Walking Down The Halbeath Road

[da_no_1]

1 hour ago, North West said:

A consistent goal scorer, where the f**k do we find one of them?

 

We had one once long before Kevin Nisbet. His name was Nicky Clark. He was also denounced as being lazy. We really are a bunch of ignorant wankers.

[Wacky]

I’m pretty confident that JMc will know what’s required to sort this team out, and will fix it in this window. If not then………

[Wacky]

8 hours ago, da_no_1 said:

We had one once long before Kevin Nisbet. His name was Nicky Clark. He was also denounced as being lazy. We really are a bunch of ignorant wankers.

There’s no denying that Nicky got us plenty very important goals, but I thought he was a bit lacklustre sometimes. In his day he was unplayable though. 

[CallumPar]

9 hours ago, da_no_1 said:

We had one once long before Kevin Nisbet. His name was Nicky Clark. He was also denounced as being lazy. We really are a bunch of ignorant wankers.

Some of those fans also kept saying our 15-20 goal a season striker only got a game because his dad was assistant manager. Football fans are a weird bunch. Say they want quality, then moan that the players that have quality don’t run around like a headless chicken. Nicky Clark was a very good player for us.

[Stellaboz]

And tracked back often. Something I noted when the "lazy" tag started being banded about. 

Boy was class for us, would love to see someone of his quality in our team. 

[Chubbychops]

Nicky Clark would still struggle for goals in this current set-up. AJ was far more attack minded than McPake. 

We can sign whatever strikers in the summer, but if McPake doesn't grow a pair and try to play a bit more progressive football, then we will never get better. I'm not saying go all out attack but there has to be a little focus taken a away from defence and get the team playing a bit more on the front foot. The balance needs adjusted.

[Wacky]

13 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

We can sign whatever strikers in the summer, but if McPake doesn't grow a pair and try to play a bit more progressive football, then we will never get bette

On thing I noticed was teams didn’t dally getting the ball back in play at throw ins and free kicks in the middle of the field, Raith Dundee in particular didn’t fanny around. They took throws really quickly when up against us, and always seemed to get forward momentum with it. 
we seem to take forever to get the ball back in play, and I remember MWH being booked for it too. 
Hope we start to recycle the ball quicker next season 

Edited April 30 by Wacky

[DA Baracus]

12 hours ago, Well over Par said:

4-2-3-1 should absolutely have been the default formation this season. If fans can see it, why can’t McPake ?

Same reason he got punted from Dundee probably.

[CallumPar]

56 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Same reason he got punted from Dundee probably.

It’s a bit weird. His preferred formation at Dundee was a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1. He was asked at the supporters meeting, just after he joined, what his preferred system was. He said that he tended to like a 4-3-3. But he did also caveat that with a ‘best formation for players available’ type statement.

He has the right players for his previously preferred system, but is avoiding using it.

[Heaton]

23 minutes ago, CallumPar said:

It’s a bit weird. His preferred formation at Dundee was a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1. He was asked at the supporters meeting, just after he joined, what his preferred system was. He said that he tended to like a 4-3-3. But he did also caveat that with a ‘best formation for players available’ type statement.

He has the right players for his previously preferred system, but is avoiding using it.

Because he has slipped into let's not get beat mode rather than let's try win. The Queens game and how we set up at the start was so obvious that was happening. KRH as holding midfield at the start. I.mean WTF.

Hopefully next season will be a fresh start and outlook on how we play. Dare I say even our final game may indicate if he has that in him, if he swaps it or stays the same as the last few games...

Edited April 30 by Heaton

[North West]

13 hours ago, da_no_1 said:

We had one once long before Kevin Nisbet. His name was Nicky Clark. He was also denounced as being lazy. We really are a bunch of ignorant wankers.

Just to point out, at no point had I ever called Nicky Clark lazy. 

He was a good player for us. 

My only point was we need to try and secure a competent striker who can get a reasonable goal tally to assist in winning games. I'm acutely aware they're not easy to come by at our level. 

[da_no_1]

2 minutes ago, North West said:

Just to point out, at no point had I ever called Nicky Clark lazy. 

