Mowbray = Iraq's comical Ali.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saxo1man41

In the radio lancs interview aucks, he never said disappointed once. He must have changed tack for later interviews.

---

It's the one on the BRFC site.

Aucks, there would be no need for such fine margins if mowbray allowed our players(my choice that is) to attack the way we are capable of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saxo1man41

We've underachieved since Bradford at ewood.

---

Definitely - with the emphasis on the "WE" - that is, the "team". I include TM in that word, but his selections are not the sole cause, as you persistently argue.
I keep asking LT posters what the "magic" line-up is. They bluster a bit about Payne and Bell, but they don't really offer a convincing answer. Neither do you.

How many times do I have to post that line up aucks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saxo1man41

Aucks, there would be no need for such fine margins if mowbray allowed our players(my choice that is) to attack the way we are capable of.

---

But Payne has only played well twice! That's why he has not been able to force his way into the team. The other day, you were defending Evans. So who SHOULD be dropped?
(Incidentally, Evans was anonymous today, after a good spell. They're not robots).

Payne, Dack and Armstrong are never played together as Mowbray thinks it 'gung ho'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saxo1man41

How many times do I have to post that line up aucks?

---

See my other answer.
What impact did Payne make today?
I have no problem with your line-up, by the way, but do you really think it would turn us into a four-goals-a-match team?
What is Payne? A Tommy Cooper - "Just like that"?

Dack wasn't on the field with Payne. With both there, defenders struggle to handle them both. Paynes display on his own today is a moot point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saxo1man41

Payne, Dack and Armstrong are never played together as Mowbray thinks it 'gung ho'

---

No. I think it's a question of balance. If Dack, Payne, Armstrong and Graham all play as attackers, it has a knock-on effect behind them. I think it would probably mean starting with three at the back. And one from D/P/A would probably have to play wide, which doesn't really suit any of them.
Don't get me wrong: I'm quite happy for it to be given a go. The flaw is, Payne has generally been a bit disappointing. He looked very good a couple of times, but there have been other games where he has looked lightweight and lost. His passing has not been as incisive as I expected either.

It's worth a try at home to Peterborough but what if as aucks says we end up causing pressure to the back and inevitably lose?Will Tony still get the abuse saxo and what for this time?for not being defensive enough
It seems whatever Tony Mowbray does it wouldn't be good enough for you.