The Queen of the South thread

[Rjc-1988]

No doubt we were trying and every player gave 100% - that is one thing that you can invariably say about the management team and the players.

Given what was potentially at stake that was a vitally important game and i personally think the team selection took Livvy a bit cheaply.

All water under the bridge now but Livvy will reap the benefits given the way the draw has panned out.

[Chupacabra]

Don't talk nonsense. I can guarantee you the management and players were desperate to win on Tuesday. We didn't show it any disrespect and other than resting a mid-30's striker for a midweek game and making a tactical switch to 3-5-2 (which didn't work and was changed by the half hour mark) the manager played what he believed was his best available side.

We'll start with what you have said. Dismissing Lyle as a 'mid-30's striker' is a piss poor attempt at deflecting the fact that we rested our top goal-scorer of last season and this season so far for this cup game.

Formation wise, Fowler undoubtedly treated this as a friendly. We did start as a 3-5-2, but formation switches do not happen 30 minutes into a game unless forced by say, getting dominated or an injury. We had neither of those problems. With that in mind, we went 4-5-1 with Heffernan as the lone striker. Why would we do that if we were wanting to win the game and weren't really having many problems? Because Fowler was treating this as a friendly and wanted to experiment and try different things with the side.

Conroy at LWB and Kidd at RWB was changed throughout as I remember Kidd was playing down the left side for a period of the game, can't remember who replaced him on the right though. We were 3-5-2, 4-4-2, 4-5-1, and each formation switch did not seem tactical at all, and certainly did not enhance our performance. It was all just a different way to try things with the players.

If that was a Scottish Cup game, what I have stated above would not have happened. And thus I believe we did not treat the competition with as much respect as we would others.

[Homer Thompson]

We'll start with what you have said. Dismissing Lyle as a 'mid-30's striker' is a piss poor attempt at deflecting the fact that we rested our top goal-scorer of last season and this season so far for this cup game.

Formation wise, Fowler undoubtedly treated this as a friendly. We did start as a 3-5-2, but formation switches do not happen 30 minutes into a game unless forced by say, getting dominated or an injury. We had neither of those problems. With that in mind, we went 4-5-1 with Heffernan as the lone striker. Why would we do that if we were wanting to win the game and weren't really having many problems? Because Fowler was treating this as a friendly and wanted to experiment and try different things with the side.

Conroy at LWB and Kidd at RWB was changed throughout as I remember Kidd was playing down the left side for a period of the game, can't remember who replaced him on the right though. We were 3-5-2, 4-4-2, 4-5-1, and each formation switch did not seem tactical at all, and certainly did not enhance our performance. It was all just a different way to try things with the players.

If that was a Scottish Cup game, what I have stated above would not have happened. And thus I believe we did not treat the competition with as much respect as we would others.

If you think any of the formations during that game were "working" then you were clearly at a different game to me.

[Chupacabra]

If you think any of the formations during that game were "working" then you were clearly at a different game to me.

Can you please quote where I said it was working?

Please don't put quotation marks when I have said no such thing. Appears to me that you have spectacularly missed the point anyway.

[Dougie Mills]

Can people please stop talking about Tuesday night - I'm trying to block out the memories and this isn't helping at all!

[Skyline Drifter]

We'll start with what you have said. Dismissing Lyle as a 'mid-30's striker' is a piss poor attempt at deflecting the fact that we rested our top goal-scorer of last season and this season so far for this cup game.

Formation wise, Fowler undoubtedly treated this as a friendly. We did start as a 3-5-2, but formation switches do not happen 30 minutes into a game unless forced by say, getting dominated or an injury. We had neither of those problems. With that in mind, we went 4-5-1 with Heffernan as the lone striker. Why would we do that if we were wanting to win the game and weren't really having many problems? Because Fowler was treating this as a friendly and wanted to experiment and try different things with the side.

Conroy at LWB and Kidd at RWB was changed throughout as I remember Kidd was playing down the left side for a period of the game, can't remember who replaced him on the right though. We were 3-5-2, 4-4-2, 4-5-1, and each formation switch did not seem tactical at all, and certainly did not enhance our performance. It was all just a different way to try things with the players.

If that was a Scottish Cup game, what I have stated above would not have happened. And thus I believe we did not treat the competition with as much respect as we would others.

Rubbish.

We started 3-5-2, Jacobs, Higgins and Brownlie at the back and Conroy and Kidd at wing back. The manager appreciated what we all could see, that it wasn't working, and switched it to 4-4-2. At that point Kidd went over to Left Back and Jacobs switched to Right Back until half time. Jake Pickard went off injured at half time so Jordan Marshall went on at left back, Kidd went back to right back and Jacobs moved into midfield. We remained 4-4-2 for the rest of the game, including after Smith replaced Hilson and Lyle replaced Heffernan. Although at times Millar was so far forward we were verging on a 4-3-3.