He was a good player for us. 

My only point was we need to try and secure a competent striker who can get a reasonable goal tally to assist in winning games. I'm acutely aware they're not easy to come by at our level. 

Not a dig aimed at you lad, sorry if it seemed that way

[Have some faith in Magic]

4 hours ago, Stellaboz said:

And tracked back often. Something I noted when the "lazy" tag started being banded about. 

Boy was class for us, would love to see someone of his quality in our team. 

He was brilliant at defending corners, headed clear numerous balls at the front post in most games. 

His detractors were probably the same people that thought Stevie Crawford wasn't very good for us either. 

[Socks]

Despite the talk of wanting more attacking football, I honestly don't think McPake's aim is a defensive side. I think he wants to play 'nice' football, and wants his team to play attacking football but in 'the right way'. For whatever reason, we just don't have a team who can do that effectively and the result is the shitey, short and slow passing that we've seen for a lot of this season. As it happens, I don't think there's anything particularly nice about short passing football and would far rather we found a credible direct option and were able to hit teams with simple football and quick, direct attacks. The last thing I want to see is us setting up in a stupidly attack-minded setup and getting ripped apart, like the night at Starks when Crawford decided to change from very cautious to outrageously attacking, and ended up putting out a team that was as badly set up as any I can remember, leading to us losing 5-1.

From what I've seen this year, only Rhys McCabe has managed to get his team to be effective with the short stuff from the back. The main difference is that Airdrie are capable of moving the ball quickly, and it makes it hard to play against because if you press them, they can be good at using the space in behind that you leave when you press. However, when teams like us try it, the press is the obvious tactic because we have no quick option even if we beat the press. So pressing isn't really a dangerous tactic to use against us, as it is when you play Airdrie.

It's just frustrating because when we were really in trouble in February, we changed a lot of things. After the 5-0 agaisnt Morton, we went more direct - it didn't work immediately as we lost 3-0 to Queen's Park the first time we did that, but it was an improvement. The change to 4-2-3-1 at Firhill was also an improvement, which we also used when we beat Ayr. I didn't watch the game at Inverness, but we played it when we lost 2-0 at home to Airdrie and then it hasn't been used much since.

McPake might well have said we played 3 at the back against Dundee Utd, but my memory of that game is that it was back to the system that is predominantly a back 3, but switches between a 3 and a 4. Usually when we've done that it's been Josh Edwards on the left who moves between defence and midfield, butt hat night it was Hosler on the right. sometimes that 3/4 shift has worked really well (Airdrie in December, Dundee Utd in March) and other times it's been a bit of a mess. Anywa, listing a formation as 3 or 4 numbers is only ever a shorthand and the style of play is just as important.

I don't think anyone really cares about 'nice' football. In that period when we were more direct and played simpler football, it was far better to watch as well. I don't want all out attck, but I want a balanced side who can attack quickly and in particular I want a team that's allowed to show some aggression. This passive, passy nonsense is really pathetic, and is part of the reason that Lewis McCann has struggled so much recently. He's always much better when he's allowed to be aggressive, and it's been pretty clear recently that we're trying not to get involved in any physical stuff if at all possible. If McCann isn't allowed to play aggressively, he's not going to contribute much.

With our current players, I'd go 4-2-3-1 as well. But other things need to change as well as it's not jsut about the shape.

[North West]

1 hour ago, da_no_1 said:

Not a dig aimed at you lad, sorry if it seemed that way

No issues at all.

[CallumPar]

57 minutes ago, Socks said:

With our current players, I'd go 4-2-3-1 as well. But other things need to change as well as it's not jsut about the shape.

I think this is an important point. A back 3/5 isn’t necessarily a defensive formation. Wing backs being encouraged to push forward can help to pin opponents back. I think a large part of the reason we haven’t been playing more attacking football, is due to a lack of players capable of doing so.

For me, the best teams at this level get the ball from back to front quite quickly. That style of play also served us well against Partick and United in our Friday night games the other month. In general though, our defenders and midfielders have been guilty of slowing the game down and letting opponents get set into shape, making them harder to break down.

