The Queen of the South thread

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, kirkyblue2 said:

Maybe the club could sell 10 game season tickets.

Can you imagine being given one for an October birthday present last year?

 

[Distant Doonhamer]

38 minutes ago, Besty said:

And your point is?

My point is that you don't become a bad player overnight , we know we were capable of beating teams yet non of the managers including naysmith who by far had the worst stats could instill/restore  confidence in the team.

The players become scapegoats.

All the criticism shown to the players wasn't heard when the team were winning.

No criticism when winning but criticism when losing. 

No shit Sherlock.

It`s like we`re football fans.

[Rjc-1988]

Looking at the opposition for next season I would anticipate a much more even landscape than we have seen in recent years.

I expect Brechin to be detached in bottom place - if they aren't then that would represent a great outcome for them. In terms of the Relegation play off position I would imagine that Dumbarton, Morton,ourselves and Livvy are the most likely candidates. At the top I would expect DUFC, Falkirk and ICT to be in contention with St Mirren having a chance if they can retain the quarter 4 momentum from last season.

For us and any of the smaller FT teams to over perform their likely status recruitment is absolutely vital. I don't actually think it would take much to put us in a challenging position for top 4. 3 more quality recruits would give us a chance but I remain unconvinced by GN's ability to get results and create a squad with a winning mentality.

For any club that can recruit well and find a togetherness this league is eminently winnable and a shock is possible.

[Rjc-1988]

I should have mentioned the Pars - they are a difficult one to call. Could be anything but I expect 5th or 6th place for them.

[kirkyblue2]

19 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Can you imagine being given one for an October birthday present last year?

 

Heard a story that a wife bought her husband a season ticket for Celtic and gave it to him at Christmas but might be an urban myth.

[Besty]

7 hours ago, Dougie Mills said:

His point is quite clear! you seem unable to grasp the fact that just because a team has a good start doesn't mean they are the best team in the league.  We finished 6th because there were 5 better teams in the league.

Hi , I love be it when there dads get involved.

Dead simple the team were and are capable of beating almost any team in the league as we saw in the earlier games. Including beating hibs away What happened?

How hard is that to understand?

We weren't top of the league for no reason.

Durrrrrrh

Edited June 16, 2017 by Besty

[19QOS19]

Hi , I love be it when there dads get involved.
Dead simple the team were and are capable of beating almost any team in the league as we saw in the earlier games. Including beating hibs away What happened?
How hard is that to understand?
We weren't top of the league for no reason.
Durrrrrrh

That patter is rotten.


'How hard is it to understand' that a season has 36 games? Our form dipped long before Naysmith was appointed. We started the season well enough but clearly weren't good enough to maintain that form. We were the 6th best team in the division last season and therefore supporters are entitled to question why we weren't better. Given the amount of comically bad goals we gave away it's pretty reasonable to criticise our defence. If you think our poor season was purely down to management then you're either on the wind up or deluded.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

We had a tremendous start to the season, mainly I would say because we had a fairly settled team which gelled quickly and our potentially strongest opponents, bar probably Hibs. were all a bit slow out of the blocks. Dobbie coming in added a real feelgood factor about the Club. When injuries started to affect us, Hamill, Marshall, Hilson, Tapping for example, it probably upset the rhythm as central defenders were moved to cover defensive positions and the midfield options at the time were limited. The Manager left, the spell under the Interim Manager was a disaster and confidence plummeted. It may be my memory playing tricks but I felt under Skelton we were trying to play a more passing game from the back rather than balls up to a wide target man which seemed to become the preferred tactic. Anderson has come in for a bit of stick in a few posts but early in the season he, and other wide men were getting the ball at feet and taking men on and getting crosses in reasonably successfully. He then became a wide target man which resulted in him picking up several niggly injuries which undoubtedly led to his loss of form and ultimate departure. Danny Carmichael was also rushed back too quickly to make any significant impact. It's no surprise that fans became frustrated when we went from being a team hard to beat to a team which couldn't buy a win. Something went wrong behind the scenes around the time of Skelton's departure and the Board are culpable for taking too long to find a permanent replacement after the the Interim Manager stated quite clearly he wasn't interested in the job. Even when Naysmith came in he took several games to start and turn things round. Leaving aside the  good start we had a lot of the football we have watched has been terrible and it's not surprising that the Management, and ultimately players, get stick when they persist in employing tactics that a lot of fans clearly think don't work. We would all like to think we would back the players without question but unfortunately frustration will usually win out over blind loyalty. 

