Stenhousemuir -vs- Clyde

[Emfaefifeyahoorsur]

My media duties took me to Annan again this afternoon. A few Annan fans wondering if they can have some players back ?

[Sao Paulo]

4 hours ago, David W said:

adding extra defenders only works if those defenders are not Breslin, Nicoll, Bradley et al.

Funny. I could've sworn none of them started today and that was why it worked.

f**k me. That's easily the daftest reply I've ever got out of you. What was it you said to one of our fellow travellers earlier? "[...] Probably the worst attempt at reading ever'.

[David W]

"3 months back". Nice try.

[BWC14]

Special shoutout for John Mason, fucking dafty, glad to see he's spending his time tweeting about fans at games he's at instead of boycotting. Grass.

[Sao Paulo]

13 minutes ago, David W said:

"3 months back". Nice try.

You know full-well you and everyone else was itching for a four when Burbridge threatened to come on to a game a while back and, latterly,  when Lamont and Duffie came in. Three months. Two months. Who cares.

Anyone wanting to a play a four with the pool of players we have at the minute wants something which evidence cannot support.

And hey: if Duffie and Stewart aren't viable wing-backs, god only knows what one looks like. We won't get better down here. Solid defenders, whose lack of guile I would gleefully trade-off against the comfort they bring us in staving off attacks. I don't know if anyone's noticed, but goals ain't our issue. You know David Goodwillie plays for us, aye?

Sing it wae me lads: 'Three coins in the fountain...!'.

[Sao Paulo]

3 hours ago, Jaggy Snake said:

Ah I see that now, re cfcuk's comment.

Thought Cuddihy was fine in the second half and the least anonymous of our midfield in the first but wouldnt have gone as far as describing him as actively good today.

This is something I've gone without saying for a while. Frankly, because it's a fight I couldn't be arsed with. Too busy trying to stave off the recovery pace, closing space, spoiled with Barry patter, no?

Cuddihy's got football savvy. He's good in possession and is easily our best centre-mid. However, he's miles away from imposing himself on games most of the time. Miles away. It's an indictment of where we are re centre-mids that he sees the praise he does.

[David W]

5 minutes ago, Sao Paulo said:

You know full-well you and everyone else was itching for a four when Burbridge threatened to come on to a game a while back and, latterly,  when Lamont and Duffie came in. Three months. Two months. Who cares.

Anyone wanting to a play a four with the pool of players we have at the minute wants something which evidence cannot support.

And hey: if Duffie and Stewart aren't viable wing-backs, god only knows what one looks like. We won't get better down here. Solid defenders, whose lack of guile I would gleefully trade-off against the comfort they bring us in staving off attacks. I don't know if anyone's noticed, but goals ain't our issue. You know David Goodwillie plays for us, aye?

Sing it wae me lads: 'Three coins in the fountain...!'.

You said three months ago. There was a perfectly good reason why a back three was a daft idea then; the atrocious players we'd need to have picked. People wanting a back four were 100% correct as playing three (which was actually five) put us under even more pressure which thise guys couldnt deal with. You need to let the Airdrie friendly go.

I said nothing about that choice today. I'd suggest that the first half wasn't a particularly good advert for it.

Duffie and Stewart are good full backs. Lowden is probably our only wingback. Those two offer very little going forward. It might work in a game like today but at Broadwood when there's more onus on us to press the game, no chance. 

[Sao Paulo]

Oh, I knew what you meant. We've a better pool for a three now than then. No doubt. But results blow out of the water any nonsense about the superiority of a four, then or now. A four never threatened to be a better option, at any time.

It reduces to this: we all think Nicoll, Breslin and Bradley aren't too clever. Some thought we should compound that by leaving masses of space up for grabs, having two feeble lines of four. They got what they wanted: many avoidable tankings.

The Airdrie friendly has no bearing on my thinking whatever. Anyone's free to go look at how we've faired with 4 v 3/5. It's that damned football fan logic again; I should talk about closing space more.
 

[David W]

5 minutes ago, Sao Paulo said:

This is something I've gone without saying for a while. Frankly, because it's a fight I couldn't be arsed with. Too busy trying to stave off the recovery pace, closing space, spoiled with Barry patter, no?

Cuddihy's got football savvy. He's good in possession and is easily our best centre-mid. However, he's miles away from imposing himself on games most of the time. Miles away. It's an indictment of where we are re centre-mids that he sees the praise he does.

To end this, as its tedious, recovery pace, as you know fine well, was giving a limited footballer one positive trait. And it was the only thing that did get him out of trouble. 

