Changes for Fulham?

[champs95]

Plus. This isn't just one game. What about going from being in the play off places last year, to going on a horrific run of 11 games without a win? Before that alarm bells where ringing. In the middle of an ok period, we conceeded 4 away at Preston (Who'd barley won a game at that point) and 3 at Wigan. Problems existed all the way back then. And it got ignored.
He stuck loyally to the likes of Smallwood. And wouldn't play any new signing. Making Rothwell, Brereton etc wait and wait. He signed Chapman. Why?? He has played 14 mins away to Norwich since he came back. What a complete waste.
But then Downing etc come in. And all walk straight into the first team. Straight on front of players like Rothwell & Brereton. Why? They had barley featured in preseason. But they walk into the first team. I just think he got 100% of his job on Sat wring. He picked completely the wrong side. Set us up negative. Dropped players who has for nothing wrong. Picked 2 woefully poor old past it players who let is down week after week last season, in the misguided hope they would....in their late 30's suddenly improve.
When we did finally gerkin the game and get on top, he made 2 extremely odd subs. Which stopped us building up a head of steam. He allowed us to start hitting 40 yard balls out of play. Then inexplicably, he took Travis off? When Johnson couldn't even walk anymore. Because he's old. And we know that. And brought Buckley on. A kid, playing with a bunch of senior pro's who had all gone into hiding in unison. What did he expect from a kid? Coming on with 10 mins to go. Playing in a side dead inside. You don't introduce a good talent like him at that stage. It's worrying he can't see this. There are times you do play Buckley. But he chooses to play Bennett or Smallwood during those times. Because he is loyal. Apart from Sat when loyalty went out of the window. Contradictions all over the pitch.

This isn't one match in isolation. This is a guy who got absolutely every aspect wrong. And contradicted himself massively. Making me question what's going on.

Last season the teams that did well, all had one thing in common. Having watched Leeds yesterday this backed up my view. At our level most of the sides and plsyers are very very very average. Nowhere near Prem League standard. It's the manager that makes all the difference. Leeds have a good manager. With a plan. And a style of play, that doesn't change. But the teams that do well, all have a system. Sheff Utd and Norwich man for man where no better than us. But they both looked a solid unit.
Leeds looked the same yesterday. You can see what they are going to do. They stick to a game plan. The good solid sides in our league all do.
We don't crucially. It's second season now, and we have no identifiable system. We have no structure. We have no game plan. We have no stability. Our side changes every single week. We are a bunch of individual players. Dack still doesn't know where he should be? Does he go and get the ball? Because we simply have no player than can play a forward pass. Or does he have a strong message that tells him, NO you should be stood here. Whether we struggle of not.
No.....He does what he wants. Because he isn't getting a clear message. 2 years now, and he still doesn't fully understand what or where he is meant to be. I feel we are simply not using him right. And that falls on the manager.
Travis simply hasn't got a clue what he is meant to be doing? Where he is meant to stand. Bell seemingly is still unable to do a basic thing. One touch, control and pass. Not 7 touches. By then the oppo are back in place. This is going back to last season.
And playing Downing just isn't going to change anything. Why play him wide? He can't beat a man. Why play him inside? All he will ever do is pass 10 yards sideways. This is why I went on about Adam. As he was the only person I can see that can pass forwards. I'm not having a pop at Downing. It's fine what he does. But you can't have 4 midfielders all doing the same thing. You need creative one. Which is why Dack has to be employed in midfield. Sack this pointless winger thing off, and give our striker sone help. From another striker. Dack isn't a striker.

How is TM not seeing any of this? I'm no expert. Yet I knew a week before the opening game he'd pick Bennett. Which would be a disaster. And set us up to fail.

This is in no way an isolated one game reaction. This is going back to last season. And not addressing the problems we had. He is sticking with a formation that is outdated, and didn't work. We lost more than we won.

