Under Venkys we have seen a general culture of apathy and a total lack of care and pride.

Now manager watch is a thing. This bizarre obsession about how he behaves on the touchline, thats just how he is as a person. It doesnt need reading in to the point of baseless conclusions that he doesnt care, that he is sulking, whatever crap people want to say.

If FFP was genuinely stunting the owners who otherwise had genuine ambitions to push the club on, they wouldnt have declined the 2m cost of refurbishing the pitch.

You haven't really addressed what I am saying going back to your suggestion to revert back to playing like we did with Graham. Gallagher couldn't be any more different to Graham and is not a target man. If Dack does play behind Gallagher, the tactic of playing off him wouldn't work, we would have to play things a lot differently to the Graham days. There is no reason why we can't retain the back 5 and still have Giles wide left and Gallagher central. I am also surprised that you would consider starting Dack 2 cameos and a week after you was painfully telling anyone who dared to mention his name that he wouldn't be fit this season.

Was early enough to win the game, that is what matters. And of course it was the managers decision.

But Dack wouldn't be in a 4-3-3 anyway, as you said, he would be best in a 4-2-3-1 which you are wary of playing at the moment without him because we don't have anyone similar. Once Dack comes back, it won't be as simple as him playing off a big man simply because we don't have anyone similar to Graham, nor is Dack this one dimensional player anyway that can only play off a big man. And the back 3 has been working defensively, and there is no reason to suggest that we couldn't have that same front 3 of Giles left, Dolan right and Gallagher central, with Travis and Rothwell as the 2 midfielders, and the solidity of a back 3 behind that. We could even play Giles as a wing back and have an extra attacking player ahead of that. Khadra has been crap for quite a few games now, so I would drop him personally.

Surely if Dack isn't fit enough to start, then we stick with the 3 at the back unless it means playing Rankin Costello?

I would be wary of moving away from the back 3 to be honest. I think the 2 main questions would be whether Dack is fit to start and whether Nyambe is fit as Rankin Costello is crap. I would definitely go with Dolan, Gallagher and Giles from right to left, Travis and Rothwell in central midfield. Dack if fit enough in a number 10 role but I doubt he is, in which case I would bring Nyambe in, failing that either have Buckley reluctantly at right wing back and the usual back 3, or Buckley as a number 10 with Lenihan at right back.

We didn't though because he changed it, making early changes. Some of the posts on here after the Derby game and the mental gymnastics employed to withhold any sort of praise towards the manager has been laughable.

The owners shouldn't be interfering with footballing decisions. End of.

You've taken my comment out of context. Specifically at holding the ball up, bringing others into play, being a focal point, he is piss poor. You mention Brown, obviously Gallagher is better in general, he is powerful compared to Brown who couldn't run, he does offer some sort of goal threat (not prolific by any means though) whereas Brown never scored a goal, but at holding the ball up, Brown was better. Gallagher is not a player that we can play off and couldn't be any less similar to Graham if he tried, so they are not comparable. He is a very average player, he is not the answer in general but he deserves a start centrally on Saturday,

How do they know what players are worth? I can only presume that you are on the wind up if you genuinely see no problem in the owners interfering with transfer decisions.

"Last night was one of the worst displays of football management you could witness." Presumably it would have been THE worst display of football management in footballing history had we not won by 2 clear goals!

There is absolutely no way on earth that we should use Gallagher in a similar way to Graham. There is this constant expectation that has been around since he signed that he would take over once Graham was phased out. They could barely be any more different. Dack thrived playing off Graham because he was an expert with his back to goal, he had a good touch, he was good at knocking the ball down with his head, he was intelligent in working off defenders, Gallagher is as poor as any striker I can remember in a Rovers shirt at those things. Graham was also a penalty box predator who anticipated chances and had the composure to often convert, Gallagher rarely sniffs out chances and when he does he is often clumsy and un coordinated. On the flip side, Graham was ageing and slow whereas Gallagher is a powerful runner especially over long distances and he does have a spring on him. They work in opposite ways. Gallagher was good last night, but lets not make conclusions about a player he clearly is not, either in style or in quality. He has proven consistently that he is a very limited footballer, should he start centrally at the weekend? Yes, but is he the answer as a central target man in general? Not in a million years. "He will score goals" whilst true literally is not something he will do with any consistent regularity, or if he does, it will be the first time in his career. You could basically say that about any tactical tweak ever. One extra player in x position, revolutionary.

