Mowbray’s Future

[JHRover]

7 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

Against Reading we should have at least 3 in the 1st half

I don't accept that. We had 3 reasonable chances to score, but took none of them. We were playing the team 2nd bottom of the league who had won 1 since early November, so having a few chances is the bare minimum to be expected. 

Even if we had taken one of those chances, there is no way we'd have gone and got a 2nd or 3rd in the first half. We would have sat back on a lead and Reading would have been able to respond, we've seen it at most away games that we've gone 1-0 up in. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mattyblue said:

Joint most long balls with bottom of the league Ipswich (and joint least crosses).

 

Good work. But the through ball stats?? I've watched Leeds a lot this season and there's no way they play an average of one through ball per game ?

[The Axe]

7 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

and so do I but I gave you an example. 

We play alot of switch of play from one flank to another. 

on Sunday we played 92 long passes out of 401 passes in the game

against Reading we played 76 long passes out of 512 passes in the game

against Bristol City we played 93 long passes out of 370 passes in the game

against Hull City we played 93 long passes out of 465 passes in the game. 

 

Hardly a long passing team are we?

Amazing how you interpret statistics that prove the opposite. If you  look at the table we rank in a group with clubs like Preston, Hull and Wigan who use the long pass about 21% of the time. At the bottom are clubs like Rotherham (27.5%) and Bolton (23.5%) and if you have seen Bolton you would never question that they are a long ball side. The good clubs - Leeds and Norwich are 12 to 13 and Sheffield United and Derby about 16. Now Saturday's game works out at 23% yet you use this as an argument against us being a long ball team. Bristol City is 25%. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

9 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

how? until they play at this level how do you know I.e. Dack or Bell. 

The new European scouting network will take time to develop and it could be Summer 2020 before we see the benefits of it. I felt our summer recruitment was fine IMO. You will disagree so lets agree to disagree. 

I have said we need 7 to 8 new players this summer. keeper to challenge to Raya, new left back, centre back(which I think Mowbray will sign Bauer for), right back, 1 centre midfield, 1 winger and 1 striker. 

 

How? By looking at them in training. Also he should have known that our defense would struggle, it had it's moments in League 1. 

I don't know if we have til 2020 for this European network to develop and if it isn't ready, where will we source these 7 to 8 new players from next summer? We could easily fall back if the recruitment isn't good. 

[Oldgregg86]

1 hour ago, DE. said:

This is particularly damning when Mowbray's preferred choice of system is using wing backs! What good are they if we're not putting any bloody crosses in?

Add that to at least 8 defensive players starting every game and leaking goals for fun

[tomphil]

Mowbray seems like he'll be a stats man so those figures are a bit damning and all we can assume is he's ignoring them or in denial.  It doesn't reflect well and just a slight improvement would have seen us several points better off.

Maybe all he needs to do is take them to a meeting with the owners and plonk them on the table saying this is why we need investment to improve. Then again they might turn around and say well Tony didn't you just let a defender go ?  Why not play him and stick with him to see if it improved ?

Oh and you did spend 7 million on a young substitute forward............

[JHRover]

49 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

How? By looking at them in training. Also he should have known that our defense would struggle, it had it's moments in League 1. 

I don't know if we have til 2020 for this European network to develop and if it isn't ready, where will we source these 7 to 8 new players from next summer? We could easily fall back if the recruitment isn't good. 

This 'European network' that we are supposedly developing I feel is codswallop.

I don't doubt that we are miles behind other clubs on international recruitment and development, as I've said before the limit of the club's gaze is the far side of Darwen. That's the result of a lack of investment and neglect of those areas over a prolonged period.

But I don't think there is a serious push from within the club to address this, I don't accept that it should take 3 years to develop this 'European network' and I don't believe that Mowbray is the sort of manager eager to explore that market but has been prevented from doing so by factors beyond his control. I think the club is set up on a provincial, small scale basis, and that is evidenced by the recruitment, and that sort of thing suits the owners and those running the club on a daily basis. It is a result of that provincial approach which has seen Kean-Berg-Appleton-Bowyer-Lambert-Coyle-Mowbray in the dugout and never a foreign or 'outside the box' appointment which would require a far greater level of search and recruitment. As far as I can see Mowbray has never been a manager who has relied very much on the foreign market for his players, preferring instead to source British - that was the case at WBA, Boro and Coventry - so unless he's going to suddenly change his decade long approach to transfers I can't see him being keen to go down that road.

