The Queen of the South thread

[19QOS19]

4 minutes ago, Rjc-1988 said:

Sadly modern Managers have got supporters brainwashed into thinking that playing two up top is some cavalier attacking strategy. In Diddy football it should be a pre-requisite- it is not even that attacking. You still have EIGHT outfield players in deeper positions to combat the opposition.How many do you want behind the ball? FT Players should have enough football intelligence to be flexible to move into different positions depending on how the game is going. You talk about 5v4 in midfield as if players are in a straight jacket and can only operate in their starting slots- good players get a feel for how the game is progressing and re-position accordingly. Honestly it’s madness - you are talking as if MB’s master plan is actually working - we have lost 3 out of 4 home games mostly against very modest opposition.

At no point have I said it's working. You can't just make things up. What is clear to see is that we are so lightweight in the middle of the park. Our striker got next to no service yesterday and the defence got very little cover. At times Hamilton were strolling through the middle of the park and when we had the ball at the back the defence lost it because they held onto it too long as no one was dropping from midfield. That was with 3 CM/5 midfielders. I can't compute how anyone thinks losing a player from the middle to throw up front would improve our fortunes. 

[Broony88]

8 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

At no point have I said it's working. You can't just make things up. What is clear to see is that we are so lightweight in the middle of the park. Our striker got next to no service yesterday and the defence got very little cover. At times Hamilton were strolling through the middle of the park and when we had the ball at the back the defence lost it because they held onto it too long as no one was dropping from midfield. That was with 3 CM/5 midfielders. I can't compute how anyone thinks losing a player from the middle to throw up front would improve our fortunes. 

We didn’t have three central midfielders though did we ? We had Todd and Cochrane in the middle of the park with Connelly and Mckechnie floating around and not really doing much. I’m still not sure if it was meant to be a 3-4-1-2, a 3-5-1-1 or a 3-4-3. Mckechnie kept drifting out to the right which meant the shape was totally lopsided and I can’t actually recall much play if any at all down our left side. 
 

 

Edited September 24 by Broony88

[Slipmat]

3 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

Cammy Logan can find himself extremely lucky to still be playing. Getting really fed up of him losing possession. 

Unbelievably Logan is now the only player in the squad who has been in the starting XI in every league and cup game this season.  I had hoped that with Houston back in the team Logan would be benched but he's somehow managed to keep his place despite being one of our most disappointing players this season.

[the philosopher]

3 hours ago, Rjc-1988 said:

Sadly modern Managers have got supporters brainwashed into thinking that playing two up top is some cavalier attacking strategy. In Diddy football it should be a pre-requisite- it is not even that attacking. You still have EIGHT outfield players in deeper positions to combat the opposition.How many do you want behind the ball? FT Players should have enough football intelligence to be flexible to move into different positions depending on how the game is going. You talk about 5v4 in midfield as if players are in a straight jacket and can only operate in their starting slots- good players get a feel for how the game is progressing and re-position accordingly. Honestly it’s madness - you are talking as if MB’s master plan is actually working - we have lost 3 out of 4 home games mostly against very modest opposition.

The best post I have seen for ages.

It explains why most of the the time football is pretty boring.

[Biblemaster]

10 hours ago, Slipmat said:

Unbelievably Logan is now the only player in the squad who has been in the starting XI in every league and cup game this season.  I had hoped that with Houston back in the team Logan would be benched but he's somehow managed to keep his place despite being one of our most disappointing players this season.

The Logan thing does seem strange. Gibson for Logan seemed the obvious change on Saturday but Marvin went for Houston instead, who I thought had been playing well.  I'm not sure who's fault it was but Hamilton were almost immediately able to work a short free kick down that side to score.

[Nithsdale Wanderer]

17 hours ago, Rjc-1988 said:

Massive turnaround required - Bartley struggling and showing his managerial inexperience. It is great to want total football but this is the third tier of Scottish football - let’s get real and create a formation that suits the ability of the players at his disposal not what he sees on Sky via Man City.

I haven't commented before on the ' playing out from the back' strategy but after Saturday I feel the need to.

That was the worst display of trying to execute that style of play - AND WE KEPT REPEATING IT EVEN THOUGH WE WERE SO BAD AT IT !

Ambrose was the main culprit, dithering every time and then either being caught in possession or making a pass under pressure that ended up losing possession.  There is a possibility that , on occasion, others were not in position to receive the pass but I think that was in the minority of instances.

I remember " in the good old days "  Chris Higgins  would receive the ball to feet and look to start something.  Big difference being he would receive the ball further up the park - just outside the box - as opposed to around the 6 yard box like now. We immediately put ourselves under pressure and Hamilton exploited that to the full.  As RJC says , we are not Man City !

I am not advocating suddenly  hoofing it up the park with no purpose but we need to find a way to relieve the pressure and mistakes at the back. The Manager needs to have a plan that the players at his disposal can execute.