We were never in a 4-5-1 and nor were any of the changes other than the switch from 3-5-2 in the first place, and the subbing of Heffernan for Lyle, by choice.

Lyle is 34 and a half. That's a fact, not a deflection. I don't think it was unreasonable to give him a seat for an hour and look at Heffernan rather than play him three times in a week.

[Homer Thompson]

Can you please quote where I said it was working?

Please don't put quotation marks when I have said no such thing. Appears to me that you have spectacularly missed the point anyway.

You said, "formation switches do not happen 30 minutes into a game unless forced by say, getting dominated or an injury. We had neither of those problems."

Thats a pretty big implication that you thought things were working. They werent, so the manager changed it. He's held his hand up and said he got the starting formation wrong.

The quotation marks werent intended to indicate a direct quote. If they were I would have said "You said", like above

I know exactly the point you're trying to make. I think you're confusing me disagreeing with not getting it. If you think that getting a formation wrong and then changing it is the same as treating the game like a friendly then Im not the one spectacularly missing the point

Edited August 20, 2015 by Mr X

[Chupacabra]

Rubbish.

We started 3-5-2, Jacobs, Higgins and Brownlie at the back and Conroy and Kidd at wing back. The manager appreciated what we all could see, that it wasn't working, and switched it to 4-4-2. At that point Kidd went over to Left Back and Jacobs switched to Right Back until half time. Jake Pickard went off injured at half time so Jordan Marshall went on at left back, Kidd went back to right back and Jacobs moved into midfield. We remained 4-4-2 for the rest of the game, including after Smith replaced Hilson and Lyle replaced Heffernan. Although at times Millar was so far forward we were verging on a 4-3-3.

We were never in a 4-5-1 and nor were any of the changes other than the switch from 3-5-2 in the first place, and the subbing of Heffernan for Lyle, by choice.

Lyle is 34 and a half. That's a fact, not a deflection. I don't think it was unreasonable to give him a seat for an hour and look at Heffernan rather than play him three times in a week.

There were long stretches of the game where Heffernan played up front on his own and Hilson, and subsequently Smith, were moved wide. It's all well and good naming that as a 4-4-2 but it wasn't really. As the game approached the end Smith was moved back inside with Millar playing high up also.

I also appreciate Lyle's age, but would've he been rested if this was a Scottish Cup game? Probably not.

You said, "formation switches do not happen 30 minutes into a game unless forced by say, getting dominated or an injury. We had neither of those problems."

Thats a pretty big implication that you thought things were working. They werent, so the manager changed it. He's held his hand up and said he got the starting formation wrong.

The quotation marks werent intended to indicate a direct quote. If they were I would have said "You said", like above

I know exactly the point you're trying to make. I think you're confusing me disagreeing with not getting it. If you think that getting a formation wrong and then changing it is the same as treating the game like a friendly then Im not the one spectacularly missing the point

Double quotation marks are used for direct quotes, sorry to burst your bubble.

Was it working? No. Do teams change their formations and tactics in a knee-jerk reaction after 30 minutes when nothing has particularly went wrong and everything looks comfortable? I'm not saying this directly caused us to lose, but it certainly doesn't look like something that would happen during your typical competitive game.

[Homer Thompson]

There were long stretches of the game where Heffernan played up front on his own and Hilson, and subsequently Smith, were moved wide. It's all well and good naming that as a 4-4-2 but it wasn't really. As the game approached the end Smith was moved back inside with Millar playing high up also.

I also appreciate Lyle's age, but would've he been rested if this was a Scottish Cup game? Probably not.

Double quotation marks are used for direct quotes, sorry to burst your bubble.

Was it working? No. Do teams change their formations and tactics in a knee-jerk reaction after 30 minutes when nothing has particularly went wrong and everything looks comfortable? I'm not saying this directly caused us to lose, but it certainly doesn't look like something that would happen during your typical competitive game.

My bubble? They can be, but its not their only use. Sorry to burst your "bubble"

You're right, its absolutely unheard of for a manager to change formation after 30 minutes

[Skyline Drifter]

Was it working? No. Do teams change their formations and tactics in a knee-jerk reaction after 30 minutes when nothing has particularly went wrong and everything looks comfortable? I'm not saying this directly caused us to lose, but it certainly doesn't look like something that would happen during your typical competitive game.

Do you actually regularly attend our games? I have never seen a manager switch formations within a game as often as Fowler does. In the playoff second leg at Ibrox he changed it after an hour and Rangers went from pretty comfortable to clinging on desperately. He got widespread credit on here at the for the tactical switch. Do you think he treated the playoff like a friendly?

