Can we make the Playoffs?

[Admiral Nelsen]

10 minutes ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Even the most pro Mowbray supporter has to admit he has his favourites which can be detrimental to the team.

Not sure that's true actually. Who would we put in that category? Smallwood's not had a look in all season. Mulgrew the same. Williams has barely played all year. I have criticised Evans plenty, but this season he has thoroughly deserved his spot.

Like others, I would've preferred to see Nyambe replace Bennett earlier than he did, but I think the Mowbray plays his mates idea has always been a bit of a myth to be honest. 

[dingles staying down 4ever]

36 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

This new argument about Rovers doing well currently "BECAUSE WE HAVE INJURIES" is absolutely comical.

If ever there was proof required that no matter what happens there will be pelters thrown at Mowbray look no further. If I remember when we went on our 6 out of 7 winning run (have I got that run right?) we were told: "Mowbray has finally listened to the fans", essentially because he played Rothwell. Then when that run continued it was luck, we weren't performing and we were winning "in spite of Mowbray's tactical cluelessness". Now we are still on a good run it's because of the injuries and Mowbray's hand being forced.

We were winning whilst Gallagher played out wide and we are winning since he's been injured. I'm in absolute agreement that we need a proper set of wingers to allow Gallagher to go more centrally but it hasn't happened yet. However, here we are, with all our squads deficiencies sitting close to the play offs and having a decent season. There are a few posters on here that need to remember it can't be both ways; if Mowbray is at fault for the bad, he is at fault for the good too. You can't have it both ways.

Mowbray has had untold amount of criticism on here for his signings, press conferences, mannerisms, ability to keep a dressing room etc etc but them same people are mysteriously missing as soon as there's reason to give credit or, in the more frustrating cases, go into absolute overdrive trying to talk down any praise.
 

"We are were we are in spite of Mowbray" is a dumb thing to say. Sorry if that offends. If that is the case then all of the bad runs we have been on is also not the fault of Mowbray's. He picks the team, he picks the tactics and he is judged on results.

No offence taken, football would be boring if we all had the same opinions. 

Question though and maybe I'm being overcritical but when Gallagher plays on the wing does the team look balanced? Do you think that playing on the wing has effected his confidence? Is that the player or manager to blame?

You say about signing wingers but when he signs them he does not play them consistently..

[dingles staying down 4ever]

7 minutes ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

Not sure that's true actually. Who would we put in that category? Smallwood's not had a look in all season. Mulgrew the same. Williams has barely played all year. I have criticised Evans plenty, but this season he has thoroughly deserved his spot.

Like others, I would've preferred to see Nyambe replace Bennett earlier than he did, but I think the Mowbray plays his mates idea has always been a bit of a myth to be honest. 

Last season could you say the same with all the player you mentioned? Even though it was clear that Mulgrew legs had gone last season he started this season. Williams only lost his place through injury but has played this season. Smallwood was used as an example of how to play midfield last season for Travis and Harrison to follow.

There was always a Champonship player in Evans but it took Smallwood's silly sending off to give him a decent partner in Travis to play alongside him.

Mowbray's loyalty to players is no myth. Bobby Saxton also suffered the same.

Edited February 16, 2020 by dingles staying down 4ever

[Exiled in Toronto]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

A more technical based outfit---what's that mean? Gallagher as a "wide striker"? No-one up front who can head it? No-one to supply decent crosses from the bye-line  if he could?

We are joint 4th highest scorers without any of those Tommy Lawton-type goals.
 

Personally, I think it’s been a vintage season (vs recent years) for really good goals: belters from outside the area, shots from the D, and some really good fast first-time passing moves leading to goals. It’s no coincidence Danny Graham has hardly touched the ball, let alone scored for a while, we are playing a different game now.
 

  

[chaddyrovers]

23 minutes ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

Not sure that's true actually. Who would we put in that category? Smallwood's not had a look in all season. Mulgrew the same. Williams has barely played all year. I have criticised Evans plenty, but this season he has thoroughly deserved his spot.

Like others, I would've preferred to see Nyambe replace Bennett earlier than he did, but I think the Mowbray plays his mates idea has always been a bit of a myth to be honest. 

Exactly 

[Exiled in Toronto]

16 minutes ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Last season could you say the same with all the player you mentioned? Even though it was clear that Mulgrew legs had gone last season he started this season. Williams only lost his place through injury but has played this season. Smallwood was used as an example of how to play midfield last season for Travis and Harrison to follow.

There was always a Champonship player in Evans but it took Smallwood's silly sending off to give him a decent partner in Travis to play alongside him.

