Tony Mowbray Discussion

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Ewood Ace said:

Graham has already scored and Rothwell has only had one start, whereas Gallagher has started every game.

Yea but that’s the point, if you judge those lads by their goal scoring chances, it’s got to be full team criticism.

[MarkBRFC]

3 hours ago, Harry The Bass said:

 

A more confident SG for example heads in against Hull, he has had a few chances in each game but nothing guilt edge.

Neither has Dack, Armstrong, Graham, Rothwell, etc etc.

In both roles he’s performed, the pressing, linking and holding up has been good for me. He is a physical presence most teams will suffer against. Just because he hasn’t bagged, does not mean he’s done nowt, imo.

He's done ok. I like his battling qualities down that right hand side, good ariel presence too.

You can see why it's 22 games in a row without a goal for him though, doesn't look like he'll ever score again at the minute, and that's what he will ultimately be judged on.

Edited August 25, 2019 by MarkBRFC

[JBiz]

Just now, MarkBRFC said:

He's done ok. I like his battling qualities down that right hand side, good ariel presence too.

You can see why it's 22 games in a row without a goal for him though, doesn't look like he'll ever score again at the minute, and that's what he will ultimately be judged on.

Goals are confidence too - the header back across the box against Hull spelled this out. Not all forwards are goal scorers.

His overall effort, pressing and aerial dominance shouldn’t be ignored for his lack of goals!

[roversfan99]

15 minutes ago, Harry The Bass said:

Goals are confidence too - the header back across the box against Hull spelled this out. Not all forwards are goal scorers.

His overall effort, pressing and aerial dominance shouldn’t be ignored for his lack of goals!

The good ones tend to be.

I've said a couple of times that hes putting in the graft, but thats not enough to warrant a place. He's never a wide man in a million years either.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

The good ones tend to be.

I've said a couple of times that hes putting in the graft, but thats not enough to warrant a place. He's never a wide man in a million years either.

Gallagher has done more than enough to warrant his place. He worked his socks off in every game. He never stop working back or getting forward. 

He has a few chances but not scored. But neither have the other forwards or Midfielders has scored from open play either. 

 

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Gallagher has done more than enough to warrant his place. He worked his socks off in every game. He never stop working back or getting forward. 

He has a few chances but not scored. But neither have the other forwards or Midfielders has scored from open play either. 

 

Working his socks off doesnt mean he should play every week, every player has been trying their best so that doesnt make him stand out.

They havent, which I've repeatedly said is a massive concern, that the manager really needs to be getting far more from us as an attacking team, and that we have been crap going forward so far.

I think the Gallagher out wide experiment should be written off as a failure, and he should only be considered as an alternative to Graham.

[JBiz]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

The good ones tend to be.

I've said a couple of times that hes putting in the graft, but thats not enough to warrant a place. He's never a wide man in a million years either.

...but we’ve never played traditional widemen under TM

 

[roversfan99]

Just now, Harry The Bass said:

...but we’ve never played traditional widemen under TM

 

That doesn't mean that I can't suggest that we should play more natural wide men! Especially when I don't think the current plan is working.

Why did he sign Harry Chapman if he has no intention of playing wingers? And what about Stewart Downing?

I don't think that our wide men have been particularly successful throughout his tenure to be honest, hence our over reliance on the Graham and Dack partnership.

For me, our 2 wide men should come from 4, Armstrong (who I consider more of a wide man than a forward especially as hes far better right than left cutting in), Rothwell, Downing and Chapman.

Brereton was often used wide last season, Gallagher this. For me it suggests that maybe he doesn't have the trust to play them regularly down the middle over Graham, but its the easiest place to get them game time. I don't think either is effective wide.

[chaddyrovers]

40 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Working his socks off doesnt mean he should play every week, every player has been trying their best so that doesnt make him stand out.

They havent, which I've repeatedly said is a massive concern, that the manager really needs to be getting far more from us as an attacking team, and that we have been crap going forward so far.

I think the Gallagher out wide experiment should be written off as a failure, and he should only be considered as an alternative to Graham.

Gallagher didn't stand out against Boro? really? He was outstanding 

Like I have told you before Mowbray has gone back to basics to get points on the board after 2 games we lost. similar to what a Sam Allardyce or Mark Hughes would have done. would you have criticise these managers for the same approach? 

