Tony Mowbray Discussion

[cesus]

The whole episode is fast turning into the horror shows of previous regimes we have had in charge here under the owners, a boys club running the whole thing. We are hard working honest folk around these parts and really don’t take too kindly to being lied to!
Mowbray simply cannot hide behind his “football experience” to say that our transfer policy hasn’t been anything short of appalling, the defence needed improving (he said so himself), we don’t score enough (he said so himself) so he spent fortunes on non scoring forwards and not enough defenders. We haven’t uncovered any hidden gems like most other clubs in this league. 
The man cannot get away from the fact he has been given more cash than anybody would have expected over the last two years, and I would rather confidently say we have a better Academy than half of the Premier League never mind this league ... what have we to show for it? The buck stops with Mowbray no ifs no buts!

Edited October 23, 2019 by cesus

[ruggles1995]

I think it will need to be pretty bad for him to get the boot. It has the feeling he has all his friends in the high enough places to keep him in charge for quite a while, until it gets really bad, and im talking in the relegation places for a while.

Venkys are not football people, whether we lose to Preston or even if it was a 10-0 loss to burnley they wouldn't be thinking lets sack him. It will need to be relegation looking stuff for that I think.

[lraC]

I have said on previous occasions, that bad as it may be with Mowbray, the problem is much deeper and until the owners are history, we are in a very precarious position. 

[martonrover]

1 hour ago, ruggles1995 said:

I think it will need to be pretty bad for him to get the boot. It has the feeling he has all his friends in the high enough places to keep him in charge for quite a while, until it gets really bad, and im talking in the relegation places for a while.

Venkys are not football people, whether we lose to Preston or even if it was a 10-0 loss to burnley they wouldn't be thinking lets sack him. It will need to be relegation looking stuff for that I think.

Agreed, the speed (or lack of it) in making decisions continues to be a problem.

I don't believe for a minute that the actor Steve Waggott is empowered to make strategic decisions.

They will act when it's far too late, and then make another poor appointment.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Has he been sacked yet..or have the Pune gobbins given him another 5 year contract?

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 hour ago, martonrover said:

Agreed, the speed (or lack of it) in making decisions continues to be a problem.

I don't believe for a minute that the actor Steve Waggott is empowered to make strategic decisions.

They will act when it's far too late, and then make another poor appointment.

That's the problem in a nutshell

[G Somerset Rover]

Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

That's the problem in a nutshell

Yep. He'll get potted in Feb/March when it'll be too late to turn things around again IMO.

[bluebruce]

I posted this in the Birmingham post-mortem match thread, but I think it warrants pointing out here too.

One of our most serious problems at the moment (and we have a few), is with our new style we seem to think that keeping possession is more important than anything else, but have no idea what to do with it. It isn't working at all.

This season, we have had more possession than the opposition in 12 games out of 15.

We have had 60 percent possession or more in 6 games. These were Charlton (L), Oldham (W, cup), Cardiff (D 0-0), Luton (L), Forest (D), Hudds (D). The only win when we 'control' the game so much being when we had 73% possession against League Two Oldham and only scraped victory from defeat in injury time. We let them have 12 shots with only 27% possession, only managing 3 more than that ourselves. We had 67% possession against crappy Luton and yet hit the target twice to their five. Charlton was similar - 62% possession but we hit the target twice and they hit it five times. Cardiff, we had 61% possession but had 9 shots, 2 on target. They had 14, 4 on target. Hudds nearly matched our shooting too (12 off, 2 on, to our 13, 3) despite our 64% possession. The only 60% plus game where we properly outmatched the opposition for shooting was Forest. In 4 out of these 6 possession-thrashing games, we had less shots on target.

We also had less possession, yet won, against Boro and Reading. That's half our league wins, even though there are only 3 games where we had less possession.

