If that is true, as "they" is rather cryptic. Their judgement is hardly much to base things on looking at how things are progressing!

Should have been a red card. Endangering the safety of an opponent.

Absolutely dreadful watch again, offering nothing. So, so lucky not to have conceded the most obvious penalty ever. One to remember next time we play the woe is me act. Branthwaite in general has been poor, he looks like a kid who has barely played any senior football strangely. Lenihan has been for me the only player to come out of that half with any credit. The sub of Buckley was totally bizarre. Never does he bring any semblance of control, he is usually invisible.

So if you was a Burnley fan, 8 years in, off the back of a win at Anfield, consistently secure in the Prem, having enjoyed promotion, the top half and even Europe, youd now be "bored?"

Mowbray likes to natter about football, if hes sensing pressure from anywhere it is likely to be from local media/supporters. Theres no way he is justifying his position and the specifics around it via the EFL Podcast to the owners. What youve heard hasnt been played out by the last 10 years.

Dyche plays 2 wingers and 2 strikers, so not sure how defensive it is. They just realise that passing out from the back isnt mandatory which seems sensible.

In your opinion. He has done a brilliant job regardless and has proved that such a style doesnt have a shelf life which discounts your original point. You find Mowbrays football entertaining though so...each to their own.

The midfield balance doesnt look right, 3 defensive midfielders. Not sure how Johnson has retained his place. Would have started Dack over him for a better balance.

You specifically referenced Dyche as an example of a manager whose "style" has a "shelf life." As a manager who using such a "style" has been in his job for 8 or 9 years with plenty of success, it was a bizarre comment. I never said that Hughes' style was defensive but it was built on solid foundations, which is similar to Dyche albeit the latter has less resources relative to the competition. (Hughes didnt have much either to be fair but in 15 years the finances across the league make it more difficult) But no, successful football does not have a shelf life. And those who tend to get "bored" of it should just be discounted.

Before you get into the matter of coupling managers together assuming they play the exact same style. Its a totally bizarre statement to suggest that the "style" of a manager who is in his 8th or 9th season having done such an incredible job to get Burnley promoted twice, into Europe and into the top 10 of the Premier League again amidst keeping them stable as a Premier League club has a shelf life. Laughable.

An example of the total lack of clarity and the confusion of Mowbrays tactics was perfectly shown v Doncaster. Firstly he went with Dack as a false 9 which has never worked. Then he made a series of subs that left us with Armstrong, Dack, Brereton, Dolan, Rothwell and Elliott all on the pitch (I think those 6) with Buckley at right back and no central midfield.

.

Doesnt that mean that the contract had a 12 month extension in the clubs favour that we chose to trigger in the summer? Whenever that clause was triggered to be honest, it was the wrong decision.

No I dont. Dyche is the perfect example of a more pragmatic style NOT having a shelf life depending on how it is played. I also find watching Burnley (dislike of them aside) with 2 wingers and 2 forwards more entertaining that watching the likes of Brighton who are like watching paint dry. Many football fans seem to have lost track of the overall objective of a football match and the latest fads are goalkeepers passing it out and bringing it out from the back. But every team cannot play like that. There is somewhat of a re writing of history regarding the Hughes era. Our defenders were well drilled but hardly the most cultured, our goalkeeper wasnt for playing it out from the back and we tended to have 2 wide players with good deliveries into 2 forwards. We had flair within with the likes of Tugay and Bentley but we built on being well organised and structured. I of course would rather be entertained but I have never not been entertained by watching Rovers win and I also dont think that the only form of entertainment is the one set style that seems to be in vogue at the moment. Also, at the moment, Mowbrays football is neither effective nor entertaining.

Bell had a one year contract extension triggered this summer which was totally unnecessary. Why re sign someone who has repeatedly shown himself to be incompetent? Didnt W Fitness wise, Bristol City had 7/8 usual starters out for a spell including when they beat us. Norwich had more than 11 injuries to the point that they had one senior sub. Stoke and Preston as you mentioned, the former at one point had 3 keepers, Fletcher, Mikel, Allen, Clucas and Fox out. At the peak of our absentee list, many were down to not being registered in time. Injuries and covid absentees are common this season. Ultimately Mowbray made 2 defensive signings to try and fix a defence he has repeatedly neglected in the past and neither have been successful.

