Everyone hopes that Brereton scores tomorrow and we win. And the majority of "recent criticism" has not been about the player himself. It has been about the way he has been used and the amount of money he cost in light of the other deficiencies in our squad and how differently we could have spent the money, no one has blamed him for the fee though, that doesnt make any sense. Whilst he continues to play out of position, the spotlight will be on Mowbray more so than Brereton himself. I also dont need to meet Brereton as I never said it may affect his confidence based on his personality. It is based solely on playing anyone out of position, nothing to do with Brereton himself. I based my theory on if a player is placed somewhere aside from his natural position, he is less likely to play well. Simple as that. Meaningless platitudes such as "patience and time is needed" and "trust Mowbray" will naturally fall on deaf ears on an internet messageboard, in a thread dedicated to the player in question. He will be judged like anyone else on a game by game basis, and even though the fans in general trust Mowbray, people will always trust what they see with their own eyes over anything else.

So, in a hypothetical paralell universe. You would rather play Leutweiler and Bennett rather than have Raya in net and no Bennett? Each to their own opinion but I think that its crazy that youd choose Bennett over any of them in terms of importance. Raya, Mulgrew, Lenihan, Nyambe and Graham are partialy more important due to lack of quality depth in their positions.

I disagree. Dont remember him having any shots or getting close to their net. Won a couple of good free kicks. I know you do. Although you said we should sign a centre back earlier on so you clearly cant make your mind up. We cant argue but we can give our own opinions even if they go against what Mowbray does or says. Stick to your own opinions, I wont tell Tony! I dont, im suggesting that I think it might because he surely would play better in his actual position. Maybe, if thats the case then sign someone on loan if that is the plan, or move onto another target. If Rothwell was a target in January, we signed Payne and Armstrong so we werent short regardless. No, but it will forever be linked to him and part of judgements made about his signing in his own thread. We cant change games after theyve finished but we still discuss and debate them. Its a messageboard. Ok. Because I judge players with my own eyes after watching them. Stop being pedantic. You know i mean when we played Leeds, Swansea and West Brom.

I personally think it will affect his confidence more playing out of position because hes less likely to replicate any performances that caused his reputation to increase at Forest. You keep mentioning Bauer but Mowbray repeatedly bleated on about various lists throughout the summer, do even if your hypothesis is true about that deal not happening, he should have looked elsewhere IMO. The fee thing has been done to death, but people will judge when we have a 7m luxury signing having rare out of position cameos whilst we are short in other areas. People will wonder if that money could have been spent elsewhere. I never said we should sign Bamford, was just responding to Biz to justify his fee and wages. Yes but its irrelevant because I can see with my own eyes, and having seen Dack play as a striker 3 times this week and Brereton in most of his cameos wide that neither experiment/tactic in my opinion is one I would continue, as both looked uncomfortable in unnatural positions. I cant get my head around the fact that he is not even being considered in his natural position, hes solely being considered as a wide man when the alternatives are Dack, Palmer and Nuttall.

Who are the 1/2 players above being the first name of the team sheet? When everyone is fit. Dack is first on the team sheet, our talisman and primary source of goals. Him and Mulgrew, our captain, crucial with Lenihan at the back as our only 2 competent centre backs. Raya as our goalkeeper is obvious. Nyambe as our only natural right back. Graham as our only proven striker, and a critical part of our attacking play. So thats 6, plus Reed shares all of Bennetts drive, passion and versatility, aswell as a bit more quality. So for me, thats 7 ahead of him. Then youve got a straight battle between Williams and Bell at left back. Evans, Rodwell, Bennett and Smallwood as the main group battling for 2 midfield spots and Palmer, Rothwell and Armstrong as the main options for the more attacking wide role. Not dismissing his importance or saying that I wouldnt start him tomorrow but lets not exaggerate!

Against Leeds he did ok but he didnt offer any attacking threat, the work he did that was decent was very much in terms of game management, winning fouls etc. He wasnt an attacking danger. Every other time, hes looked poor there. But to be fair its not his position. The reason that people are concerned when he doesnt play, and when he does, not in his correct position, is because he was the majority of our summer budget. It can easily be argued that even if he is effective wide, it is a luxury that we could not afford to sign a striker to be moulded into a wide man, when we are short up front, and also looking light at centre back and right back. Thats nothing against Brereton himself, and at the moment all of the discussion around him is not in terms of his own abiliity, it is in terms of how the manager is using/misusing him. You yourself have commented more than once that you dont think he should be wide with Dack central, so id be interested to know what suddenly has changed your own personal mind, without repeating quotes from Mowbrays press conference today.

