First Airdrie,next County and then Morton .St.johnstone fan now talking about keeping the 451 for saturday.What has happened to the "You attack us and we will attack you ,and the best team wins" .TBH ,we are that weakened in the midfield that Saints should be able to come down,play expansively and win without the need for this.Its hard enough getting punters in and this is not helping.

We lost when we tried to play "footie" at QOTS. Sounds like these clubs have the right idea.

Its the same thing when these 'diddy' teams come to Dens, everyone behind the ball and hit on the break. I agree though its not pleasant to watch.

It's the same all over the division though. Many times I have seen a team come up to Vicky Park, only to flood the midfields and allow us to pass sidewards all game. But that's modern football now, results driven were teams don't mind holding hold for a 0-0 draw away from home, or even a sneaky win.

We lost 5 fucking 0 in our last league game by playing a bloddy 4-4-2: what the f**k do you expect us to do?

Hamilton won the league least season by predominantly playing a 4-5-1 formation.

Temper,temper.Andy ritchie would have sleepless nights knowing that morton were playing like this.No wonder your crowds are down.Your tantrum would suggest you are not old enough to remember him.

You'd probably have beaten Celtic if you'd not played with Zemlik as a lone striker last season. I think Rae also used that tactic in the first match at NDP as well!

Like VT explains for Morton, we too have been losing far too many goals and playing 4-5-1 on Saturday was far more entertaining than playing 4-3-3 at Firhill. The 4-3-3 worked well for us last season but teams are getting wise to it and we now have some proper wide options, so the option is there to play 4-4-2 or 4-5-1. I don't particularly like the formation but I'd far rather see us accused of being negative than continue to lose three or four goals in each match... that's not entertaining.

I can see where Irons is coming from with the defensive formation having been spanked by Airdrie, however we have to remember that our best performances under Irons have been with an attacking formation.

I know that Partick and Dunfermline weren't playing for anything, but we were excellent in the last 2 games of last season against them, and in the 2nd half of the game away to St. Johnstone when we went for it. We were also superb against Hibs and created many chances with a formation that suggested we couldn't give a toss about defending, although the same formation then got us spanked by Airdrie. Probably because Airdrie's defence is better than Hibs. Seriously.

If 7 goals in 2 games is "anti-football", I can't wait to see us open up.

For what it's worth, the few games I've seen this season have been very watchable, despite the lack of goals. The first division is traditionally a tight league, especially since reconstruction ended the old setup when there were 8-10 full time teams spanking the rest in a 14 team league.

There are more goals scored in the 2nd and 3rd divisions, but only due to defences being pish and poorly organised. I'd rather watch a chess-like 1-1 between a couple of decent teams than a 4-4 between shite where 7 of the goals are sclaffs.

Airdrie have done really well recently but I was only going by what you done at palmerston.

Airdrie have done really well as of late and I was only going by their tactics at palmerston.

I cant speak for other teams but I know that County tend to play 4-4-2 at home, yet go a little more defensive 4-5-1 away from home.
This was similar to how we played in the first division two years ago, and look where that got us - but we did pick up more points away from home that season than we did at home.

As Mackie says though, a lot of teams come to Dingwall and play that way too. It seems to be the way that teams like to sit and defend and hit on the break.. get a lead and sit back and protect for the rest of the match.

With teams being at home there is a bit more pressure for them to press forward.

Interesting to note, from the 30 games played so far, only 12 have ended with a home win. The other 18 were split 9 draws and 9 away wins.
This has been a similar patter in the first division over the last few years... I don;t have for last season as we were in the second division, but the season before, from the 180 matches played only 78 were home wins, with season 2005-6 only having 69 home wins from the 180 matches.

This basically translates into that there is more of a chance of the away team getting something from the game that the home team picking up all three points.

Therefore the general rule is that away fans are happier than home fans... And due to the fact the majority of fans don't travel to away games, maybe that is why most fans see the league as being depressing !

If you remove Morton, then you've scored 2 goals all season. And while you deserved to beat us on Sat, we gifted you the 2 goals.

But Livi are also guilty a bit of the anti-football too. Building from the back. Hopefully.

In what way could the second goal be classes as a 'gift'?

If my maw had baws she'd be my dad, mate.

Yes, against Celtic. If we'd played with two strikers the chances are that we would not have created as many chances.

As for Hamilton, we tried it but it failed. We always play with two strikers away from home, and with the second best away record last season it worked well.

I think it's a bit naive to describe all 4-5-1's as defensive. Any formation can be defensive if you want it too. 4-5-1 could be far more attacking than 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 depending on the managers tactics.

Indeed, but you can't claim Airdrie to be an attacking team that's scoring for fun when you've had two thirds of your games without scoring, and solely attempting to stifle the opposition.

And the 2nd goal was an absoloutely class strike from McLaughlin, but it was very easily preventable. He ran with the ball from his own half to just outside our penalty area without anyone attempting to tackle him. 'A gift' might have been a little harsh on the strike, but you get the drift.

True.

Last season, we occasionally adopted 4-5-1, but with wingers so it was 4-3-3 when going forward.

Just as, technically, our formation could be considered either 5-3-2 or 3-5-2 now, the former sounds very defensive, but is more pedantically accurate as we play with 5 defenders. In practice, however, the wingbacks are more involved in creating moves in the middle of the park than the holding midfielder.

I'm not the one with such a tantrum that you started a thread about it.
As title contenders you have to be able to break sides down who are comfortable with a point.
Queens failed to do so on Saturday. I couldn't give two fucks how entertaining we are - all that is important is that we survive, and if grinding draws is part of the method to do so, sobeit.