Edited to add - He also changed to a 3-5 -2 and turned the game round at Annan a fortnight ago. I dont think he treated that as a friendly either.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Skyline Drifter

[MacWatt]

Do you actually write in paragraphs.

I look at your mono paragraph posts and think f**k it! Life is too short. I would rather go for a swim at Sandyhills and actually chance it in the channel

[Chupacabra]

My bubble? They can be, but its not their only use. Sorry to burst your "bubble"

You're right, its absolutely unheard of for a manager to change formation after 30 minutes

Monkey Tennis will sort us out

And it's not unheard of, but it kinda is when the team in question has not suffered any injuries in that time, and are not getting overrun or dominated in any way. There was no real reason to change formation apart from not enough chances being created, which makes it an even stranger decison to pull a striker back into midfield, made it look almost as if we were experimenting with formations.... If a manager feels a change is needed, but is not urgent, then they usually see it out until half-time which is fairly common. Which leads me to Skyline Drifter's post.

Do you actually regularly attend our games? I have never seen a manager switch formations within a game as often as Fowler does. In the playoff second leg at Ibrox he changed it after an hour and Rangers went from pretty comfortable to clinging on desperately. He got widespread credit on here at the for the tactical switch. Do you think he treated the playoff like a friendly?

Edited to add - He also changed to a 3-5 -2 and turned the game round at Annan a fortnight ago. I dont think he treated that as a friendly either.

All of these switches took place in the second half when change was needed to secure a win. Changing formations during a game isn't a factor. It's doing it after half an hour without any real tactical reasoning. Changing for the sake of experimentation which would never have happened during a game that they were treating competitively.

[Skyline Drifter]

All of these switches took place in the second half when change was needed to secure a win. Changing formations during a game isn't a factor. It's doing it after half an hour without any real tactical reasoning. Changing for the sake of experimentation which would never have happened during a game that they were treating competitively.

So just to be clear, your point appears to be that if something quite obviously wasnt working before half time and fortunately enough hasnt yet caused us to lose a goal then changing it isnt addressing a problem, its "changing for the sake of experimentation".

If you seriously couldnt see the "tactical reasoning" for the change then I would think you were pretty much on your own amongst the whole crowd. Its precisely because it was absolutely getting treated competitively that a change was made to something that wasnt working.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Skyline Drifter

[Chupacabra]

So just to be clear, your point appears to be that if something quite obviously wasnt working before half time and fortunately enough hasnt yet caused us to lose a goal then changing it isnt addressing a problem, its "change for experimentation".

If you seriously couldnt see the "tactical reasoning" for the change then I would think you were pretty much on your own amongst the whole crowd. Its precisely because it was absolutely getting treated competitively that a change was made to something that wasnt working.

It wasn't quite obviously not working though was it? The players weren't at their best but it didn't look like the problem was a tactical or formation related fault, more a few having an off day. The strategy for this is a change in personnel. This was made obvious when we changed our formation and oh look, we're still just as shit, possibly worse than we were before. I think Fowler is a good manager that makes changes to benefit the performance, which makes it even more obvious that this change was simply to try new things which he would be reluctant to utilise in a competitive game, such as Heffernan as a lone striker, which did happen.

We also never really looked like conceding at that point either so I'm not buying the fact that we were fortunate to still be level after half an hour and required urgent assessment.

[Meatbaw]

I'd just give,your banging yer head against the wall SD

[MacWatt]

Firstly if your paragraphs are more than 2 sentences without breaks then I do not read it,

SD and MT may be articulate but c'mon you would never get a job with the Daily Record.

Yawn!

[Mustafa_sheet]

So, to summarise, we've got a weaker first choice 11 than last season. but we've got a much stronger squad.

But if the first choice 11 don't play, we lose.

Glad that's sorted out.

I was thinking that the other day too!!

[Homer Thompson]

So, to summarise, we've got a weaker first choice 11 than last season. but we've got a much stronger squad.

But if the first choice 11 don't play, we lose.

Glad that's sorted out.

Who said we had a much stronger squad?

I always enjoy your fanciful conclusion jumping

[MacWatt]

Did Fowler make an error of judgement in his selection on Tuesday?

The only plus was Brownlie.

Did Beanie n Dowie have injuries?

If they are back at Dumbarton then we will win.

Lyle, Higgins, Dowie n Beanie have been our most important players so far

[SUPERSOUTH]

Did Fowler make an error of judgement in his selection on Tuesday?

The only plus was Brownlie.

Did Beanie n Dowie have injuries?

If they are back at Dumbarton then we will win.

Lyle, Higgins, Dowie n Beanie have been our most important players so far

YES.