They are. Training is crucial, just like diet, analysis, lifestyle, sleep etc. But they are all done in preparation for matches. You train solely to make yourself as good as you can get on a match day.

He didnt. He didnt say anything like that. He, admittedly with a bit of hyperbole, said what others have said, that match days are when it matters.

I understand but disagree with Armstrong being ahead of him in your opinion. Both of them are strikers who seem to be in limbo between their natural positions and playing wide, but with Armstrong, all of his previous good performances for us were wide and his skills are more suited to be effective there, hes small, quick, runs at players. Dack I cant understand. If you put him up front, firstly you are moving him from the position he has been so impressive in since he joined. Secondly, hes shown in the last week, he isnt suited to being the furthest man forward. Mowbray stated that he potentially sees Palmer being able to play up front, hes not a striker in a million years either. My point about Nuttall was that he considered him as one of his options to be a striker. At the moment he doesnt see Brereton has an option centrally, even though he has far more positive experience at proving himself in that position. I don't think Brereton should be our first striker, and im not even demanding that he is only chosen as a striker. But to not even be considered as a striker, behind 2 midfielders and a fellow young striker without the fledgling potential that Brereton showed pre-Rovers just makes no sense to me. And to spend 7m on a striker to play wide and leave us short up front doesnt make any sense either. You are totally taking their obvious intentions out of context. Training is obviously very important otherwise they wouldnt do it. But it doesnt matter how you perform in training if you dont perform on a match day.

My main qualm with the quote from Mowbray, and id like to state that like you inferred earlier, that we dont know the full context again. I don't understand why he is seemingly solely being seen as a wide man, no grey areas, hes not a striker in Mowbrays eyes short term. Especially considering how light of depth we are otherwise there. I appreciate that Forest fans stating that Brereton is no good wide is not foolproof in terms of how he will do here in that role either, your Armstrong example proves that, but nor should it be discarded. Added to that, when he has featured there in matches he has looked uncomfortable. He made his name at Forest and in the England youth teams as a central forward. His most accomplished performance that got him all the media attention was against Arsenal as a central striker. https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/17197021.rovers-boss-mowbray-happy-with-the-options-available-to-him/?ref=mac Just going off the recent selections, and the comments in the above article: Would you agree that Brereton (natural striker) should be higher in the pecking order for that position than Dack? Would you agree that Brereton should be higher in the pecking order for that position than Kasey Palmer? Would you agree that if Brereton isnt considered ready enough to even become an option to be number 9, then Joe Nuttall certainly isnt ready? Like you said, there may be the odd occasion when it suits the team. Off the top of my head, if we are losing, we dont want to break up the Dack and Graham partnership, but we want another attacker on, get Brereton wide rather than moving Dack. And I would totally accept that. My main points are to summarise: - I dont believe Brereton is best suited to be playing wide - If he has been signed to play wide, then I think Mowbray maybe needs to point questions towards himself as to why he feels short in terms of strikers. I dont think anyone could doubt that hes improved the quality of the squad. He made some good signings in the summer. But we have only 2 trusted natural centre backs, we have 1 natural right back, we have 1 trusted central striker, yet we have 4 players battling for that wide role as the third attacking player (2 natural strikers, 2 10's) and 1 or 2 too many in central midfield.