Even if he was desperate to and those running the club were anxious for us to catch up in that area - there are many ways of doing so that are quicker and more effective than taking 2-3 years to build up a 'network'. The recruitment of a well connected and experienced Director of Football, technical director or whatever you want to call it with contacts and know-how of the European market would deal with that issue quickly.

Watford were taken over by their Italian owners and within months had implemented their structure and were expertly navigating the European market and picking up bargains and quality players from all over the place - done by employing people who knew what to do - they didn't sit on their hands for 2-3 years waiting for a 'network' to be put in place and bemoaning having to play catch-up.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

What nonsense.

Graham may not be the most mobile but it does not excuse all the hoof ball I think we've seen for two years under Mowbray.

An organised and well coached side should be capable of effective transition, movement, moving the ball quickly, accurately and with purpose and capable of getting forward to support the front man in numbers.

Good managers move to clubs and impose their identity, style and way of playing very quickly.

In contrast, I do not think Rovers have an identity, style or way of playing.  Other than our hoof ball, I think our transition is slow, our movement is poor, we are uncomfortable on the ball both in terms of possession and distribution and our front man is too often isolated.  I think it begs the question as to what Mowbray, Venus and Lowe have been doing for two years.

 

Dead right there. Our passing is woeful because we don't present the player in possession with enough options. We don't work hard enough off the ball to create these options.  In fact you could just say as a team we don't work hard enough full stop.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, JHRover said:

This 'European network' that we are supposedly developing I feel is codswallop.

I don't doubt that we are miles behind other clubs on international recruitment and development, as I've said before the limit of the club's gaze is the far side of Darwen. That's the result of a lack of investment and neglect of those areas over a prolonged period.

But I don't think there is a serious push from within the club to address this, I don't accept that it should take 3 years to develop this 'European network' and I don't believe that Mowbray is the sort of manager eager to explore that market but has been prevented from doing so by factors beyond his control. I think the club is set up on a provincial, small scale basis, and that is evidenced by the recruitment, and that sort of thing suits the owners and those running the club on a daily basis. It is a result of that provincial approach which has seen Kean-Berg-Appleton-Bowyer-Lambert-Coyle-Mowbray in the dugout and never a foreign or 'outside the box' appointment which would require a far greater level of search and recruitment. As far as I can see Mowbray has never been a manager who has relied very much on the foreign market for his players, preferring instead to source British - that was the case at WBA, Boro and Coventry - so unless he's going to suddenly change his decade long approach to transfers I can't see him being keen to go down that road.

Even if he was desperate to and those running the club were anxious for us to catch up in that area - there are many ways of doing so that are quicker and more effective than taking 2-3 years to build up a 'network'. The recruitment of a well connected and experienced Director of Football, technical director or whatever you want to call it with contacts and know-how of the European market would deal with that issue quickly.

Watford were taken over by their Italian owners and within months had implemented their structure and were expertly navigating the European market and picking up bargains and quality players from all over the place - done by employing people who knew what to do - they didn't sit on their hands for 2-3 years waiting for a 'network' to be put in place and bemoaning having to play catch-up.

100% agree. We could circumvent the 2-3 windows stuff by actually hiring people who know the European market. A DOF and a couple of scouts would do it. One good find would make the outlay worthwhile. 

Kind of a side note, but I would be interested to know what scouting went into the Brereton signing. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

7 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Dead right there. Our passing is woeful because we don't present the player in possession with enough options. We don't work hard enough off the ball to create these options.  

There is always one option and that's the long ball to Graham. It is definitely Lenihan and Mulgrews "go to" ball. 

I think some of you are a bit hard on the Chadster sometimes, but I think he is defending the indefensible by trying to say we aren't a long ball team. Not alone do the stats show we are, but if you watch us play it's pretty obvious that we are. A long ball to Graham with Dack feeding off the knock down/header on. How many of our goals come from that set up? Maybe not straight away, but a I would imagine if you go a few phases back from all of our goals, you will see that move. My God Wilder explained perfectly how they shut us down at Ewood by removing that channel! 

The issue stems from the 2 players playing in midfield who are generally Smallwood and Evans. Good at breaking it up, but lack the ability to pick a good forward ball all too often 

If we aren't getting joy with the long ball to Graham, it's a predictable working of the ball to the full back, who will then either play it to Armstrong or Reed if on the other side. Armstrong will try and kick chase past his man or Reed will cut back inside looking for a pass. 

