The Greenock Morton Thread - It's Better Than Yours

[AyrshireTon]

9 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Aye, after 11 he was on 6 but game number 12 was a win. So we need a point tomorrow to avoiding falling behind the records in 13/14 & 21/22. If we lose tomorrow it's our worst start to a season since 98/99.

From this position MacPherson went D-W-L-L-D in the league before being sacked, plus a draw in the Scottish Cup and defeat in the Challenge Cup. Five points from the next five looks a pretty tall order with the next three.

Another difference was that DDFR could more easily pay off an outgoing manager than we could do these days.

Funny, if you asked for a poor start to a season, 98-99 wouldn't immediately spring to mind (in the way that 93-94 or 13-14 would), probably because of the eventual mid-table finish and the 5-1  win at Love street. 

[Sortmeout]

Thought I’d drop in to let you know that Lewis Strapp has been training with us and played a reserve game as a trialist earlier this week.

Also on Imrie I think what you are now seeing is the lack of experience coming through. I don’t say this based on anything other than looking at your result and the comments from you guys on here.

It’s been pretty clear in the Premiership both this season and in recent seasons that young, inexperienced managers in their first job seem to really struggle and I think it’s when it’s the bad patches that inexperience comes through strongly. A more experienced manager would probably find a way to just get results when desperately needed. That’s not a criticism of Imrie at all I think it’s just part of the role (and really of life overall, I’m sure we’ve all moved to a new job and felt that lack of experience at times).

Whats the coaching set up like and do you think maybe you should’ve gone for a Brian Rice type appointment to back him up like Livingston have just done? 

[vikingTON]

Andy Millen is supposed to be there as the experienced head. He got the credit from Imrie and others during our good runs, but now it's becoming quite apparent again that he was around during Gus 'slaphead' McPherson's reign too. 

I don't disagree that there's an element of inexperience, certainly in the past fortnight. But for that reason, as well as the credit in the bank from before, I don't think GMFC should even remotely consider sacking Imrie. It's not an attractive post to begin with - while we would get candidates,  they would be a stack of John Hughes levels of irrelevance. If GMFC binned Imrie this season - given the obvious budgetary issues that we currently start with every summer - then you can stick a fork in us attracting any ambitious manager again.

The more likely scenario - and one I'm in favour of - is riding it out with the current manager regardless. The club as a whole needs some fucking stability for a change. Of course we want that to be at Championship level, but I see no pressing alternative who deserves a better shot to turn things round than Imrie, either this season or even at a lower level next time round. Though the lineup on Friday did not help that argument at all.

The club also needs to grasp the nettle about its bare bones, 'full time' squad structure that is getting found out this season because of horrendous luck with injuries. The run of injuries is unlucky but it's also inevitable given enough seasons of hoping that they don't derail a campaign. 

The extra injuries since then makes a shoeing tomorrow highly likely regardless of the manager in charge tbh. 

Edited November 10, 2023 by vikingTON

[jimmy boo]

[Rob1885]

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Andy Millen is supposed to be there as the experienced head. He got the credit from Imrie and others during our good runs, but now it's becoming quite apparent again that he was around during Gus 'slaphead' McPherson's reign too. 

I don't disagree that there's an element of inexperience, certainly in the past fortnight. But for that reason, as well as the credit in the bank from before, I don't think GMFC should even remotely consider sacking Imrie. It's not an attractive post to begin with - while we would get candidates,  they would be a stack of John Hughes levels of irrelevance. If GMFC binned Imrie this season - given the obvious budgetary issues that we currently start with every summer - then you can stick a fork in us attracting any ambitious manager again.

The more likely scenario - and one I'm in favour of - is riding it out with the current manager regardless. The club as a whole needs some fucking stability for a change. Of course we want that to be at Championship level, but I see no pressing alternative who deserves a better shot to turn things round than Imrie, either this season or even at a lower level next time round. Though the lineup on Friday did not help that argument at all.

The club also needs to grasp the nettle about its bare bones, 'full time' squad structure that is getting found out this season because of horrendous luck with injuries. The run of injuries is unlucky but it's also inevitable given enough seasons of hoping that they don't derail a campaign. 

The extra injuries since then makes a shoeing tomorrow highly likely regardless of the manager in charge tbh. 

Ian Mccall would go for it

[vikingTON]

19 minutes ago, Rob1885 said:

Ian Mccall would go for it

I already said  'John Hughes levels of irrelevance'.

