I dont think he gets into goalscoring positions often enough which is not a great sign. He needs to add goals to keep his place IMO.

He does need to start offering a goal threat soon though. 7 starts and 1 sub appearance in the league and no goals, and thats the main thing we are lacking at the moment.

How is that relevant? You pointed to todays game as proof of your argument, ie needing 3 systems, when we won using the formation we have used for the last couple of years. How we might have played if other players had been available is irrelevant! (albeit one central defensive injury meant that we couldnt play 3 CBs, proving one of my main pitfalls of that formation) If we had played with 3 at the back or with "split strikers" then we dont know how we would have even got on. Do you not attach any importance to consistency then, to understanding your roles, developing partnerships and familiarity? Do you not realise that all of these qualities were ones belonging to recently promoted sides? And would you not agree that you can be adaptable and flexible within the parameters of a consistent formation? I gave examples of personnel changes that will allow different tactical approaches. Do you not think it is an incredibly big ask of the players to master 3 formations all at the same time?

How does today prove your point? We won playing the formation we have played today for a couple of years. You also mention Millwall but we kept 2 clean sheets against them last season playing 4231 didnt we? Like I said, consistency is seemingly underrated in your world but its so important. Players need to know their roles, something that was certainly true of all 3 teams last season. You can adjust tactics based on personnel within the parameters of an existing formation. For example, weve got a striker in Graham who we can play off, maybe more so at home, whereas away we have faster strikers to counter attack. You can do either of them things within a 4231. (Or whatever formation we choose to use) Alternatively, we may feel like we can play a Holtby or a Downing in a midfield 2 in a home game that we see as fairly winnable, ie next week, whereas away from home it may be wiser to include them in the 3 in front and have Johnson and Travis screening the midfield. All I am saying is I think we should make sure we master one formation first rather than trying to master 3 at once. And that one main formation does not mean you cannot amend your team and tactical approach dependant on the game,

Well done Armstrong.

Dont understand why he plays them 2 wide men on the wrong side.

I personally think it does suit us in terms of it allows us to name 5 of our midfielders, an area which id say is our strongest now. Last season it was done conservatively, plodders like Evans, Smallwood and Bennett involved, ultimately we knew we couldnt dominate that area and had to bypass it. Now weve got Holtby, Johnson and Downing added to the equation, Travis and Rothwell hopefully playing regularly, Dack obviously in his favoured position, then beneath that, Armstrong, Chapman, Evans etc to add depth. Plenty of scope for technical midfielders dominating the ball. I dont think for 3 at the back, we have the defensive depth especially at CB (would need to change if any of them got injured), but what I think we would agree on is whatever system he wants to play, give it a chance rather than constantly changing it!

I wouldnt even say thats limited to clubs with limited resources. By far the top 2 clubs in the country also play the same way every week. 433, everyone knows their role. Even when City get a couple of injuries, Fernandinho slipped back into CB in midweek effortlessly. You look at Liverpool, theyve got Henderson, Milner and Fabinho for tougher games, and the likes of Chamberlain and Wijnaldum for games they expect to dominate.

But from the sounds of it, Mowbray isnt repeatedly changing his formation to try and stumble across the winning formula, more to make us of his different options. Even if he was trying to find that winning system, it will always be more problematic expecting players to keep trying different formations from game to game and even within games. I dont doubt that the options available to the manager especially in midfield are far better than they have been in the past. But theres always a risk that comes with too much of underestimating the need for consistency and familiarity.

@chaddyrovers you keep saying that these formations wont be successful if I dont give them time without realising the irony of you suggesting that we continiously rotate our formation from game to game, which is certainly not allowing any formation time to settle. As I say, the key is consistency in terms of giving the players a system whereby they know their roles. Mowbray has come up with the infamous comments in the past about Oldhams attacking right back and Burys attacking left back, and whilst I appreciate that you have to study your opponent you cant fear them too much that you take something away from your own game. @Tyrone Shoelaces youve given another example of a team whose consistency in system pays dividends. Everyone knows what they are doing. It doesnt mean you dont have scope to adjust and adapt to different opponents either. If you want to dominate you could play Holtby and Travis together, Rothwell and Downing wide, a very technical midfield. Johnson would be more suited to a bit more of a physical opponent etc. I dont think weve mastered any formation therefore it seems bizarrely unrealistic to try and perfect 3 different ways of playing at once. 4231 we have played consistently but thats not been with the likes of Holtby, Downing, Johnson, even Rothwell playing on a regular basis, who would move us away from the direct way we have historically played in a 4231. I dont think 3 at the back is our best bet personally for a couple of reasons but if we are to play it we should give it a proper chance rather than playing it for bits of games occasionally. And the split striker Dack false 9 system I am yet to be convinced is anything but awful.

Has to be the type of game we go into tomorrow strongly looking for a win.

We need to master one first. Consistency is key. How does it show how flexible we are when we havent had any success in any other formation? The 3 promoted teams played basically the same formation every week, Villa following the appointment of Smith.

These comments somewhat worry me. Whilst I would agree that we of course have some decent competition, in particular in midfield, I think continuity and consistency is crucial. I realise that its a slog playing 46 games but we need players to know what they are doing, to develop a style and to develop partnerships.

Mowbray said in the LT today that we also looked at re signing Lucas Joao. Our striking search seems to have lacked a little imagination this summer, were Marvin Emnes, Anthony Stokes and Fode Koita also considered?! Still feel like a prolific striker could have been the key, Gallagher is both the most underwhelming signing IMO that we made this summer and also the only one that cost a transfer fee. The other 6 look in the main to have very much improved us. Still think Graham is out on his own as our best striker, regardless of age.

