SpoonTon
-
Posts
1,719 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by SpoonTon
-
-
30 minutes ago, Cardle is Magic said:
Their “rules” are laughable on the surface.
What if everyone takes off their face covering when the game kicks off? Do they actually expect people to believe they are going to chuck 1500 folk out the ground?
£14 for a stream? Any Pars fan paying that needs sectioned.
Given that Inverclyde Council waited till today to even give us this, if that happened I wouldn't be surprised if they just refused the application for that level of crowd the next time round.* As it is, we've been allowed less than 15% capacity in a ground where about half of that capacity isn't even under cover - while wearing facemasks and having a ridiculous level of staggered entry.
*Seriously hoping that by our next home match that we don't have to go through as much as this.
0 -
Kilmarnock
Dunfermline
Partick Thistle
Raith Rovers
Inverness Caley Thistle
Hamilton
Queen of the South
Ayr
Arbroath
Morton
I don't think a massive amount has changed from the end of last season. I expect a battle again between the bottom 4. As it stands, I can't see Morton having enough in the squad for us to avoid bottom place. The top 5 have all invested in their squads, and while not being brilliant I expect them to pull away over time. Killie should have just about enough to see them edge towards the title.
Positions 2-5 and 7-9 could be in any order. Clubs from either group could also join Hamilton in mid-table obscurity.
0 -
On 09/07/2021 at 22:58, Gordopolis said:
Different time, of course, but when SC came in, we kept on the Strachan 4231 formation, and got thoroughly scudded by Belgium & Russia. The defence in that system just looked porous and flimsy, and that was the thing that drove Clarke to devise the - at first - mental 3 at the back... which in fairness settled and dug us through to this tournament.
You could say that at the tourney, our 3 man defence Vs Czech And Croatia was equally permeable, but that was at tournament level.
Dunno, I don't think it's as simple as a formation, I think we need the system within a formation to be right.Obviously McLeish had tried both the back 3 and 4 in between, with differing results with both. The back 3 system was a disaster in Israel (and in a friendly against Belgium) and the back 4 was a disaster in Kazakhstan. The back 3 system worked ok at home against Albania and the back 4 worked well at home to Israel and away at Albania. There wasn't particularly a pattern there in terms of systems, apart from the back 4 systems usually allowing us to gain more of foothold in an attacking sense. And it does have to be acknowledged that both under McLeish and Clarke, there have been big differences in terms of what the system entails beyond the formation - and I think that's an important point you make.
We also cannot get away from the fact that we lack any top level quality at centre back and right back (among other things we lack). It's not an easy job that any Scotland manager has. I can see what Clarke is trying to do, and I think it's good that he's trying to make the back 5 more than just about adding an extra defender to make up for our lack of quality there, but outside of particular tough away ties (where we have gained good draws) I don't think it has really worked. If we're playing with a high defensive intensity, where we're keeping it tight and hoping for a goal on the break, I think it can work. Otherwise, let me put it this way, the midfield should be our strongest all round area of the pitch but all too often recently it has been the weakest. I think that speak volumes about our approach. I look at McTominay, Gilmour, McGinn, and others and think that the priority should be building out from that strong midfield base.
2 -
1 hour ago, HalfCutNinja said:
How does a back 3 make us a man short in midfield? There's two deep and one attacking that's 3, there are no formations we'd play that would give us more than that.
In a defensive sense, the proof is in the goals we have been conceding. Too much space outside the box because the back 3 sits too deep, or too much space out wide when there's an overload.
It happens in different ways, but one of the biggest drawbacks of the back 3/5 is when it's played like a back 4 with an extra man in there. If you want to put it in really simple terms, it can end up being 3 against 5 in the midfield. A big problem against Croatia was that they were happy to go 2 on 2 against us at the back, so once the full backs pushed up, their inside wingers and their middle three had loads of space to operate. Our back 3 sits too deep, essentially being occupied by a single striker, while they weave pretty patterns all around us.
The most common problem has been that the back 3 sits too deep and doesn't come and engage the attacking midfield. It can't always be the midfielders responsibility to track a run all the way into the box with a back 3 - you just end up with far too many players back in the box (like with the Modric goal) or if the midfield player doesn't track back and a centre back doesn't come out to engage you also end up with a player with bags of space on the edge of the box (like recent goals conceded against Austria, Israel, and Holland).