As a former manager with baggage and demonstrating an enormous chip on his shoulder in the opposition dugout, McCall would be just about the worst possible appointment for a fan-owned club. He might well be more competent than a John Hughes figure, but there'd be zero credit in the bank - in fact, he'd be about £10 million in the red from the beginning. That demonstrates why (IMO) the better option is to give Imrie a chance to develop. 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by vikingTON

[Branch Ton]

On 10/11/2023 at 23:53, virginton said:

That demonstrates why (IMO) the better option is to give Imrie a chance to develop. 

 

Develop what and into what exactly? 

He has already delegated the development of King and been allowed to sign his aging cronies,  in the full knowledge of their inherent limitations, but presumably on the basis they will fit with his one dimensional playing style. 
 

You can often tell the cut of a man by the trousers he wears.

 

[Morton Supporter]

46 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

Develop what and into what exactly? 

He has already delegated the development of King and been allowed to sign his aging cronies,  in the full knowledge of their inherent limitations, but presumably on the basis they will fit with his one dimensional playing style. 
 

You can often tell the cut of a man by the trousers he wears.

 

I think he clearly means for Imrie himself to develop.

And FWIW, I agree.

If you accept that clubs without big budgets to separate themselves from competition will inevitably go through periods like this - then surely you want a manager who can work his way through (and if he doesn’t, learns for next time). Otherwise what’s the point in paying for a manager if you’re just going to pay them off every time you start struggling?

Now, Imrie’s signings and the diminishing returns from his original core group are a problem of his own making, sure. And you’d like to see more adaptation and new ideas in the face of this alarming situation.

People need to see that bigger though - I know it’s hard in the moment but this is just one season and it won’t make or break us, even if we are relegated. And regardless of where we are in 12 months time, I’d like to imagine Imrie still leading the team given what he’s shown so far overall.

And I do trust we’ll get an upturn later in the year - what team wouldn’t when they add O’Connor, Quitongo, Muirhead, Waters and Power back into what was a decent effort yesterday. Whether it will be enough though, who knows.

I think what’s clear is that, again regardless of our division next season, this squad which has been together for a few years now has reached the end of the line.

[ClydeTon]

Whilst Imrie's signings this season have been shit (apart from Bearne - who he hardly plays - Mullen - who hardly plays - and Waters if he counts) there is really nothing he can do at the moment. We have 15 players fit and available - two youth players are in that. We have 13, fit, first-team players.

It's an unprecedented injury crisis, and Imrie effectively has to play the same team every single week. There's no way he can recover this until players return to fitness.

That's the main reason we're struggling as of now, - why people ignore it is beyond me - it's not Imrie's "jobs for the boys" signings, although they do play a part.

[Ferguson]

I feel for Imrie. He's went for the moneyball-style approach of signing players who are unattractive to clubs at this level but still have something left in the tank, not that he's had much choice with that budget, but it's not worked. If we'd had a full squad to pick from every week we probably wouldn't be where we are right now, but again, we only missed 3 players for the double header of home games and picked up nothing. It was probably slightly fortuitous that basically every gamble signing made last season paid off (with one obvious exception who cost us the playoffs) and managed to stay fit. 

The window has come and gone and we are where we are, I have my doubts over Imrie but he has my full support if it's between trusting him to get the best out of what we have in the building or digging into the bank balance in the hope that someone like 'Ian McCall' can save us.

[oneteaminglasgow]

If you’re wanting a ‘director of football’ type to identify signings and convince them to join Morton, then McCall would be ideal. As an actual manager, particularly given the (I’m presumabing) tight budget at Morton, then you’d be better off sticking with Imrie. 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

On 12/11/2023 at 11:31, ClydeTon said:

Whilst Imrie's signings this season have been shit (apart from Bearne - who he hardly plays - Mullen - who hardly plays - and Waters if he counts) there is really nothing he can do at the moment. We have 15 players fit and available - two youth players are in that. We have 13, fit, first-team players.

It's an unprecedented injury crisis, and Imrie effectively has to play the same team every single week. There's no way he can recover this until players return to fitness.

That's the main reason we're struggling as of now, - why people ignore it is beyond me - it's not Imrie's "jobs for the boys" signings, although they do play a part.

Do we ignore it? I don't think so.

The one thing Imrie has to take responsibility for, injuries or not, is that he failed to bring in sufficient quality and quantity in defensive positions; that has meant we're only one injury to a defender away from a 'crisis'. There's no way you can compete in this league with only four 'first-team' defenders in your squad (unless you get insanely lucky).

If we don't fix that in January, we'll go down; the rest is detail.

[Dunning1874]

On 12/11/2023 at 11:31, ClydeTon said:

Whilst Imrie's signings this season have been shit (apart from Bearne - who he hardly plays - Mullen - who hardly plays - and Waters if he counts) there is really nothing he can do at the moment. We have 15 players fit and available - two youth players are in that. We have 13, fit, first-team players.