 

32 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

That doesn't mean that I can't suggest that we should play more natural wide men! Especially when I don't think the current plan is working.

 

The current plan that has got us 7 points from 3 games and 3 clean sheets. 

[Blue blood]

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

"The system is set up around him yet he isn't delivering at the moment."

The formation yes somewhat, but there is no way that you could argue that our way of playing at the moment is in any way beneficial to getting the best out of Bradley Dack.

You mention swapping him for Rothwell, but we massively improved last season when they BOTH played.

You also suggest playing Gallagher up front, he played up front twice, did nothing, and has in fact offered nothing in any of the 5 games, even though we have often gone more direct.

 

Would not be against Rothwell and Dack and that certainly is an option for us to try. (Seemed to work for us last season.) Likewise I'm saying I'm not averse to dropping Dack if he doesn't perform. No one should be undroppable, especially in poor form. However no arguments on both he and Rothwell albeit I think TM an aversion to that. 

Way of playing - knock downs from Dack and going back to Graham up front I'd suggest do play to Dack's strengths (albeit Graham is our best striker so it's not solely about supporting Dack.) Style wise I'm not sure with our squad we would play it another way to Dack, plus it suited him well the last 2 years. In short I don't think he can have any complaints about us making it hard for him. Could we do more to get the most out of him - different and interesting question and one I am not sure is possible with current personnel. 

As for Gally up front - 2 games isn't a huge amount although initial signs weren't brilliant. My point was however having him up front in a 2 and that this could get the best out of him up front. Loads of striker combos have worked well over the years. One that springs to mind is Gestede and King. Either they defend deep to counter King's pace or have a high line to counter Gestede's ability to win headers. I wonder if a less good but functional version of that could happen with Armstrong or whether Graham and Gally could lnk up well or provide too much to handle for long balls. The point i was making is that there may well be scope to get the best out of our expensive and talented (bar Bereton) but not clicking strike force. I really feel both Armstrong and Gally up front in a 2 would really flourish. 

No disagreements with me he's not really a winger - although as Hughes and Santa Cruz showed their is a time and place for such tactics although admittedly only in specific circumstances. However financially alone we can't afford to bin our expensive strikers and my point is that I think - especially in a 2 - there could be a lot of promise for both Gally and Armstrong. Certainly I don't think we've seen the best of either yet. Is TM the right man to get the best out of them? Not too sure on that one. 

[47er]

2 hours ago, Harry The Bass said:

...but we’ve never played traditional widemen under TM

 

I agree, you've made a sound criticism of the set-up there.

[47er]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Like I have told you before Mowbray has gone back to basics to get points on the board after 2 games we lost. similar to what a Sam Allardyce or Mark Hughes would have done. would you have criticise these managers for the same approach? 

 

That is garbage. Both those managers went back to basics when they started  with us but both knew what they were doing and built from there. 

In any case, they were at the start of their tenure  with us, picking up the shambles their predecessors had left them., Mowbray is almost 3 years in and has got us little nearer to where we should be.

 

[JBiz]

Just now, 47er said:

I agree, you've made a sound criticism of the set-up there.

I’m no manager but I’d play 442 wide with wingers everyday but that’s probably because I was 10 in 94/95....

Realistically though, if I’m trying to include the best player in the team....a number 10 who thrives between attack and midfield, I’d be stumped trying a 442. Hence why I see rationale in the utilisation of wide forwards.

[47er]

I think Mowbray is in the same position as you but at least you're not paid to do it! He's collected the players he wanted and trying desperately trying to find a system that suits them.

it should be the other way round.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

8 hours ago, 47er said:

I think Mowbray is in the same position as you but at least you're not paid to do it! He's collected the players he wanted and trying desperately trying to find a system that suits them.

it should be the other way round.

Disagree slightly. The system stays the same, he justs moves players round the positions until something works. It does not have to work well either.

The only positions that Nymabe and Rothwell fill in Mowbray's eyes are scapegoats.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

11 hours ago, Blue blood said:

Would not be against Rothwell and Dack and that certainly is an option for us to try. (Seemed to work for us last season.) Likewise I'm saying I'm not averse to dropping Dack if he doesn't perform. No one should be undroppable, especially in poor form. However no arguments on both he and Rothwell albeit I think TM an aversion to that. 

