Peterhead v Clyde

[Sao Paulo]

Never seen him skinned like Lang has been over the past three weeks. Never.

Show me the footage, name me the game.

Absolute nonsense to say he's honking, too. He's barely been played as a right back for us.

[David W]

Breslin will soon be fit anyway.

[cfcuk]

Never seen him skinned like Lang has been over the past three weeks. Never.
Show me the footage, name me the game.
Absolute nonsense to say he's honking, too. He's barely been played as a right back for us.

This will be the same guy that played in the peterhead 4 1 and elgin 4 2 defeats yeah let's get back to that defence outstanding [emoji23]
He doesn't look fit had a bad injury
At the moment I wouldn't put him in the team we have lost two games by the odd goal Im sure Lennon will change it I personally think the left back is more of a problem woukd put Stewart or lowden in for there

[Sao Paulo]

2 hours ago, cfcuk said:

This will be the same guy that played in the peterhead 4 1 and elgin 4 2 defeats yeah let's get back to that defence outstanding

He doesn't look fit had a bad injury
At the moment I wouldn't put him in the team we have lost two games by the odd goal Im sure Lennon will change it I personally think the left back is more of a problem woukd put Stewart or lowden in for there

 

Damn. You've got me with that cast-iron science and logic again.

Dogs are animals. Cats are animals. Therefore, dogs are cats.

Of course, you know better. And you've shown as much by writing that you'd "[...] put Stewart of Lowden in there [at left back]". Stewart played against both Peterhead and Elgin. Nobody thinks he's anything less than a decent left-back that doesn't let much past him. Andy Munro played against Elgin. And Callum Home against Peterhead. Both players whose praises you've - rightly - sung. 

Moreover, we wouldn't be reassembling the defence which played against Peterhead or Elgin. Because I'd drop McNiff, wouldn't I? And he was seriously culpable in both. I'd also play Lang as a centre-back beside Cogill, to see if he offered any improvement on Home by fact of being more mobile. So the only two players that'd keep their jerseys would be Stewart and Duffie.

Let's just put a figure on it. You're obviously not going to admit to wanting us to lose - I think you must at least value being right about Duffie more than us winning, at this point - so, how many more roastings will we see Lang take before it's worth giving Duffie a game?

Still waiting for evidence of a roasting Duffie's took, by the way. Only thing you're right about is his fitness and that he had a bad injury some while back. I'm happy taking a punt on that. He wins every header just by standing-up. He's better with the ball, and he knows the position.

[Mantis Toboggan]

I'd start Duffie and Stewart the next game. Mistakes from the full backs have cost us the last 2 games so probably time to change it. Really want to see Cogill and CB, would put him there instead of McNiff and see what he's like there

[cfcuk]

Damn. You've got me with that cast-iron science and logic again.

Dogs are animals. Cats are animals. Therefore, dogs are cats.

Of course, you know better. And you've shown as much by writing that you'd "[...] put Stewart of Lowden in there [at left back]". Stewart played against both Peterhead and Elgin. Nobody thinks he's anything less than a decent left-back that doesn't let much past him. Andy Munro played against Elgin. And Callum Home against Peterhead. Both players whose praises you've - rightly - sung. 

Moreover, we wouldn't be reassembling the defence which played against Peterhead or Elgin. Because I'd drop McNiff, wouldn't I? And he was seriously culpable in both. I'd also play Lang as a centre-back beside Cogill, to see if he offered any improvement on Home by fact of being more mobile. So the only two players that'd keep their jerseys would be Stewart and Duffie.

Let's just put a figure on it. You're obviously not going to admit to wanting us to lose - I think you must at least value being right about Duffie more than us winning, at this point - so, how many more roastings will we see Lang take before it's worth giving Duffie a game?

Still waiting for evidence of a roasting Duffie's took, by the way. Only thing you're right about is his fitness and that he had a bad injury some while back. I'm happy taking a punt on that. He wins every header just by standing-up. He's better with the ball, and he knows the position.

Yeah your right bring in duffie and we will stop conceeding [emoji106]


I'm not adverse to dropping Lang or moving him to centre half if deserved but I don't think that applies at the moment

Oh and yes I want Clyde to lose every week and have done for the past 50 years [emoji106]

Ps Mcstay looked at fault with one of the goals want him dropped as well ?

[haufdaft]

 

 

 

 

He's better with the ball, and he knows the position.