1. I never said its easy. But I refuse to accept that it was impossible to bring in a striker. You mention Bamford, he is a proven goalscorer at this level and has won player of the year at this level. Thats why he cost so much. 2. https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/17008496.tony-mowbray-on-whether-he-feels-rovers-are-a-striker-short/ Mowbray said here we are a striker short. The fact that his seemingly current second choice striker is Bradley Dack backs that up. We do only play 1 but we only have 1. 3. I just think that comments about not supporting the player, knowing better than the manager or anything like that detract from the debate at hand. Id like to be proven wrong, your point about Armstrong is valid somewhat I do appreciate and of course I hope that I am proven wrong. But Armstrong fit the position like a glove from the start, it was against much weaker opposition (he has struggle to replicate this season) and his skillset is IMO far more suited. A key part to my argument is that, with Samuel (now injured) as 2nd choice last season, it was blatantly obvious in the summer that signing a striker was a key priority. Even if Brereton turns into an excellent wide forward, which would obviously be good as an improvement to the team, its like buying a really nice car when you needed a house. It would leave us as lacking in depth up front as we were at the start of the summer. And surely when Graham isnt fit, youd agree that as second choice, Brereton would be higher up the pecking order than moving Dack into a position hes also not familiar with. @unsall you mention when Grahams not here anymore Brereton may play there but when hes not been in the team at times in the last week weve played Dack there! Another main point is that Brereton gained the reputation he has as a striker. The Forest fan on here was clear and it seems a common theme, Brereton playing wide didnt suit him and it coincided with his form dropping off. He made his name as a central striker, he ran Arsenal ragged as a striker, he impressed both for Forest and Englabd youth teams as a striker. Its been mentioned that hes being easing in but surely playing the last 20 or 30 minutes up front his natural position where hes more likely to impress would make more sense. Obviously he will be scrutinised but if he continues to play out wide and doesnt do anything, then I sense that the blame has shifted from Brereton onto Mowbray for how hes using him.

I dont get why, if the only opinion you are happy to consider is the managers, that you come on a fans messageboard. (This isnt me saying dont come on here before you say it) Obviously the manager knows more about management than me. He knows more than everyone on here. And no one doubts that. Training is different, Ben Gladwin was our best player in training apparently. I judge players on games and have given a detailed reasoning on why I disagree on Brereton playing wide in my post to biz.

The main brunt of the criticism isnt about the player anymore, especially after them comments. They are at the manager. In the summer, we badly needed another main striker. Mowbray was insistent on that. He signed one for 7 million. Now hes pleading that he hasnt got enough strikers, hes resorting to putting a midfielder there when our only main striker isnt available, and even if Brereton is better suited wide and turns out to be really effective there. That would still make him a really expensive luxury we couldnt afford with such a dearth of strikers. That said, Forest fans were insistent that Brereton cant play wide effectively. What weve seen in his cameos back that up, he looks like a fish out of water. Armstrong looked at home straight away on the wing. He is smaller, faster and has the skillset of a wide man much more. That said, the way he utilised him last season was very impressive and im not saying I definitely wont be proved wrong. Mowbray does know better than me but in this instance I feel that he is wrong in my opinion. Some of your comments about support and also about releasing him if he doesnt score in his first start are melodramatic and unconstructive.

Urgh. This nonsense is going to continue. Hes a centre forward, he was for his previous club. He looks hopeless wide and both Mowbray and Brereton will incur criticism if he continues to play him there and play poorly at that.

Weve done the debate of you being happy with people who can do a job there and me being less happy, but the fact that you admitted that youd like another natural centre back suggests you arent totally convinced yourself. I do think its an area that Mowbray needed to but failed to rectify in the summer. If we are without our 2 main centre backs tomorrow, that would cause any team a problem, but due to an understandable distrust in our only other centre back, we will have no recognised, natural centre backs and that has to be a concern. A left back and a central midfielder would be a worry together. You mention Bennett v Sheff United but not Swansea when he was hapless, sliding in too often and forever out of position. As our second choice in that position you wouldnt want him there in this league for a decent period of time. Agree on Dack, im saying that if hes not fit enough leave him out of the 18. Dont do neither one thing nor the other and use him as a sub. On the sub keeper, I acknowledged the difficulty of signing a competent and willing sub keeper but also it surely goes without serving why id be a bit more nervous with a keeper whose barely played in over a year and one with hardly a glittering CV. Im not convinced that Dack is the type of player to be an impact sub. I dont think if hes fit enough that you can justify not starting him, or alternatively risking him if hes not fit enough. I dont think his performance levels have been lower than last season, his main asset has always been his goals, there were plenty of games last season where he wasnt massively impacting a game but you cant argue with his 1 in 2 record so far this season. I agree on Palmer, and I do feel that although I still think Dack and Graham, both individually and as a pair, are a step or 2 up from all of our other attacking players, Mowbrays spent lots of money on bringing 4 new attacking players to the club, so we should have enough to cover their occasional absences.

