Tony Mowbray Discussion

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, Paul Mani said:

Based on our budget and expectation, top 6 IS success this season. This, in the main is because ‘top 6’ was our stated target and to hit your target is definitively success.

Of course the ultimate target is to go up but those now saying making the top six (and not going up) Is failure are the same people who predicted we’d be nowhere near the top end of the table and are now having to reassess their position because in spite of everything, we are still in the mix (yes, in the mix) with 10 games to go! 

This 

[Mattyblue]

15 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Last line a bit arsey. 

"Arbitrary target" , no ,an aim, which if met equals success. At the beginning of the season the play offs would habe been seen as a huge success, now I think you and few others are changing it so that the manager and players only get credit if they they actually win the play offs. I gave you the definition of success. If that's not good enough for you,I can't add anymore.

Not sure why you are bringing cup finals in either, nobody was talking about them and it's hardly relevant to us. I suppose that's what happens when you have lost the argument and have nothing else to add. 

 

I’m making a comparison to other competitions and what is deemed a success. We all use comparisons when discussing topics. Not sure how that means I’ve lost an argument

Anyway I’ll defer to Dreams’ post, as I’ve been in enough barneys for one day.
 

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Mattyblue

[Bigdoggsteel]

26 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

I’m making a comparison to other competitions and what is deemed a success. We all use comparisons when discussing topics. Not sure how that means I’ve lost an argument

Anyway I’ll defer to Dreams’ post, as I’ve been in enough barneys for one day.
 

 

Fair enough but my take is he basically says you can have 2 success, one getting to the play offs and the other for winning them. Which I would agree with. 

I'm not gonna agree that getting to the play offs is not a success. In my opinion ,it is. It will be onto the next aim then, which is winning them. 

Hopefully! 

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

well you could. You can suggest things that might make the team better but at the minute I think we are doing fairly goodish. I would like to see Rothwell not keep inside so much. I rather he played wider at times to stretch the play a bit. 

You complain that Gallagher is used as this wide striker bollocks you called it but you are very happy to do to Adam Armstrong who has been best striker this season. So why the double standards?

Because Armstrong can play there with some competence, unlike Gallagher who has never had a good game there. Unfortunately the squad is particularly lacking there, I'd rather Armstrong played central ideally.

Just because we are doing "fairly goodish" (3 draws on the bounce) doesnt mean that all areas of the side are working. Such a statement is totally removing the possibility of discussing any potential constructive improvement.

Youve never actually confirmed that you are content with Gallagher, Samuel or Brereton playing as wide men, you always deflect rather than agreeing with it or criticising the manager for it.

[Amo]

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

You were talking nonsense that I somehow compare making the play offs to winning the premier League. I didn't really know what to take from it,so I just had a go. 

Didn't you say finishing 8th is an "incredible" season?

[47er]

5 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

If our ‘wide men don’t play wide’, what are they then? 

I've thought that for a while. If they are not wingers and they don't play wide, what are they?

I've also read that they"are not wide strikers"!

No wonder they usually contribute FA---they don't  know what they are either.

[MarkBRFC]

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Obviously he would have failed in his target to make the play offs.

Is that what you want to happen? 

So just to be clear, you are saying finishing 7th is a failure then? 

I personally don't see it as that black and white as that. Play offs is great progress (success if we win them), finishing where we are now, a few points off the play offs is acceptable progress ready for another go next year.

As for that final line, why would I want us to fail? A club I have invested so much time and money in, and that has been a huge part of my life for over 30 years?

I think it was mattyblue who posted earlier but this weird thing where people are asking questions of other supporters about "agendas" and accusing/asking questions of wanting us to fail really needs to stop.

 

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Because Armstrong can play there with some competence, unlike Gallagher who has never had a good game there. Unfortunately the squad is particularly lacking there, I'd rather Armstrong played central ideally.

Just because we are doing "fairly goodish" (3 draws on the bounce) doesnt mean that all areas of the side are working. Such a statement is totally removing the possibility of discussing any potential constructive improvement.

Youve never actually confirmed that you are content with Gallagher, Samuel or Brereton playing as wide men, you always deflect rather than agreeing with it or criticising the manager for it.

Gallagher had a good game against Sheff Wed where we rip them apart. Armstrong playing up was unplayable that day. 

Fairly goodish was a comment about the entire season not just based on the last 3 games. Didn't I posted an area I thought we could improve the way we play by Rothwell not keep playing inside but staying wider at times and being less predictable? 

[Paul Mani]

11 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Then that’s their opinion, they don’t rate him as a manager, I don’t agree but good luck to them.

I think Bell isn’t a good enough left back and needs replacing, if that’s an ‘agenda’ against Amari Bell, then fine.

I agree with both of your points. In particular Amari’i Bell BUT if Bell began to do well over a long enough period, got man of the match a few times and showed that he was in fact doing his job and I continued to want him replaced then I too would be guilty of having an agenda...which I guess I do because he has improved and yet I still want him replaced! 

[Mattyblue]

There you go then! 

Some folk just have different views even if they seem irrational to me and you. End of the day brfcs has always been more ‘negative’/harder to please than other social media platforms, half of it needs to be taken with a pitch of salt.

