Millwall

[arbitro]

Aside from the result one real positive was the form of Bradley Dack who looked like he is getting back to his best. He looked fitter and sharper than he has for a while and he was finding space in the final third. He showed his strength on a few occasions and used his backside well to shield the ball in a way Danny Graham does. And his goal looked like an easy finish but anybody who knows the game will say it wasn't'

[darrenrover]

On 14/09/2019 at 23:06, chaddyrovers said:

3 goals scored between Armstrong(1), Brereton and Gallagher 1 each. 

Main striker not as wide player. 

Armstrong should have scored. 

Corrected for you: 3 in total in the last 25 league games under discussion, since Armstrong scored on 26th Jan against Hull but you knew that anyway!

[JBiz]

2 hours ago, DE. said:

I see no evidence of the second part being true, so yes, I'd say a lot of our positives are stumbled upon rather than well thought out plans. I've outright stated it many times, I don't need to insinuate. 

If you think differently then OK, coincidence is a genuine concept too so it's feasible.

I get that - of course certain things might happen via the will of the world, but there’s only 92 league clubs, and if managers had as little positive impact as you, and many more of our posters suggest, I’d be wondering what’s the point of even having one?

[Dreams of 1995]

I'd say 99.99% of us were fuming there wasn't a centre back signed. In fact, we barely had any link past Bauer and that was infuriating. Since then Mowbray has played Williams and Lenihan and got 4 clean sheets from them.

If you criticise the man for not signing a centre half or addressing the defence you then have to credit him if what he has done has seemingly worked. You can't have it both ways.

 

 

[DE.]

Just now, Harry The Bass said:

I get that - of course certain things might happen via the will of the world, but there’s only 92 league clubs, and if managers had as little positive impact as you, and many more of our posters suggest, I’d be wondering what’s the point of even having one?

Some managers have a fantastic impact. Sam Allardyce is a prime example. Further up the pyramid you can use the likes of Pep and Mourinho as examples of managers who come in and have a strong impact on the teams they take charge of. 

Imo Mowbray falls into the bloated category of managers who are generally steady but don't get a team punching above their weight. He keeps them right about where they should be given their overall expenditure. If we're happy floating around mid-table for the next couple of seasons (assuming the owners don't pull the plug) then Mowbray's your man. If we want to seriously challenge for promotion I think we'll need someone a lot more innovative and tactically savvy. Those managers are hard to find though, and usually cost more than Venky's are willing to spend on the position. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by DE.

[philipl]

Just out of interest, the last time we scored from outside the area from open play before the Williams strike?

[Rovers1994]

Just now, philipl said:

Just out of interest, the last time we scored from outside the area from open play before the Williams strike?

downing v oldham 

in the league maybe rothwell v forest?

mowbray alluded to this weakness of ours too after the game

[MarkBRFC]

In the league, Travis against Norwich last season?

[JBiz]

27 minutes ago, DE. said:

Some managers have a fantastic impact. Sam Allardyce is a prime example. Further up the pyramid you can use the likes of Pep and Mourinho as examples of managers who come in and have a strong impact on the teams they take charge of. 

Imo Mowbray falls into the bloated category of managers who are generally steady but don't get a team punching above their weight. He keeps them right about where they should be given their overall expenditure. If we're happy floating around mid-table for the next couple of seasons (assuming the owners don't pull the plug) then Mowbray's your man. If we want to seriously challenge for promotion I think we'll need someone a lot more innovative and tactically savvy. Those managers are hard to find though, and usually cost more than Venky's are willing to spend on the position. 

I agree some are obviously better - even the best or most reputable may have weaknesses to their game, it’s a much more complicated picture than you paint.

Its telling that we’re back to manager in/out from the remarks about suggesting coincidences or flukes too - if you’ve come to the conclusion someone will not achieve something, you’ll always look to find rationale to support that view.

Im open minded about Rovers at current, and TM. I’m not convinced the club is completely geared to go forwards/upward - for reasons similar to what you say with ownership too. I’m also quite positive and excited about the actual TEAM being developed. 

Swings and roundabouts. Saturday was another tick in many boxes, despite the concerns being the main discussion.

[Sparks Rover]

Just now, Harry The Bass said:

Swings and roundabouts. Saturday was another tick in many boxes, despite the concerns being the main discussion.

Yeah but come on , we always beat a millwall at home, it’s the probable 2 defeats that normally follows.  Mowbray is the worlds best procrastinator.

[Stuart]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I'd say 99.99% of us were fuming there wasn't a centre back signed. In fact, we barely had any link past Bauer and that was infuriating. Since then Mowbray has played Williams and Lenihan and got 4 clean sheets from them.

If you criticise the man for not signing a centre half or addressing the defence you then have to credit him if what he has done has seemingly worked. You can't have it both ways.

He didn’t address the defence though. It addressed itself by default as there were no other options. Happy accidents aren’t really credit-worthy.

Dack aside, Mowbray’s record for recruitment and selection isn’t great. Our better players are the loan ones.