We are actually statistically much, much better when not controlling possession, that's how awful we are at being effective with it. The personnel and/or the formation are clearly much better adapted to playing counterattacking football and/or defending when we let the opposition have more of the ball.This matches with what I've seen, personally. Counter attacks carve  us to pieces frequently, yet we do have the pace to transition quickly ourselves. The stats are utterly damning of our possession-based game. Slowing down our play in this way is anathema to our best assets.

Took the stats from the google match reports btw, may be some discrepancies with other sources as there usually are with possession in particular. I wonder if these stats form part of our new-look statistical analysis! Can't imagine so.

[ben_the_beast]

Just now, bluebruce said:

I posted this in the Birmingham post-mortem match thread, but I think it warrants pointing out here too.

One of our most serious problems at the moment (and we have a few), is with our new style we seem to think that keeping possession is more important than anything else, but have no idea what to do with it. It isn't working at all.

This season, we have had more possession than the opposition in 12 games out of 15.

We have had 60 percent possession or more in 6 games. These were Charlton (L), Oldham (W, cup), Cardiff (D 0-0), Luton (L), Forest (D), Hudds (D). The only win when we 'control' the game so much being when we had 73% possession against League Two Oldham and only scraped victory from defeat in injury time. We let them have 12 shots with only 27% possession, only managing 3 more than that ourselves. We had 67% possession against crappy Luton and yet hit the target twice to their five. Charlton was similar - 62% possession but we hit the target twice and they hit it five times. Cardiff, we had 61% possession but had 9 shots, 2 on target. They had 14, 4 on target. Hudds nearly matched our shooting too (12 off, 2 on, to our 13, 3) despite our 64% possession. The only 60% plus game where we properly outmatched the opposition for shooting was Forest. In 4 out of these 6 possession-thrashing games, we had less shots on target.

We also had less possession, yet won, against Boro and Reading. That's half our league wins, even though there are only 3 games where we had less possession.

We are actually statistically much, much better when not controlling possession, that's how awful we are at being effective with it. The personnel and/or the formation are clearly much better adapted to playing counterattacking football and/or defending when we let the opposition have more of the ball.This matches with what I've seen, personally. Counter attacks carve  us to pieces frequently, yet we do have the pace to transition quickly ourselves. The stats are utterly damning of our possession-based game. Slowing down our play in this way is anathema to our best assets.

Took the stats from the google match reports btw, may be some discrepancies with other sources as there usually are with possession in particular. I wonder if these stats form part of our new-look statistical analysis! Can't imagine so.

Great post. Some really interesting stats in there which back up what many of us are thinking. 

For me Mowbray really is showing his complete lack of tactical awareness. I believe his thinking is coach the players on a short passing game, instruct us not to play long balls and tell the players to try and play through the lines or some garbage like that is the extent of tactical instruction he is giving. That along with his cautious ness around opposition players has sterilsed us.

I am not making a comparison here but they are just an easy example that jump into my brain. If you look at a team like liverpool, yes they have individual quality but they also have a serious of set plays within open play which they resort too when individual excellence isn't paying off. That includes taking the ball wide to attacking full backs who cross from deep. Slightly narrower wide forwards who create the space for said full backs. Players with pace in the correct areas for counter attacks. And a team which all run into the exact same positions when losing the ball. Clearly we dont have that quality of player but those set drills, almost American football style plays can be coached at any level. It is the creation of easy options/plays when the team is lacking ideas. Players know where to go, where the ball is going and where their mates will be. I see non of this at Rovers. Simply a one paced windscreen wiper football from one side of the pitch to the other, mainly between our 6 most defensive players. At some point they will inevitably lose it and we are exposed because of where possession is lost. 

The tactics are keep the ball, hope Dack can pull off a moment of magic. Its appaling stuff and I am pretty sure most of us on here could give players that instruction. And the players themselves will be casting sideways glances that there is so little structure that they are allowed to bring into their play. If they can't practise it on the training ground how can they produce an "open set play" in a game. 

