Even with the wall as it was, Raya should have been one step over to his right, he shouldnt have been beaten at that near post, Hourihane was always going to go for that side. Raya had a good day in terms of claiming the ball and did one brilliant throw to set up a counter attack, but again got very lucky when he ran out by slicing the ball back into play when he should have put it in the stands. He does this almost every game and I'm amazed that it hasnt been nipped in the bud by both him and the goalkeeping coach. Officials had a very poor day but again it wasnt a conspiracy against Rovers. As unlucky as we were to see a goal wrongly ruled out, we should have conceded a blatant penalty. Brereton should never play wide, he looked like a fish out of water in a position that Forest fans suggested he was ineffective in there. They also said he throws himself to the floor a lot and he certainly did a few times. Hopefully its more fitness based than desire but the intensity in chasing people down just wasnt there and he seemed a lot slower than I expected and more ponderous. We all know that our squad lacks wingers but Palmer should have been brought on over him to play that role. I do wonder who will start on Tuesday. Reed was very impressive albeit naive to give away the critical free kick. That said, I cant see him breaking up Evans and Smallwood. Further forward, Dack is a given. (Although I thought he wasnt at his best yesterday, was trying things but they often didnt come off) Palmer was unlucky not to start and deserves to come back in over Armstrong. So if its a straight fight between Graham, Brereton and Armstrong to be number 9. The latter 2 may fancy bringing mobility but Armstrong has been poor so far this season and Brereton hasnt done anything in his cameos to put him above Graham so id probably stick with him. Very surprised to be the first to vote Mulgrew as man of the match, thought he stood out.

Mowbray is also a word that deserves a ban, in that he thinks we should have had 2 more players in the wall. Also seen the 2 main decisions again, first instinct at the ground was it was a McGinn dive. It was a penalty having seen it again. That said, our first goal looks valid.

Horrible and slightly worryingly familiar feeling to that late goal. Didnt think Dack was at his best and thought he was lucky to get man of the match but clever flick for the goal, always a threat. Mulgrew was our best player, superb both defensively and on the ball, especially as a flying right winger for the goal. Reed was very good but poor to give away the free kick. Evans and Smallwood were fine but Reed a step up today. Big question marks over Raya again for the goal. Terrible organisation of a wall and should never be beaten at that side. Lenihan had an absolute shocker, made a number of terrible errors and poor on the ball. Brereton was really poor and sluggish when he came on as much as the role he played doesnt suit him. Armstrong may as well have sat in the stands with me. We were definitely competitive but we need to cut out conceding late goals.

Thats totally unfair. Rickys point was an extreme case of how the situation isnt as black and white as chaddy portrayed by implying that anything off the pitch is nothing to do with us. If his "private life" involves him doing things that get him in court risking a custodial sentence, and put himself and his club in the negative media spotlight then it becomes very much relevant. Chaddy then replied by calling Ricky a "clever ass" before then inevitably playing the victim when he got a bit back.

Even if he had stayed, I dont think he would have got near our team last season.

I personally dont see a massive problem to charge people for losing season ticket cards, in that its a system thats been in place for a while, rather than a policy that has been in place for a while, but I totally get why it rubs some peoples noses up the wrong way. The issue is not in that people feel like the charge isnt properly advertised for me, if its in the T&C then legally theres nothing any of us can say, and I think its grasping at straws to suggest otherwise. Its the need to charge in general, recouping a minimal amount surely in the grand scheme of things, at the cost of our goodwill. As @blueboy3333 has said in his excellent post, the main thing at play here is unwavering customer loyalty in that we are in a fairly unique situation whereby there is no alternative product or service to choose from, therefore anyone who loses their season ticket card will obviously stump up the tenner. The concrete proposal here would be not to charge the £10, as a very small showing of goodwill, its pretty simple. Maybe cap it, if you lose it three times or more in a season then maybe charge a tenner because there will obviously be very small costs associated with it. Regarding the sentence in bold, no one is saying on here that they know how to run the football club, just as if people offer constructive criticism against potential new signings without offering detailed scouting reports on alternative signings, or offer their opinions on team selections, they arent offering themselves forward to replace Mowbray. Just because none of us would be capable of running a football club or managing a Championship football side, it doesnt mean that we cant offer constructive opinions and its a really irritating argument to suggest that we cant, rendering the whole messageboard null and void. My main gripes have been regarding the individual decisions that the club, headed by Waggott seemingly, have made off their own backs, rather than continuing this £10 charge that was in place back pre-Venkys. Closing the Darwen End, and significantly increasing season ticket prices at a point whereby supporter engagement with the club is at a high under the stewardship of these owners, stunting the potential to start getting fans back through the doors, are the 2 recent decisions that I feel were ones that bring Waggotts role, after taking responsibility for these, into potential question.