 

I have not seen anything to indicate that Duffie is better than Lang at right back. For example, Duffie's crossing is very poor and Lang is faster, a better defender and more powerful.

 

I do, however, agree with you about Stewart being much better than Cogill who looks like a fish out of water at left back. Why not try Cogill at centre half?

 

Incidentally, does anyone think there is an agreement with Huddersfield that the two youngsters must play if available? I cannot see any other reason why Cogill is in in before Stewart.

 

 

 

[Sao Paulo]

10 minutes ago, cfcuk said:

Ps Mcstay looked at fault with one of the goals want him dropped as well ?

Who am I asking for to be dropped again? I'm asking for Lang to be played at centre-half.

Even if I was asking for Lang to be dropped, it wouldn't be on the basis of a single error, which I think you're suggesting might - in a silly world - justify McStay being dropped.

I'm asking for Lang to be moved on the basis of:

1. The opening goal he sold at Stirling;
    
2. The fact he was in no man's land for Peterhead's first. Take a still at 01:38: you can justifiably pick-out McStay for allowing the man around him in a ball-watching, absent minded way, but only a team of dummies wouldn't have managed to get in behind him, given the vast and vacant space in the right-back spot, and the fact Peterhead had two-on-two.
    
3. Nearly gifting them another shortly after in the highlights reel by vice of similarly poor positioning. Hit play and pause a few times between 02:06 and 02:11. Ask yourself: are you going to blame McStay for trying to make himself big, realising that there is again a vast and vacant pocket in behind him? Or, would it be right to wonder: where the hell is the right-back? It'd be different if this footage came at a point of counter-attack or something. But we're mostly on our toes here, waiting for Peterhead to come at us.
    
4. Then being poorly positioned and effectively gifting Peterhead their second. See 02:16. Starts with a slight dog-leg in the line, ends up with eyes coming off the ball, and an easy cross to turn in.

In other words, but for him being played at right-back, we might've had 4 points from our last two games.

[Sao Paulo]

And these are only the highlights. Anyone that was there, or at any game over the past month or two, would know that the number of times he gives it away from right-back and the likes is cringe-inducing. I'm all for someone getting better in a position, but not at the prolonged expense of results. It's very difficult for a part-time player, new to the position, to get accustomed to it without doing damage in the meanwhile. There's not going to be extensive work-at-training, there's not going to be bounce matches. If Lang's a long-term project for Lennon, fine. I see it as a strange investment. It's not too hard to find a good, experienced right-back. I mean there's some on here have tried to say it's not even an important position...!

If you need me to say something good about him as a right-back, I already have on previous threads. And he did pick a good pass along the ground for Boyle, in the lead up to our goal against Cowdenbeath. It's conspicuous in my mind, because most other memories, save for a lob-up-the-park-come-assist against Montrose, are of wastefulness. 

[cfcuk]

Yeah if DGW had not missed a sitter at Stirling we might have win

Absolutely ludicrous to blame losing two game on one player

You clearly have a fixation on Lang at right back fair enough but to blame him for two defeats is nuts

[Sao Paulo]

DGW doesn't tend to miss those. Hence the absence of fixation. Also, he's the best player in the division by light-years. Just a detail.

And I was careful to use "might've [had four points]". That's the difference.

Just watch how this all disappears when we get over the 'Lang is a right-back' phase. Be a bit like that glorious post-Sweeney era.

[cfcuk]

DGW has carried us since he came without him we would be in lowland league guy is utter class

Ps maybe you should direct your ire with Lang at Danny Lennon the seems a reasonable guy would I'm sure give you his reasons for playing him at right back
That said I do think he will change it then when we win you tell us how you were right and we were all wrong again [emoji6]

[cfcuk]

I would prefer Lang at centre back but don't think he is that bad at right back let's see all about getting it right for next season

[Sao Paulo]

13 minutes ago, cfcuk said:

Ps maybe you should direct your ire with Lang at Danny Lennon the seems a reasonable guy would I'm sure give you his reasons for playing him at right back
That said I do think he will change it then when we win you tell us how you were right and we were all wrong again

He's already given them. And I think they're bad reasons. Question is whether he'll walk them back.

It serves your cause to make it seems as though it's me against the world here. It isn't. You, Lennon and maybe two others on here want him to continue as a right-back. At least one other on here doesn't. And I've met maybe five supporters over the last fortnight who'd rather he was moved.

