Ampersand
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ampersand
-
-
2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:
He said with Graham hunter that he wants to play a back 4.
1 hour ago, Thenorthernlight said:No.
4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 will be his formations this season.
Said as much on REDTV
Cheers, totally missed that. Will wipe down my tactics board.
2 -
If we are in for a couple of centre backs, I'm wondering if Goodwin is looking at playing 3 centre backs next season. It seems unlikely we'd be able to move Bates or Gallagher on easily, and McKenzie could potentially play in a back 3 as well.
I think he started last season playing a back 3/5 at St Mirren, without success? He might see the size of rebuild the club is undertaking as a means to shape the squad to that system.
Obviously hard to tell until there's a few more through the door.
0 -
5 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:
I’ve no issue with a decision being taken on Andy. The way the club handled the press release was poor though.
About sums it up for me, too. It was petty and reactionary - all that was needed was something along the lines of 'We made a good offer, but Andy and his advisers saw him playing a different role next season than the manager did.'
Grating to see Foster and Stewart on Sportscene asking 'Why not keep him on and use him sparingly? Benefit from his experience blah blah' when, at least in public, the whole thing revolved around the club wanting to do exactly that but Andy/his agent wanting too much money to make that feasible, and presumably seeing his squad role differently. Also ignoring that he's been injured for 9 months and pulled up in his first game back.
Anyway, I'd have liked to have seen him stay another year as a reliable backup (to at least one new starter), but that would only have made sense if he was going to be fit, which looks doubtful, and if was a role he was happy with, which also seems doubtful. I hope he gets a deal that suits him and his family better elsewhere, wherever that is.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:
Work permits will surely be an issue though?
I idly wondered this when we signed Besuijen, without reading up on what the criteria are for permits now. Hibs signed Melkersen in January too, so maybe there's not all that much friction?
0 -
10 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:
Scott Brown has always been an immature clown. The notion that he's a 'winner' exists purely because he played for Celtic in years when they couldn't fail to win, and even in doing so he managed to constantly act in a way that showed absolutely no class and was rarely befitting the captain of as big football club.
This is more or less exactly how I felt when we were first linked last summer. He'd looked like a passenger in his last season or so at Celtic, and I didn't think he'd have much to offer as a player without the same standard around him. In the first few weeks of the season, though, he did bring drive and game management to the midfield, and I thought was one of our best performers. But when the going got tough, the faux-tough did not get going. And he remains a bellend, of course.
1 -
2 hours ago, Merkland Red said:
Is Zander Clark any good with the ball at his feet? Can't ever recall seeing him pass the ball out but I could be wrong.
Was wondering the same thing. He's never struck me as being particularly strong in that department. Even if he was, or the likes of Tom Ritchie turns out to be, it's hardly the final piece of an otherwise complete puzzle
1 -
3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:
We had 26 players in the original squad, that is already pretty huge when you can only use 16 in any given game.
Fair. Having 30 or so players travelling would have posed its own logistical issues. Still, like you say, it's frustrating not to take that burden on in the current environment. There may well have been numerous guys who didn't get on the pitch, but at least they'd have the experience, and Clarke et al would have had a better look at them.
0 -
1 hour ago, No_Problemo said:
Absolutely mental not to call anyone else up!
Yep. Was there a UEFA/FIFA-imposed limit on the original squad size?
If not, and given the problems with testing logistics were surely known beforehand, the borderline incompetent choice was more to not load up the squad in the first place. Having players in there Clarke isn't convinced by or haven't been part of 'the group' is surely a better compromise than having no cover in more than one position.
With what we have, I'd go:
Gordon - Tierney, Hanley, Cooper, Robertson - Gilmour, McGregor - Fraser, Turnbull, Christie - Adams
I expect we'll stick with a 5-3-2 like this though:
Gordon - Fraser, Hendry, Hanley, Tierney, Robertson - McLean, Gilmour, McGregor - Adams, Dykes
0 -
14 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:
being proposed as 18,000 (+/- 2000 - whatever that’s supposed to mean)
I'd guess it means they can go 2000 either way using more or less the same footprint and without affecting the rest of the proposals in any significant way. FWIW, I think around 18,000 is about right - it's a capacity we'd be more likely to hit on a more regular basis, and I'd rather a smaller stadium close to full than a bigger one with more empty space.
It could also mean 18,000 all seater, or 20,000 with a standing section.
0 -
17 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:
The player least comfortable with the ball - by some distance - is SOD. He was miles out his depth yesterday.
Absolutely. He has to play at the his absolute limit to keep his head above water, and he didn't.
18 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:I'd also suggest that much of our midfield looked uncomfortable.
Also agreed. They looked disjointed and nervy, but they were bypassed so often in the first half they didn't get a chance to settle. I thought only McTominay came deep for the ball, and that was straightforward for the Czechs to press, which led to more hopeful hoofs into channels.
0 -
If Tierney's fit:
Gordon
Patterson Cooper Hanley Tierney Robertson
Mctominay Gilmour McGinn
Dykes Adams
If not, maybe:
Gordon
Patterson Hanley Cooper Robertson
Mctominay Gilmour
Forrest (can't quite believe I typed that, but he looked marginally less unfit than Fraser) McGinn Christie
Adams
... Although I expect Clarke to stick with 5-3-2 regardless. As others have flagged we absolutely need a player in midfield who's comfortable receiving the ball in a tight space and using it. We were crying out for someone able to do that yesterday, and for a centre back willing to come forward. I don't think Hendry did too badly yesterday, but again as others have flagged if he's not comfortable with the ball at this level then I think we have more effective options. His decision-making is still poor.
More generally, while we have a decent squad by our standards we simply don't have the depth of playing pool to leave clearly more talented players on the sidelines because they're young or inexperienced. That's for nations with a 19-year-old wünderkid trying to dislodge a seasoned top-level pro, rather than 'best we've got' plodder. Hence Patterson and Gilmour going straight in.
TLDR: Fucking hope Tierney's fit. Please play Gilmour.
0 -
3 hours ago, Flammable sheep said:
Do folk not remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haraldur_Ingólfsson? He did make 6 whole appearances for us in 1996-7. Pfft, call yourselves dandies.
I remember watching him when I was 10 at Easter Road, and realising even then that he was... limited.
3 hours ago, Sheep62 said:I've spent many a year trying to forget about him and some of the other dross we had around that time.
Aye. Haraldur has defied repression though.
0
22/23 Premiership Kits
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted · Edited by Ampersand
Spelling
I've always thought it looks poor when Kappa do it too. For me, it works with Adidas and Umbro kits because lines/shapes lend themselves to the repetition, whereas a logo representing a person (Kappa/Macron) or animal (Puma) looks too busy when repeated.