Poor choice by Mowbray not to have a defender on the bench, again. If a CB gets injured or fatigued, then the team will be in trouble. Edit: The team may have to shift to 4 at the back, if it happened.

I'm not sure if there will be any club to pay a transfer fee for Lenihan, Nyambe, Rothwell or Chapman in January, when you merely wait awhile for a free. (Nyambe turns 24 this December, so, as I understand it, that rules out any compensation should he leave on a free). The club would have been wise to sell one of them in the summer - or last - perhaps, Rothwell, who, to my mind, is the least vital to the side, though, now a regular. That's assuming anyone would want to buy him for a real fee, which is no guarantee. Earlier this year, Mowbray said that if the players didn't sign on, they'd see out their contract. Now he is talking about potential sales in January. It seems that there has been no real planning. If anything, the club should be thinking about the next potential batch of exits, in Kaminski and Brereton. I note, also, that Mowbray keeps talking about the pandemic affecting clubs ability to pay transfer fees. I understand the sums paid for Aynsley Pears and Stergiakis are likely comparatively low but the fact remains that in 2020, we did pay reported undisclosed transfer fees for these new signings.

I would suggest that Lenihan and Kaminski have international football ambitions, alongside, the financial, as they enter their theoretical peak playing years. Even playing at a club that finishes in the top half of the Championship, instead of, consistently, the lower half, might give them an edge, in Lenihan's case, to get picked for the Rep Ireland squad, and, for Kaminski, to retain his squad place and get a game or two for the Belgians. I don't know if there were exceptional reasons for it, but Kaminski wasn't in the latest Belgian nations league squad. Edit: Looks like Koen Casteels of Wolfsburg is Belgium's No.2 or 3 keeper, alongisde Mignolet and Courtois and Kaminski benefited from him having surgery over the summer to take his place in the squad. It would be a coup to sign Kaminski to a new deal but it's hard to see it happening at the moment.

Re. Sam Burns joining FC United on a one-month loan. I can't think of much evidence of Rovers youth players benefiting from short-term non-league loan deals. The short-term nature of it means that it's hard for players to establish themselves and learn and the lower standard and different style may make it that much harder to adapt quickly. To my mind, a longer-term loan makes sense and, if not, they should be kept in the U23s with a view to loaning out elsewhere when the window opens. Sam Burns is one of our better U23 players and, I would suggested, his decision to take this loan suggests impatience and frustration with the opportunities at Rovers. Whilst I don't know if he's good enough, I can't blame him if you consider the opportunities given to, last season, Bennett, Evans, Downing et al. and, this season, Poveda and so on. Whilst they haven't performed so well this season, my big concern are for players like Garrett, Whitehall, Cirino, Barnes and McBride. They look, to me, technically, the best young players, reaching the age where they need the next step, and with promise, which I hope the club encourage, rather than discourage.

I understand where Mowbray is coming from, in that, there are fewer specialist positions, with players interchangeable and teams like Liverpool playing like a pack, in that they seem to defend and attack as one. I'd guess that the stats might show that there is more running involved in the modern game than even a few years ago. Nonetheless, it's an error for Mowbray to say that there is no structure or formation in the modern game. Liverpool always, as far as I know, play with three fairly deep lying central midfielders that shield the defence and allow the full backs to get forward. Klopp also plays with three forwards and the wide attackers are always extremely pacy, in order to press the opposition defence and lead the counter-attack. Hence, when Harvey Elliot returned to Liverpool he played in central midfield because he doesn't have the pace to fit into the attack under Klopp's style. Mowbray went on to say in that interview: “It’s how well you can play your style against their style and that’s all I’m trying to do, to give these young players ideas and pictures of where we go with the ball, how we disrupt the opposition,.." I'd suggest he doesn't have much of a style. If Liverpool were loosely the model that Mowbray was going for, then Gallagher wouldn't be on the wide attack role. There is no style if one game Gallagher is in the right forward role and then, the next game, it's Poveda, or someone similar. To be fair to Mowbray, I don't think he's the only manager struggling to come to terms with the fluidity and intensity of the modern game. Even in the Premier League, managers like Arteta and Bruce seem to be at a loss to make sense of the shift away from 4-4-2.