Mowbray's loyalty to players is no myth. Bobby Saxton also suffered the same.

Not sure Benno would agree with you, 9 first teamers injured and he’s still a bench player.

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

We are joint 4th highest scorers without any of those Tommy Lawton-type goals.
 

Personally, I think it’s been a vintage season (vs recent years) for really good goals: belters from outside the area, shots from the D, and some really good fast first-time passing moves leading to goals. It’s no coincidence Danny Graham has hardly touched the ball, let alone scored for a while, we are playing a different game now.
 

  

We are playing less long balls now than ever. Less Direct now with Graham seen as back up option. We have more movement and flexibility than last season where at time we were too rigid. 

[Admiral Nelsen]

35 minutes ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Last season could you say the same with all the player you mentioned? Even though it was clear that Mulgrew legs had gone last season he started this season. Williams only lost his place through injury but has played this season. Smallwood was used as an example of how to play midfield last season for Travis and Harrison to follow.

There was always a Champonship player in Evans but it took Smallwood's silly sending off to give him a decent partner in Travis to play alongside him.

Mowbray's loyalty to players is no myth. Bobby Saxton also suffered the same.

Last season fair enough. I still think there's a meaningful difference between a manager too loyal to players and one giving a promoted side a crack of the whip to begin with though. 

I'd take issue with a few other things too, Mulgrew may have started our first game but his being sidelined was clearly on the cards. Travis started alongside Richie at Sheff U too, so he was close to breaking through.

In the main though, judging off this season alone, TM has been pretty ruthless with the players who were meant to be his pals. Even Benno, who gets far too much grief from some who have short memories imo, hasn't been starting recently.

Basically, there are fair criticisms of Mowbray, but I think there are a couple of red herrings which people often use and I think this is one of them.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Admiral Nelsen

[Hasta]

2 hours ago, J*B said:

We all need to get out of the mindset that finishing 6th is a return the the Premier League. Even IF we finished 6th — for the record I am convinced we won’t — we would have to beat two clubs that over a season have been better than us. Very unlikely, but I think a top 10 finish is a decent achievement even still. 

There's a generation of Rovers fans under 40 years of age who probably don't appreciate that the play offs can be a dark, dark place.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Hasta

[Mattyblue]

Yes the playoffs are a guarantee of nothing as the 80s testify.

But it would be a sign of a club with aspirations again and after a near decade of treading water, its potential to galvanise the club shouldn’t be overlooked.

Keeping hold our best talent, selling season tickets and sponsorships etc all becomes easier.

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mattyblue

[Stuart]

1 hour ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

No offence taken, football would be boring if we all had the same opinions. 

Question though and maybe I'm being overcritical but when Gallagher plays on the wing does the team look balanced? Do you think that playing on the wing has effected his confidence? Is that the player or manager to blame?

You say about signing wingers but when he signs them he does not play them consistently..

I’ve had a good look and I can’t see a response to this very reasonable question.

Some folk are determined to ignore the evidence in front of them and just slate other fans. They don’t even provide a counter opinion to the point being made, just glib ad hominem quips.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

2 hours ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

Last season fair enough. I still think there's a meaningful difference between a manager too loyal to players and one giving a promoted side a crack of the whip to begin with though. 

I'd take issue with a few other things too, Mulgrew may have started our first game but his being sidelined was clearly on the cards. Travis started alongside Richie at Sheff U too, so he was close to breaking through.

In the main though, judging off this season alone, TM has been pretty ruthless with the players who were meant to be his pals. Even Benno, who gets far too much grief from some who have short memories imo, hasn't been starting recently.

Basically, there are fair criticisms of Mowbray, but I think there are a couple of red herrings which people often use and I think this is one of them.

Its taken over half a season and SIX different positions for him to drop Bennett, and possibly him carrying an injury for him to be benched. And before you call me RB,LB, RM,LM, DM and in the number 10 spot.

Travis started due to Evans not being available for the Sheff Utd game, do you think Travis would of started otherwise?

This season if Mowbray had been ruthless Bennett wouldn't have been on the bench nevermind starting XI, Gallagher would be benched, Brerteon out on loan and the likes of Smallwood and Leutwiller wouldnt be at the club.  

[tomphil]

I'd be quite happy to contest the play offs every season these days. You've got to take it on the chin if you slip up they are a lottery but they keep seasons alive.

Only thing that would boil my blood would be not having a real go.