Way of playing - knock downs from Dack and going back to Graham up front I'd suggest do play to Dack's strengths (albeit Graham is our best striker so it's not solely about supporting Dack.) Style wise I'm not sure with our squad we would play it another way to Dack, plus it suited him well the last 2 years. In short I don't think he can have any complaints about us making it hard for him. Could we do more to get the most out of him - different and interesting question and one I am not sure is possible with current personnel. 

As for Gally up front - 2 games isn't a huge amount although initial signs weren't brilliant. My point was however having him up front in a 2 and that this could get the best out of him up front. Loads of striker combos have worked well over the years. One that springs to mind is Gestede and King. Either they defend deep to counter King's pace or have a high line to counter Gestede's ability to win headers. I wonder if a less good but functional version of that could happen with Armstrong or whether Graham and Gally could lnk up well or provide too much to handle for long balls. The point i was making is that there may well be scope to get the best out of our expensive and talented (bar Bereton) but not clicking strike force. I really feel both Armstrong and Gally up front in a 2 would really flourish. 

No disagreements with me he's not really a winger - although as Hughes and Santa Cruz showed their is a time and place for such tactics although admittedly only in specific circumstances. However financially alone we can't afford to bin our expensive strikers and my point is that I think - especially in a 2 - there could be a lot of promise for both Gally and Armstrong. Certainly I don't think we've seen the best of either yet. Is TM the right man to get the best out of them? Not too sure on that one. 

In theory, Gallagher and Armstrong partnership could work but there is a big reason why it won't happen. Bradley Dack.

Another thing is whether Armstrong has the intelligence to read Gallagher's knock ons. One of Jordan Rhodes' problems was that he couldn't read where Gestede was flicking it onto.

Third thing is whether Gallagher could do it consistently win the aerial duels against a big strong centre half pairing like Gestede used to do. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by dingles staying down 4ever

[dingles staying down 4ever]

11 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Gallagher didn't stand out against Boro? really? He was outstanding 

 

I'm sorry he was not outstanding although he played well.

I'm really am puzzled with this ethic from Rovers fans in general. They would rather see someone put in 110% effort and contribute nothing to a game than actually influence the game by using their brains and skills.

Who played better in the game Graham who touched the ball 7 times all game or Gallagher who won everything in the air but in most cases contributed very little to in an attacking sense?

I accept not all players are blessed with great skill and as such they as a minimum requirement have to put total effort in. but as Chris Wilder said on Saturday at Sheff Utd, he cant understand why it gets a round of applause when it is their minimum requirement.

Edited August 26, 2019 by dingles staying down 4ever

[Blue blood]

52 minutes ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

In theory, Gallagher and Armstrong partnership could work but there is a big reason why it won't happen. Bradley Dack.

Another thing is whether Armstrong has the intelligence to read Gallagher's knock ons. One of Jordan Rhodes' problems was that he could read where Gestede was flicking it onto.

Third thing is whether Gallagher could do it consistently win the aerial duels against a big strong centre half pairing like Gestede used to do. 

Some great cautions and yes it is far from foolproof but I think it is worth exploring. 

Of the 3 issues you raise I think the first is probably why it won't be tried due to it not accomodating Dack. That said due to injury, loss of form or sale the club really should have options in case "plan Dack" doesn't work. Even if a substitution initially enables this to happen and be tried in the latter part of the games - I think we have to experiment in order to find new ways of hurting the opposition as the current set up isn't working. 

One factor in its favour as well is the current system leaves the best part of £15 million of strikers on the bench. That said finances shouldn't dictate who plays although Gally on the wing is suggesting that it is. 

As for the latter 2 concerns they could well be stumbling blocks. I'm more encouraged Armstrong could get onto flick ons than Rhodes as he has some pace and movement about him whereas Rhodes outside the penalty area (where he excelled) was very limited. As to whether it would work Vs all teams even having an attacking plan that hurt some of the opposing teams would be better than none! Also we won't know until we try and the combo element may help Gally as the forwards also need to be wary of Armstrong's pace. 

