Tony Mowbray Discussion

[Paul Mani]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Which players do we have who are effective in wide areas? I must be watching different games. We have been very reliant on our central players, notably Dack and now Armstrong. Also we often struggle against teams who sit in and we lack the width to be able to stretch them. 

Our full backs have provided precious little end product so wide areas are not a strong point of ours. 

Theres nothing wrong with having players on opposite sides necessarily as long as they are competent wide players. Joe Lolley, Anthony Knockaert, Ivan Cavaleiro, Helder Costa, Said Benrahama, they are proper wide men who do provide width and directness but also come inside and offer a goal threat. Im not saying our players should necessarily even be as good but our wide strikers bollocks are a world apart.

I think Rothwell, Holtby have done well in those positions which effectively become DeBruyne / Silva roles when in possession. JRC and Buckley have the potential to do really well in there too. As does Armstrong who averages around 10 goals a season and 6/7 assists in that position.

I agree on the fullback point. Bell is just not good enough but Nyambe is doing well in that role. If he could add more assists I’d go as far to say he could probably be the best RB in the league. I appreciate you don’t want to play that way but it is the way the manager plays.

I think the list you have provided are much better than ‘competent’. You just reeled off the best in the league at that job. We don’t play wide strikers either. The ‘wide’ players only move out wide when we are defending. Once we’re attacking they tuck in and allow the fullbacks to create an overload. Yes, I think we can be better in both areas but who knows what they’ll do.

I would personally like to see us play with Rothwell off the left, Holtby off the right and Dack off Arma. Get a good attacking left back and have him and Nyambe creating the width and that team would take some stopping. You’d fancy us to open anyone up....then get JRC, Butterworth and Bucko behind the chomping at the bit! 

[Blue blood]

1 hour ago, Paul Mani said:

We have the right players in those positions and they’re doing ok with potential to do very well.

The wide midfielders invert to create overloads in the middle and allow space for the fullbacks who provide our width. That’s how we’ve continued to score goals without Dack. 

Are you seriously suggesting that using Gally, Samuel and Bereton as wide strikers has worked/been successful? That they are the right players for these positions? That seems extraordinary claims given that virtually unanimously (apart from those who refuse to criticise the club on anything) have thought all 3 have been poor on the wing. 

Don't get me wrong am not knocking the system per se (although I do think more width would help, especially if Gally is up front). But to suggest we have the right players for this when we play a striker there regularly and the vast majority of the time they have struggled seems a little incongruous to me. 

[Paul Mani]

1 hour ago, darrenrover said:

I totally disagree with your opening comment. Teams doing well with that formation generally utilise attack minded midfielders or wingers and invert them to play as wide forwards, on the opposite side to their strongest foot. Name me a successful team that utilises 6 feet odd central strikers in either 'wide forward' role?

I agree with your principal of the method of play btw, as in your penultimate sentence but fail to understand the logic with the players we expect to excel there.

Tbh I can’t defend the Gallagher one. It’s bewildering really as the position really needs a technician. The only reason I can think that they play him there is to provide an ‘out’ ball or target if we need one. I genuinely don’t see Gallagher playing there long term because I think he’ll fight with Armstrong for that top spot.

Based on the last couple of cameos I also think they see BB as a natural successor for Dack. He’s definitely better running from deep and dribbling than playing on the shoulder or as a target man.

[Mattyblue]

On what planet is BB a ‘natural successor’ to Bradley Dack?

[tomphil]

Planet India and its advisers ( one of which might just have been the guy who signed him )

[roversfan99]

13 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

I think Rothwell, Holtby have done well in those positions which effectively become DeBruyne / Silva roles when in possession. JRC and Buckley have the potential to do really well in there too. As does Armstrong who averages around 10 goals a season and 6/7 assists in that position.

I agree on the fullback point. Bell is just not good enough but Nyambe is doing well in that role. If he could add more assists I’d go as far to say he could probably be the best RB in the league. I appreciate you don’t want to play that way but it is the way the manager plays.

I think the list you have provided are much better than ‘competent’. You just reeled off the best in the league at that job. We don’t play wide strikers either. The ‘wide’ players only move out wide when we are defending. Once we’re attacking they tuck in and allow the fullbacks to create an overload. Yes, I think we can be better in both areas but who knows what they’ll do.

I would personally like to see us play with Rothwell off the left, Holtby off the right and Dack off Arma. Get a good attacking left back and have him and Nyambe creating the width and that team would take some stopping. You’d fancy us to open anyone up....then get JRC, Butterworth and Bucko behind the chomping at the bit! 

Holtby was usually ineffective from a wide position and his performances only started showing serious threat once he moved into the 10 position. Rothwell has done bugger all all season and Armstrong has only started putting them numbers up with consistency when played centrally. Buckley has had one good game in his fledging Rovers career which coincedentally was when he was played centrally and not wide.

The De Bruyne and Silva comparisons in terms of position are not accurate because City play a 433 and them 2 play inside, there is always a player further player out wide. Foden played wide right on Sunday and spent much of the game right on the touchline stretching the play.

