Livingston - all the threads merged

[Menga Bus]

Not sure how Martindale is the only one who doesn’t realise that we need another cb. Both Lithgow and Ambrose better than Kelly, yet we let them go. Can’t defend a set piece to save ourselves.

[ATLIS]

3 minutes ago, Menga Bus said:

Not sure how Martindale is the only one who doesn’t realise that we need another cb. Both Lithgow and Ambrose better than Kelly, yet we let them go. Can’t defend a set piece to save ourselves.

Lithgow is done and Ambrose can't stay fit. I disagree with this take at least

[Scrutinizer]

Even game,too many mistakes from both teams, the Well looked much sharper up front.
Pittman,Baily,Anderson,Fizzywater,Obileye poor overall, best for Livi were Forrest,Shinnie,Holt,Devlin.
Still problems at the back, lack of drive in midfield, lack of positional sense upfront, relying too much on Forrest creating chances, lack of back up from midfield going forward.
As I said at start of season 0 or 1 Point from 1st 6 league games, getting close and I'm not often wrong
Remember don't  blame me, ask Martindale what's wrong

Stryjek 4/10
Devlin  4/10
Fitzwater 3/10
Obileye  3/10
Longridge 3/10
Holt    5/10
Pittman 2/10
Sibbald 2/10
Bailey  2/10
Anderson 2/10
Forrest  7/10

Hamilton 0/10
Shinnie  6/10
Kelly    2/10

[Jnels]

really dont know why he changed the shape again.... Was the first one another mistake from Stryjek never saw it that good.

[Durnford]

3 hours ago, Jnels said:

really dont know why he changed the shape again.... Was the first one another mistake from Stryjek never saw it that good.

Taking Bailey off for Kelly was like we'd already settled for a draw with thirty minutes to go.

[Cptn Hooch]

really dont know why he changed the shape again.... Was the first one another mistake from Stryjek never saw it that good.

Can't really blame max for either goal. The first a runner gets left with a free header right in front of Max and takes him out the equation. The second is a great stop by Max and a Motherwell player reacts to tap in the rebound with no defender near him. Max made some more top quality saves throughout the game and is really showing his class as a keeper.

[LIVIFOREVER]

17 minutes ago, Durnford said:

Taking Bailey off for Kelly was like we'd already settled for a draw with thirty minutes to go.

Ironic if he had because this tactic has cost us a goal in every game he does it, because he moves Fitzwater to RWB, and Devlin into midfield, and we always concede another goal. Wish tae feck he'd just leave the defence alone and let them have a chance to build some sort of partnership together, and see if they can be a bit more solid. Maybe then start getting draws and wins.

[LogieLivi]

10 hours ago, Durnford said:

Taking Bailey off for Kelly was like we'd already settled for a draw with thirty minutes to go.

He settled for a 1-0 win against St Mirren last week after 60 mins too.

 

[LiviLion]

The switch to 3 at the back fucked us. Even more bizarre as I thought Bailey was having a good game. 

[mozam76]

You have to remember, this is a manager who during his media tour when we were on our unbeaten run (which was magnificent) said he liked changing things through the match in order to keep the players on their toes. You’re dreaming if you think he’s going settle upon personnel and/or a formation when we’re getting beat every week. 

[Guest]

 

My random idiot's take on current tactics:

While complaints about individual player errors in the last few matches all have merit, these are secondary to the main problem which has been the tactics. I don't like the 4-3-3. It gives us an attack-defence balance which tilts us one player too many towards attack. In our winning run last season, we played a lop-sided 4-2-3-1 where the left attacking midfielder (Sibbald or Holt) played deeper and narrower, while the right attacking midfielder (Mullin) pushed up high and wide. This effectively meant two outright attackers. The 4-3-3 we've been playing this season has given us three outright attackers; Anderson, Forrest and a right winger (Bailey for last two matches). We're not good enough to play with this extra attacker compared to last season's set up. So drop the right winger and return to the lop-sided 4-2-3-1 with Forrest as a high, attacking left midfielder and the right midfielder - Shinnie or Sibbald - deeper and narrower.