‘Agendas’ just isn’t helpful for the forum. 

[Paul Mani]

8 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

There you go then! 

Some folk just have different views even if they seem irrational to me and you. End of the day brfcs has always been more ‘negative’/harder to please than other social media platforms, half of it needs to be taken with a pitch of salt.

‘Agendas’ just isn’t helpful for the forum. 

I agree, but I think people could do with getting over the word ‘Agenda’ ultimately we all have them. The common one in here is that we ALL want Rovers to succeed. Which was my initial point. But there are also negative agendas that people have against the manager and certain players so why not just own them?

[47er]

1 hour ago, Paul Mani said:

The common one in here is that we ALL want Rovers to succeed.

Well you've said that and good for you but there are quite a few who don't believe that and say so, repeatedly. Cropped up yesterday didn't it?

As for agendas, I think that term is being applied to people who don't change their mind every week!

I like Mowbray, I think he's a decent bloke. He's done a good job but there are many weaknesses in his management and imo he's not the man to take us up or keep us up.

That's my view, if others think that's having an agenda I really don't care.

Edited March 6, 2020 by 47er

[tomphil]

When fans want a player upgrade it doesn't mean they have an agenda it just means they want a better team.

I like Bennett but his time is almost up and i'd swap him tomorrow, i like Gallagher but wouldn't have signed him, certainly wouldn't deploy him where he usually is and would swap him tomorrow for a decent right winger or proper target man.

I like Mowbray but would swap him for an upgrade if it was possible at the end of the season.

There's my 'agenda's' all laid out bare.

[47er]

14 minutes ago, tomphil said:

i like Gallagher but wouldn't have signed him, certainly wouldn't deploy him where he usually is and would swap him tomorrow for a decent right winger or proper target man.

I like Gallagher but I wouldn't have paid £5M for him! Also, given that his previous time with us was the most prolific of his whole career in terms of goals ( and presumably That's why TM signed him permanently) I'd play him where I played him then.

[Dreams of 1995]

There's a massive, massive, massive difference between accusing someone of having an agenda and pointing out ridiculous arguments in order to maintain a position on a subject our of shear stubbornness.

Now, the argument that he isn't the man to take us up or keep us in the Premier League is fine, but when that argument transcends into some of the quite frankly ridiculous claims that get peddled on here at times it becomes a different thing. That's when the dislike of Mowbray's management becomes an 'agenda' because one would look for the negative as opposed to the creditable because that internal bias kicks in.

Claiming that someone has an agenda doesn't mean you devalue them as a fan. It does devalue the argument though and sometimes it is exactly the right word needed for the time. I hate to keep bringing it back up but the idea that Tony Mowbray and Rovers were doing well because of the injuries was one in which that internal bias was in overdrive; trying to window dress it as 'forced selection' was wrong because even within that time Mowbray had rotated in equal measures as prior. 

An agenda is an underlying intention and if some people think TM isn't the right man to take the club forward then their passion for the club will mean they will do or say things that undermines him, even when at times those things are half truths or misrepresentations of the facts. The same can be said for the opposite viewpoint too.

However, in my opinion, the line is drawn when people are starting to be accused of Venkys stooges. That is not trying to undermine the opinion but the person and in truth does anyone really believe Venkys or the club sends someone onto this forum of approx 50+ regular users to try and change opinion? Nah. 

 

[Mattyblue]

So it comes down to folk not liking being proven wrong and admitting as much.

That won’t ever change on a forum, especially not this one.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Mattyblue

[Blue blood]

24 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

 

However, in my opinion, the line is drawn when people are starting to be accused of Venkys stooges. That is not trying to undermine the opinion but the person and in truth does anyone really believe Venkys or the club sends someone onto this forum of approx 50+ regular users to try and change opinion? Nah. 

 

Not saying they have/do but this is the club that only gets its managers from one agency, employed K**n, drowned out protests at the ground, let various agents and others lump us with all sorts of players, get no criticism in LT and when they do there is a big backlash against it,  etc. So I don't think we can rule out anything at our club! The dark forces at work at the club, comment is correct, albeit misdirected, not the fans but the owners, agents and those running the show, and imo is still in place. Which is why I wouldn't rule out the club influencing any online media about the club. Not saying they are, just  with their past record it's hard to rule out.

[Dreams of 1995]

16 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

So it comes down to folk not liking being proven wrong and admitting as much.

That won’t ever change on a forum, especially not this one.

Yep. Nail on head. 
 

The counter is when people do admit they were wrong it’s then a case of “can’t stand folk who change their mind all the time”. No win situation and pretty stupid for grown men to be bogged down on it really. 
 

Let’s just forget about pedantics and talk rovers?

[tomphil]

People have PR people, they hire PR firms etc and part of their job is to go round social media to try and dampen things, distract, twist, peddle and the main one.. spin !

It happens all over and it'll have happened on here down the years, again nothing unique in it. 

[47er]

34 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I hate to keep bringing it back up but the idea that Tony Mowbray and Rovers were doing well because of the injuries was one in which that internal bias was in overdrive; trying to window dress it as 'forced selection' was wrong because even within that time Mowbray had rotated in equal measures as prior. 

