I dont think Bennett was particularly good, I thought Gallagher was poor as were the other 10 Preston players and he was just easiest to sacrifice early to bring on another forward. Ultimately he lost all control of the midfield anyway and gave away yet another penalty. It doesnt make any sense if you was so full of praise for him last week to then suggest dropping him. Opinions aside, we know that the teachers pet will 100% start and it is just where that is in question. Downing is in my team but at left back, if we had a competent left back in the absence of Cunningham then I possibly would have put him in midfield ahead of Johnson, as it is, I feel like we need him at left back over calamity Bell. Armstrong is usually ineffective, Rothwell has been given 3 starts in the League, all away from home, all in isolation before immediately being dropped. Why he is given such limited chances after his performances last year is beyond me. Johnson has been poor since he joined, but its a much of a muchness in central midfield, thats the only reason I gave him another chance, not because of anything positive that he has done. Buckley has looked out of his depth IMO each time that he has featured for the first team. Chapman is a player that along with Rankin-Costello should be closer to the first team. Neither has been given a chance.

Walton is rubbish but Leutwiler is really bad too, as he showed last season.

Why have you dropped Bennett after you was full of praise for him after he hadin your words "marked Gallagher out of the game" last week? Id go Walton/Leutwiler Nyambe Adarabioyo Williams Downing Travis Johnson Holtby Dack Rothwell Gallagher Subs: Walton/Leutwiler, Bell, Chapman, Rankin Costello, Armstrong, Graham, Evans Unsure on some. 2 dreadful keepers tp choose who is the least terrible. Makes sense to play Gallagher again. Not keen on Johnson playing but did it to allow Holtby to play further forward. Tempted to include Chapman and play Holtby with Travis.

I dont understand why that matters? He is one of the 11 best young players we have who arent in the first team. Simple as that. All players are signed to play in the first team at some stage, Chapman wasnt initially either. Perhaps he was intended to sooner than say White but its irrelevant. Im not sure a man who feels like Bennett should be the first on the team sheet is necessarily always right but my main point was not that Chapman should be in the 18, although I think he should, it is that if he isnt in the 18 he is well entitled to play for the under 23s, seeing as hes a good prospect and only 21. Your logic for why he shouldnt is in my opinion very flawed. As an aside, Buckley shouldnt be in the 18 yet, he looks way off and Rankin Costello hasnt played a league minute yet.

Presumably it is because Harry Chapman is seen in terms of our younger players as closer to the first team? Youve basically admitted that hes too good for Under 23 football yourself. Mowbray stubbornly sticks to players like Armstrong which many disagree with, but it would be totally senseless if Mowbray wont consider him for the first team, something youve agreed with the manager on, then you ignore a player better than your other Under 23s, who is only 21 and allow him to fall through the cracks for no apparent reason. Sancho would be exactly the same if somehow he stopped being picked but as a top class player already that wouldnt happen. Mowbray was quite clear when Chapman signed that a first team spot was anything but imminent, so I totally disagree that he was signed as a senior player but its irrelevant. Is he picked for the first team? No. Is he only 21 years old? Yes. Is he good enough to play for our under 23s? Yes. So play him. But even so, I have no idea why that makes a difference. I see the fact that Chapman has impacted games for us at League 1 level as a teenager, and that Davenport had a successful loan spell at Burton in the Championship and has worked with Pep as positives. I dont see why they are negatives in your head.

Ultimately, whether someone rates Chapman of course is down to their opinion, but again today he seems to have tangibly impacted on a game with a goal and an assist. Hope he is not too hurt and fit enough to make the 18 on Saturday. Its the suggestion that he is just getting in the way of other similarly aged players when playing for the under 23s as a 21 year old that deserves ridicule.

Absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying, that the pair should very much continue with the Under 23s if and when they dont make the matchday 18, as they are young players just like Butterworth, Mols etc.

But both are not in the first team, but are young players just like any of the others you have mentioned who need developing. They havent started a game between them since they signed, theyve possibly accumulated 90 monutes of football between then. Chapman created 2 big chances against Oldham in a half hour cameo. If hes written off after that then Butterworth and more pertinently Buckley should be written off due to failure to impact games at senior level too. The award nomination proves that he is having an impact at that level, which is surely reason for optimism. Didnt Lewis Travis come from was it Liverpools academy? White has come from another team this summer and is 2 years older than Davenport, why dont you have a problem with that. Chapman and Davenport should continue to feature for the under 23s at their current age and their development shouldnt be totally halted for some strange logic that they signed as first teamers, which I am very skeptical of, in fact I think Mowbray was very clear when Chapman in particular signed that he wasnt coming into the first team.

