roversfan99

Hard not to take this rumour with a giant pinch of salt, most likely can be categorized as Nixon again talking shite. Typically, the rumour is very non committal saying with the article saying that "the move will be hard to make" allowing Nixon to cover all bases. It also says that "skipper Darragh Lenihan and fellow defender Ryan Nyambe are considering new offers" which suggests that Nixon has not got his finger on the pulse! I would be sceptical in general, he has a year to go on his deal so why would they loan him during that period to another Championship club? Would we be able to afford his wages and would he be interested? On the player, I would be somewhat split but he is a very talented player that could potentially add some flair and real talent to our team. Very inconsistent though, has struggled in the last couple of years and seemingly has baggage and questions over attitude, and Norwich fans are not very complimentary. The article also indicates further budget cuts, again I have no idea how Nixon could possibly know that we have £3m but I would say that if we spent that and recouped £20m for Brereton, it would be another frustrating summer of cutbacks showing a lack of ambition from the owners. It wouldn't surprise me to see such a deficit but lets see on that, I wouldn't take what Nixon says as gospel by any means.

Plenty of questions that could be asked both at Burnley, here at Rovers and at numerous clubs that have decided to change manager and/or personnel behind the scenes. None of which is relevant to my point about their current squad.

Obviously not but they have a transfer window to add to what they have. I wouldnt want Rankin Costello or Brown at right back here but again im sure that we will sign a new right back. My point was that even if Pope and Cornet are sold that there is plenty of quality at this level there unfortunately.

It is, but I am sure that he is also well aware that its best to build a team in a way that gets the best out of our best players. He has a full season to work on the tactical approach so it seems to be to be totally illogical to choose now to start with a 4-4-2 because it is supposedly easier. You could equally say that it would make sense to continue with the 5 at the back that we played for most of last season, or the 4-2-3-1 that we finished the season with. Either way, none are simple in that all will require instructions on various things.

Would you say that any of those assets aside from Cornet, Pope and Weghorst (who hasn't done too well anyway) will likely leave out of interest? I think a lot of those others fall into a category of being potentially excellent Championship players that I am not sure would attract the required interest to make a move back to the Premier League. McNeill and Collins are talented and young but both would require high fees and the former had a poor season whilst the latter impressed when he did play but at times struggled to get past Tarkowski and Mee when they were fit. I think the likes of Taylor, Brownhill and Roberts are all top Championship players but I don't see any of them being picked up by Premier League teams. Burnley unfortunately also seem to have a backbone of Championship experience in Hennessey, Lowton, Rodriguez, Vydra, Barnes and Westwood when fit as well as the others I mentioned so any kids that come in may freshen it up rather than add to an inexperienced team. I am not sure it is always a terrible idea simply looking at historical examples, look at Forest who got promoted with players like Djed Spence and James Garner on loan who were aged 20 at the start of the season as well as Keinan Davis and Max Lowe who are slightly older but the former in particular had not played many senior minutes. Or take the Swansea side with Wilmot, Guehi, Gallagher, Brewster etc from 3 seasons ago that made the play offs. Loans are never ideal and it is difficult to get the better ones with not much to go off when deciding who to target but teams seem to more and more often be able to succeed in spite of having a clutch of kids on loan. I do agree that under 23 football is not very useful and is a terrible barometer for preparing for senior football in general hence why I always think that performing well at that level is far from a guarantee that any player in question can cope at senior level. But senior football has also changed and the standard of the Championship is pretty poor so there are plenty of examples (including at Rovers) of loanees with minimal prior experience standing out at this level. Teams in general seem to have lower average ages and more experienced players who love a tackle seem to be coming rarer and rarer. Burnley as I mentioned above also have quite a few players with serious experience at Championship players so any loanees may be coming into a very good structure.

Why is 4-4-2 more simple than any other? And why would it be the expected choice considering that our best player would not fit into it?

I don't think that it is fair to criticise Waggott and praise Broughton for the managerial search as if anyone could possibly conclude that Waggott messed things up and Houghton came to save the day, the process seemed overly convoluted but had got to/past the final interview stage just as Broughton came in, who even said as such. It seems like we are basing it on Waggott's reputation to judge it as such just to be able to criticise him further. But undoubtedly Waggott needs to be removed for overseeing continuously appalling attempts at fan re-engagement.

Abuse him? Or just play him out of position sometimes. Definitely a genuine case whereby he was poorly used overall but nothing like a bit of hyperbole.

Incorrect. Or as you would describe it, "waffle."

Appleton like Lambert was a much better talker than a doer. Duff has already got a promotion on his CV.