I'm an attacking sense, it works better with players like Tierney and McTominay, but too often it's like that back 4 with an extra man - and that's the crux of the problem of ending up outnumbered. If you play the back 3/5 poorly, it ends up being a back 4 with an extra man at the back, which inevitably leaves you outnumbered elsewhere (particularly when that extra man at the back could be out there engaging the opposition midfield in a holding midfield role).
2 -
6 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:
We couldn't play the other games like we did against England. Croatia and the Czechs weren't pressing or attacking anything like as much.
We were given the ball to play, and we couldn't play.
I know what you're saying. And that's why I said what I did about our weaknesses, but I didn't really mean the specific tactical approach (far from it). It's also why I criticise the back 3, and the why it doesn't work for us. There's an argument for it at Wembley, with us playing deeper and the front players being far more attuned to their defensive duties. Against the Czechs and Croatia (in the Croatia game it was criminally obvious) we were so often left outnumbered in large areas of the pitch, with particular space either left open in front of the back three or out wide. As you say, that doesn't become so much of an issue at Wembley where we're starting on the back foot with two holding midfielders and two forwards whose first aim is to defend from the front. Playing 4-2-3-1 in the Hampden games would have allowed us to be more attuned to the specific dangers of those matches, particularly against Croatia. We're not good enough at what we do to make the spare man in the back three counteract being a man down in the midfield.
The tale of our defensive set-up in most of our recent matches, Israel and Austria included, is us being a man up inside the box and a man down outside the box - and that counting for nothing.
1 -
Like North Macedonia, for the most part we looked like a team which had qualified through a back door which probably shouldn't be there (I'm not saying we're were as bad as them, but apart from them only Turkey were worse than us). I don't think we did much to suggest the NL qualifying spots teams added anything to the tournament from a neutral's perspective. We looked a bit like a team from a lower league playing a cup match against a top flight side, we competed alright in certain respects and had plenty of spirit, but were let down by a lack of quality at both ends of the park.
I don't think the system worked particularly well, just like it hasn't in WC qualifying so far. I don't know why we left ourselves so outnumbered in midfield against Croatia, and the back three against the Czechs lacked the quality to do the job they needed to. I do feel like we didn't do ourselves justice in those matches. Being at home, I felt like we could have made the games really difficult for the Czechs and Croatia, but in the end we only made it look like the didn't have the quality to do what we set out to do. If we had set out for three 0-0 draws, like we did at Wembley, it might have worked out better for us.
Our weaknesses were typical weaknesses. We didn't keep the ball very well, we didn't pass the ball very well, we rushed things and tried to get plenty of shots off but didn't take time to create quality chances. I think we probably exposed ourselves to our own weaknesses in our home games a bit much.
Overall, disappointing. I had hoped for at least 2 points. Wished for 4, 3 would have been great, only got 1 (the least expected one). If we played all three games like the one at Wembley, I think we would have just about snuck through.
0 -
40 minutes ago, Peter LaFleur said:
I can’t recall Russell ever playing centre back for us. Always thought he was a decent player who just never seen eye to eye with Hartley.
Russell speaks really highly of Hartley, he was bombed out of the squad by McKinnon.
0 -
1 hour ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:
I know a decent number of players have spoke highly about playing under Hopkin but he's hardly Guardiola. He doesn't have a great track record of improving players. If Morton and Ayr offered the same amount and he chose Ayr because of the manager I'd be wondering how big of a p***k McPherson is. I'm presuming he's on a better wage or longer contract.
Hoppy does have a track record of being loyal to players, though. I think that's pretty helpful in terms of his reputation among the players. Maybe they do think Gus is a p***k, but I don't think we should underestimate how much those players respect Hoppy.
We also shouldn't forget that Morton have been a complete and utter shitshow over the past couple of years, and are a club transitioning in its ownership. I don't blame the players if they think some of the aspects of being at Morton haven't been great, to put it lightly, and are unsure about the future as well. It doesn't necessarily need to be the money on offer. If they like Hoppy and haven't enjoyed aspects of their time at Morton, then I can understand why they'd want to move on. I mean, maybe it is just the money but I think there are other plausible reasons.
