Just in and it going to be a quick summary.

We totally outplayed them in the first half and how we weren't 3 or 4-1 up is anyone's guess, Monkhouse missing probably the best chance when he totally miskicked from within the box, Larkin picking the wrong choice and shooting into side netting, and Liddle unable to get anything on a game of pinball around the six yard box. Yes we still managed to concede within 2 minutes and visions of May last year had come to mind.

4-5-1- worked totally in the first half and maybe I'm being to critical but I thought we had to change it with 2 up front to try and make them have something new to think about and I would have done it straight from the start of the 2nd half, others including Turner disagreed with me saying stay with the 4-5-1 as it had created chances, but we were just unable to finish.

They made a change on came Duffy, within 10 minutes 2-0 down we had changed by then with Larkin alongside Behan that to change with Boyd replacing Behan, but the gaps started to appear and they came into more.

More points lost but seriously if we could have finished today we would have got the 3 points, maybe the most important miss being that of Monkhouse's as it was the first main opportunity and if we had got that , then we would probably have got a 2nd.

A good 1st half performance and even the start of the second promised things but once their 2nd went in you knew it was a game over. A late free kick pulling off a good save from the Bristol goalkeeper (who was given MOTM) being the closet in the closing stages.

Maybe today wasn't meant to be , we did deserve something, we did play well and being optimistic if we play like that against the poorer teams in the division , we will be safe. It's just at the moment when you look at the table it's only 4 points from the bottom 4 and that gives you worries.And you have the run of games we have.

Cheers for the report mate.

Given our problems with ball retention this season I've thought for a while that we should play with 5 in the middle. It should also, in theory at least, make it harder for your opponents to mount attacks. It certainly sounds like the formation worked to the extent of helping us to fashion chances.

Disappointing to hear that we missed a few sitters. A classic sign of players having no confidence.

Curiously the BBC report said it was a comfortable win for Rovers. Would you disagree?

It just shows how weak our midfield is when we have to put excessive numbers in there to make it competitive. Nuff said.

How did Gamble play? It sounded like he had a very good game, which would be a positive.

Normal story for us this season just think Nelson porter missed when at top of their game

We can analyse till the cows come home.
The fact of the matter is another game.......another defeat.

Our maestro said it himself.............the only worthwhile tactics are putting the ball in their net more than they put it in ours..........well we didn't do that...........again.

Come on Chris..........time's up mate.

Team will be changed also tactics for the next game as we need 3 points in that one expect 433

We do need a manager like

IMHO Turner's new system / tactics is not that of a manager trying to find the perfect formation, it is one of a man who won't make the hard decisions and face into dropping some people. It is purely to keep Humps and Sweens in the line up. I love Humps for what he's given us but he isn't in good form and needs to come out of the side. Today was a game we could have won and should have won and he set us up not to lose, yet we did. I appreciate 4-5-1 was needed on tuesday after the 5-0 and we were playing a quality team, but not at BR. We needed to attack them and have our top scorer in the side to finish them off. WTF has Sweens got on CT.

If he plays 4-5-1 at home to Gillingham he wants his head examining because that is suicide and will give Gills their first away win of season. Drop Humps and Sweens, play Jones and Gamble and stick Boydie up top with Behan it's the only way we'll win.

On the whole though I feel optimistic....................

Let's see what he does on tuesday. If we play 4-5-1 then there's not much argument, he's doing it to keep establishment happy, much like Sven, and the Dutch man McLaren did with England. Weak management. If he plays 4-4-2 and we win with a goal from Sweens then fair play i'll concede I have been over zealous in my criticism.

Why would he be doing it just to keep the establishment happy?

Put it this way, I can count on Abu Hamza's remaining digits the number of times I've seen us, this season, put together lengthy periods in which we've managed to hold onto the ball, high up the pitch, with four in the middle. Football is a simple game and you can't score if you don't have the ball!

People at the game yesterday are suggesting that the formation helped us keep hold of the ball, move down the pitch in a constructive fashion and helped us create chances. Surely it makes sense to try it again against another of the league's weaker teams? Granted if we're struggling in the second half things will need changing but I think it would be foolish to change it from the start for something that wasn't really working anyway.

I know what your saying Bramstein but i dont think people will be happy to see us play 4-5-1 at home.

