Ben Brereton Diaz

[JBiz]

34 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

My main qualm with the quote from Mowbray, and id like to state that like you inferred earlier, that we dont know the full context again. I don't understand why he is seemingly solely being seen as a wide man, no grey areas, hes not a striker in Mowbrays eyes short term. Especially considering how light of depth we are otherwise there.

I appreciate that Forest fans stating that Brereton is no good wide is not foolproof in terms of how he will do here in that role either, your Armstrong example proves that, but nor should it be discarded. Added to that, when he has featured there in matches he has looked uncomfortable. He made his name at Forest and in the England youth teams as a central forward. His most accomplished performance that got him all the media attention was against Arsenal as a central striker.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/17197021.rovers-boss-mowbray-happy-with-the-options-available-to-him/?ref=mac

Just going off the recent selections, and the comments in the above article:

Would you agree that Brereton (natural striker) should be higher in the pecking order for that position than Dack? 

Would you agree that Brereton should be higher in the pecking order for that position than Kasey Palmer?

Would you agree that if Brereton isnt considered ready enough to even become an option to be number 9, then Joe Nuttall certainly isnt ready?

Like you said, there may be the odd occasion when it suits the team. Off the top of my head, if we are losing, we dont want to break up the Dack and Graham partnership, but we want another attacker on, get Brereton wide rather than moving Dack. And I would totally accept that.

My main points are to summarise:

- I dont believe Brereton is best suited to be playing wide

- If he has been signed to play wide, then I think Mowbray maybe needs to point questions towards himself as to why he feels short in terms of strikers. I dont think anyone could doubt that hes improved the quality of the squad. He made some good signings in the summer. But we have only 2 trusted natural centre backs, we have 1 natural right back, we have 1 trusted central striker, yet we have 4 players battling for that wide role as the third attacking player (2 natural strikers, 2 10's) and 1 or 2 too many in central midfield.

 

Replying to questions;

Id put Brererton as the fourth option after Graham, Dack and Armstrong on the basis he has spent less time around the squad. A goal or an assist in a decent performance up top could change this opinion but I can only go off what I see so far.

In terms of wide berths, I’ve not been particularly impressed with KP however he certainly upped his game at WBA so I’d personally persevere tomorrow. Probably put Conway before B.B. too - including AA and Bennett for the wings.

Not sure of relevance and comparison to Nuttall. If it’s relevant to the numbering - then I ask why that’s important!

Do I think we could’ve added more quality for the same price if it’s 6/7m plus a decent wage? Yes. Do I think we’ve paid anything like suggested upfront? No.

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Biz

[unsall]

Just now, Al said:

 

Neither has anybody else in a match environment. Matches are where points are won and lost and that’s where players are judged not in five a side kick abouts.

5 a side kick abouts, is that what Rovers do in training, ha ha right ok.

[Leonard Venkhater]

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I remember a few weeks back Mowbray said Brereton scores the most goals in training. So maybe try him up font Tony. Just an idea 

Bruno Ribeiro was the Brazilian Denis Irwin....in training!

[Al]

12 minutes ago, unsall said:

5 a side kick abouts, is that what Rovers do in training, ha ha right ok.

I take it that you either watch all training or take part and have first hand knowledge then. How many points have we accumulated in training?

Edited November 2, 2018 by Al

[unsall]

Just now, Al said:

I take it that you either watch all training or take part and have first hand knowledge then.

Ha ha funny you should say that, seen one or two training sessions,  let’s put it this way Rovers training is very intense, and I can assure you playing a few five a side kick abouts does not happen, certainly different from the last manager, do you remember Joe Rothwell saying a few weeks back it took him a while to get used to it as he hadn’t experienced that kind of training before.

[unsall]

17 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Bruno Ribeiro was the Brazilian Denis Irwin....in training!

So are you another saying training doesn’t matter?

[Mercer]

18 minutes ago, unsall said:

So are you another saying training doesn’t matter?

Didn't seem to for Ben Gladwin.  Seemingly stunning in training but, IMV, total cr@p where it really mattered!

LV has also mentioned Bruno Ribeiro, seemingly another star in training but who looked useless again where it mattered.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Mercer

[roversfan99]

33 minutes ago, Biz said:

Replying to questions;

Id put Brererton as the fourth option after Graham, Dack and Armstrong on the basis he has spent less time around the squad. A goal or an assist in a decent performance up top could change this opinion but I can only go off what I see so far.

In terms of wide berths, I’ve not been particularly impressed with KP however he certainly upped his game at WBA so I’d personally persevere tomorrow. Probably put Conway before B.B. too - including AA and Bennett for the wings.