Over the last 3/4 weeks, I’ve seen Todd, Kane, McCann, Jakubiak and others make runs when our defenders and midfielders have the ball. But the players on the ball aren’t aware enough and don’t/can’t make the pass. Likewise, even in attacking areas, our midfielders are guilty of looking for a ‘safe’ pass, rather than playing a killer ball to get in behind the opposition defence.

I also think our passing in general is horrendous. At least 70% of our passes are behind players, which means they’re coming back to get the ball and receiving it with their back to goal, rather than running onto the ball. This kills any attacking momentum and gives defenders the advantage every single time.

[Salvo Montalbano]

1 hour ago, Socks said:

Despite the talk of wanting more attacking football, I honestly don't think McPake's aim is a defensive side. I think he wants to play 'nice' football, and wants his team to play attacking football but in 'the right way'. For whatever reason, we just don't have a team who can do that effectively and the result is the shitey, short and slow passing that we've seen for a lot of this season. As it happens, I don't think there's anything particularly nice about short passing football and would far rather we found a credible direct option and were able to hit teams with simple football and quick, direct attacks. The last thing I want to see is us setting up in a stupidly attack-minded setup and getting ripped apart, like the night at Starks when Crawford decided to change from very cautious to outrageously attacking, and ended up putting out a team that was as badly set up as any I can remember, leading to us losing 5-1.

From what I've seen this year, only Rhys McCabe has managed to get his team to be effective with the short stuff from the back. The main difference is that Airdrie are capable of moving the ball quickly, and it makes it hard to play against because if you press them, they can be good at using the space in behind that you leave when you press. However, when teams like us try it, the press is the obvious tactic because we have no quick option even if we beat the press. So pressing isn't really a dangerous tactic to use against us, as it is when you play Airdrie. [...] If McCann isn't allowed to play aggressively, he's not going to contribute much.

It was very noticeable in the last few seasons playing against Airdrie in that when we pressed them high we won it back a few times and created chances and even scored by turning it over 20-30 yards from goal. By the same token, they created and scored a couple of really nice goals by drawing us in and using the space. When Airdrie pressed us, we would often beat the first press but then the midfield (Chalmers, Allan, Hamilton, etc all guilty) wouldn't use the space left by the Airdrie players pushing up and instead it would go square and allow them to get back into shape. It totally negates the purpose of playing it short at the back, especially the stupid goal kick to the goalkeeper in his own six yard stuff we do just because Man City and Arsenal do it. Also agree about McCann - when he scored that goal in the Viaplay Cup through in Kirkcaldy at the start of the year (a bustling and physically imposing burst from the inside left channel and a good finish) I and many others thought this might be his breakout year. Instead he's been hamstrung slightly, and has lost all his confidence as a result.

14 minutes ago, CallumPar said:

For me, the best teams at this level get the ball from back to front quite quickly [...] In general though, our defenders and midfielders have been guilty of slowing the game down and letting opponents get set into shape, making them harder to break down. [...] I also think our passing in general is horrendous. At least 70% of our passes are behind players, which means they’re coming back to get the ball and receiving it with their back to goal, rather than running onto the ball. This kills any attacking momentum and gives defenders the advantage every single time.

It's really annoying how slow we are. I know I mentioned at the time but about the only time I lost the plot with Chalmers this season was in a game at EEP where McCann had the whole left side of the pitch to himself as the opposition right back had lost the ball at the edge of our box and they hadn't readjusted positionally yet. Instead it was the usual sideways 10 yard pass behind someone which caused them to stop their own run, turn back to control it and then pop it back to the back four. The initial option to McCann wasn't a difficult ball and had the square ball been ahead of its recipient then there was still a bit of space to exploit but that yard, yard and a half displacement made all the difference. Even on Saturday there we had a good break in the first half where a long ball over the top found Ritchie-Hosler in space. We didn't do it again the rest of the game, despite creating a really good chance off the back of it. So annoying.