[Besty]

2 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

 

That patter is rotten.


'How hard is it to understand' that a season has 36 games? Our form dipped long before Naysmith was appointed. We started the season well enough but clearly weren't good enough to maintain that form. We were the 6th best team in the division last season and therefore supporters are entitled to question why we weren't better. Given the amount of comically bad goals we gave away it's pretty reasonable to criticise our defence. If you think our poor season was purely down to management then you're either on the wind up or deluded.

 

 

Much better response than I was hoping.

A new  manager tends to have. Positive impact on a team ,whereas Naysmith's record was poor to say the least.

His signings were useless ,it was everyone's fault but his ,always "individual errors".

Isn't that always the case?

He managed not to improve one player in any way and even managed to make Thomas and Thompson worse.

Well let's just see how Naysmith's team does this season then we will know who is right nothing more need be said.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Besty

[TeeMan]

35 minutes ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

It may be my memory playing tricks but I felt under Skelton we were trying to play a more passing game from the back rather than balls up to a wide target man which seemed to become the preferred tactic. 

I think that was Skelton's plan for the season before Dobbie appeared. The matches I saw before the maestro's return we seemed to rely on Dykes and Anderson out wide winning knock-downs combined with (unmaintainable over 90 mins) high pressing to generate attacks.

Our early season success for me seemed based on a couple of wonderful match-winning performances from Dobbie and a (temporary) solidity in defence with good performances from the Brownlee-Dowie partnership (ably assisted by Jacobs). That along with inconsistency from the teams around put us in an elevated position at the end of the first quarter.

[Homer Thompson]

26 minutes ago, TeeMan said:

I think that was Skelton's plan for the season before Dobbie appeared. The matches I saw before the maestro's return we seemed to rely on Dykes and Anderson out wide winning knock-downs combined with (unmaintainable over 90 mins) high pressing to generate attacks.

Our early season success for me seemed based on a couple of wonderful match-winning performances from Dobbie and a (temporary) solidity in defence with good performances from the Brownlee-Dowie partnership (ably assisted by Jacobs). That along with inconsistency from the teams around put us in an elevated position at the end of the first quarter.

This. The long ball to the wide men was very much part of Skeltons tactics, I wouldnt be surprised if Anderson was brought in almost especially for that role. As you say, he also played Dykes in that role.

Naysmith very rarely used tall players out wide. In his time, he's brought in Thomas and Stirling, resigned Carmichael and played Connor Murray in wide areas. None of who fit this high ball out wide tactic

[palmy_cammy]

"Naysmith's long ball tactics" is going to become one of these myths that if enough people say it often enough it will become accepted as fact.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

Obviously my memory is playing tricks. Anderson's early season play to me was getting the ball on the deck, taking men on and getting crosses in, not always successfully I admit. Hilson's role on the opposite side was more direct in heading for the opposition goal.  Others may think it's a myth but I would say the vast majority of goal-kicks taken by Robinson were aimed to find (usually) Dykes, or Anderson before that, or Lyle to hopefully flick down to Dobbie. More often than not though it ended up  out of the park.

Mr X,  are you serious in saying Naysmith rarely used Dykes as a target man? Just because he sometimes played Thomas and/or Carmichael and/or Murray doesn't necessary rule out someone else playing in that role. Murray was more often than not brought on later in games when the tall target man tactic had failed and play was more on the deck. Stirling hasn't even played for us yet so we don't know what impact he will have.

