Im not that hopeful but I agree that it would be a big boost. But you implied on the other thread that wingers are a thing of the past ?

I agree that Bennett has a role but yesterday it was too defensive considering the game. Point being you have to offer SOMETHING attacking. Thats my point. You said they have to offer something both attacking and defensive. At the moment, from wide, Bennett only offers defensive capabilities. Its a myth that wingers dont exist. To prove it, beyond reproach, here are a list of proper wingers that played in the Championship yesterday, many of whom play on their strong side as very direct wingers: Albert Adomah, Andre Green, Callum McManaman, Jed Wallace, Craig Noone, Will Buckley, Callum O'Dowda, Niclas Eliasson, Lewis Wing, Jacques Maghoma, Harvey Barnes, Matty Phillips, Gil Dias, Mo Barrow, Jon Taylor, Gwoin Edwards, Grant Ward, Jarrod Bowen, Adam Reach, James McLean, Tom Ince, Sergi Canos, Barry McKay, Bersant Celina, Tom Barkhuizen, Callum Robinson, Harry Wilson, Florian Jozefzoon, Ezgjan Alioski. Please stop peddling the myth that wingers are extinct from the game. Playing players like Palmer wide will actually potentialy give less protection to the full back than actual wingers. Chapman for example never left his full back isolated leading to a goal as far as im aware, I felt Mowbray was too cautious with him.

If any of us had said the quotes he said, or shown the frustration he showed, you would be calling us negative, tell us to have the faith, or at a push, saying we may as well forfeit the season.

I'm very much of the mindset that I wouldnt praise Venkys for wanting to spend, or planning to, or trying to but unable to before the deadline etc. I will happily do so if and when a deal goes through. If that is genuinely the case, then there is no reason why we cant spend it now, on loans with an obligation to buy, basically permanent deals, in which case the window is still open. I dont think its undue paranoia to pick up on the phrasing of Mowbray's interview yesterday, as if hes in some sort of doubt as to whether the money will still be available when he wants to spend it next, and also in terms of whether the deals we do look to conclude in the rest of the month are more stop-gap loans rather than ones that lead to permanent deals. We will see. He also said that Armstrong was well down our list and we signed him a couple of days later so hes clearly not opposed to telling a white lie to bluff us! I take on board that the market is a bit stupid but it is for everyone, you cant hide behind that and not sign players at all, and with the improvements in scouting I've heard on, surely we can find some players or it was pointless improving that side of the club. In terms of teams being more unwilling to sell, as you touch on @briansol many Prem clubs will have been of the mindset of theyd rather have more than enough than less than enough at window end, knowing that teams lower down the chain can then sign their unwanted surplus in the extended loan window. Look at players like Gallagher (who I dont want) as a perfect example, Southampton signed Ings last minute, they already have Gabbiadini, Long and Austin, and will have been relaxed knowing that the only teams that would want Gallagher would have been in the football league, therefore a deal wasnt urgent prior to Thursday, and that only once they know they dont need him to fill the squad will they allow him to leave. Teams in the football league are in the same position as us, therefore they CAN sign replacements if their players leave. So that cant be used as an excuse. That said, 3 of the most common names on here are Brereton, Chapman and Maddison, and if im not mistaken all 3 have all not played a minute so far this season. Chapman has been in the squads along with Taverneir and Wing who Pulis clearly rates higher than Chapman, as he has started 2 of 3 I believe. Boro had a couple of deals fall through before the window and I think Pulis has said he is still in the market, they have even been linked with Bolasie to replace Traore, therefore he may become available. Maddison, his chairman has said they will consider loan to buys, and Brereton is 4th choice at his club and has been left behind a bit due to the money theyve spent. I'm not saying definitely sign one of those 3, more showing that players availability wont have massively decrease, logically speaking. One thing I will say, is that im not opposed to 1 or 2 loans, like Palmer, who clearly dont have a chance of being made permanent, but are of a calibre that will greatly improve our options. We just dont want a squad full of stop gaps, as Mowbray has previously touched on. I'd be disappointed if we didnt get one or two loans with obligation to buys for players that will greatly improve us, considering weve been told that the money is there, and knowing that the window is basically still open.

Norwoods a very good signing for Sheffield United, and one we should have gone for in my opinion. @Stuart is right in there being no excuses, in that theres no point waiting until the end of the month and risk a case of de ja vu.

