The Falkirk FC Thread

[Rocco]

11 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

No we didn’t as the vast majority of players were lined up before Sheerin was appointed. Unless of course Holt has decided the shape of the team 
 

They said when Sheerin was appointed that the manager had to suit the style of play they’re looking for. Now I know that doesn’t mean formation, however, we all know Holt loves a 4231 so it’s quite believable that he had that in mind when looking at players. 

[ATLIS]

I'm not entirely sure connections go for much when it comes to loans from us, Hopkin hasn't had many/any(?) but you lot apparently made an offer for Reilly but wouldn't pay his wages. Morton enquired and decided to pay his wages in full, it was just a case of being able to afford him rather than 'connections'

[gav-ffc]

9 minutes ago, ATLIS said:

I'm not entirely sure connections go for much when it comes to loans from us, Hopkin hasn't had many/any(?) but you lot apparently made an offer for Reilly but wouldn't pay his wages. Morton enquired and decided to pay his wages in full, it was just a case of being able to afford him rather than 'connections'

Also I don’t see why a club would give preference to a players going to a ex employee, clubs want as much wage fo covered as possible as you say.

[JustLuvinThepian]

Jamie Gullan could have been an option for us but looks like he is Going to Killie.  If he does, it could free up Innes Cameron at Killie

[ShaggerG]

9 hours ago, Shadwell Dog said:

Christ we've had months to get someone in.  It has been an obvious issue since Holt came in at the end of last season and yet here we are still no closer to solving it. It's all about contacts in this game and yet Holt can't even persuade his old club to give us a fecking hand upwith tiffoney and Hamilton last season and now Reilly this season. His two finds so far in this area wouldn't get a game for your local pub side.  Time to put up or feck off Holt you've had your time to get this sorted .

 

8 hours ago, Shadwell Dog said:

As I said we've had fecking months though to sort it out not a couple of weeks.  If all we can end up with are a couple of jokers that would struggle to score in the amateurs after all that time then there is something far wrong and the dof is failing miserably at his job. Christ McCall had tiffoney signed up from under his nose a few months after he joined us and we got a wee bit nowhere near ready. 

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment Shadwell, it's more the terminology and the way you put it over. Things seem to be very simple and black & white in your world.

'Oops, we've run out of milk, I'll pop to the shops to get some. Do you want anything Shadwell?' 'Aye, you better get a loaf, oh, and get us a striker while you're in there; nae shite mind!'

[falkirkthebigclub]

Seven months.

He's had seven months to find a striker.

Shadwell's points are valid.

[Reggie Perrin]

1 hour ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

So abysmal they beat Cove 2 v 1...  

Were you at our game against Clyde?

If so you cannot possibly argue against the fact that they were rank rotten and if not please believe me they were.

 

[Reggie Perrin]

Simon Murray is obviously in a different class to the two back up strikers we have but to be honest he did very little on Saturday except score the free kick that Mutch made a complete arse of (again).

[Proudtobeabairn]

19 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Were you at our game against Clyde?

If so you cannot possibly argue against the fact that they were rank rotten and if not please believe me they were.

 

I was. They were poor but mostly because we played well and didn't give them a sniff especially 2nd half.  

[Rocco]

1 hour ago, badgerthewitness said:

Seven months.

He's had seven months to find a striker.

Shadwell's points are valid.

We’re not going to get a striker of the quality we need at the start of the window. I would suspect that in League 1 you will more than likely get the better quality striker in the loan section of the window that we’re at now. That is unless you get lucky with a Shankland and Nisbet type

[MrDust]

6 hours ago, Rocco said:

We could play 442 but I think we’d be considerably weaker. Nesbitt is clearly at his best in the number 10 position and playing Wilson or Ompreon up top with Keena would certainly make us weaker than playing Nesbitt in behind. Same for playing Morrison up top, it would make us weaker on the wing as he’s better out there than up top

Morrison really is the only square pegs in round holes, could easily accommodate a no10 role in a 4-4-2 for Nesbitt which would make it Keena and Nesbitt.

All teams will have a preferred formations but being rigid to one is normally a budget thing, teams at the top generally will have more than one 

3 hours ago, Bigbrbairn said:

Agree with lots there but our main problem on Saturday was the lack of invention and thrust in the penalty box. The play was good the chances created were many but what was missing was a finisher. QP are not a great team but in Murray they have what we lack

Agree but we didn't really make the keeper work with what we did.

2 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

No we didn’t as the vast majority of players were lined up before Sheerin was appointed. Unless of course Holt has decided the shape of the team 
 

Any team that has one formation for the season are relegation fodder

2 hours ago, Rocco said:

They said when Sheerin was appointed that the manager had to suit the style of play they’re looking for. Now I know that doesn’t mean formation, however, we all know Holt loves a 4231 so it’s quite believable that he had that in mind when looking at players. 

His 4-5-1 which I am sure Holt influenced M&M was horrific, I'm not suggesting M&M was working but Holt's influence fuked us for me and that 4-5-1 was brutal. I was ok winning two games at the restart  but anyone with a brain could see playing that way was that of relegation fodder.

Sneak a win here or there but when you are fighting to avoid defeat which our 4-5-1 was, I'd even say it was more defensive than relegation fodder.