As much as I'd love Burke here, not sure why you think he would even possibly be a target, given his potentially large price tag and Mowbrays winger-phobia! I think the 3 in the back formation seems to be the fashionable system at the moment but I'm not 100% that they have the personnel for it, in that they have them 3 very capable Championship defenders but they are all rough and tumble, body on the line, but none are that good on the ball which you need in that formation and they kept surrendering possession. It also means that Harvey Barnes and Oli Burke have to play centrally if at all, which doesnt suit them. Definitely think that West Brom have the best firepower in the league, 2 big questions are can a rookie manager get the best out of them, and also if they can get goals and clean sheets in spite of a lack of control in the centre of the park, where Brunt and Livermore will be seen as a weakness against better teams in this league.

Not sure if anyone watched the game tonight. Birmingham full of endeavour but there wont be a less prolific strikeforce than Che Adams, Omar Bogle and Lukas Jukweitcz. Simply nowhere near good enough for this league. Only good player is Jota but on the right, and being so one footed, he can at times be easily shackled, although he was their only shining light tonight. Had a dreadful summer and I can see them going down. Underwhelming manager with nothing to work with, as a subs bench of Bogle, Mahoney and Solomon-Otobar as attacking options to come on. West Brom have a strikeforce as good as you will get in this league, some talented, direct wingers, some very good centre backs, a good keeper, 2 competent left backs but not sure about the 3 at the back and whether it suits 3 solid but technically limited defenders. Weakness for me is in the middle of the park, Livermore is crap and Brunt is past it and never a central midfielder, they will get overrun often as they did today. Big question is, can Moore get the best out of the likes of Gayle, Phillips, Rodriguez, Barnes and Oli Burke who needs to play more, and the team in general. Ive seen them twice this season and theyve been poor in both games and lucky to scrape points in each through goals from Phillips.

Agreed that regardless of whichever player had done what Dack has done, he would deserve the deserved criticism he has received. What he did was immature, lacking in remorse and risking making himself unavailable for games in which we need him, unnecessarily. That is the main issue for me, im not one for the whole "role model" argument but even so it still brings the club into disrepute no matter how you put your argument across. That said, I also take on board that say if it had been Gladwin, you coulf justifiably say his on the field performances arent worth the off the field aggravation this kind of thing causes. With Dack, its equally as unacceptable but hes certainly earnt his money on the pitch. It would be churlish and narrow minded to totally brush it under the carpet as some have done, insisting that it is his "private life" because it stops being his private life when hes publically reported in court for committing a crime and failing to turn up for his punishment on three seperate occasions. If it had been his relationship, his family or anything like that, then id agree but this is not comparable. I will take your word on the other comments you have seen but havent seen them personally. Every criticism I have seen has been within the context of what he has done, not saying that he SHOULD have been locked up or received stronger punishment. To conclude though, I have judged him on what he has done but I like any other fan hope he starts tomorrow and continues to entertain us, and make us happy by scoring and making goals. We need him firing and I hope he continues to do as he has for the rest of his career here. And I hope hes here for a long time, and the off the field stuff isnt repeated and he learns his lesson.

