Tony Mowbray Discussion

[47er]

1 hour ago, JBiz said:

Subjective semantics.

A lot of my judgement on Tony M comes from the absolute dumpster fire he inherited. It’s a complete different club in only 3 and a bit seasons 

"Subjective semantics"----cuts both ways! He's not a great manager though whichever way you look at it. Great managers win trophies. He's merely the best Venkys could come up with, which isn't really saying very much.

Edited December 9, 2020 by 47er

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, 47er said:

"Subjective semantics"----cuts both ways! He's not a great manager though whichever way you look at it. Great managers win trophies. He's merely the best Venkys could come up with, which isn't really saying very much.

Of course it goes both ways, that’s what subjective means.

Can agree that great managers win trophies and promotions, the lack Of both would suggest Mark Hughes wasn’t a great manager for us. I’d disagree and suggest he did an excellent job of having us punch above our weight, Moyes at Everton never won a trophy in ten years - did a great job similar to Hughes, getting them in Europe and in the top 6.

The big factor in my view on TM doing a fine job so far is the scenario which he inherited, as you point out, including a bat shit crazy (potentially criminally ran) ownership.

[47er]

OK JBiz--let's stop it here. You think TM  is a "great manager". I think he's quite ordinary.

And you're cheating with your comparisons.

eg "Mark Hughes is a great manager" is not the same as "Mark Hughes was a great manager for us" as well you know!

Similarly Moyes was a great manager for Everton but rubbish for Manure, and finally found his level imo with West Ham.

ergo not a great manager.

The End.

[Eddie]

19 hours ago, JBiz said:

Subjective semantics I guess, I’d call Kenny a legend for what he did for us, Hughes and Souness club icons - perhaps Mowbray is a step away from greatness in the general eye, but for me - the overall turnaround of club since he arrived has been excellent.

It's not semantics, words have meanings.

You're basically saying that we've had 4 'great' managers in the past 25 years?

Great should be reserved for managers that do great things over a sustained period of time, not simply for managers that have good to very good seasons every now and then.

Mowbray has been decent in his time here so far. If he manages to get us into the playoffs then I would consider that to be a very good turnaround from the club that he took charge of. As of yet he has failed to do this. 

By your definition of great there would be 20-30 'great' managers in the football league at all times. That takes all meaning away from the word. 

[RevidgeBlue]

12 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Using your terminology: “Mowbray, promotion and bringing through the best crop of youngsters in a generation.” Purely looking at their stints with us, I’d put him ahead of Jim Smith (couldn’t buy a centre forward worthy of the shirt), Saxton (his loyalty to players makes Mowbray look like Cruella DeVille) and Furphy (bottled the run in when we finished 3rd).

Dear me, based on their times here Mowbray isn't fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Furphy for me, just imagine what Ken could have done with the highest wage bill in the division by a country mile and the 70's equivalent of spending £1m on Bradley Dack.

I'd also say Smith's career overall indicates he  was a far better manager than Mowbray. I'd say Don Mackay was also streets ahead of Mowbray on a far worse budget as well.

Didn't rate Saxton at all so there's not much to choose between them there, would probably give Mowbray the slight edge based on his (heavily bankrolled) League 1 promotion.

[tomphil]

With TM there are the good points and the not so good one's which for me more or less nearly balance.  Pound for pound he's had the best backing since Hughes and he's had time and patience from these owners that others haven't.

I rate him above average in a 60/40 kind of way taking everything into context not just the on pitch stuff.  On the pitch i'd still probably have him as bang average but he seems to be moving in the right direction.

We are in 3rd full season territory now so things should be coming together this is what he's talked up himself. Obviously you have to cut a bit of slack with the covid and crazy injuries. As a few others have said though it's were we go from here now that really counts.

That will define him as a genuinely good manager or just a bang average one who did a good job for a while here. 

[JBiz]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

It's not semantics, words have meanings.

You're basically saying that we've had 4 'great' managers in the past 25 years?

