glenrothes 1884 saint Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Yeah, always think we are much more balanced when he plays. but the front three didn't threaten enough. We at no time ,played a front 3, sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crilly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Saints deserved the 3 points for their more energetic and combative performance, although Scobie took it too far with his assault on Cadden. It was a bitter bitter pill to swallow when he scored the winner. Still I suspect that Saints would have scored a late winner with 10 or even 9 men on the park. Our tactics were shambolic. Any team on a poor run needing a win........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsjfc Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 We at no time ,played a front 3, sorry Well not three strikers. The two wide men and Maclean then to be pedantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Once again McGhee's shitebag tactics bite us on the arse. Woeful day out, thank f**k for Gin. 'offers a lemon and tonic' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Didnt agree with the starting tactics of Millar sitting deep with Craig and Muzz just infront. I do love five in midfield but that sort of set up just encourages everything bad about us. Thankfully changed it when we conceded and pushed Spoony next to Macca with Craig on the left wing. Luckily McGhee helped by taking McFadden off and freeing Millar up too. Biggest worry is that we revert back to 4-4-2 as we created an extra chance when in that set up. Its because of the 4-2-3-1 we had enough of a foothold to get numbers forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radford Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 How'd Thompson play? Dreadful, worst player on the pitch and there had been a few overdosing on the blue popcorn when they booed the decision to take him off. When he gets on the ball he usually has some ability but apart from one run, he didn't even have that yesterday. Much like the Accies game, he provided no passing option for his teammates. I don't think he'll start another game this season. Indeed, if we sign a couple of free agents, I wouldn't be surprised to see him head out on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sconesjfc Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Dreadful, worst player on the pitch and there had been a few overdosing on the blue popcorn when they booed the decision to take him off. When he gets on the ball he usually has some ability but apart from one run, he didn't even have that yesterday. Much like the Accies game, he provided no passing option for his teammates. I don't think he'll start another game this season. Indeed, if we sign a couple of free agents, I wouldn't be surprised to see him head out on loan. Not sure if serious All the play in the first half was down the left hand side where an ineffective and slow Liam Craig provided the square root of f**k all. 2nd half he had one run at their defence and was substituted shortly after. If you can not see the potential he has to offer your a baboon. The kid needs game time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radford Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 All the play in the first half was down the left hand side where an ineffective and slow Liam Craig provided the square root of f**k all. All the play went down the left because Thomson made no angles or runs to receive the ball, the same as the Accies game. I've already said when he gets on the ball he usually offers something but without the game intelligence, that's not much use. Does he need games to get that, of course, but I suspect he's too far out of his depth at this level at the moment for that to be a realistic proposition. I'd get him out on loan until the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broon_100 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 All the play went down the left because Thomson made no angles or runs to receive the ball, the same as the Accies game. I've already said when he gets on the ball he usually offers something but without the game intelligence, that's not much use. Does he need games to get that, of course, but I suspect he's too far out of his depth at this level at the moment for that to be a realistic proposition. I'd get him out on loan until the end of the season.As a winger you need the ball passed into feet or played into the channels. We punted the ball back to front for the full 90 on a terrible pitch. Yes he was very poor and yes I agree he didn't get in the game but I'm not convinced the way we played yesterday was set up to suit him.And if you judge someone as being out of their depth for a couple of performances then half of our team are out of their depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broon_100 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 You should post on WAP. 4-2-3-1 is the correct description, and is in no way a defensive formation. Should help us win the midfield battle which has been our weak point lately. If Spoonys central behind MacLean ill accept his inclusion, its his best position. Do you genuinely think the completely static Suttons a better lone striker option than Macca? That's some superiority complex you've got going there. I see you're not running around apologising to those tactically inept posters who correctly called out yesterday was a 4-5-1 and a defensive setup with a hugely isolated immobile striker. And the much maligned Sutton did more than Maclean in a 20 minutes spell and with Cummins and Sutton up top we looked a much better team. The tactics were poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radford Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 As a winger you need the ball passed into feet or played into the channels. We punted the ball back to front for the full 90 on a terrible pitch. Surely there is an onus on him to either push into these channels though or get in an area where he can receive the ball to feet? Did he run in behind Johnson once in the first half? I think he probably is capable of better than he showed yesterday but I don't think Wright will take the risk again in the near future. I want young players to do well for us but sugar-coating their performances does no long-term good IMO. If they are part of the first team squad as Thomson now is, they need to be judged as such. He isn't a development squad player pushing through, he's a 21-year-old that has been promoted from that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 That's some superiority complex you've got going there. I see you're not running around apologising to those tactically inept posters who correctly called out yesterday was a 4-5-1 and a defensive setup with a hugely isolated immobile striker. And the much maligned Sutton did more than Maclean in a 20 minutes spell and with Cummins and Sutton up top we looked a much better team. The tactics were poor. 4-5-1 isnt a defensive formation and MacLean isnt immobile. We played 4-5-1 for the entirety of the match, just different variations. The way we started was defensive and saw MacLean isolated yes (still no idea why you think Sutton would've