When I typed it they hadnt been published, I have retracted the criticism and commended Mowbray for not publically ignoring it. Why continue the conversation if you are sick of it? Like I have said, I am fully behind him but it doesnt make what he did right. If he scores, it wont change my (positive) opinion on him overall. I suspect if this was say Ben Gladwin, people would have stopped short at jumping on people for commenting on a serious, and hopefully isolated issue, when in essence his footballing ability is irrelevant to this conversation. Totally agree on the booing, he deserves and undoubtedly will get the full support, doesnt mean he doesnt deserve criticism for an isolated incident. I still have a very positive opinion on him, he is still our best player. And I am not frothing at the mouth. Just like if he misses a sitter tomorrow or scores an own goal, people will criticise him but still rate him, things can be judged in isolation.

Suppose its one of them where Whittingham and Caddis may have been more open to compromise in that they are not injured and can look for another club, whereas Gladwin is sat on a year contract and hes injured for that timespan. He will want to use our facilities to recover and theres no point paying off his full contract at once.

Good, well balanced post. How is it making a mountain out of a molehill? Our best player nearly was put in jail. Its a serious issue amidst the back drop of an international break with little else to talk about, in which the majority of posters seem to have scarpered as soon as the transfer window was closed. I know we have a massive game tomorrow and I will be there desperately hoping that we win and Dack plays 90 minutes and puts in another good performance. But that doesnt mean what he has done is anything other than unacceptable, and significant. I know the thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent so I will happily leave it here.

Totally agree with your sentiments about the misfortune of injury. I dont agree that Gladwin has ability, nor that Samuel was showing "distinct signs of improvement."

Just for clarity, committing a crime and failing on 3 occasions to show up to his community service, risking a prison sentence, and having a night out, or cheating on his missus (is this even true?) are too totally seperate issues. I never commented on the latter, only on the crime and lack of remorse, and risk of missing games locked up.

Even for you, this is a senseless post. So you think the newspapers should be 100% Brexit stories? I suppose the daily articles on Rovers that you post can also make way for sole focus on Brexit stories? Of course he brought the club into disrepute, he committed a crime! Doesnt mean hes not our most important player but he still did very wrong/ What has cheating on his missus got to do with anything? Or his private life? He committed a crime then failed to do the required punishment on three seperate occasions, coming at severe risk of jail time.

He hasnt handled it behind closed doors, hes done the opposite and been quoted in the paper about it, correctly IMO. Its not a private life to be on the front pages of the papers nearly getting put in jail for failing to do community service after assaulting a policeman. And it affects the manager wasting his time in court and it would have affected us all had he been put in jail, which he very nearly was. How you can say he has not brought the club into disrepute is beyond me. You dont have to blindly defend every single action without reason.

I spoke too soon! Thought Mowbray should keep this private?

It was all over the media so hardly private. To do an in depth multi article interview with Dack and not touch on it at all is a bit disrespectful to the intelligence of the fans in my opinion, brushing it under the carpet. It could have been done from a positive view, I will learn my lesson, and concentrate on my football etc etc. Just a bit of acknowledgement. Hes brought the club into disrepute and we want to be assured that it wont happen again.

Still no mention or acknowledgement of his failure to do community service.

You've previously said that you agree that Dack is a shoe in starter if fit, and now that he is, we both surely agree that he comes straight back into his favourite position. Obviously a 10 role has defensive responsibility, but my point is it gives you the most freedom. I like to see flair players in that role. I love how you say a toss up between 2 players, then pick neither of them! Playing Bennett there would be an attacking move, in that it would free up his space for an attacking player, namely a Palmer or Rothwell. Would you agree that both Reed and Davenport deserve a chance after Smallwoods retched recent form, including the tail end of last season, before Smallwood, and at the moment should both be higher in the pecking order? Continuing with Smallwood would be blind loyalty at the moment from Mowbray.

