Mowbray (1 Viewer)

[covcity4life]

You would think so, but their wage budget must be ridiculous , I expect a mass exodus from Blackburn.

no idea tbh

just wish him well

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

Oh, and I forgot that Mowbray also had Jack Stephens playing centre half for us, the same player who is currently first choice for Southampton. To compare the squad he had at his disposal with what Pressley had is ridiculous.

 

[Earlsdon-Loyal-Blue]

Despite losing Clarke in January, and Wilson with an injury which meant Jordan Clarke had a run out up front. He achieved 8 points less than Mowbray. Mowbray of course having the luxury of Armstrong and Murphy all season, 2 players who have proven they are a level above with Fleck and Vincelot looking likely to follow.

That is a good point on Presley, everyone forgets Wilson didn't play for just over two months with a shoulder injury and Leon Clarke fucked off to Wolves in January. I think he did a really good job at Sixfields but struggled on our return to the Ricoh.

 

[covcity4life]

seems tm gets flack for summer recruitment making us shit
but recruitment that made us great season before doesnt matter lol. just cos we didnt finish 2 places higher.

 

[CCFC_Charlie]

Mowbray had the best team in the league last season and completely bottled it. We should have got automatics, let alone play-offs and to finish outside of them was a major failure.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

seems tm gets flack for summer recruitment making us shit
but recruitment that made us great season before doesnt matter lol. just cos we didnt finish 2 places higher.

Hmm.

I'll defend managers at our club as having to wade through a sea of shit before managing the team.

Said at the time a team of loanees was fraught with risk the season after, pointed out the likes of Swindon who suffered from it.

We did too, really.

I'd have taken a worse first season under Mowbray to have the building blocks in place for the second.

 

[covcity4life]

Hmm.

I'll defend managers at our club as having to wade through a sea of shit before managing the team.

.

owners must never be blamed. always the manager

 

[Moff]

owners must never be blamed. always the manager

Managers share a degree of blame if they are shit, and cant get the best off their players or recruit badly.

In 1986 Don Mackay couldn't get Cyrille Regis to hit a barn door with a banjo. A year later George and John had turned him back into the powerful feared striker that he used to be, and he remained that way due to them working with him and to his strengths. They also turned a failing squad into a Cup winning one.
Managers can fail or succeed with what is at their disposal, whether crap or good owners.

 

[Ranjit Bhurpa]

I dont dislike Mowbray, hes probably a great guy but he is a very average football manager. He is what I call a fair weather manager. When the going is good he is fine, when its bad his qualities drop with it. Simple as that. Stats are stats but ultimately, he has failed everywhere hes gone.

Then we've had a lot of fair weather managers in the last 30 years with Mowbray and Robins probably being the fairest of them all.

 

[dongonzalos]

Then we've had a lot of fair weather managers in the last 30 years with Mowbray and Robins probably being the fairest of them all.

It amazing just how many bad managers (scapegoats) we have had. No one can be that unlucky!!!

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Arse Licking
NOUN
mass nounBritish
vulgar slang

• The use of flattery or other obsequious behaviour in order to gain favour.
  
  ‘that minister got his job from arse-licking’
  
  Why would anyone be biased? What favour is to be gained by the use of flattery. Is Mowbray giving out a tenner to everyone on here who has stuck up for him?
  Your opinion obviously differs to mine and lots of others on here but to see it as a conspiracy is odd.

It's not a conspiracy. Everytime people mention Mowbray, the people that love him just bring up Slade.

I don't think a single person has said Slade was good, but there are many that deny Mowbray wasn't and get really obsessive to the point it can't even be debated.

Don't you think Mowbray did pretty poorly in the last 10 months of his job?

There is clear bias. If Pressley had performed like Mowbray in the last 10 months he would not have escaped as much criticism as Mowbray has. It's ridiculous.

 

[Moff]

It amazing just how many bad managers (scapegoats) we have had. No one can be that unlucky!!!

Its not just us. How many teams have long term managers anymore? apart from the big clubs.

 

[dongonzalos]

Its not just us. How many teams have long term managers anymore? apart from the big clubs.

I know it's a real sad epidemic of football these days. However saying that some are still worse than others . 4 managers in a year is quite an achievement.

 

[Moff]

I know it's a real sad epidemic of football these days. However saying that some are still worse than others . 4 managers in a year is quite an achievement.

Didn't Pompey do that once?
Coincidently spoke to a Pompey fan this morning, who is naturally on top of the world after the took the title at the weekend. It gives me hope that perhaps there is a light at the end of the tunnel, seeing how they have turned it around.

 

[Otis]

they ended up 2 goals off forest even though forest won 3 nil, if he had shut up shop at 1 or 2 nil they still would have gone down. makes sense to add to tally and stay up on goal difference. yes you were misinformed that he cocked up.

So the whole panel on SSN were incorrect? They all said the same thing. Every one of them. It was a bad move.

Blackburn's only hope was for Bristol City to snatch a draw. Priority number one for Blackburn was to win their game first. They were leaving big gaps at the back and could have easily let Brentford back into the game and conceded an equaliser. They were never going to top Forest's score.