But hes in the same age bracket, how can you talk about him likes a senior player when since he re signed for the club he has never started, he has made 2 sub appearances last year in dead rubbers and thats it. And when he did play in League 1 he impacted games and it was only injury that prevented him from continuing to do that, not an inability to take his (almost exclusively cameo) opportunities. Same with Davenport, he is only young, his progress has been halted by injuries like Chapman but he is 2 years younger than White and often plays in the same U23 team as him to suggest that ges blocking his development is ridicilious on both counts. Likewise Chapman often plays with Vale, Butterworth etc. The fact that Davenport and Chapman have had chances and impressed at senior level should not mean that they should be written off, indeed it should give us more hope as to the future, both careers have been halted by injuries but they both clearly have potential and are in the same age bracket as many of the others you mention so to suggest that they shouldnt be allowed to play for the U23s makes no sense at all. Chapman has tangibly and objectively impacted on under 23 games with goals, assists and award nominations whether you rate him subjectively or not.

I totally disagree with that. He has 3 major player injuries at the moment, the likes of Grayson, Hart and Samuel are certainly not that. Ultimately we have a huge weakness in defence still because he chose not to sign defenders, we all knew that going into a season with 3 centre backs and 1 right back would cost him, but no, he chose to blow his transfer money on a striker. I dont think we will get relegated, but there is much more than 20% of the fan base IMO that would like him out now.

I have no idea why Smallwood, Chapman and Davenport are in the same bracket. One is 28, the other 2 are 21 and 20. Smallwood is a senior player given the occasional game in the under 23s to keep his fitness levels, same as one or two others. That comes back to the U23s/Reserve team being ultimately a tool aimed with the first team always in sight, developing players to eventually play in the first team, or occasionally keeping fitness levels up, whilst winning their league would always be a healthy sign, it is not priority number one. Obviously, playing a few unfit and rusty first teamers will result in a patchy performance, same as if its done in the cups, but it suggests that Mowbray wants him fit in case he needs him, which is fair enough. But with Chapman and Davenport, why do you consider them to be bona fide first teamers, blocking the development of other young players even though they are the same or of similar age? This is the thing that I dont understand. Chapman has made 2 sub appearances in dead rubbers, and Davenport one, and neither have started any games since joining the club. Why are they solely first teamers in your mind, you are thinking of them as if they are senior players hindering much younger players development. At this moment in time, they are in exactly the same bracket as the players you mention. I dont get why Chapman is hindering Vale either, they both regularly play in the same Under 23 side, same as Butterworth. I am sure you once suggested (correct me if wrong and apologies if so) that we should always have one of our strikers in the Under 23 team, whether it be Brereton, Gallagher etc, whoever isnt involved because the Under 23s lack a striker? If so, you are sending mixed messages. And Vale, Mols and Butterworth are not necessarily still in the Under 23s because they havent been given a chance, its because perhaps they arent considered ready yet. Buckley was seen as a key performer at that level, I recall you suggesting he was the best technical player at the club, but everytime he has featured in the first team he has looked massively out of his depth.

I specifically stated Davenport and Chapman, 2 players who are between the ages of Butterworth/Rankin-Costello and White. Samuel is much more experienced and recovering from a long injury, and admittedly is crap. Hart id potentially play over the useless Bell but again I didnt mention him. So essentially you are writing them off. Chapman has started is it one league game in 2 years? Davenport maybe a dozen for Burton? None last year between them. One is 21, the other 20, and you are claiming that that should have been enough to cement first team roles if they were good enough. Their admittedly limited game time at senior level, in which both received positive reviews, and any expert tutiledge in Davenports case should be seen as positives, not suggestions that they should be written off.

Told you hes going nowhere sadly. Hes not going to fix our defensive woes or prioritise them, otherwise he would have done previously when he promised, theres no point getting your hopes up. Hes also not going to stop picking his favourite teachers pet Elliott Bennett so penalties will continue to be conceded. And our flimsy defence will be repeatedly ripped apart especially in every away game. And our crap keeper will continue to help our opponents. And the likes of Williams and Bell will continue to mess up. And we will continue to be spineless and characterless anytime there is a whiff of adversity. And our Chief Executive will continue to rip fans off for the privelidge. Otherwise, plenty to look forward to this season ?

I find it incredible that any Rovers or indeed football fan would defend such ridiciously high prices The only argument I have seen is that "they did it first" which indicates that a senior executive is allowing his own attempt at petty squabbling to be prioritised over fan affordability. The 1875 discount isnt relevant because the 15 quid discount to a new fan would be offset by the same membership fee charge. Just because the fans "knew" about the scandolous prices doesnt make it any better. I dont think you understand what defines a casual fan, someone who isnt arsed about attending, they wouldnt have planned attending this classic game months in advance. Say the weather is bad and some amateur games get called off, will them people say right lets go down and watch Rovers instead baring in mins them extortionate prices? No chance, especially with the surcharge penalising people for making a late decision. I genuinely think if tickets were 100 quid for a home game and it was moved to 4 in the morning you would still defend Waggott for it.