I go into every game with a positive attitude and wanting to back the players without question but after about the fourth or fifth goal-kick/clearance is punted for a failed flick-on I'm afraid frustration usually gets the better if me. And going by reactions and comments of other supporters around me I'm not alone in that feeling. 

 

[Skyline Drifter]

11 minutes ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

Obviously my memory is playing tricks. Anderson's early season play to me was getting the ball on the deck, taking men on and getting crosses in, not always successfully I admit. Hilson's role on the opposite side was more direct in heading for the opposition goal.  Others may think it's a myth but I would say the vast majority of goal-kicks taken by Robinson were aimed to find (usually) Dykes, or Anderson before that, or Lyle to hopefully flick down to Dobbie. More often than not though it ended up  out of the park.

Mr X,  are you serious in saying Naysmith rarely used Dykes as a target man? Just because he sometimes played Thomas and/or Carmichael and/or Murray doesn't necessary rule out someone else playing in that role. Murray was more often than not brought on later in games when the tall target man tactic had failed and play was more on the deck. Stirling hasn't even played for us yet so we don't know what impact he will have.

I go into every game with a positive attitude and wanting to back the players without question but after about the fourth or fifth goal-kick/clearance is punted for a failed flick-on I'm afraid frustration usually gets the better if me. And going by reactions and comments of other supporters around me I'm not alone in that feeling. 

 

He didn't say he didn't use Dykes as a target man, he said he rarely played him as a wide target man which Skelton absolutely did along with Anderson on the other side. Naysmith didn't often use Dykes wide, when he did play him it was more usually at centre forward, especially when Lyle was out.

Most of Hilson's early season starts were up front alongside Lyle with Dykes and Anderson out wide, before Dobbie returned. He did start four games out wide in September after Dykes turned his ankle at Dunfermline and missed out for a few weeks. Those were his only games out wide though.

There's no doubt the high ball out wide to Dykes and Anderson from goal kicks was a deliberate tactic under Skelton which initially worked very well but got less and less effective as time passed and opponents worked out how to combat it.

[Homer Thompson]

22 minutes ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

Obviously my memory is playing tricks. Anderson's early season play to me was getting the ball on the deck, taking men on and getting crosses in, not always successfully I admit. Hilson's role on the opposite side was more direct in heading for the opposition goal.  Others may think it's a myth but I would say the vast majority of goal-kicks taken by Robinson were aimed to find (usually) Dykes, or Anderson before that, or Lyle to hopefully flick down to Dobbie. More often than not though it ended up  out of the park.

Mr X,  are you serious in saying Naysmith rarely used Dykes as a target man? Just because he sometimes played Thomas and/or Carmichael and/or Murray doesn't necessary rule out someone else playing in that role. Murray was more often than not brought on later in games when the tall target man tactic had failed and play was more on the deck. Stirling hasn't even played for us yet so we don't know what impact he will have.

I go into every game with a positive attitude and wanting to back the players without question but after about the fourth or fifth goal-kick/clearance is punted for a failed flick-on I'm afraid frustration usually gets the better if me. And going by reactions and comments of other supporters around me I'm not alone in that feeling. 

 

No, as SD said, Im saying he didnt play him as a wide target man in the same way Skelton did.

Naysmith played smaller wingers out wide in almost every game, certainly far more than he played Dykes wide, he also let Anderson go. The fact that these players played out wide pretty much does rule out someone else playing there too. At no point did we line up with two wide players on one side.

Stirling hasnt played for us but given hes about 5' not-very-much I'll take a penalty naked at half time if Naysmith plays him as a wide target man  

I share your frustrations but the idea that this is a tactic Naysmith is responsible for is totally wrong

[KingfaetheSooth]

23 hours ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

 

All very Tory esque. Would expect nothing less in the Borders tbh.

Shame.