Great should be reserved for managers that do great things over a sustained period of time, not simply for managers that have good to very good seasons every now and then.

Mowbray has been decent in his time here so far. If he manages to get us into the playoffs then I would consider that to be a very good turnaround from the club that he took charge of. As of yet he has failed to do this. 

By your definition of great there would be 20-30 'great' managers in the football league at all times. That takes all meaning away from the word. 

This is quickly turning into a discussion about the meaning of specific words in a subjective context.
I think Sparks are a great 70s band but I’d expect others to disagree!..

Achievements aren’t always objective either; do Accrington Stanley fans call John Coleman a great manager? I expect they would, however his entire career achievements wouldn’t stack up with anyone who’d managed in the top two flights. He’s effectively been one of the key reasons they’re a stable  league club, yet his achievements wouldn’t be discussed in the same breath as major trophy or top level promotions.

For me the Great aspect of TMs job, as I’ve said repeatedly, is the turnaround from basket case sinking quickly, to expectations of promotion within 3 years.

 

[Mattc93]

Keeping onto the key players whose contracts are running out will be a key assessment period for Mowbray at demonstrating whether or not he truly is a good manager. He’s had plenty of money in recent years and used it rather lavishly at times. If key players aren’t tied down due to a ‘lack of funds’ and leave as freebies, then sorry but Mowbray is one hell of a crap manager.  His adamant top 6 expectations give me hope he’s got this covered and we’re sweating over nothing. Let’s wait and see. 

[tomphil]

12 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Using your terminology: “Mowbray, promotion and bringing through the best crop of youngsters in a generation.” Purely looking at their stints with us, I’d put him ahead of Jim Smith (couldn’t buy a centre forward worthy of the shirt), Saxton (his loyalty to players makes Mowbray look like Cruella DeVille) and Furphy (bottled the run in when we finished 3rd).

I don't remember much of the stuff around Saxton other than what i saw on matchdays as a youngster. Looking back though and reading back on that era just how in gods name was he supposed to replace these players he was so called over loyal to ?

Fans don't know the meaning of the word skint compared to then. Always had him down as someone who squeezed every last drop out of the morsals he had.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

26 minutes ago, tomphil said:

I don't remember much of the stuff around Saxton other than what i saw on matchdays as a youngster. Looking back though and reading back on that era just how in gods name was he supposed to replace these players he was so called over loyal to ?

Fans don't know the meaning of the word skint compared to then. Always had him down as someone who squeezed every last drop out of the morsals he had.

We couldn't even afford to pay the phone bill back in those days. Jim Smith did a good enough job here to be poached away to bigger things as was Furphy, Lee and Kendall.  Bobby Saxton wasn't a favourite of mine either but who knows what he might have done with the backing the current manager has received ?

[oldjamfan1]

I thought Sacko did a fantastic job for Rovers. At a time when all our Lancashire rivals in similar financial difficulties were heading for the 3rd and 4th divisions he kept us competitive in the second tier. Bob Saxton and Don Mackay put us in the position where we could attract King Kenny and their efforts for this club will never be underestimated in my eyes.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, JBiz said:

This is quickly turning into a discussion about the meaning of specific words in a subjective context.
I think Sparks are a great 70s band but I’d expect others to disagree!..

Achievements aren’t always objective either; do Accrington Stanley fans call John Coleman a great manager? I expect they would, however his entire career achievements wouldn’t stack up with anyone who’d managed in the top two flights. He’s effectively been one of the key reasons they’re a stable  league club, yet his achievements wouldn’t be discussed in the same breath as major trophy or top level promotions.

For me the Great aspect of TMs job, as I’ve said repeatedly, is the turnaround from basket case sinking quickly, to expectations of promotion within 3 years.

 

Was subjective your word of the week?

[DE.]

TM and Bowyer are more or less on equal standing for me at the moment. I don't really blame TM for our relegation, and I very much doubt we would have been relegated had he been in charge the entire season. Almost all of the blame goes to Venky's and Coyle for that. The squad was not so bad it was doomed to go down, TM proved that when he got here. We were moulded into relegation candidates by a terrible manager who should have been nowhere near the club.