Agreed, my point was in regards to the over-caution of picking players in the most attacking 4 positions, specifically wide, that are defensively strong and leaving you with no attacking threat as a result. In my opinion, from the admittedly limited spells that hes played up front and wide, Armstrong was and is far more effective wide. His ability to penetrate from deep and run past the striker with his speed is what made him so effective. That brings us back to the importance of having a target man that is capable with his back to goal, like Graham, who works perfectly in tandem with him as Armstrong runs in the space Graham leaves. And why Gallagher would not be the correct type of striker to bring in as he would be too similar to Armstrong. I agree that Palmer and Rothwell are more likely to find a home in our team wide, especially with Dack. I just dont believe for one second that Palmer and Rothwell, neither of whom are defensively minded players, are noticeably more defensively responsible than Chapman, who would at least be less guilty of roaming into central positions.

Mowbray said yesterday after the game that Rothwell has been having to understand what it requires off the ball, so im not sure thats true at the moment with him. I'm also not convinced that Chapman is a lot more defensively unwilling compared to Armstrong, so I did feel that at times it was unnecessary caution. I dont recall any goals conceded that Chapman cost us due to defensive negligence, so I felt it was an unfair tag that he got. He was a victim of his own success as a sub perhaps. You can iron out defensive problems as you go. A wide man has to offer at least something of an attacking threat, or you may as well stick a full back there.

I agree with chaddys team but it highlights the issue of perhaps the imbalance of our squad following the window, neither are natural wingers.

There is labelling on both sides. Some seem to like being in their ivory tower labelling the folk in the Darwen End as a bunch of pathetic teenagers only interesting in baiting the away supporters from behind the safety of a line of police and stewards. A stereotyped often used to justify the move of home fans from the Darwen End without consultation. As someone who used to be in the Darwen End and did none of that, just like the majority of others, I found that labelling just as bad as the needless use of the word spectators seems to have irked a couple on here.

Mulgrew is a centre back, yes he takes set pieces but is better at trying to score himself from them. Rest of your Bennett comments, in terms of filling in different roles dependant on the opponent, I agree with. But hes a defensive player at the moment that needs to do more attacking, obviously you have much lower standards of what you expect from him going forward which is fair enough. Presumably Palmer came off because firstly hes not fully match fit yet, and nothing he tried really came off for all of his obvious talent and he started leaving his position. Dack went off to be replaced by Conway in a defensive move that didnt work. Also, regarding our difference in opinion in terms of our first half performance, with you thinking we were good after 10 minutes and I thought we were awful all half, Mowbray said the following: "Fair play to Millwall. They have a way of playing and they make life really difficult for you," Mowbray reflected after the game. "The game didn't have much fluency to it and the first 45 minutes was a real none-event for us to be completely honest. "They hit the post twice and we could have found ourselves behind. We couldn't get out of our half in the first half." I fully agree with Mowbray who also seems unimpressed with us in the first half, and Graham mentioned he had words at half time. Glad you didnt do the team talk as youd have been telling them well played!

Leutwiler Travis Lenihan Downing Williams Davenport/Smallwood Whittingham Conway Palmer Rothwell Armstrong Subs: Raya, Nyambe, Bell, Smallwood/Evans, Samuel, Nuttall, Tomlinson Give Mulgrew, Dack, Bennett and Graham the night off. Give Armstrong an hour for fitness, and Palmer and Rothwell also could do with the minutes. For me, Palmer, Rothwell and Whittingham are the 3 there, Davenport if fit too, who could make themselves a starter for the weekend with a good performance.

No I know that but having equal assists as Derrick Williams is nothing to shout home about! I am acknowledging what he brings to the team, whilst suggesting that his qualities are in the main, defensive ones. Repeating his defensive strengths and reiterating his modest total of assists have done nothing to convince me otherwise, and in your team v Hull you've moved Bennett back into the middle to allow for Armstrong, which is inconsistent of your comment saying that Bennett should play wide over Armstrong to cover the full back. If that was the case chaddy, why did Mowbray play Armstrong wide for half of last season, and Palmer there yesterday? Obviously has some trust in them going back.

Back in the Blackburn End reluctantly yesterday. still no clearer why I had to move from the Darwen End yesterday. Dont understand why we didnt shove their fans in the top tier, further from the pitch as other teams do, that said Waggott would never do anything to inconvenience the away fans. Crowd wasnt particularly big, read a couple of comments by people who werent there suggesting it was a poor crowd which im never a fan of, but wasnt surprised because of the price hike putting off people who may have otherwise come back.

Wickham is a better player than Gallagher and far more suited to the sort of player we are looking for, in terms of his hold up play. However, a no solely because of his injury record, and the fact that due to his wages it would only be a short term deal with no realistic potential of extending it. Nixon has already linked him to 2 teams on loan, so its anyones guess where he will end up, look at Nmecha.