Strongly agree with this. Part of the issue has been the formation and tactics, with a lack of numbers in the middle and winger-forwards not defending but, personnel is an issue too. A lot of reliance is on Travis but his positioning and form hasn't been great. It was imperative for Mowbray to sign a strong central midfielder in the summer. I suspect that Bradley Johnson will be the man to come in to strengthen, once he's fit, but we know from last season that he has a tendency to drift upfield and is, also, coming to the end of his career, so probably, will not improve things greatly.

And had to stay on because Mowbray didn't have a defender on the bench and was wary of switching to 4-4-2, I presume. Presumably, Johnson would be the emergency defender if someone got injured. Credit to the team for a good first half but it is hard to have any enthusiasm for what is, as suggested above, a directionless team. Butterworth and Burns should be on the bench and getting minutes ahead some of the loanees. Khadra, if fit, should be the only one there, whilst Clarkson and Poveda should be proving themselves in the U23s, based on current form. Again, I'm reluctant to fault these young loanees too much, coming into a disorganised team and, in Clarkson's case, being played out of position in an attacking midfield role. If I'm not mistaken, Poveda was false 9 at one point. They may well be excellent players but if they're not making an impact, they should be building their confidence and form in the U23s.

Looking at a Forest forum and it seems that at the time of the transfer, their fans were disappointed he was going, even though he hadn't established himself in the team. They saw him as having potential as a striker, as yet, unfulfilled. It's notable that some faulted his tendency to dive, run with his head down and his decision-making, which, I believe, are still issues with him. It seems as if, for England and Forest U23s, he played as a striker and scored a lot of goals. However, when played by Aitor Karanka in the Forest senior team, he was often on the wing, which, some say he struggled with and it affected his confidence. It's interesting to read that in some of the England youth team squad get-togethers, he was selected with the likes of Mason Mount, Hudson-Odoi, Reece James and Jadon Sancho. He won and finished joint top scorer at the U19s 2017 Euro championship in an England team featuring Mason Mount, Aaron Ramsdale and one, Tayo Edun. I think England youth call ups (Adam Armstrong and Harry Chapman won international tournaments at youth level) can give players additional development opportunities, which makes it all the more disappointing that selection is not always based on merit. One would have thought that at least one of Rovers players Barnes, Cirino, Whitehall, Garrett and Burns might have got an appearance or two by now. (I haven't heard of any such call-ups, but I haven't paid that close attention, so might be wrong). Edit: This would be the wrong thread but for all the attention Brereton is getting - the next contract to really, really worry about is Thomas Kaminski. He's far more important to our team and is surely on his way out but his valuation is decreasing with his contract expiry approaching. I hope the club are looking for a replacement.

Although Brereton is surprising me with his improvements, especially, since joining up with Chile, I'm still sceptical about the extent of his potential. He looks to have improved his shooting, which was weak and has more confidence. I am sure that he can be a decent Championship striker long-term but, his lack of technique, at times, and decision making is still lacking, I think, to be considered a top league forward. He gives the ball away a lot which can't go unnoticed. I still think that we haven't seen the best of him at Rovers. If he was relieved of most defensive duties, and played as a striker, I think he would do even better. As well as the Chile call-up, he's benefited from patience and game time from Mowbray. If only more talented young players were given such opportunities to acclimatise.

