The Queen of the South thread

[DUMFRIES_CREW]

Queens played some really good football yesterday. Thought there passing game was brilliant. The no 4 trialist looked good as did Andy Dowie. Keeper was untested by a poor hearts side. Think we might need an other striker in as lyle might not be the answer in the first division. Unless Russell plays the centre forward role or Reilly. Think St Mirren will give us more to think about than hearts did. Cant see that hearts team pulling back from minus 15 points. Who was the guy doing the fitness warm up was it Flannigan ?

Its Ross Hughes our new sports scientist brought in to replace Andy Leishman. Previously with Dunfermline and Accies as head of sports science

Edited July 21, 2013 by DUMFRIES_CREW

[SUPERSOUTH]

Anyone know anything about our trialist no4 yesterday?

The lad looked very comfortable on the ball, distributed it well and was always looking to get involved, another performance like that and he should def be signed up.

Like a few others I have spoken too after a while I forgot it was a plastic pitch, and think it bodes well for our team who like to press high up and play a passing football game on the deck.

[FC United mk2]

Don't get me wrong I thought the number 4 played really well but is he any better than we already have?

[SUPERSOUTH]

Don't get me wrong I thought the number 4 played really well but is he any better than we already have?

Don't think we have any player that can play the role he played yesterday apart from Young who might not play all the games this season with as many games being played home & away an artificial surfaces, think if the lad can perform like yesterday all the time he is a must signing.

[ollie true blue]

Would agree that we were the best side yesterday only time we looked in trouble was when we went down to 10 men. Then someone told Danny he wasn't subbed. If being critical of the manager the only mistake he made was not to ask Gary Locke at half time to swap Goalies to allow us to see if our trialist was any good. Hopefully he gets a few more chances to impress against St Mirren, but with our defence looking solid no matter who is there, and if we get the No4 trialist as back up for Young we should not lose many goals.

[Gaz FFC]

Wasn't Albert seidi from Southampton meant to be playing for you yesterday?

Edited July 21, 2013 by Gaz FFC

[Homer Thompson]

Don't get me wrong I thought the number 4 played really well but is he any better than we already have?

Im not sure he would get a regular game ahead of Young, McKenna and Burns. However, if McIntyre intends to play 3 in the centre of midfield then we need cover. Currently, thats Slattery (or McShane if he signs) or McGuffie or Higgins playing out of position. That isnt enough cover.

Wasn't Albert seidi from Southampton meant to be playing for you yesterday?

If he was he wasnt

[FC United mk2]

Im not sure he would get a regular game ahead of Young, McKenna and Burns. However, if McIntyre intends to play 3 in the centre of midfield then we need cover. Currently, thats Slattery (or McShane if he signs) or McGuffie or Higgins playing out of position. That isnt enough cover.

If he was he wasnt

Depends on the budget I suppose, I'd like to think that a keeper will be signed up by the end of the week as a priority.

[Homer Thompson]

Depends on the budget I suppose, I'd like to think that a keeper will be signed up by the end of the week as a priority.

I think it goes without saying that we need to sign a keeper.

It would seem a bit of a waste of time to look at a trialist we didnt have any money to sign.

We're still short of cover in the squad. Which position we're short in depends on what formation McIntyre is going to favour.

[Hawk]

I think it goes without saying that we need to sign a keeper.

It would seem a bit of a waste of time to look at a trialist we didnt have any money to sign.

We're still short of cover in the squad. Which position we're short in depends on what formation McIntyre is going to favour.

Last week was 4-3-3 and yesterday was 4-1-4-1

[Homer Thompson]

Last week was 4-3-3 and yesterday was 4-1-4-1

Really? I would have said both formations were the same. Last week, McShane started in the deep midfield role and Russell and Paton were wide of Lyle up front. Not sure what you saw yesterday that looked different

[Hawk]

Really? I would have said both formations were the same. Last week, McShane started in the deep midfield role and Russell and Paton were wide of Lyle up front. Not sure what you saw yesterday that looked different

Yesterday I(and those around me) on a number of occasions saw a back line of 4 with the mystery no 4 just in front of them then another line of 4 of Paton McKenna, Burns and Danny then Lyle up front.

It couldn't have been any clearer.

[FC United mk2]

I think it goes without saying that we need to sign a keeper.

It would seem a bit of a waste of time to look at a trialist we didnt have any money to sign.

We're still short of cover in the squad. Which position we're short in depends on what formation McIntyre is going to favour.

I think it does as well which is why I said I'd like to think it would be sorted by the end of the week.

I'd tend to agree with you that midfield is probably where cover is required but do we sign a player that plays in a position that both McKenna, young, probably even Durnan/dowie could cover? I thought the boy played well but was just wondering if he was better than what we have.

[SUPERSOUTH]

Yesterday I(and those around me) on a number of occasions saw a back line of 4 with the mystery no 4 just in front of them then another line of 4 of Paton McKenna, Burns and Danny then Lyle up front.