From the last year, it was a perfect example of an Elliott Bennett performance. Everything you expect from him, chasing back, flying into tackles, tenacious, hard working, lots of running, getting the crowd onside. But on the flip side, he is playing as a winger. He offered nothing from an attacking perspective. He had one wayward long range shot and his crossing was really poor and just what their 2 centre backs wanted. As much as he warrants praise for the former, he needs questioning on the latter. Last season his positive attacking contributions were pitifully low, hence not scoring until Wimbledon away. And that was in League 1. He definitely can score goals as he proved in the second half of the season when we last were a Championship club. He also needs to be a bit more imaginative, aimless crosses to 6 foot odd centre backs are easy to defend. We've never had the pacy Elliott Bennett of his Norwich days before his serious injury. There will be tough away games where Mowbray will be keen to play him wide just to nullify offensive threats of the opponent. But in most games, especially home, I would like to think that if he doesnt improve offensively, with some of the attacking players we have already and also the couple we will presumably bring in, Bennett will not be an automatic pick wide, even if that means playing him in centre midfield where there is less onus on him scoring/assisting, and with big question marks over Smallwood and his ability to step up.

Correct, and something Mowbray touched on afterwards by saying that until you get that first win you face the same questions. I think if we win at Hull its a good start, otherwise its the start of a catch up situation, one we have had in the last 2 seasons.

Not really an answer. Did you think he did enough in an attacking sense last season? The reason for the roaming is he isnt a winger. His end product was poor so he seemingly wandered to get more involved. Hopefully he will improve. And its an away point for them, its down to the home team to break them down, and we failed on that sadly by failing to get a winner. We offered no attacking threat during the first 44 minutes, our passing was appalling and we couldnt keep the ball. Second half, different team. Must be easily impressed. Awful first half, much better second is for me a more balanced review. No, not really. I was encouraged by his cameo, looked to impress, but it was only 25 minutes. Especially if we sign players, im unsure how much game time he will get. That said, I think he probably did more good in his 25 than Palmer did in 65, therefore I'd start him next week on the left, with Armstrong on the right. Bennett would play alongside Evans, with Smallwood also dropped.

Firstly, you are a better man than me if you know MK Dons tactics 3 years ago. He was, but Gallagher scored a lot of his goals under him playing WITH Graham. He wouldn't have a target man with him, he would have to be the focal point. He doesn't have the same skillset as Graham, nothing like it, Gallagher is quite fast, spends most of his time facing goal, is weak, cant hold it up or win flick ons. Graham meanwhile, is very slow, spends a lot of time facing away from goal, is strong, can hold it up and can win flick ons. If we subbed on Gallagher for Graham, we would have to play a totally different style of football. Do you appreciate the point, and agree with me, that Gallagher and Graham are totally different styles of strikers? We aren't going to agree on whether we rate Gallagher, I don't, you do, so Im not interested in that, agree to disagree. Do you agree with the above point? You are only happy with it because you think everything Nixon says is correct. Mowbray has come out and said he had the same budget throughout, Nixon said the opposite in one of his made up stories. Therefore, nothing Nixon has said regarding our transfer deadline day business can be trusted. I personally trust Mowbrays word over Nixons. I'm not saying Brereton isnt available, but our bid was rejected for him.

Agree with some of that but few questions: Do you think Bennett needs to do more going forward? Won it back loads but his crossing was dreadful. And that maybe he would be better in the centre over Smallwood, who was really poor? Do you think that Palmer looked out of position on the wing? And took far too many risks? Do you not think that we were very poor for more than just 10 minutes, more so the first 44? Do you not think excellent is an exaggeration? Agree that Graham should have scored, that we started slowly and that Rothwell was a bright spark.

Yeah, because hes a former player, and naturally, seeing as supporters arent professional scouts, they are limited in which players they know that we can sign. You mention your Coyle point, but its a thoughtless one. Coyles issue was never that we were not attacking enough, it was that we were unfit, disorgansed, had players like Greer and Brown as plasters over the cracks in defence, we had the worst keeper ever in goal, we had no ability to game manage, hence the number of 3-2 defeats we seemed to had. Coyles tactics were in general, horrendous, but they were in no way of a hindrance to an attacking player like Gallagher, if anything they would benefit him. Why cant you count the MK Dons spell? Is it because he did awfully and it doesnt fit your narrative of him being a good signing? Coyle played a 4-4-2, and if I remember correctly, Gallagher had the luxury of Danny Graham next to him, therefore the fact that he was incapable of holding it up, of bringing others into play, wasnt a problem as Graham could do that, allowing him to use his mobility which was one of his main assets. If he was to join now, it would be a case of either him or Graham, not both, as we play a different formation, with a number 10, which happens to be our best player. How do you know this "Brereton only came available in the last 2 days of window" - is it through what Alan Nixon said? If so, discard it from your thoughts. Everything he said about late increases in budgets etc has been shown by Mowbray to be a load of crap, a pack of lies.

