Guest Flash Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Games played using a 4-3-3 = 3 Goals Scored = 6 Goals Conceded = 2 Goals Scored by Gavin Reilly = 1 Effect on the Queens juggernaut = none Effect on Gavin Reilly's performances = slight. Consecutive games Reilly played in with 4-4-2 = 8.5 (including sub v Hibs plus Dundee U and Rangers) Goals scored by Reilly = 7 (including v Hibs and Rangers) Games played in 4-3-3 = 3 Goals scored = 1 (v Edinburgh City) Effect on Reilly = huge (scoring ratio = 82.3% down to 33.3%). Looking at league games only Games played from start 4-4-2 = 5 Goals scored = 6 Games played 4-3-3 = 2 Goals scored = 0 Effect on Reilly = massive (scoring ratio down from 120% to nil). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Consecutive games Reilly played in with 4-4-2 = 8.5 (including sub v Hibs plus Dundee U and Rangers) Goals scored by Reilly = 7 (including v Hibs and Rangers) Games played in 4-3-3 = 3 Goals scored = 1 (v Edinburgh City) Effect on Reilly = huge (scoring ratio = 82.3% down to 33.3%). Looking at league games only Games played from start 4-4-2 = 5 Goals scored = 6 Games played 4-3-3 = 2 Goals scored = 0 Effect on Reilly = massive (scoring ratio down from 120% to nil). My main point was that it wasn't impacting our results, which is the main thing. Only Charlie (who is absolutely wet for Gavin) care about the effects of an individual over the success of the whole team. Edited November 28, 2012 by palmy_cammy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 My main point was that it wasn't impacting our results, which is the main thing. Only Charlie (who is absolutely wet for Gavin) care about the effects of an individual over the success of the whole team. Totally agree that it didn't affect our results. As I said at the time, I couldn't understand why we changed the system as we weren't playing badly and the change seemed to make us play worse (although we still won). I am convinced that it did affect Reilly's performances more than anybody, however I am not convinced that was the reason for the change. That would be a bit mental. I also don't think Lyle has played all that well either in the 4-3-3 or after changing back to 4-4-2. As you say, it is broadly irrelevant who plays or how we play as long as we keep winning. I don't think it is fair to say that the change in system had only a slight effect on Reilly, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Consecutive games Reilly played in with 4-4-2 = 8.5 (including sub v Hibs plus Dundee U and Rangers) Goals scored by Reilly = 7 (including v Hibs and Rangers) Games played in 4-3-3 = 3 Goals scored = 1 (v Edinburgh City) Effect on Reilly = huge (scoring ratio = 82.3% down to 33.3%). Looking at league games only Games played from start 4-4-2 = 5 Goals scored = 6 Games played 4-3-3 = 2 Goals scored = 0 Effect on Reilly = massive (scoring ratio down from 120% to nil). Which is my point exactly, mission accomplished Mr Clark. For what it’s worth I’ve watched Gavin along with a lot of others in the EOS and thought/think his a good player, I’m only writing on a public forum what I’ve seen and heard. Nothing more nothing less, your own statistics would appear to agree with what I’ve written, I’ll end it there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Which is my point exactly, mission accomplished Mr Clark. For what it’s worth I’ve watched Gavin along with a lot of others in the EOS and thought/think his a good player, I’m only writing on a public forum what I’ve seen and heard. Nothing more nothing less, your own statistics would appear to agree with what I’ve written, I’ll end it there. Except you wont I dont think anyone would have a problem debating the rights or wrongs of Reilly being left out of the side. The issue is your insinuation that this is somehow the work of the assistant manager, to favour his son. It was a ridiculous suggestion when it was first mooted and its even more ridiculous now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Totally agree that it didn't affect our results. As I said at the time, I couldn't understand why we changed the system as we weren't playing badly and the change seemed to make us play worse (although we still won). I am convinced that it did affect Reilly's performances more than anybody, however I am not convinced that was the reason for the change. That would be a bit mental. I also don't think Lyle has played all that well either in the 4-3-3 or after changing back to 4-4-2. As you say, it is broadly irrelevant who plays or how we play as long as we keep winning. I don't think it is fair to say that the change in system had only a slight effect on Reilly, though. The system was originally changed because of the suspensions of Young and Holt, and perhaps to accommodate Clark, Reilly and Lyle. There might also have been an element of "mixing it up" from the management. It's AJ's first management job, and things are going well on the park, I don't grudge him being a bit experimental. Carmichael's form has dipped a bit, and Burns's underwhelming performances have widely been discussed, perhaps it was an attempt to get more out of them? I'm certainly glad we reverted back to 4-4-2 on Saturday past. As mentioned elsewhere one of the main things I like about Johnston is that he seems to see the same things as the fans regarding selections. I fully expect us to line up 4-4-2 on Saturday with Clark and Reilly up front. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Except you wont I dont think anyone would have a problem debating the rights or wrongs of Reilly being left out of the side. The issue is your insinuation that this is somehow the work of the assistant manager, to favour his son. It was a ridiculous suggestion when it was first mooted and its even more ridiculous now. I could possibly understand it if Clark played instead of Reilly, however the only potential beneficiary of the change in system, and Reilly being dropped, is Lyle. If there is an ulterior motive for dropping Reilly, and I don't think there is, it is nothing to do with favouring Clark. He plays no matter what. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Should I join in the debate, nah can't be bothered you all know my thoughts anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRS LEFT PEG Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I could possibly understand it if Clark played instead of Reilly, however the only potential beneficiary of the change in system, and Reilly being dropped, is Lyle. If there is an ulterior motive for dropping Reilly, and I don't think there is, it is nothing to do with favouring Clark. He plays no matter what. Don't worry yourself Flash. Reilly will be back sooner rather than later and then you can relax 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRS LEFT PEG Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) One for the stattos - Like myself , many of you were at the Killie replay at Rugby Park in early 89 . So, what was unusual about the Queens strip that night ? Edited November 30, 2012 by JRS LEFT PEG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRS LEFT PEG Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Interesting piece about Gordon Chisholm`s next port of call in todays Herald. He has now been appointed International Development Coach for his old club Sunderland . He will promote the Mackems around the world and identify foreign talent at the same time . He is just back from Malta and Barcelona where Sunderland have football schools . He says that he has been handed a blank piece of paper in that he does not have to be anywhere in particular at any one time and just to do as he see`s best. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TOPFITTER Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 http://www.qosfc.com...spx?newsid=1514 Queens reserves versus The Rangers Reserves 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TOPFITTER Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 http://www.qosfc.com...spx?newsid=1514 Queens reserves versus The Rangers Reserves 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 The latest mural is up. It depicts scenes from our brief foray into Europe. Somewhat disappointingly, its contents are perfectly agreeable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Except you wont I dont think anyone would have a problem debating the rights or wrongs of Reilly being left out of the side. The issue is your insinuation that this is somehow the work of the assistant manager, to favour his son. It was a ridiculous suggestion when it was first mooted and its even more ridiculous now. Well you’re right I just couldn’t bide myself. The same question being asked by so many different people about the substitutions, how do you explain that then? One of the posters on your mad site must have seen and heard something similar and seems to be of the same opinion regarding Clark. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 One of the posters on your mad site must have seen and heard something similar and seems to be of the same opinion regarding Clark. I've highlighted the most important word in that sentence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Well you’re right I just couldn’t bide myself. The same question being asked by so many different people about the substitutions, how do you explain that then? One of the posters on your mad site must have seen and heard something similar and seems to be of the same opinion regarding Clark. What substitutions? Are you talking about the Killie game? Yes, several people, including myself, thought AJ should have made changes earlier. Whats your point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 What substitutions? Are you talking about the Killie game? Yes, several people, including myself, thought AJ should have made changes earlier. Whats your point? Yes the Kilmarnock game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 One of the posters on your mad site must have seen and heard something similar and seems to be of the same opinion regarding Clark[/size].[/size] I've highlighted the two most important words in that sentence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Yes the Kilmarnock game. So whats your point? That the late subs in that game are part of some grand conspiracy to keep Clark on the pitch as much as possible? Despite the fact that he stayed on the pitch anyway?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.