Not sure of relevance and comparison to Nuttall. If it’s relevant to the numbering - then I ask why that’s important!

Do I think we could’ve added more quality for the same price if it’s 6/7m plus a decent wage? Yes. Do I think we’ve paid anything like suggested upfront? No.

 

I understand but disagree with Armstrong being ahead of him in your opinion. Both of them are strikers who seem to be in limbo between their natural positions and playing wide, but with Armstrong, all of his previous good performances for us were wide and his skills are more suited to be effective there, hes small, quick, runs at players. 

Dack I cant understand. If you put him up front, firstly you are moving him from the position he has been so impressive in since he joined. Secondly, hes shown in the last week, he isnt suited to being the furthest man forward.

Mowbray stated that he potentially sees Palmer being able to play up front, hes not a striker in a million years either.

My point about Nuttall was that he considered him as one of his options to be a striker. At the moment he doesnt see Brereton has an option centrally, even though he has far more positive experience at proving himself in that position.

I don't think Brereton should be our first striker, and im not even demanding that he is only chosen as a striker. But to not even be considered as a striker, behind 2 midfielders and a fellow young striker without the fledgling potential that Brereton showed pre-Rovers just makes no sense to me. And to spend 7m on a striker to play wide and leave us short up front doesnt make any sense either. 

6 minutes ago, unsall said:

So are you another saying training doesn’t matter?

 You are totally taking their obvious intentions out of context. Training is obviously very important otherwise they wouldnt do it. But it doesnt matter how you perform in training if you dont perform on a match day.

[unsall]

Just now, Mercer said:

Didn't seem to for Ben Gladwin.  Seemingly stunning in training but, IMV, total cr@p where it really mattered!

LV has also mentioned Bruno Ribeiro, seemingly another star in training but who looked useless again where it mattered.

Ok, just a couple, just can’t believe you don’t think training is crucial, so if you don’t do it in training just throw him in the team and hope for the best.

[unsall]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

I understand but disagree with Armstrong being ahead of him in your opinion. Both of them are strikers who seem to be in limbo between their natural positions and playing wide, but with Armstrong, all of his previous good performances for us were wide and his skills are more suited to be effective there, hes small, quick, runs at players. 

Dack I cant understand. If you put him up front, firstly you are moving him from the position he has been so impressive in since he joined. Secondly, hes shown in the last week, he isnt suited to being the furthest man forward.

Mowbray stated that he potentially sees Palmer being able to play up front, hes not a striker in a million years either.

My point about Nuttall was that he considered him as one of his options to be a striker. At the moment he doesnt see Brereton has an option centrally, even though he has far more positive experience at proving himself in that position.

I don't think Brereton should be our first striker, and im not even demanding that he is only chosen as a striker. But to not even be considered as a striker, behind 2 midfielders and a fellow young striker without the fledgling potential that Brereton showed pre-Rovers just makes no sense to me. And to spend 7m on a striker to play wide and leave us short up front doesnt make any sense either. 

 You are totally taking their obvious intentions out of context. Training is obviously very important otherwise they wouldnt do it. But it doesnt matter how you perform in training if you dont perform on a match day.

How am I taking it out of context when AL says all they do is a bit of five a side in training.

[Leonard Venkhater]

26 minutes ago, unsall said:

So are you another saying training doesn’t matter?

I was having a laugh really...but TM is just using his comments about goals in training to manage the situation. The inescapable truth is that TM clearly doesn't think he is good enough.....yet...

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, unsall said:

How am I taking it out of context when AL says all they do is a bit of five a side in training.

He didnt. He didnt say anything like that. He, admittedly with a bit of hyperbole, said what others have said, that match days are when it matters.

[Mercer]

9 minutes ago, unsall said:

Ok, just a couple, just can’t believe you don’t think training is crucial, so if you don’t do it in training just throw him in the team and hope for the best.

Now you are being silly.

Of course training is crucial.  Many of the top, top players are where they are because they practise their skills long after others have sauntered off.

There are other players who hate training and don't show up well but on the field of play they are dynamite.

The bottom line here is that Mowbray has, IMV, come out with ludicrous comments about Brereton earlier today which could be interpreted as a serious indictment on the way Rovers scout players and make judgements on players.  To sign a central striker in a huge deal for Rovers and then say based on training, he's more suited to playing out wide is, IMV, farcical - it's then compounded by commenting we are a striker short!  If this had been Kean or Coyley..........................................................................................!!!!!

Edited November 2, 2018 by Mercer

[Hasta]

7 hours ago, Biz said:

Said the same about Armstrong last January.