It's all very, very predictable 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Bigdoggsteel

[Kamy100]

8 minutes ago, JHRover said:

This 'European network' that we are supposedly developing I feel is codswallop.

I don't doubt that we are miles behind other clubs on international recruitment and development, as I've said before the limit of the club's gaze is the far side of Darwen. That's the result of a lack of investment and neglect of those areas over a prolonged period.

But I don't think there is a serious push from within the club to address this, I don't accept that it should take 3 years to develop this 'European network' and I don't believe that Mowbray is the sort of manager eager to explore that market but has been prevented from doing so by factors beyond his control. I think the club is set up on a provincial, small scale basis, and that is evidenced by the recruitment, and that sort of thing suits the owners and those running the club on a daily basis. It is a result of that provincial approach which has seen Kean-Berg-Appleton-Bowyer-Lambert-Coyle-Mowbray in the dugout and never a foreign or 'outside the box' appointment which would require a far greater level of search and recruitment. As far as I can see Mowbray has never been a manager who has relied very much on the foreign market for his players, preferring instead to source British - that was the case at WBA, Boro and Coventry - so unless he's going to suddenly change his decade long approach to transfers I can't see him being keen to go down that road.

Even if he was desperate to and those running the club were anxious for us to catch up in that area - there are many ways of doing so that are quicker and more effective than taking 2-3 years to build up a 'network'. The recruitment of a well connected and experienced Director of Football, technical director or whatever you want to call it with contacts and know-how of the European market would deal with that issue quickly.

Watford were taken over by their Italian owners and within months had implemented their structure and were expertly navigating the European market and picking up bargains and quality players from all over the place - done by employing people who knew what to do - they didn't sit on their hands for 2-3 years waiting for a 'network' to be put in place and bemoaning having to play catch-up.

If you look at when he was incharge at West Brom he started with just signing UK based players in his first couple of seasons before moving the club on and signing players from Europe/rest of the world, not saying that this is what he will do at Rovers of course but he been known to look at "outside the box" signings:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/west-brom-albion-tony-mowbray-12793111

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 minutes ago, Kamy100 said:

If you look at when he was incharge at West Brom he started with just signing UK based players in his first couple of seasons before moving the club on and signing players from Europe/rest of the world, not saying that this is what he will do at Rovers of course but he been known to look at "outside the box" signings:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/west-brom-albion-tony-mowbray-12793111

 

Nice.

In fairness he signed some good foreigners there in Bednar and Teixera and you won't get 3 better servants than Brunt, Ollsson and Morrison. Dorrans a cracking signing as well , also Malumbu. No wonder West brom fans love him. Some of those signings were key players for many, many seasons. Some of them types of signings here please Tony! 

[philipl]

Answering a couple of points on this thread>

- do the owners want us to progress to a higher level?

we don't know given the lack of communication- we can assume so based on logical deduction but the whole of 2010-2017 defied logical deduction

- did Mowbray sign Brereton?

yes but probably within a spec which read "funds will be released for signing an English youth international level forward who won't break our wage structure."  

[OJRovers]

1 hour ago, philipl said:

Answering a couple of points on this thread>

- do the owners want us to progress to a higher level?

we don't know given the lack of communication- we can assume so based on logical deduction but the whole of 2010-2017 defied logical deduction

- did Mowbray sign Brereton?

yes but probably within a spec which read "funds will be released for signing an English youth international level forward who won't break our wage structure."  

I don't think the spec was for an English youth international, it is just that we don't scout foreign based players, so the player had to be someone young playing in England that was within our wage structure. Hence why we overpaid.

 

 

 

[Miller11]

11 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

and so do I but I gave you an example. 

We play alot of switch of play from one flank to another. 

on Sunday we played 92 long passes out of 401 passes in the game

against Reading we played 76 long passes out of 512 passes in the game

against Bristol City we played 93 long passes out of 370 passes in the game

against Hull City we played 93 long passes out of 465 passes in the game. 

 

Hardly a long passing team are we?

We probably made a couple of hundred passes in each of those games pointlessly knocking it about the back 4 til the opposition inevitably close down and we resort to an attempt to hit Graham, or it goes right back to Raya to kick out for a throw in.

Sadly that’s what passes for good football these days and plenty of teams do it.

[roversfan99]

Must say that I find quite a lot of the reaction to the poll, both on here and on twitter to be quite frankly embarassing.

I think some people have mistook a poll for a petition or a witchhunt. Ultimately, the results show that our fan base isnt the blood thirsty mob some would like us to believe.