 

Pretty much spot-on. Dumfries is a small place and everyone knows their place. While other clubs move with the times, the Queens' blazers have always been conservative and preferred the status quo. 

[palmy_cammy]

Whilst this board can be criticised for a number of things, sticking with the status quo isn't one that instantly springs to mind.  They have been responsible for more changes than any previous regime in my time watching the team.  Probably since the new stand was built.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

31 minutes ago, Mr X said:

No, as SD said, Im saying he didnt play him as a wide target man in the same way Skelton did.

Naysmith played smaller wingers out wide in almost every game, certainly far more than he played Dykes wide, he also let Anderson go. The fact that these players played out wide pretty much does rule out someone else playing there too. At no point did we line up with two wide players on one side.

Stirling hasnt played for us but given hes about 5' not-very-much I'll take a penalty naked at half time if Naysmith plays him as a wide target man  

I share your frustrations but the idea that this is a tactic Naysmith is responsible for is totally wrong

I'm not saying Dykes was played as a winger in the same way Anderson, Carmichael or Thomas were, apologies for any confusion, what I am getting at is that, even when playing as a strikers alongside Dobbie it was Dykes' as a tall player or Lyle being good in the air.  job to go out wide at goal-kicks/ free-kicks from deep, to win headers to flick down for Dobbie or midfielders . My beef is the number of times this completely failed. There is nothing basically wrong with this tactic, every club does it, you see all the outfield players moving to one side of the park like sheep for the ball being punted forward. It's the number of times we manage to make a pigs ear out of it that grates with me. If we were getting a reasonable success rate it would be acceptable but it was nowhere near reasonable. I believe that is why Robinson has had a greater degree of criticism this season, maybe a bit OTT, his kick-outs have mostly been just that, kick-outs clear out of the park. 

[Guest Flash]

Absolutely laughable to suggest Naysmith didn't continue with the keeper lumping the ball up the park tactic. Virtually every goal kick, pass back and any other time the keeper got the ball it was launched. We very, very rarely played it out from the back. I actually expected the tactic to change when Naysmith came in, but it didn't. It could have been because he didn't trust Dowie, Higgins and Brownlie to have the ball for any length of time. Which is fair enough given the number of mistakes they were making and the speed they could run. So, it may change now. But it definitely didn't last season.

[Homer Thompson]

I'm not saying Dykes was played as a winger in the same way Anderson, Carmichael or Thomas were, apologies for any confusion, what I am getting at is that, even when playing as a strikers alongside Dobbie it was Dykes' as a tall player or Lyle being good in the air.  job to go out wide at goal-kicks/ free-kicks from deep, to win headers to flick down for Dobbie or midfielders . My beef is the number of times this completely failed. There is nothing basically wrong with this tactic, every club does it, you see all the outfield players moving to one side of the park like sheep for the ball being punted forward. It's the number of times we manage to make a pigs ear out of it that grates with me. If we were getting a reasonable success rate it would be acceptable but it was nowhere near reasonable. I believe that is why Robinson has had a greater degree of criticism this season, maybe a bit OTT, his kick-outs have mostly been just that, kick-outs clear out of the park. 

Fair enough, I thought you were talking about lining up with tall wide players which was definitely a Skelton thing.

I agree in the kick outs. One of the biggest problems was the lack of variety. Again it didn't start with naysmith although he continued it,albeit in a different way.

Absolutely laughable to suggest Naysmith didn't continue with the keeper lumping the ball up the park tactic. Virtually every goal kick, pass back and any other time the keeper got the ball it was launched. We very, very rarely played it out from the back. I actually expected the tactic to change when Naysmith came in, but it didn't. It could have been because he didn't trust Dowie, Higgins and Brownlie to have the ball for any length of time. Which is fair enough given the number of mistakes they were making and the speed they could run. So, it may change now. But it definitely didn't last season.

No one is saying that. The point is that the idea that the tactic started with naysmith is wrong.