Can I ask a question - how long before you’d cancel and release his contract for being shit? 10 sub appearances? 15?

Do we give him 1 league start and if he doesn’t score we put him out to pasture?

 

He said based on what he's seen so far. Nobody yet is saying that we should cancel his contract.

All we can go on is his very few appearances he has made so far, where the general consensus is that out wide he has been pretty poor. Now I was one of several people who said wait till he plays a while in his proper position before judgement. TM has just worryingly told us that he feels he IS playing in his proper position.

 

[unsall]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

He didnt. He didnt say anything like that. He, admittedly with a bit of hyperbole, said what others have said, that match days are when it matters.

He said match days are all that matters, not five a side kick abouts.

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, Hasta said:

He said based on what he's seen so far. Nobody yet is saying that we should cancel his contract.

All we can go on is his very few appearances he has made so far, where the general consensus is that out wide he has been pretty poor. Now I was one of several people who said wait till he plays a while in his proper position before judgement. TM has just worryingly told us that he feels he IS playing in his proper position.

 

Obviously was purposely hyperbolic.

Agree though it’ll take a few months if not years to truly judge his characteristics and importance.  

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, unsall said:

He said match days are all that matters, not five a side kick abouts.

They are. Training is crucial, just like diet, analysis, lifestyle, sleep etc. But they are all done in preparation for matches. You train solely to make yourself as good as you can get on a match day.

[unsall]

18 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Now you are being silly.

Of course training is crucial.  Many of the top, top players are where they are because they practise their skills long after others have sauntered off.

There are other players who hate training and don't show up well but on the field of play they are dynamite.

The bottom line here is that Mowbray has, IMV, come out with ludicrous comments about Brereton earlier today which could be interpreted as a serious indictment on the way Rovers scout players and make judgements on players.  To sign a central striker in a huge deal for Rovers and then say based on training, he's more suited to playing out wide is, IMV, farcical - it's then compounded by commenting we are a striker short!  If this had been Kean or Coyley..........................................................................................!!!!!

Oh dear you’ve said that word again,C——-y, boss man will be on to you.

Listen I know you’ve think Rovers have made a big mistake in signing him, basically it’s because of the size of the fee, Mowbray couldn’t care less if it’s free or 6/7 mil, he obviously rates him and signed him, if that’s what it costs and the owners trust him, so be it.

The lad is 19 and T M thinks he needs more time before he starts regularly, at the moment Graham and Dack are the main men up top, the system we play Brereton has to be wide striker or on the bench, I honestly think he will turn out to be a decent  player.

Think we all rate Graham, but Sunderland paid 5 mil for him, think he scored once in 30 odd games, and he started at Boro at 19 years old went out on loan various clubs , scored 4 goals in 40 games for 5 different clubs, only started scoring freely at Carlisle when he was 22/23.

At the end of the day everyone will have their own opinion on him, early days.

[47er]

8 hours ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

 19 is a baby in footballing terms, he's being eased into the side when everyone else is playing well. Maybe this will turn out to be a shocking investment, but surely we're still as much in the 'wait and see' period as we were when we first signed him?

While we are waiting and seeing, another striker could have been doing the job for us and the additional centre-back and keeper could have turned out for us tomorrow.

19 isn't all that young for a footballer.Ronnie  Clayton made his debut when he was 16 and Boro have an 18 year old playing regularly now.There must be countless other examples.

It could all turn out well in the end or not but there is still no logic to it. Like any big gamble really.

[chaddyrovers]

11 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

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.

He didn't looked hopeless wide against Leeds at all. He was good and played well. 

Mowbray sees him as a wide striker at the minute with Graham being the main man in the 9 role. Then moving into that role when Graham moves on. easing into the 9 role bit by bit. That's the way I read it. 

9 hours ago, Biz said:

He’s a 19 year old prospect, I simply never understand how you assume you know better. There’s giving an opinion, and then there is “@#/? the bed” at every opportunity. It’s 11 months since people said the same about Armstrong. 

 

You considered he has never played out wide for forest? 

 

I genuinely can’t believe this reaction to one snippet or quote, without even the question asked.

 

agree on the 1st point. 

he did play wide in some games under Warburton at Forest. 

 

8 hours ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

Game of opinions, but I thought he looked very assured in his spell there against Leeds. Go as far as saying mature beyond his years. Some smart runs, holding the ball up and winning free kicks in good areas.