The whole panel agreed and said it was the wrong move.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

If you do a bit of topline research, you will see that since Grimsby in 2006, where he couldn't agree a new contract, he has been sacked or forced out of the door at every club he's been at... the good work in a 15 year career you're alluding to is losing in the play offs at Grimsby and Leyton Orient, hardly the stuff of miracles.
Nothing in his CV suggested he could turn us around.

This thread is nothing to do with Slade.

Not a single person is saying he wasn't shit or not accountable for our relegation.

This thread is about Mowbray, and he was also shit and is partly accountable for our relegation.

 

[covcity4life]

It's not a conspiracy. Everytime people mention Mowbray, the people that love him just bring up Slade.

I don't think a single person has said Slade was good, but there are many that deny Mowbray wasn't and get really obsessive to the point it can't even be debated.

Don't you think Mowbray did pretty poorly in the last 10 months of his job?

There is clear bias. If Pressley had performed like Mowbray in the last 10 months he would not have escaped as much criticism as Mowbray has. It's ridiculous.

the clear bias i agree with

look how many threads made about mowbray being poor. otis even called him worst manager in history

slade does worse. lower ppg. takes us from 1pt from safety to 17. not a peep about him lol

so yeah clear anti-tm bias. cant even be debated.

 

[covcity4life]

So the whole panel on SSN were incorrect? They all said the same thing. Every one of them. It was a bad move.

Blackburn's only hope was for Bristol City to snatch a draw. Priority number one for Blackburn was to win their game first. They were leaving big gaps at the back and could have easily let Brentford back into the game and conceded an equaliser. They were never going to top Forest's score.

The whole panel agreed and said it was the wrong move.

2 more goals and they would have matched forest gd be it forest conceding 2 or blackburn scoring another 2 or just 1 in each game. Bristol drawing was clearly not blackburns ONLY hope. As results showed it made sense to push ahead towards plan b.

can you not think for yourself? i have just told you how it went down on sunday. draw your own conclusions and forget panels.

 

[Astute]

Despite losing Clarke in January, and Wilson with an injury which meant Jordan Clarke had a run out up front. He achieved 8 points less than Mowbray. Mowbray of course having the luxury of Armstrong and Murphy all season, 2 players who have proven they are a level above with Fleck and Vincelot looking likely to follow.

Armstrong and Murphy were inexperienced when we had them. So was Wilson. But he had Clarke to learn from and he learned very quickly.

 

[Astute]

Oh, and I forgot that Mowbray also had Jack Stephens playing centre half for us, the same player who is currently first choice for Southampton. To compare the squad he had at his disposal with what Pressley had is ridiculous.

Goals win games. Lack of goals gets you relegated. It is ridiculous to say that Pressley would have done any good without Wilson and Clarke. We were leaking goals badly. We could let 4 in and still not lose.

 

[Astute]

So the whole panel on SSN were incorrect? They all said the same thing. Every one of them. It was a bad move.

Blackburn's only hope was for Bristol City to snatch a draw. Priority number one for Blackburn was to win their game first. They were leaving big gaps at the back and could have easily let Brentford back into the game and conceded an equaliser. They were never going to top Forest's score.

The whole panel agreed and said it was the wrong move.

They went down by 2 goals. Check the table. Yes he was shit for us. But the usual blaming everything on one person on here is back.

 

[Astute]

This thread is nothing to do with Slade.

Not a single person is saying he wasn't shit or not accountable for our relegation.

This thread is about Mowbray, and he was also shit and is partly accountable for our relegation.

You got it. It wasn't his fault 100% like some are trying to make out. And he wasn't 100% to blame for Blackburn getting relegated either.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Goals win games. Lack of goals gets you relegated. It is ridiculous to say that Pressley would have done any good without Wilson and Clarke. We were leaking goals badly. We could let 4 in and still not lose.

What's your point? Pressley wasn't fortunate enough to have a Ben Turner or a Jack Stephens?

 

[Astute]

What's your point? Pressley wasn't fortunate enough to have a Ben Turner or a Jack Stephens?

What's your point? So we were not playing fast attacking football because of our strikers? Wilson moved and helped his new club get to the Prem. I'm sure that if Mowbray had Wilson and Clarke last season we wouldn't have gone down and would have been at least payoffs.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

the clear bias i agree with

look how many threads made about mowbray being poor. otis even called him worst manager in history

slade does worse. lower ppg. takes us from 1pt from safety to 17. not a peep about him lol

so yeah clear anti-tm bias. cant even be debated.

No, the bias is the other way.

As I said, everyone agrees that Slade is accountable for our relegation in part, but a lot of people somehow get really defensive when it is suggested Mowbray is also accountable.

All I am saying is that they both are, and Mowbray is getting a lot of protection considering the downward slide started with him. Slade was utterly useless and took the downward slide into a freefall.

Mowbray fucked up and gave Slade a grenade, Slade then pulled the pin out.