Sorry for the lengthy post. I just cant believe the lack of direction in the team. I'm sure Gallagher would pop up with a few goals if it was clear from our play when he should linger at the back post or attack the near. Make all those headers he is winning mean something by communicating where the ball is going when we are in more dangerous areas of the pitch. Rocket science it ain't. Rant over. 

[davulsukur]

43 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I posted this in the Birmingham post-mortem match thread, but I think it warrants pointing out here too.

One of our most serious problems at the moment (and we have a few), is with our new style we seem to think that keeping possession is more important than anything else, but have no idea what to do with it. It isn't working at all.

This season, we have had more possession than the opposition in 12 games out of 15.

We have had 60 percent possession or more in 6 games. These were Charlton (L), Oldham (W, cup), Cardiff (D 0-0), Luton (L), Forest (D), Hudds (D). The only win when we 'control' the game so much being when we had 73% possession against League Two Oldham and only scraped victory from defeat in injury time. We let them have 12 shots with only 27% possession, only managing 3 more than that ourselves. We had 67% possession against crappy Luton and yet hit the target twice to their five. Charlton was similar - 62% possession but we hit the target twice and they hit it five times. Cardiff, we had 61% possession but had 9 shots, 2 on target. They had 14, 4 on target. Hudds nearly matched our shooting too (12 off, 2 on, to our 13, 3) despite our 64% possession. The only 60% plus game where we properly outmatched the opposition for shooting was Forest. In 4 out of these 6 possession-thrashing games, we had less shots on target.

We also had less possession, yet won, against Boro and Reading. That's half our league wins, even though there are only 3 games where we had less possession.

We are actually statistically much, much better when not controlling possession, that's how awful we are at being effective with it. The personnel and/or the formation are clearly much better adapted to playing counterattacking football and/or defending when we let the opposition have more of the ball.This matches with what I've seen, personally. Counter attacks carve  us to pieces frequently, yet we do have the pace to transition quickly ourselves. The stats are utterly damning of our possession-based game. Slowing down our play in this way is anathema to our best assets.

Took the stats from the google match reports btw, may be some discrepancies with other sources as there usually are with possession in particular. I wonder if these stats form part of our new-look statistical analysis! Can't imagine so.

Really good post. (not for Mowbray)

The possession based game Mowbray is trying to implement really doesn't work well for our players at all.

Worrying that the opposition still have more shots than we do, despite us supposedly "controlling" the game.

[TBTF]

7 hours ago, ruggles1995 said:

I think it will need to be pretty bad for him to get the boot. It has the feeling he has all his friends in the high enough places to keep him in charge for quite a while, until it gets really bad, and im talking in the relegation places for a while.

Venkys are not football people, whether we lose to Preston or even if it was a 10-0 loss to burnley they wouldn't be thinking lets sack him. It will need to be relegation looking stuff for that I think.

In 3 games time it absolutely will be pal

[47er]

13 hours ago, OJRovers said:

It was inevitable after 2 shocking transfer windows. He can’t blame the infrastructure as he’s had long enough to set up a scouting team.

All this new technology they have brought in this season is leading to him overthinking every match. I’ve said before, I don’t think the players know what they’re doing with all the different systems. 

Injuries, players out of position, it has all the hallmarks of an end of tenure run.

He must go.
 

My worry is that Mowbray will stay and the best players, including our young ones, will go.

[Blue blood]

8 hours ago, cesus said:

The whole episode is fast turning into the horror shows of previous regimes we have had in charge here under the owners, a boys club running the whole thing. We are hard working honest folk around these parts and really don’t take too kindly to being lied to!
Mowbray simply cannot hide behind his “football experience” to say that our transfer policy hasn’t been anything short of appalling, the defence needed improving (he said so himself), we don’t score enough (he said so himself) so he spent fortunes on non scoring forwards and not enough defenders. We haven’t uncovered any hidden gems like most other clubs in this league. 
The man cannot get away from the fact he has been given more cash than anybody would have expected over the last two years, and I would rather confidently say we have a better Academy than half of the Premier League never mind this league ... what have we to show for it? The buck stops with Mowbray no ifs no buts!