Football owners and authorities, as in other areas of life, tend to insist on the separation of politics and sport. It is often couched as concern for the enjoyment of the fan base and, perhaps, sustainability of a game dependent on corporate sponsors. However, as mentioned above, sports and politics are intertwined inextricably. Politics is not limited to political parties but concerns power relations and control. The emergence of the Super League was a political matter, as is racism in the game, sponsorship by betting companies, the financial inequality and involvement of tyrants, plutocrats and oligopolists and others in the game. If we separate all these issues as being non-football related, then we are not really talking about the modern game. There is widespread self-censorship online on these matters from, I believe, at least partly, the fear of being de-platformed by cynical tech companies. This is especially notable, it seems to me, in the world of fan channels. Their emergence has had an empowering effect for fans of many clubs but, crucially, companies are using the threat of de-platforming to control the parameters of the debate and restricting their true potential for fans. It is too simplistic to simply attack a particular country, sponsor or industry for its role in football without looking at the structures that enable it but we need to at least have that discussion. Saudi Arabia is a terribly repressive regime, which is known to export extremist ideas, fund terrorism, repress its own people, deny women basic rights and mistreat religious and ethnic minorities, including migrant workers. However, it is enabled in much of this by the world's dependence on oil and other resources and, also, investment; hence, its strong support in weapons sales and diplomatic cover from Britain and others. Britain's government and corporations have a mutually beneficial relationship with Saudi Arabia and other tyrannical regimes. We can also raise the question as to the damaging and, sometimes, criminal, activities of UK and US banks, private equity firms and other prominent investors in football. Not only are they an integral part of the global economic system that the Saudis and others are part of, they created, with government acquiescence, the 2008/09 global economic crisis that was used by cynical politicians to usher in a decade of austerity and cuts that have continued to devastate lives. So, really, the question comes back home. Do we have to prioritise and defer to profit and why doesn't the government and Premier League work with the rest of the governing bodies to put more controls on who can control football clubs and enable fan involvement in boards and ownership, to stop football clubs from being play things for individuals? (Which, incidentally, has a detrimental effect on the whole game, including those lower down the food chain). Clearly, the answer is money and the other answer is fan mobilisation. I can't see the game protected from turning into a farce without it. However, at every turn, fans are undermined. Fan channels have, I believe, encouraged a potential mobilisation and contributed to the protests against the Super League. However, they are being muzzled by fear of being suspended by the tech platforms and sponsors that they rely on. I can't blame them. It's all too easy for a well-intentioned but, perhaps, ignorant or poorly communicated comment to be bring about collective punishment which acts as a form of censorship.

Last season, the bottom three clubs earned a combined 17 wins, which, I believe, is a record low since the the Premier League has been in its present format, with 20 teams. In the three seasons from 1995-1998, the bottom three clubs were earning around 26/27 combined wins per season. This sharply drops after 1998. Clearly this measure is limited in what it shows but I think it's a small indicator of where we might be headed, for newly promoted and smaller clubs. There was a 10 year period, between 2005-2015, when this measure started creeping up, reaching 24 wins, in 2013/14. I speculate that this may well have been influenced by a cooling of the financial bubble of football, only for the new wave of owners, such as Sheikh Mansour at City and FSG at Liverpool to come in and the transfer market inflation went rocketing up. Number of wins for the bottom three clubs in the Premier League (my quick calculations, so accuracy not guaranteed) 2020/21 - 17 2019/20 - 22 2018/19 - 20 2017/18 - 21 2016/17 - 20 2015/16 - 21 2014/15 - 23 2013/14 - 24 2012/13 - 19 2011/12 - 23 2010/11 - 23 2009/10 - 21 2008/09 - 22 2007/08 - 19 2006/07 - 23 2005/06 - 18 2004/05 - 20 2003/04 - 21 2002/03 - 20 2001/02 - 22 2000/01 - 21 1999/00 - 21 1998/99 - 22 1997/98 - 27 1996/97 - 26 1995/96 - 26

If the deal goes through, from one perspective, it is more of the same rather than a disruption of the status quo. After all, it will be more financial inequality in the game and the richest owners buying success. Given how much talent and money is in the Premier League, goals like Salah's against City, and dribbles like Bernardo Silva's, in the same game, should be commonplace. Instead, they're rarities in a game which is so commercialised that it is dominated by fear and profit and, the engine for its growth is hyperbole and the super rich. The Grealish and Ronaldo signings are the epitome of this, in my opinion. I don't think Grealish and Ronaldo were signed primarily to help the team long-term. Rather, they help to create narratives around the club, as archetypes. Grealish is the 'everyman genius' and Ronaldo, the prodigal son and hero. Whether intentionally or not, the rich clubs are turning to knitting stories which, actually, take precedence over the reality on the grass. I think it's part commercial branding and part collective hysteria. By the time the reality emerges, they're onto the next signing.