Bowyer probably had more wiggle room in terms of wage budget, whilst TM has had more to play with in terms of transfer budget. I'm not sure how those would balance out if compared, but I get the feeling they wouldn't be too far apart. 

To leapfrog Bowyer, TM needs to do what Bowyer could not and at the very least get us into the playoffs. Whether we were ultimately promoted or not, a playoff finish would be empirical evidence showcasing a clear progression from Bowyer's time here.

 

[Blue blood]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

"Subjective semantics"----cuts both ways! He's not a great manager though whichever way you look at it. Great managers win trophies. He's merely the best Venkys could come up with, which isn't really saying very much.

Sums it up for me. Compared with any other manager Venkys have appointed he is is streets ahead. 

On the scale of all managers though he's pretty bang average. In our Venkys world however, that is gold dust.  

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, DE. said:

TM and Bowyer are more or less on equal standing for me at the moment. I don't really blame TM for our relegation, and I very much doubt we would have been relegated had he been in charge the entire season. Almost all of the blame goes to Venky's and Coyle for that. The squad was not so bad it was doomed to go down, TM proved that when he got here. We were moulded into relegation candidates by a terrible manager who should have been nowhere near the club.

Bowyer probably had more wiggle room in terms of wage budget, whilst TM has had more to play with in terms of transfer budget. I'm not sure how those would balance out if compared, but I get the feeling they wouldn't be too far apart. 

To leapfrog Bowyer, TM needs to do what Bowyer could not and at the very least get us into the playoffs. Whether we were ultimately promoted or not, a playoff finish would be empirical evidence showcasing a clear progression from Bowyer's time here.

 

Im not convinced that Bowyer had an advantage in regards to wages to be honest, I dont recall many high earners signing under him and indeed we had quite a few high earners with big egos dented his chances of a clean rebuild. Mowbray has been able to sign Gallagher, Holtby, Johnson, Ayala etc, all senior players who will be on very competitive wages im sure.

I think the main advantage that Mowbray has in regards to judging over Bowyer (aside from the promotion although a direct comparison is impossible as Bowyer kept us up initially) is that whilst both hit a glass ceiling, we saw Bowyer then stagnate away from that, although he was under the difficulties of an embargo and a mass sale. Mowbray has an asterix next to his name because we dont know what will come next, and whether we will achieve a top 6 placing before any potential stagnation.

[DE.]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Im not convinced that Bowyer had an advantage in regards to wages to be honest, I dont recall many high earners signing under him and indeed we had quite a few high earners with big egos dented his chances of a clean rebuild. Mowbray has been able to sign Gallagher, Holtby, Johnson, Ayala etc, all senior players who will be on very competitive wages im sure.

I think the main advantage that Mowbray has in regards to judging over Bowyer (aside from the promotion although a direct comparison is impossible as Bowyer kept us up initially) is that whilst both hit a glass ceiling, we saw Bowyer then stagnate away from that, although he was under the difficulties of an embargo and a mass sale. Mowbray has an asterix next to his name because we dont know what will come next, and whether we will achieve a top 6 placing before any potential stagnation.

Keep in mind even the likes of Lowe were on £20k a week. Rhodes was probably on double anything being paid to our current crop. Henley, Hanley, Duffy, Robinson, Dann, Cairney, Evans, Marshall... all likely on £15k+ or thereabouts. It's little wonder we ended up under embargo as we were paying a fortune to some very average players.  

I don't have the figures to hand, but I have to believe our wage bill under Bowyer was a lot higher than it is now. 