Totally agree with the need for balance, but Smallwood isnt doing his job at the moment, Reed should be brought in.

I wouldnt say it is going for it to play Dack and Graham, in fact Mowbray often mentions playing Dack and 2 other attackers so he clearly agrees. I agree about getting the balance but that balance has to include getting the best from your main attacking players, notably Dack. They do have better players on paper but it would make no sense to play our very best player out of position, or not at all. I didnt see the Brentford game but Bennett as a 10 will always be a conservative decision, and one that should never be made when Dack is available. In the game you mention we had numerous players unavailable to us, specifically Dack. Your team has Rothwell, Brereton and Armstrong ahead of Dack essentially, albeit obviously via a slight tactical change. If Bolasie plays, surely it would make more sense to put Bennett on that side, and then play Dack. The number 10 role is arguably the one with the least defensive responsibility attached, hence it often being referred to as a free role. That said, I wouldnt say that Dack has ever really proved a liability in that regard. Im sure he will start as a 10 on Saturday. Obviously it was a friendly but we had absolutely no attacking threat in that game. Dack is never a number 9, false or otherwise. He will naturally get frustrated with the lack of the ball and influence he would inevitably get and leave us without a focal point. And hes the one attacking player who you do not want to risk minimising the impact he can have on games. He is our best player and the team should be built around him, which in a 4-2-3-1 it essentially is. The false 9 role was glamorised in recent years by a Spanish team with an unprecedented abundance of midfielders who were above any other country in the world, all at the same time, Iniesta, Xavi, Alonso, Fabregas, Silva etc. They also had to slightly compromise as their main attackers, especially Torres were on the wane. Their tactic worked because of the continuing dominance of possession tiring teams out and eventually Spain breaking teams down. Obviously we do not have the midfielders they had to dominate possession in every game and do what they did. Very few if any teams can replicate those tactics. Such a decision to play Dack as a false 9, one which im sure Mowbray wont and thus this is all hypothetical anyway, would also make a mockery of Mowbray spending 8m on strikers as well as having Graham already at his disposal.

Dack isnt an out ball, if you want an out ball then surely Graham and his terrific hold up skills are the best bet. Then you have Brereton and Armstrong as options of players to try and stretch Villa and to run in behind. Dack looked like a fish out of water against Liverpool, its not a role hes familiar with or suited to. Our strongest position is the number 10 role in Dack, Palmer and Rothwell, to play a system without one would be crazy. That said, we cant approach home games with too much overcaution. Against Brentford we were without Dack, Armstrong and Brereton with Graham unable to play the full game, hence the compromised team.

Dack is never a number 9 in a million years. Played there v Liverpool and it felt like there was a forcefield stopping us from going into the attacking third. Round peg in a square hole. Play our best player in his best position.

His all round game is average but he scores a ridicilious amount of goals year in year out. That said, the importance of goalscoring seems to somehow have become underrated in a striker. His all round game is obviously more complete than Rhodes when he was here, plus his goalscoring is not only more impressive in terms of the numbers but also the standard hes playing at. I feel that Kane is better suited to playing as a lone striker, as I did with Rhodes here, with people supporting from deep. He has played alongside Lucas this season who has played more centrally than usual and im not sure it best suits him. If people compare him to Rhodes as he was here, ie someone who scored stupid amounts of goals regularly, for me thats a compliment, especially as obviously Kane is far better. Also, @joey_big_nose would you think Switzerland are our level if we both had our strongest teams out? Harry Kane, Raheem Sterling, Kyle Walker, Jesse Lingard, Dele Alli, Kieran Trippier, Jordan Henderson and John Stones are for me a class or 2 above what they can offer. Just look at their clubs. Key players for Switzerland include Shaqiri, a Liverpool sub whose a liability more often than a threat, Xhaka who is a really average player lucky to have a regular spot in a patchy Arsenal side and Schar who has been signed as a squad player in an underfunded Newcastle squad. Id suggest we are in the middle of them and the likes of Spain in terms of quality.