Over at Preston, Bauer seems to be doing very well. Is Williams better? Not sure. Hopefully he can continue the form he is in.

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, Stuart said:

He didn’t address the defence though. It addressed itself by default as there were no other options. Happy accidents aren’t really credit-worthy.

Dack aside, Mowbray’s record for recruitment and selection isn’t great. Our better players are the loan ones.

Over at Preston, Bauer seems to be doing very well. Is Williams better? Not sure. Hopefully he can continue the form he is in.

I have to say I was angry, when we did not use the market to "sort out the defence"....and I did not buy TM's rowing back comments over the summer. However, I think we must give him the credit for his analysis and making a decision to utilise Williams in the CB role. A happy accident is not fair!

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Stuart said:

He didn’t address the defence though. It addressed itself by default as there were no other options. Happy accidents aren’t really credit-worthy.

Dack aside, Mowbray’s record for recruitment and selection isn’t great. Our better players are the loan ones.

Over at Preston, Bauer seems to be doing very well. Is Williams better? Not sure. Hopefully he can continue the form he is in.

Na not buying it. You spend more or less every day either perpetuating a fault of Mowbray's or downplaying anything good he has brought the club. You can't have it both ways.

He sold the goalkeeper + loaned out our captain and what he has replaced it with has, so far, shown to be far better. That is to his credit.

"Addressing it by default" is addressing it. He made the changes, nobody else, unless you are trying to claim somebody else is behind the team and its selection?

[DE.]

Once Mulgrew left and Tosin got injured were there literally any other choices except Williams, Grayson and Platt though? It essentially was by default. 

[Blue blood]

Just now, Stuart said:

He didn’t address the defence though. It addressed itself by default as there were no other options. Happy accidents aren’t really credit-worthy.

Agreed. Having all your other 3 injury prone centre backs out and putting Williams there isn't a master stroke, it's desperation. Fortunately it worked. 

In fact IF the 3 at the back is a regular plan going forward he still hasn't addresses or as we only have 3 centre backs in the squad! 

Just now, Stuart said:

Dack aside, Mowbray’s record for recruitment and selection isn’t great. Our better players are the loan ones. 

Agreed. Although in fairness good use of loan players is to be applauded. The issue is the defence relies too heavily on this. Overall though his recruitment is poor - especially when spending money. 

Just now, Stuart said:

Over at Preston, Bauer seems to be doing very well. Is Williams better? Not sure. Hopefully he can continue the form he is in.

Agreed. 

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, DE. said:

Once Mulgrew left and Tosin got injured were there literally any other choices except Williams, Grayson and Platt though? It essentially was by default. 

No it wasn't because Mowbray could have either bought or loaned different players or simply not got rid of Mulgrew/Raya.

Such a case of bias if ever there was one. Tony Mowbray got pelters on this board for not addressing the defence which, at the time of writing, seemed fair enough. When Miller11 posted that the lack of defensive acquisitions extends far beyond Mowbray, and perhaps shown a link between Venkys ownership and lack of investment in the back 4, it was ignored...indeed, one post suggested that if so Mowbray is complicit and, as a direct quote, "the book always stops with the manager. End of".

Fast forward and Mowbray cites Williams and co as adequate cover for the defense. He then gets even more pelters on here - which, at the time of writing, seemed fair enough.

Fast forward again and 4 clean sheets and a couple of good performances from Williams and it is less to Mowbray's credit and more "by default".

Absolutely fucking nonsense and most of you know it but you are desperately keeping hold of the argument he has done no right over the past 12 months. Like it or not Mowbray picks the team and when he gets it wrong you are all the first ones to jump on him; gets it right and its a stroke of luck. Give over.

[DE.]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

No it wasn't because Mowbray could have either bought or loaned different players or simply not got rid of Mulgrew/Raya.

Such a case of bias if ever there was one. Tony Mowbray got pelters on this board for not addressing the defence which, at the time of writing, seemed fair enough. When Miller11 posted that the lack of defensive acquisitions extends far beyond Mowbray, and perhaps shown a link between Venkys ownership and lack of investment in the back 4, it was ignored...indeed, one post suggested that if so Mowbray is complicit and, as a direct quote, "the book always stops with the manager. End of".

Fast forward and Mowbray cites Williams and co as adequate cover for the defense. He then gets even more pelters on here - which, at the time of writing, seemed fair enough.

Fast forward again and 4 clean sheets and a couple of good performances from Williams and it is less to Mowbray's credit and more "by default".

Absolutely fucking nonsense and most of you know it but you are desperately keeping hold of the argument he has done no right over the past 12 months. Like it or not Mowbray picks the team and when he gets it wrong you are all the first ones to jump on him; gets it right and its a stroke of luck. Give over.

No problem with you expressing your opinion but it's getting a little too confrontational and nasty. Stop the insults and sweeping generalisations. 

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, DE. said:

No problem with you expressing your opinion but it's getting a little too confrontational and nasty. Stop the insults and sweeping generalisations. 

I'm sorry but where is the confrontation/insult/generalisation in that?