[Wacky]

24 minutes ago, CallumPar said:

I also think our passing in general is horrendous. At least 70% of our passes are behind players, which means they’re coming back to get the ball and receiving it with their back to goal, rather than running onto the ball. This kills any attacking momentum and gives defenders the advantage every single time.

I was coming back here to say this very thing. We appear to always play a short ball behind players when passing. We rarely try to play a defence splitting forward ball to give our player a chance to run onto it. As you rightly say, it slows down any attack that may be on. Again, the Rovers tore us apart with quick turnaround and forward passes. 
 

In a completely different rant, my mates and I have said more that a few times that when Mehmet is taking a goal kick, Josh appears to be left in acres of space on the left with a clear path 2/3rds of the way up the park. We’ve often thought that should be exploited at least once every couple of games just to see if we can make headway with it. 

[HoBNob]

2 hours ago, Socks said:

Despite the talk of wanting more attacking football, I honestly don't think McPake's aim is a defensive side. I think he wants to play 'nice' football, and wants his team to play attacking football but in 'the right way'. For whatever reason, we just don't have a team who can do that effectively and the result is the shitey, short and slow passing that we've seen for a lot of this season. As it happens, I don't think there's anything particularly nice about short passing football and would far rather we found a credible direct option and were able to hit teams with simple football and quick, direct attacks. The last thing I want to see is us setting up in a stupidly attack-minded setup and getting ripped apart, like the night at Starks when Crawford decided to change from very cautious to outrageously attacking, and ended up putting out a team that was as badly set up as any I can remember, leading to us losing 5-1.

From what I've seen this year, only Rhys McCabe has managed to get his team to be effective with the short stuff from the back. The main difference is that Airdrie are capable of moving the ball quickly, and it makes it hard to play against because if you press them, they can be good at using the space in behind that you leave when you press. However, when teams like us try it, the press is the obvious tactic because we have no quick option even if we beat the press. So pressing isn't really a dangerous tactic to use against us, as it is when you play Airdrie.

It's just frustrating because when we were really in trouble in February, we changed a lot of things. After the 5-0 agaisnt Morton, we went more direct - it didn't work immediately as we lost 3-0 to Queen's Park the first time we did that, but it was an improvement. The change to 4-2-3-1 at Firhill was also an improvement, which we also used when we beat Ayr. I didn't watch the game at Inverness, but we played it when we lost 2-0 at home to Airdrie and then it hasn't been used much since.

McPake might well have said we played 3 at the back against Dundee Utd, but my memory of that game is that it was back to the system that is predominantly a back 3, but switches between a 3 and a 4. Usually when we've done that it's been Josh Edwards on the left who moves between defence and midfield, butt hat night it was Hosler on the right. sometimes that 3/4 shift has worked really well (Airdrie in December, Dundee Utd in March) and other times it's been a bit of a mess. Anywa, listing a formation as 3 or 4 numbers is only ever a shorthand and the style of play is just as important.

I don't think anyone really cares about 'nice' football. In that period when we were more direct and played simpler football, it was far better to watch as well. I don't want all out attck, but I want a balanced side who can attack quickly and in particular I want a team that's allowed to show some aggression. This passive, passy nonsense is really pathetic, and is part of the reason that Lewis McCann has struggled so much recently. He's always much better when he's allowed to be aggressive, and it's been pretty clear recently that we're trying not to get involved in any physical stuff if at all possible. If McCann isn't allowed to play aggressively, he's not going to contribute much.

With our current players, I'd go 4-2-3-1 as well. But other things need to change as well as it's not jsut about the shape.

Lovely to see you post on here Socks. 

 

Agreed fwiw. 

[Well over Par]

Regarding the short passing stuff. if you recall from last season we often mixed it up with long passes from defence over the top for McCann Todd and Wighton? That's when we had players that could play a long ball - Bene, Fisher, sometimes Breen and Chalmers when he dropped to take it ?

last years back three , the runners from midfield like Edwards,Todd and KRH and the runners up front like Wighton and McCann have hardly played together

The manager, or more likely Mackay, have had to come up with a different way of playing 

I'm hoping with a fully fit squad next season, we can get some variety back in our play?