It's obviously fair enough  that people should be able to criticise things without being accused of being doom-mongers or anti-Mowbray, but I'm a little surprised at how quickly some are getting a real downer on this. 19 is a baby in footballing terms, he's being eased into the side when everyone else is playing well. Maybe this will turn out to be a shocking investment, but surely we're still as much in the 'wait and see' period as we were when we first signed him?

I agree he was good against Leeds. don't understand anyone saying otherwise cos he wasn't poor. 

I agree on your real downer comment 100%. 

I always view Brereton has a long term project and he should be given time and patience. don't understand the rush and panic that set in when he doesn't play

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

He didn't looked hopeless wide against Leeds at all. He was good and played well. 

Mowbray sees him as a wide striker at the minute with Graham being the main man in the 9 role. Then moving into that role when Graham moves on. easing into the 9 role bit by bit. That's the way I read it. 

agree on the 1st point. 

he did play wide in some games under Warburton at Forest. 

 

I agree he was good against Leeds. don't understand anyone saying otherwise cos he wasn't poor. 

I agree on your real downer comment 100%. 

I always view Brereton has a long term project and he should be given time and patience. don't understand the rush and panic that set in when he doesn't play

Against Leeds he did ok but he didnt offer any attacking threat, the work he did that was decent was very much in terms of game management, winning fouls etc. He wasnt an attacking danger. Every other time, hes looked poor there. But to be fair its not his position.

The reason that people are concerned when he doesnt play, and when he does, not in his correct position, is because he was the majority of our summer budget. It can easily be argued that even if he is effective wide, it is a luxury that we could not afford to sign a striker to be moulded into a wide man, when we are short up front, and also looking light at centre back and right back.

Thats nothing against Brereton himself, and at the moment all of the discussion around him is not in terms of his own abiliity, it is in terms of how the manager is using/misusing him. You yourself have commented more than once that you dont think he should be wide with Dack central, so id be interested to know what suddenly has changed your own personal mind, without repeating quotes from Mowbrays press conference today.

[JacknOry]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

He didn't looked hopeless wide against Leeds at all. He was good and played well. 

Mowbray sees him as a wide striker at the minute with Graham being the main man in the 9 role. Then moving into that role when Graham moves on. easing into the 9 role bit by bit. That's the way I read it. 

agree on the 1st point. 

he did play wide in some games under Warburton at Forest. 

 

I agree he was good against Leeds. don't understand anyone saying otherwise cos he wasn't poor. 

I agree on your real downer comment 100%. 

I always view Brereton has a long term project and he should be given time and patience. don't understand the rush and panic that set in when he doesn't play

When we run out of defenders and Cfs because we spent the lions share of our budget on a long term project that could or could not come good in a season or too and we suffer because of it, you might be able to understand why people are a little confused. Even you yourself put Brereton in your team UP FRONT for this game if DG is not fit in the QPR thread. Even you yourself said you do not like this putting Dack upfront. You confuse your own opinions with those of TM, you dont like it yourself but will then not accept anyone questioning it or debating the signing.

[chaddyrovers]

8 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

£7m is a lot of money for a potentially good winger or a potentially good striker. Mowbray must have seen something because there was a winger being touted from Peteborough for £2.5m that is an actual winger and has scored and created goals for 3 years in a row.

Plus we'd have had £4.5m to add a centre back for the inevitable injury problems we are currently/will continue to struggle with.

I think Premier League clubs sign potential for £7m. Modest Championship clubs with strict wage structures and tight budgets should probably be looking at where such a player plays best and understand what role the £7m player is going to play.

At the moment I simply don't see where Brereton is going to fit in. Armstrong and Bennett on either wing and it looks like Mowbray prefers Conway and Reed over BB also. 

I don't think it's so much a criticism of Brereton but more a confusion at where this £7m has been spent on. Our bench? Depth? We've spent a lot of money on a maybe striker/maybe winger - but even then we don't know which side he prefers. 

A lot of maybes but one thing is for certain - it's cost us millions. 

nobody sign Maddison tho from a championship club. why not if he is that good? player attitude, wages? cos he is similar type of player to Freeman from QPR who we tried to sign. 

I think we know who Mowbray 1st choice is for the centre back role but his club wouldn't play ball and instead will lose him on a free or cheap fee. 

should we be interest in the fee paid as expectation should be the same from every player/signing. 

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

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.

I can understand your comments about Mowbray but I think Mowbray wants to ease him in and not put pressure on him and suffer a lack of confident. 

We have money to spend and I would expect some spent in January if the right players are available. 