 

[Nithsdale Wanderer]

12 hours ago, Broony88 said:

Mckechnie kept drifting out to the right which meant the shape was totally lopsided and I can’t actually recall much play if any at all down our left side. 

Absolutely. The left side of the pitch, in an attacking sense, might as well have been fenced off as everything was down the right side. very predictable and easy to play against.  Mckechnie did though, get into some dangerous positions but his delivery was woeful.  He did improve, , as did the team, 2nd half but we had no goal threat whatsoever.

The goal and the shot from Connelly were fantastic  but I do not recall us having any chances inside the box - aside from the one which was deemed offside but was a very poor effort anyway.

As the quote above says we were lopsided and imbalanced . That should have been rectified much earlier when we were having good possession and pressure in the 2nd half.

[19QOS19]

14 hours ago, Broony88 said:

We didn’t have three central midfielders though did we ? We had Todd and Cochrane in the middle of the park with Connelly and Mckechnie floating around and not really doing much. I’m still not sure if it was meant to be a 3-4-1-2, a 3-5-1-1 or a 3-4-3. Mckechnie kept drifting out to the right which meant the shape was totally lopsided and I can’t actually recall much play if any at all down our left side. 
 

 

If you had a heat map of Connelly I'd expect the centre of the park would be covered. He wasn't a traditional CM position but he was certainly central. 

 

13 hours ago, Slipmat said:

Unbelievably Logan is now the only player in the squad who has been in the starting XI in every league and cup game this season.  I had hoped that with Houston back in the team Logan would be benched but he's somehow managed to keep his place despite being one of our most disappointing players this season.

 

3 hours ago, Biblemaster said:

The Logan thing does seem strange. Gibson for Logan seemed the obvious change on Saturday but Marvin went for Houston instead, who I thought had been playing well.  I'm not sure who's fault it was but Hamilton were almost immediately able to work a short free kick down that side to score.

Agree with this. Thought Houston was doing pretty well clearing his lines and thought Logan was going to be hooked. Pretty surprised when it was Houston. 

[Greenacres]

The problem we have is the recruitment of the squad .

It is all M.B. signing  the buck stops with him is the squad any better than what Wullie built last season I don't think so .

On that with all our injuries would the signing from down South can't remember his name has never been near the 1st team  not at least make the bench why sign him otherwise.

We have too many nice ball players no aggression especially  in midfield .

On Saturday Hamilton had this one player Martin who broke play up never lost a tackle we have nobody like that .

Worrying times right now 

[Nithsdale Wanderer]

3 minutes ago, Greenacres said:

On Saturday Hamilton had this one player Martin who broke play up never lost a tackle we have nobody like that .

They had more than one effective player.  Impressed with Tait, though not his temperament.

They had pace, movement and cohesion every time they went forward.  They were a level above us in that.  

[19QOS19]

10 minutes ago, Artemis said:

Defenders in this country are generally playing at the back because they aren’t very good at football. If they could beat a man and/or pick a pass whilst under pressure 8-10 yards from their own goal, they would be playing in midfield. In fact, I’m not sure all that many midfielders at this level can do that successfully. It is far easier for a forward at this level to tackle or force a defender into a mistake or misplaced pass than it is for a defender to beat a man and/or make a good pass under pressure near their own 6 yard box. Asking the duffers who play at the back in the third tier of Scottish football to play this way is, to put it mildly, a tad optimistic. 

I think that very harsh on defenders tbh. I don't think every defender in this country is a failed midfielder. It's a bit like Jamie Carragher's daft comment that full backs only play full back because they can't play CB. 

We literally have a player at CB who's played at a higher level than most players in the division. A CB was the division's player of the year last season as well. 

Football is changing. The days of defenders being 6ft 5 mutants who can only boot a ball and header are fading; as much as this seems to pain some folk. I think defenders are far more technically advanced than they were years ago*. 

* Not so much ours, mind you...

 

[Greenacres]

10 hours ago, Nithsdale Wanderer said:

Absolutely. The left side of the pitch, in an attacking sense, might as well have been fenced off as everything was down the right side. very predictable and easy to play against.  Mckechnie did though, get into some dangerous positions but his delivery was woeful.  He did improve, , as did the team, 2nd half but we had no goal threat whatsoever.

The goal and the shot from Connelly were fantastic  but I do not recall us having any chances inside the box - aside from the one which was deemed offside but was a very poor effort anyway.

As the quote above says we were lopsided and imbalanced . That should have been rectified much earlier when we were having good possession and pressure in the 2nd half.

Have to feel sorry for McIntyre he trys hard but is nowhere near the level needed for League 1  maybe one day but not anytime  soon.

It is a worry that Marv thinks he can do a job for us he is like a boy lost has no idea what he is doing .