If you mean me typing "fucking nonsense" then I'm sorry but it is. That isn't an insult or a sweeping generalisation.
 

[DE.]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

I'm sorry but where is the confrontation/insult/generalisation in that?

If you mean me typing "fucking nonsense" then I'm sorry but it is. That isn't an insult or a sweeping generalisation.
 

I don't want to derail the thread with this so I'll send you a PM to discuss further.

[harryhealless1928]

Overall agree with Stuart it looks haphazard though sometimes Tonys tombola works.... We arent Barca and dont have their budget so am a bit of a fan of aimless passing as we are not then needing to defend. How much of this is accidental is anyones guess! 

1.Give Mowbray some credit for coming up with a reasonable defensive set-up on limited budget here(do Venkys veto spending on defenders)?

 

2.The best new players are the loan ones(agreed with Stuart 100 per cent).

 3.Mowbray shouldnt spend the budget(just make recommendations)as the £15 million on 3 strikers  looks awful(Gallagher could come good),For the lads sake & all the supporrters I hope he does.

[K-Hod]

20 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

No it wasn't because Mowbray could have either bought or loaned different players or simply not got rid of Mulgrew/Raya.

Such a case of bias if ever there was one. Tony Mowbray got pelters on this board for not addressing the defence which, at the time of writing, seemed fair enough. When Miller11 posted that the lack of defensive acquisitions extends far beyond Mowbray, and perhaps shown a link between Venkys ownership and lack of investment in the back 4, it was ignored...indeed, one post suggested that if so Mowbray is complicit and, as a direct quote, "the book always stops with the manager. End of".

Fast forward and Mowbray cites Williams and co as adequate cover for the defense. He then gets even more pelters on here - which, at the time of writing, seemed fair enough.

Fast forward again and 4 clean sheets and a couple of good performances from Williams and it is less to Mowbray's credit and more "by default".

Absolutely fucking nonsense and most of you know it but you are desperately keeping hold of the argument he has done no right over the past 12 months. Like it or not Mowbray picks the team and when he gets it wrong you are all the first ones to jump on him; gets it right and its a stroke of luck. Give over.

There is weight behind the argument that it has been a bit of a happy accident to select Williams at centre half, as he only ever really did it before at the end of last season. I'm sure Mowbray would have said that was his intention all along if it was, rather than assuring us that defenders are coming.....

Let's not forget that Mulgrew started the season at centre half, before being rushed out of the door on deadline day. 

Either way, I'm glad he chose to select Williams there, as he's been a completely different player to the one he was out on the left.

Edited September 16, 2019 by K-Hod

[philipl]

Williams/Lenihan centre back pairing started last season and the graphic shown in the Hull game by Sky gave remarkably good stats for the partnership in the (at that time) 12 games they had played together.

[1864roverite]

I really think the problem at centre back highlighted the weak link to be Mulgrew ! Yes it was a bit of a shock him going to wigan but at what cost? 4 clean sheets and money off the pay roll?

Talking to my wigan supporting neighbour he says Mulgrew was pretty bad on Saturday the only plus point was a cross from which they scored, otherwise and defensively he was tosh, which tells a story after we have just had 4 clean sheets with what some believe is a make and o defence.

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, K-Hod said:

There is weight behind the argument that it has been a bit of a happy accident to select Williams at centre half, as he only ever really did it before at the end of last season.

I'm sure Mowbray would have said that was his intention all along if it was, rather than assuring us that defenders are coming.....

Either way, I'm glad he chose to select Williams there, as he's been a completely different player to the one he was out on the left.

No there isn't.

After the Hull game Williams explained that he went to see Mowbray at the back end of last season and told him he wanted to play centre half, not left back. Mowbray got rid of his other left footed centre half and kept Williams. He didn't sign a centre back but signed, albeit on loan, a left back to replace Williams after he moved centrally and dropped Bell.

In 4 moves (Sell Raya, Loan Mulgrew out, Drop Bell, Sign Cunningham) Mowbray has solved our defensive issues. That isn't an accident - it happened and he deserves credit for it.

There's not a single shred of weight behind the argument it's accidental except the fact that you want it to be.

[K-Hod]

20 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

No there isn't.

After the Hull game Williams explained that he went to see Mowbray at the back end of last season and told him he wanted to play centre half, not left back. Mowbray got rid of his other left footed centre half and kept Williams. He didn't sign a centre back but signed, albeit on loan, a left back to replace Williams after he moved centrally and dropped Bell.

In 4 moves (Sell Raya, Loan Mulgrew out, Drop Bell, Sign Cunningham) Mowbray has solved our defensive issues. That isn't an accident - it happened and he deserves credit for it.

There's not a single shred of weight behind the argument it's accidental except the fact that you want it to be.

Think you’re confusing me with someone else, I’m glad it’s happened, as I said.

My point is, I’m not convinced Mowbray ever intended for our first choice centre back pairing to be Lenihan and Williams.

If he did, fair play, but I certainly don’t recall him mentioning it.