We're expansive in possession with the 4-3-3 and again this doesn't play to our strengths as it shifts our attacking focus down the flanks rather than more central play. In the last three seasons, short passing moves in central areas always involving Pittman or sometimes longer passes to a central target to chase has been our common goal route. Flank play and crossing has featured, of course, but not commonly. The 4-3-3 sees our wingers pin to wide starting positions and spreads out our central midfielders. The wider and deeper starting positions for the central midfielders makes it hard for them to get in the box and attack the crosses which later arrive. The 4-3-3 sees the "number 10" space left vacant, a particular crime for us given Pittman's excellent ability to operate there. 

Compared to the 4-2-3-1, the 4-3-3 not only causes greater spacing between players when in possession but also when in defensive formation. In the 4-3-3, our midfield trio have been having to run like mad men to plug all the gaps left by the wingers remaining higher. The compact 4-2-3-1 was much more solid defensively as only one wide player was remaining high rather than two. The 4-2-3-1 also gave the option to play an outright destroyer as one of the holding midfield duo (Bartley for the last two seasons) and two holders provide more insurance for the attacking runs of Longridge and especially Devlin.

As for the switching to 5-3-2/5-3-1-1 after an hour, this in itself isn't a problem if it suits the match. It can simultaneously give more defensive cover as well as more forward presence. That can be a smart move if the game has become "end to end" with the midfield being bypassed and patient build up being replaced by direct counter attacking. The problem here is player selection not tactics. We commonly switched to a back 5 to see out matches in both the previous two seasons but often Ciaron Brown was the central defender being brought on. Brown was a presser, a stopper-type who attacks the ball. Kelly is the opposite, he exclusively defends by covering, by dropping off. Brown's aggressive positioning meant our back line remained high whereas Kelly's introduction in the last three games have dropped our defensive line back, inviting the opposition onto us.

Conlcuding sentence; the 4-3-3 doesn't suit us and a return to the lop-sided 4-2-3-1 of the previous two seasons is needed.

[ATLIS]

49 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

Conlcuding sentence; the 4-3-3 doesn't suit us and a return to the lop-sided 4-2-3-1 of the previous two seasons is needed.

The lop sided attack was horrific, it was only really used towards the end of last season and teams sussed it out big time. I did a deep delve into the stats the night after the cup final and our stats for it was a massive outlier. We can't rely on just leaving one side open and focusing all play down the right. It doesn't work. 

For me 433 is fine, but if we properly dropped someone deeper (Holt) into a 4123 we'd be better off. Him anchoring that midfield and focusing on the defensive side of things is what we may need. Other than that I think we're okay, we need a CB in and the side to gel very quickly

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ATLIS said:

The lop sided attack was horrific, it was only really used towards the end of last season and teams sussed it out big time. I did a deep delve into the stats the night after the cup final and our stats for it was a massive outlier. We can't rely on just leaving one side open and focusing all play down the right. It doesn't work. 

The 11 match unbeaten run from Martindale taking over which began with a win at home to Dundee Utd and ended with a win away to Aberdeen (the next match was a home defeat to St Johnstone). Those are the matches I was considering. Mullin and Forrest did both start as high, wide attacking midfielders for some of it but then Forrest was dropped for a more conservative choice of Holt, Sibbald or Serrano for some of it. A similar thing happened at full back where the very attacking choice of both Serrano and Devlin played initially but Serrano was then replaced by the more conservative Brown or Longridge. So the more attacking selection and the more conservative "lop-sided" one were both utilised. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, ATLIS said:

For me 433 is fine, but if we properly dropped someone deeper (Holt) into a 4123 we'd be better off. Him anchoring that midfield and focusing on the defensive side of things is what we may need

I agree. The midfield trio has played as a flat three. A staggered set up would be better with a central holder behind centre right and centre left midfielders. The wide attackers would then adjust their starting positions deeper. 

[LIVIFOREVER]

Quote

Livingston boss David Martindale admits he may need to add to his squad before the transfer window.

 

The Lions looked brittle at the back and Martindale knew that was not acceptable.

 

He said: "Probably now I am (going to have to add to the squad) but it's not easy.

Another LB/LWB incoming.

