Jump to content

Raith v Falkirk

Rovers1992/1993

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Big Berk

Big Berk

Posted
Posted

.... think most clubs now put money before fans,entertainment nowadays.

... and it would appear that we're one of the front runners with that philosophy

So they should.

Then they shouldnt mind too much that the gate money is an increasingly smaller part of their income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrpaddyx

mrpaddyx

Posted
Posted

I think people are a lot more selective about what games they go to. The regular core of around 800 or so will still go to every game but the rest will pick and choose. games.

The product on the pitch doesn't seem to matter all that much. IIRC our crowds the season we were challenging for promotion to the SPL were nothing special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rovers_Lad

Rovers_Lad

Posted
Posted

Both teams were fucking awful.

good summary

McKeown never has had, and never will have a good game for us. The guy is poison. Scott isn't much better, although he wasn't helped by being asked to play up front by our moron of a manager.

Another pathetic home performance today. And 1,800 for the crowd? Looked more like 1,400 from where I was.

mckeown was decent in the second half but generally isnt very good,neither is scott.both moon and fox were poor

I like us picking up points too, but if a team isn't entertaining, then folk are quite happy to do something else of a Saturday and just check the results. We need to try and entertain as well as pick up points.

spot on

murray hasnt a fukin clue

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrDust

MrDust

Posted
Posted

The game was a shitefest....

I'd said 1-1 walking up to the ground.... 5 mins in, I turned to my mate and said 0-0

Our team just has that fuked up look about an no one out there seems to bother. I can for the life of me understand why Ollie was put on at the right hand side of midfield, slowest player on a flank....hmmmm

Smith doesn't look that good, Jones I think would do better at centre half and put Vaulks in his place. Sibbald again our bright spot, still think tho he is missing delivering that killer ball....

Could've fell asleep yesterday,didn't but did on couch watching arsenal... I dunno if there is a moral to that story but Alloa on Saturday can wait if this is how it is gonna be

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paco

Paco

Posted
Posted

Falkirk actually reminded me of the Rovers a bit over the past few seasons. Very odd changes been made under Houston.

On the game I felt we edged it but can have no complaints at all about the result. Laurie Ellis would've been my man of the match personally. he's our fifth choice centre back but I think he's shown already he's significantly better than Ross Perry. A clean sheet is certainly the most positive thing to take from the match. Not a bad result, but not a good one either.

Have to say I don't like the way we set up at all. The 4-2-3-1 in theory is fine, but with Nade at the top? You need a very mobile striker to play that kind of system, which is why we ended up with Scott virtually pressed forward as a striker and I'm sure he probably actually ended up playing further forward than Nade overall. I thought Scott put in a very good shift, he just lacked quality in and around the box - should've scored in both halves, but then that's what happens when you play a midfielder there.

The subs were also a bit puzzling, Stewart came on for Nade but is obviously much smaller and we were still playing the long ball as if Nade were there - result, Scott fully became a centre forward and we were effectively playing a 4-4-2. If that's the plan why not keep Nade on, rather than playing a midfielder there? Vaughan on for Moon was outright bizarre, continuing to play long ball to Vaughan and Stewart with Scott now dropping into CM. It was an attacking change in theory but the manner of the play meant we now lumped to two small players up front which gave Falkirk all the initiative in the last five or so minutes, so we played on the counter attack with the scores tied and five minutes left at home. Very poor. Would've personally also had Anderson on for either a tired-out McKay or Conroy who had a very quiet game, seemed very odd to have him sitting there when some pace and energy could've won the game.

I don't mean that to sound like an anti-Murray rant at all, it wasn't a bad overall performance and we could've won the game - if Scott had taken one of his chances we would've. But I don't think he helped our case in the closing stages yesterday, left feeling very disappointed and as if we'd settled for a draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShaggerG

ShaggerG

Posted
Posted

Deary me that was crap! Neither team deserved to win because both were just shite!

Rory Boulding's efforts were pretty laughable however I would actually start him next week because I thought he got into some good positions and we looked more threatening in the 8 minutes he was on than the 82 before. Loy up on his own clearly isn't working and we're carrying no goal threat whatsoever so he needs some help up there and I don't think Bia-Bi's ready to play from the start just yet.

I think Houstie needs to change things pretty radically so, as the Tiawo & Jones thing isn't working either, I would bring Vaulks in to the midfield as we need some more energy in there.

Next week I'd go with Shaugnnesy, McCracken, Grant & Dick. Alston, Vaulks, Sibbald & Leahy. Loy & Boulding.

Worth a try because we can't go on like this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rovers_Lad

Rovers_Lad

Posted
Posted

Falkirk actually reminded me of the Rovers a bit over the past few seasons. Very odd changes been made under Houston.

On the game I felt we edged it but can have no complaints at all about the result. Laurie Ellis would've been my man of the match personally. he's our fifth choice centre back but I think he's shown already he's significantly better than Ross Perry. A clean sheet is certainly the most positive thing to take from the match. Not a bad result, but not a good one either.

Have to say I don't like the way we set up at all. The 4-2-3-1 in theory is fine, but with Nade at the top? You need a very mobile striker to play that kind of system, which is why we ended up with Scott virtually pressed forward as a striker and I'm sure he probably actually ended up playing further forward than Nade overall. I thought Scott put in a very good shift, he just lacked quality in and around the box - should've scored in both halves, but then that's what happens when you play a midfielder there.

The subs were also a bit puzzling, Stewart came on for Nade but is obviously much smaller and we were still playing the long ball as if Nade were there - result, Scott fully became a centre forward and we were effectively playing a 4-4-2. If that's the plan why not keep Nade on, rather than playing a midfielder there? Vaughan on for Moon was outright bizarre, continuing to play long ball to Vaughan and Stewart with Scott now dropping into CM. It was an attacking change in theory but the manner of the play meant we now lumped to two small players up front which gave Falkirk all the initiative in the last five or so minutes, so we played on the counter attack with the scores tied and five minutes left at home. Very poor. Would've personally also had Anderson on for either a tired-out McKay or Conroy who had a very quiet game, seemed very odd to have him sitting there when some pace and energy could've won the game.

I don't mean that to sound like an anti-Murray rant at all, it wasn't a bad overall performance and we could've won the game - if Scott had taken one of his chances we would've. But I don't think he helped our case in the closing stages yesterday, left feeling very disappointed and as if we'd settled for a draw.

looked like 4-4-1-1 formation to me

agree on anderson,not my favourite player by any means but crying out for someone like him.he must be questioning why he cant get a game ahead of conroy who has no pace,cant go bye a defender and generally doesnt do enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites
renton

renton

Posted
Posted

looked like 4-4-1-1 formation to me

agree on anderson,not my favourite player by any means but crying out for someone like him.he must be questioning why he cant get a game ahead of conroy who has no pace,cant go bye a defender and generally doesnt do enough

Conroy isn't fast, but he's tidy in possession, picks out a good pass, does work hard, is a genuine goal threat and very consistent with his set pieces. I really don't think you could make a case for dropping him.

Agree that it was a 4-4-1-1, it's still quite a flat midfield. I can see why Murray tried to play Scott in Elliot's role, and whiel he worked hard, he maybe lacked a bit in terms of positioning when the ball got into the box - not quite as intelligent in his all round play as Elliot would be. I'd actually make the case for Anderson replacing Scott as the game wore on, particularly after Nade went off, we needed someone who could still try and win knock downs for Stewart, and his pace certainly would've change the game a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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