Edited February 16, 2020 by tomphil

[roversfan99]

8 minutes ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Its taken over half a season and SIX different positions for him to drop Bennett, and possibly him carrying an injury for him to be benched. And before you call me RB,LB, RM,LM, DM and in the number 10 spot.

Travis started due to Evans not being available for the Sheff Utd game, do you think Travis would of started otherwise?

This season if Mowbray had been ruthless Bennett wouldn't have been on the bench nevermind starting XI, Gallagher would be benched, Brerteon out on loan and the likes of Smallwood and Leutwiller wouldnt be at the club.  

Somewhat agree on Bennett but I think its unfair on Mowbray to give anything but praise regarding Travis who has consistenly been in the team since Sheffield United, something many including myself did not expect. Its unfair to say he was only picked because of this or that.

[Dreams of 1995]

5 hours ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

No offence taken, football would be boring if we all had the same opinions. 

Question though and maybe I'm being overcritical but when Gallagher plays on the wing does the team look balanced? Do you think that playing on the wing has effected his confidence? Is that the player or manager to blame?

You say about signing wingers but when he signs them he does not play them consistently..

We haven't really signed any wingers of real quality. Downing being the one this season and he's had to do a shift all around the pitch, to great effect I should add. Apart from Harry Chapman I can't think of many other wingers he's brought in. That, maybe, is a reason to be critical. 

However, my point was that Mowbray deserves credit when he gets it right just as much as he deserves criticism when he gets it wrong. I've said several times he should sign more wingers and even said that I'd have probably spent the Gallagher money on them too. That's all by the by though because whatever you may think of that situation we are on a terrific run of form and to claim that it is in spite of Mowbray is rather petty. If he deserves the criticism for all of the above then you must surely accept that he has put together a team that is, by results, doing very very well. That is to the managers credit.

I don't think he's destroyed the confidence of Gallagher either. I think SG understands his role in the team. As said, he was playing regularly out wide during our winning runs too. It seems rather unfair to single him out for the poor balance of the team during our losses when he's present during the wins also.

I think some quarters on here would refuse to give Mowbray any credit even if he got us into the play offs this season. They have entrenched themselves and are in overdrive trying to fend off any praise, even accusing other fans of "not seeing the facts", as if this game and fans' opinions are ever based on facts and not feelings. Like you say, football would be boring if we all thought the same, and whilst we disagree on whether or not we are succeeding in spite of Mowbray I'm sure we can both agree he wants the best for this club and has turned our fortunes around.

4 hours ago, Stuart said:

I’ve had a good look and I can’t see a response to this very reasonable question.

Some folk are determined to ignore the evidence in front of them and just slate other fans. They don’t even provide a counter opinion to the point being made, just glib ad hominem quips.

Stuart I don't sit and wait on BRFCS to reply immediately. On Sundays I have plenty more to do. I apologise if the replies aren't to your liking in terms of speed but I certainly can't be accused of ever not providing a counter opinion.

I'd suggest you yourself try and hold a discussion like the poster you quoted instead of going around this board waiting to have little passive aggressive "quips" at others. You'd probably get a bit more respect rather than being seen, and treat, as someone who only deserves little quips back.

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Dreams of 1995

[Dreams of 1995]

In fact, fuck it, in light of The Bores comments about facts I decided I'd do a little research this evening. We are talking about "balance of the team", or what that phrase basically means, are we any good with Gallagher on the wing?

I'll have to add a caveat in that maybe google has the line ups / formation wrong however all of this info was taken from google:

Results with Sam Gallagher starting up front:

Won - 2

Drawn - 2

Lost - 7

Results with Sam Gallagher starting on the wing:

Won - 6

Drawn - 4

Lost - 2

There are 10 games unaccounted in which he either did not play or did not start.

Of the games he did not play we:

Won - 3

Lost - 1

Of the games he came on as a sub we:

Won - 3

Drawn - 2

Lost - 1

So, by collating the data I get it as we win more than we lose when Gallagher plays; we win more than we lose when he's on the wing; we win more times when he starts on the wing than when he starts up front; Gallagher is an effective substitution in order to not lose a game.

If we are talking about balance of the team then one would have to assume that more wins = a more balanced team. Do we lose balance by starting SG on the wing? Not according to the results. Do the results trend towards Gallagher being more effective out wide right than up front? Yes.

Of particular interest is that I don't get Gallagher down as playing up front since the Leeds game. Since then we've only lost 2 games in which he's started.

Is Sam Gallagher a terrible failure of a signing? No.

Are fans ignoring the 'facts' and only patrolling these boards with 'glib ad hominem quips'? Yes but it isn't those that try and defend Mowbray or Gallagher.