Seriously though, if he is getting another player signed, he's surely going for a CB this time.

[LIVIFOREVER]

11 hours ago, ATLIS said:

The lop sided attack was horrific, it was only really used towards the end of last season and teams sussed it out big time. I did a deep delve into the stats the night after the cup final and our stats for it was a massive outlier. We can't rely on just leaving one side open and focusing all play down the right. It doesn't work. 

For me 433 is fine, but if we properly dropped someone deeper (Holt) into a 4123 we'd be better off. Him anchoring that midfield and focusing on the defensive side of things is what we may need. Other than that I think we're okay, we need a CB in and the side to gel very quickly

Yeah Obileye was meant to be doing that, signed to take over from Marv, sure QotS fans said that's where he played best for them too. But because Martindale hasn't signed a CB, when we were crying out for him to do so, he's dropped Obileye back into defence as a CB, and we've not got the holding mid we originally planned. 

Just read and posted he's looking at signing a player though, hopefully a CB, and perhaps allowing Obileye to play as that holding mid.

[Durnford]

Personally I think we're reasonably well covered at CB at the moment.

The bigger problem seems to be RB; with McMillan injured and the persistent desire to move Devlin into midfield means there's a gap at right back position. Attempts to fill it with Fitzwater have consistently not worked.

[LIVIFOREVER]

Just now, Durnford said:

Personally I think we're reasonably well covered at CB at the moment.

The bigger problem seems to be RB; with McMillan injured and the persistent desire to move Devlin into midfield means there's a gap at right back position. Attempts to fill it with Fitzwater have consistently not worked.

Not by proper CB's we're not. One injured, and Obileye filling in there who went off injured. Could be seeing Kelly and Fitzwater against Hibs, that doesn't fill me with confidence.

[Durnford]

5 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Not by proper CB's we're not. One injured, and Obileye filling in there who went off injured. Could be seeing Kelly and Fitzwater against Hibs, that doesn't fill me with confidence.

And "weight-watchers" Parkes.

If Devlin moves up then we have no-one at right back. Whatever format you play that's going to be a problem.

[LIVIFOREVER]

22 minutes ago, Durnford said:

And "weight-watchers" Parkes.

If Devlin moves up then we have no-one at right back. Whatever format you play that's going to be a problem.

Yeah Parkes is the one i was referring to as injured, meant to be back training but not sure he'll make the Hibs game. Basically all we have is Parkes and Fitzwater as CB, Kelly and Obileye as makeshift ones, not really ideal.

,

Keags can always play RB if needed, i'd have more confidence of him playing there than Kelly at CB. So can Fitzwater, but only if Devlin gets injured, and we stop putting him there during a game when Devlin gets moved to midfield. Be as well going all in and sticking on one of our keepers up front the last 30 mins, and having a big target man. Makes as much sense as moving FB's into midfield and CB's to FB's when you don't have to.

 

Actually i wouldn't put anything past Martindale, remember he did that with Odoffin.

Edited August 23, 2021 by LIVIFOREVER

[Durnford]

1 hour ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Yeah Parkes is the one i was referring to as injured, meant to be back training but not sure he'll make the Hibs game. Basically all we have is Parkes and Fitzwater as CB, Kelly and Obileye as makeshift ones, not really ideal.

,

Keags can always play RB if needed, i'd have more confidence of him playing there than Kelly at CB. So can Fitzwater, but only if Devlin gets injured, and we stop putting him there during a game when Devlin gets moved to midfield. Be as well going all in and sticking on one of our keepers up front the last 30 mins, and having a big target man. Makes as much sense as moving FB's into midfield and CB's to FB's when you don't have to.

 

Actually i wouldn't put anything past Martindale, remember he did that with Odoffin.

I think the evidence of the last handful of games is that Fitzwater cant play at right back. Agreed; he's been played in that position but it was only marginally more successful than Odoffin as a striker.

With regard to Parkes, from what I'm hearing, he was about two stone over-weight - hopefully he's well on the way to correcting that.

For Kelly, so far he's only been brought in as a substitute around the 60-70th minute.  Coming into a shifting backline is something he seems to have struggled with. Maybe he'll be better starting there?