Its this bizarre logic that certain managers can only play certain styles of play. As if a manager with such experience would come in to Rovers with Armstrong and Dack and launch long balls to him all game. Its also this stuck up attitude towards playing certain styles of play. Im not saying that direct football is necessarily more entertaining or even effective, my point is that there is no right or wrong way but Dyche gets pelters for his style and even without understanding the imbalance in resources, you get the press fawning over teams like Brighton who try to pass it out from the back, often have 3 or even 4 centre backs in the side and dont even score as many goals. Mowbray tactically is trying to do something based on flawed principles whereby he wants certain parts of the team to do things they are incapable of doing and in a way which also exposes a part of the team that he has already neglected. This is all based on the correlation between possession and points which he has overestimated. At least a manager like McCarthy would bring clarity and clear and consistent ideas. Lately we have repeatedly changed, going from 433, maybe to 4231 then this stupid box midfield nonsense and even with a false 9 in the cup, its desperate.

He isnt going to regain full match fitness until he starts a couple of games in the senior team. You have spent the majority of his absence disregarding his return, underplaying his importance to us, repeatedly suggesting that he should be sold and implying that he will never return the same player. We cant be sure on the latter (although there is no reason yet to suggest that he wont) but he has signed a new long term deal and lets get bloody excited at his return, he has been our best player (all as a number 10) from signing here until his injury, our season has shown no improvement, our form and performances for months now have been shite, lets get excited, get him (and Travis) fit and hope that he can be a catalyst to resurrect a season that is already crashing into further mediocrity. Ultimately, has the 433 improved us as a team considering that so many players are apparently thriving (Armstrong, Elliott, Brereton and Rothwell) in it? No it hasnt, so there is very reasonable and serious questions over whether and why it should continue. I cannot fathom why people are so desperate to keep that formation above everything else when it hasnt improved us. If Dack comes back in, Armstrong can still remain as the striker. All that Dack's return will mean is that defences have a second serious threat to contend with, and that we have a player who has far more imagination and ultimately consistent end product compared to the other players we have had in midfield this season. My scenario fits in our joint best player (out on his own until Armstrong has scored so many in the last year) and it should be of utmost priority to get them both in their best positions. My system does that. Fuck the 433 which has not facilitated an improvement. And Dack's best 30 months in football have come in a Rovers shirt. He may have impressed in a Gillingham shirt, where I am sure you was a regular watcher week in week out, but his career took a step up when he came here. He was instrumental in a League 1 promotion, and then consistently scoring and assisting in the Championship, all more than he did in a Gillingham shirt, and all as a number 10. I think it is safe to say that he is a natural there.

You are right in regards to the change in Brereton, even now he is inconsistent and often ineffective even if he has massively changed from the joke he was prior to this season. Im not convinced however that it is specifically the formation that has brought the improvement in Brereton, there is no reason that with Armstrong central, Dack behind and Elliott wide right, that Brereton couldnt still play from the left effectively. I would also question how I am being told that so many are suited to the 433, and we have played it this season yet not improved. If it came to it and assuming that we suggest that Brereton is best suited to 433 which as mentioned I dont think is as straight forward. I would want to build a team to suit Dack more than Brereton as the former is far better, far more consistent and far more effective, but his position doesnt exist in a 433.

The problems are mainly self inflicted. He chose to sign one centre back rather than 2, and the one he chose was one who hadnt played for 9 months who had a reputation as a sick note. The main reason he chose to sign one rather than two was because that he chose to reject the advances from Swansea who wanted to take another sick note in Williams off our hands. Signing Ayala AND keeping Williams was always an incredibly risky move. At left back, part of the problem has been down purely to poor performances by both left backs, one of whom we knew was poor yet he re-signed, and one who he didnt sign until the last day of the window who he has been lucky to get as much football from as he has based on his recent injury history. It doesnt come down to resources either. In central midfield, we already had Travis, Davenport, Johnson, Evans, Buckley, Rothwell and Holtby. Was there a need to add both Trybull and Downing? Probably not. The defensive issues are far from this season and added to the fact that every team has had injury and covid issues this season, quite a few far worse than ourselves and the excuses dont really wash any more.