It's an unprecedented injury crisis, and Imrie effectively has to play the same team every single week. There's no way he can recover this until players return to fitness.

That's the main reason we're struggling as of now, - why people ignore it is beyond me - it's not Imrie's "jobs for the boys" signings, although they do play a part.

Injuries explain the starting XI on Saturday, they don't explain it for Raith or Dunfermline. Even discounting the extensive doubts over whether he's good enough, starting Power in all three games was not enforced and was a mad thing to ask of a 35 year old when we were playing Saturday-Tuesday-Friday. The only players missing for those two games were O'Connor and Quitongo, if your squad can't handle two injuries then the unavoidable conclusion is that the recruitment is the problem.

I absolutely wouldn't be sacking Imrie because believing he can turn this round isn't just blind hope, he's actually achieved a turnaround from a team deep in the shit before so there's a credible reason to believe he can do it again, rather than the usual "aye but who could do better?!" shouts when a manager is under pressure and has never demonstrated any ability to get out of the situation. We realistically need to go straight into promotion playoff form over December though - 10 points is the absolute minimum needed over those 6 games just to get into a relegation battle rather than being cut adrift.

[ClydeTon]

4 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Do we ignore it? I don't think so.

The one thing Imrie has to take responsibility for, injuries or not, is that he failed to bring in sufficient quality and quantity in defensive positions; that has meant we're only one injury to a defender away from a 'crisis'. There's no way you can compete in this league with only four 'first-team' defenders in your squad (unless you get insanely lucky).

If we don't fix that in January, we'll go down; the rest is detail.

Imrie does have to take fault but injuries are the main thing hitting us.

The lack of quantity is unlikely to be Imrie's choice. No manager would limit his squad size if funds were available to make it larger, for reasons demonstrated by our current crisis. The question is with the board and the bank balance. If we do have enough money to bring a couple more players in, will the board allow it? If they don't, why?

The lack of quality is dougie's own fault but it wouldn't do much at the moment, I feel. "But Broadfoot is starting every week" is one I see a lot, but Broadfoot is the cover option. He wasn't signed with the intention of him being a starter.

Power, on paper, should have been better. He was always a relatively solid player, but he just looks past it.

Boyd has been a dud.

The two goalkeepers and Bearne have been good - although two of them haven't played much since the League Cup groups.

I think everyone can agree that Imrie's main criminal move, though, was loaning out King (and to a lesser extent, Garrity) - all it did was make the squad shallower- I do realise it doesn't do much to help regarding the defensive shortage, but it frees up midfield slots for Blues or Wilson to more comfortably play at the back.)

3 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Injuries explain the starting XI on Saturday, they don't explain it for Raith or Dunfermline. Even discounting the extensive doubts over whether he's good enough, starting Power in all three games was not enforced and was a mad thing to ask of a 35 year old when we were playing Saturday-Tuesday-Friday. The only players missing for those two games were O'Connor and Quitongo, if your squad can't handle two injuries then the unavoidable conclusion is that the recruitment is the problem.

I absolutely wouldn't be sacking Imrie because believing he can turn this round isn't just blind hope, he's actually achieved a turnaround from a team deep in the shit before so there's a credible reason to believe he can do it again, rather than the usual "aye but who could do better?!" shouts when a manager is under pressure and has never demonstrated any ability to get out of the situation. We realistically need to go straight into promotion playoff form over December though - 10 points is the absolute minimum needed over those 6 games just to get into a relegation battle rather than being cut adrift.

I agree with pretty much all of this, but want to raise the point about the two injuries.

Yes, two injuries crippling a squad hints to bad recruitment and/or financial management. Yes, it shouldn't be happening.

But if it were Gillespie and Quitongo we wouldn't have been in such dangerous territory - or, at least, injuries wouldn't be to blame. It's where the injuries hit; A centre-half, of which we only have three, who can also play as a right-back, which, when he was injured, we only had one of.

That two-in-one forced us to panic into signing Harkness (that went well...), even though French was back quickly. And, more painfully, we have to start Broadfoot every week. It's very unfortunate that Darragh (and earlier Baird) were the players injured - and, now, Waters - the only natural left-back we have - joining them.

The board absolutely need to get him the money needed to sign another defender or two as soon as that transfer window opens, though. And they best be a good one.

[Dunning1874]

31 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

The lack of quality is dougie's own fault but it wouldn't do much at the moment, I feel. "But Broadfoot is starting every week" is one I see a lot, but Broadfoot is the cover option. He wasn't signed with the intention of him being a starter.