To me, it looks like her now run out of ideas. He's a top guy. He's sorted us out as a club. If he went now, he leaves us much stronger than he found us. But he's now making glaring error after glaring error. And I'm questioning what went on over summer.
As we didn't look fit as a team. We don't have any kind of a game plan. Or structure. We have no team spirit. The side changes every week. And we are too old. We have good young players, who are in unison, being introduced incorrectly at the wrong time.
It's just a bunch of random players, some ok, some nowhere near good enough. Who lacks a leader. Or a system, or any kind of game plan.
As soon as it got tough on Sat. We quickly reverted to 40 yard balls to nobody. And a 95 year old Graham who can't run anymore. That kept happening last season. If we aren't careful we could end up being adrift in the bottom 3. And spending the rest of the season playing catch up.
I'm also sure we have a decent squad. We just need organising. And turning into a unit. Second season now, and it looks like we are now heading backwards.

[AucklandRover]

No - Champs - that is going much too far. Let me summarise those posts of yours:
1) Mowbray got absolutely everything wrong on Saturday.
2) He did all last season as well.
Rubbish.
Early in November, with about a third of the games played (16), our goal-difference was -1 (with 20 goals against), and 14 other teams had conceded the same number or more goals than us.
After that, as we know, our season was a roller-coaster, with two good spells and two bad ones. During that final two-thirds of our season, our main problem switched from not being able to score enough, to regularly crumbling at the back in the last 20 minutes. However, during that time, we actually still played very well in January, and pretty well again in the last month of the season.
In other words, sweeping generalisations about how bad our defence has been for more than a year don't actually tell the whole story.
It's the same with your description of the Charlton game. I saw no evidence that the team wasn't fit. Are you seriously arguing that with numerous members of staff whose specific job it is to monitor conditioning and fitness, players are going to run out under-cooked?
As for trying to present Downing and Johnson as decrepit, that's just silly. And Downing , with 35 England caps - mainly on the wing - can't cross a ball? Seriously?
You're even forgetting that when Bennett was first switched to full-back, the general fan reaction was that he looked a revelation in that position.
What you have done is to take every aspect of one game and represent it in the worst possible light.
It was a very disappointing performance, but you have fallen into the trap of blaming everything on the manager. Do you really believe TM told Lenihan to lump the ball aimlessly, virtually every time it was near him? As for Dack, he more or less DID play in midfield, because retreating to escape his man-marker seemed to be the only thing he could think of! Danny Graham, our best player last season, looked half-asleep. Managerial instructions?
And, don't forget - poorly as we played, we had 62% possession!
Obviously, Mowbray does have to change things now, because there has been such a massive reaction (although that will give people the chance to call him "tinker-man" again). I would say Venky's will probably give him two months.
The thing is, though, this is football. Drawing far-reaching conclusions from the opening game(s) of a long season seems to me to be ignoring all past experience. It won't mean anything dramatic - in the other direction - if we beat Fulham, either. Trends DO eventually develop, but if you look at the Championship last season, many clubs went on good or bad runs at various points.
The Fulham game specifics? Bennett clearly can't be retained. And yes - he probably will have to take a punt on Tosin. But what if he has a poor game? Mowbray's fault for signing him? Youngsters in? No-win either way for Mowbray, probably!
As for the defence in general...I know - we should have kept Paul Downing...despite the fact that many of the supporters who have been arguing that case were saying at the start of last season that he was a D.1 workhorse (like Smallwood), who wasn't good enough for the Championship!
It is the short-memory syndrome that annoys me most, but not far behind are a) changing the criticisms every week, even when that is contradictory (for example, calling for mass changes, and then accusing TM of tinkering); b) distorting facts and statistics to suit a particular line of argument; c) believing that there are managers out there who always get it right, when history demonstrates that very few are consistently successful (Ranieri, anyone?)

[seventwo]

Rovers have had a poor defence since before TM arrived. He has done little to remedy the situation and the buck stops with him.
If he can't fix it we need someone who will

[champs95]

Mowbray is in charge. If the defence is so bloody awful, who else is to blame? I'm not sure I agree with any of that Auks. And your normally the voice of reason.

Tell me ....show me ....prove to me once on 90 mins on Sat that Downing beat his man, and crossed the ball. Once. To get England, we aint that good. He's 8n his 30's. And being played out wide. Why? He didn't cross the ball once.

