Apologies, that wasnt aimed at you. I personally think the pair of them are very good, Mulgrew in my opinion is underated.

I hate comments like this because if we are just blindly trusting his judgement without being able to cast opinion beforehand, whats the point of a messageboard? It implies that people have no trust in faith in Mowbray at all, which is totally unfair. The vast majority if not everyone does. People are having hypothetical conversations about a potential signing, the kind of deal he may join on, the fee and whether its a wise investment or if alternatives should be considered, and the role he will play if he signs, both positionally and in terms of game time. And what he would add, and what he wouldnt add. Feels like theres been more meaningless platitudes thrown at people this summer than ever, such as "trust his judgement" "have faith" and "stop being negative" and all it does is shuts down any healthy debate. Football is about opinions, not every thing will be a positive, and people shouldnt be castigated with worthless cliches just for raising what they consider to be constructive points.

The problem was on Saturday, in that first half when we were all over the shop, they were our 2 worst players, and didnt do their job.

I felt like the reason we were so poor in the first half v Millwall was not the number of defensively minded players, but more so the individual performances of those players. The horrendous ball retention of Evans and Smallwood in particular, as well as the lack of protection they provided was the reason that we were under pressure. I believe we can play without a defensive winger in games, and still not play with wreckless abandon.

I don't think theres any chance of Smallwood leaving. My suggestion on the soldiers and artists front, is that it surely should be rare that we include 3 soldiers (Smallwood, Evans and Bennett) in the same team.

Surely the pressure of a fee northwards of 6m would be more pressure still.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/august/the-experiment-worked/ “I’ve played Adam off the left wing before. I play with two and a half attackers, really. Adam is one, Danny [Graham] is one, and Bradley [Dack] is the half," Tony revealed to iFollow Rovers. "I’d then have a [Elliott] Bennett or a [Craig] Conway on the other side, running up and down. Like I say, football is about balance." Mowbray made these comments on the website. Whilst I appreciate the need for balance, I hope these comments dont have the lack of flexibility implied, and that they are more examples of how we have lined up in the past rather than a fixed blueprint for his team. I think most would agree that we dont need to be playing a "defensive winger" as Mowbray calls them every week, ie Bennett or Conway. We've added players like Palmer and Rothwell and are in the market for a couple more, sometimes they should be fighting over 4 places, rather than 3. The next 2 games are winnable, I'd like to see the shackles slightly let off, as much as I appreciate that Bennett may be needed for tougher games away from home when we are going to be playing one of the top teams.

Find it baffling that people overlook Mulgrews defensive capabilities. To suggest that hes only guaranteed a start due to his set pieces is crazy talk, without even considering who the replacement could be. As much as I rate Lenihan, im not sure how hes become considered as the superior of the 2, doing "most of the good work." Both are very capable Championship centre backs but id suggest that Lenihan makes at least if not more mistakes than Mulgrew. Maybe its because hes more of an orthodox defender and the additional aspects of Mulgrews game, ability on the ball, set pieces etc gloss over his defensive quality. Hes the second name on the team sheet for me.

One of my main concerns is in terms of the actual role that he plays. His main attributes are his pace and his ability to run in behind. He has also played from a wide position. Very similar attributes to Armstrong. Last season he gave Arsenal a torrid time running in behind. But im not convinced its within his armoury to play effectively with his back to goal. We cant really just have Graham who cannot usually last full games as an option to hold the ball up. If it was a permanent deal the signing would be one greeted with cautious optimism as he would definitely add to our attack but it is a lot of money for a player who might not start every week.

When a few players have signed since the main window closed (Norwood, Power, Boltons new keeper are 3 examples) it specifically stated on the respective twitters that they were loan deals that will become permanent in Jan so I imagine if and when we sign players it will state. Agreed though, a simple loan would make no sense.

That for me is one that if its with an obligation to buy, so its in essence a permanent signing, id be excited. If it was just a loan id be very dissappointed.

Does he?

Very, just hope Mulgrew, Lenihan and Dack all avoid injury. Wouldn't have risked Mulgrew and Dack. Hope Rothwell has a strong performance in central midfield, we could do with a natural in there who can be slightly more attacking.