You perhaps have perfectly illustrated the point I am making, that he gets no praise for what he does right and only focus and criticism for what he does wrong. Would you say that he also deserve the praise during that time for keeping us tight and resolute at the back, with us having the most clean sheets in the league I believe? And do you think universally that he gets that praise? Most if not all people (me included) didn't think he was capable of organising a defence, but he has done and even throughout our barren run, we kept 7 clean sheets in those 13 games that we only scored 3 in. The lack of goals has been a huge issue and he has got loads of warranted criticism for that, again from me included. Having our main goal threat from this season in a 20 goal striker would hinder every team in the league, on top of our other main goal threat also being out to long term injury and his January signing being injured too. So mitigating circumstances, but 3 in 13 is unacceptable no matter how its dressed up, no team should be so bad in front of goal and Mowbray deserved stick for it. The thing is you are like many not allowing yourself to judge Mowbray without your pre-conceived opinion of him to spill over ahead of any neutrality. Take Allardyce for example. manager I think you understandably rated highly, but one that always prioritised results over performances. If he had won a game after making a tactical error with his starting 11, but made a double change at half time which saw us quickly take the lead and in the end win comfortably, would you equally say it was only a "good 20 minutes" against "a bottom 3 team" (technically true although 16th best based on points) and start implying that it was the players who instigated the turnaround and not the manager? No you wouldn't. We won the game, he deserves at least some acknowledgement. As much as I am onboard with the criticism of the bizarre initial tactics, he fixed it.

Correct, and to be honest its all fairly irrelevant anyway, its a results based game, and we won, therefore a desperation to discredit the manager using assumptions of behind the scenes activities, observations of his body language and analysis of what he said after guiding us to the aforementioned victory are unfair. Just as he got pelters at the weekend when we lost, he gets praise when we win, even acknowledging the strange initial tactics that he managed to rectify.

Absolute nonsense. All assumed rubbish to do anything possible to not credit the manager. Its a results game unless that result is a win in which case it is in spite of the manager, not because of him.

We are in the mix come the end, we are going into our final 8 games now and are 4th, whether we drop a place or two due to games in hand or not, we are very much in the mix going into the home straight. I would tend to agree that the quality in the league in general (not just this season) is shall we say unremarkable, but its important to put into context that Mowbray himself is hardly working at an advantage to our rivals. This season, we sold our best player at a massive profit, our other best player has only just returned from a second ACL, and aside from a nominal fee for a squad player, our owners gave him none of those proceeds to reinvest, and not only that, prevented him from selling someone in January to reinvest. The path to which our season has taken does Mowbray no favours in the perception of him either, partially justifiably but only if people don't lose sight of the fact that a top 6 finish would be a very good achievement. Had our poor spell been before the good spell, then the whole mood would be different. Many of the (again, it is fair to question tactics when they don't work) tactics used were critical to our good run, the false 9, the back 3, wing backs, wide forwards etc. It seems that like many, any sort of acknowledgment of the things he does get right is some sort of desperate and illogical attempt to defend him. I hardly have an unwavering loyalty towards him, I wanted him out last summer and before that, and I keep saying that should we not finish in the top 6, as you seem certain of and to be honest I am not confident in, then I would make a change. I have also repeatedly criticised the tactics in the first half last night that made no sense, equally I have praised him for being proactive in changing that and ultimately that was enough to get us a crucial win, therefore the first half tactics as crazy as they were haven't harmed us. I also haven't reverted to criticising his touchline demeanour, expecting him to be charging around like a mad man when he is not that sort of guy, or picking apart his post match interview to find ways to undermine him after he has led us to victory.

Rovers 3-1 Derby being included in that?