I spent weeks telling you how poor Bennett was. And Mulgrew. You kept telling me I was being harsh. He cost us on Sat. Why was he playing? Nah ....sorry Aucks. I just don't agree. You should may be listen to me? If the manager can't see Bennett and Mulgrew are finished, then I fear we are on trouble. And yes, he will be gone.

Read my words. All I've said is, he will likely be gone by Oct. I've been saying that since Sat. This wasn't a one off.
Plus I didn't say we where poor all season? Your putting words in my mouth.
I said we went from being in the play offs to losing almost every game in an 11 March. It was absolutely pathetic. And ruined what should have been a positive season.
He had run out of ideas. He hasn't got a clue what his best team is.
Why have no identifiable system. No team unity. No game plan.
We are simply a bunch of individual players, which changes every single week. We have good young players, who don't play. But the likes of Bennett still do.

And your telling me Bennett will be dropped? You sure about that? I can see it. You can. Everyone in Ewood on Sat could. But not the manager. That's worrying.

So he improves, or will be gone by Oct.

[champs95]

Talk me through what Mowbray got right on Sat? I'm all ears .......

[AucklandRover]

When I defended Mulgrew and Bennett, it was not on the grounds that you were wrong to say they both played badly in our terrible run.
I questioned whether two of our best performers - for the 18 months before that - had permanently lost all ability, overnight. I also pointed out that people look for scapegoats. Dack and Armstrong, for example, can have poor games which are overlooked, because they are "flair" players and favourites with many fans. I can remember the same thing with Atkins, Willcox, Andrews, etc.
Let's leave the Bennett issue aside for the moment, because everyone agrees that playing him at full-back has to stop (although I repeat that he was widely praised when he first switched to that position - a fact you have chosen to ignore!)
That takes us to Mulgrew. I think Mowbray had little choice but to play him on Saturday, because of Tosin's late arrival. If the latter had played - and performed badly - many supporters would have been on TM's back immediately for throwing a youngster in at the deep end. And, I ask again, has someone of Mulgrew's class really turned into a bad player so quickly? We have been unfortunate to see Williams (and Hart) injured at a critical time, and we have witnessed how difficult it has been for Championship clubs to get hold of their prime targets.
You also criticise the set-up of the team. OK - I can't see what Nyambe has done wrong either, but let's not pretend he was universally popular. Last season, there was lots of moaning that TM had left him in the team too long when he had clearly lost confidence.
But let's take it that Tosin and Nyambe had played against Charlton, instead of Bennett and Mulgrew. Would Lenihan have had a better game? Would that have improved Bell's performance (as a defender)?
Fair enough, you can blame Mowbray for signing Bell, but that's a bit disingenuous too. Remember how often we heard that Williams wasn't worth a place, and that Bell was much superior?
Ahead of the defence, virtually everyone would have selected Travis, Johnson, Dack and Armstrong, which makes six "automatics" with Lenihan and the keeper. Bell was in by default, so that's seven. (Personally, I prefer Rothwell to Armstrong because I believe he has a wider skill-set, but that's entirely subjective).
The other four, you have to admit, take us into the realms of pick-and-mix: Graham, Gallagher, Brereton, Rothwell, Downing, Chapman, Buckley, Rankin-Costello, Samuel, Butterworth. Which?
In the event, Mowbray went for Gallagher, Dack and Downing (as well as Armstrong). Downing played as a Conway-style wide midfielder, rather than as a "winger", and I thought he did a reasonable job. Gallagher was decent too. Dack and Armstrong were anonymous. When Graham came on (I'd have selected him from the start), he also contributed little.
In other words, was it really just about "set-up"? What major changes - Bennett apart - would you have advised, given our injuries? I see some people say Brereton should have started. That has to be an early bid for the "ironic statement of the year" trophy, considering the widespread panning he received last season.
Of course Mowbray has to carry the can. He selected the team. But are you saying that he should have been able to predict that Bell, Travis, Dack, Armstrong and Graham would all perform well below par?
I have also seen the suggestion that Buckley should have started. Where? Instead of Travis or Johnson? He is a central midfielder, first and foremost, so sticking him elsewhere would have opened TM up to even more accusations of "playing people out of position".
I have no particular brief for Mowbray. I have consistently scored him seven out of ten. The fact is, three weeks ago, YOU were lavishing praise on him and criticising ME for being lukewarm about our prospects.
I think we have a mid-table squad - a reflection of what we can afford. I don't believe for a minute that Garry Monk would come in and instantly transform this team into table-toppers.
If we have another bad run, I have no doubt that TM will be fired. (Fans and media will insist on it). All managers know the score.
If we do well in the next month, Mowbray will stay.
In neither case will the results be entirely the work of the manager. I am not certain about much in football, but I AM certain that tracking the events and outcomes of a dynamic, unpredictable sport back to one factor only - the manager's input - is the sheerest bunkum.
People who argue that...well, they must never have set foot on a pitch. I have played many team-games: football, rugby, cricket, hockey. Do you know, all through my playing-careers, when I made a mistake or had a "stinker", I never once said, "Ah, that was the manager's fault."
If you focus everything on the boss and totally ignore form and performance on the day, the players are absolved of all responsibility. Do you honestly believe that is right?