I would like this to be the case, but there's only been two games this season that we've had all of Baird, Broadfoot, French & O'Connor available - in both games it was O'Connor who dropped to the bench rather than Broadfoot. I'd like to think when we have O'Connor fit he'll be back in, but I'm really not confident of that.

[ClydeTon]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

I would like this to be the case, but there's only been two games this season that we've had all of Baird, Broadfoot, French & O'Connor available - in both games it was O'Connor who dropped to the bench rather than Broadfoot. I'd like to think when we have O'Connor fit he'll be back in, but I'm really not confident of that.

O'Connor may not have been entirely fit. I don't see any other reason for Imrie not to pick him over Broadfoot. Everyone can see that the latter is useless.

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Do we ignore it? I don't think so.

The one thing Imrie has to take responsibility for, injuries or not, is that he failed to bring in sufficient quality and quantity in defensive positions; that has meant we're only one injury to a defender away from a 'crisis'. There's no way you can compete in this league with only four 'first-team' defenders in your squad (unless you get insanely lucky).

Well no, because the budget was not there in July to get either quantity or quality, never mind the both that you're claiming. Why would a manager consciously choose to have neither in his squad? That is one (significant) factor that Imrie is literally not responsible for. 

The operating model of putting together a bargain bin, 'full time squad' and then waiting for a cup draw to enhance it has quite simply come back to haunt us. That has been massively compounded by a non-stop parade of injuries.

The squad decisions that Imrie must take fault for are Boyd and Bearne, whose impact has been unacceptable. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by vikingTON

[TheScarf]

Steven Boyd is easily the worst player in the league. It’s not his fault Championship clubs keep signing him of course. He’s just no where near good enough for full time football. 

[Rob1885]

I really liked the look of Boyd when he came on against us a week past Friday.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

17 hours ago, ClydeTon said:

Imrie does have to take fault but injuries are the main thing hitting us.

The lack of quantity is unlikely to be Imrie's choice. No manager would limit his squad size if funds were available to make it larger, for reasons demonstrated by our current crisis. The question is with the board and the bank balance. If we do have enough money to bring a couple more players in, will the board allow it? If they don't, why?

The lack of quality is dougie's own fault but it wouldn't do much at the moment, I feel. "But Broadfoot is starting every week" is one I see a lot, but Broadfoot is the cover option. He wasn't signed with the intention of him being a starter.

Power, on paper, should have been better. He was always a relatively solid player, but he just looks past it.

Boyd has been a dud.

The two goalkeepers and Bearne have been good - although two of them haven't played much since the League Cup groups.

 

I agree the injuries are badly affecting us, but you can't just disregard the context: Imrie chose to use his budget to sign all of Mullen, MacDonald, Power, Wilson, Boyd, and Bearne, while adding only French and Kirk Broadfoot in response to the loss of Grimshaw, Strapp, and Ambrose at the back.

Balanced squad building required three defensive signings, regardless of the limits of the budget, none of whom are called Kirk. Imrie hasn't actively chosen to limit the size of his squad, of course, but he absolutely has caused it to be badly under-powered in the defensive areas.

Our results show you can get away with many other deficiencies, but you can't get away with that. He must know that by now and (again, I agree) the club has to address it in January, one way or another.

15 hours ago, virginton said:

Well no, because the budget was not there in July to get either quantity or quality, never mind the both that you're claiming. Why would a manager consciously choose to have neither in his squad? That is one (significant) factor that Imrie is literally not responsible for. 

The operating model of putting together a bargain bin, 'full time squad' and then waiting for a cup draw to enhance it has quite simply come back to haunt us. That has been massively compounded by a non-stop parade of injuries.

The squad decisions that Imrie must take fault for are Boyd and Bearne, whose impact has been unacceptable. 

One of these days you'll learn to add 2 and 2 together...

By your own logic, he could have not signed either or both of Bearne and Boyd (not to mention one or the other of Power and Wilson, or even Mullen and MacDonald) and used the money to strengthen the defence.

The argument that the budget 'was not there', as above, just doesn't stack up: he knew the budget he had and he chose to make the signings he made.

He absolutely is responsible for those choices. He didn't 'consciously' choose to have the weakest defensive options in the league (at least I hope he didn't), but that is the result of the overall decisions he made.

As I've already said, if that isn't fixed, regardless of what happens elsewhere in the squad, we'll go down. Feel free to disagree (and spare us the repeated nonsense about the deficiencies of the 'operating model' until you can actually describe a credible alternative and specify the magical advantages it will bring).