[Archived] Mowbray stays as manager

[Mattyblue]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/15320512._Having_to_recruit_that_many_can_be_seen_as_a_positive____Tony_Mowbray_says_new_signings_can_boost_Rovers/?ref=mac

 

Mogga on recruitment.

Nothing out of the ordinary, I'm more amazed by the fact that the LT can drag out what was probably one interview into weeks worths of copy.

[DE.]

As I said in the other thread, all well and good if the players arrive in decent time. Typically under the current regime we don't start signing players until August, by which point we're already well behind other clubs in terms of squad preparation. 

Somebody at the LT needs to ask Mowbray how he is planning to get around the delay that inevitably occurs when the sign off sheet is sent to India. Until this part of the process is fixed we are doomed to failure.

[JHRover]

I suspect Mowbray will get the same freedom as Coyle did early doors. Lets remember that Coyle seemingly had permission to bring in some players soon after his arrival. Presumably that permission had been granted by way of the Indians allowing a percentage of the wages freed up through the exodus to be re-used on new free agents and loans. Coyle quite quickly brought in Byrne, Hendrie, Stokes, Feeney and Graham. Note no transfer fees paid. They were all free and all quite easy transfers to make. Byrne and Hendrie very cheap and heavily subsidised loans from Premier League clubs grateful we were helping in their development. Stokes an old pals act. Graham already sat waiting and keen to sign after his previous loan spell. Graham, Stokes and Feeney probably a considerable wage outlay for a Championship club but Venkys content to add that £40,000 or so onto the wage bill given more than that had been freed up through getting rid of Gomes, Watt, Williamson, Taylor, Brown. Delf etc.

I remember that the swiftness of Coyle's business in getting those players signed up relatively early led many to hail the work being done.

Then the shutters came down as he had used up his allowance and needed permission for more from India. That permission wasn't granted until they'd had some back the other way, so the weeks went by with nothing happening despite weaknesses in the squad. Then the fun and games began with Hanley and Duffy. Only once they'd got their hands on the loot did they agree to authorise Coyle to bring in a few more and along came Mulgrew, Gallagher and Emnes. Note the much higher calibre of arriving player as more money sanctioned for wages following large sales. Heck, they even authorised a transfer fee for Derrick Williams!

Unfortunately that was too late, as by that stage a month of the season had elapsed and we were already entrenched in a relegation scrap with 1 point from 21 and horrendous defeats to Wigan, Norwich and Cardiff. Not winning a do until hapless Rotherham came to town.

My money is on a similar arrangement. Mowbray promised freedom/money for signings, which no doubt he will make quite soon. Only then a limit will be reached and the phone will be taken off the hook until they've managed to offload a few to pay for the next batch of signings which won't arrive until late August.

[Bigdoggsteel]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

I suspect Mowbray will get the same freedom as Coyle did early doors. Lets remember that Coyle seemingly had permission to bring in some players soon after his arrival. Presumably that permission had been granted by way of the Indians allowing a percentage of the wages freed up through the exodus to be re-used on new free agents and loans. Coyle quite quickly brought in Byrne, Hendrie, Stokes, Feeney and Graham. Note no transfer fees paid. They were all free and all quite easy transfers to make. Byrne and Hendrie very cheap and heavily subsidised loans from Premier League clubs grateful we were helping in their development. Stokes an old pals act. Graham already sat waiting and keen to sign after his previous loan spell. Graham, Stokes and Feeney probably a considerable wage outlay for a Championship club but Venkys content to add that £40,000 or so onto the wage bill given more than that had been freed up through getting rid of Gomes, Watt, Williamson, Taylor, Brown. Delf etc.

I remember that the swiftness of Coyle's business in getting those players signed up relatively early led many to hail the work being done.

Then the shutters came down as he had used up his allowance and needed permission for more from India. That permission wasn't granted until they'd had some back the other way, so the weeks went by with nothing happening despite weaknesses in the squad. Then the fun and games began with Hanley and Duffy. Only once they'd got their hands on the loot did they agree to authorise Coyle to bring in a few more and along came Mulgrew, Gallagher and Emnes. Note the much higher calibre of arriving player as more money sanctioned for wages following large sales. Heck, they even authorised a transfer fee for Derrick Williams!

