Reactions to Carlisle Game

[AucklandRover]

Interesting stuff from TM. He talks about this as an experiment. Clearly, it was one that worked, which means he now has yet another option for his "horses for courses" approach.
I even wonder if there could be occasion when we might see a 4-3-1-2 line-up, with Dack behind a twin striker pairing of Graham and Armstrong. Of course, Palmer complicates the issue, because he is presumably best suited to Dack's role too.
I note that TM also mentioned the importance of having workers - like Bennett or Conway - out wide when an attacking formation is being used. Does this mean that a Chapman-style winger has become redundant for us?
An extra point: although he was pleased by the experiment, Mowbray also acknowledged it made us more open at the back.
An intriguing dilemma!

[champs95]

Interesting stuff from TM. He talks about this as an experiment. Clearly, it was one that worked, which means he now has yet another option for his "horses for courses" approach.
I even wonder if there could be occasion when we might see a 4-3-1-2 line-up, with Dack behind a twin striker pairing of Graham and Armstrong. Of course, Palmer complicates the issue, because he is presumably best suited to Dack's role too.
I note that TM also mentioned the importance of having workers - like Bennett or Conway - out wide when an attacking formation is being used. Does this mean that a Chapman-style winger has become redundant for us?
An extra point: although he was pleased by the experiment, Mowbray also acknowledged it made us more open at the back.
An intriguing dilemma!

We do want the option of wingers. Just with Chapman not returning, we are left with Gladwin and Hart. So we wont be able to use either of them, we have had to scrap that for now. Until we go find another winger (on loan).
We don't have anyone in our squad that can be an effective winger. Despite us having 2 on our books.

[AucklandRover]

We do want the option of wingers. Just with Chapman not returning, we are left with Gladwin and Hart. So we wont be able to use either of them, we have had to scrap that for now. Until we go find another winger (on loan).
We don't have anyone in our squad that can be an effective winger. Despite us having 2 on our books.

I agree, in principle, Champs. I like attacking wingers. My point is, though, that we now have lots of attacking options, up front and from midfield: Graham, Armstrong, Dack, Palmer, Rothwell - just to mention the ones in immediate contention. Let's say only three of those play at any one time; in that situation, TM's comments suggest that he feels we would need one of our "defensive" wingers (Bennett and Conway) to balance things up. So my question is, where would a Chapman-type fit in? Before, he was used as an impact substitute, and that could happen again, but Palmer and Rothwell are obviously serious contenders as well, so we have less room for a winger in attack. If either Brereton or Gallagher arrive, that lack of space gets even more exaggerated.
I suppose this brings me back to the point that if your squad gets too big, opportunities for the fringe-players become almost non-existent.
I'll put the two speculative names in to illustrate the point.
Let's say we know the back five, and we can assume one holding player from Evans, Smallwood and Travis. That's six. It sounds as if either Bennett or Conway will definitely be included. That's seven.
That would leave us to choose four creative/attacking players from: Graham, "Gallagher", Armstrong, Dack, "Chapman", Palmer, Rothwell (discounting Samuel, Nuttall and Tomlinson). Even if some of them are half-hour substitutes, you are still leaving a lot of good players out. What's more, it's quite likely that TM will sometimes still go for the comfort-blanket of two "holding" players, which would leave even less room for attackers.
There comes a point where having lots of options turns into having redundant players of a very good standard.

[champs95]

I agree, in principle, Champs. I like attacking wingers. My point is, though, that we now have lots of attacking options, up front and from midfield: Graham, Armstrong, Dack, Palmer, Rothwell - just to mention the ones in immediate contention. Let's say only three of those play at any one time; in that situation, TM's comments suggest that he feels we would need one of our "defensive" wingers (Bennett and Conway) to balance things up. So my question is, where would a Chapman-type fit in? Before, he was used as an impact substitute, and that could happen again, but Palmer and Rothwell are obviously serious contenders as well, so we have less room for a winger in attack. If either Brereton or Gallagher arrive, that lack of space gets even more exaggerated.
I suppose this brings me back to the point that if your squad gets too big, opportunities for the fringe-players become almost non-existent.
I'll put the two speculative names in to illustrate the point.
Let's say we know the back five, and we can assume one holding player from Evans, Smallwood and Travis. That's six. It sounds as if either Bennett or Conway will definitely be included. That's seven.
That would leave us to choose four creative/attacking players from: Graham, "Gallagher", Armstrong, Dack, "Chapman", Palmer, Rothwell (discounting Samuel, Nuttall and Tomlinson). Even if some of them are half-hour substitutes, you are still leaving a lot of good players out. What's more, it's quite likely that TM will sometimes still go for the comfort-blanket of two "holding" players, which would leave even less room for attackers.
There comes a point where having lots of options turns into having redundant players of a very good standard.

The more options you have, the better your chances of doing well.
Good footballers playing together can never be a bad thing.
Luckily we have a manager who can put these individual's together on a football pitch and get them to perform well as a team.


Read Mowbrays comments about why Rothwell found himself on the bench in the first game (having impressed all summer)
He said 'I had to sit him down and tell him that while he was a very good footballer, if you aren't prepared to run, and put a real shift in for your teammates, then you will be sat next to me a lot on the bench'

His change in attitude in that week, meant he came in the side hungry, knowing exactly what is expected of him. He knows alongside the ability he has, he also needs to work in this team. And he undertstands that. He was excellent when he came on. He is our future.
When Mowbray made his point, he then needed to go back to someone tried and tested who isn't as good, but will do his work for the team. So Smallwood played.
Over time, Rothwell will be the player to improve us, not Smallwood. But we need his sort around. And he will be given chances.

