I doubt very much that an opposition team is going to play differently because they see ONE change in Rovers' line-up.
I've often said to you, over the years, not to try to draw too many conclusions from one game - whether it be a good victory or a poor defeat.
I still have no clear idea why things can change so much from one game to another, and I don't mean just Rovers; I'm also referring to games I've played in, teams I've managed, and football in general.
This is why I always come back to rejecting the idea that everything is down to the manager. I've seen situations where there are NO changes of any kind, but a team still performs badly, compared to the week before.
Fans forget that a football match is a dynamic process. There are lots of bodies involved, lots of movement, and lots of unforeseen elements (like the referee, the performance of the opposition and the bounce of the ball). This is is not clockwork. There is even an element of chaos theory involved.
We make predictions on form and what has gone before, but we don't factor in all the unpredictable elements.
The media have led...and we have followed: if a team plays badly (or even it plays well, but still loses), it is the manager's fault. This is self-evident nonsense to me, but there you go.
Incidentally, I am not saying a manager doesn't bear the ultimate responsibility. A boss has to carry the can in the long run. It's just that trying to pin everything on a single factor defies logic. If Mowbray plays Conway instead of Payne, does that excuse the other ten players for under-performing? You'll never convince me on this one.