Are we looking a better side......

[seventwo]

I am intrigued by this.
Which 3 players?Gallagher one but I am struggling to pin point others out of position.

Exactly

[seventwo]

Gallagher, Downing, Holtby and Armstrong were all playing in positions which Transfermarkt identifies as being unusual - in terms of their whole careers. (Saxo mentions Rothwell, and he could be added, but it's not clear from his playing-record what his best position is).
Holtby has played very few games as a No. 10, and Downing has certainly not featured very often as a central midfielder.
As for Armstrong, we all agreed earlier in the season that he just didn't seem to have what it takes to lead the line, despite his claiming that No. 9 was his preferred position.
Gallagher, we know about. Apparently, Mowbray has been "destroying" him by playing him as the "wide forward". Well...!
The point is, modern players are more flexible. Downing, for example, has looked comfortable with Rovers in at least three positions.
I just keep coming back to the fact that every game is different, and trying to put your finger on the reasons for a particular performance is a bit of a waste of effort.
After all, the Bristol City game saw a raft of changes, and one of our best displays!
I have said that the Wigan game was my biggest disappointment this season, but even in that match, we created four or five good chances in the last 20 minute, but we didn't put any of them away.
THAT is often the key difference between one game and another.
We could field last Saturday's team against QPR, create the same number of chances, but squander them all. Would that have anything to do with "positions"?

More drivel.
The midfielders played in midfield.
Only Gallagher out of position but even he plays there most weeks.
Even a stuck clock is correct twice a day.

[champs95]

Gallagher, Downing, Holtby and Armstrong were all playing in positions which Transfermarkt identifies as being unusual - in terms of their whole careers. (Saxo mentions Rothwell, and he could be added, but it's not clear from his playing-record what his best position is).
Holtby has played very few games as a No. 10, and Downing has certainly not featured very often as a central midfielder.
As for Armstrong, we all agreed earlier in the season that he just didn't seem to have what it takes to lead the line, despite his claiming that No. 9 was his preferred position.
Gallagher, we know about. Apparently, Mowbray has been "destroying" him by playing him as the "wide forward". Well...!
The point is, modern players are more flexible. Downing, for example, has looked comfortable with Rovers in at least three positions.
I just keep coming back to the fact that every game is different, and trying to put your finger on the reasons for a particular performance is a bit of a waste of effort.
After all, the Bristol City game saw a raft of changes, and one of our best displays!
I have said that the Wigan game was my biggest disappointment this season, but even in that match, we created four or five good chances in the last 20 minute, but we didn't put any of them away.
THAT is often the key difference between one game and another.
We could field last Saturday's team against QPR, create the same number of chances, but squander them all. Would that have anything to do with "positions"?

Hasn't Rothwell always played in the same position? I have never seen him play other than where he played on sat.
And SG has played more out-wide than he has in the middle.

[champs95]

Up to Sat Aucks, in no way shape or form would you have said Gallagher was brimming with confidence. In no way shape or form would you have disagreed playing him out wide was getting good results. Then we win a game and for once he scores, and you go straight to 'I told you so' ....well you didn't. Not once. Not even close.
You are starting to sound like 'ahhhhh told you all so!!!' with quite a few things.

[champs95]

Nobody really played out of position on Sat. That was the point. And most people can see that. It's not rocket science.
Our shape was excellent. Players playing in a position they can play. Understanding what they have been asked to do.
No Dack, no unbalance to a side, which had to happen to accomodate him. To get the best out of one player, we had 2 or 3 not being played as effectively as they could have been. Which caused an unbalance to our side over-all. And Dack less and less, had an impact. we where quite easy to stop, very easy to suss out. To get the best out of Dack, it meant we had to play bloody Graham, good or bad. And due to that, we generally didnt play much football.
Now Tosin builds from the back. Our first goal on Sat would not have ben scored with Dack playing. As Graham would have been aswell. Instead of Tosin beating 2 men on the halfway line, and threading a nice ball to Rothwell, who then passes to Arma to break and have a shot. Tosin would've been encouraged to knock a 30 yard ball up to DG. Which simply wasn't working anymore. Yes we he got the odd goal, but over 90 mins we got absolutely nothing. Played badly, and often ended up losing, or drawing.
He is asking players to play football. They are all good enough.
What he is asking them to do now, is not hard to fathom. We just look more balanced, and players are playing in positions that suit.
Play Holtby in CM, and he will not score.
Play Holbty up front, and he will likley score. Its not rocket science. Its not overly complicated. And while some website may suggest Holbty played in midfield 11 years ago, he simply isn't a midfielder now. That was evident in his first 2 games. Again, no need to over-complicate things. Where is he best played? Up front....yep, go with that. Let midfielders play in midfield, we have more than enough. Fullbacks are fullbacks. Not Bennett, who isn't a FB.

[AucklandRover]

Up to Sat Aucks, in no way shape or form would you have said Gallagher was brimming with confidence. In no way shape or form would you have disagreed playing him out wide was getting good results. Then we win a game and for once he scores, and you go straight to 'I told you so' ....well you didn't. Not once. Not even close.
You are starting to sound like 'ahhhhh told you all so!!!' with quite a few things.

