Ben Brereton Diaz

[Mattyblue]

His confidence is in pieces out wide. He’s not a great centre forward by any means, but he can do a job, especially as a sub.

I just cannot fathom what TM is playing at with him continually shunting him out there.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Mattyblue

[Dreams of 1995]

Sam Gallagher got 17 goals for us up front in that relegation season. So if you can't imagine him getting 15 goals 'from what you have seen' - did you even watch our relegation season?

We have two fine crossers of the ball in JRC and Douglas. Quite why Gallagher isn't central against them I don't know.

I actually quite liked the substitution of Evans for Gallagher against Reading. 4-2-4 is attacking stuff. Then I noticed he put Elliot up top with Armstrong and Gallagher out right and felt myself sinking into the sofa. I think I switched that game off on the 87th minute.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

22 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

He might do, but I think thats a big assumption and not something that correlates with the Sam Gallagher that I have seen, in my opinion.

He got 12 in a shit team under a shit manager so it's hardly a 'big assumption'

Edited October 29, 2020 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

He got 12 in a shit team under a shit manager so it's hardly a 'big assumption'

I dont agree that playing under Coyle hindered him. It hindered Rovers, but not Gallagher personally, it benefitted him.

Had he bettered that goal tally since or even come close, then maybe there would be an argument that having Coyle as his manager was a hindrance.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

I dont agree that playing under Coyle hindered him. It hindered Rovers, but not Gallagher personally, it benefitted him.

Had he bettered that goal tally since or even come close, then maybe there would be an argument that having Coyle as his manager was a hindrance.

Ah, so Coyle is the only manager Gally could do well under? Even though we score more goals now, are just as attacking,  and have people out wide (Douglas, Elliot, JRC) who can cross a ball? I'm not sure your assumptions stand up to scrutiny.

[Dreams of 1995]

8 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Ah, so Coyle is the only manager Gally could do well under? Even though we score more goals now, are just as attacking,  and have people out wide (Douglas, Elliot, JRC) who can cross a ball? I'm not sure your assumptions stand up to scrutiny.

Gallagher did have Conway to be fair. 

But he also had Feeney if I remember correctly, with Jason Lowe and...who was the left back that year? Williams? He isn't known for his crossing. 

[LeftWinger]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Sam Gallagher got 17 goals for us up front in that relegation season. So if you can't imagine him getting 15 goals 'from what you have seen' - did you even watch our relegation season?

At least you can imagine him getting 15 goals in a season, as it appears you've dreamt about him scoring 17 in a season. Did you even watch our relegation season? ?

[Dreams of 1995]

6 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

At least you can imagine him getting 15 goals in a season, as it appears you've dreamt about him scoring 17 in a season. Did you even watch our relegation season? ?

12, my bad. 

[yellowsubmarine]

1 hour ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

He got 12 in a shit team under a shit manager so it's hardly a 'big assumption'

Maybe Mowbray needs to go on Youtube and watch how/where Gally was played during that season. Almost all his goals (quite a few headers) came from the centre, in the box.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, yellowsubmarine said:

Maybe Mowbray needs to go on Youtube and watch how/where Gally was played during that season. Almost all his goals (quite a few headers) came from the centre, in the box.

That's where most goals come from. If you're never there you aren't going to score many.

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Ah, so Coyle is the only manager Gally could do well under? Even though we score more goals now, are just as attacking,  and have people out wide (Douglas, Elliot, JRC) who can cross a ball? I'm not sure your assumptions stand up to scrutiny.

I never said that, but it is being made out as if that time under Coyle (in which he scored 1 in 4 across the season, its very respectable but its nothing amazing) was a time in which his potential was limited. That was the best spell of his career. If he had then gone to Birmingham and scored more or even the same, then maybe there would be some merit to the point, but I cant see where he has shown enough to suggest that he could get 15 goals+.

I certainly wouldnt be changing the attack round, we have a striker who is the top scorer and the attacking side of things is working. Gallagher should just be second choice striker and only ever considered for that position, whether it be with Armstrong when we need a goal or in his absence.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

If he had then gone to Birmingham and scored more or even the same, then maybe there would be some merit to the point, but I cant see where he has shown enough to suggest that he could get 15 goals+.

Because he scored 12 here in a poor team with a worse manager. We've established that. Inventing your own conditions from which to judge him doesn't change that. 