I am not convinced there's round pegs for the front 3 or 4 spaces but we are where we are in an expensive fashion and we need to find ways of getting some goals out of it. Hughes kept us up and then push for Europe with a - bar Bellamy - very limited set of strikers in his first 2 years. Dickov, Kuqi, Stead none were that great but somehow Hughes got it to work. Admittedly the talent behind them was strong but my point is we managed to do fairly well by utilising what we have. TM needs to do the same with the expensive situation he has us in. 

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Just now, Blue blood said:

Some great cautions and yes it is far from foolproof but I think it is worth exploring. 

Of the 3 issues you raise I think the first is probably why it won't be tried due to it not accomodating Dack. That said due to injury, loss of form or sale the club really should have options in case "plan Dack" doesn't work. Even if a substitution initially enables this to happen and be tried in the latter part of the games - I think we have to experiment in order to find new ways of hurting the opposition as the current set up isn't working. 

One factor in its favour as well is the current system leaves the best part of £15 million of strikers on the bench. That said finances shouldn't dictate who plays although Gally on the wing is suggesting that it is. 

As for the latter 2 concerns they could well be stumbling blocks. I'm more encouraged Armstrong could get onto flick ons than Rhodes as he has some pace and movement about him whereas Rhodes outside the penalty area (where he excelled) was very limited. As to whether it would work Vs all teams even having an attacking plan that hurt some of the opposing teams would be better than none! Also we won't know until we try and the combo element may help Gally as the forwards also need to be wary of Armstrong's pace. 

I am not convinced there's round pegs for the front 3 or 4 spaces but we are where we are in an expensive fashion and we need to find ways of getting some goals out of it. Hughes kept us up and then push for Europe with a - bar Bellamy - very limited set of strikers in his first 2 years. Dickov, Kuqi, Stead none were that great but somehow Hughes got it to work. Admittedly the talent behind them was strong but my point is we managed to do fairly well by utilising what we have. TM needs to do the same with the expensive situation he has us in. 

In the present formation the only round pegs are Graham, Dack and Downing but on the whole oppositon teams have worked it out. As Warnock proved man mark Dack and take him out of the game. Give him space and we are seen as an attacking force.

Hughes also had McCarthy and Santa Cruz as well. When we had Dickov and Stead we struggled for goals as well so lets not paint Hughes as a miracle worker with limited players. What he had a strong defence and strong tigerish midfield, not dissimilar to Mowbray in the last three games.

I actually think Rothwell might be the better option instead of Armstrong playing off Gallagher. I also think he may need to go three at the back with wing backs [Downing and because he has to play, Bennett] to try and get the best of the forwards. 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by dingles staying down 4ever

[Blue blood]

Just now, dingles staying down 4ever said:

In the present formation the only round pegs are Graham, Dack and Downing but on the whole oppositon teams have worked it out. As Warnock proved man mark Dack and take him out of the game. Give him space and we are seen as an attacking force.

Hughes also had McCarthy and Santa Cruz as well. When we had Dickov and Stead we struggled for goals as well so lets not paint Hughes as a miracle worker with limited players. What he had a strong defence and strong tigerish midfield, not dissimilar to Mowbray in the last three games.

I actually think Rothwell might be the better option instead of Armstrong playing off Gallagher. I also think he may need to go three at the back with wing backs [Downing and because he has to play, Bennett] to try and get the best of the forwards. 

 

Yes Hughes later recruitment of strikers was excellent getting it spot on time after time on reasonable money - opposite of TM really in that regard. My point about the early years of Hughes was in part that we were competitive and  got some good results with limited strikers because of all the things you mentioned. The parallels as you state are there to see so TM could (and perhaps should) push on despite the striker issues. The big difference is in season 3 Hughes had McCathy Roberts and Nonda up front... 

Hadn't thought of Rothwell there - again that might work. Back 3 works with our full back issues and has some attractions but you simply can't play it with only 3 centre backs in the squad. We do and like other formations you mention we very quickly get back to a square peg round hole situation as per cover centre back. (Imo one of the hardest places to cover if not a proper CB). 

It's frustrating that we seem to have a lot of good players but not a team or a plan. I'm not sure whether next season's mass recruitment - Tosin, Cummings Walton, Mulgrew Graham (age must catch up eventually?) Downing are the minimum I expect to need to move on - makes the situation worse or allows us to finalise a plan and formation. 