[champs95]

I questioned whether two of our best performers - for the 18 months before that - had permanently lost all ability, overnight

- Nope. Not overnight. Charlie Mulgrew has NEVER been a centre half. Never in his career. The last time we played in the Champ, he was played in Centre Mid. But was injured most of that season. Most people felt we defended badly as far back as our Div1 season. My opinion for what it's worth? He isn't a centre half. He was ok, for a short spell at the start of last season. But looked way out of his depth by the end of last season. And was dropped, unable to get back in the side.
Forget what I say, ask yourself the question, why did TM drop him at the end of the season? Because Williams and Lenihan where performing badly? Or because both of those lads are centre halves by trade.
If you like i will dig out the stats on when Lenihan was paired with Mulgrew (not a centre half) but it wont make for good reading. Because Mulgrew isn't a centre half.
What I will ask is, why was this not addressed over summer?
You said yourself you felt we badly needed experience. Yet we signed a kid from City.
Meaning of course, we went into the first game with only one fit centre half. Knowing we where without Williams for 6 games at least.
You say he had no choice but to play Mulgrew.
I completely disagree. Go and get a centre half with experience in the transfer window, that's what it is for.
Then you aren't forced into playing an old bloke who has had poor form in that position, who isn't actually a centre half.
Who is accountable for buying players? And identifying players we need? And picking the side on Sat...... The manager.


Let's leave the Bennett issue aside for the moment

We can't Auks. He glaring weakness is conceeding goals, and its not good enough. He put in another woeful display. 18 onths ago is a long time in football. Here and now, I will ask you. Is he someone you would pick on current form? If he doesn't rate Nymabe, then why did he not address this over summer.
Are you saying you thought he performed well in the second half of last season? He was woeful. Exactly the same as his performance on Sat. Rankin Costello played well all pre-season. But wasn't a given a squad number.
Had he played on Sat, and had a disaster, my question is, would it have been any worse or as damaging to Bennett?
If he didnt rate Rankin Costello, or Nyamabe .....then does the fact he trusts Bennett not worry you? It worries me.
I will keep re-iterating as you keep telling me I am basing this all on one game.
I am NOT. The issue of Bennett (not a R and Mulgrew (not a C go back to last season. I am unsure I can agree that EB was a revelation at RB. He fitted in for a while. As did Reed. He simply isn't a RB. Not enough to offer him a starting place forever regardless of form. The issue we have now is, it's too late to do anything. He probably doesn't rate Nymabe. And Rankin Costello is deemed too much of a risk. Anyone at Ewood on Sat would tell you Bennett is a risk. Hence my comments a week before the season started where I voiced my concerns. Not only predicting Bennett would play. As that is predictable. But my concerns where also about his ability. I am unable to predict the future. I can however make an assessment on what I saw that deeply concerned me last season. Bennett was one. And Mulgrew was the other.
Both issues have been ignored.
You said yourself, you expected some experience - specifically a CB. Why was that? Because you felt Mulgrew was good enough? Or because we only really had Lenihan. I agree about Downing. But why wasnt he replaced? Why did he think Mulgrew would suffice?
You argument about him being 'forced' into playing Charlie on Sat falls down. Because he should have addressed it over summer. He didn't. He cant blame anyone but himself.