0 -
1 hour ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:
Whatever you think of McAdams, him signing for Ayr -- presumably for more money -- is a worrying sign. For all the shouts for a 'clear-out', it was always going to be about the quality of the replacements we could bring in.
McPherson's task is very clear:
Goalkeeper as good as (or better) than McAdams (plus back-up);
Centre-mid remotely in the same class as McGinn;
Two wide players as good as Nesbitt and McGuffie (or one who's clearly better);
A central striker better than Gary Oliver.
Five first-team starters (four at an absolute minimum) to make us competitive. Anything short of that and we know what lies ahead.
I'm guessing the main reason will be Hoppy. They've all been very keen to go down there and sign for a manager who was willing to resign to keep them in a job last season. He knows exactly what he's getting down there. From that point of view, I'm not too worried.
It is a bit more worrying that we've not managed to sign our targets. We've only managed one new signing so far, and I can't imagine that doesn't indicate that quite a few players have turned us down. I wouldn't mind waiting on 2, 3, or even 4 signings at this stage, but we've maybe got 8 to go (and the worry that we have one or two too many mediocre players as it is).
0 -
I'd like to see an end to the back 5, which hasn't worked for several games but Clarke remains loyal to it because of that time it got us a draw in Serbia.
But we're not going to see that.
0 -
Just now, The Naitch said:
As bad as we've played for a long time. Picked a great time to put out that performance.
We were ever bit as bad as that in the first half against Israel and for large spells against Austria. It's also been forgotten that although we beat the Czechs the last time, we absolutely robbed them - I'd argue that was a very, very similar match with different outcomes in front of goal.
There seems to be a myth that we've been playing well - we've not been.
8 -
Just now, Ludo*1 said:
Is the tactic not to have one of our CH's step up when in possession?
The biggest problem is having a keeper at the half way line when we're in a passage of play after the corner that's not even in the Czech Republic's box.
Yeah, but the point is that when he does that the others at the back have to assess where the danger is from that. The right back is pushed up and we're covering our left side where the danger isn't. If the defenders have adjusted to the situation, then we're not giving a Czech forward a clean run through.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Comrie said:
People defending Marshall's positioning on Twitter, but this is criminal.
Bigger problem is clearly the RCB taking a stroll up the pitch to give the ball away, and no-one even bothers to cover across the massive hole he's left. No-one in the defence, Marshall included, has read the potential danger in the situation.
After that it's a tremendous effort. Even if Marshall is further back it would have been very tricky.
2 -
Clarke's had all the warnings he needed that his approach hasn't been working.
It didn't work in the Nation's League after the Serbia game, it hasn't worked at the start of WC qualifying. Yet he's tied himself to players and a system that happened to get a draw in Serbia in a big match.
0 -
Back 5 not working yet again, but Clarke is determined to persevere with it. It leaves us playing like we're a man down in attack.
First change should be Fraser in for Hendry.
0 -
Just now, Scotty Tunbridge said:
Can agree with this slightly. You don’t want to rip up the full game plan but Clark must have done work on some other shapes, because I think Tierney is done for this tournament so the main benefit of the back 5 is gone.
The best we've played recently is when we switched to the back 4 against Israel. Given that most of our players play most of their football in teams with a back 4, I don't think it's an issue (and should be something that we've worked on). I think most of the problems we've had recently have come down to players not being fully clear on their roles.
We've basically gone back to the team that struggled to a draw against Austria, but without even having Tierney.
0 -
I hate the back 5. It's failed to work more often than its has. And now we don't even have it's redeeming feature.
It was awful against Austria and so bad against Israel that we had to ditch it at half time. I don't get why we have to leave good midfield players on the bench in order to play an extra centre half. Once again in the friendly against Holland we conceded a goal because the back 3 stays too deep and the midfield don't know who's meant to be covering in front of the defence - just like against Austria and Israel.
0 -
2 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:
Can we have the next Morton-supporting contestant in the 'He Was Utter Shite For Us And Will Undoubtedly Be For Yous Too' competition ? You guys just worry about your own outfit and leave us to enjoy the novelty of watching a squad being assembled rather than arriving on a Deliveroo bike ten minutes before the start of the season. Oh, and get the cruise ships sorted.