Unfortunately that was too late, as by that stage a month of the season had elapsed and we were already entrenched in a relegation scrap with 1 point from 21 and horrendous defeats to Wigan, Norwich and Cardiff. Not winning a do until hapless Rotherham came to town.

My money is on a similar arrangement. Mowbray promised freedom/money for signings, which no doubt he will make quite soon. Only then a limit will be reached and the phone will be taken off the hook until they've managed to offload a few to pay for the next batch of signings which won't arrive until late August.

From those highlighted Stokes looked a decent signing and the others all arguably were decent. The MAJOR problem was the knucklehead signing them, coaching them and ultimately sending them out on the field. 

Contrary to people going on a bout "inevitable" relegation last season, we wouldn't have went down if they have sacked that disgrace of am manager after our first handful of games. 

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Appointing and then staying with Coyle was what made our relegation inevitable.

[AllRoverAsia]

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

From those highlighted Stokes looked a decent signing and the others all arguably were decent. The MAJOR problem was the knucklehead signing them, coaching them and ultimately sending them out on the field. 

Contrary to people going on a bout "inevitable" relegation last season, we wouldn't have went down if they have sacked that disgrace of am manager after our first handful of games. 

 

Or if Duffy hadn't scored those og's, or if Huddersfix had played full strength v Brum, or if ....

Just shows how well Mowbray did to drag it out so long.

[AllRoverAsia]

12 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Appointing Coyle was what made our relegation inevitable.

Corrected 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

31 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Corrected 

Yeah, I know and I said so at the time. After that appointment I temporarily gave up on Rovers.

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Or if Duffy hadn't scored those og's, or if Huddersfix had played full strength v Brum, or if ....

Just shows how well Mowbray did to drag it out so long.

All those things you mention are miniscule compared to appointing and sticking with coyle 

[AllRoverAsia]

4 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

All those things you mention are miniscule compared to appointing and sticking with coyle 

Yes. The Raos for appointing Coyle relegated us. The other items just made Mowbray's task that much more difficult.

Mind you the two 'unexpected' results v Toon dragged the relegation fight out and sadly saved Coyle from an earlier sacking....

[Bigdoggsteel]

5 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Yes. The Raos for appointing Coyle relegated us. The other items just made Mowbray's task that much more difficult.

Mind you the two 'unexpected' results v Toon dragged the relegation fight out and sadly saved Coyle from an earlier sacking....

Well, that is speculating that they would have sacked him if we lost them! 

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

Well, that is speculating that they would have sacked him if we lost them! 

I think the Ewood win helped keep him safe for a bit unfortunately.

I also think he might have been kept on after Senior arrived as useful cover for very little transfer activity.

Mind you it's kind of pointless trying to second guess anything that goes on at Rovers. Just filling time in really.

[Bigdoggsteel]

16 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

I think the Ewood win helped keep him safe for a bit unfortunately.

I also think he might have been kept on after Senior arrived as useful cover for very little transfer activity.

Mind you it's kind of pointless trying to second guess anything that goes on at Rovers. Just filling time in really.

I suspected the same about those wins, but as you say, you never know

[Blue blood]

20 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

From those highlighted Stokes looked a decent signing and the others all arguably were decent. The MAJOR problem was the knucklehead signing them, coaching them and ultimately sending them out on the field. 

Contrary to people going on a bout "inevitable" relegation last season, we wouldn't have went down if they have sacked that disgrace of am manager after our first handful of games. 

 

Whilst I agree a better manager probably would have kept us up, there was so, so much wrong with the squad, even after Coyle's seemingly "good" recruitment.

Great though Mulgrew is, he's only fit for half the games, which with a paper-thin squad hurt us more than most clubs. No one thought Feeney was any good as a squad player under Bowyer when we had a much stronger team, Stokes was a gamble having never really performed in English football, Hanley was replaced with a 36 year old, whilst the left back we recruited was so bad our poor right back Henley ousted him! Byrne didn't amount to anything either. And that's before we consider the dross in the squad! Imo Coyle really screwed up the recruitment that summer, although our illustrious owners need to take a lot of credit for giving him a horrible set of circumstances and budget to work in.