Ive seen people (even Alan Myers suggested on Twitter it was bordering on insulting to Mowbray) suggest it is unfair or disrespectful. The poll was done at a particularly emotive time, off the back of 4 losses with many of the causes being ongoing issues regularly pointed out yet neglected or unresolved by the management. If we were all as fickle and impatient as some would suggest then the poll results are doing a funny job of showing it.

[Mercer]

4 hours ago, JHRover said:

I don't accept that. We had 3 reasonable chances to score, but took none of them. We were playing the team 2nd bottom of the league who had won 1 since early November, so having a few chances is the bare minimum to be expected. 

Even if we had taken one of those chances, there is no way we'd have gone and got a 2nd or 3rd in the first half. We would have sat back on a lead and Reading would have been able to respond, we've seen it at most away games that we've gone 1-0 up in. 

Chaddy fails to mention Reading also squandered two very good chances.  So let's not kid ourselves, we could have ended up losing by an even bigger margin to a bottom three team.

[Miller11]

16 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Must say that I find quite a lot of the reaction to the poll, both on here and on twitter to be quite frankly embarassing.

I think some people have mistook a poll for a petition or a witchhunt. Ultimately, the results show that our fan base isnt the blood thirsty mob some would like us to believe.

Ive seen people (even Alan Myers suggested on Twitter it was bordering on insulting to Mowbray) suggest it is unfair or disrespectful. The poll was done at a particularly emotive time, off the back of 4 losses with many of the causes being ongoing issues regularly pointed out yet neglected or unresolved by the management. If we were all as fickle and impatient as some would suggest then the poll results are doing a funny job of showing it.

The more prominent Rovers tweeters are in the main unswervingly positive. I find my cynicism much more well received here. I’ll be the first to admit to having a pretty pessimistic view, and to being vehemently anti-Venky’s, and sometimes the positivity on there regarding all things Rovers borders on deluded for me.

Twitter generally has two functions, to preach or to argue. The self righteous outnumber the stirrers.

[chaddyrovers]

6 hours ago, Songman said:

Chaddy

Would it be possible for you to show the oppositions long pass stats for those games as well, that would give clearer view if we are playing more or less long passes than other teams.

A long pass is not necessarily a bad thing, the fact we don't tend to get players around DG quick enough is the problem. Interesting that from the games listed, the game DG was on the bench is the one we played the lowest number of long passes, which would suggest it's our tactic when he's on (as anyone who watches can clearly see).

I've had a quick Google but can't seem to find the stats.

I can provided them but it will be later as I'm of to work shortly. 

Stats are from Rovers official site match stats in the match report

4 hours ago, JHRover said:

I don't accept that. We had 3 reasonable chances to score, but took none of them. We were playing the team 2nd bottom of the league who had won 1 since early November, so having a few chances is the bare minimum to be expected. 

Even if we had taken one of those chances, there is no way we'd have gone and got a 2nd or 3rd in the first half. We would have sat back on a lead and Reading would have been able to respond, we've seen it at most away games that we've gone 1-0 up in. 

we have to agree to disagree as Bell, Conway and Armstrong should have scored. 

4 hours ago, The Axe said:

Amazing how you interpret statistics that prove the opposite. If you  look at the table we rank in a group with clubs like Preston, Hull and Wigan who use the long pass about 21% of the time. At the bottom are clubs like Rotherham (27.5%) and Bolton (23.5%) and if you have seen Bolton you would never question that they are a long ball side. The good clubs - Leeds and Norwich are 12 to 13 and Sheffield United and Derby about 16. Now Saturday's game works out at 23% yet you use this as an argument against us being a long ball team. Bristol City is 25%. 

Look at the stats Ive provided. less than 20% of long passes against Reading and just over 20% against Hull. But around 25% against the 2 teams I provided. 

I would say we play better when we play around 20% of long passes in games looking at those stats. 

Not sure on the whoscored.com stats as how and who is compelling those stats?

3 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

How? By looking at them in training. Also he should have known that our defense would struggle, it had it's moments in League 1. 

I don't know if we have til 2020 for this European network to develop and if it isn't ready, where will we source these 7 to 8 new players from next summer? We could easily fall back if the recruitment isn't good. 

A European network structure can tell time. Yes this process could be speeding up by hiring scouts based in France or Germany, etc. I think we should be looking in Austria and Belgium for players. 