Its on Quest. Same time and host.

Think, subject to new signings, we need to start Armstrong and Rothwell over Smallwood and Palmer, and impose our game from the start. As Mowbray said post-match, we need to get a first win as soon as we can, Hull is a winnable game.

One thing I differ on with you 2 is I still feel like its premature to credit Venkys for their intentions. I judge them on what they do, not what they plan/intend to do. Historically they are very volatile in terms of one minute wanting to invest, then turning off the tap. Therefore, assuming the money is spent in the loan to buy market, or in Jan, then I will happily credit them then. If the money doesnt even materialise at a later day, then such inconsistencies do not warrant praise. If they do spend the money I will happily praise them. I dont think theres anything stopping us getting loan to buys in the rest of the window. If Brereton is the man, or whoever, agree a loan with obligation to buy, youve essentially bought him, and credit shall be forthcoming. Mowbrays comments about short-termism are a concern. In theory, reasonable wages but fees on players that can develop are a viable system, lets see if it works in practice, ultimately that depends on if they are consistent with it, and then if they are, if Mowbray can sign the correct players. We ideally need a striker in the squad next week, as well as a winger.

Poor result and in the main a disappointing performance, need to get that first win to kick start the season. First half, we were appalling. Lethargic, constant unforced errors, slow, boring to watch and they should have had at least 2. Second half for 25 minutes we were much better, much more like our usual selves, and should have scored and got the win. Then we ran out of ideas. Players wise, Raya had no saves of not, the post were his best friend, but his kicking was atrocious. Back 4 all fine, both centre backs had lapses in terms of when on the ball, but both are more than good enough when fit, we know that. Bell was an improvement on Williams, should be first choice. Nyambe very cautious when he gets so far but hes progressing well. That back 4, more than happy with. Smallwood was the worst player on the pitch, needs dropping. Evans similar in the first half, couldnt pick a pass, but much improved second half. Bennett offered nothing going forward, said beforehand that im not sure he warrants a spot in the front 4, he was guilty more than anyone of a series of aimless crosses that played into their centre backs hands. That said, excellent tenacity, work rate and I think is more at home in the middle, with Evans. Palmer lost all discipline in terms of positioning, causing the game to get a bit congested, his final ball/output was zilch, his passing awful and took far too many risks. That said, certainly has some skill and flair that we need to harness and I hope he has far better days than today, im sure he will. Not convinced he can play wide but he will have to due to Dack. Dack was quiet for his standards, and Graham did superbly to out-strength the defender on his first one on one, and somehow outpaced them both times, but has to score at least 1, should have squared the first to Dack. Nothing in the tank after an hour, tried but was a passenger, hence the disappointment of not getting in a striker sooner. Armstrong looked like he had his feet tied together at first but his pace is something we totally lack elsewhere. He will do well though. Rothwell was quite impressive travelling with the ball, end product questionable, decent shot, think he has said to Mowbray maybe he should start at Hull, definitely in the cup. Travis a bit sloppy to be honest. Transfer wise, nothing we didnt know. We need another target man before anything else. We also need a pacy winger, as we dont have one. Centre back we need cover, we also need an upgrade on Smallwood.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16413310.they-werent-the-only-bids-rovers-boss-on-the-transfer-window/?ref=mac Lets debunk a couple of myths. “It was always the same,” Mowbray said of his budget. “The budget was agreed when I went over to India in the summer and the budget has always been the budget." Seems that Nixons theory that Venkys "killed a few chickens recently" to give us a sudden boost in the budget was actually a lie. "Mowbray was disappointed he wasn’t able to add to the three permanent signings made before the window closed on Thursday." People have been ridiculed for showing frustration, showing disappointment at how the window went. I even said to @chaddyrovers that I bet even Mowbray is disappointed to not sign players, and so it has proved. So rather than pretend that everything went to plan, and that everything is hunky dory, it didnt and theres proof. He also said the following: “It’s just frustrating that we had the opportunity to spend some money to try and improve this club long-term for the next four or five years, we missed the opportunity, it didn’t quite happen. “But this short-termism of loans we will try and add some players who will excite the fans and help the team as we go on as when injuries and suspensions come, as the team will have to push harder than last year, some bodies will break down as we go on, we need to have some experience and quality waiting in the wings to make sure we don’t fall off the pace.” That doesnt suggest that signing everyone on loan with an obligation to buy is necessarily what he has planned. Hence the phrase "short-termism." "I’m sure if we’re doing okay then that funding will still be there for the next window." - just hope the money doesnt vanish.