Theres absolutely no chance of Gerrard leaving on the back of breaking a chain of Celtic league titles and ahead of Champions League football. That being said, we should be looking at managers with a bit of imagination and/or ambition and if we get a couple of rejections along the way, so be it. The notion that Mowbray is the best we can do is simply untrue.

And we won that match! I think that unfortunately you are perhaps reading too much into it. I doubt the owners would even understand the random points he put across about missing players, full backs in the wrong position etc. We are kidding ourselves by implying that Venkys give a shit or have a real dedication and vested interest. Mowbray loves a natter, if he senses any "pressure" it will probably be minor criticisms from social media etc via the local journalists, of course watered down. I also think that an inability to pay a 6 figure fee to Crewe for a full back and also cutbacks regarding the pitch to the point that it has become as bad as it has shows that they are not willing to just sign of cheques whenever asked. You are correct that he isnt like Kean and I think anyone implying otherwise is just doing so out of pure frustration.

If all of these players suit 433 and changing would potentially scupper this effectiveness, then why the bloody hell has changing to 433 not improved our results and indeed led to some rancid form and performances?! And regarding Dack, I couldnt give a shiny shite where he played at Gillingham. What I do know is for a year at League 1 level and for 18 months at Championship level, he was our best player playing as a number 10. On the rare occasions that he had to drop deep, it tended to be out of frustration and took him away from goalscoring positions. Theres nothing to suggest that Armstrong and Elliott's effectiveness is down to specifically playing in a 4-3-3. Armstrong's main improvement has come because he is no longer sidelined out wide. Elliott has not played enough senior football to suggest that he has a favoured formation. Mowbray should be looking at things and how he can change it with consistency, as it is he keeps half arsing a 4-3-3, changing to this over complicated box, maybe throws in a false 9 every now and again and half the time, no one looks like they know what they are doing. In theory, Dack playing off Armstrong, with Elliott right, and Brereton (or even Rothwell) left could work, and the main 3 attackers at our disposal, Armstrong, Dack and Elliott are all in their best positions. I never implied that they have to sit in all the time, my choice would probably be Travis and Davenport, both of whom get about the pitch. That being said, all of the experienced managers that we correctly look at with a hint of envy would look to stabilise and build from sound foundations.

Its a very short term view to discount Dack simply because he isnt back to his best yet. And I would also disagree that Travis at current fitness is any more effective, he has been really poor since he came back, poor on the ball, heavy touches and not effective as a shield. Both will require a couple more games, but both are key so we have little choice but to be patient such is their importance. You choose Holtby over Dack, he has been ineffective basically all season. I might be wrong but when he scored those goals at Coventry, they had Maddison and Joe Cole so they probably did use a 10. But ultimately it is irrelevant. The 433 has not led to improved results so it shouldnt be beyond reproach. 4231 with Elliott right and Armstrong as the striker has never been tested but in theory those 3 could thrive in such a system, we would have secondary cover in front of our defence and it just generally seems to suit us better, and with recent form and overall results the manager should be willing to change, all he seems to do is constantly alternatate between formations desperate for something to stick, 433 then to more nonsensical crap like false 9s, box midfields etc. I feel like we need more clarity, more consistency and I think 4231 as a formation best suits our players. Elliott would be in theory unaffected playing in a 4231 or a 433 as long as he plays wide right and not in central midfield or as a false 9 which hinders him. Playing with Dack I suspect would benefit both. And Armstrong would probably himself benefit further from having Dack in closer support and sliding him in. Even if there was a conclusion that Armstrong is somehow compromised by putting Dack behind him, the slight compromise would surely be more than compensated by Dacks return and additional quality. You say our best players who are playing well now, that is very few players. Armstrong is obviously key and Elliott is a great talent but even both of them have dipped in form with Mowbrays constant confusion not helping.

If they were witholding money because they didnt trust Mowbray he wouldnt still be here. The pitch is also in ruins due to continued budget cuts, I presume that is also on hold until Mowbray goes?