We should be able to win games with Lang at right-back where the opposition don't have good movement up top or any great width. Witness the wins against Cowden, Berwick (lucky) and Montrose. Edinburgh did have good movement up-top and from midfield. And I don't think you'll want to argue that a team which concedes two goals, and has to score three, is the kind we'd want to pick again. Particularly when you consider that's against one of the league's poorer clubs. The only outlier is Peterhead at Broadwood in, to my mind, favourable circumstances. Again, do we want to say that a team which nicked a game purely thanks to Goodie's quality is the one we should hold-up as our best? I wouldn't.

As for being right: I will be right that the above pattern will keep-up. And I'll take any bets against. Best team we could pick would be a 4-5-1 with a rearranged defence, in the way described. Or a 3-5-2, which'd be even more solid. If Kipre's fit, we should try two lines of four at least once. But it could ropey in midfield, with Nicoll and whoever his partner was out on their feet.

[strichener]

21 hours ago, NewBlue said:

Highlights:

 

Cheers for that, not sure who puts these together but I did notice at the start that it states (c) 2016. 

[haufdaft]

You, Lennon and maybe two others on here want him to continue as a right-back.

I don't think it's a case of wanting him to continue at right back. It's the absence of anyone better at the club in that position.

I think we can all see that he and Cogill would be better in central defence.

On the left, Stewart is a better alternative. On the right, there's only Duffie, who is worse than Lang.

[Sao Paulo]

I'd take the risk and eat humble pie if he got the same kind of roastings Lang has. He hasn't had those yet; the only basis for saying he's worse are games in which he's played as a wing-back, centre-mid and the odd one where he's played a part-shift as a right back, and done so while playing very far up the pitch, in an endeavour to create something in a guileless side, bar Goodie. I've never seen his positioning undermined on the flank. Never.

He's rough and awkward; not fit and not ideal in many ways. But it's a question of knowing that Lang's selling goals. And being unable to say so directly that Duffie's done the same. It's also got a lot to do with the football we're trying to play. We've got to decide: are we taking the game to them or not? Duffie's a mind and the experience to do that; Lang hasn't. The more of the ball we keep, the less we'll concede and the more we'll score.

Very obvious category Lang falls into. There's lads can play centre-half and right-back well. Invariably, they're more clever players, and good in possession; probably more like sweepers. Billy Gibson's a great example. Then there's lads who get put out there that just about manage to stop stuff going by them: they win most headers and behave like defenders, because that's what they've always been in one form or the other. Dusan Bestvina, for instance. Quietly decent at right-back until he'd any sort of movement to deal with, or the ball at his feet. Positioning again, something you could question with him, particularly as we shifted him from spot to spot.

Lang's in the second category. I don't want to remember him being forced to remain in it.

[Clyde01]

Duffie has a good pedigree playing over 100 games at championship level for Falkirk at RB, so as you say does know the position.

 

However, his displays so far for us have been poor. He seems to lack fitness, gives the ball away frequently, has poor delivery into the box and worst of all seems scared to put the foot in. This is maybe an after affect of his injury problems but he needs to do much better.

 

Lang is making mistakes due to his lack of experience in the position but you can’t fault his desire, fight or effort.

 

For what’s its worth I would like to see a back four of Duffie Lang cogill Stewart; given a shot to see how it goes. Although I am also a big fan of Lowdon and dropping Home would be harsh as he is a reasonably consistent performer.

 

[BroadwoodBoy]

7 hours ago, haufdaft said:

 

 

Incidentally, does anyone think there is an agreement with Huddersfield that the two youngsters must play if available? I cannot see any other reason why Cogill is in in before Stewart.

 

 

 

Stewart had an injury/infection something along those lines which kept him out of Berwick. Young boy came in & has done ok, still learning the game though. The way Danny spoke at the Q&A it doesn’t come across as there being any clause in the deal. I’m sure Stewart will be back in the team before long .

[clydenil]

Very grateful to Peterhead for these highlights. For no other reason than that they will form part of a expanding record of the, ahem, 'mistakes' certain players continue to make. And which can't be argued about, as they're so painfully clear.
I wonder how long the Duffie isn't very good patter will last. How many roastings Lang will take before pride breaks. How many times will he be miles away from where he should be? Will it be a Sweeney job? Seasons of tripe. Or will it be a quick bit of humility so we can get on with winning games as we should, without our early season policy of giving teams two goals headstarts?
You really have to want us to lose to be in favour of Cogill and Lang keeping on as full backs.

Don't really like to criticise DGW, but an occasional pass to a team mate might bring more goals.