I haven't seen much of them but my guess is that Saints have the same problem as Norwich. The standard of the league is incredibly high at the moment. I don't follow the Premier League that closely but my sense is that this might be peak Prem, given the influx of money and players and the relative declines of foreign leagues. Even Newcastle are not going down without a fight, led by Saint Maximin. Any other season, I think Norwich and Southampton would be doing quite well but not now and it will probably take a shift in style, towards more direct football to save themselves. I think Armstrong will get goals eventually. He's got all the attributes and a manager that seems to understand that he plays best through the middle.

I'm struggling to see what Rovers' strategy is with their reserve and youth goalkeepers. The U23s seem to alternate between Stergiakis, Eastham and Dowling a lot. Joe Hilton, on loan at Hamilton Academical where he's on the bench, I believe, was given a contract extension to 2023. It's good to see players getting experience and, obviously, the club need to keep a number of goalkeepers on the books for the various teams, as well as in reserve for the firsts. Aidan Dowling, as the youngest, is presumably, deputising when Eastham and Stergiakis are absent. I think injuries have played a part and, perhaps, Stergiakis has been on youth international duty and missed games for that reason? Aynsley Pears is No.2 but I wonder whether the club are nurturing any of the current youth keepers to compete for the first team, or, perhaps, they'll be looking to bring in signings again. It doesn't appear that there is a clear No.1 for the U23s, which leads me to think that the latter will occur.

Magloire got a lot of blame for the two Blackpool goals, as well as his performance but just going on the highlights, which are limited, admittedly, I can't see him doing a lot wrong for the first goal. He is out of position because the left winger is dropping off and there is no-one else picking him up. Travis, Rothwell and Buckley are all caught up field or out of position as the ball drops into central midfield and Magloire is left with little option but to close the forward down and leave his right back position. Then Ayala, I think it is, barely makes an effort to block the shot, for some reason, when it's finally struck by Lavery. For the second goal, clearly, Magloire lets the winger come in field and get the cross in but there is no team-mate backing him up, as you'd expect if you had a novice centre back playing at right back. It does sound that Magloire struggled badly, especially, in the first half, but the manner of the goals, in particular, are no surprise. We've seen similar conceded for the last two seasons, with Nyambe and others at full back. Time and again, the full back is left isolated and the central midfield all caught up field. If you have four attacking players who don't defend much, as we do in our 4-2-3-1 then the remaining have to be very disciplined, otherwise, you're asking for conceding goals. With the formation we play, I think Travis and Rothwell should barely be getting over the half-way line, to try and plug the gaps left by the four in front, as well as full backs going up. PS. Really was a great cross from Buckley for Brereton to score. Brereton was four versus one in the box and got picked out at the far post.