improved that any though), then we changed to a different version and took complete control of the match. Even when we had two strikers on the pitch one of them was always very deep, whether it was Macca or Sutton, with Cummins pretty much alone up front. We also didnt look like a better team at all, it was just the fact he was two massive folk up front to challenge for the hopeless pumps up the park and by that stage Motherwell were shitting themselves about giving away yet another late goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I feel like a broken record, but that pitch is not doing him or any of our natural wide players any good either. Not easy to beat a man on a good grass pitch never mind a bobbly mess. A weak excuse, he neither had the pace or strength to ever bother Johnson. For reference the right winger for Motherwell, Cadden, is almost two years younger than him but looks a far more complete player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broon_100 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 There is an onus on him to push into these areas but he's not the finished article and every game at this level will help him learn. He's also a winger which is a notoriously difficult position to make a consistent impact from. They are in and out of the game and have varying success at getting past their man. Untilmately though they lose the ball because they have to go past people. He did manage to put a good ball in after 5 mins that 3 of our players missed and he had two other decent runs. That's not enough but you have to remember he's never had a run in team and needs time to build an understanding between him and Fisher who is also learning the game. I would personally give him a couple more games and if no improvement try a few sub appearances. At least to be fair to him he offers good defensive cover as he tracks back well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint in exile Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Thing is,if a senior player is going through a poor spell,and lets face it there has been plenty of them this season,do they immediately get dropped?The lad is surely going to take time to settle in and deserves the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broon_100 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 4-5-1 isnt a defensive formation and MacLean isnt immobile. We played 4-5-1 for the entirety of the match, just different variations. The way we started was defensive and saw MacLean isolated yes (still no idea why you think Sutton would've improved that any though), then we changed to a different version and took complete control of the match. Even when we had two strikers on the pitch one of them was always very deep, whether it was Macca or Sutton, with Cummins pretty much alone up front. At least you are finally admitting it was 4-5-1. I'll accept your apology. As for it not being a defensive formation. No its not always but that depends on the personnel. Maclean isn't a goalscoring threat when played on his own and no he isn't mobile. At all. He can't run and has no pace whatsoever. He has a lovely touch and is a good passer/link man but he's not going to score unless it's within 8 yards of the goal and he's never there when played on his own. So that puts a big onus on the midfield. Millar - defensive. Muzz - defensive. Craig - somewhere in between. Wotherspoon and Thompson I'll give you. That leaves you relying on Craig and Spoony for goals. To me that was a gamble and tells me the setup was more to stop Motherwell playing and to give us something to build on. As for Sutton. He'd wouldn't have been any worse than Maclean in that game because he at least was able to compete physically with the 3 big defenders. Him and Cummins completely turned that fight around. I'm not criticising Maclean but he needs a partner to be effective and relying on Spoony, Craig or Muzz to get up next to him won't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 At least you are finally admitting it was 4-5-1. I'll accept your apology. As for it not being a defensive formation. No its not always but that depends on the personnel. Maclean isn't a goalscoring threat when played on his own and no he isn't mobile. At all. He can't run and has no pace whatsoever. He has a lovely touch and is a good passer/link man but he's not going to score unless it's within 8 yards of the goal and he's never there when played on his own. So that puts a big onus on the midfield. Millar - defensive. Muzz - defensive. Craig - somewhere in between. Wotherspoon and Thompson I'll give you. That leaves you relying on Craig and Spoony for goals. To me that was a gamble and tells me the setup was more to stop Motherwell playing and to give us something to build on. As for Sutton. He'd wouldn't have been any worse than Maclean in that game because he at least was able to compete physically with the 3 big defenders. Him and Cummins completely turned that fight around. I'm not criticising Maclean but he needs a partner to be effective and relying on Spoony, Craig or Muzz to get up next to him won't work. Hard to disagree with most of that, tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkfish Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Sutton was a complete waste of time as a sub again, he's offered close to nothing in his whole time at Saints. A shame but we need to stop playing him ahead of Kane. I would agree with getting Thompson out on loan, there's something there but he's currently well out of his depth at this level and he'd do better getting games in down in the Championship or even League One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I was a bit miffed with the players brought on to impact the game yesterday, but in the cold light of day Tommy got them spot on. Cummins competed much better with the centre backs and gave the midfield/defence an out ball, Sutton carried the fight and actually looked reasonably assured with his feet too. He also won the free kick for the second goal after a great little ball from Cummins. I'd argue that was his best performance for us so far. Lappin, the third sub who hadn't been on the park for more than a few minutes, put in a delicious ball for the winner. I was screaming for Swanson as he's the only player we had on the bench, Lappin perhaps aside, who could put his foot on the ball and control the game. Glad it wasn't my decision to make! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSam Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I agree that MacLean is immobile. I don't mind 4-5-1 but I think the striker has to be Cummins who just has a greater engine than MacLean. Macca wasn't winning much against their defenders and that all changed when Cummins came on. We were playing balls over the top to MacLean who is just about as slow as its possible to be. Cummins is better in the air and has more pace so has got to be the better option if we go with one striker. I really like Macca and his contribution this season has been good but he's another one of these so called undroppable players who plays most weeks regardless of form or whether another player would actually suit the game better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.