Whilst I agree with the notion that Mowbray is overly conservative at times, that he has favourites who play undeservedly and those who dont get the chances they deserve etc, again some of these individual cases are myths. Travis got into the team, and we all thought that as soon as Smallwoods suspension had ended, he would return to the bench. Since, Travis has been a regular and Smallwood cannot get into the squad. Holtby took longer than I'd like to be given his first start, but since hes had it, he has since been injured and as soon as he has got back to fitness, he started again. And Adarabioyo was very good yesterday, but up until then he has looked quite flimsy IMO, would like to see him next to Lenihan with Williams and Nyambe at full back. No way will Bennett ever be squeezed out under Mowbray, he cannot bear to leave him out for one single game regardless of performance and regardless of what position he has to squeeze him into, he is and will forever be first name on the team sheet.

He was run ragged. He is quite simply not good enough yet is clearly undroppable.

Bennett wasnt solid, everything came down his side with Sheffield Wednesday realising where we are weak. With Cunningham out for the season, when Lenihan returns our defence must be Nyambe, Lenihan, Adarabioyo and Williams up until January.

Was a general question, I am enjoying the win too. So you are still of the opinion that Mowbray needs to go? I dont think Dack playing further back is good for the team either, he doesnt affect games from there.

Obviously a goal has an impact on what subs a manager will make though. Subs that the manager would have hypothetically made in alternative scenarios are irrelevant, he didnt bring on Evans, he changed to Buckley and he got the winner. It was done to change the game positively following the goal.

Whether it was lucky or not, and whether the goal changed the decision or not, you cant refuse to give him credit for decisions that worked out. It is the same as when he started playing Travis and it was put down by some as if Mowbray had no choice after Smallwoods suspension, but he did and he chose to continue with Travis. There are things even about today that you can question the manager about, Bennetts continued selection, Mowbrays inability to sign a competent keeper leading to another mistake, and Armstrongs repeated selection being 3 things. But even if it was prompted by the Sheffield Wednesday goal, he then obviously changed his sub to try and force the issue and it paid off. I dont even think Mowbray is the correct man to take us forward either, but if you cant credit him for decisions that have been proved right, then you arent being fair. You also said that Buckley (and Adarabioyo) will soon be dropped, but Buckley didnt even start so how can he be? I still wouldnt start him, he still looks a bit off, and his goal had an element of fortune, as happy as I was for him.

Walton mistake every day of the week. Mowbray in or out as it stands tonight? Still out for me, as much as I enjoyed tonight. Would you agree that Dack deeper doesnt work?

What a brilliant end to a game, first half was yet again incredibly boring, felt like watching paint dry, second half we did create a few more chances, not the best performance by a long way but enjoyed finally getting a late win and a sign of some spirit. Walton again with another huge error leading to a goal, not up to it sadly, a very poor signing. Made a good save at the end to be fair but still, 3 major errors in 4 games is unacceptable. Bennett absolute crap yet again, must have naked pictures of Mowbray, its the only explanation for his constant selection when he is so consistently poor wherever he is played. Their threat was basically solely coming down his side. Adarabioyo with a very good display, great header for the goal (although Westwood was at fault with some terrible positioning) but in general he was far more dominant than he has been previously. Nyambe was decent too although as we know, hes not a centre back, and Williams was fine at left back. When Lenihan returns, our back 4 should be Nyambe, Adarabioyo, Lenihan and Williams. No room for the managers favourite. Travis was decent again, good at what he does, Downing very composed and picks the right passes more often than not but I do feel he needs to stamp his authority on games more in terms of adding a goal threat or chipping in with more assists. The formation didnt work because it means Dack is far too deep to be at his best, and he was rather quiet. Holtby was decent, not as good as v Huddersfield but played the pass of the match to Gallagher and has to play every week. Armstrong again flatters to deceive in the main and should have scored. Gallagher I thought was better than usual, few bits of good hold up, great ball to Armstrong across the goal, and decent enough header in the first half. Doesnt really offer much goal threat though. (apart from last week of course) Subs wise, Graham looked a little rusty, he needs regular games to be at his best, but he knows what he is doing and undoubtedly gives us more of a threat than Gallagher. Rothwell made a big impact and nearly scored with a header, and Buckley didnt do much bar of course get a very lucky winner! So a big contribution.

You have to say that as many predicted, that Parker and Woodgate are 2 managerial risks that have backfired with both out of their depth.

This desperation to shove Bennett into whatever position possible is absolutely scandalous, hes absolute shite! Glad to see Holtby back though.

Out of interest, if Rovers decided to make tickets for any games next season £100 but announced as such early in the summer, would this be acceptable?

Nice of them to admit that they are going to rip off our fans and focus purely on punishing away fans in advance, I must say. As @MCMC1875 suggests, say Rovers state in pre-season that they will charge £100 or £200 for certain games, would that still be commendable in your eyes due to it being honest and announced early?

If you though he was that good you wouldnt have dropped him from your team. Stop being so patronising, I watched the game once which was more than enough, the main takeaway from his performance was yet another penalty given away. He is not good enough, hes a liability that the manager has an unhealthy blind spot towards. Sticking him in midfield and dropping Travis to squeeze him in was stupid. You keep saying this about Rothwell but he hasnt played successive games! He had a run in the side at the end of last season, did very well, yet was predictably and undeservedly dropped at the start of this season. He has been given isolated starts against 2nd, 7th and 8th away from home then instantly dropped straight after. Its funny how a player isnt half as influential when he is dropped for no reason. My main point was that Buckley isnt ready for our first team. Every time hes played hes looked nowhere nesr ready. Chapman and Rankin Costello have been scoring for the Under 23s, and I liked Chapman last time he was here and my main worry was injuries which barring a head knock seems to be much less of a problem at the moment. I dont see the point in signing him and giving him zero chances in the first team.

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.