Thomas Kaminski, Darragh Lenihan, Joe Rothwell, Ryan Nyambe, Jacob Davenport, Ben Brereton Diaz, Daniel Butterworth and Jordan Eastham are the players whose contracts expire in 2022, according to the site, Transfermarkt. In some cases, there may be unilateral one year extensions available to the club, to keep them until 2023. Such a clause was exercised with Harry Chapman, who will now likely leave in 2022. Players under 24, who leave on a free, might carry a compensation payment, if they reject a new contract, but the amounts are far from certain and often largely dependent on their future careers. Tony Mowbray said of Nyambe, Rothwell and Lenihan, in August this year, as reported in the LET: “For me, talking to the club, let’s get this window finished and see if we can address some of the situations, see where we are financially, and if we can’t offer new improved contracts then they are going to run." A simplistic short-term view would suggest hang on to all these players until their contracts expire. However, for the long-term future of the club, we either need to sign them to new deals - without jeopardising the financial state of the club - or to recoup some income from some of the players, whilst retaining sufficient strength in the squad. I do not know the situation with Venky's and how much they're going to continue to sanction transfer fees but I don't trust them to continue long-term. Moreover, the global economic situation might press them to stop investing - if they are. (I have no idea how the transfer fees are currently being financed, so, perhaps, someone else can comment on that). Last season, Mowbray had Evans, Bennett, Downing and Holtby sitting on the subs bench, especially, towards the end of the season, when fit. I mentioned before, at times, we had four or five central midfield players on the bench and no forwards, just to accommodate them. All of their contracts were expiring and it was known that most had no future at the club. For the planning for this season, it made no sense to have all of them there, at the expense of players we might have something to contribute and are developing, rather than being in the twilight of their careers. There was at least one occasion that there was no forward on the bench and Buckley was utilised as a false 9. I would suggest a comparable scenario is arising now, with our loanee players, Khadra, Poveda, Clarkson and, eventually, van Hecke, set to be on the subs bench, having not established them yet as first teamers. I reserve judgment on all, as they are young and have had little opportunities. When they have come in, it's been into a team lacking structure, organisation and direction, so I can't blame them. Khadra has shown promise and I'm sure we'll turn to van Hecke. However, if it becomes apparent that any of them are not going to contribute much to the present and Rovers have no interest in signing them, just like Evans & Co. they should not be sitting on the bench. It makes more sense to feature Butterworth to test his fitness and form and encourage him to sign on. Given the players that look to be leaving next summer, and the reality that we stand little chance of being promoted, the club must be planning for the future - whilst, always ensuring that the current team is strong and doing the best it can be doing. For example, it may be hard to hold onto Kaminski and though he is vital to our team, if the club could earn a good transfer fee (perhaps £5 million plus?) in the summer, I'd suggest we should sell. However, it is a balancing act of recruitment, retentions and sales and maintaining a motivated and aspiring squad, which only those involved closely in the team have all the relevant information to make decisions upon. It would seem that we're losing Lenihan, Rothwell and Nyambe next year for nothing but we need to start acting for damage limitation and rebuilding. Edit: Removed Hayden Carter from the list, as I see that he has signed to the club until 2024.

Worth thinking that Lenihan and Nyambe, who we missed today, have not signed new deals at the club. As far as I know, Nyambe can leave on a free next summer and Lenihan might be the same, or, perhaps, the following year. Perhaps, we saw a glimpse of the size of the rebuild job in that first half?

Got to bring Khadra on. He's made a difference every time.

Next game, there could be four loanees on the bench - Povada, Clarkson, Khadra and van Hecke. 34 year old Bradley Johnson will be there too. Last season, we asked why have Downing, Bennett, Evans and Holtby on the bench, as they had no future at the club, apparently. There were times that they were all included and there was no room for a forward, so Buckley was moved to a false 9, when a striker went off. We can ask the same question now. I don't want to be too harsh on any of our Prem loanees, given that they're young and, also, they've come into a crisis club deficient in organisation or planning on the pitch and off, it would seem. I have little doubt that in a more organised team, these players would do a lot better. Perhaps, they'll have fine careers when they get away from this club. However, we have to be planning for the future. Khadra looks promising. Perhaps, we can use him and, even, look to sign him come the summer. However, if players don't have long-term futures at the club, we need to put them aside and develop those that do. Next season, we're likely to lose a lot of first team regulars. The development and planning should be occurring now, whilst, at the same time, protecting our league status.

I wouldn't have played Magloire but hoping he can come through. His confidence and form looks weak and Pickering at right back would've made sense and a chance for our newly purchased left back, Edun. But, just hoping that Magloire can do ok and maybe turn his career around. Might be his last chance for some time, as others return from injuries.