I did acknowledge that those I named are some of the best in the division (teams we are striving to compete with!) and that I dont even expect the same level of quality but am just showing that the best clubs at this level may play inverted wingers but ones who have significant attacking output, whether the width is provided by the full back or not. We arent getting output from our wide men or our full backs. Mowbray plays wide forwards which is totally different from the idea of creative players fluidly interchanging that you are implying. He has yet to solve our wide areas under him.

[darrenrover]

33 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

Tbh I can’t defend the Gallagher one. It’s bewildering really as the position really needs a technician. The only reason I can think that they play him there is to provide an ‘out’ ball or target if we need one. I genuinely don’t see Gallagher playing there long term because I think he’ll fight with Armstrong for that top spot.

Based on the last couple of cameos I also think they see BB as a natural successor for Dack. He’s definitely better running from deep and dribbling than playing on the shoulder or as a target man.

So you agree with most of us then that we do not have one proper tool in the box that can excel in the 'wide forward' role?

As for Brereton as a natural successor to Dack in the 10 role.....

I'd love to know what Gallagher and Brereton were bought for, was it as central goalscoring strikers or what?

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, Amo said:

We all know that Mowbray can do no wrong and some people will have an excuse for anything.

Maybe with 1(or 2) but I think what irks yourself is that some don't think he is as bad as you do. Not that he can "do no wrong". 

[Paul Mani]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

On what planet is BB a ‘natural successor’ to Bradley Dack?

I think he’ll play in the hole. Effect the game from off the front player.

[Paul Mani]

1 hour ago, darrenrover said:

So you agree with most of us then that we do not have one proper tool in the box that can excel in the 'wide forward' role?

As for Brereton as a natural successor to Dack in the 10 role.....

I'd love to know what Gallagher and Brereton were bought for, was it as central goalscoring strikers or what?

 

I don’t think we play with wide forwards. The way those players tuck in is more akin to DeBruyne and Silva in the whole between the lines. I think Rothwell, Holtby, Bucko and JRC can fill these positions.

The wide forwards I think you’re describing who get into the box and cut in off the wing are more like Mane and Salah. They create natural width and pace.

I think Gally was bought as a successor to DG with the mobility to play down the channels in the new style. BB was a second striker at Forest. Played off the 9 with licence to drop deep and run at defenders. I guess that’s what they want him to do long term. Which is why I mentioned him as a successor to Dack. In the hole...

Just a theory btw. Opinion.

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Paul Mani

[Paul Mani]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Holtby was usually ineffective from a wide position and his performances only started showing serious threat once he moved into the 10 position. Rothwell has done bugger all all season and Armstrong has only started putting them numbers up with consistency when played centrally. Buckley has had one good game in his fledging Rovers career which coincedentally was when he was played centrally and not wide.

The De Bruyne and Silva comparisons in terms of position are not accurate because City play a 433 and them 2 play inside, there is always a player further player out wide. Foden played wide right on Sunday and spent much of the game right on the touchline stretching the play.

I did acknowledge that those I named are some of the best in the division (teams we are striving to compete with!) and that I dont even expect the same level of quality but am just showing that the best clubs at this level may play inverted wingers but ones who have significant attacking output, whether the width is provided by the full back or not. We arent getting output from our wide men or our full backs. Mowbray plays wide forwards which is totally different from the idea of creative players fluidly interchanging that you are implying. He has yet to solve our wide areas under him.

I accept what you’re saying. My point was in relation to the managers comments this morning. I don’t think they’d be able to resist a creative player anyway should one of their targets become available.

[Amo]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Maybe with 1(or 2) but I think what irks yourself is that some don't think he is as bad as you do. Not that he can "do no wrong". 

Sounds like deflection to me. 

[Dreams of 1995]

5 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

I didn’t say we weren’t doing well. 

I said 8th in the table isn’t incredible, which it isn’t.

Sorry Matty it was a general comment on the thread, not aimed at your discussion 

[Blue blood]

2 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

Tbh I can’t defend the Gallagher one. It’s bewildering really as the position really needs a technician. The only reason I can think that they play him there is to provide an ‘out’ ball or target if we need one. I genuinely don’t see Gallagher playing there long term because I think he’ll fight with Armstrong for that top spot.

Bewildering is the word. It's not even as if it is an out as Gally doesn't hold up the ball. So we don't have all the tools then for said position. 

2 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

Based on the last couple of cameos I also think they see BB as a natural successor for Dack. He’s definitely better running from deep and dribbling than playing on the shoulder or as a target man.

No way - I think this is apologist talk. Sorry, that's strong language but I just don't think that's the case. For a ton of reasons that has not been the narrative. 

1) No way we spent £7 million to be second fiddle to Dack. 

2) Up until this week's "crap we're losing, let's throw on more strikers (and we are out of creative mids) has Bereton played that role.  All his appearances have been prior to this up front as a one or a two, or out wide. None of that suggests he is a natural successor to Dack. They'd have played him in that role before the injury crisis if this was the role he had been earmarked for. 