Note: I value any fact checking you may want to do. I did this in approx. 15 mins by looking at line ups / results and putting it together. I may have errors- point them out to me and I will change the results accordingly.

Note: Just noticed original post only accounted for 26 games. I have updated to suit all 33 games now. Stats have increased in favour of SG being on the wing.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Dreams of 1995

[Hasta]

7 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Note: Just noticed original post only accounted for 26 games. I have updated to suit all 33 games now. Stats have increased in favour of SG being on the wing. WINNER WINNER.

Stats can be misleading. You have shown.....

Games won when Gallagher starts - 34%

Games won when Gallagher doesn't start - 66%

[Ewood Ace]

4 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

In fact, fuck it, in light of The Bores comments about facts I decided I'd do a little research this evening. We are talking about "balance of the team", or what that phrase basically means, are we any good with Gallagher on the wing?

I'll have to add a caveat in that maybe google has the line ups / formation wrong however all of this info was taken from google:

Results with Sam Gallagher starting up front:

Won - 2

Drawn - 4

Lost - 2

Results with Sam Gallagher starting on the wing:

Won - 4

Drawn - 3

Lost - 2

There are 9 games unaccounted in which he either did not play or did not start.

Of the games he did not play we:

Won - 3

Lost - 1

Of the games he came on as a sub we:

Won - 2

Drawn - 2

So, by collating the data I get it as we win more than we lose when Gallagher plays; we win more than we lose when he's on the wing; we win more times when he starts on the wing than when he starts up front; Gallagher is an effective substitution in order to not lose a game.

If we are talking about balance of the team then one would have to assume that more wins = a more balanced team. Do we lose balance by starting SG on the wing? Not according to the results. Do the results trend towards Gallagher being more effective out wide right than up front? Yes.

Of particular interest is that I don't get Gallagher down as playing up front since the Leeds game. Since then we've only lost 2 games in which he's started.

Is Sam Gallagher a terrible failure of a signing? No.

Are fans ignoring the 'facts' and only patrolling these boards with 'glib ad hominem quips'? Yes but it isn't those that try and defend Mowbray or Gallagher.



Note: I value any fact checking you may want to do. I did this in approx. 15 mins by looking at line ups / results and putting it together. I may have errors- point them out to me and I will change the results accordingly.

 

Or to look at it another way we have only lost once when Gallagher hasn't started. Gallagher has been a disappointment this season. Unlike some on here I wasn't against the signing (although without a doubt we overpaid) as I thought he was fairly impressive in his loan spell here. 

He has though regressed as a footballer since his last spell here which ever position he has played. He could do with looking how Jutkiewicz at Birmingham has adapted his game and become a good, consistent Championship striker. If Gallagher is to have a long term future at the club it will be as a striker.

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Hasta said:

Stats can be misleading. You have shown.....

Games won when Gallagher starts - 34%

Games won when Gallagher doesn't start - 66%

Exactly. Stats can be changed to suit whatever opinion you want them to suit. I was addressing the Gallagher on the wing vs up front though.

Personally I'd rather have proper wingers than SG there. If we are to be a Premier league team I don't think I'd have Gallagher starting. However, once again, I was addressing the argument of SG being on the wing as opposed to being up front. It shows that the balance of the team isn't lost when SG is played out wide however.

Alternatively, Hasta, we could argue that out of the 29 games that Gallagher has featured we have:

Games lost when Gallagher features - 27.6%

Games not lost when Gallagher features - 72.4%

Everything can be taken another way, as you pointed out, but do the results suggest SG seriously unbalances our team to the point it deserves as much discussion we have had on here? I'd suggest not.

[Dreams of 1995]

3 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

Or to look at it another way we have only lost once when Gallagher hasn't started. Gallagher has been a disappointment this season. Unlike some on here I wasn't against the signing (although without a doubt we overpaid) as I thought he was fairly impressive in his loan spell here. 

He has though regressed as a footballer since his last spell here which ever position he has played. He could do with looking how Jutkiewicz at Birmingham has adapted his game and become a good, consistent Championship striker. If Gallagher is to have a long term future at the club it will be as a striker.

I think SG has goals in him. He showed under Coyle that if you put it into the box enough he will get on the end of some. 11 goals under him is a decent return considering the tosh he had behind him.

I agree though. I think he needs more time up front personally but with a lack of options out wide, and the results showing he's more effective though, I think we will see him feature more out wide than up front for the remainder of the season. Especially with AA banging them in!