Great post which I wholeheartedly agree with. The academy in particular is perhaps a pertinent but overlooked black mark on TM. Only thing would add to the no hidden gems thing is that all the players are very, very well known to TM often having played for him before. Forget hidden gems we haven't even taken a punt on anyone. Was Gally the best £5 mill option available - am sure not but he was known. Was Gladwin the best cheap attacking mid punt we could have made - no but TM knew him. His utter over cautiousness extends to transfers as well as how we play. 

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

I posted this in the Birmingham post-mortem match thread, but I think it warrants pointing out here too.

One of our most serious problems at the moment (and we have a few), is with our new style we seem to think that keeping possession is more important than anything else, but have no idea what to do with it. It isn't working at all.

This season, we have had more possession than the opposition in 12 games out of 15.

We have had 60 percent possession or more in 6 games. These were Charlton (L), Oldham (W, cup), Cardiff (D 0-0), Luton (L), Forest (D), Hudds (D). The only win when we 'control' the game so much being when we had 73% possession against League Two Oldham and only scraped victory from defeat in injury time. We let them have 12 shots with only 27% possession, only managing 3 more than that ourselves. We had 67% possession against crappy Luton and yet hit the target twice to their five. Charlton was similar - 62% possession but we hit the target twice and they hit it five times. Cardiff, we had 61% possession but had 9 shots, 2 on target. They had 14, 4 on target. Hudds nearly matched our shooting too (12 off, 2 on, to our 13, 3) despite our 64% possession. The only 60% plus game where we properly outmatched the opposition for shooting was Forest. In 4 out of these 6 possession-thrashing games, we had less shots on target.

We also had less possession, yet won, against Boro and Reading. That's half our league wins, even though there are only 3 games where we had less possession.

We are actually statistically much, much better when not controlling possession, that's how awful we are at being effective with it. The personnel and/or the formation are clearly much better adapted to playing counterattacking football and/or defending when we let the opposition have more of the ball.This matches with what I've seen, personally. Counter attacks carve  us to pieces frequently, yet we do have the pace to transition quickly ourselves. The stats are utterly damning of our possession-based game. Slowing down our play in this way is anathema to our best assets.

Took the stats from the google match reports btw, may be some discrepancies with other sources as there usually are with possession in particular. I wonder if these stats form part of our new-look statistical analysis! Can't imagine so.

I've said a few times we always struggle to break down the team's we should be beating/are heavy favourites to win at. We've struggled since League 1 with this, it's not a new problem and the stats seem to back this up. 

[DE.]

Here's a stat attack for anybody interested in such things. I took a look at the effectiveness of Danny Graham, Sam Gallagher and Adam Armstrong based on them starting matches. Results below - other than league apps all stats are team stats, not individual. I whipped this up kinda quickly so forgive any statistical errors.

Danny Graham: 4 league starts

W: 1 (25%) D: 2 (50%) L: 1 (25%)

Goals Scored: 4 (1 goal per game) Goals Conceded: 5 (1.25 goals per game) - note that 4 of these were against QPR!

Points: 5/12 (41% of maximum possible)

Sam Gallagher: 10 league starts

W: 3 (30%) D: 2 (20%) L: 5 (50%)

Goals Scored: 9 (0.9 goals per game) Goals Conceded: 12 (1.2 goals per game)

Points: 11/30 (36% of maximum possible)

Adam Armstrong: 11 league starts

W: 3 (27%) D: 1 (10%) L: 7 (63%)

Goals Scored: 12 (1.1 goal per game) Goals Conceded: 14 (1.3 goals per game)

Points: 10/33 (30% of maximum possible)

---

Goes without saying that the stats don't make particularly good reading for AA. We lose far more often and concede more goals when he starts compared to Graham or Gallagher. We also get less points. Obviously should be noted that Graham's sample size is a lot smaller than Gallagher or Armstrong.