I don't really understand what any of that actually means in reality. A draw against Hull, and also mere survival, are both outcomes that may be accepted should they happen, but they are also minimum targets, we shouldnt aim for them. And im also not sure why you are basing your aims and objectives on the bookies expectations for.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16416126.joe-rothwell-starting-to-acclimatise-to-rovers-boss-demands/ Rothwell touches on that his natural position is actually as a number 8, coming from deep. I like the look of your team @Ewood Ace because it has attacking threats from a few different places. 2 potential issues are the fact that it leaves nothing on the bench (something we can rectify in the window) and also I cant see Bennett being dropped. Maybe more likely to see that team next Wednesday at home to Reading?

Yeah, I'd take Chris Martin here. Preferably not just on loan. He's going to be out of favour with Waghorn, Marriott, Nugent etc all ahead of him, hes got a proven track record and hes not even 30 yet.

Ah, the use of the word negative as a common attempt to get people to agree with your argument when it lacks any substance or constructiveness to it. What exactly are people being negative about? The potential of signing someone we havent even recently been linked with? How is that negative. Another year wiser? Not so sure based on how he did last season. "We take what we can" even though what we are supposed to be taken hasnt signed nor have there been any strong suggestions that we will.

As I explained, the terrible manager excuse doesnt hold much weight. Gallagher played many games in a 4-4-2 with Graham. Coyle for all his faults wasnt a manager for whom attacking players would struggle under, the only problem was absolutely everything else. Hence the constant 3-2 defeats. We dont play that formation, nor should we with the number of 10s we have now, most notably our best player. His role would have to be totally different if he was to rerurn. He had a target man in Graham last time. This time he would have to be the target man with a small number 10 ie Dack off him. He doesnt have the skillset as the lone striker in our formation.

Agreed on that. I suspect that Palmer will have the greater impact on the season overall, and I look forward to seeing him more, I just dont remember anything he tried coming off on Saturday whereas for me, Rothwell looked more dangerous. I feel like Palmer maybe wasnt helped by mainly being played on the right on Saturday, hes a number 10 so if he is to be played wide, playing him on the left will allow him to come inside and link with Dack, especially with Bell on the overlap. Being on the right makes him more likely to go on the outside being right footed which is not his game.

I agree that he is right, my point was regarding the phrase "Maybe we are a bit overly critical." I dont think we are/were, in that everyone who went agreed that we played well in the second half, as Harris said. I also think in the main people think we can do well.

Personally not at all averse to flair players, had many a debate with chaddy about how Bennett for example being defensively capable is not enough for him to get a place in our attacking 4, in my opinion. I just feel that Armstrong has to come in with his pace, Graham and Dack are obvious, so that leaves one of Rothwell and Palmer, 2 similar flair players and Palmers end product was very poor, and I felt Rothwell did more than him and deserves a start over him, of course dependant on tomorrow night.

I disagree, the consensus is that we played well and had them pinned in for 25-30 minutes in the second half. I also think very, very few if anyone thinks we will go down, the general theme I get is that people want a couple of signings to have us looking up the table. Think that all ties in to what Harris said.

Set himself another deadline so lets hope all goes to plan this time.

Obviously agree with you on the window and how ones before have been far worse. For me the Coyle one and the summer in embargo when we signed Delfounso and Koita and sold Cairney and Gestede being low points. But surely last summers window was one of success in that it set us up to finish 2nd. We signed our best player Dack, signed Smallwood, yes the rest of the signings were at best mixed but we kept our best players and let loads of rubbish leave, having an overdue clearout. You mention Mahoney but was he a loss, really? Never suggested to me hed do much based on his cameos here.

My point was that you said that most teams dont play with natural wingers. I have just researched for you and given you a list proving that the vast majority of teams in the league have at least one natural winger. We would benefit hugely from having the option of at least 1 natural, out and out winger. Again on your Ripley and Wilcox point, Chapman and many of the wingers listed are more reliant on pace and getting to the byline, rather than crossing from deep, which suits us because we dont play 2 up front so we need to be more inventive in getting the supply right for our striker. Crosses from deep will usually suit 2 big centre backs as we saw. The discussion was initially about how you said wingers need to be aware of their defensive duties, something I am not convinced Chapman for example he has shown he wont try to do, and obviously would learn further with games. It was a line used last year in my opinion to cover Mowbray at a time when he was over cautious early in the season. I also stated that whilst Bennett is very good defensively, hes not offering anything going forward, something we differ on our standards of. I didnt dismiss McKay, I agreed that I would have had him here.