Its excellent management, and we can continue to question everything he does, pick apart his transfers etc etc .......the fact remains this is the direction we are heading. Clearly we are heading in the right direction, and most people are very excited and fully behind what he is wanting to do.
The club support him, we just need some fans to buy into it, and get the crowds at Ewood bigger.

The negatives ones will bit by bit get shut down. Because they are running out of things to be negative about.

[champs95]

its like saying there are 10 really decent even teams in this division all going for promotion?
Only 3 will go up. The other 7 can pack up before its all, started. Because ultimately, they will all fail.
But football just doesn't work like that.
Every week in the Champ, lots and lots of decent players don't play, as squads are used. same in the Prem.
The art of management is to get a squad, where the players all understand their roles, and accept it when they don't play. And keep everyone happy. So far TM has managed this perfectly.

Last season in Div One, we had a huge squad for that level.
Who had a better, tighter dressing room? I'd say it was undoubtedly us. Even with the fact each week, half a dozen decent players (who would all get a game elsewhere) didn't play. And not once did it affect us. We went 30 odd games unbeaten, when the side was changed almost every week.

We have moved up a level. He is still staying loyal to the core of players who got us up. But he is strengthening our squad, because we have gone up a level. Go up, standards need to be raised. So he is doing that.

If he didn't, and we started playing the likes of Gladwin and Hart, because they are still here, then we would likely go back down. And he'd be sacked.

I really don't see what the issue is here?

[AucklandRover]

Just sheer numbers, Champs. You haven't really addressed my point by saying competition is good. Of course it is, but you can still only have 11 on the pitch. Let's Brereton/Gallagher and Chapman do arrive. From our pursuit of Freeman/McGinn, we can assume TM would still like to get a higher-class creative midfielder. If such a person arrives, he will definitely be a "regular" Then there is the extra centre-back, and the extra keeper. That's a first team squad of 32, discounting the possibility of any more Under-23s progressing.
Thir**** of those are in the attacking/creative roles (and that's not including Bennett or Conway). How many slots do we have for those 13 or 15? Probably four at most - given that TM is likely to play at least one holding midfielder, plus either Bennett or Conway.
Dack, Graham and Armstrong are almost certainties. That leaves one from ten!

[AucklandRover]

Just sheer numbers, Champs. You haven't really addressed my point by saying competition is good. Of course it is, but you can still only have 11 on the pitch. Let's say Brereton/Gallagher and Chapman do arrive. From our pursuit of Freeman/McGinn, we can assume TM would still like to get a higher-class creative midfielder. If such a person arrives, he will definitely be a "regular" Then there is the extra centre-back, and the extra keeper. That's a first team squad of 32, discounting the possibility of any more Under-23s progressing.
Thir**** of those are in the attacking/creative roles (and that's not including Bennett or Conway). How many slots do we have for those 13 or 15? Probably four at most - given that TM is likely to play at least one holding midfielder, plus either Bennett or Conway.
Dack, Graham and Armstrong are almost certainties. That leaves one from ten!

[AucklandRover]

Sorry - not sure how I did it twice. I thought I was correcting the first one!

[champs95]

Just sheer numbers, Champs. You haven't really addressed my point by saying competition is good. Of course it is, but you can still only have 11 on the pitch. Let's say Brereton/Gallagher and Chapman do arrive. From our pursuit of Freeman/McGinn, we can assume TM would still like to get a higher-class creative midfielder. If such a person arrives, he will definitely be a "regular" Then there is the extra centre-back, and the extra keeper. That's a first team squad of 32, discounting the possibility of any more Under-23s progressing.
Thir**** of those are in the attacking/creative roles (and that's not including Bennett or Conway). How many slots do we have for those 13 or 15? Probably four at most - given that TM is likely to play at least one holding midfielder, plus either Bennett or Conway.
Dack, Graham and Armstrong are almost certainties. That leaves one from ten!

I addressed it weeks ago Auks. Last night in the LET it confirmed what I've been telling you all summer. Players come in, players go out. We don't need to sell anyone. So we are getting in what we need, then letting go.

Mowbray knows exactly what he's doing. I was merely telling you what he said, sbdcre-itetating it for you. The plan was to strengthen. Then let go who we don't need. Starting with Whitingham, Caddis, Nuttall (loan) and Hart (loan) I told you this week's ago when Mowbray came out and said it.

That's our plan, and we are sticking to it. It's pretty simple. We have money. And we have a good scouting network. We realise we need to improve. And we are. While balancing the books.

We simply won't have this 30 number you keep going back to. That was bevercoyr intention or plan. Explained in full by Mowbray and the club. That I'm just repeating.

[AucklandRover]

But what will the team be? Who will be dropped to accommodate Brereton, Jordan Graham and Mings? Caddis and Hart are irrelevant, really, because they wouldn't have been in contention if nobody had been signed. I have no issue with another centre-forward of Graham's type, because that is a clear and obvious shortage-area but, even there, it will be one or the other on the field - not both - because Dack and Armstrong are certainties. (I note that Armstrong is arguing that he is actually a centre-forward, anyway!)
You keep coming back to "strengthening", but I keep coming back to the question: how many will get a game unless we are devastated by injuries? You haven't really answered that.
Even with Whittingham, Mowbray has said he is not forcing him to leave, so it still isn't necessarily one in, one out.