Agree on the glass ceiling unknown - TM has thus far been on a slow upwards trajectory, aided by having no pressure to sell any of our best players, as was the case with Bowyer. Once the taps do start being turned off, as they inevitably will at some point if we don't get promoted, we will see how TM compares to Bowyer - if he sticks around for that.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, DE. said:

Keep in mind even the likes of Lowe were on £20k a week. Rhodes was probably on double anything being paid to our current crop. Henley, Hanley, Duffy, Robinson, Dann, Cairney, Evans, Marshall... all likely on £15k+ or thereabouts. It's little wonder we ended up under embargo as we were paying a fortune to some very average players.  

I don't have the figures to hand, but I have to believe our wage bill under Bowyer was a lot higher than it is now. 

Agree on the glass ceiling unknown - TM has thus far been on a slow upwards trajectory, aided by having no pressure to sell any of our best players, as was the case with Bowyer. Once the taps do start being turned off, as they inevitably will at some point if we don't get promoted, we will see how TM compares to Bowyer - if he sticks around for that.

According to Nixon Dann was on 35k pwk when he was brought in but had a reducer written in for relegation.  Kean then put him as captain which automatically put it back up again.  It was one of his bits in the paper when he was well in.

Never under estimate how much was going down the toilet back then.

[Blue blood]

Some interesting discussion, which I feel is somewhat tainted by the fact that Venkys are to managerial recruitment what Nero was to good taste! 

FWIW my thoughts are - no way is TM a great manager. Good is stretching it. His plusses are a promotion with us, some exceptional signings - Dack, Armstrong, Kaminski - and having us looking up the table rather than downwards. Gradual improvement in terms of finishes is also is a plus, ad if the pace is frustrating (which I find it is) the consolation is at least we are heading in the right direction. Also not being an incompetent turd is a big plus from the chap too. Although the fact this qualifies as a positive quality shows how low Venkys has set the bar.

His negatives have included several horrific runs, and some good but not great attempts, for example getting relegated - it was a bold effort but not quite enought, getting promoted second when he could have been champions. Add in that he is slow to learn from mistakes, some horrible winless runs, and he hasn't spent big money well on occasions and you see a picture of a far from great manager. Too many mistakes and negatives to be a great manager. 

Factor in his time outside of Ewood and it paints a similar picture - decent job at Boro, did well at West Brom but that was 10 years ago, and horrific stints at Celtic and Coventry. Again, not the record of a great manager. Where's the tropheys? Where's the teams punching above their weight? It's a decent track record no doubt about it but it's hardly great. 

I think when constrasted with other managers internally and externally it highlights it all the more. If there's arguments TM has underperformed with Rovers at times, then what Bowyer did was nothing short of treasonous with his squad. Rhodes, Gestede, Duffy, Hanley, Baptiste, Olsson, Marshall, Cairney, Robinson, King is the backbone of a championship winning squad and we scarcely touched playoffs. Comparatively TM is getting much more Rovers than any other manager under Venkys has.

The flip side is when you compare him to the likes of Warnock. More promotions, more recent promotions, teams doing better in a quicker amount of time, and more teams punching above their weight. Imo one of Warnock's greatest achievements was getting Rotherham to comfortable safety. When you compare the two, it cannot be said objectively that TM is better on any assessment criteria of success - in fact clearly the opposite.

So whilst I'm grateful we don't have a clown in charge, to me TM is just a decent manager. Unfortunately under the loons that's as good as it gets.     

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Blue blood said:

Some interesting discussion, which I feel is somewhat tainted by the fact that Venkys are to managerial recruitment what Nero was to good taste! 

FWIW my thoughts are - no way is TM a great manager. Good is stretching it. His plusses are a promotion with us, some exceptional signings - Dack, Armstrong, Kaminski - and having us looking up the table rather than downwards. Gradual improvement in terms of finishes is also is a plus, ad if the pace is frustrating (which I find it is) the consolation is at least we are heading in the right direction. Also not being an incompetent turd is a big plus from the chap too. Although the fact this qualifies as a positive quality shows how low Venkys has set the bar.

His negatives have included several horrific runs, and some good but not great attempts, for example getting relegated - it was a bold effort but not quite enought, getting promoted second when he could have been champions. Add in that he is slow to learn from mistakes, some horrible winless runs, and he hasn't spent big money well on occasions and you see a picture of a far from great manager. Too many mistakes and negatives to be a great manager. 

