Tony Mowbray’s departure leaves me sad and conflicted | OneFootball

When the club announcement dropped on Monday evening that the club “hard parted company” with Tony Mowbray, my overall feeling was one of sadness, a sentiment shared by many Albion fans of a certain vintage. Like many, I desperately wanted Mogga to succeed but recent results have clearly not been good enough; my only question is now much of that was down to the head coach. I remain conflicted.

Firstly, there is no doubt that some of Mowbray’s selections and substitutions have looked baffling. The obvious examples recently being the starting formation at Bristol City and the decision to bring on John Swift at half time at Coventry, but what we cannot understand from the sidelines is what drove those decisions and whether the players followed instructions. No head coach can mitigate against the sort of error that led to Coventry’s second goal, but few of us understood the decision to bring him on in the first place – as Mowbray said himself in his post-match press conference on Monday, he is not stupid, so what does Swift show in training that we have so rarely seen on the pitch, or what was Mowbray seeing in his performances that we were not?

He opened up in the press conference about the difficulties he faced in forward areas. He never got the opportunity to play Josh Maja and, it transpires, that Daryl Dike is still not fit enough to play more than 30 minutes – with Devante Cole evidently deemed not good enough, that left him with Adam Armstrong and Will Lankshear, the latter massively short of experience in men’s football. Even including his starts in the last three matches, the youngster has played less than 500 minutes of senior football, less than six full matches. So, even with Armstrong not firing, you can understand why Mogga persisted with him for so long.

Mowbray’s plan was to convert the team from the defensive approach under Corberán that had resulted in far too many draws to a more attacking front-footed approach and, to be honest, it was largely working in that Albion were dominating games, but frailties in the attacking third meant that the results were not coming consistently enough. And then they disappeared completely. The Baggies dominated Hull City at the Hawthorns and Norwich City on the road, and then were by far the better side against Sunderland, but came away with just one point from those three games. The disastrous experiment at Bristol City was followed by victory over Watford before the Easter surrender.

The feeling around the club changed so markedly so quickly in the space of a month and, while the Bristol City result can probably be hanged at Mowbray’s door, it is the players that should take the bulk of the blame for the failure to take advantage of opportunities in those earlier games, and the abject lack of effort over Easter. When you have senior players like Kyle Bartley and Darnell Furlong just strolling around the pitch as if they don’t care, and you have key players missing key matches because of ill discipline, can you really blame the head coach solely? At some point, the players have to show what they are about.

For too long at the Hawthorns, the players have had an easy ride and, unless that culture changes, the club will continue to flounder. The players apparently hated Corberán, and maybe that was a sign that the easy ride was coming to an end – circumstances robbed us of seeing how that might ultimately have worked out. Perhaps Mowbray was too decent a man to do what was necessary, or perhaps he didn’t have the time. Furthermore, the squad didn’t, perhaps, suit Mowbray’s preferred style and, while he tried to implement his ideas, the more he did, the more the results suffered – Corberán managed to get some sort of a tune out of the players through micro-management but they ultimately could not be trusted when “let off the leash”.

I said in my preview to Monday’s game that I didn’t think Mowbray would be sacked – I did think he may decide to step down at the end of the season, and I still think he might have done, but he wasn’t given the opportunity. I fully accept that my fondness for the man and his previous achievements at the club will colour my assessment of him, but part of me can’t help feeling that his dismissal was premature. Is 17 matches really long enough to judge whether he can ultimately do the job, particularly when the club is in a period of transition and the best striker at the club has been unavailable?

Ultimately, however, I accept that it was probably inevitable given the results, but I feel there is blame on all sides for where we are, and not just on the players. Bilkul appointed Mowbray after their first choice, Wicky, fell through and, while they said it was not a sentimental appointment, I do get the feeling that it was rushed because of the Wicky situation. The profile of Mowbray seemed so different to what they appeared to be looking for. Once the play-off target was out of reach, they decided to act, and I do wonder whether there was some sort of break clause in the contract that made it a more financially acceptable decision.

While I have been mulling over the aftermath of Mowbray’s departure, one other potential reason that has occurred to me is specifically around his preferred style. Possession-based football is all the rage at the moment but, as the promoted teams have found in the last two seasons, you have to be very good to make it work in the Premier League. Mid-table Premier League managers will be delighted to see the teams promoted from the Championship playing out from the back, as they will almost inevitably fail in the same way that Leicester, Southampton and Ipswich have done this season – their players are simply not good enough to avoid the mistakes that cost goals when you play in that way. As pleasing on the eye as it may be, it’s a hard thing to get right in the Premier League.

That is, of course, the way Mowbray wants to play and, if the club were to have given him the opportunity to build a squad to play that way next season, it would then be stuck in that mode. Corberán was more pragmatic and I do wonder whether a head coach with a similar outlook will be sought. We all want to see attacking football, but if the club is to progress and aim to establish itself in the top flight once again, we may have to move away from the possession-based approach. A solid defence with the ability to attack quickly on the break is, I believe, the way to go. Corberán got it part of the way – perhaps a similarly-minded head coach with a few more squad changes might get us moving further in that direction.

While still sad and conflicted, I am resigned to the need for change but it is more than just a new head coach. Andrew Nestor said recently that the club had gone through two of the three windows needed to overhaul the squad – that leaves a lot to do this summer. It seems clear that Swift and Diangana will be leaving, but a few more need to be moved on if there is to be a real change of the guard. Another big summer is coming, and Bilkul need to get this one right.

In the meantime, thanks, Tony, for your efforts. The last three months will not damage your legacy in my eyes and that day at Loftus Road 17 years ago will live forever in my memory.