One of the primary reasons has to be that he has played quite a lot of his recent minutes in a position that doesnt suit him. I feel like assuming that his drop of form is based on off the field issues is a big presumption to make. I dont feel like our long ball football is going to get the best out of him anyway. He was particularly poor against QPR in his natural position when we were terrible as a team with Smallwood and Evans far too conservative in the centre, and we never played the ball through the lines and to his feet so he can turn. We cant drop our only source of goals. We need to play him in his best position, in a style that suits him. And others around him also need to step up and ease the burden on him.

I didnt say that. I asked a question because I didnt understand your comments about not expecting too much.

I dont understand your justification that "Mowbray is taking his time" with Brereton or "not expecting too much." His reasoning behind playing him wide even when Graham is unavailable or unfit is flawed and makes no sense, owing to the alternatives. Have your changed your mind or do you think that Mowbray is wrong to play him wide?

Agreed. Its when Graham is not on the pitch that the main confusion comes for me. If Mowbray thinks that Graham is our best striker in terms of acting as a focal point, I dont think many would disagree. Resorting to playing midfielders as "false 9s" is a tactical experiment that doesnt even have any logic to it. Moving our best player from his natural position, as an alternative to someone in Brereton deemed not physical enough despite being far smaller. The false 9 formation was made popular by Spain and their passing football. We play the most long balls in the division, we cant go from one extreme to another like that. With Armstrong, I think he does have more of a skillset and more historical evidence to suggest that playing wide suits him. Brereton on the other hand certainly doesnt and I suspect that barring a sudden realisation from Mowbray, he is going to be the subject of continious debate for quite some time.

1. My comment was more in relation to if we had signed a player deemed to be 8 out of 10 so soon, I would presume he had made an immediate and far more tangible impact. The whole Brereton debate seems to be centralised not around the fact that he has potential, but how he has been used and whether he is fit for purpose in terms of what we needed to sign, whether we can afford such a luxurious signing. I do feel it is slightly ignorant to seemingly ignore all of these factors and cling to the glimmers of potential he has been able to show. The whole debate is more aimed around Mowbray than Brereton himself. And also to compare against previous disastrous summer windows in which we have sold key players and/or spent little to nothing in return is not fair, Mowbray hasnt had to deal with these restrictions this summer. 2. The first bit I agree with, I don't think people realistically expected him to be thrown straight in the team with the form Graham has shown. Its where he has been used thats the issue, surely it would be more sensible to play him where he is most comfortable, where he plays naturally, admittedly around when Graham is fit enough to play. 3. The Forest side he was in was like us a mid table Championship side. Moving Dack is doubly detrimental in that it moves our best player to a position he is clearly not suited to, and I dont think he has scored in. (May be wrong on that) There may be occasions when Brereton wide may be a wise option, perhaps when we are chasing a game or whatever. But its Mowbrays quotes insistent that Brereton is not even considered as a striker, black and white, simple as that, despite having played there before, that confuse me. All of the positive aspects about him, England youth international, Championship experience etc he has achieved this blossoming reputation as a striker. He ripped Arsenal to pieces as a striker. And now he is beneath 2 midfielders who when they have played there, have not impressed or looked comfortable, and Breretons fleeting impressive contributions have all been within the width of the 18 yard box, his (wrongly offside) finish, his winning of a penalty, coming alive in the box to square for Dack. Surely its a least worth a consideration next time Graham isnt fit. 4. If Armstrong and Brereton are both being groomed to play wide and slowly end up as central strikers. Surely one of such an experiment is enough, and it goes back to the balance of the squad that we discussed earlier? 5. I believe it was Liverpool at home when Dack played up front, if I recall it was at a point in pre-season when Graham was injured, and Mowbray was demanding for patience in his hunt in signing a new striker believe it or not! 6. I dont want to lose sight of the fact that I (and almost every single fan) appreciate that Mowbray has done a lot more right than he has done wrong here. Notably the whole change of atmosphere at the club. And that the signings he made in the summer are on paper, almost exclusively ones that if utilised correctly, can improve us. And on Newcastle, agreed!

Bell cannot attack so we would be totally bereft on that side.

Do you not think that considering Brereton an 8 out of 10 signing is not over the top considering that in a Rovers shirt, he is yet to start a league game, and we are very much clutching at straws based on cameos? Are you happy with the way Brereton has been used so far? Both in terms of the lack of starts and often wide where he looks uncomfortable. Do you not acknowledge that Brereton made his name as a central striker, and that any doubts about his physicality (despite a season of playing as a central striker in this league already) become somewhat obsolete when he chooses to play Dack or Palmer there instead? You mention that we need time to build a truly well balanced squad and I somewhat concur but he has contributed to the imbalanced selection of attackers. He signed 4 players who he clearly considers them to be wide men, at least short term. Surely it made far more sense to sacrifice signing one or two in favour of a central striker(s)? No one is doubting that we have a set of attacking options far better than we did last time we was in this league. And I think there is little doubting that we have a player with potential in Brereton. But im struggling to see how we can possibly consider such a big money signing for us to solely be a project, and the fact that he has played at this level for over a season before surely vindicates that he should be playing more than he is, and he should be at least 2nd choice behind Graham. I also dont agree that our recruitment has been "fantastic" under Mowbray. His main strength I have always maintained has been as mentioned by others the extra he has got from our existing players.