 

[Guest Back Post Misses]

10 minutes ago, Rocco said:

We’re not going to get a striker of the quality we need at the start of the window. I would suspect that in League 1 you will more than likely get the better quality striker in the loan section of the window that we’re at now. That is unless you get lucky with a Shankland and Nisbet type

Or you do your homework and pay the right sort of cash to attract the right player 

[MrDust]

6 hours ago, Rocco said:

We could play 442 but I think we’d be considerably weaker. Nesbitt is clearly at his best in the number 10 position and playing Wilson or Ompreon up top with Keena would certainly make us weaker than playing Nesbitt in behind. Same for playing Morrison up top, it would make us weaker on the wing as he’s better out there than up top

Morrison really is the only square pegs in round holes, could easily accommodate a no10 role in a 4-4-2 for Nesbitt which would make it Keena and Nesbitt.

All teams will have a preferred formations but being rigid to one is normally a budget thing, teams at the top generally will have more than one 

3 hours ago, Bigbrbairn said:

Agree with lots there but our main problem on Saturday was the lack of invention and thrust in the penalty box. The play was good the chances created were many but what was missing was a finisher. QP are not a great team but in Murray they have what we lack

Agree but we didn't really make the keeper work with what we did.

2 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

No we didn’t as the vast majority of players were lined up before Sheerin was appointed. Unless of course Holt has decided the shape of the team 
 

Any team that has one formation for the season are relegation fodder

2 hours ago, Rocco said:

They said when Sheerin was appointed that the manager had to suit the style of play they’re looking for. Now I know that doesn’t mean formation, however, we all know Holt loves a 4231 so it’s quite believable that he had that in mind when looking at players. 

His 4-5-1 which I am sure Holt influenced M&M was horrific, I'm not suggesting M&M was working but Holt's influence fuked us for me and that 4-5-1 was brutal. I was ok winning two games at the restart  but anyone with a brain could see playing that way was that of relegation fodder.

Sneak a win here or there but when you are fighting to avoid defeat which our 4-5-1 was, I'd even say it was more defensive than relegation fodder.

 

[Rocco]

3 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

Or you do your homework and pay the right sort of cash to attract the right player 

Absolutely, but it’s Falkirk and they’re not going to spend the money required. As has been said before, if there was any possibility of making a deal for McManus work then we should have been all over it. We can play great football but ultimately goals win matches/leagues, so they need to make sure they have the players to get them. 

[Rocco]

5 minutes ago, MrDust said:

Morrison really is the only square pegs in round holes, could easily accommodate a no10 role in a 4-4-2 for Nesbitt which would make it Keena and Nesbitt.

All teams will have a preferred formations but being rigid to one is normally a budget thing, teams at the top generally will have more than one 

His 4-5-1 which I am sure Holt influenced M&M was horrific, I'm not suggesting M&M was working but Holt's influence fuked us for me and that 4-5-1 was brutal. I was ok winning two games at the restart  but anyone with a brain could see playing that way was that of relegation fodder.

Sneak a win here or there but when you are fighting to avoid defeat which our 4-5-1 was, I'd even say it was more defensive than relegation fodder.

 

But playing Nesbitt as a number 10 beside Keena isn’t a 442 but a 4411. 
 

I have no doubt we can play different formations but our style of play is all about quick passing and the majority of teams that play that way do it with a 4231/433. 
 

It wasn’t a 451 we were playing. It was meant to be a 4231 but we were that shit that it ended up looking like a 451 because we couldn’t get out our half most games.

[Sarcastic Bairn]

Just now, Rocco said:

Absolutely, but it’s Falkirk and they’re not going to spend the money required. As has been said before, if there was any possibility of making a deal for McManus work then we should have been all over it. We can play great football but ultimately goals win matches/leagues, so they need to make sure they have the players to get them. 

Oh we spend, but we spend it on the wrong player season after season.

How many times recently have we ended up with multiple players for the same position, then had to play someone on the wrong side of the pitch.

[Rocco]

43 minutes ago, Sarcastic Bairn said:

Oh we spend, but we spend it on the wrong player season after season.

How many times recently have we ended up with multiple players for the same position, then had to play someone on the wrong side of the pitch.

Won’t hear me arguing. Some, if not most of our recruitment in recent history had been abysmal 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Rocco

[ShaggerG]

3 hours ago, badgerthewitness said:

Seven months.

He's had seven months to find a striker.

Shadwell's points are valid.

Didn't say they weren't.

[ShaggerG]

3 hours ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Simon Murray is obviously in a different class to the two back up strikers we have but to be honest he did very little on Saturday except score the free kick that Mutch made a complete arse of (again).

He did feck all other than miss a very good chance. I thought Dixon marked him out of the game for the large part. You could see he's got something about him though.

[MrDust]

59 minutes ago, Rocco said:

But playing Nesbitt as a number 10 beside Keena isn’t a 442 but a 4411. 
 

I have no doubt we can play different formations but our style of play is all about quick passing and the majority of teams that play that way do it with a 4231/433. 
 

It wasn’t a 451 we were playing. It was meant to be a 4231 but we were that shit that it ended up looking like a 451 because we couldn’t get out our half most games.

It's all became very Rachel Riley, throw numbers up from standard formations and the usual becomes something else but also the same as it was before if someone is taking a shy.

We have never ever really signed for a formation since McCall....

As for the 4-5-1 under Holt, it was the most defensive rigid 4-5-1 I've ever seen, when Morrison was in the attacking area Keena would go as far back as right back to cover, do not try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, it was truly the most defensive rigid mess I've ever seen at Falkirk and that was when we had a full selection of players.