That Bolton example is one of a club doing all it can to increase attendances at a point of high potential interest. Contrast that to Waggott bumping up season ticket prices when fans are more likely to engage following our promotion.

For a start, you presumably bought an individual ticket at Chorley, obviously a season ticket comes with an economy of scale in buying 23 tickets in bulk. That said, they are very high prices for that standard at Chorley. My main issue that I highlighted was suggesting that our match tickets are "dirt cheap." I dont believe they are. 22-29 + 3 surcharge (depends on circumstance whether its "avoidable") you can argue whether its value for money, compare it to other teams etc but I think "dirt cheap" is a very difficult description to justify I said before about season tickets that my issue is not that we must reduce the prices. Its that the club cannot do anything to increase attendances, which is wrong. It always can. If they reduced prices, numbers would go up, whether overall turnover would go up or down, in terms of increased numbers v decreased prices, we can only speculate. They froze season tickets this season but increased them last season after the momentum of promotion which was a big mistake IMO at a point of potential increase, Waggott thought short term. Our season ticket prices used to be famously low compared to league rivals, nowadays they are much more in line. So the last sentence you put implying that they are already really low is not particularly accurate. We seem to have missed sales targets two years running if im not mistaken so something seems amiss.

Is there goals in that team as I am not seeing them.

Walton Bennett Lenihan Williams Cunningham Travis Johnson Rothwell Dack Downing Graham Subs: Leutwiler, Chapman, Armstrong, Gallagher, Evans, Nyambe, Adarabioyo Gone for Bennett because although I think Nyambe is a better right back, he was good last week and deserves to keep his place. Ideally would have had Rothwell left and Downing alongside Travis, but ultimately Armstrong deserves to be dropped. Was tempted to suggest Chapman right, Rothwell left.

@JoeHarvey so you consider £22-29 for a ticket at home to Luton, upped to £25-32 if you can only decide on matchday whether to go, as "dirt cheap?" Season tickets are no longer at bargain prices either, so they could do more to get more bums on seats, but ultimately it seems Waggott and co seem more focused on milking the existing fan base. Presumably he sees there being more to gain by doing that.

Who? Very vague.

My point all along is that people are implying that every single person who considers themself a supporter of the club, whether it be diehard season ticket holders or casual fans, have some sort of obligation to attend, and need to make "excuses" up if they cant. It makes absolutely no sense. I have a season ticket, I prioritise attending, but I at least have the empathy to realise that others dont see at as much of a priority. I am not saying that I know how to get attendances up, its just this bizarre attitude of blaming people for not having the same level of committment. Its a strange and an ultimately not at all constructive mindset to adopt. If people feel bitter that other fans who quite obviously dont see the club as important as they do arent attending as much as them, then to be honest I think you need a word with yourself. The main thing that the club controls in terms of off the field is price. I am not even necessarily saying that they should reduce the prices. But its a lot of money to spend for someone who doesnt consider it one of their top priorities. No one can say with any certainty whether a drop in price would cause a rise in numbers enough to still get that same level of turnover overall, whilst having more bums on seats. We dont know how variable the prices are. Likewise, walk on tickets are IMO expensive and add the surcharge and its a dear do to decide on the day "I fancy going to the match today." Of course promotion, higher quality football etc would increase attendances but it would at any club. Feeling bitter or annoyed about that fact is a waste of energy.

Thats the same though for some fans at every club. Having an attitude of suggesting he is in the wrong for it achieves nothing. Accepting some fans dont feel obliged and thinking what ways the club can do to get people back is a more constructive response. Attending matches is not an obligation.

Im saying we cant do it half arsed, every now and again. Mowbray gave it 60 minutes and changed it. Its a formation that requires consistency and regularity. I wouldnt use that formation but if we do it should be every week.

Ultimately if you want to play it out from the back in a back 3, you have to take chances at times. Walton on numerous occasions chose under little pressure to kick the ball long. Lenihan from the kick off again played it long. You say give it a chance but my main point is that we need to be more consistent with our formations. The irony is that it is Mowbray that is not giving the formation a chance by repeatedly changing it. He gave it 45 minutes, altered the formation, then another 15 minutes and abandonded the formation totally. I have my reservations about a back 3 with our personnel and have explained why. But my main issue is not with playing a certain formation, it is with repeated changing of formations leading to a lack of understanding and an inability for players to understand their roles and get used to playing in them within the system in question because it is forever changing. Playing 3 at the back is perhaps a more complicated system than most. Sheffield United are a good example because they play it week in week out and they all know exactly what their roles are. It has different demands on players, especially the outside centre backs and the wing backs. It would also require a bit of time figuring out the best way to use the attackers in front as Saturdays effort didnt work in that sense.

Do you genuinely know any fans who arent attending because we still have Smallwood, even though hes not played a minute in the League? I find that hard to believe. My point is that you are viewing attending as a responsibility of everyone. There is absolutely no use viewing it like that. All the hard core are already attending. If the club takes an attitude similar to you as if it is solely the responsibility of people who clearly arent that bothered about attending, as if their own choices, mainly cost but also other more minor issues dont matter, then ultimately the club will continue to miss targets. In my opinion, such a stance just totally lacks empathy and acceptance that many potential supporters/customers are not as committed/interested/desperate to attend. Theres no use expecting them to. The clubs mindset should be 100% how can we get more supporters. If closing stands drives fans away, dont berate them for it, dont close the stands. If fans arent willing or able to pay the prices, and I include surcharges in that bracket, then reduce them, or accept that attendances wont go up. In fact, to tell people to "get over the issue" and then reference price is an incredibly ignorant thing to suggest.