But weve not even seen Brereton start a game so how can you give him such a high mark? Surely on the pitch performance even at such an early stage is the key thing to judge our signings on. Otherwise Palmer is still a talent who has recent, previous promotion credentials and is the most successful signing of them all, and not a show pony? A disallowed goal, an assist and a dive for a penalty are definitely signs that Brereton has something about him but we knew that anyway. The discussion is centralised around how he is used (well not used), the flawed/stupid explanation as to why hes not playing his natural position, and whether we can afford such a luxury. I dont think Brereton himself is getting much if any stick recently. Do you think the criticism of Mowbray playing him wide, and his attempts at justifying it, are valid, or do you agree with what people have said. What mark would you give our overall transfer recruitment then? In terms of both quality of signing and the shape of the squad following these signings. Balance is difficult but its not impossible and I do feel that our squad is too imbalanced in certain areas.

Most people havent doubted necessarily the quality of the individuals. But you havent accounted for whether they are fit for purpose. The main position Mowbray was seeking in the summer was a striker, he said as much. He signed 7 players (Davenport too) including 9m on 2 strikers. Does the fact that we have only 1 striker in Graham considered for that role before we resort to playing midfielders there not even remotely suggest that he is not fit for purpose. Literally no idea how you can give a player yet to start a League game an 8 out of 10 and describe as "fantastic" is beyond me. And that is not a slight on Brereton as an individual. Neither Armstrongs poor form this season nor Rodwells lack of game time warrants the high mark you have given them. I dont think peoples main gripe is the quality of signing in terms of the individuals. Its the balance of the squad and signing players in the positions that were needed.

Good post, another thing on what youve put in the third paragraph. If his logic is that he wants a target man and wont play Brereton as he doesnt have the attributes to play that role in terms of his hold up play. That sort of logic is totally shattered when much smaller attacking midfielders are chosen ahead of him. Brereton is obviously rough around the edges but hes not a total novice in that hes had over a season of experience in this division and gained the reputation through playing centrally in the main.

I never did, I never said you shouldnt have judged him on results either. I was pointing out that giving any "dingle" a chance or waiting to judge goes against the grain of what you said earlier about Cook. Youve never explained why we need to play long balls and it wasnt meant as a pop at Mowbray, it was further evidence of your hypocrisy. Dismissing Big Sam and Dyche solely for their long ball football.

I never said that you didnt or shouldnt. My point was that you just said that you would not have a dingle manager. When we appointed one the other year you gave him a chance. Now people are pointing out your hypocrisy youve spat your dummy out. (As an aside, Mowbrays football is hardly free flowing. Most long balls in the league!)

The point was that you was defiant in saying that you wouldnt be of the mindset of trusting Cook or any ex Burnley employee should they take the job here. But you gave Coyle a chance who was also a dingle so double standards. Im sure we would both take Dyche or Howe should Mowbray leave and they become available! (Somehow)

Nmecha is a player we were tenously linked with in the summer, but he was fairly quiet compared to your other attacking players yesterday I felt, and would I be right in saying that he is yet to score for you? I'd much rather have Graham but even without him, Brereton has obviously got over a year of Championship experience in that role, and Nmecha just being that central striker gave the rest of the attack a bit of structure. And he is our player to develop. I'd take Dack over Browne (although I really like both) but I've always been impressed by Pearson and especially by your 2 wide men. Mowbray loves his wide number 10's, his wide forwards and his defensive wingers but Robinson and Barkhuizen give you all the pace, width and goal threat that you could ever really need.

The most galling thing is there is certainly some quality in that list. There is a chance hopefully that some will be utilised correctly or to their maximum going forward. The problem is that most have been under-utilised, wrongly utilised or not fit for the purpose of what we needed in the summer. The main 3 pitfalls of the squad in the summer were centre back, winger and striker. None of them, for various reasons, have been addressed. Mowbray is doing a lot right but he also must take the flak from that. The striker is obviously potentially below his nose and being incorrectly used but still...

Bennetts suspended you clown. Be realistic ?

I know you havent said this as such, but surely we cant have such a total disregard for results this season and look solely to next season? What will suddenly change in a mere matter of months? And whilst I appreciate that Brereton is somewhat of a development project. And theres a seperate and obvious argument as to whether we can afford one for the amount we paid. Surely the best way to develop him as a striker is to play him in that role. And then theres the obvious confidence factor and how that may be affected if hes asked to play in a role he doesnt suit.