Mind you having said all that, there's a strong argument that many other teams in the championship were equally uninspiring/poor and they still turned out ok. So guess not disagreeing Clueless is to blame, but rather I wouldn't give much credit to his signings either.

[Bigdoggsteel]

42 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Whilst I agree a better manager probably would have kept us up, there was so, so much wrong with the squad, even after Coyle's seemingly "good" recruitment.

Great though Mulgrew is, he's only fit for half the games, which with a paper-thin squad hurt us more than most clubs. No one thought Feeney was any good as a squad player under Bowyer when we had a much stronger team, Stokes was a gamble having never really performed in English football, Hanley was replaced with a 36 year old, whilst the left back we recruited was so bad our poor right back Henley ousted him! Byrne didn't amount to anything either. And that's before we consider the dross in the squad! Imo Coyle really screwed up the recruitment that summer, although our illustrious owners need to take a lot of credit for giving him a horrible set of circumstances and budget to work in.

Mind you having said all that, there's a strong argument that many other teams in the championship were equally uninspiring/poor and they still turned out ok. So guess not disagreeing Clueless is to blame, but rather I wouldn't give much credit to his signings either.

I don't think anyone would say we shouldn't have signed Mulgrew, regardless of his injuries.

Stokes was a gamble because he is a moron, not because he hadn't played in England. Scotland isn't that different and he was a very good player there. 

On a free, couldn't argue about signing Feeney

Wes Brown was an awful signing, no doubt. However he did only play when 4 centre halves were injured and Wharton was out on loan.

I was very disappointed with Byrne. I don't see him living up to the hype now.

You ignored Gallagher, Williams and Emnes, who were decent signings and both would have been better under a proper coach.

I would have given our recruitment last season, under the circumstance, a C. We would have stayed up under another manager, even after selling Hanley and Duffy and only investing peanuts. It was the clueless decision to appoint Coyle and keep him for so long that ultimately relegated us. It was clear things were falling down around us from very early on in the season. How those behind the scenes sat on their hands and let this happen is unforgivable. 

We as fans had to eat some sh1t sandwich last season 

 

[chaddyrovers]

43 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Whilst I agree a better manager probably would have kept us up, there was so, so much wrong with the squad, even after Coyle's seemingly "good" recruitment.

Great though Mulgrew is, he's only fit for half the games, which with a paper-thin squad hurt us more than most clubs. No one thought Feeney was any good as a squad player under Bowyer when we had a much stronger team, Stokes was a gamble having never really performed in English football, Hanley was replaced with a 36 year old, whilst the left back we recruited was so bad our poor right back Henley ousted him! Byrne didn't amount to anything either. And that's before we consider the dross in the squad! Imo Coyle really screwed up the recruitment that summer, although our illustrious owners need to take a lot of credit for giving him a horrible set of circumstances and budget to work in.

Mind you having said all that, there's a strong argument that many other teams in the championship were equally uninspiring/poor and they still turned out ok. So guess not disagreeing Clueless is to blame, but rather I wouldn't give much credit to his signings either.

Mowbray would have got us top 10 finish over a full season with that squad.

Mulgrew was a good signing despite his injuries.

Henley replace Williams during the season? or do you mean when Coyle started Henley in the 1st 2 games instead of Hendrie?

Byrne needed to play in 3 man centre midfield to be affective. Hendrie never played.

Last summer recruitment wasn't that best.

we signed Samuelsen who never fitted Coyle tactics and block Mahoney pathway to the 1st team.

Greer was signed as a back up and ended up playing much more.

Brown was useless

Feeney had a few good games but not good enough over a season

[tomphil]

Managers shouldn't be signing players that don't fit their tactics its a sure way never to prosper and an obvious sign of desperation for numbers and maybe an agency foisting their goods on the club unopposed. Its happened all along under Venkys ownership and only really Lambert had a plan to the ones he signed.

