We need to sort this.

[gmcf 34,311]

1 hour ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

No the problem is lack of positional discipline. 

First half Miller was anywhere bar the CF position. Right mid. Check. Left back. Check.

The only contribution from the 9 role was a God awful miss from clear through.

Second half Dodoo held central, and Miller and MOH stayed wide either side. 

Millers goal came because he was at the back post where he should be if the ball breaks across from the other side. Good positioning, great finish.

Miller or whoever needs to stay central if that's their positioning and the wingers need to come in at the back post for balls coming from the other side.

Many problems to resolve but up front that should be the basics whatever the personnel.

I'm not so sure , yes positional discipline may be lacking and you make a good point with Miller . I'm not sure if Dodoo was to go central because he seemed to spend more time on the right wing than central . 

This is a general point and not just confined to yesterday , I just feel we have too many players setting up chances around the edges of the box , relying on , usually , just the one guy in the area which may actually hurt the opposition . Miss him and all the good work done previously goes . 

 

[K.A.I 36,183]

38 minutes ago, gsa said:

That proves my point rather than yours then, doesn't it?

What that talk of plan a and b's is fabricated nonsense? 

Not really no 

[gmcf 34,311]

1 hour ago, ScotBear said:

I feel this summer Warburton has been buying players because he feels they are the best available, in terms of individual ability, but not necessarily the right players for the system he wants to play.

Clint Hill is/was a good defender. But he's not a player you want exposed if you play a high line, high pressing, full backs bombing forward, type of game.

Joey Barton and Nico Kranjcar are two very talented midfield players......but due to age and pace they are not suited to a high tempo, high pressing game off the ball. Think how we played in the Old Firm win, we harassed Celtic in midfield off the ball but those two couldn't do that. Yet they both started our first game of the season because they are our two most 'talented' midfield players but not best suited. I think he's learnt from the first game and I think we'll rarely see both in the same side, certainly not both as part of a midfield 3.

Agree with quite a lot of this . The harrying and pressing the opposition , which was a highlight of last season , has so far been lacking . 

I don't know if it's because the players were the best available that's the problem , or the amount brought in . Previously we could drip feed a couple of new ones to fit into an existing system , but with so many , is it a case of its early days for them fitting into it , or , are we having to change our style to accommodate them ? I suppose time will tell . 

[ronniescu 2,985]

18 hours ago, Smile said:

Its bad when we are making McDonald who was finished years ago look like a player.

He's a legend.

[spitfire 27]

56 minutes ago, simplythebest said:

Even if you don't like the phrase can you not get the point?  Last season we started away hammering teams every week, then when they started altering their own tactics it became more of a struggle in several games, we were still dominating the matches by and large but it was taking us a frustratingly long time to make a break through and kill teams off. That's where the idea of a Plan B has to come in.

Liverpool dominated yesterday with a record 81% possession and still got beat 2-0,we are on the same road possession wise however possession for its own sake can kill games when there is no idea of how to manufacture the end product which should be goals.

[graeme_4 34,617]

What exactly are cunts looking for as a 'plan b'?

Launch into the box? 

[hammer93 15,057]

A good post in honesty, for me the most telling problem is that I expect us to concede in every game we play, that straight away leaves us needing 2 goals to win a match just now, two game at home and already we have left ourselves a hard task to win the match in the 2nd half, this needs addressed as a 2nd goal is going to kill us off and lose us many points.

Another issue for me is that we have signed all these new players add MOH into this also but we are basically playing with the majority of the side who underperformed at the tail end of last season, for me it needs freshened up to keep players on their toes.

[Bruno's Manbun 2,631]

20 hours ago, K.A.I said:

If the 3/4 usual guys could reply nice and early with their wee speeches regarding alleged "over-reactions/we won, what more you want?" etc then that would be fantastic.

A few things for me :

Like Dundee last week I am delighted with the 3 points but that wasn't pretty. We need to keep learning lessons even when we win, like today and last week.

Of course 2 wins is 2 wins and you don't get any more points for playing well. Yup, Totally understood, that's not lost on me. I promise.

These 3 inter-changable forwards for me need to be addressed. I appreciate it's Warburton's ethos so not changed, but altered.

