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.

Mowbray likes one of his wide players to be a converted striker, whether it be Antonnson, Samuel, Armstrong and now Gallagher so in my view Armstrong or Gallagher was always going to play a wide berth. Downing has replaced Rothwell. I agree Rothwell needs some games and offers something that this team does not have present. As I Mentioned after the Boro game, the long ball is Gallagher to flick on the right wing is pointless if we don't win the second ball. The only ways would be for Bennett to be more advanced than Gallagher or to overload that particular wing and Rothwell or Dack connecting on to flicks and going down that wing would definitely scare the opposition. It would also need Gallagher as soon as he made the flick to bust his gut and get into the box and not follow the ball. If Mowbray is to continue with Gallagher wide with Armstrong in the middle then Rothwell has then to learn to release the ball and not has he has an habit of doing of keeping it too long. As a team we need to get more players and the ball into the box to create shooting opportuniites and the goals will come. Too much play is outside the box. Other than the Oldham game I can't recall many clearcut chances where you think we've missed a sitter or their keeper made a save.

I personally saw a player who struggled to do the basics but there were a couple of glimpses of his ability. Nowhere near ready for first team

Downing's replaced him down the left hasn't he?

Norwich away last season

Yes as a championship defender, about his level

Davenport injured. buckley nowhere near strong enough for defensive midfield

Yes he does offer something different than Rothwell and Armstrong but it still needs a lot of work to become effective. As a result he has not offered as much of an attacking threat as he has the potential to be. What he does give you is someone who will back track and offer Bennett some help at defending which Armstrong in particular does not.

Its all very well playing Gallagher RW and quoting how successful he is at winning headers against a full back but what is the point if he flicks it on and no Rovers player picks it up? All it does is it adds a few yards to a long punt down field.

Ironically my concern is more central midfield than defence. Two injuries there brings back Smallwood and Evans

Gary Weaver was main one. He is ex Century FM colleague of Andy Bayes of Radio Lancashire. He is one of Sky's North West based reporters. The other was Andy Hinchcliffe, ex over rated player.

Hold on a minute. Watch the build up to it. Armstrong takes up his position, not touching the keeper. Their keeper then starts pushing Armstrong and as the free kick is being taken actually pulls Armstrong closer to him. So VAR should pick this as well and as their keeper commits the first offence it would be a penalty. But in today's world then yes I agree Armstrong is backing into him and it is also a foul.

Re: Gallagher....yes he won headers.......but he flicked them onto......usually a Boro player. Not blaming him it's just that if it is to be a tactic, someone has to be on the end of the flicks. it reminded me of Rhodes failing to read Gestede's flick ons.

Nutall goal scoring ratio was not bad, it was his alround play that was poor. Antonsson wasn't too bad but granted he was way too weak. There is more than goals to Gallagher's play and originally was a Coyle signing. As someone else has said Coyle did not sign Graham originally it was Lambert. Johnson is exactly then the type of midfielder we've been after for years. We'll see if Williams is going to be first choice partner at the back to Lenighan or if the City lad is. By no ways I'm a Mowbray fan but there are far more faults that you can beat him with but yesterday's performance wasn't one of them

Gallagher predominently wide after the subs but Armstrong was more central. Buckley did play the Dack role with Rothwell was wide. Armstrong, buckley and Gallagher did change positions several times.

He did win the ball a lot but be interesting to see how many times he won it and it went to a Rovers player.

Both he and Buckley need to go on loan but Buckley looks like he is going to get game time with the first XI.

Armstrong done the middle made sense if we changed how we played and played the balls into the channels and got two slow centre halves turning as SG was offering Bennett protection, which Armstrong never does. The fact that we carried on playing the ball to Armstrong with his back to goal shows that Mowbray does not have a plan B to the one style of play. With Rothwell and Armstrong brought pace on but yesterday showed Mowbray does not know how to utilise it.

I will help Stuart out here. At no stage did he say Barr's coaching ability was questioned. All he said was that his name does not fill you with excitement if you were looking at joining an under 23 side. Nobody except his immediate family has heard of him. But do we will really need a well known name. The under 23s usually are made up of players who have come from within the system with one or two reserve players. And now i'm going to be a little critical of Johnson and mowbray here. We need players who are capable of stepping into first team and by that I mean playe the same tactics and style as the first team so that are aware of their role. It's all very well having a good 2nd string if the first team isn't peroforming

It is to provide width that isnt there in the forwards. I suspect one or both of the two defensive midfielders is supposed to drop and cover but that doesnt happen. In the end it makes our defending look like an under 12s team. Mowbray wants to play with wing backs but as his previous trials with 3 at the back have failed he's ditched one of them which is also proving a great success

When kidd was manager duff was dropped and would of been sold. Dunn was not featuring either and also would have been sold. Parkes reinstated them and then Souness built his team around them.

If Brian Kidd had stayed a little longer he would have been sold

No you are not but I think a change of club may benefit everyone concerned

Kevin was the first player I had a photo with when i got my first kit. Thoughts are for his family. RIP

I thought each club have to declare a squad of 25 players so why do clubs need more? If they had a squad of 25 first team and a additional 15 under 23s then the above cannot happen. It is ridiculous that Chelsea could loan out players and that its longest serving players have never made a first team appearence.