Closing space might not fit the warped mind of a lower league fan (go to him!!) but that's how players defend whether you like it or not. It happens in the World Cup and in games of fives. Our best player spends entire games blocking passing lanes, Cuddihy does a great job of it as well. Ramsay is rubbish at it. Example today of closing space in EPL; Stoke player goes directly to engage Mahrez rather than blocking the space for him to run into. Result, goal. You tackle and directly engage an opponent as a last resort. 

No way a Clyde midfielder can impose himself on the game under Chapman, or when playing with lesser players. He could have had the best game of his life against Elgin but a combination of the long ball game and being against three strong opponents with no help will see him struggle. He was absolutely not a weakness though, except in the game or two where he underperformed. Which happens. Get him paired with a better player than Ramsay or Nicoll so he can focus on his own game and we'll be a much better side.

[David W]

5 minutes ago, Sao Paulo said:

Oh, I knew what you meant. We've a better pool for a three now than then. No doubt. But results blow out of the water any nonsense about the superiority of a four, then or now. A four never threatened to be a better option, at any time.

It reduces to this: we all think Nicoll, Breslin and Bradley aren't too clever. Some thought we should compound that by leaving masses of space up for grabs, having two feeble lines of four. They got what they wanted: many avoidable tankings.

The Airdrie friendly has no bearing on my thinking whatever. Anyone's free to go look at how we've faired with 4 v 3/5. It's that damned football fan logic again; I should talk about closing space more.
 

The back four wasn't a better option defensively. It wasn't worse though either. With a back three we shipped 4 against Killie, 3 against Berwick, 3 against Elgin, 3 against Stranraer. Could've lost more against Stenny in both games. Indeed, the only game we have won this season with three at the back was against Annan in the league and even then we changed to a back four before half time! Saying sticking to a back three would have avoided more tankings has no basis in fact.

[Sao Paulo]

55 minutes ago, David W said:

To end this, as its tedious, recovery pace, as you know fine well, was giving a limited footballer one positive trait. And it was the only thing that did get him out of trouble. 

Closing space might not fit the warped mind of a lower league fan (go to him!!) but that's how players defend whether you like it or not. It happens in the World Cup and in games of fives. Our best player spends entire games blocking passing lanes, Cuddihy does a great job of it as well. Ramsay is rubbish at it. Example today of closing space in EPL; Stoke player goes directly to engage Mahrez rather than blocking the space for him to run into. Result, goal. You tackle and directly engage an opponent as a last resort. 

No way a Clyde midfielder can impose himself on the game under Chapman, or when playing with lesser players. He could have had the best game of his life against Elgin but a combination of the long ball game and being against three strong opponents with no help will see him struggle. He was absolutely not a weakness though, except in the game or two where he underperformed. Which happens. Get him paired with a better player than Ramsay or Nicoll so he can focus on his own game and we'll be a much better side.

Motherhood and apple pie, that. Put emphasis on closing space all you like; make out like we're dafties who shout 'Go to it'. Hey: and there's no way that's the preserve of lower league supporters. Let's have it right.

I'll continue to talk in terms of winning first, winning seconds and keeping it. That's what our midfield has been woeful at for circa a decade. We'd spend a whole lot less time closing space if we took the ball and kept it. Any attempt to paint a more complex picture is sophistry, in the most negative sense.

[Sao Paulo]

50 minutes ago, David W said:

The back four wasn't a better option defensively. It wasn't worse though either. With a back three we shipped 4 against Killie, 3 against Berwick, 3 against Elgin, 3 against Stranraer. Could've lost more against Stenny in both games. Indeed, the only game we have won this season with three at the back was against Annan in the league and even then we changed to a back four before half time! Saying sticking to a back three would have avoided more tankings has no basis in fact.

You unfailingly see both sides of an argument, don't you? To prove that point, flipping your own story around... With a 3-5-2 we...

1. Got beat off of a full-time, SPL side, away from home in a midweek game by a two goal margin, having went in ahead at half-time.
2. Lost by a single goal at Elgin away, having played 120 minutes against a League 1 side on the Tuesday night just past.
3. Took a League 1 side (Stranraer) to Extra Time, losing by a single goal.
4. Got beat at Berwick away by two goals, having played a full-time, League 1 side (Ayr) away from home on the Tuesday night just past.
    

Hell, in two of those games we were cheered off of the pitch! We look back at these now as respectably narrow defeats, following genuinely hard shifts during the week! Stranraer was McNiff's best game in a Clyde shirt by a country mile. Even Chapman, the visionary, thought McNiff was best on the left of a three; though I probably shouldn't bring him to my defence! But he was clearly right about that.

 

Look at points taken or wins-gotten with a 3, versus the 4 and the margins and manner of defeat in those games. And then tell me you that there was nothing in it, particularly with reference to how well we defended. Peddling. Absolute. Face. Saving. Tripe.