I also took a look at games SG/AA have started together Vs. games where they haven't.

League games Armstrong & Gallagher have started together: 8

W: 2 (25%) D: 1 (12%) L: 5 (63%)

Goals Scored: 8 (1 goal per game) Goals Conceded: 12 (1.5g goals per game)

Points: 7/24 (29% of maximum possible)

League games Armstrong & Gallagher haven't started together: 5

W: 2 (40%) D: 2 (40%) L: 1 (20%)

Goals Scored: 7 (1.4 goals per game) Goals Conceded: 6 (1.2 goals per game)

Points: 8/15 (53% of maximum possible)

---

So the takeaway from this seems kind of obvious... don't play SG and AA in the same team. Or at least, not in the way we have been using them. Whatever we're doing when they're both on the pitch together it is not working. 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by DE.

[davulsukur]

There aren't many good stats for Rovers these days

[Tom]

Great research DE, seems those two are the default though, hopefully Holtby will force change 

[Stuart]

We just need to start playing centre forwards in centre forward positions and stop this false nine nonsense.

It was the same a couple of years ago with his three at the back fixation. He binned it and we started winning games.

I think he and his team over-analyse the opposition instead of building on the strengths of our team - let alone having a recruitment strategy that supports the style of play he wants.

No gimmicks, just a simple plan with everyone knowing their jobs and properly motivated.

[joey_big_nose]

26 minutes ago, DE. said:

Here's a stat attack for anybody interested in such things. I took a look at the effectiveness of Danny Graham, Sam Gallagher and Adam Armstrong based on them starting matches. Results below - other than league apps all stats are team stats, not individual. I whipped this up kinda quickly so forgive any statistical errors.

Danny Graham: 4 league starts

W: 1 (25%) ? 2 (50%) L: 1 (25%)

Goals Scored: 4 (1 goal per game) Goals Conceded: 5 (1.25 goals per game) - note that 4 of these were against QPR!

Points: 5/12 (41% of maximum possible)

Sam Gallagher: 10 league starts

W: 3 (30%) ? 2 (20%) L: 5 (50%)

Goals Scored: 9 (0.9 goals per game) Goals Conceded: 12 (1.2 goals per game)

Points: 11/30 (36% of maximum possible)

Adam Armstrong: 11 league starts

W: 3 (27%) ? 1 (10%) L: 7 (63%)

Goals Scored: 12 (1.1 goal per game) Goals Conceded: 14 (1.3 goals per game)

Points: 10/33 (30% of maximum possible)

---

Goes without saying that the stats don't make particularly good reading for AA. We lose far more often and concede more goals when he starts compared to Graham or Gallagher. We also get less points. Obviously should be noted that Graham's sample size is a lot smaller than Gallagher or Armstrong.

I also took a look at games SG/AA have started together Vs. games where they haven't.

League games Armstrong & Gallagher have started together: 8

W: 2 (25%) ? 1 (12%) L: 5 (63%)

Goals Scored: 8 (1 goal per game) Goals Conceded: 12 (1.5g goals per game)

Points: 7/24 (29% of maximum possible)

League games Armstrong & Gallagher haven't started together: 5

W: 2 (40%) ? 2 (40%) L: 1 (20%)

Goals Scored: 7 (1.4 goals per game) Goals Conceded: 6 (1.2 goals per game)

Points: 8/15 (53% of maximum possible)

---

So the takeaway from this seems kind of obvious... don't play SG and AA in the same team. Or at least, not in the way we have been using them. Whatever we're doing when they're both on the pitch together it is not working. 

 

Great post. 

From where I'm sitting, while frustrating, Armstrong consistently creates chances and at least scores some goals so can't be dropped. Gallagher offers virtually nothing.