Factor in his time outside of Ewood and it paints a similar picture - decent job at Boro, did well at West Brom but that was 10 years ago, and horrific stints at Celtic and Coventry. Again, not the record of a great manager. Where's the tropheys? Where's the teams punching above their weight? It's a decent track record no doubt about it but it's hardly great. 

I think when constrasted with other managers internally and externally it highlights it all the more. If there's arguments TM has underperformed with Rovers at times, then what Bowyer did was nothing short of treasonous with his squad. Rhodes, Gestede, Duffy, Hanley, Baptiste, Olsson, Marshall, Cairney, Robinson, King is the backbone of a championship winning squad and we scarcely touched playoffs. Comparatively TM is getting much more Rovers than any other manager under Venkys has.

The flip side is when you compare him to the likes of Warnock. More promotions, more recent promotions, teams doing better in a quicker amount of time, and more teams punching above their weight. Imo one of Warnock's greatest achievements was getting Rotherham to comfortable safety. When you compare the two, it cannot be said objectively that TM is better on any assessment criteria of success - in fact clearly the opposite.

So whilst I'm grateful we don't have a clown in charge, to me TM is just a decent manager. Unfortunately under the loons that's as good as it gets.     

The thing with Bowyers' squad is probably due to a mixture of financial restrictions (especially compared to Mowbray) some bizarre signings and some strange loyalty to poor players he inherited was very much either really good or dreadful. Rhodes and Gestede were the best strikeforce in the League undoubtedly and in Conway and Marshall when both were fit we had 2 really effective wingers. Hanley and Duffy grew into an effective partnership at CB too. But we had some totally incompetent players in the starting 11, he couldnt look past Lowe and Williamson in the centre of midfield which meant that we probably had a bottom 3 standard central midfield. At full back we often had Spurr who was at best ok, and RB was a bit of a problem position, Baptiste was out of position and uncomfortable there and Henley/Kane werent up to it, and then in goal, Bowyer had Robinson post blood clot when he could barely move, and then had some real trouble replacing him with Kean, Eastwood and Steele all below par. So I think even in our best side whilst having maybe 5 or 6 players right at the top end of the league in terms of quality, there were at least 3 who were probably not up to the standard of the Championship full stop. Of course you need more than 11 which is when a further problem arose, we had the likes of Chris Taylor, Varney, Chris Brown etc who were all miles short of Championship standard.

He definitely did underachieve though with the squad he built.

[Leonard Venkhater]

2 hours ago, Blue blood said:

Some interesting discussion, which I feel is somewhat tainted by the fact that Venkys are to managerial recruitment what Nero was to good taste! 

FWIW my thoughts are - no way is TM a great manager. Good is stretching it. His plusses are a promotion with us, some exceptional signings - Dack, Armstrong, Kaminski - and having us looking up the table rather than downwards. Gradual improvement in terms of finishes is also is a plus, ad if the pace is frustrating (which I find it is) the consolation is at least we are heading in the right direction. Also not being an incompetent turd is a big plus from the chap too. Although the fact this qualifies as a positive quality shows how low Venkys has set the bar.

His negatives have included several horrific runs, and some good but not great attempts, for example getting relegated - it was a bold effort but not quite enought, getting promoted second when he could have been champions. Add in that he is slow to learn from mistakes, some horrible winless runs, and he hasn't spent big money well on occasions and you see a picture of a far from great manager. Too many mistakes and negatives to be a great manager. 

Factor in his time outside of Ewood and it paints a similar picture - decent job at Boro, did well at West Brom but that was 10 years ago, and horrific stints at Celtic and Coventry. Again, not the record of a great manager. Where's the tropheys? Where's the teams punching above their weight? It's a decent track record no doubt about it but it's hardly great. 