You're completely misinterpreting my point.
I am saying that modern players are more flexible, so arguing that they shouldn't play "out of position" makes far less sense than it used to.
The facts were:
1) Downing played as a central midfielder, having spent the vast majority of his career, wide-left.
2) Gallagher started as the "wide forward" again - something Mowbray has previously received a huge amount of stick for.
3) Holtby played as the No.10, but much of his career has been spent as a central midfielder or winger.
4) Armstrong has always claimed he wants to be the centre-forward, but manager and fans alike have been dubious about that claim, because when he was tried in that position earlier, he was out-muscled and couldn't win the ball.
5) (This was even a surprise to me). The majority of Rothwell's appearances before he came to Rovers were as a central midfielder.

All of this can be confirmed on Transfermarkt.

The only way I am coming close to "I told you so" is in continuing to argue (as I always have) that trying to pin good and bad performances down to one factor - such as starting positions - is doomed, because football is much more rich and complex than that.
One key factor on Saturday was that we converted a high proportion of our chances. We could start everybody in the same place and create the same number against QPR but miss them all. Would that be the fault of the players' starting positions or decisions made by the manager in advance or the stars being aligned wrong?
Equally, we could start with the same XI and play badly.
Whose fault would that be?
To me, it's just football. It is dynamic, unpredictable and sometimes dependent on chance. Far fewer elements are susceptible to "control" than most fans make out.
After all, if it was so easy, why do so many highly-trained, experienced managers get things so badly "wrong"?

[Saxo1man41]

You're completely misinterpreting my point.
I am saying that modern players are more flexible, so arguing that they shouldn't play "out of position" makes far less sense than it used to.
The facts were:
1) Downing played as a central midfielder, having spent the vast majority of his career, wide-left.
2) Gallagher started as the "wide forward" again - something Mowbray has previously received a huge amount of stick for.
3) Holtby played as the No.10, but much of his career has been spent as a central midfielder or winger.
4) Armstrong has always claimed he wants to be the centre-forward, but manager and fans alike have been dubious about that claim, because when he was tried in that position earlier, he was out-muscled and couldn't win the ball.
5) (This was even a surprise to me). The majority of Rothwell's appearances before he came to Rovers were as a central midfielder.

All of this can be confirmed on Transfermarkt.

The only way I am coming close to "I told you so" is in continuing to argue (as I always have) that trying to pin good and bad performances down to one factor - such as starting positions - is doomed, because football is much more rich and complex than that.
One key factor on Saturday was that we converted a high proportion of our chances. We could start everybody in the same place and create the same number against QPR but miss them all. Would that be the fault of the players' starting positions or decisions made by the manager in advance or the stars being aligned wrong?
Equally, we could start with the same XI and play badly.
Whose fault would that be?
To me, it's just football. It is dynamic, unpredictable and sometimes dependent on chance. Far fewer elements are susceptible to "control" than most fans make out.
After all, if it was so easy, why do so many highly-trained, experienced managers get things so badly "wrong"?

I'm not 100% about playing positions, but I do believe a settled 11 is important.

[champs95]

You're completely misinterpreting my point.
I am saying that modern players are more flexible, so arguing that they shouldn't play "out of position" makes far less sense than it used to.
The facts were:
1) Downing played as a central midfielder, having spent the vast majority of his career, wide-left.
2) Gallagher started as the "wide forward" again - something Mowbray has previously received a huge amount of stick for.
3) Holtby played as the No.10, but much of his career has been spent as a central midfielder or winger.
4) Armstrong has always claimed he wants to be the centre-forward, but manager and fans alike have been dubious about that claim, because when he was tried in that position earlier, he was out-muscled and couldn't win the ball.
5) (This was even a surprise to me). The majority of Rothwell's appearances before he came to Rovers were as a central midfielder.

All of this can be confirmed on Transfermarkt.

The only way I am coming close to "I told you so" is in continuing to argue (as I always have) that trying to pin good and bad performances down to one factor - such as starting positions - is doomed, because football is much more rich and complex than that.
One key factor on Saturday was that we converted a high proportion of our chances. We could start everybody in the same place and create the same number against QPR but miss them all. Would that be the fault of the players' starting positions or decisions made by the manager in advance or the stars being aligned wrong?
Equally, we could start with the same XI and play badly.
Whose fault would that be?
To me, it's just football. It is dynamic, unpredictable and sometimes dependent on chance. Far fewer elements are susceptible to "control" than most fans make out.
After all, if it was so easy, why do so many highly-trained, experienced managers get things so badly "wrong"?

What's your opinion though.

[AucklandRover]

My opinion is that whatever my opinion is about the best team and formation, thousands of others will disagree!
My main conviction is that media and supporters have become far too obsessed with the role of the manager over the years.
Once that whistle blows, a whole group of factors come into play, and the manager's influence diminishes proportionally.
Whatever WE think, Mowbray clearly has the view that he is working with a squad - not a "best XI - and he is convinced that different opposition-teams require different approaches.
He sometimes gets called a dinosaur, but I think his attitude is actually a lot more modern than that of people whose advice is, "Play your best XI every week and ignore the opposition".

[Saxo1man41]

My opinion is that whatever my opinion is about the best team and formation, thousands of others will disagree!
My main conviction is that media and supporters have become far too obsessed with the role of the manager over the years.
Once that whistle blows, a whole group of factors come into play, and the manager's influence diminishes proportionally.
Whatever WE think, Mowbray clearly has the view that he is working with a squad - not a "best XI - and he is convinced that different opposition-teams require different approaches.
He sometimes gets called a dinosaur, but I think his attitude is actually a lot more modern than that of people whose advice is, "Play your best XI every week and ignore the opposition".

Burnley currently 0-2 up at old Trafford.. 99% of their line up you could guess every time.