 

[dingles staying down 4ever]

2 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Yes Hughes later recruitment of strikers was excellent getting it spot on time after time on reasonable money - opposite of TM really in that regard. My point about the early years of Hughes was in part that we were competitive and  got some good results with limited strikers because of all the things you mentioned. The parallels as you state are there to see so TM could (and perhaps should) push on despite the striker issues. The big difference is in season 3 Hughes had McCathy Roberts and Nonda up front... 

Hadn't thought of Rothwell there - again that might work. Back 3 works with our full back issues and has some attractions but you simply can't play it with only 3 centre backs in the squad. We do and like other formations you mention we very quickly get back to a square peg round hole situation as per cover centre back. (Imo one of the hardest places to cover if not a proper CB). 

It's frustrating that we seem to have a lot of good players but not a team or a plan. I'm not sure whether next season's mass recruitment - Tosin, Cummings Walton, Mulgrew Graham (age must catch up eventually?) Downing are the minimum I expect to need to move on - makes the situation worse or allows us to finalise a plan and formation. 

 

I can  only assume Nyambe will be considered a centre half by Mowbray going forward. Grayson will get more game time this season. Wingbacks will  have JRC as cover for Bennett. Which leaves left the left side. Cunningham is the obvious choice but  where does that leave Downing?  

It is the only way that this season's transfers begin to make sense

[Blue blood]

Just now, dingles staying down 4ever said:

I can  only assume Nyambe will be considered a centre half by Mowbray going forward. Grayson will get more game time this season. Wingbacks will  have JRC as cover for Bennett. Which leaves left the left side. Cunningham is the obvious choice but  where does that leave Downing?  

It is the only way that this season's transfers begin to make sense

I'm really not sure the transfers make sense any way you look at it. Like you say wingbacks leave Downing - who is looking rather impressive - out in the cold. And even with Nayambe as a CB we still look very thin in defence - that would leave 4 CBs for 3 spaces. Again that's still pretty suicidal and also means we've no cover at right back. Likewise our glut of strikers in a 3 at the back system doesn't really work either. If we play 2 up front and Dack that leaves Travis and Johnson looks with a hell of a lot to do. If we play 1 up front with Dack we can't even fit any of our strikers in the wide right position leaving £15 mil of investment out. Or we don't play Dack. And if we aren't playing Dack maybe 442 suits us as well as a wingback formation? 

Not that I think the current system works brilliantly either and has a whole host of holes in it. When a system relies on two 34 year olds to keep it together you question the game plan. 

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Just now, Blue blood said:

I'm really not sure the transfers make sense any way you look at it. Like you say wingbacks leave Downing - who is looking rather impressive - out in the cold. And even with Nayambe as a CB we still look very thin in defence - that would leave 4 CBs for 3 spaces. Again that's still pretty suicidal and also means we've no cover at right back. Likewise our glut of strikers in a 3 at the back system doesn't really work either. If we play 2 up front and Dack that leaves Travis and Johnson looks with a hell of a lot to do. If we play 1 up front with Dack we can't even fit any of our strikers in the wide right position leaving £15 mil of investment out. Or we don't play Dack. And if we aren't playing Dack maybe 442 suits us as well as a wingback formation? 

Not that I think the current system works brilliantly either and has a whole host of holes in it. When a system relies on two 34 year olds to keep it together you question the game plan. 

Formation 3-4-3. Another option would be

Cunningham-Williams-Lenihan

Bennett-Johnson-Travis-Downing

Dack-Gallagher-Rothwell

or and not advocating this XI

Toisin-Nyambe-Grayson

Rank.Costello-Evans-Smallwood-Bell

Armstrong-Graham-Chapman

 

Just proving, in Mowbray's mind, there is cover i every posiition

[47er]

2 hours ago, Blue blood said:

It's frustrating that we seem to have a lot of good players but not a team or a plan.

So true.

[Paul Mani]

15 hours ago, 47er said:

I think Mowbray is in the same position as you but at least you're not paid to do it! He's collected the players he wanted and trying desperately trying to find a system that suits them.

it should be the other way round.

Do tell us how it should be pal? You seem very knowledgeable...