We played a 4-5-1, verging on a 4-6-0 at McDiarmid Park in the 2nd game there last season. It was really bad. I think Stevie Murray played right mid that day, and his attempts to get past Stanic usually ended up with him running the ball out of play.

Hopefully one improvement from last year, is that we won't be scared to go to places like McDiarmid, and sit back and watch those rancid defensive tactics

Bring back the formations from years ago!

Well it would be funny to see teams playing a 4-2-4, Dundee won the league playing that formation.

From this thread I take the following 4 things:-

1) The penny still hasn't dropped to ( some) QoS fans that they are not as good as they seem to think

2) Livi fans are the Raith fans of the 1st Division

3) Too many, far too many folk tbh, appear to think that playing a few games of "Champ Manager" gives them an in depth knowledge of football tactics and formations

and, above all,

4) Anyone whom refers to Football as "footie" should be dragged out of their house, lined up against a wall and shot in the back of the head !

Anti - Soccer

It was more of a 4-5-1/4-3-3 wingers bombing up in support constantly.

Don't remove us, then where would everyone get their points from?

Livingston.....obviously!!

Watch what you say about wanting folk dead you'll have G_Man1985 going off on one again.

Ha, you Accies really cannae stay away fae this place, can ye? but yes, that's basically the only way to impliment a 4-5-1 if you want it to be effective. If a team is under the cosh for most of a game, it's always going to look like an 'anti-football' approach because the team will spend most of the match in the defensive side of the formation. when in the ascendancy though, it's a completely different matter.

we havent played 451 in the league since QOS on the opening day, when Lynch wasn't ready to start but since then its been 4-4-2. I dont mind 4-5-1/4-3-3 whatever you want to call it if its played with 2 out and out wingers who support the forward i.e the way Man Utd play it where there wingers will help out defending to a degree in closing down the full backs but are mainly there for their attacking purposes.

I take it most people would like their teams to play attractive soccer but realistically that will never happen in a results business.

Perhaps if you had played anti-football you might have beaten a bottom of the league side...

someone should make anti football a sport, theyd make a fortune.

Well, according to (insert team name)'s fans (insert Manager's name) already has !

There you go - One quote fits all !

Life without the bigot brothers and MarreZ who can't keep away. You should introduce an entry fee.

Chisholm looks as if he's leaning towards a 3-5-2 formation as was favoured disastrously by his predecessor Jobby McCall.
I can't say the idea appeals to me.
It is certainly a formation which can counteract 4-5-1 if deployed well.On the other hand it can lead to crucifixion against a team with quick wide men who frequently move the ball diagonally.

Absolutely correct. It's a great annoyance to me to listen to folk banging on about 4-5-1 when it's quite obvious they understand nothing about football tactics. The way a 4-5-1 system, or any other formation, is applied has far more influence on how the game is played than the system in its own right. The notion that it is automatically an overly defensive system is just absolute nonsense. If you get midfield players up to support the attack quickly, it can be as attacking as any other system. An interesting point to note in this area is that the guy credited with pioneeringin the cattenaccio system in Italy now hates what it has become much of the time. His system was based on full-backs getting forward a lot, something that doesn't happen in what is the common interpretation of what that way of playing is all about. It illustrates that the implementation is what has the bigger influence.

At the start of this season before we signed Andy Kirk we played 4-5-1. Against Stirling on the first day, we created far more chances in one game than I'd seen for ages, with midfielders making a noticable effort to get up and support. We did the same against Partick, and although we lost 1-0 most people agreed that it was a very entertaining game with both sides contributing to that with a lot of attacking play. Even the side that was only playing one up front.

Also, for those who go on and compare the old 2-3-5 formations with today. I've looked at this plenty times, and the only thing I can think of that would have made any great difference is that there was more wing play. Surely nobody thinks it was really 2 defenders, 3 midfielders and 5 forwards? For a start, why do you think we still call central defenders centre halves?

Finally (phew) I see no reason for folk to be annoyed about teams going away from home and defending well. To me there is nothing wrong with that. Away from home in particular you have to make sure you defend properly first. Soemtimes you will ome under pressure and not be able to get out of your own half. Defending as a team is just as important as attacking as a team, and I see things to admire in both when they are done well. If you can defend well and get an away draw against a team who are better than you, then you deserve as much credit as a home team who manages to break this down and get a tight 1-0 win.

Well said. Agree with all of that.

Hate to be a pedant but technically, only one Livi fan posted on this thread (apart from me now, obviously). It would then be impossible to get the idea that "Livi fans are the Raith fans of the 1st Division" from this thread.

Thank you and good night.

Liar! It's a well known fact everyone on P&B loves to be a pedant, including myself.

Thank you for informing what I can or cannot think

. It just sounds more polite, that's all.


You can think what you like but what you said was impossible. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your post.

Can't believe I'm about to get into this, however....

You could argue to making a generalisation that Livi fans - plural- are the Raith fans of the 1st Division, based on the postings of one Livi fan - singular - is unfair, assumptive in the extreme or inaccurate, but it's not "impossible", simply the kind of generalisation you hear every day.

I like this. It's fun.

As you said a generalisation is possible but it's also an incredibly naive attitude for someone simply reading this thread alone. Had you mentioned the match thread then your point would have been valid (but incorrect if you were referring at all to me ).

Shall we call this a draw and go and get ourselves a life ?

I'd usually fight it to the death but it seems like you're pretty sound. I'll let it go.