I think we should stick with 4231 and play a front four of Dack, Rothwell, Holtby, Armstrong and stick to it. Get JRC, Buckley and Chapman on as subs. Try and buy a proper striker in Jan.

May as well just write Gallagher and Brereton off. Graham looks nearly done too.

[joey_big_nose]

Just now, Stuart said:

We just need to start playing centre forwards in centre forward positions and stop this false nine nonsense.

It was the same a couple of years ago with his three at the back fixation. He binned it and we started winning games.

I think he and his team over-analyse the opposition instead of building on the strengths of our team - let alone having a recruitment strategy that supports the style of play he wants.

No gimmicks, just a simple plan with everyone knowing their jobs and properly motivated.

I don't think we have any effective strikers, Id rather play Holtby, Rothwell, Armstrong and Dack together than drop one of them for Gallagher, Brereton, Graham or Samuel.

[DE.]

Just now, joey_big_nose said:

Great post. 

From where I'm sitting, while frustrating, Armstrong consistently creates chances and at least scores some goals so can't be dropped. Gallagher offers virtually nothing.

I think we should stick with 4231 and play a front four of Dack, Rothwell, Holtby, Armstrong and stick to it. Get JRC, Buckley and Chapman on as subs. Try and buy a proper striker in Jan.

May as well just write Gallagher and Brereton off. Graham looks nearly done too.

The stats obviously suggest at a basic level that you'd pick Gallagher over Armstrong, however there are a lot of factors not being shown. Our team selection, who the opposition were, where Arma/Gallagher were playing on the pitch, individual goals/assists, etc. So they only tell some of the story. Really you would need to wait for both to have played at least 20-25 games before starting to get any really meaningful statistics. These are really just an early indicator.  

Edited October 24, 2019 by DE.

[tomphil]

I wonder how and why David Lowe has survived the revolving door since being appointed in 2011.  The amount of managers and coaches, directors and players who've passed through the doors since then. It's rather odd one coach has survived all that lot........ ?

[Pedro]

I like to use my eyes, not stats.

 

My eyes tell me that we piss about with the ball, kick simple passes out of play, wait for the opposition to ready themselves before we cross the halfway line, go sidewards when we should go forwards, if we beat the first man we then get terrible crosses into the box, try to walk the ball into the goal, don't get enough shots on target, don't attack balls into the box, invite crosses into our box, the keeper doesn't release the ball early enough, play midfielders in defence, play strikers as wingers, always throw subs on at 60ish minutes, have no urgency or  intensity during the dying stages.

 

An iPad with a state of the art App would simply say 60% possession and 1 shot on target.

[JHRover]

Just now, tomphil said:

I wonder how and why David Lowe has survived the revolving door since being appointed in 2011.  The amount of managers and coaches, directors and players who've passed through the doors since then. It's rather odd one coach has survived all that lot........ ?

He didn't survive. Wasnt he axed during the Bowyer era and then mysteriously reappeared soon after Bowyer had gone? 

[tomphil]

Just now, JHRover said:

He didn't survive. Wasnt he axed during the Bowyer era and then mysteriously reappeared soon after Bowyer had gone? 

Yes i think there was a tale floating around the order had come from somewhere to give him his job back...

Just strikes me as a bit odd that whenever the deckchairs get shuffled or new ones brought in he survives yet the team is constantly poor to average as is the football.  If he's highly rated there's been sod all evidence of it we played mostly bland stuff in league 1 we were just so much stronger squad and options wise than all others and of course had Dack, Graham and Mulgrew.

[JHRover]

Just now, tomphil said:

Yes i think there was a tale floating around the order had come from somewhere to give him his job back...

Just strikes me as a bit odd that whenever the deckchairs get shuffled or new ones brought in he survives yet the team is constantly poor to average as is the football.  If he's highly rated there's been sod all evidence of it we played mostly bland stuff in league 1 we were just so much stronger squad and options wise than all others and of course had Dack, Graham and Mulgrew.

It's not what you know but who you know....