No you don't hate to bring it up, you wouldn't do it so often if you did! What you can't seem to grasp is that there is no right or wrong here. Its not about facts, its about what people make of them. It is a FACT that there was a little period when we were down to the bare bones and the manager didn't have the ability to change the side around as much as he had been doing. Its also a fact that we played better and our results improved.

Whether the two are connected or not is a matter of opinion not fact. I say they probably are, you say they are not. So what?

41 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

However, in my opinion, the line is drawn when people are starting to be accused of Venkys stooges

This is presumably also aimed at me because you used it in your recent rant. I cannot deny using it sometime or other but I don't recall using it in months if not years. How I used it then very much depends on the context and what I was responding to.

So, are people STARTING to to be so accused? When? By whom? I honestly haven't noticed it. You write as if there has been an epidemic of it.

As for lines being crossed, I think the line is drawn when people are accused of being disappointed when Rovers win. Again, its a matter of opinion. 

[47er]

24 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The counter is when people do admit they were wrong it’s then a case of “can’t stand folk who change their mind all the time”

Straw Man again! Who has admitted they were wrong and been attacked for changing their mind? If this is a reference to Chaddy, he NEVER admits he was wrong! 

I think you should broaden your horizons and expect that other people will think differently than you and not be so offended all the time.

[Dreams of 1995]

3 minutes ago, 47er said:

Straw Man again! Who has admitted they were wrong and been attacked for changing their mind? If this is a reference to Chaddy, he NEVER admits he was wrong! 

I think you should broaden your horizons and expect that other people will think differently than you and not be so offended all the time.

I'm not the one who has been offended with the talk of agendas, 47er. You should save that for the other lads who have spent 2 pages arguing about why it's unfair...including you. Weird.

 

10 minutes ago, 47er said:

No you don't hate to bring it up, you wouldn't do it so often if you did! What you can't seem to grasp is that there is no right or wrong here. Its not about facts, its about what people make of them. It is a FACT that there was a little period when we were down to the bare bones and the manager didn't have the ability to change the side around as much as he had been doing. Its also a fact that we played better and our results improved.

Whether the two are connected or not is a matter of opinion not fact. I say they probably are, you say they are not. So what?

This is presumably also aimed at me because you used it in your recent rant. I cannot deny using it sometime or other but I don't recall using it in months if not years. How I used it then very much depends on the context and what I was responding to.

So, are people STARTING to to be so accused? When? By whom? I honestly haven't noticed it. You write as if there has been an epidemic of it.

As for lines being crossed, I think the line is drawn when people are accused of being disappointed when Rovers win. Again, its a matter of opinion. 

Ignoring the rest because it's boring I want to deal with the capital "FACT" you've declared. 

What "little period" was this when Mowbray didn't have the ability to change the side?

For the Brentford, Stoke, Derby and Swansea games he played the same side; changed vs Bristol due to suspensions and won; reverted back to the side against Wigan and drew. We then had a series of games in quick succession because of Christmas which also coincided with injuries and we had a bad spell. Since Christmas Mowbray has rotated the same amount as he had done throughout the season, except used different players than he otherwise would. 

If you declare something as a fact then show it. I simply don't believe that Mowbray's selection was forced due to injures which coincided with the upturn in form. You may believe the two are connected but by saying you are basing that opinion on fact you should show it. The actual truth is that Mowbray's rotation has continued as normal throughout our injury crisis..in fact, I'd argue he used a more stable line up prior to Dack and co being injured having had an albeit very quick look at some starting line ups.

 

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

15 hours ago, Amo said:

Didn't you say finishing 8th is an "incredible" season?

No, I didn't say that. 

[47er]

31 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I'm not the one who has been offended with the talk of agendas, 47er. You should save that for the other lads who have spent 2 pages arguing about why it's unfair...including you. Weird.

 

Ignoring the rest because it's boring I want to deal with the capital "FACT" you've declared. 

What "little period" was this when Mowbray didn't have the ability to change the side?

For the Brentford, Stoke, Derby and Swansea games he played the same side; changed vs Bristol due to suspensions and won; reverted back to the side against Wigan and drew. We then had a series of games in quick succession because of Christmas which also coincided with injuries and we had a bad spell. Since Christmas Mowbray has rotated the same amount as he had done throughout the season, except used different players than he otherwise would. 

If you declare something as a fact then show it. I simply don't believe that Mowbray's selection was forced due to injures which coincided with the upturn in form. You may believe the two are connected but by saying you are basing that opinion on fact you should show it. The actual truth is that Mowbray's rotation has continued as normal throughout our injury crisis..in fact, I'd argue he used a more stable line up prior to Dack and co being injured having had an albeit very quick look at some starting line ups.

 

 

I did reply to you briefly and in a non-hostile way but I'm afraid it was deleted once again.

[DE.]

1 minute ago, 47er said:

I did reply to you briefly and in a non-hostile way but I'm afraid it was deleted once again.

Not by the mods. In fact you're one of very few posters who hasn't had any posts hidden in the last two pages or so.