Centre back has to be a problem. Chaddy youve contradicted yourself saying we are covered in every position but we need a centre back. Im not one for overrelying on players who can do a job in positions, we need at least one recognised centre back who is good enough beside from the injury prone Mulgrew and Lenihan. If its for 1 game or half a game we might get away with it. Same with right back, I dont feel comfortable with Bennett there and felt we was shown up down his side v Swansea and Sheffield United. Travis is seen as a midfielder, as is Reed. Dack is a goal threat even when hes not firing on all cylinders. The best aspect of his game is his goal poaching, hes our primary goal threat. Obviously if hes not fit enough leave him out, otherwise he has to start, youve hinted at leaving him out before news of this injury I believe Bigdoggsteel (may have the wrong person so apologies if so) but its simple with him. If hes fit he has to play. Leutweiler was discarded by Shrewsbury a year and a half ago and hasnt really played since. That said I dont think sub goalkeeper is easy to fill.

How do people know with such certainty peoples exact wage and living arrangements?

At the end of the day, as good and as crucial as Dack and Graham are, Mowbray SHOULD be confident with the resources hes been allowed to improve us in forward areas, with Brereton, Armstrong and Rothwell coming for a large sum of money combined, and Palmer being a very clever loan addition. I partially disagree. Dack and Graham ive touched on above you have a point on, but we are horribly short at centre back. An injury to the prone Mulgrew and Lenihan and we are pitifully short beneath that. Same at right back, and obvious worries with Leutweiler coming in. If Dacks fit enough, he has to start aswell.

If Mulgrew, Lenihan, Dack and Graham all missed out along with Raya, I think id go something like this: Leutweiler Nyambe Downing Williams Bell Evans Reed Bennett Palmer Armstrong Brereton Subs: Fisher, Rothwell, Conway, Nuttall, Rodwell, Travis, Smallwood I dont think Armstrong has done enough when given a place centrally to suggest he is good enough as a striker in the short term. His home may be wide where he terrorised Leeds. Time has to come soon where our 6/7m striker gets a game in his position.

That team news makes for grim reading. Got massive problems at centre back, everyone and his dog could have seen that having 2 recognised centre backs would cause trouble and so it may prove. If Dack doesnt make it, then for me Palmer HAS to be given a go in his best position. If Graham doesnt make it, nows the time for Brereton to be given a chance centrally and step up.

Ive not seen any Waggott quotes about Marriott. Ill have to take your word for it. But them wages are total guesses?

How do you know that? And your second point makes no sense. As you say, we have to change to fit Brereton/Armstrong in, why is that ok but not for Marriott?

Im not sure Rothwells assets favour a central midfield birth at all. I do appreciate the importance of needing to be somewhat defensively capable as a wide man but its about getting the balance. You need a bit of both. Conversely something ive argued at points when Bennett has struggled to contribute offensively is that our "defensive" wide man needs to be scoring and assisting at least somewhat, just as much as our attacking wide man needs to be at least somewhat defensively responsible.

Wonder if, dependant on the length of Rayas injury, that we will consider getting in a free agent keeper in the short term?

Whilst I agree with your points about his style of play. I think its worth noting that for all his promise, albeit in very small cameos, hes not actually done anything at the end of it. The best thing about Dack is the numbers, the goals and the assists he guarantees, for all the entertainment he brings. I don't think Rothwell's problem is just his off the ball play, or his style in general perhaps taking time to fit within the structured team that Mowbray clearly favours. Hes not doing anything conclusive at the end of all of his dribbles, his skills, his speculative shots. He had a guilt edged chance on Saturday and fluffed his lines. Palmer has 3 goals, yes 2 were in the cup but hes showing that he offers a goal threat. Rothwell was involved in the very good goal at Bolton, but that all came from persistence and skill from Palmer. At the moment, that "attacking wide" role has 3 potential candidates, Palmer, Rothwell and Armstrong. I would like them to really push for that place in the team. Armstrong has had a really poor season himself, bar the Leeds game. I never see Rothwell being a central midfielder either, a number 10 maybe.