To be fair, I was just giving my opinion on Orsi - and trying not to be patronising by saying something like, 'he was rubbish for us but I'm sure he'll be ok for a diddy team like Dumbarton.'
He was rubbish for us and I don't think he'll be a success at Dumbarton either. I could be very wrong, it was maybe just the wrong fit at Morton, but I don't think he's good enough.
0 -
I'm not going to be patronising and say that Orsi will do well for dropping down a level. There are players from our squad last season that I think that applies to, and that showed up in the playoff games, but Orsi isn't one of them. He works hard, and his movement is decent, but he's a horror show on the ball - and that will only look even worse in League One. I think he's a poor signing for any League One team that has any ambitions (even if those are merely staying up). I'd be petty surprised if he's a success at Dumbarton.
0 -
6 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:
Yer right actually. I forgot McElhone had made us slightly more attacking at first but, from then on, I just remember the season being such a dirge it all blends in to one another. Still, no matter what shit was thrown at the wall over the season, or the reasons for it, it's clearly the fact it worked v Airdrie that has made McPherson decide he can get a tune out of Muirhead.
This.
McElhone did make the initial positive change to a 4-2-3-1, with a clearly defined attacking player in front of the midfield (McPake for the first couple of games), but then he tweaked it to a 4-1-4-1 with a holding mid behind the wingers and two more advanced centre mids (nearly always 2 out of Blues, Lyon and Colville playing in front of Omar, Jacobs, or Millar). This became very stale because, unlike in the first couple of games when we had McPake connecting the midfield and attack, the whole thing was very detached.
0 -
15 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:
And I have never said it is. What I have said, and what is a demonstrable fact, is we have absolutely no other evidence from the player regarding his own viewpoint on these crimes. If you go back and check I brought it up because I was specifically asked to. It is, as far as I am aware, the only place we can reference anything approaching remorse from Lithgow. If there are other interviews or examples elsewhere feel free to provide them but, so far, the only time Lithgow has commented publicly he has not shown a single piece of remorse for the victims of his crimes (unknown editorial choices not withstanding)
I don't know if this has already been pointed out on here, I don't want to read through everything, but it's very easy to find that he did apologise at the time (whatever you want to make of that).
"I am very sorry for the upset and distress caused through my actions and I wholeheartedly accept the judgement of the court. I can assure everyone that this will not happen again."
2 -
48 minutes ago, Cmac1869 said:
Killie are looking at Mcadams is he any good
Very good for his age - great reactions, decent in most areas. He's got a bit of a weakness with shots from distance, but he's certainly got the potential to develop into a goalkeeper who could play in the Premiership. I'm not convinced he's ready for a team who are challenging for the title.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Trogdor said:
Sorry if you play with wingbacks you don't play wingers too. The wingbacks would be trying to occupy the same blade of grass as the wingers.
Attacking mids maybe behind a big guy up top. However, that asks a lot of the two who are sitting in the midfield. We'd need to strengthen in there for that to be an option imo.
Hoppy already did the 'hold my 'beer' on that one for us plenty of times - call it a 5-4-1 or 5-2-3, it was wingers with a back 5. There was nothing much conventional in the way he set up our teams. There were some downright odd approaches in the first season - we sometimes played with a diamond in midfield, but instead of a front two we'd have a winger, so it was like 4-5-1 with no-one on one side of the midfield.
There's no saying 'you don't' when it comes to Hoppy and formations.
0 -
39 minutes ago, eez-eh said:
A back 5 doesn’t have to mean no wingers or attacking mids. Could easily be a 5-2-3 or 5-2-1-2.
That's what Hoppy tended to do when playing with a back five for us. Away from home he'd sometimes go with the 5-3-2, but, for example, when we played Ayr last season under Hoppy (the 3-2 game) we started with a back five, with McPake and Nesbitt off Orsi in attack (it was a disaster, to be fair).
0
Greenock Morton vs Dunfermline Athletic - Sat 31st July
in Scottish Championship General Chatter
Posted
The was a couple of awkward moments on Saturday when fans in the cowshed very obviously wanted to kick or throw the ball back onto the pitch but just had to watch the ball slowly roll past them.