[Nithsdale Wanderer]

Unless I misheard, Bartley seemed to indicate that apart from the goals that was a decent performance on Saturday. That is quite worrying.  First half in particular we were poor all over the park.  Not just shambolic defending but we could not string 2 passes together, midfielders being caught in possession and giving it away through poor passing. Add to that, shocking crossing and no threat from strikers I would have to say makes for a less than acceptable performance.  Picked it up a bit 2nd half but no goal threat. Of course it was good to see shots from outside the box with a fine strike from Cochrane for the goal and an equally good one from Connelly but we need more than that.

|Hopefully, we start to get some players back from injury soon to pick things up.

On that note, I can't help wondering if the number of injuries we have - which don't all appear to have been sustained in matches - is linked to excesses in Training.  Bartley seems to be a hard taskmaster, nothing wrong with that, but you have to strike the right balance and get players fit and ready to peak on matchday.  Managers always say you have to train well in order to make the Team  but if that is taken too far it may prove counter productive.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

1 hour ago, Nithsdale Wanderer said:

Unless I misheard, Bartley seemed to indicate that apart from the goals that was a decent performance on Saturday. That is quite worrying.  First half in particular we were poor all over the park.  Not just shambolic defending but we could not string 2 passes together, midfielders being caught in possession and giving it away through poor passing. Add to that, shocking crossing and no threat from strikers I would have to say makes for a less than acceptable performance.  Picked it up a bit 2nd half but no goal threat. Of course it was good to see shots from outside the box with a fine strike from Cochrane for the goal and an equally good one from Connelly but we need more than that.

|Hopefully, we start to get some players back from injury soon to pick things up.

On that note, I can't help wondering if the number of injuries we have - which don't all appear to have been sustained in matches - is linked to excesses in Training.  Bartley seems to be a hard taskmaster, nothing wrong with that, but you have to strike the right balance and get players fit and ready to peak on matchday.  Managers always say you have to train well in order to make the Team  but if that is taken too far it may prove counter productive.

That's surely why we employ physios and sports scientists to advise the manager and ensure injured players train accordingly and don't rush back too soon. I think Brydon broke down in training cos we tried to rush him back. I agree tho, we do seem to pick up a high percentage of injuries in training. 

[BeeJay]

We now have Gavin Lee back from New Zealand. He's an excellent physio, well thought of at his previous club, and someone who I think will help players  coming back from injury. At least we don't have Chima in the squad!

[Fae_the_'briggs]

19 minutes ago, BeeJay said:

We now have Gavin Lee back from New Zealand. He's an excellent physio, well thought of at his previous club, and someone who I think will help players  coming back from injury. At least we don't have Chima in the squad!

Hope Church doesn't turn out to be this seasons version of Chima. 

[bod]

2 hours ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

Hope Church doesn't turn out to be this seasons version of Chima. 

It could be him or Doherty!

[Slipmat]

The problem for me with the lone striker set-up is that when we are in possession in our own half our midfielders are pretty static positionally and we end up with lots of passing but progress up the park at snail's pace.  This in turn allows the opposition to press which inevitably leads to misplaced passes and/or loss of possession before we even get the ball out of our own half. 

I'd much prefer to see one of our central midfielders (Connelly or Todd for example) moving forward every time we gain possession and becoming a second striker, or at least in a number 10 role to support Reilly/Hutchinson/whoever and give us more forward passing options, also to give opposition defenders more than one player to keep an eye on.  I've noticed that, Gibson in particular, will play a clever or potentially dangerous ball into space but no-one makes the run forward to get on the end of it until after the pass has been made.

As @Nithsdale Wanderer states above, when Hamilton were in possession on Saturday they had pace and movement while were slow and static.

Edited September 27 by Slipmat

[19QOS19]

55 minutes ago, Slipmat said:

The problem for me with the lone striker set-up is that when we are in possession in our own half our midfielders are pretty static positionally and we end up with lots of passing but progress up the park at snail's pace.  This in turn allows the opposition to press which inevitably leads to misplaced passes and/or loss of possession before we even get the ball out of our own half. 

I'd much prefer to see one of our central midfielders (Connelly or Todd for example) moving forward every time we gain possession and becoming a second striker, or at least in a number 10 role to support Reilly/Hutchinson/whoever and give us more forward passing options, also to give opposition defenders more than one player to keep an eye on.  I've noticed that, Gibson in particular, will play a clever or potentially dangerous ball into space but no-one makes the run forward to get on the end of it until after the pass has been made.

As @Nithsdale Wanderer states above, when Hamilton were in possession on Saturday they had pace and movement while were slow and static.

At times against Hamilton we had 5 players in the opposition half (high up) when our defence had the ball. I really don't think the lack of a second striker is an issue at all. The problem seems to be there's nothing linking the defence to the attack. We could have had 3 strikers and it would have been the same issue. 

We're so easy to play against because of what you say. So so slow getting forward. When Hamilton passed it about they moved the ball quickly and plenty of movement with the ball holder having options. Our defenders only seem to have the option to pass it to another defender or go long. I think Mimnaugh is good at linking but he can't do it alone. We certainly need someone else to support him in that role. 

[Bluenortherner]

The proof is in the pudding; always said that theTV punters talk a lot of shite.