No - I'm not saying Graham has played well. He has generally been disappointing. Having agreed that, we did actually look better after he appeared on Tuesday, despite him missing a good chance.
My point is that virtually all of our players have been inconsistent, and saying that's "because of" Mowbray doesn't really make sense. Who is "responsible" then for the games where individuals or the team HAVE played well? You can't have it both ways!
I have no problem with TM being sacked if we lose the next two. That's the way football works, and I will welcome whoever replaces him.
However, I will not join in with this nonsense that "everything is the manager's fault". In all my years playing a variety of team-sports, on the many occasions I had a poor game, it never crossed my mind to say, "Yeah - I had a shocker, but it was all because of the coach."
To go back to the Travis business, are you really arguing that if a manager says to a midfielder, "I want you make sure we're a bit tighter through the centre today", he means the player should stand in one area, and under no circumstances contribute to the attacking side of the game?
These are talented professionals. They are not robots, controlled by the man in the dug-out.
We are playing poorly at the moment, and Mowbray inevitably carries the can for that. Personally, I feel he has been too loyal to certain players throughout his career with us, and has perhaps relied too heavily on experience. But when I read on the Telegraph site that he is somehow responsible even for the injuries, I despair.
I am also startled by the widespread belief that any new manager will produce a magical change. Yes - our recent history really supports that notion, doesn't it?!
Chris Hughton? A very likeable man with good ideas on football...but one sacked by Norwich and Brighton.
This notion of generically "good" and "bad" managers is tosh. They are only ever as good as their last job.
Mowbray is a "bad" one at the moment. He might well go somewhere else and turn into a "good" one again. (I wonder how we should classify Cook and Hurst now - the suggested saviours last time Mowbray was under the cosh!)
Meanwhile, the players sail on, carefree - no doubt buying into the story that they couldn't help their poor performances because they were being badly managed.
As far as I am concerned, we are a Championship club now, whatever history says. If we get to the play-offs one season soon, that will be exciting and enjoyable. Then we might strike really lucky and do what Burnley have done for a few seasons. Very unlikely, however. The PL is NOT, somehow, our rightful place.
My bottom line is just the old cliche - take it one game at a time. Mowbray probably has two chances left, but I have no idea what will happen next (even in the Preston game) because this is football. I am not optimistic because lack of confidence is a killer. All the same, Mowbray - at the very least - deserves that these players should come out fighting on Saturday.
In a couple of matches this season, we have looked really slick. In most of the others, we have ranged from lacklustre to poor. Do you really want to put yourself in the difficult position of trying to explain where those good games came from if the manager is 100% responsible, and yet the same man has been in charge for every game?
To me, there are far more factors in play than what one man, who is NOT on the pitch, says and does before the whistle blows. Trying to reduce the complexities of football to that one criterion is just ridiculous.