Dundee United 24/25

[Butters Scotch]

16 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Third attempt?

Campbell is just a year or so off being a key part of a side promoted to the EPL, that pedigree down there, and his age (26), means hes not similar to the ones who fail down there and skulk back up the road. I'd be surprised a fair whack of Championship clubs down there want him and are willing to pay more than most Scottish clubs could get near. If he fails at his next club then it becomes more realistic, but he won't return here yet.

It would be an excellent signing for us but we have signed bigger players than him and I don't think you know what you are talking about or what United can afford.

There are people in the background that help finance deals like the potential one for Campbell where they will fund a large chunk of his wages if need be like we have done with a current player on our books. 

Edited July 15 by Butters Scotch

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

3 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

It would be an excellent signing for us but we have signed bigger players than him and I don't think you know what you are talking about or what United can afford.

There are people in the background that help finance deals like the potential one for Campbell where they will fund a large chunk of his wages if need be like we have done with a current player on our books. 

eta. Totally deluded.

Thank you.

Edited July 15 by Bigmouth Strikes Again

[Pull My Strings]

9 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Third attempt?

Campbell is just a year or so off being a key part of a side promoted to the EPL, that pedigree down there, and his age (26), means hes not similar to the ones who fail down there and skulk back up the road. I'd be surprised a fair whack of Championship clubs down there want him and are willing to pay more than most Scottish clubs could get near. If he fails at his next club then it becomes more realistic, but he won't return here yet.

Aye, they're all unique until they're not.

I've nae idea whether we're likely to sign this guy and neither have you. You don't need to have an opinion on everything, you're just some knob on the internet. And that's okay. 

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Pull My Strings said:

 

I've nae idea whether we're likely to sign this guy and neither have you. 

Scott Burns said a few days ago hes staying in England and had turned down Scottish clubs, so yeah, we do know how likely you are to sign him.

I'm just surprised that wasn't obvious from the very start of the rumours.

[Der Panzer]

I’m maybe a bit out the loop but I’m really not getting the hype about this Campbell guy - lots of hyperbole around him for a guy who was loaned out and struggled for minutes last season in the championship. 
 

Without knowing too much about his recent career beyond being a promising youngster at Well - on paper he does look to be at a potential “back up the road and rebuild” crossroads and would represent an expensive gamble for teams up here. 

[Pull My Strings]

16 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Scott Burns said a few days ago hes staying in England and had turned down Scottish clubs, so yeah, we do know how likely you are to sign him.

I'm just surprised that wasn't obvious from the very start of the rumours.

There's no "we" here. There's just you reading gossip online and then having the audacity to try to belittle other people who aren't aware of that particular gossip or might disagree.

And here's a thought: have you tried having an opinion on a subject and just keeping it to yourself? Not every opinion, mind. Start with just one and then see how you get on from there. 

[Loemba90]

3 Worst things about promotion are playing the old firm and all the bile and paranoia that comes with it,  the return of VAR and finally this incredibly boring st Johnstone fan commenting on our threads again.

[Butters Scotch]

40 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said:

eta. Totally deluded.

Thank you.

What's deluded? Ogren has shown he will put up the money or find someone that will to fund such a move. Not saying I agree with it as I worry about the debt we are acquiring under Ogren or that it will happen but the club tend to push the boat out when they want too for players like Campbell. 

[Fifespud]

2 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

There's no "we" here. There's just you reading gossip online and then having the audacity to try to belittle other people who aren't aware of that particular gossip or might disagree.

And here's a thought: have you tried having an opinion on a subject and just keeping it to yourself? Not every opinion, mind. Start with just one and then see how you get on from there. 

I understand your frustration here but he’s the biggest twit on p and b. Best just ignored and with ‘star’ signings like Josh McPake we can all be glad the Sainties are still in this league. 

[ArabFC]

3 minutes ago, Loemba90 said:

3 Worst things about promotion are playing the old firm and all the bile and paranoia that comes with it,  the return of VAR and finally this incredibly boring st Johnstone fan commenting on our threads again.

VAR

—-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anything else

[ArabianKnight]

1 hour ago, Butters Scotch said:

It would be an excellent signing for us but we have signed bigger players than him and I don't think you know what you are talking about or what United can afford.

There are people in the background that help finance deals like the potential one for Campbell where they will fund a large chunk of his wages if need be like we have done with a current player on our books. 

That's an interesting one. Feel free to message me directly if you aren't comfortable sharing it here, but which player gets a bump in their wages from a third party?

[MazzyStar]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Third attempt?

Campbell is just a year or so off being a key part of a side promoted to the EPL, that pedigree down there, and his age (26), means hes not similar to the ones who fail down there and skulk back up the road. I'd be surprised a fair whack of Championship clubs down there want him and are willing to pay more than most Scottish clubs could get near. If he fails at his next club then it becomes more realistic, but he won't return here yet.

Campbell could barely get a game for Millwall who were shite last season. Doesn’t suggest to me that championship clubs will be lining up to sign him. 

Edited July 15 by MazzyStar

[Al B]

I realise that fans over-romanticise player connections to their clubs, and that in reality pretty much any player will play for anyone that's happy to pay them good money but that being said, if there was ever any player that wouldn't sign for a team that would be playing against Motherwell, it's Allan Campbell.

[RandomGuy.]

6 hours ago, Pull My Strings said:

And here's a thought: have you tried having an opinion on a subject and just keeping it to yourself? Not every opinion, mind. Start with just one and then see how you get on from there. 