 

Just now, roversfan99 said:

I certainly wouldnt be changing the attack round, we have a striker who is the top scorer and the attacking side of things is working

Nobody said we should. 

[Oldgregg86]

I think we can all agree that to score 12 in a relegated side at a young age is a good return . The time at brum is similar to now. He played out wide on the right and got the same results as now. Gallagher shouldn’t be in place of Armstrong as he is clearly a better finisher but he should be a viable plan B and one we shouldn’t cringe at every time he warms up. I blame Tony and only him for Gallagher poor performances. Until he is played centrally with the wide men instructed to supply him and given a fair crack even from the bench I won’t say anything other than Tony  has mishandled him

Edited October 29, 2020 by Oldgregg86

[islander200]

1 hour ago, Oldgregg86 said:

I think we can all agree that to score 12 in a relegated side at a young age is a good return . The time at brum is similar to now. He played out wide on the right and got the same results as now. Gallagher shouldn’t be in place of Armstrong as he is clearly a better finisher but he should be a viable plan B and one we shouldn’t cringe at every time he warms up. I blame Tony and only him for Gallagher poor performances. Until he is played centrally with the wide men instructed to supply him and given a fair crack even from the bench I won’t say anything other than Tony  has mishandled him

When Gallagher was considering his next move once Southampton made him available for transfer ,I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the talks with Mowbray.

Surely like every other player discussions must have been had about his role in the team , can't quite fathom why Gallagher chose us  he did have other options.

It's beyond stubborn that Mowbray keeps playing him wide, he just can't accept he is wrong

[simongarnerisgod]

i could sort of understand the wide role if the plan was to hit it long to gally so he could use his size to create a nuisance,but no,it gets played short so he has to turn with it,patently not in his skillset,why you would on tuesday night,bring him on,put him wide and leave dolan sitting on the bench is a mystery that only tony`s warped mind can answer

[TBTF]

13 hours ago, philipl said:

At least with Ben, I think there is increasing basis for hope that after a quiescent two seasons he is blossoming into something we hoped for.

The deadweight write-off is Sam Gallagher's £5m transfer fee. Wrong position or not, he just doesn't have the basics of reading the game or controlling a football. Hope I am wrong on Sam but he is mid-20s now and at this rate destined to slip out on a free when his contract expires.

Yes the cumulative cost of these 2 - especially Gallagher and his astronomical wages ( By our standards at least) makes the case for signing them even more far fetched . By the end of their first contracts  the £12m transfer fees plus wages for 3 or 4 years will take the cost of the pair of them above £20mill. Absolutely frightening . At the current rate it will be close to £1m a goal !! 

[joey_big_nose]

14 hours ago, simongarnerisgod said:

i could sort of understand the wide role if the plan was to hit it long to gally so he could use his size to create a nuisance,but no,it gets played short so he has to turn with it,patently not in his skillset,why you would on tuesday night,bring him on,put him wide and leave dolan sitting on the bench is a mystery that only tony`s warped mind can answer

Start of last season we hit it long to Gally at right wing. Sort of worked for a couple of games but turned out to be an abysmal soul destroying tactic in the long run eventually abandoned.

I just dont get why we don't play Gallager up top late in games when the opposition is deep. We could even go old school 442 with him and Armstrong through the middle. Would make far more sense than Gally right wing.

[tomphil]

The right sided forward role is Mowbrays 'keep em involved' position.  At times he's had a case to stick people there because there hasn't been a lot of options.  There are several now so like the persistence of plonking Evans back in every opportunity to just sit there and hope it works this one also needs chucking in the bin.

Gally on up front or not at all, then hold your hands up when questioned on it by fans, media or Pune and say well i may have backed the wrong horse there !

Never going to happen of course so on we plod, shrugging our shoulders as we go.

[Hasta]

Gallagher looks poorer now than he did first time around. He looks less mobile. I don't think he's a player that is improving. 

That said, the attributes he has shows point to him being more effective up front than stuck out on the wing or dropping deep.

[joey_big_nose]

3 hours ago, tomphil said:

The right sided forward role is Mowbrays 'keep em involved' position.  At times he's had a case to stick people there because there hasn't been a lot of options.  There are several now so like the persistence of plonking Evans back in every opportunity to just sit there and hope it works this one also needs chucking in the bin.

Gally on up front or not at all, then hold your hands up when questioned on it by fans, media or Pune and say well i may have backed the wrong horse there !