We have Dodoo who can't trap a bag of sand if we are honest but got a couple of positive comments from me in other games because he was a presence in the box but when he's out on the wings trying to work magic and the odd time he got a ball inside (and it actually got past a Motherwell defender) there was no-one there as usual.

I don't even think Garner will make much difference in that regard. He might be a good player but I don't think this system works in games against the better teams in Scotland.

We made the changes a bit quicker this week. Was it 60 minutes instead of 70 this week? the changes should have been made at half-time and gave us maximum time to get the 2 goals we needed and been able to breathe a bit easier.

Barton has done absolutely nothing of note so far - all he does is run is mouth off. Some of it is quite funny and I enjoy it, but it renders a lot of what he says when he doesn't back anything up on the pitch. Nico slightly better in regards to him making a couple of good probing balls when he came on. It was something a bit different and actually asked a couple of questions of the Motherwell defence.

First half was really flat and predictable. We all seen the team selection at the start and knew our midfield would be devoid of ideas and pace/urgency,

I won't finish the OP without mentioning some of the positives.

Miller again - for all his legs are done, he's popped up with another really important goal. Which he is capable of, but he is only capable if he's in positions like and the position he took up in the box against Dundee last week. He's still an asset to us doing that, but not in the inter-changable 3 man forward line Warburton likes. It harps back to me first point about tweaking it somehow.

Character - IMO we didn't really start playing until the last half an hour with it all to do, but we still managed it. We kept going right until the end which is something I've praised Celtic for the last 20-odd years. You've got to be proud of the way we went about that.

Rossiter - Again, I think he was the best player we had on the park. I'd be looking to build a team around him instead of Halliday (which Warburton seems to do)

A mixture of good and bad. Warburton is a fantastic manager and I like his style but he really does need to learn to change things and develop a decent plan B at times. I'm not letting the wins against Dundee and Motherwell today hide the fact. It's a dangerous road to go down. Provided you are honest and constructive there's no reason you can't improve (even when you win)

One more small favour, if anyone wants to come on, quote me and just say bollocks/bull shit/rubbish please tell me what parts and debate it instead of the super fan attitude as these aren't fickle/knee-jerk reactions. Take a look in the match day thread and see the frustration in real time. Every comment is totally justified and a last minute winner doesn't change the issues we need to iron out.

 

Superbly put. I agree with your comments around the interchanging forwards. It's good to have fluidity on the park but it just doesn't seem to work. It's frustrating watching them pass the ball around like Barcelona but reap no end result. Like you say though Warburton is a fantastic manager and I'm sure he'll notice the same. 

I think Barton and Rossiter are equally good in their own respects. Rossiters work ethic and determination is brilliant and evident for all to see and he should be a regular start, Barton is like a terrier when it comes to tackling and winning the ball back, although not always successful and I think he tires early and struggles to maintain a decent tempo for the full 90. Passing is questionable at times too. Might be wrong but that's the way I see it. 

Miller saved us again this week, but I think he needs to fixate on being present between the 6 and 18 rather than constantly dropping back so deep. 

Mid like to see a fixed front 3 of O'Halloran, Garner and McKay against Killie, supported by Forrester and Kranjcar with Rossiter in behind. I think that attacking 6 would cause real issues for any team. Would be great to see Windass and Holt back in the mix too but not sure if that would happen. 

Think Garner will start? 

[simplythebest 11,453]

16 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

What exactly are cunts looking for as a 'plan b'?

Launch into the box? 

No but that's a bit of a daft argument anyway, it's for the coaching staff to work out

Or should we really only have one way of winning even when it's not working out in a game?

[K.A.I 36,183]

29 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

What exactly are cunts looking for as a 'plan b'?

Launch into the box? 

You're a smart guy, surprised at this post 

what about moving the ball with more urgency and having 1 of the inter changeable forwards staying in the box at all times 

would be a good start ?

[graeme_4 34,617]

Just now, K.A.I said:

You're a smart guy, surprised at this post 

what about moving the ball with more urgency and having 1 of the inter changeable forwards staying in the box at all times 

would be a good start ?

That's our plan A IMO. I don't think we set out to be slow and for Kenny to go walkabout. "Plan A better" is what's needed. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

33 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

What exactly are cunts looking for as a 'plan b'?