Over the course of the season, we have got the amount of points we have as a direct result of his management. The points won and points lost over the course of the season are the responsibility of the manager in equal measure. Could have, would have, should have, its a results business. Had we gone 2 down and not come back, there wouldn't be any scope for his defence, but that is all hypothetical. We won last night which is all that matters. His tactics in the first half were baffling, and obviously going in a goal down, hindered his own job as manager of winning a football match. Thankfully, his choice and timing of substitutions/tactical as well as whatever he said and did at half time saw us to victory. I have even seen people implying that it was the players who got us back into it yesterday. How is it possibly from a fair vantage point if when we are losing, any positive reaction is player driven, yet if we are winning/drawings and react negatively, it is the managers fault? At the moment, its hard to judge as teams have played different amounts of games, there are plenty of rivals with fixtures to come against one another, the one thing we can be sure of is that it is all about after 46 games and as it stands, we are very much in the mix. My stance has always been that if we do finish in the top 6, it is a very good achievement. If we do make it, Mowbray deserves plenty of praise, regardless of the way it is done, ie even if it is somewhat of a perceived stumble over the line, you finish where you finish over 46 games. That achievement would for me warrant a new deal regardless of what happens after. Am I confident of a top 6 finish? Not really no, and if we don't make it, I would consider that the perfect and natural opportunity for a change of manager, 100%.

Can you please point out when I have asked for the same tactics and specifically for "players shoehorned into positions?" In this very thread, I have been very critical of the bizarre tactics employed in the first half that thankfully were rectified quickly and proactively enough to see us to victory. Mowbray I would suggest has earnt his wage thus far this season with us being 4th in the table as it stands. Doesn't mean that his management has been perfect.

He deserves criticism for his first half tactics, 100%, I agree and join in with that. When I saw Johnson as a false 9 against a veteran Curtis Davies and against a Derby side who naively play the ball out from the back, I winced, it couldn't have been a more illogical tactic. He also deserves praise for the proactive timing and the actual changes made to rectify those mistakes and ultimately we won the game. Its more the side issues that I don't think warrant such focus. Touchline demeanour, interviews, questioning his passion or whether the players are playing for him, I just don't get it.

One thing you cannot argue against last night was that our players are playing for the manager. Derby were naive, they played into our hands sticking to their principles when we had them in traps. He doesn't and hasn't disrespected this club, and I do not get this focus on how he acts on the sides or what he says at the end. He can be critiqued for decisions he makes, weird tactical choices, poor signings, but there is an obsession relating to how he acts. He is who he is, not the most animated of people but I think its totally unfair to question his attitude or his desire. He won't suddenly become animated, jumping around etc, that isn't his personality and doing that doesn't correlate necessarily with managerial competence or even passion. Biggest way to respect the fans is to win a football match.

Why is it unacceptable that owners with zero clue on football are interfering on transfer matters, preventing the actual football manager from having the autonomy to sell a player before his contract expires to bring 2 in? You think thats normal?

An abysmal first half, as bad as I can ever remember in a long while. The players werent competing and both they and the manager warranted the dissent and frustration that spilt over. The choice of playing Johnson as a false 9 against a team who play it out from the back literally couldnt have been more illogical. Credit to Mowbray at least for making a good double change at half time and not waiting until half way into the second half as he may often do. Proactivity led to an excellent opening to the second half which got us the win. Gallagher was crucial to our comeback, I still think that if he played as a central striker over a period of time, this narrative that he would bang in the goals is a false one and his numerous flaws and shortcomings would frustrate. In the second half, we had nothing to lose throwing everything at it against a team whose tactics played into one of his main strengths, his tireless running and he was excellent tonight. Would he score 15 goals in a full season there, not a chance for me. But he should certainly play there on Saturday. It was great to see Dack get a half and his cross was superb. Dolan in general was ineffective for much of the game summed up by again doing a million stepovers on an attack in the first half and falling over, but you cant fault his willingness and its all about goals for front men, and he popped up with a real poachers effort. Khadra was appalling throughout and didnt seem to be up for it, Giles massively improved us playing from the left and what a cross for Gallaghers great header. Wharton was man of the match, Van Hecke was also good again and Kaminski kept us in the game. Lenihan was poor, on the ball he was awful and I didnt think much of his shoving of Rankin Costello, as poor as he was himself. Pickering was under par too, one too many aimless punts down the line. Travis and Rothwell were often bypassed by a Derby side who regularly got behind us. I think a few on here are going too far out of their way to discredit Mowbray and are beyond the point of acknowledging positives and negatives equally, @Mercer and his body language expertise typical of this. At the end of the day, we won the game and its all about the results. We have had more chances than opponents in recent weeks and lost and still justifiably criticised. Yes he got things horribly wrong in the first half and he warrants stick for baffling initial tactics but he was proactive in fixing them. There is no need for micro analysis of his touchline antics or his interview to justify a seperate opinion.