You're as aware as I am that I've barely posted in your thread, so clearly I am. But keep going for cheap personal shots if it makes you feel better about something I guess, you'll find youre in good company doing so.

[hk blues]

12 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I am 6 hours behind  . . .

7 actually. 

[The DA]

13 hours ago, Pull My Strings said:

My worry currently is that Goodwin pursues a formation which just doesn't work and then he either wastes too much time before ditching it,  or he doesn't ditch it and eventually gets the boot. Of course, there's always the possibility that it does work, I suppose.

On the plus side, I think the new signings look pretty good so if he does make an arse of it, he should at least be leaving a decent squad behind.

Another fear to add to your pile - he decides to change formation but doesn't have the players to play that way.

[WhatDayIsIt]

Nothing wrong with the formation/system.  There is no magic formation that works better than all others, or everyone would play the same way.

The issue is when you pick a system you need to play a certain way to get the best out of it.  With a 3-4-3 system you need to your main striker to be dropping deep.  That way if he takes a centre half with him, this allows the two wide players to move into the space that has been left, leaving a 2v1 situation with the other centre half.

If the centre half doesn't follow the striker and its a midfielder who drops off to mark him, then one of your midfielders needs to be running in behind, along with the two wide players cutting inside to again have a 3v2 overload.

Without the ball, it looks like the plan is our wing backs will be up high at the turnover, but our 3 centre halves will be narrow.  In theory this is good, as the outball from the opponents will either be a long ball to a 3v1 advantage to us, or into the channels where their wide players are 60 yards away and we can pick the lose ball up ourselves.

In attack the two wide players always need to be playing narrow with the wing backs being high up the pitch and wide.  That in theory should always give us a 5v4 advantage against a back 4, or a 5v5 against a back five.

We need a midfielder through that can spray the balls wide and do that quickly.  It should always be a forward diagonal, not sideways.

Of course, none of this really happened v Falkirk, but hopefully over the next 3 games (and the Luton game) things can get sorted out. 

Its not that fancy of a system that the players should be confused, its actually very basic with specific roles that anyone can do, but only works (like any system) if its coached correctly.

[Granny Danger]

8 minutes ago, WhatDayIsIt said:

Nothing wrong with the formation/system.  There is no magic formation that works better than all others, or everyone would play the same way.

The issue is when you pick a system you need to play a certain way to get the best out of it.  With a 3-4-3 system you need to your main striker to be dropping deep.  That way if he takes a centre half with him, this allows the two wide players to move into the space that has been left, leaving a 2v1 situation with the other centre half.

If the centre half doesn't follow the striker and its a midfielder who drops off to mark him, then one of your midfielders needs to be running in behind, along with the two wide players cutting inside to again have a 3v2 overload.

Without the ball, it looks like the plan is our wing backs will be up high at the turnover, but our 3 centre halves will be narrow.  In theory this is good, as the outball from the opponents will either be a long ball to a 3v1 advantage to us, or into the channels where their wide players are 60 yards away and we can pick the lose ball up ourselves.

In attack the two wide players always need to be playing narrow with the wing backs being high up the pitch and wide.  That in theory should always give us a 5v4 advantage against a back 4, or a 5v5 against a back five.

We need a midfielder through that can spray the balls wide and do that quickly.  It should always be a forward diagonal, not sideways.

Of course, none of this really happened v Falkirk, but hopefully over the next 3 games (and the Luton game) things can get sorted out. 

Its not that fancy of a system that the players should be confused, its actually very basic with specific roles that anyone can do, but only works (like any system) if its coached correctly.

Christ!  If only I’d known it was this simple!

[Pull My Strings]

1 hour ago, The DA said:

Another fear to add to your pile - he decides to change formation but doesn't have the players to play that way.

Aye, maybe, although I'm dubious about the notion that there are guys who can only play as wing backs. They might be ideal for that system but surely a decent wing back can also do a job as a full back or a winger, or both.

[Pull My Strings]

10 minutes ago, WhatDayIsIt said:

Nothing wrong with the formation/system.  There is no magic formation that works better than all others, or everyone would play the same way.

The issue is when you pick a system you need to play a certain way to get the best out of it.  With a 3-4-3 system you need to your main striker to be dropping deep.  That way if he takes a centre half with him, this allows the two wide players to move into the space that has been left, leaving a 2v1 situation with the other centre half.

If the centre half doesn't follow the striker and its a midfielder who drops off to mark him, then one of your midfielders needs to be running in behind, along with the two wide players cutting inside to again have a 3v2 overload.

Without the ball, it looks like the plan is our wing backs will be up high at the turnover, but our 3 centre halves will be narrow.  In theory this is good, as the outball from the opponents will either be a long ball to a 3v1 advantage to us, or into the channels where their wide players are 60 yards away and we can pick the lose ball up ourselves.

In attack the two wide players always need to be playing narrow with the wing backs being high up the pitch and wide.  That in theory should always give us a 5v4 advantage against a back 4, or a 5v5 against a back five.

We need a midfielder through that can spray the balls wide and do that quickly.  It should always be a forward diagonal, not sideways.

Of course, none of this really happened v Falkirk, but hopefully over the next 3 games (and the Luton game) things can get sorted out. 

Its not that fancy of a system that the players should be confused, its actually very basic with specific roles that anyone can do, but only works (like any system) if its coached correctly.

That's all fine in theory. But as Sun Tzu famously said, everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.