Well I went yesterday and cannot believe we lost. Turner got his tactics RIGHT. Humps and Sweeney really controlled the midfield and are passing at times was magic. Gamble got into his stride and seems to be getting better each game. Beham held the ball up well and worked his socks off. However.....

I do think Turner lacks the knowledge to change players and apply the apprioprate system to the Team. Nobody thought Behan should have been subbed and Humps played far better than Jones who went missing. Boydy reminds me of a teenager who blows hot and cold. You never know which player is going to turn up each game. Monkhouse was superb first half then ent missing in the second, he even got a yellow for pushing a player for a foul that happened 10 yards from him!

Yes I am worried with our league form but after watching yesterday I can see light at the end of the tunnel.

Gamble got into his stride he was our MOTM, found a Pools player with passes on all but 2 occasions, think that's the most he give the ball away, he was immense so I'm sorry Humps and Sweeney although both had good games did not control the midfield GAMBLE did.

There was one occasion were Behan laid the ball off for Humphreys to come on to , lack of pace meant he didn't get to it. I'm not going to get in to knocking individuals here but a few years ago he would have got to it.

Jones went MISSING what in all the 17 minutes he had on the pitch, and wasn't it his storming run through the centre midfield that resulted in a crude tackle(IMHO) from Anthony and the resulting fracas were Monkhouse decided to give someone a little shove in the chest.

I say again the tactic of 4-5-1 saw us dominate, but once more in my opinion we needed to change it a little quicker, the game plan of 4-5-1 had us 1-0(unluckily granted) down.

If you go back to earlier in the season when we were winning away from home we had two strong banks of 4 in defence and midfield and at times we played 4-5-1, and I stated I would be happy with that formation at home but couldn't see a lot of other fans agreeing, it's looked upon as a defensive formation and not liked when played at home.

But after the debacle of MK we have played 2 and lost 2 but could have had 4 points from them games. Everyone on here would have been over the moon with that return, but it simply wasn't to be.

The worrying thing is in the first half we created som many chances yet failed to score which is worrying. In the first Half i thought we passed the ball around really well and f**k knows how we wernt wining. When they scored the 2nd goal Turner need to change to 4-4-2 but he stayed with 4-5-1 which was working but when 2-0 down you have to put 2 upfront!

Problem is "our only real finisher" as you put it, is sat on the bench because it's the only position in the team he deserves at the moment. FACT.

Would he give us the goals we didn't get yesterday if he played the lone striker ???
Maybe if he had been on end of some of the chances yesterday we may have won, but that's a presumption.

Would he give the TEAM the work rate the lone striker has to give.

Or would it be the lazy Boyd that turned up ???

The lazy Boyd means we need an extra midfielder unless we do what the Osprey rugby team did and play an extra man hoping no one notices.

Off the top of my head we've come from behind to take Three points all season (Wycombe home 1-1, Stockport away 2-2 Yeovil home 1-1) If that doesn't highlight how tactically clueless Turner is in changing a game I don't know what does. That must be one of if not the lowest total in the football legaue for a team who fall behind, it's quite frankly pathetic.

We've surrendered 20 points after taking the lead by maths but I'm no MadJohn!

Who was doing that

And the jobs worth copper, who kept saying "look at me when I'm talking to you" and it WASN'T me he was saying it to

I did think of Brighton but decided as I was trying to prove how shite Turner was I wouldn't include it (plus we were 3-2 up at half time!)

This may or may not interest anyone, but apparently the Borer have only come back to win a game after being behind once in their last 100 league games.

Does that make their recent management even more incompetent than Turner?

It just highlights how shite the Borer are.

How about Monkhouse and Larkin deliberately stay wide Sweeney gets in to support Behan and we play 4-2-4 will that mean we will win. As we now have 4 forwards it as unlikely a definite win as them not tucking in and 4-5-1 being a definite loss.

You state yourself that Monkhouse and Larkin are the 2 vital players, read the report again it states Monkhouse and Larkin missed good chances therefore they were getting in to help Behan, so they know what they're meant to be doing, but whether they do it next game is anyone's guess but simply because they don't doesn't mean we will lose.

Why not I couldnt give a crap what formation we played. Leeds sometimes play 4-5-1, chelsea do it all the time. If it works and we dominate the midfield then lets play it at least we are trying something different.