Launch into the box? 

Well yesterday Plan b seemed to be launch it into the corners. 

[Smile 26,610]

1 hour ago, ronniescu said:

He's a legend.

He's a wee fat cunt who struggles to run or jump he was finished years ago but our defence made him look like a player.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

45 minutes ago, simplythebest said:

No but that's a bit of a daft argument anyway, it's for the coaching staff to work out

Or should we really only have one way of winning even when it's not working out in a game?

What do you mean one way of winning, what does that even mean?. By Plan A or Plan B are you meaning a system? That changes anyway during a match, and we added variety to our game during the duration of the match anyway; didn't Forrester go left and McKay go through the middle from a deeper position in the middle of the first half? This Plan A with no Plan B stuff is not a fair assessment of how we play.

[simplythebest 11,453]

3 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

What do you mean one way of winning, what does that even mean?. By Plan A or Plan B are you meaning a system? That changes anyway during a match, and we added variety to our game during the duration of the match anyway; didn't Forrester go left and McKay go through the middle from a deeper position in the middle of the first half? This Plan A with no Plan B stuff is not a fair assessment of how we play.

I just don't get why some people seem to be outraged by the plan B talk, it's a turn of phrase to say that we need to alter our game when what we're initially trying isn't working. Concerns over that are justified when you consider last season and how teams we were thrashing at the beginning became hard to break down and kill off later in the season. Those concerns have continued at the start of this season with big struggles to break down Hamilton and Motherwell and we were left hanging on against Dundee when with a two goal start we should have been seeing the game out comfortably.

I know you can't expect an easy win every week but keep going the same as we've been doing then we'll have big problems, 7 points has been a fortunate return from the first three matches.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

8 minutes ago, simplythebest said:

I just don't get why some people seem to be outraged by the plan B talk, it's a turn of phrase to say that we need to alter our game when what we're initially trying isn't working. Concerns over that are justified when you consider last season and how teams we were thrashing at the beginning became hard to break down and kill off later in the season. Those concerns have continued at the start of this season with big struggles to break down Hamilton and Motherwell and we were left hanging on against Dundee when with a two goal start we should have been seeing the game out comfortably.

I know you can't expect an easy win every week but keep going the same as we've been doing then we'll have big problems, 7 points has been a fortunate return from the first three matches.

I take your point, especially about last season, but that could also be to do with players rather than a system. Look at yesterday, it was the skill of one player that opened up a defence twice. I think our run-in last season may have been very different had Forrester and Waghorn been okay; to lose those two was huge, especially in the Final- Waghorn played, but clearly struggled.  I think the Plan B issue is to do with Warburton not altering the system overall, but arguably we have more variety during a match than we have a reputation for. Again, I think it's more about players. Mckay for instance struggles to beat the final man, particularly out wide, I think if that wasn't the case we would definitely get more of a return from our play. We will get better as the season goes on, particularly in midfield, which is a far better midfield than the one we had last season.

[simplythebest 11,453]

13 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

I take your point, especially about last season, but that could also be to do with players rather than a system. Look at yesterday, it was the skill of one player that opened up a defence twice. I think our run-in last season may have been very different had Forrester and Waghorn been okay; to lose those two was huge, especially in the Final- Waghorn played, but clearly struggled.  I think the Plan B issue is to do with Warburton not altering the system overall, but arguably we have more variety during a match than we have a reputation for. Again, I think it's more about players. Mckay for instance struggles to beat the final man, particularly out wide, I think if that wasn't the case we would definitely get more of a return from our play. We will get better as the season goes on, particularly in midfield, which is a far better midfield than the one we had last season.

Obviously the players have a part to play but Warburton is responsible for them and has a responsibility to sort the system out and alter team selection if necessary as well as dealing with injuries, even with the players we had out and Waghorn not being fully fit we should definitely have won that cup final especially when we had a lead with 10 minutes to go. It's concerning because you can argue we've really not had a convincing game since the semi-final, the early league cup games against part timers can't be taken into account much

I've got plenty of faith in Warburton to sort it out I said earlier in this thread people shouldn't start turning on him too easily, but at the same time we can't hide ourselves away from the obvious problems

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Just now, simplythebest said:

Obviously the players have a part to play but Warburton is responsible for them and has a responsibility to sort the system out and alter team selection if necessary as well as dealing with injuries, even with the players we had out and Waghorn not being fully fit we should definitely have won that cup final especially when we had a lead with 10 minutes to go. It's concerning because you can argue we've really not had a convincing game since the semi-final, the early league cup games against part timers can't really be taken into account much

I've got plenty of faith in Warburton to sort it out I said earlier in this thread people shouldn't start turning on him too easily, but at the same time we can't hide ourselves away from the obvious problems

We played very well in the second half against Hamilton, the team hasn't been credited with that performance, and probably if Waghorn had not got injured, leaving us with 10 men, then we would have won that. The first half against Dundee was brilliant, had Miller taken the second chance he had in that match, and had Forrester kept his composure ( I think it was Forrester) we could have been ahead by 4 at half time; just the same as if Miller had taken his first-half chance yesterday then the game could have been very different. We still need to improve the quality of our players as the seasons go on, we obviously don't have a budget to do that in an earlier timescale, but that is a factor in how we perform. When you say we should have won even with Waghorn not fully fit, we lost our two of our best footballers last season; in a squad of that size, and with a team of that quality then that is no small deal. If we lack anything, we lack quality in certain areas of the park, and that won't be solved immediately.

[simplythebest 11,453]

15 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

We played very well in the second half against Hamilton, the team hasn't been credited with that performance, and probably if Waghorn had not got injured, leaving us with 10 men, then we would have won that. The first half against Dundee was brilliant, had Miller taken the second chance he had in that match, and had Forrester kept his composure ( I think it was Forrester) we could have been ahead by 4 at half time; just the same as if Miller had taken his first-half chance yesterday then the game could have been very different. We still need to improve the quality of our players as the seasons go on, we obviously don't have a budget to do that in an earlier timescale, but that is a factor in how we perform. When you say we should have won even with Waghorn not fully fit, we lost our two of our best footballers last season; in a squad of that size, and with a team of that quality then that is no small deal. If we lack anything, we lack quality in certain areas of the park, and that won't be solved immediately.

We can't give out too much credit for some halves being better than others a game lasts for 90 minutes, and it's not as if we came back to win 4-1 or something in that second half Hamilton performance we only managed to break them down to get a draw, there was plenty of time to score again before going down to 10 men. The Dundee performance was brilliant in the first half yet we let them get a goal from a corner (again) and it was like we never recovered from there and hung on, we need to be able to score another one or two and kill a game off in that situation.

I wasn't saying losing Forrester and Waghorn was a small deal I was worried about it at the time but that Hibs team were rotten and had just suffered losing in the play-offs and had the historic pressure while we'd had time off and were on a high with winning the league and beating Celtic in the semi it was still set up for us to win and we should have, we didn't play well on the day but still had a lead with 10 minutes left and blew it and lost a place in Europe that could have helped speed up our progression.

You're right that we've got progression to make we aren't going to be the finished article so soon but we shouldn't be letting expectations be too low, Scottish football is terrible and it's only gotten worse the years we've been in the lower leagues. Our squad as it stands is well above the other clubs in this league apart from theirs so finishing a comfortable second should be the minimum we expect, winning the league is a challenge because they seem to have improved their manager and squad although not so much that it should be impossible either.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

9 minutes ago, simplythebest said:

We can't give out too much credit for some halves being better than others a game lasts for 90 minutes, and it's not as if we came back to win 4-1 or something in that second half Hamilton performance we only managed to break them down to get a draw, there was plenty of time to score again before going down to 10 men. The Dundee performance was brilliant in the first half yet we let them get a goal from a corner (again) and it was like we never recovered from there and hung on, we need to be able to score another one or two and kill a game off in that situation.

I wasn't saying losing Forrester and Waghorn was a small deal I was worried about it at the time but that Hibs team were rotten and had just suffered losing in the play-offs and had the historic pressure while we'd had time off and were on a high with winning the league and beating Celtic in the semi it was still set up for us to win and we should have, we didn't play well on the day but still had a lead with 10 minutes left and blew it and lost a place in Europe that could have helped speed up our progression.