It couldn't have been any clearer.

Agree with that line up.

Hope the board have a little money left to help the manager boost the squad.

An experienced goalie, the no4 from yesterday and maybe they could just about stretch to another forward.

[Curva Nord]

vs

[Homer Thompson]

Yesterday I(and those around me) on a number of occasions saw a back line of 4 with the mystery no 4 just in front of them then another line of 4 of Paton McKenna, Burns and Danny then Lyle up front.

It couldn't have been any clearer.

So, Carmichael and Paton werent playing as wingers then? Again, what was different about yesterdays formation to the one played at Annan? Swap McShane for the trialist, Russell for Carmichael and Slattery and Young for Burns and McKenna. Maybe it looked different because the trialist yesterday was better at that position than McShane?

This idea of a line of 4 isnt really relevant. The two wingers drop deeper when the opposition are in possession and push forward when we have the ball. Call it a 4-1-4-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1 or 4-1-2-3. They are all slight variations on the same thing. The key point is the two formations were the same.

I think it does as well which is why I said I'd like to think it would be sorted by the end of the week.

I'd tend to agree with you that midfield is probably where cover is required but do we sign a player that plays in a position that both McKenna, young, probably even Durnan/dowie could cover? I thought the boy played well but was just wondering if he was better than what we have.

Durnan or Dowie in midfield? Seriously? Yes, McKenna can cover there but then who else plays in the midfield 3? If McIntyre wants to use that formation we need more than 3 natural midfielders in the squad. Similarly, if he were to play 4-4-2 we would need more than 3 strikers. Ive said it before but I would like to see another winger come in, unless Russell can play there consistently and, more importantly, score goals from that position

Edited July 21, 2013 by Mr X

[Hawk]

So, Carmichael and Paton werent playing as wingers then? Again, what was different about yesterdays formation to the one played at Annan? Swap McShane for the trialist, Russell for Carmichael and Slattery and Young for Burns and McKenna. Maybe it looked different because the trialist yesterday was better at that position than McShane?

This idea of a line of 4 isnt really relevant. The two wingers drop deeper when the opposition are in possession and push forward when we have the ball. Call it a 4-1-4-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1 or 4-1-2-3. They are all slight variations on the same thing. The key point is the two formations were the same.

Durnan or Dowie in midfield? Seriously? Yes, McKenna can cover there but then who else plays in the midfield 3? If McIntyre wants to use that formation we need more than 3 natural midfielders in the squad. Similarly, if he were to play 4-4-2 we would need more than 3 strikers. Ive said it before but I would like to see another winger come in, unless Russell can play there consistently and, more importantly, score goals from that position

Can you point out where I said Paton and Danny weren't playing as wingers?

The difference between the Annan game and yesterday was that at Annan we played 4-3-3 and yesterday we played 4-1-4-1.

But hey you're right we had 11 players on the park in both games.

[FC United mk2]

Durnan or Dowie in midfield? Seriously? Yes, McKenna can cover there but then who else plays in the midfield 3? If McIntyre wants to use that formation we need more than 3 natural midfielders in the squad. Similarly, if he were to play 4-4-2 we would need more than 3 strikers. Ive said it before but I would like to see another winger come in, unless Russell can play there consistently and, more importantly, score goals from that position

In the holding role just in front of the defence why not in an emergency? It's hardly taking them out of their depth! Slattery and mcshane would surely be sufficient cover? Burns, McKenna, young, slattery,mcguffie, mcshane ( if he signs) is a decent selection of centre midfield cover. Similarly upfront we have Paton,lyle,Russell, and Reilly so I'm not sure why you think we're short in that dpt?

[Magic.]

Certain it was 4-3-3 that we played yesterday.

Although as Mr X says that can change to look like 4-1-4-1 when not in possession.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Magic.

[Homer Thompson]

Can you point out where I said Paton and Danny weren't playing as wingers?

The difference between the Annan game and yesterday was that at Annan we played 4-3-3 and yesterday we played 4-1-4-1.

But hey you're right we had 11 players on the park in both games.

Riiiight. Theres absolutely no point in carrying on a conversation if you cant explain yourself properly.

Lets just pretend for a minute that you are right, what relevance does it have to the point, which was the areas of the squad that need strengthening depend on the formation. If we play with three central midfielders (which we would in both your versions of the formation) then we dont have sufficient, quality, cover in that area.

Of course, youre not right. The two formations were the same. The actual positions of the pitch where the players were standing when you happened to look up might have been slightly different, but then the formation adjust depending on whether youre attacking or defending. Against Annan, we did so little defending that I doubt the two wide players ever had cause to drop a bit deeper. And, as I said, McShane was supposed to be playing the same holding role he just didnt do it as well, or sit quite as deep.

Doesnt change the fact that in both games we've played with a back four, a holding midfielder, two other central midfielders, two wingers and a lone striker.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Mr X