Lets finally hope TM can be allowed the leeway to rebuild HIS team he certainly makes the right noises.

[davulsukur]

3 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Managers shouldn't be signing players that don't fit their tactics its a sure way never to prosper and an obvious sign of desperation for numbers and maybe an agency foisting their goods on the club unopposed. Its happened all along under Venkys ownership and only really Lambert had a plan to the ones he signed.

Lets finally hope TM can be allowed the leeway to rebuild HIS team he certainly makes the right noises.

In fairness, I don't believe Coyle ever had any tactics....

[tomphil]

Just now, davulsukur said:

In fairness, I don't believe Coyle ever had any tactics....

Yes i forgot to mention that lol GB had a scattergun approach but he seemed to just have getting cheap players in and increasing their value in mind first and foremost so it was a plan of sorts. Lambert definitely had a style of play in mind and got a few in to fit that but Coyle on the other hand obviously had zero tactical plan beyond getting a load of badly needed forwards in.

He was a like a boxer who has a big punch and relies soley on that but who keeps losing because he's no idea how to land it the clown.

[Dreams of 1995]

Coyle's only good spell as a manager at Burnley came through prolific firepower. They would concede 2 but score 3 which is all well and good but it isn't a recipe for continued success. Since then he has always overloaded the forward play and neglected a defensive approach. Some of the defending on display last year was shambolic. I saw better down Pleasington on Saturday and Sunday mornings.

TM's success came by working on our defensive approach but even he couldn't stop us leaking silly goals. It is a remarkably similar story to the Bowyer to Lambert transition. A manager with experience and know how came in and shored up the problems of their former. The only difference being that Lambert could fall back on 13 million pounds worth of defenders whereas TM had to play with the slops Coyle left.

How long ago it all seems now. The stability GB brought us - the joy of Lambert coming in. The optimism of change. How could they get it all so wrong after finally seeming to get it right.

[Tony Rover]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

Coyle's only good spell as a manager at Burnley came through prolific firepower. They would concede 2 but score 3 which is all well and good but it isn't a recipe for continued success. Since then he has always overloaded the forward play and neglected a defensive approach. Some of the defending on display last year was shambolic. I saw better down Pleasington on Saturday and Sunday mornings.

TM's success came by working on our defensive approach but even he couldn't stop us leaking silly goals. It is a remarkably similar story to the Bowyer to Lambert transition. A manager with experience and know how came in and shored up the problems of their former. The only difference being that Lambert could fall back on 13 million pounds worth of defenders whereas TM had to play with the slops Coyle left.

How long ago it all seems now. The stability GB brought us - the joy of Lambert coming in. The optimism of change. How could they get it all so wrong after finally seeming to get it right.

Simply because you can't run a football club of our standing on a shoe string budget. I remember when Lambert came in and feeling  optimistic for the future. It's the hope that kills you! 

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Tony Rover said:

Simply because you can't run a football club of our standing on a shoe string budget. I remember when Lambert came in and feeling  optimistic for the future. It's the hope that kills you! 

Maybe. However, you can argue that many other clubs ran with significantly less wages than us and still managed to have a successful season. We still had a very high wage bill for the quality on the pitch. The budget is responsible for some of the problems at this club but not all.

Bowyer operated on a similar budget and managed to produce a team capable of survival. I have no doubt Lambert would have kept us up with the budget given to Coyle. Same with TM. The responsibility for last year lays at the feet of OC and those that employed him - not the budget.

[Tony Rover]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Maybe. However, you can argue that many other clubs ran with significantly less wages than us and still managed to have a successful season. We still had a very high wage bill for the quality on the pitch. The budget is responsible for some of the problems at this club but not all.

Bowyer operated on a similar budget and managed to produce a team capable of survival. I have no doubt Lambert would have kept us up with the budget given to Coyle. Same with TM. The responsibility for last year lays at the feet of OC and those that employed him - not the budget.