[Hasta]

39 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Exactly. Stats can be changed to suit whatever opinion you want them to suit. I was addressing the Gallagher on the wing vs up front though.

Personally I'd rather have proper wingers than SG there. If we are to be a Premier league team I don't think I'd have Gallagher starting. However, once again, I was addressing the argument of SG being on the wing as opposed to being up front. It shows that the balance of the team isn't lost when SG is played out wide however.

Alternatively, Hasta, we could argue that out of the 29 games that Gallagher has featured we have:

Games lost when Gallagher features - 27.6%

Games not lost when Gallagher features - 72.4%

Everything can be taken another way, as you pointed out, but do the results suggest SG seriously unbalances our team to the point it deserves as much discussion we have had on here? I'd suggest not.

They don't.

The problem is that, watching at Ewood, you struggle to actually see what Gallagher does when he is out wide that any half-decent wide player wouldn't do.

He doesn't get crosses in, he doesn't beat a man, he doesn't bring people into play with his height, he doesn't particularly excel tracking back and he certainly isn't offering more of a goal threat.

What he does do is work reasonably hard, which should be a requisite for any footballer (but isn't unfortunately). He also gives us some height when defending corners and set pieces.

Whilst we are winning games it isn't an issue. However you never come off the ground saying Gallagher played very well. He appears to just 'do a job' out wide. Nothing wrong with that, but it is one of the first areas you would look to improve in a transfer window. Yet we didn't.

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Hasta

[roversfan99]

Can see very clearly with my eyes that Gallagher offers nothing out wide. We have looked far more balanced without him in these last 2 games. To be fair it isnt his fault. We should go with the same team next week but Rothwell, Chapman and Rankin Costello should all be picked ahead of him if and when needed.

[47er]

6 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

We are joint 4th highest scorers without any of those Tommy Lawton-type goals.
 

Personally, I think it’s been a vintage season (vs recent years) for really good goals: belters from outside the area, shots from the D, and some really good fast first-time passing moves leading to goals. It’s no coincidence Danny Graham has hardly touched the ball, let alone scored for a while, we are playing a different game now.
 

  

Why Tommy Lawton? Because its decades ago and makes my point look out of date?

We didn't sniff at Shearer's headed goals did we? Or Gestede's to be a bit more recent.

Its a legitimate avenue to goal and ridiculous to write it off as not technical enough.

[chaddyrovers]

The stats would say otherwise. 

We look very balance against Charlton and the freedom and movement of Armstrong, Downing and Samuel was excellent. Wasnt until Graham and Bennett went off against Hull we look balance as a team

[dingles staying down 4ever]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

In fact, fuck it, in light of The Bores comments about facts I decided I'd do a little research this evening. We are talking about "balance of the team", or what that phrase basically means, are we any good with Gallagher on the wing?

I'll have to add a caveat in that maybe google has the line ups / formation wrong however all of this info was taken from google:

Results with Sam Gallagher starting up front:

Won - 2

Drawn - 4

Lost - 5

Results with Sam Gallagher starting on the wing:

Won - 6

Drawn - 4

Lost - 2

There are 10 games unaccounted in which he either did not play or did not start.

Of the games he did not play we:

Won - 3

Lost - 1

Of the games he came on as a sub we:

Won - 3

Drawn - 2

So, by collating the data I get it as we win more than we lose when Gallagher plays; we win more than we lose when he's on the wing; we win more times when he starts on the wing than when he starts up front; Gallagher is an effective substitution in order to not lose a game.

If we are talking about balance of the team then one would have to assume that more wins = a more balanced team. Do we lose balance by starting SG on the wing? Not according to the results. Do the results trend towards Gallagher being more effective out wide right than up front? Yes.

Of particular interest is that I don't get Gallagher down as playing up front since the Leeds game. Since then we've only lost 2 games in which he's started.

Is Sam Gallagher a terrible failure of a signing? No.

Are fans ignoring the 'facts' and only patrolling these boards with 'glib ad hominem quips'? Yes but it isn't those that try and defend Mowbray or Gallagher.

Note: I value any fact checking you may want to do. I did this in approx. 15 mins by looking at line ups / results and putting it together. I may have errors- point them out to me and I will change the results accordingly.

Note: Just noticed original post only accounted for 26 games. I have updated to suit all 33 games now. Stats have increased in favour of SG being on the wing. WINNER WINNER.

As a wide player how many chances has he created never mind scored compared to say Armstrong on the left? That will give you a better idea of balance. Even the biggest defender of Mowbray, Chaddy admits the team looks better balanced without Gallagher out wide.