He's scored better than a goal every other game, in a team in which no one bar Graham somewhat is contributing to goals really, in a team that is statistically set up to play long ball football for some reason. Dack is not the problem!

He may be protecting Brereton with his quotes but hes throwing him under the bus in reality by only playing him for 20 minutes at a time out of position. I agree with your comments in the second paragraph. I think our summer recruitment, whilst we signed some talented players, has proven to be imbalanced and failed to address the areas that we needed to strengthen. The area he publically prioritised was striker and we know whats happened there. Rothwell, Rodwell, Palmer and Armstrong he has failed to phase into the team consistently or get anything substantial out of, Davenport has not got off the injury table, Brereton has been totally unfit for purpose and Reed has been the one consistent plus point. It was a key summer in which he was given a considerable budget to develop the squad and I dont think it was particularly successful. The fact that its that easy to stop us playing says more about us and the rest of our players than it does about Dack. Dack has scored 8 goals and has 2 assists in 14 league games. 3 in the last 7 in which his form has undoubtedly dipped slightly in tandem with Mowbray not using him correctly by playing him as a striker in a few of those games. Moving him here there and everywhere isnt the solution.

Discussion about our tactics. I was saying that we need to look at how we get Dack into the game, not move his position, not drop him, just stop with the long ball crap, play through the lines, be less conservative with midfield selections and of course Dack needs to look himself at finding ways of thriving in spite of the extra attention, and our other attackers thriving in the space it leaves. As I have said above, if Brereton continues to be played and subsequently fail and flounder out of position, then the criticism will keep coming Mowbrays way. Mowbray is a seasoned manager, he abandoned the 3 at the back nonsense, hopefully he will do likewise with this experiment!

Brereton made his name as a striker and apparently went off the boil at Forest but even assuming that wasnt the case and Mowbray had seen a facet in his game that he felt could thrive in a wide role. Which is blatantly not the case hence his uncomfortable nature when played there. They key to it all would be, we would only have the privelidge to be able to do if striker was a position to which we was already well stocked in. His explanation that Brereton isnt physically capable of playing centrally is a load of bollocks considering that Dack and Palmer are deployed there instead. He's treating Brereton wrongly full stop but even if playing him wide had some sense, hes acting as if hes been signed for a couple of hundred thousands as a project aside to a main striker who has already been signed. That quite simply is not the case! Mowbray bleated on in the summer about need Whilst acknowldging Venkys incompetence, I dont want to get embroiled in conspiracy theories but even if hes not his signing, hes using him wrongly regardless. And he has no one to blame but himself on that.

If he has said that then he is heading down a path of his stubbornness potentially continuing to create animosity and disagreement with the supporters. That argument doesnt hold much weight when his primary alternative is to play Bradley Dack and Kasey Palmer in his place when Graham is unavailable. Your theory may be right in that he made his name at this level as a central striker. He also looks like a fish out of water playing as a wide man.

My points werent necessarily opposing yours. Just my opinions on Mowbrays tactics. I think its very simplistic to suggest that Dack being man marked out of games. It doesnt suit any of our players to play long ball, it doesnt suit Palmer, it doesnt suit Rothwell, it doesnt suit Armstrong and even Graham, against 2 6ft odd centre backs. Dack is not very easy to mark out of games as he still impacts them with his goals. Whilst he continues to do that, and provide our only consistent source of goals, he has to be the first name on the team sheet, in his natural position. For all this talk about Mowbray evolving the side to be a passing side, I've not seen any signs of it this season at all. I think the transfer recruitment in the summer brought players that definitely have talent, but overall youd have to say that it has not been a success. Reed has been very good, but otherwise, Mowbray has been too reluctant to modify things to incorporate his new signings. Palmer, Rothwell, Rodwell and Armstrong have all been in and out, 20 minutes here, a start there, but he doesnt seem to trust any of them, nor does he seem to be getting the best from them, and they are potentially players that can help us to evolve. Brereton is the most obvious symbol of a very confusing summer transfer recruitment, not fit for purpose, and at times left out to dry when playing in the wrong position, always as a sub. I dont think or expect us to suddenly transform into a free flowing, passing side. Nor do I think it would be wise to abandon the effectiveness and the stability of the players that did so well for us last season, the Smallwoods, the Bennetts, the Evans. But with our attacking players, the most long balls in the league, and watching us, the amount of aimless punts forward just screams of brainless football that can be infuriating to watch.

He does well to get a rise out of everyone, everytime. Bet hes a quality fisher.

Raya Nyambe Lenihan Mulgrew Williams Rodwell Reed Palmer Dack Rothwell Graham Subs: Leutweiler, Bell, Smallwood, Armstrong, Brereton, Travis, Evans No way in a million years can you drop our almost solitary source of goals in Dack. Williams lucky that Bell is equally as bad. Would consider a midfield diamond of Rodwell sitting, Reed and Rothwell with Dack behind Graham and Brereton, but that would mean an onus on to defensive full backs to overlap and provide the width.