I agree with the fact that appointing Coyle played a major factor in us going down. You won't hear me arguing that the blame lies at the very top. Yes our wage bill was high but you have to factor in the players that were signed up a good few years before, the averages spread it out but we are constantly cutting. Our player of the year was our one and only outlay for some time now. So yes, the budget does play a part. 

[Don Said]

Think we all knew, but Mark Venus has joined Rovers as Mowbray's assistant (Rovers Twitter).

[Blue blood]

6 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I don't think anyone would say we shouldn't have signed Mulgrew, regardless of his injuries.

Stokes was a gamble because he is a moron, not because he hadn't played in England. Scotland isn't that different and he was a very good player there. 

On a free, couldn't argue about signing Feeney

Wes Brown was an awful signing, no doubt. However he did only play when 4 centre halves were injured and Wharton was out on loan.

I was very disappointed with Byrne. I don't see him living up to the hype now.

You ignored Gallagher, Williams and Emnes, who were decent signings and both would have been better under a proper coach.

I would have given our recruitment last season, under the circumstance, a C. We would have stayed up under another manager, even after selling Hanley and Duffy and only investing peanuts. It was the clueless decision to appoint Coyle and keep him for so long that ultimately relegated us. It was clear things were falling down around us from very early on in the season. How those behind the scenes sat on their hands and let this happen is unforgivable. 

We as fans had to eat some sh1t sandwich last season 

 

Thanks for the reasoned reply. I'd say given we had such a small squad and budget some of those gambles weren't worth taking. 

I get where you are coming from with Mulgrew, and am very tempted to agree. However when half your squad - especially the central midfield and centre back position he was brought for - are full of crocks, it makes less sense and doesn't really solve the problem. For a small injury-prone squad and limited budget I'm not sure it's a risk worth taking - although he is a class act so I may be tempted anyway. 

Regardless of why Stokes was a gamble that wasn't what we needed given the small squad and budget. Also I'd beg to differ as the standard in Scotland is much lower than the championship. So pretty risky imo. 

RE: Feeney - I could! Bad first time round and even worse now nearer the first 11. 

Yep, didn't highlight those 3 successes, but even then I'd argue there were a lot more misses then hits. Also were Emnes and Williams that good? I mean neither let us down, but I don't think either really pulled up any trees. Decent rather than good signings - it's a glass half full or empty outlook with those 2 imo. Credit where it is due Gally was an excellent signing. 

As for the grading I'd probably go a D or C minus if I'm feeling generous. I can see why you'd give a C - probably because of the circumstances and budget he was working in - but imo so, so many of the transfers didn't work out, there were still gaping holes in the squad and we wasted so, so much of the little money we had. Just think of the wages of Stokes, Byrne, Hendrie, Samuelson and Brown for starters. We also needed a manager who was at least at the B level, so all in all a massive failure imo. 

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Mowbray would have got us top 10 finish over a full season with that squad.

Mulgrew was a good signing despite his injuries.

Henley replace Williams during the season? or do you mean when Coyle started Henley in the 1st 2 games instead of Hendrie?

Byrne needed to play in 3 man centre midfield to be affective. Hendrie never played.

Last summer recruitment wasn't that best.

we signed Samuelsen who never fitted Coyle tactics and block Mahoney pathway to the 1st team.

Greer was signed as a back up and ended up playing much more.

Brown was useless

Feeney had a few good games but not good enough over a season

Yep mean Hendrie. What a waste of a wage that was! Also a pointless waste of a loan signing berth. Sure he didn't play but both the slot and the wages could've been spent much better. That he or Byrne didn't play much says so much about Coyle's scouting abilities. 

I'd change it to Mowbray would have got us to top 10 IN SPITE of that squad. Also there's a raft of bad squads occupying the championship. Cardiff's pre Warnock looked appalling and had done for years, yet Warnock has got them firing with only a few additions. Burton made the big signing of Luke Varney in the Jan transfer window - a much lower calibre of player then what we have. And wage wise, and who've heard of them wise as well, I'd say there were some lowly squads in Barnsley, Ipswich, Bristol City and more who all did better than us. A bad squad isn't as big an obstacle as it should be in this division. 

Agree with the rest of your post though. Good summary.