Why are they the most important?! On what basis? Davenport is a young highly rated player who has suffered badly from injuries but has previous experience of Championship football. You speak as if its a senior player like Smallwood blocking White's path when he plays for the U23s, when in fact Davenport is actually 2 years younger. Surely working with Pep is only a good thing? Again, why are you using Harry Chapmans senior experience against him? He is 21, Butterworth and Rankin-Costello are 20 but Chapmans exposure to mens football and proving in glimpses that he can impact games albeit at League 1 level surely is advantageous? I dont understand your attitude or mindset towards very young players who have what I would perceive to be an advantage in terms of senior football experience, which is what matters, and expert coaching. What would you do with them?

Doesnt membership cost 15 quid? Does nothing to encourage one off buying. Indefensibly high pricing.

Why are Chapman and Davenport considered to be senior players though? They have made I think 3 League appearances between them since signing, all as subs in games that didnt matter. If they are so far away from the first team they should play for the under 23s. The U23 is all about developing the young players, results and tables are secondary.

Didnt you say recently that the under 23s lacked fire power when they dont have a senior attacker, which makes sense with the goals Chapman and Samuel contributed. We have to remember the primary purpose of the Under 23s, to develop players for the first team. Chapman and Davenport are only young, it makes no sense to remove them from the under 23 picture if they arent making matchday 18s for the first team.

Very true. I had absolutely no confidence at half time that we would go on to win which is a sad state in itself. Part of it has to be a mentality thing. When we beat Hull earlier this season and ground out a successive 1 goal win I think some people got a little bit carried away as if we had turned a corner in this regard. That horribly flimsy and spineless nature to our game in particular away from home continues to haunt us. The manager continues to be unable to rectify this. Its very easy for Mowbray to pin point individual errors as he also did last year with Raya in particular but ultimately they will not be eliminated when the quality of our defensive players remains incredibly low. When we have poor players like Walton, Bennett, Bell and Williams amidst our defence then they will continue to make regular mistakes.

I still fail to see on what basis this team can be judged as a top 6 one. You are massively overstating the quality of the players. Of course the foibles of the squad are down the manager but as much as a new manager is needed, I see the current squad and dont see solutions in more than one area in terms of having a top 6 challenging quality team. Walton is horrendous, its generous to suggest he is bottom 6 quality. There is certainly no chance that the defence is anywhere near that quality, Cunningham excepted although hes a write off with injury. Lenihan is the best of the rest but injury prone and makes far too many errors and the rest again are nowhere near good enough, Bell, Williams, Nyambe and Adarabioyo, as well as jack of all trades master of none Bennett. You cant get top 6 with a defence and keeper like that. Midfield and up front, theres an imbalance there. Travis a good player, top 6? Not yet no. Dack I think youd have to say yeah, he is pushing top 6 quality with his numbers. Holtby might have that quality too, but obviously hes only started once and he wants to play where Dack is. Rothwell an enigma, should play more but (partially as a result of management) hes not proven yet as that quality week in week out at this level. Johnson, Downing and Graham all at one point perhaps but to varying degrees are subdued by age. And down at the younger side, at huge cost, Armstrong, Gallagher, Samuel, Brereton etc all certainly cant be considered top 6 players. I also think Alex Neil is a little more than decent, at this level hes up near the top.

But what is quite clear is that Bauer WOULD have been a huge upgrade on the crap we already had. Williams has been here for years and has had more than enough chances to prove that hes good enough and hes failed to do so. Shocking again yesterday. Adarabioyo is flimsy, weak, brittle, hes not a good enough defender. Bennett always seems to give away "soft pens." Hes a liability yet forever the first name on the team sheet. Hes nowhere near good enough. Preston as a team were awful first half. Waltons main weakness is goalkeeping sadly.

Didnt you say in the summer that we was right to move on from Bauer as he wasnt of the required quality to get into our starting 11? Views on Williams and Adarabioyo being not of the required quality as Championship defenders? Views on Bennett the liability continuing to give away penalties? Surely you would that Raya for all of his faults is better than the useless Walton?

Stop banging on about Cooper.

Possibly not but he certainly could influence the owners, and lets put it this way, hes hardly going to be currently trying to convince them to sack his chum. You also are implying that Venkys are logical, reasonable people. He wont be going anywhere. Dont get your hopes up.

I think he is incompetent for the work he has done off the field, as shown by a repeated failure to hit sales/attendance targets for example. He also is somewhat biased in his role, if he has any impact in potentially sacking Mowbray, because he is his friend from a previous job.