 

[fernandopartridge]

What's your point? So we were not playing fast attacking football because of our strikers? Wilson moved and helped his new club get to the Prem. I'm sure that if Mowbray had Wilson and Clarke last season we wouldn't have gone down and would have been at least payoffs.

Obtuse is back.

Pressley had Clarke and Wilson together for half a season, then had the double whammy of Clarke sold and Wilson out for 2-3 months. Yet he still didn't do that much worse than Mowbray who had the use of Murphy and Armstrong all season.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

I am not sticking up for him. As I said his signings were not good enough. But just read back. Some are trying to say that it wasnhis fault alone that we got relegated and his fault that Blackburn went down.

Both clubs have something in common. Shit owners. But it is as though some want to blame Mowbray for everything.

And that's why I put 'ONE of the main reasons' and wasn't bothered what he did at Blackburn ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

Goals win games. Lack of goals gets you relegated. It is ridiculous to say that Pressley would have done any good without Wilson and Clarke. We were leaking goals badly. We could let 4 in and still not lose.

Without Armstrong and Murphy it's ridiculous to say we wouldn't have been relegated in mowbrays first season then

 

[Otis]

They went down by 2 goals. Check the table. Yes he was shit for us. But the usual blaming everything on one person on here is back.

I don't think people are blaming everything on one person. The disaster that was last season though unfortunately started with the summer recruitment of Mowbray and Venus and the very bad start under Tony Mowbray. That was the catalyst.

The season then just got worse under Venus and then in turn, Slade.

 

[Otis]

They went down by 2 goals. Check the table. Yes he was shit for us. But the usual blaming everything on one person on here is back.

Oh and it wasn't just 2 goals, Astute.

They were 2 goals worse off on goal difference, but because Forest had scored more goals for the season it was 3 goals they needed to survive. Matching Forest wasn't good enough, they had to surpass Forest's score.

The reason I said it was 4 they needed was because they needed 4 at that time in the game. Blackburn were winning 2-1 and Forest were 3-0 up and when SSN were reporting on Mowbray making the changes and throwing all the forwards on, at that point they needed to score 4 more goals.

They obviously then went on to get a 3rd goal meaning they still needed another 3.

SSN were just saying the number one priority for Blackburn was to actually just win their game first but they were in danger of not doing that due to leaving great big holes at the back.

As I say, could be Mowbray was being fed the wrong information by his coaching staff.

 

[covcity4life]

Oh and it wasn't just 2 goals, Astute.

They were 2 goals worse off on goal difference, but because Forest had scored more goals for the season it was 3 goals they needed to survive. Matching Forest wasn't good enough, they had to surpass Forest's score.

The reason I said it was 4 they needed was because they needed 4 at that time in the game. Blackburn were winning 2-1 and Forest were 3-0 up and when SSN were reporting on Mowbray making the changes and throwing all the forwards on, at that point they needed to score 4 more goals.

They obviously then went on to get a 3rd goal meaning they still needed another 3.

SSN were just saying the number one priority for Blackburn was to actually just win their game first but they were in danger of not doing that due to leaving great big holes at the back.

As I say, could be Mowbray was being fed the wrong information by his coaching staff.

but do you see that with way results panned out you cant condemn TM for trying to outscore forest?

 

[covcity4life]

No, the bias is the other way.

As I said, everyone agrees that Slade is accountable for our relegation in part, but a lot of people somehow get really defensive when it is suggested Mowbray is also accountable.

All I am saying is that they both are, and Mowbray is getting a lot of protection considering the downward slide started with him. Slade was utterly useless and took the downward slide into a freefall.

Mowbray fucked up and gave Slade a grenade, Slade then pulled the pin out.

but do you agree people go out of there way to start threads about mowbray and not slade? i mean there are cov fans celebrating blackburn going down on twitter. this is bias. no debate to be had as you would say.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

but do you see that with way results panned out you cant condemn TM for trying to outscore forest?

Be easy to say wouldn't it, if Forest had conceded a couple of goals and Blackburn had shut up shop... why didn't they just go for it?

 

[covcity4life]

Be easy to say wouldn't it, if Forest had conceded a couple of goals and Blackburn had shut up shop... why didn't they just go for it?

exactly

and you can bet otis would be the guy saying it. oh and the panel!

 

[Astute]

Oh and it wasn't just 2 goals, Astute.

They were 2 goals worse off on goal difference, but because Forest had scored more goals for the season it was 3 goals they needed to survive. Matching Forest wasn't good enough, they had to surpass Forest's score.

The reason I said it was 4 they needed was because they needed 4 at that time in the game. Blackburn were winning 2-1 and Forest were 3-0 up and when SSN were reporting on Mowbray making the changes and throwing all the forwards on, at that point they needed to score 4 more goals.

They obviously then went on to get a 3rd goal meaning they still needed another 3.

SSN were just saying the number one priority for Blackburn was to actually just win their game first but they were in danger of not doing that due to leaving great big holes at the back.

As I say, could be Mowbray was being fed the wrong information by his coaching staff.

But why was it wrong for him to try and get the goals to stay up?