Jump to content

Stenhousemuir v Morton


Recommended Posts

Re the defence, fair enough, it's an opinion unusually for you, expressed reasonably

As for arrogant opinionated shits, it does not take me to tar anyone! Most contributors to this and other boards you ply with your uniquely rude and dismissive manner are well able to form their own views.

You really don't do yourself any favours, do you?

For a guy that is Chairman of the Morton Supporters Trust and has aspirations to sit on the board at Cappielow to be mocking folk about personality disorders, regardless of the provocation is yet another in the long list of your monumental own goals. Surely your position within that organisation is now untenable, but I dare say you'll slither off this forum too in the hope that when you return all will be forgotten and you can get back on track with working to achieve your ambitions and boost your social status.

It's the Tonsilitis way- he decided to add on a few optional extras for dramatic effect to his account of an incident at Dumbarton at new year. Offended by everything, ashamed of nothing.

I see you're back on here again, Nicholas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You girls wanna get a room???

Anyway..

The team should be full of confidence and Stenny seem to be struggling so on paper, we should win this one.

No reason to change a winning team and thinks its important that we field a settled team to try build a bit of momentum.

1-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team should be full of confidence and Stenny seem to be struggling so on paper, we should win this one.

No reason to change a winning team and thinks its important that we field a settled team to try build a bit of momentum.

1-3.

Definitely need to keep the Crighton/O'Ware and Barrowman/McManus partnerships going. Midfield, McKee has to retain his place and we should really be moving Crawford to CM. Get any 2 of J.McCluskey/Pepper/Russell on the wings, get 2 natural CMs in and get Miller & Hands to f*ck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pepper is far better in the middle of the park. Barring any injuries I wouldn't make any changes from the team that beat Dunfermline on Saturday.

Gaston; Kilday, Crighton, O'Ware, Lamie; J.McCluskey, McKee, Pepper, Crawford; McManus, Barrowman.

1-3, McManus, O'Ware and Crawford. Greacen for Stenny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pepper is also a central midfielder and does not play well out wide whereas Crawford did OK wide left. With the players we have TBH we are better equipped to play 3-5-2. Maybe

Gaston

Kilday Crighton O'Ware

J McCluskey Pepper McKee Crawford Russell

McManus Barrowman

Having said that,l why change a winning formation? I would stick with what worked last Saturday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCluskey and Russell are not wing-backs. This isn't the 1950s: you can't just shove players into such a specialised role and hope for the best.

McCluskey you are probably right but he has done some decent defensive work. Mark Russell came through the youth system playing solely left back or left mid. He can fill a wing back role well. The issue is that whilst 4-4-2 has worked for us to a degree, it usually means having a central midfielder played out of position - Crawford on Saturday as an example.

The present system, however, worked well for us on Saturday so why change it especially as the Saturday before experimenting with a midfield diamond almost cost us the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCluskey you are probably right but he has done some decent defensive work. Mark Russell came through the youth system playing solely left back or left mid. He can fill a wing back role well. The issue is that whilst 4-4-2 has worked for us to a degree, it usually means having a central midfielder played out of position - Crawford on Saturday as an example.

I call to mind an away game at Dumbarton, where a goal was directly caused by playing a winger (in this case Russell) in a defensive role. McCluskey is a sand dancer (or old-fashioned winger if we're being kind), and would be useless if his role involved him having to defend.

The issue is that Duffy is tactically clueless, nothing else really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call to mind an away game at Dumbarton, where a goal was directly caused by playing a winger (in this case Russell) in a defensive role. McCluskey is a sand dancer (or old-fashioned winger if we're being kind), and would be useless if his role involved him having to defend.

The issue is that Duffy is tactically clueless, nothing else really.

Not duffys biggest fan but after Saturdays win where he got his tactics spot on I wouldn't say that he is 'clueless.'

As for the stenny game I'd go with the same team that started on Saturday. Although Crawford was played out of position he played very well. Hopefully another 3 points on the board for us but knowing Morton I wouldn't be surprised to see us drop points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I feel for Crawford not playing in his natural position but we have Mckee, Crawford, Pepper and to a lesser extent Hands fighting for 2 positions.

He obv doesn't feel Russell and Allan are good enough to be starting.

Shame David O'brien picked up that injury and ultimately didn't stay on with us or anyone else it seems as he would have been perfect for the left side in this league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCluskey you are probably right but he has done some decent defensive work. Mark Russell came through the youth system playing solely left back or left mid. He can fill a wing back role well. The issue is that whilst 4-4-2 has worked for us to a degree, it usually means having a central midfielder played out of position - Crawford on Saturday as an example.

The present system, however, worked well for us on Saturday so why change it especially as the Saturday before experimenting with a midfield diamond almost cost us the game.

Erm no: playing left back and left mid is absolutely irrelevant to filling a left wing-back role. It's an entirely different, very specialised position. Your so-called 'solution' involves playing two players entirely out of position in order to cover a tighter midfield four than most other sides. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than a little harsh on a manager who has assembled a new squad and has us sitting one point from top spot after six games.

Not saying he hasn't done well, but he is tactically clueless. Seems to be able to help individuals (see: McKee learning to defend, maybe), but still unable to change a game with tactical switches/substitutions. We did play well against Dunfermline, but I'd say that's more because of their failed attempt to out-think us tactically than because of any changes made by Duffy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pepper is also a central midfielder and does not play well out wide whereas Crawford did OK wide left. With the players we have TBH we are better equipped to play 3-5-2. Maybe

Gaston

Kilday Crighton O'Ware

J McCluskey Pepper McKee Crawford Russell

McManus Barrowman

Having said that,l why change a winning formation? I would stick with what worked last Saturday.

No need to change the formation, just play Russell at left back. He can offer the width going forward to allow Crawford to play slightly inside. I think this gives the team the best balance, especially with Kilday and McCluskey offering something different to that down the right hand side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...