I would put Pickering at right back and play either Edun or Cirino left back. in a back four. However, I suspect Mowbray will have Carter at RB, with Johnson alongside Ayala, in what would be an extremely slow back line. I think Mowbray would be foolish to play 3 at the back, as he's struggled to get any kind of performance from it. The way we play it, our three centre backs end up marking one attacker and three forwards dally upfield whilst the two central midfielder get overrun. If we play it with three disciplined central midfielders, could work, I guess.

Just read about Magloire having a bad game. It's completely unfair on the player to have used him. He has a poor loan spell in Scotland, as a CB, and then struggled in sub appearances before this match. He should be in the U23s or on loan trying to rebuild his career, rather than being thrown in the deep-end. My impression is that he's struggling with his confidence and more high level exposure isn't really helping. Mowbray failed massively in not signing a strong defensive midfielder. They would have provided an option for Travis to go to full back, if needed. His transfer policy, this year, has been disastrous, minus Pickering and, perhaps, Khadra. We wait on van Hecke.

Mowbray has Buckley playing in the advanced midfield role, in what, back in the days of specialised attacking positions, might've been known as No.10. It's not quite the same - as, I think there's less hold up play involved, I think - but it's worth remembering that David Dunn and David Bentley both failed to fulfil this role when played there. Perhaps, you could add Cairney to that. In fact, I think many talented British footballers struggled to get that role right. The game is changing so much, in terms of formation and styles, it must be difficult for players and managers. In the past, an up and coming winger, say Keith Treacy, may have looked upon Damien Duff and Keith Gillespie as players to emulate on the wing. In this modern era of non-specialised attacking players, who does Buckley look to base his game upon as an attacking midfield in a three, supporting Tyrhys Dolan, a winger-cum-striker? In a way, teams, players and managers must be making it up as they go along, with few templates to go on. Most are playing three forwards but how they line up seems very different from club to club.

I would suggest that Rovers are not using their U23s in the best manner, if you consider that we had a very successful team, results-wise, last year, finishing top four and, yet, none of those players are regularly close to the first team. Nor are any getting high level loan experience for development, most finding themselves in non-league. Instead, young loan signings from the Premiership have been brought in. Butterworth and Carter are subs, at the moment, but neither were greatly involved in the U23s last season, being either injured or, on loan. Moreover, on the return of van Hecke (loanee), Wharton, Dack and Bradley Johnson, they may lose their place on the bench - or, at least, risk losing their places. Whilst, in the past, we've seen players like Wharton (after numerous loan spells), Lenihan, Travis, Nyambe and, further in the past, Hanley and Raya and so on come through, I think it is fair to ask whether the current U23s expense can be justified, given the current output and production line. After all, the reason to sign up players like Sam Durrant or Joe Nolan for contract extensions is unlikely to be in the hope that they'll make it (seeing that they're so far behind in the pecking order - though Durrant, especially, definitely has talent, I think) but that they'll provide adequate support for the U23 squad, as a whole, for the development of others who might make it.

In the wake of Tyrhys Dolan being released by PNE and joining Rovers last year, Peter Ridsdale, advisor to PNE owner, reiterated the club's decision to scrap their U23 set-up: “From a cost point of view the increased mandatory spend level including the cost of an Under 23 team is not insignificant and would merely reduce the amount that we have to spend on the first team.... In addition, it is our view that ‘Under 23’ league football is far removed from the challenges that ‘men’s football’ brings with it and we would much prefer to see those U18s that we think stand a chance, going either straight into our first team squad or going out on loan to lower league clubs." Without knowing the details of Preston's success with this strategy (except that clearly Dolan was an incredible oversight), I can't really reach any conclusions but I would be interested to know how many of their released players are still playing at a high level. I suspect, not having an U23 squad will be very damaging to them in the long-term, as it will reduce their ability to retain and develop youth players.