I think when constrasted with other managers internally and externally it highlights it all the more. If there's arguments TM has underperformed with Rovers at times, then what Bowyer did was nothing short of treasonous with his squad. Rhodes, Gestede, Duffy, Hanley, Baptiste, Olsson, Marshall, Cairney, Robinson, King is the backbone of a championship winning squad and we scarcely touched playoffs. Comparatively TM is getting much more Rovers than any other manager under Venkys has.

The flip side is when you compare him to the likes of Warnock. More promotions, more recent promotions, teams doing better in a quicker amount of time, and more teams punching above their weight. Imo one of Warnock's greatest achievements was getting Rotherham to comfortable safety. When you compare the two, it cannot be said objectively that TM is better on any assessment criteria of success - in fact clearly the opposite.

So whilst I'm grateful we don't have a clown in charge, to me TM is just a decent manager. Unfortunately under the loons that's as good as it gets.     

Talking of horrific runs..Dalglish's 6 match losing streak takes some beating....just saying lol

[DE.]

We lost 9 out of 11 between February 2nd 2019 - 6th April 2019 which I would argue trumps that. The worst death spiral thus far which completely obliterated any hopes we had of getting into the top six, despite being within touching distance at the end of January on the back of a four game winning streak.

We don't seem to be see-sawing in form quite so much this season which is a welcome relief.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Talking of horrific runs..Dalglish's 6 match losing streak takes some beating....just saying lol

You could attribute that to nerves seeing we were 2nd i think heading towards the business end.

To keep bottling it whenever we are 2 points off the play offs mid season is weak as piss compared to that. Feels a bit different this time though so far, there's a bit more experience round the place now. Compared to the recent seasons.

[Stuart]

10 hours ago, 47er said:

OK JBiz--let's stop it here. You think TM  is a "great manager". I think he's quite ordinary.

And you're cheating with your comparisons.

eg "Mark Hughes is a great manager" is not the same as "Mark Hughes was a great manager for us" as well you know!

Similarly Moyes was a great manager for Everton but rubbish for Manure, and finally found his level imo with West Ham.

ergo not a great manager.

The End.

Makes me laugh at what a “different club we have become in 3.5 years”, yet talk about replacing Mowbray and it’s “we can’t trust that we’ll get anyone better”

So... same old shambolic club then.

Some folk just want it both ways.

[tomphil]

A thing that struck me earlier tonight was listening to Lineker and Ferdinand discussing the difference between Liverpool and Man U.

Obviously we have nothing like that quality but the points touched on were Solskjer keeps trying different formations and tactics and players whereas Klopp tends to replace like for like and whovever comes in fits his system and knows their jobs.

TM alludes to wanting to be like LIverpool but manages the team more like Ole does. Too many tweaks and swaps to ever get any real fluidity and it really shows even more when we are a bit short.

Until we come to terms with having a set system and having an entire squad to fit it we'll not progress enough to make it count imo. All this being adaptable is fair enough but do you really need it at this level when you are able to put together a good squad ?

Keep it bloody simple and nights like tonight might start yeilding instead of predictable narrow defeats.

[Ewood Ace]

He just over complicates it. Elliott played in 4 different position tonight he played all 3 position in the front 3 and then in the midfield 3. Why keep moving him about when he play of the right of the front 3 he is absolute class, his passing is exceptional a number of times tonight he came in from the right and played some lovely through balls to Armstrong and he can also do what he did against Millwall. Yet when he is playing in any of the other roles he is no way near as effective. 

I had no problem with taking Holtby off but moving Elliott in there and bringing Dolan on was again over thinking things just bring Trybull or Davenport on for Holtby.

The use of Gallagher is bizarre he is not a winger and I can only think that it is stubbornness from Mowbray that means he continues to play there. He was hopeless tonight  and should have been taken off earlier but once we take him off we then proceed to go more direct which is exactly what would suit his game. 

The two subs he made after they scored were also extremely strange ones considering we needed a goal, I've no idea what exactly was the plan when we made those subs. He tries to be too clever.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Ewood Ace