You said, quite sensibly, following our tanking at Ayr, that we ought to have gone with a three then. It seems to me that unless you want to take that back, you must've thought it was an approach less likely to see us lose the way we did. Which gets us back to: unless you think we've got a problem scoring - we don't - then you've got to the think the 3's the best.

[Jaggy Snake]

5 hours ago, David W said:

To end this, as its tedious, recovery pace, as you know fine well, was giving a limited footballer one positive trait. And it was the only thing that did get him out of trouble. 

Closing space might not fit the warped mind of a lower league fan (go to him!!) but that's how players defend whether you like it or not. It happens in the World Cup and in games of fives. Our best player spends entire games blocking passing lanes, Cuddihy does a great job of it as well. Ramsay is rubbish at it. Example today of closing space in EPL; Stoke player goes directly to engage Mahrez rather than blocking the space for him to run into. Result, goal. You tackle and directly engage an opponent as a last resort. 

No way a Clyde midfielder can impose himself on the game under Chapman, or when playing with lesser players. He could have had the best game of his life against Elgin but a combination of the long ball game and being against three strong opponents with no help will see him struggle. He was absolutely not a weakness though, except in the game or two where he underperformed. Which happens. Get him paired with a better player than Ramsay or Nicoll so he can focus on his own game and we'll be a much better side.

I fundamentally disagree with your passing lanes view of things but, for now, let's assume you are correct.

Whilst Cuddihy is good at covering areas/players and preventing passes, as you say, none of our other midfielders are. In the first half today, Cuddihy blocking one or two passing lanes was still leaving another 2 or 3 open for Stenny to waltz through. You don't choose your style based on what one out of three midfielders are capable of.

Lowden and Ramsey can't read the game the same way and, though it might get them caught out of position, their only chance is a high pressing game which Cuddihy needs to join in with. If you have one defender who plays best when holding a high line, but you're other defenders are slow and ponderous, you don't play high to suit him while the other three struggle. Or worse, allow one defender to hold a high line while the other three are yards deeper which is essentially what we allow with Cuddihy. He plays as he likes instead of the whole midfield playing as a unit. They might not be his failings but playing to his strengths doesn't suit the rest of the team.

On the other argument, you're spot on about a back 3/5. We got away with it today but, similar to the above, a back three suits our centre backs but no one else in the team.

We'd have to sign a right wingback, central midfielder and drop Stewart to make it work. To have a player like Lowden in that formation, but not playing as a wing back, is criminal.

 

[maxruby]

Just a wee point São Paulo. We played Berwick after a 10 day break. I was at both games and I'm sure I spent some time at home between them.

 

[marco44]

My media duties took me to Annan again this afternoon. A few Annan fans wondering if they can have some players back ?

Rumours that Flynn is coming back to Annan.

[maxruby]

Aye? An injured player who most likely needs an operation?

[haufdaft]

Whatever defensive formation or tactics we played yesterday in the first half did not work.

It was as bad as anything under Chapman. The only difference was that Stenhousemuir didn't take advantage.

Our midfield was overran, we failed to stop any crosses coming in and there was total panic when the ball was in the box.

Without Currie's best game so far, it could've easily been 3-0 at halftime.

The secondly second half was much better. We were much more aggressive in midfield and Smart coming on gave us much more up front that the poor Gormley.

 

Personally, I am not convinced by the defending space, passing lane argument.

 

I'd prefer our players to impose themselves on their opposite number and win first or second balls.

 

I'm sick of watching the opposition canter up to our box under no pressure and having had not one tackle on them.

We then do not stop crosses coming in preferring to stand off them (for what purpose I don't know)

 

We rarely get the same opportunities from opposing teams.

 

 

[LiviClyde]

25 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

 

Personally, I am not convinced by the defending space, passing lane argument.

 

I'd prefer our players to impose themselves on their opposite number and win first or second balls.

 

I'm sick of watching the opposition canter up to our box under no pressure and having had not one tackle on them.

We then do not stop crosses coming in preferring to stand off them (for what purpose I don't know)

 

We rarely get the same opportunities from opposing teams.

 

 

At last, someone talking common sense.

I agree 100% with all of that.

[beaver1]

One final postscript on yesterday’s game. The booking for McGuigan was one of the most petty bits of officiating I have ever seen. Refs get a bad press, but that guy yesterday did their reputation no good. What a dick.

[cfcuk]

One final postscript on yesterday’s game. The booking for McGuigan was one of the most petty bits of officiating I have ever seen. Refs get a bad press, but that guy yesterday did their reputation no good. What a dick.

 

Don't agree with booking players for that all part of the theatre when you go and watch football .But didn'understand why he ran towards us after the goal as all the stick was directed at the linesman

That said the look on his face when he was booked was hilarious and he got pelters the rest of game [emoji23]