OK - I can't see what Nyambe has done wrong either, but let's not pretend he was universally popular. Last season, there was lots of moaning that TM had left him in the team too long when he had clearly lost confidence.

Again, I agree. So why did he assume Bennett would suddenly improve and be good enough? Why did he play Rankin Costello all summer? Then not bother giving him a squad number. If he doesn't trust Nyambe I accept that. So do something about it. Don't pick an inferior player whom isn't a RB by trade to be the answer to a problem. Address it. Or you get the blame.

Downing played as a Conway-style wide midfielder, rather than as a "winger", and I thought he did a reasonable job

I did too. However looking at that midfield, I felt too many similar players all doing the same safe things. No creativity. I am NOT panning Downing. All I am saying is, he didnt put one cross in in 90 mins. Maybe he could play in the centre? How many non creative players do we require all doing the same thing? Travis, Downing AND Johnson. All doing the exact same thing. Where is the creative part?
Where was Rothwell? Why was he dropped?
You dont start with Downing vrs Charlton at home. As good as he is, and as much he will be a valued part of the squad. He is way too similar to all the others doing the same thing. Crucually, not creating things for SG or Dack, or Armstrong. Yes they all had poor games aswell. How much service did they get? Downing didnt put one cross in.
You misread that as me saying he cant cross a ball? I didnt say that. I said at this age, I would not be playing him on the wing, where he won't beat a man, and won't cross the ball. Play him, but not in the same midfield as the other non-creative players. Or bring him on with 15 or 20 mins to go. Which I thought he WAS being brought in for.

In other words, was it really just about "set-up"?

yes 100%. He got the team wrong for the reasons detailed above. We where set up with no creativity. He picked a CH that isnt a CH. That he took oyt of the side last season. And didnt replace over summer. And a RB that isnt a RB, that also ran into big problems in the second half of last season.

I have also seen the suggestion that Buckley should have started. Where? Instead of Travis or Johnson?

He could've played instead of Downing. Of the 4 he did pick, who was going to create anything?? I would still have started with Rothwell, despite my reservations about him. He has performed well pre-season. Did nothing wrong. And is creative. Why drop him? Made no sense. I see you agree with this.

Graham should've started.

Agree 100%. By the time we had brought him on, we had resorted to banging 40 yard balls to him. Because of the system, SG and DG when he came on, where isolated. Because we are not using Dack correctly.
Drop this 2 winger thing, that hasn't worked for a good while. Change the system.
He said he was changing things over summer.
He also said we picked pathetic teams to play over summer that we knew wouldn't test us (another glaring mistake) because he wanted us to practice us playing a way that meant we had all the possession. And we wanted to try improve when a side like Charlton come and flood the defence and midfield. An area we struggled last season. So his answer was to play with no creative players. 2 lads in their 30's and no examples whatsover we have been practising keeping possession. And we seemingly had no idea how to break them down.
Is that not due to the fact he picked the wrong side? and wrong personelle? I do ....


But are you saying that he should have been able to predict that Bell, Travis, Dack, Armstrong and Graham would all perform well below par?

No. He is however picking the team. Setting them up, and telling them what to do.
Graham would have roughed them up for 70 mins. Then again, because of the system and lack of creativity, I dont think he would have had the impact I expected.

We can adjust the formation, to play Dack in a role that doesn't isolate our striker. If we have an off day, Dack will always go back and try get the ball that he simply isnt seeing. That will always mean he isolates our striker. On sat he was never within 30/40 yards of SG. I do see they need time to form a partnership. That takes time. But with absolutely no creativity behind him, Armstrong stuck out on a wing every week doing nothing, it all falls on one player. Dack. Help him. Help the striker.
If we are going to do the exact things as last season, we are in big trouble.
Drop the wingers.