Never going to happen of course so on we plod, shrugging our shoulders as we go.

I don't really buy this. Even if you don't agree with what he implements, Mowbray is a tactically involved manager who sets out the team in certain ways because he genuinely thinks it will be effective. He's also got history in this wide striker approach - remember Antonsson?

He plays Gallagher on the right wing as he thinks it works for some bizarre reason. I suppose in Mowbray's defence  he has persisted with Brereton on the left and that has actually started looking good, so miracles can happen. But still - will lightning really strike twice? And with with Elliott, Dolan, JRC does even Mowbray himself want Brereton on one wing and Gallagher on the other? I really don't think so.

From a personnel perspective there is no need to play Gallagher wide right at all (as we have Elliot, Dolan and JRC) whereas through the middle we literally only have AA. So let's just commit to Gally being a central player, give him a solid role centrally to come on for the last 30 minutes of a game we are chasing to get on the end of crosses and put himself about. Do it for half a dozen games and see how it goes. I think he will look a decent option.

It seems very straightforward....

[tomphil]

Just now, joey_big_nose said:

I don't really buy this. Even if you don't agree with what he implements, Mowbray is a tactically involved manager who sets out the team in certain ways because he genuinely thinks it will be effective. He's also got history in this wide striker approach - remember Antonsson?

He plays Gallagher on the right wing as he thinks it works for some bizarre reason. I suppose in Mowbray's defence  he has persisted with Brereton on the left and that has actually started looking good, so miracles can happen. But still - will lightning really strike twice? And with with Elliott, Dolan, JRC does even Mowbray himself want Brereton on one wing and Gallagher on the other? I really don't think so.

From a personnel perspective there is no need to play Gallagher wide right at all (as we have Elliot, Dolan and JRC) whereas through the middle we literally only have AA. So let's just commit to Gally being a central player, give him a solid role centrally to come on for the last 30 minutes of a game we are chasing to get on the end of crosses and put himself about. Do it for half a dozen games and see how it goes. I think he will look a decent option.

It seems very straightforward....

Isn't that pretty much what i said though ?

It is straightforwards until he gets hold of it then it gets turned upside down. He did the same with Samuel and yes Antonsen but it worked to decent effect in league 1.  To still be trying it years later a league above when it rarely works is stubborn at best and naive at worst. So the only conclussion to be drawn is it's just for the sake of getting your 5 million pound high wage earner involved regularly.

[joey_big_nose]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

Isn't that pretty much what i said though ?

It is straightforwards until he gets hold of it then it gets turned upside down. He did the same with Samuel and yes Antonsen but it worked to decent effect in league 1.  To still be trying it years later a league above when it rarely works is stubborn at best and naive at worst. So the only conclussion to be drawn is it's just for the sake of getting your 5 million pound high wage earner involved regularly.

I guess what I am saying is he would do it with anyone. That he paid 5m for Gallagher doesn't make that much difference. He did the same with Samuel, Nuttall etc. It's a tactical belief he seems to have.

[Exiled in Toronto]

I’m not sure I buy that the only reason Gallagher can’t trap a ball, turn, beat his man etc is because he’s being played 25 yards wider. Every good striker we have had could also do things out wide: Shearer and Garner were terrific crossers, Benni could hold the ball up all day out there, Roque terrorized fullbacks. Even Kuqi could plant a 40-yards cross on MGP’s left foot.

Maybe he’s just not very good.

[simongarnerisgod]

15 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

I’m not sure I buy that the only reason Gallagher can’t trap a ball, turn, beat his man etc is because he’s being played 25 yards wider. Every good striker we have had could also do things out wide: Shearer and Garner were terrific crossers, Benni could hold the ball up all day out there, Roque terrorized fullbacks. Even Kuqi could plant a 40-yards cross on MGP’s left foot.

Maybe he’s just not very good.

all the above you`ve mentioned were encouraged to move about and find their own space,they could be out wide one minute then in the centre the next,mowbray`s tactical nous and his man managemen are terrible,im`e also laughing at the the thought of kuqi trying a 40 yard pass and the ball not going over the stand?

[Stuart]

6 hours ago, Hasta said:

Gallagher looks poorer now than he did first time around. He looks less mobile. I don't think he's a player that is improving. 

That said, the attributes he has shows point to him being more effective up front than stuck out on the wing or dropping deep.

Playing Gallagher out wide has been the ruining of him.