Hes shit. Really disliked his spell here and was delighted when he was sacked so soon. Michael Duff did a very good job at Cheltenham so unsure why your mate thinks that.

Well of course, but ultimately those players appreciated in value through scoring plenty of goals for us.

The Championship table suggests that Boro did slightly better than us.

But he has never been captain or even vice captain, if that has even been decided and communicated in one meeting.

I think this video has been analysed a little too much! Maybe Dack had just chatted to Tomasson before that snippet was filmed.

Fair enough, yeah I understand what you mean. I also don't see Gallagher ever proving to be a success, he isn't a total failure like many big money strikers in the past and he does tend to get close to double figures every season but even if we take him as a failure, the outlay of £15m on those 3 has overall proved to be a very good investment that will likely cause us to double our money.

I don't really understand this constant gripe that people have with using the loan market, factoring in the very limited resources that our managers operate under. Don't get me wrong, it isn't ideal and I (and indeed any manager) would prefer permanent players if given the resources. But you give examples of successful loans here, criticising them after they made us a better team whilst they were here. If we had adopted the attitude that we didn't want Elliott, Adarabioyo, Van Hecke etc because we want to just play our own players based on this principle that we may aswell finish mid table with our own players, then we are essentially forgoing any ambition and intention to challenge before we kick a ball. We also do more than most blood so many youngsters on a regular basis, and they get game time if they are good enough, take Buckley, we loaned Clarkson but he couldn't get a kick, dampening the myth that loan players get preferential treatment. You mention our play off chances but if anything you could argue that the one thing we were missing was experience. Wharton is the perfect example of a player who did progress being loaned out to a lower division whilst we had a considerable improvement for that season at the same time, his progression wasn't stunted, same with Carter and Van Hecke. Many clubs have been quite reliant on loans that have had success at the top end of this league, getting players of a standard that they couldn't otherwise afford. Forest have just gone up with Spence, Lowe, Davis, Zinkernagel and Garner all on loan. Norwich got promoted the other year with Skipp playing a key part, Swansea made the play offs twice in two seasons with lots of loans, there are so mnay examples. It isn't ideal but this idea that we may aswell just use our own players goes hand in hand with not trying to challenge and improve the team.

I find the idea that Venkys didn't trust Mowbray in the transfer market so just didn't back him yet kept him in general to be an illogical way of thinking even for Venkys, it seems like a big logic leap to me. His record in the transfer market wasn't bad, we are about to generate a second major profit on one of his signings. Bradley Johnson certainly wasn't "awful" by any means, inconsistent perhaps but had plenty of good games. But either way, even if he was deemed to be a poor signing which I would consider harsh, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't look for experience.

Appleton is a terrible appointment by Blackpool. A very poor manager and a season of struggle may unfold off the back of such a managerial downgrade.

Warburton is bang average but an upgrade on Bowyer.

The excitement is palpable in that we 100% needed a new figure and a change of direction. That being said, in his first couple of years, many were eating out of Mowbray's hand, how honest and passionate he came across, when he was behind the pictures around the training ground, the soldiers and artists rhetoric, the open meeting and his growing up on the terraces at Boro narrative. It is good though to see a change of face and it adds some excitement ahead of the new season.

If all goes well which fingers crossed will happen here. Although its coming to a joint decision that can provoke that conflict.

There are pros and cons to each system I suppose. A traditional manager has less time to focus on coaching with all the other things that fall under his remit but the lack of that second figurehead removes that potential conflict. Ultimately, success or failure can be achieved via both methods. To refuse to acknowledge that down the line that there can be conflict as chaddy did armed with the usual standard quotes post appointment seems very naive to me. My comments were very generalised and I certainly can not sit here and say now that there will (or wont be) conflict at Rovers between the 2, but that risk exists. Did I read that there were rumours that the director of football had a bad relationship with the last manager that worked under him?

Ah yes, your standard argument, "stop being negative." I never said it will happen here, I can't make that clear enough.

You clearly didnt understand my point. I was saying in general and not specific to Rovers, that this type of structure creates a risk of players being put upon the manager that he doesnt particularly want. Just because that agreement is in place now doesnt mean that there isnt potential for it to cause conflict down the line, I am sure that everytime a director of football is appointed that he and the manager discuss how the arrangement will work but that doesnt always get maintained. There still is a chance whether its in this window or perhaps down the line that they will disagree on players and even that a player will be given to Tomasson without prior consultation. Im not saying that it will happen by any means, my point was that this structure carries this particular risk, irrespective of initial meetings. That point still stands.