7 hours ago, unsall said:

You’re right,can’t believe the hysteria on here about the lad, Armstrong thinks he’s an out and out striker but with Rovers playing a fit Graham, we have to play Armstrong/  Brereton as wide strikers, Armstrong destroyed Leeds in the first half playing left of striker, TM system has Graham up top with Dack behind, till that changes they will both have to play wide, not as wingers but wide striker, when Graham’s times come to finish he might get to play in his position, as an out and striker.

I agree with your comments above and I think we change our style soon and adopt a more passing style 

6 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

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.

 

Bamford isn't a number 9 type of striker either tho. He either wide forward or a number 10 striker. 

I think we are short of a target man type of striker looking at it. A like for like replacement for Graham isn't there. Brereton and Armstrong aren't target man strikers and I did say we would have adapt our style if either play the 10 role. I think Brereton will be the striker we used when Mowbray finally move us to a passing style of play as he has discuss in the past. 

have you actually read why Dack played up front on his own against Leeds with Brereton and Armstrong wide?

[roversfan99]

14 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

nobody sign Maddison tho from a championship club. why not if he is that good? player attitude, wages? cos he is similar type of player to Freeman from QPR who we tried to sign. 

I think we know who Mowbray 1st choice is for the centre back role but his club wouldn't play ball and instead will lose him on a free or cheap fee. 

should we be interest in the fee paid as expectation should be the same from every player/signing. 

I can understand your comments about Mowbray but I think Mowbray wants to ease him in and not put pressure on him and suffer a lack of confident. 

We have money to spend and I would expect some spent in January if the right players are available. 

I agree with your comments above and I think we change our style soon and adopt a more passing style 

Bamford isn't a number 9 type of striker either tho. He either wide forward or a number 10 striker. 

I think we are short of a target man type of striker looking at it. A like for like replacement for Graham isn't there. Brereton and Armstrong aren't target man strikers and I did say we would have adapt our style if either play the 10 role. I think Brereton will be the striker we used when Mowbray finally move us to a passing style of play as he has discuss in the past. 

have you actually read why Dack played up front on his own against Leeds with Brereton and Armstrong wide?

I personally think it will affect his confidence more playing out of position because hes less likely to replicate any performances that caused his reputation to increase at Forest.

You keep mentioning Bauer but Mowbray repeatedly bleated on about various lists throughout the summer, do even if your hypothesis is true about that deal not happening, he should have looked elsewhere IMO.

The fee thing has been done to death, but people will judge when we have a 7m luxury signing having rare out of position cameos whilst we are short in other areas. People will wonder if that money could have been spent elsewhere.

I never said we should sign Bamford, was just responding to Biz to justify his fee and wages.

Yes but its irrelevant because I can see with my own eyes, and having seen Dack play as a striker 3 times this week and Brereton in most of his cameos wide that neither experiment/tactic in my opinion is one I would continue, as both looked uncomfortable in unnatural positions.

I cant get my head around the fact that he is not even being considered in his natural position, hes solely being considered as a wide man when the alternatives are Dack, Palmer and Nuttall.

[chaddyrovers]

6 hours ago, Biz said:

So there’s no such thing as square pegs then? Or has Brererton shown you he doesn’t have a second best position already? Roversfan99 uses the Forrest’s fan’s judgement on Brererton, remember what Bolton fans said about Armstrong out wide?

What if he’d come on for DG upfront 3 times already but not scored... would you be advocating we try him out wide?

All this boils down too, if you’ve or anyone has come to a judgement on his abilities already, you’re making yourself (in my opinion) sound a bit stupid. The cost argument from last week is negated by the fact wages/fees have been going up exponentially for 30 years. 6/7m is literally peanuts when you factor in we paid Dixon Etuhu nearly twice that in wages.

The Armstrong wide role at Bolton is interested and right. They said he was useless there for them

5 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

To me, as much as anything he seems short on fitness and confidence.

So, considering he didn’t play a minute at West Brom and the U23s played on Monday, therefore giving ample rest till tomorrow, why wasn’t he involved with them?

I understand this point and I think a game for the under 23's might have been good for him. to get him scoring and his confidence

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

- If he has been signed to play wide, then I think Mowbray maybe needs to point questions towards himself as to why he feels short in terms of strikers. I dont think anyone could doubt that hes improved the quality of the squad. He made some good signings in the summer. But we have only 2 trusted natural centre backs, we have 1 natural right back, we have 1 trusted central striker, yet we have 4 players battling for that wide role as the third attacking player (2 natural strikers, 2 10's) and 1 or 2 too many in central midfield.

 

4 players for 1 role?

Mowbray doesn't play with natural wingers or expect them to stay wide, but he gives them freedom to move inside and allow the full backs to provide the width