25 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Must say that I find quite a lot of the reaction to the poll, both on here and on twitter to be quite frankly embarassing.

I think some people have mistook a poll for a petition or a witchhunt. Ultimately, the results show that our fan base isnt the blood thirsty mob some would like us to believe.

Ive seen people (even Alan Myers suggested on Twitter it was bordering on insulting to Mowbray) suggest it is unfair or disrespectful. The poll was done at a particularly emotive time, off the back of 4 losses with many of the causes being ongoing issues regularly pointed out yet neglected or unresolved by the management. If we were all as fickle and impatient as some would suggest then the poll results are doing a funny job of showing it.

Sorry Pal, but the poll was complete and utter unnesacary and I think Alan Myers is right it is insulting to Mowbray who has done good job. Wonder what people would have voted for after 4 wins on the bounce. 

[chaddyrovers]

6 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Chaddy fails to mention Reading also squandered two very good chances.  So let's not kid ourselves, we could have ended up losing by an even bigger margin to a bottom three team.

Yes Reading had chances but I NEVER said they didn't. 

I just focus on the attacking side unlike yourself who wish to be negative

[arbitro]

5 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Chaddy fails to mention Reading also squandered two very good chances.  So let's not kid ourselves, we could have ended up losing by an even bigger margin to a bottom three team.

It really doesn't matter how many chances either side missed, the result is the only thing that matters. It riles me when managers or supporters use this as an excuse for a defeat. Missing chances regularly, like conceding sloppy goals is usually the result of ineptitude and ultimately the manager has the responsibility for results. I've never heard of a player being sacked for poor results, the buck stops with the manager.

[Bigdoggsteel]

I would disagree with @roversfan99 on a lot of things, but I agree about the overreaction to the poll. It was just a question on a message board. I don't think it is disrespectful to anyone. Plus the answers weren't as binary as keep or sack. There was nuance there that I feel some on Twitter didn't get. 

Plus, ultimately, the vast majority think Mowbray should be manager. So is that not the important finding from the poll, as opposed to the poll itself?

So should the tweets not say something like "96% of Rovers fans want Mowbray as manager even though they have lost 4 games in a  row. The patient bunch" 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Bigdoggsteel

[darrenrover]

Just now, arbitro said:

It really doesn't matter how many chances either side missed, the result is the only thing that matters. It riles me when managers or supporters use this as an excuse for a defeat. Missing chances regularly, like conceding sloppy goals is usually the result of ineptitude and ultimately the manager has the responsibility for results. I've never heard of a player being sacked for poor results, the buck stops with the manager.

... using similar rationale re chances missed would have seen Middlesbrough in double figures on Sunday.

[Guest]

Someone mentioned something on twitter which reminded me I made a similar point to other fans under Bowyer... We must be one of if not the lowest team in the league for shots and goals from outside the box. Watching highlights of all the games on Quest there's loads of goals and shots from outside the box in the league but we never seem capable or even willing to try them. Reed scored a stunner at WBA but apart from that none stick to mind in the last couple of seasons... Probably due to our CM pairing being completely lacking of any creativity, Dack playing 2 yards off Graham at all times and Armstrong being so wide he struggles to see the net.

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

Someone mentioned something on twitter which reminded me I made a similar point to other fans under Bowyer... We must be one of if not the lowest team in the league for shots and goals from outside the box. Watching highlights of all the games on Quest there's loads of goals and shots from outside the box in the league but we never seem capable or even willing to try them. Reed scored a stunner at WBA but apart from that none stick to mind in the last couple of seasons... Probably due to our CM pairing being completely lacking of any creativity, Dack playing 2 yards off Graham at all times and Armstrong being so wide he struggles to see the net.

I often wonder about this too. It seems we concede a lot of goals from long range as well. I remember a number of games where the excuse(for ant of a better word) as to why we lost/drew even though we were in control of the game was because the opposition scored a "worldie". It can't be because we are playing superstars every week. It must be down to a lack of closing down from us and the goalkeeper not expecting the shot. 

As for us not scoring any long rangers. Well the 2 players who try most if not all our long range efforts are Dack and Armstrong. Dack has scored a few and usually goes for placement over power. I would say Armstrong is by and large wasteful with long range efforts. 

Graham doesn't shoot from range. Reed decent enough at times, but again doesn't try it too often. Evans and Smallwood score around a goal a season each full stop. 

It probably highlights the lack of creativity across the squad

Edited February 20, 2019 by Bigdoggsteel