You're right that we've got progression to make we aren't going to be the finished article so soon but we shouldn't be letting expectations be too low, Scottish football is terrible and it's only gotten worse the years we've been in the lower leagues. Our squad as it stands is well above the other clubs in this league apart from theirs so finishing a comfortable second should be the minimum we expect, winning the league is a challenge because they seem to have improved their manager and squad although not so much that it should be impossible either.

I don't agree with all of it, but it's a good post. You make a lot of valid points its hard to argue with.

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

That's our plan A IMO. I don't think we set out to be slow and for Kenny to go walkabout. "Plan A better" is what's needed. 

It's not when the 3 interchangeable forwards are everywhere else but the box 

but ok they're not sticking to plan a then 

why is it not getting drummed into them what's expected of plan a ? It's been the same shite since the fenians game and a few weeks before tbh 

[MasterD 7,436]

1 hour ago, K.A.I said:

It's not when the 3 interchangeable forwards are everywhere else but the box 

but ok they're not sticking to plan a then 

why is it not getting drummed into them what's expected of plan a ? It's been the same shite since the fenians game and a few weeks before tbh 

I don't think they interchange really which might be part of the problem. When Miller does his headless chicken act and runs deep or out wide none of the other 2 go into the middle. When we have the ball on the right about to be crossed McKay was staying out at the shy-line on the left rather than get in the box and the same with the other side.

It's more a 4-5-1 rather than a 4-3-3. I know people will say 4-5-1 turns into a 4-3-3 but when the 2 wide men don't do anything of a forward then it's not turning into a 4-3-3.

Miller playing is a big problem IMO.

The midfield 3 is the other problem because there's no offensive players being played, no-one that can drive at the opposition and cause real problems in that area and they don't support the wide men or forward or make late runs into the box. For whatever reason it's not been addressed despite being obvious that the players we keep picking is nowhere near a good balance.

The bottom part of your post is spot on and it's a big worry. MW spoke time and time again on post-match interviews about us needing to move the ball quicker last year but the following game would be slow and laboured again. Many including me are hoping that Holt & Windass make a big difference when they get back and in the team but Holt was there last year and we had a decent balance in midfield for the level we were at and we were still slow and garbage for months.

[craigrfcc 265]

No team should be able to score from the position below. Rossiter/Kiernan have to come across and help Tavernier out, they aren't marking anyone. By the time Kiernan does step across it's too late. (Not a regular Kiernan basher but having watched this goal a few times, it's difficult to defend him)

[Ryju84 3,170]

14 minutes ago, MasterD said:

I don't think they interchange really which might be part of the problem. When Miller does his headless chicken act and runs deep or out wide none of the other 2 go into the middle. When we have the ball on the right about to be crossed McKay was staying out at the shy-line on the left rather than get in the box and the same with the other side.

It's more a 4-5-1 rather than a 4-3-3. I know people will say 4-5-1 turns into a 4-3-3 but when the 2 wide men don't do anything of a forward then it's not turning into a 4-3-3.

Miller playing is a big problem IMO.

The midfield 3 is the other problem because there's no offensive players being played, no-one that can drive at the opposition and cause real problems in that area and they don't support the wide men or forward or make late runs into the box. For whatever reason it's not been addressed despite being obvious that the players we keep picking is nowhere near a good balance.

The bottom part of your post is spot on and it's a big worry. MW spoke time and time again on post-match interviews about us needing to move the ball quicker last year but the following game would be slow and laboured again. Many including me are hoping that Holt & Windass make a big difference when they get back and in the team but Holt was there last year and we had a decent balance in midfield for the level we were at and we were still slow and garbage for months.

Cant bold the part I want from your point but you are spot on with the 4-5-1 point. 

 

Was just about to say this. Last season our 4-3-3 played like a 2-1-7 with everyone bombing forward.

This season so far it has looked like a 4-5-1 all too often. Yesterday in particular.

 

[Turnberry18 3,204]

1 hour ago, craigrfcc said:

No team should be able to score from the position below. Rossiter/Kiernan have to come across and help Tavernier out, they aren't marking anyone. By the time Kiernan does step across it's too late. (Not a regular Kiernan basher but having watched this goal a few times, it's difficult to defend him)

I'd say from that Rossiter is the one who should move across with Kiernan keeping the shape where he is. The central part still needs cover because they have three players moving in behind the attacker.