why is that ok but not for Marriott?

Im not sure Rothwells assets favour a central midfield birth at all. I do appreciate the importance of needing to be somewhat defensively capable as a wide man but its about getting the balance. You need a bit of both. Conversely something ive argued at points when Bennett has struggled to contribute offensively is that our "defensive" wide man needs to be scoring and assisting at least somewhat, just as much as our attacking wide man needs to be at least somewhat defensively responsible.

Wonder if, dependant on the length of Rayas injury, that we will consider getting in a free agent keeper in the short term?

Whilst I agree with your points about his style of play. I think its worth noting that for all his promise, albeit in very small cameos, hes not actually done anything at the end of it. The best thing about Dack is the numbers, the goals and the assists he guarantees, for all the entertainment he brings. I don't think Rothwell's problem is just his off the ball play, or his style in general perhaps taking time to fit within the structured team that Mowbray clearly favours. Hes not doing anything conclusive at the end of all of his dribbles, his skills, his speculative shots. He had a guilt edged chance on Saturday and fluffed his lines. Palmer has 3 goals, yes 2 were in the cup but hes showing that he offers a goal threat. Rothwell was involved in the very good goal at Bolton, but that all came from persistence and skill from Palmer. At the moment, that "attacking wide" role has 3 potential candidates, Palmer, Rothwell and Armstrong. I would like them to really push for that place in the team. Armstrong has had a really poor season himself, bar the Leeds game. I never see Rothwell being a central midfielder either, a number 10 maybe.

Dont think we can ever really justify dropping Dack. Amidst any criticisms about his overall game (in the last week hes had to play in the wrong position for over half of it) his goal return remains consistent. 8 (6 league) goals in 13 (12 league) is reason enough for him to be guaranteed a start. As you say, hes our talisman. Needs putting back in his number 10 role playing off Graham. Not sure what to make of these Rothwell comments, or Rothwell himself. Undoubtedly has plenty of flair and ability and I do like to see him play. But feel that in comparison to Palmer, the latter gets a bit of a hard time. That third attacking spot is very much up for grabs with at the moment Dack and Graham, Palmer has done enough to be given a start on Saturday with Rothwell and Armstrong benched. Do find Mowbrays comments a bit strangely timed though. Seemed to be a general consesus from Mowbray that Rothwell has quickly adapted to his requirements and Rothwell himself was speaking as if he felt he now understood what was needed. Maybe hes seen something this week that has pushed him back a tad as I didnt think that Rothwells performance was lacking in effort on Saturday. He did miss a sitter however.

Lets hope this free week can see us get some of our walking wounded back. Raya/Leutwiler Nyambe Lenihan Mulgrew Williams Evans Reed Bennett Dack Palmer Graham Subs: Leutwiler/Fisher, Rodwell, Smallwood, Bell, Armstrong, Brereton, Rothwell A lot of ifs and buts there. Downing if Lenihan isnt fit enough. Bell if Mulgrew isnt. Like to see Dack and Reed in their favoured roles and Palmer deserves another start

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.