If you focus everything on the boss and totally ignore form and performance on the day, the players are absolved of all responsibility. Do you honestly believe that is right?

Disagree. at our level the manager makes all the difference. Leeds are no better than us man for man. They are just organised, and look like a tight unit. Sheff Utd and Norwich where excatly the same. No money spent. A average squad of honest players, that are all well drilled.

We look like a bunch of individuals of various ability, who dont seem to know what system is effective. Where to be on the pitch. And how top break a well drilled side down.

I'm not blaming him for performances. I am blaming him for the formation we set up in. The lack of creativity. The fact we have 2 defenders playing in a poor defence that arent defenders. And the fact he didnt address it over summer. That falls only on the manager.

[AucklandRover]

SOME of it falls on the manager, obviously, but do you honestly believe he HASN'T tried to bring in an experienced centre-back?
There has been quite a bit of market-activity in the last few days, but going around other clubs' fan-sites, I have found many, many moans about the lack (or poor quality) of signings. I am not even sure that Mowbray has the final say when the salary-policy is likely to be breached.

What I meant about no choice where Mulgrew was concerned is that it was a lose/lose situation. Tosin would have been a gamble. If it had failed, guess what? Mowbray's fault. Incidentally, about two-fifths of Mulgrew's lifetime appearances have been as a centre-back, so the argument that he isn't one looks a bit flimsy!

On Bennett, I am simply trying to get you - and others - to admit to "short memory syndrome". Deny it now, if you like, but Bennett was widely praised as a full-back when he first switched. The simple fact is, it his his form in general that has plunged dramatically; it is not just a question of where he is playing. And I think the same applies to Mulgrew. Oddly, for both of them, the decline seems to have set in at about the same time: the end of January, this year.

I totally disagree that our squad is as good as any in this league. Just looking through the relative values would suggest otherwise.

I also disagree about the manager making all the difference. If that was true, Champs, why is it that the vast majority of managers (and I mean VAST!) have done well at some clubs, but failed at others? (Sometimes success and failure at the same one! For example, Ranieri). It is impossible to deny this, but every time I have raised the subject on the Telegraph site, the reaction has been the same - ignore the point altogether, because, in the real world, no rational contradiction can be presented.

There is a huge difference between the manager's ultimate responsibility and the way the team performs on a particular day. When I said "leaving aside the Bennett issue", I didn't mean it should be ignored. I was acknowledging the problem. My general point is that MOST of those who played would have been in everybody's team, and where there are differences, they are mainly a matter of personal preference (or guesswork), rather than there being an OBVIOUS selection. For example:
Graham v. Gallagher v. Brereton v. Armstrong (as some are suggesting!);
Dack v. Brereton v. Armstrong v. Rothwell v. Butterworth
Downing v. Armstrong v. Rothwell v. Buckley v. Chapman v. Rankin-Costello.
All of those alternatives are problematic, because it is impossible to know yet which one will gel best.
Of course, the usual crowd are suggesting ANY combination except whichever one is selected by Mowbray.

Leading on from that is my general mystification when people make the point that someone has played badly BECAUSE of the manager. You completely ignored my comment on that subject, so I ask again. Whatever the team-sport, have you EVER concluded that your poor performance on a particular day was someone else's responsibility?

I am a great admirer of Mowbray for his honesty, integrity and commitment, but I have consistently been more lukewarm about him than you, in terms of football alone. All the same, I refuse to consign him to the bin after one game of a long season. I'd have thought that the remarkable ups-and-downs of last season - for us and many other clubs - would have stopped people resorting to easy generalisations, but no...clearly not.

[seventwo]

It's the last day of the transfer window.
TM promised defenders but we have shipped 4 out and brought just one in.
Any manager of any business will tell you that the buck stops with them.
They ARE held to account for the errors if their staff, no question.
I hope and expect TM to get his defence set up more effectively but if he doesn't it will be time to go.
He has until the end of November.

[robinrover]

I don't expect anybody to sign today
It will be a long season with this back 4.