3) There has till you mentioned it been no talk of this. Not from TM, who can spin a good line, the fans, the pundits - no one. The intended master plan as Dack successor has gone so far under the radar no one has mentioned it. 

4) We also have Rothwell and Holtby for that position as back up - both of whom have played that position ahead of Bereton when Dack is injured. 

5) Bereton is a completely different kind of player. No one has listed creativity as Bereton's strength. (Or much else but I digress.) But creativity is key to the Dack role and Bereton doesn't even have that as a perceived strength which again suggests he is not intended as a successor to Dack. 

So he hasn't really played there, no one has said he is to take this role (inside or outside of the club) and he doesn't have the attributes. I don't mean to come off sarcastic or aggressive but this seems a statement based on no evidence whatsoever in an attempt to justify the signing of Bereton. 

[Mattyblue]

Don’t worry about it Dreams. I was replying to BDS, my fault as I l’m very tardy with the quote button.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Mattyblue

[darrenrover]

30 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

I don’t think we play with wide forwards. The way those players tuck in is more akin to DeBruyne and Silva in the whole between the lines. I think Rothwell, Holtby, Bucko and JRC can fill these positions.

The wide forwards I think you’re describing who get into the box and cut in off the wing are more like Mane and Salah. They create natural width and pace.

I think Gally was bought as a successor to DG with the mobility to play down the channels in the new style. BB was a second striker at Forest. Played off the 9 with licence to drop deep and run at defenders. I guess that’s what they want him to do long term. Which is why I mentioned him as a successor to Dack. In the hole...

Just a theory btw. Opinion.

 

Thanks Paul, I appreciate your opinion, even if I'm more confused having read what you think.

I think Brereton could figure as one of the forwards in a 442 formation but never in a month of Sundays as a 10 in the Dack role. To be honest, I'll take some convincing he's a professional footballer, never mind what position he could fill.

As you say, differing opinions is what makes life interesting and the world go round.

COYB!

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, Amo said:

Sounds like deflection to me. 

Sounds like denial to me!

[DE.]

Holtby was surely brought in as the successor/backup to Dack's no10 role. His injury leaves us largely with makeshift replacements, including BB. I don't think Brereton has in any way been seriously considered as a permanent replacement for Dack's position - whether he evolves into that is another question, but I don't think it's ever been the plan. I would say Rothwell is the obvious natural replacement but he's not often played there and honestly has failed to impress even when he has. 

[tomphil]

Brereton might have been signed to prepare for Dacks sale. I think TM said as much in an interview ages ago.

However that's just in monetary terms ie front loading knowing you'll cover the fee at some point. In football terms no way.

Pretty certain they thought they were getting a whizz kid ready to burst onto the scene only to quickly realise that was very far from the case.

The way Mowbray has used him suggests he either sees him as a right sided wide striker or he's kept cameoing him there to spare his own blushes knowing he isn't up to being a centre forward.

In any event he'll never fill the Dack role in the he team no one to play off for a start. There'll have to be yet another formation next season to go with a new back line !

[Oldgregg86]

Gallagher 9

brereton 10

dack 10 

Holtby 10

buckley 10

armstrong 9 or 10

samuel 9

rothwell 10

that is imo those players best position. Looks very imbalanced to me. To many players for one or two roles and no natural width what so ever

Costello and the forgotten man chapman . That is all we have to play naturally wide

sorry , and mr versatility 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Oldgregg86

[47er]

12 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Bauer isn't better than Tosin. If Bauer wasnt willing to fight for his spot did we really want him? 

Propaganda from Mowbray, a stupid thing to tell him even if its true. You sign the player, then go from there.

He preferred Preston, probably to do with wages I'm guessing. 

[Amo]

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Sounds like denial to me!

Nah, just got no time for the likes of @Paul Mani and @Mashed Potatoes who blindly defend every decison Mowbray does or doesn't make. It stinks and I suspect they are connected to people at the club.

[47er]

3 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

I think he’ll play in the hole. Effect the game from off the front player.

Without being able to trap it? This is fantasy.

[Blue blood]

5 minutes ago, Amo said:

Nah, just got no time for the likes of @Paul Mani and @Mashed Potatoes who blindly defend every decison Mowbray does or doesn't make. It stinks and I suspect they are connected to people at the club.

What's interesting is there are a ton of debatable issues. Could Gally be useful as a striker? Should we sign Walton? What is our best defence sans Lenihen? 

(Imo the answers are barely, we can't afford him and put he who can't be named in at centre back, but I appreciate there is some debate.) 

Some issues however are clearly obvious unless one has an agenda. Gally out wide and Bereton being a decent signing being two such issues. Lack of defensive cover and 3 of the back 5 being loans are another two imo, especially as the former impacts the latter. 

[Mattyblue]

7 minutes ago, Amo said:

Nah, just got no time for the likes of @Paul Mani and @Mashed Potatoes who blindly defend every decison Mowbray does or doesn't make. It stinks and I suspect they are connected to people at the club.

Ha, Mani wishes!