Double Winning St Johnstone FC Thread

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Munoz said:

So not wages then ?

We've spent one transfer fee in 15 years, when I'm on Saints "spending", what do you think im on about?

[Guest]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

We've spent one transfer fee in 15 years, when I'm on Saints "spending", what do you think im on about?

Just want to tell you that “Free” transfers usually have significant sign on fees involved......idiot.

[Kyle]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

For the sake of conversation, and moving away from today, the 5/6 players i don't think are good enough to play the 5-2-3 were Gordon, McNamara, Tanser, Davidson, Conway, May.

To me we'd sign a new LCB and move McCart to the middle (middle CB is your "playmaker", who can bring the ball into midfield, thats not Gordon), two new wing backs who can contribute both ways, a CM who can match McCanns ability to both defend and attack, but also good technically, a new winger with pace, and a ST whos capable of occupying defences himself.

All IMO of course, but I don't think we'll ever be consistent playing this set up until we improve those positions. Harsh as f**k probably but there you go.

Or we could just play a system that actually suits the players that we have. The 5-2-3 is shite and the sooner it’s binned  the better.

we have 4 strikers and 3 of them at least suit playing with striking partners, McCann and Davidson - who are our best midfielders - are shackled and the players we’re relying on supplying the striker couldn’t find him with a cross ball if their lives depended on it. The defenders seem to think playmaking is more important than actually trying to keep the ball out of the net and don’t get me started on the bloody goalkeepers. 
 

I don’t think the players we have are good enough for complicated systems and frankly I don’t think it’s needed in the top flight of Scottish football. We have some good players if employed correctly. Make sure they’re on the pitch in a system and in a position that suits them and we’ll start getting results. 
 

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

will he admit publicly his tactical decision arguably cost us getting something from the game as well?

 

 

[PauloPerth]

33 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Or we could just play a system that actually suits the players that we have. The 5-2-3 is shite and the sooner it’s binned  the better.

we have 4 strikers and 3 of them at least suit playing with striking partners, McCann and Davidson - who are our best midfielders - are shackled and the players we’re relying on supplying the striker couldn’t find him with a cross ball if their lives depended on it. The defenders seem to think playmaking is more important than actually trying to keep the ball out of the net and don’t get me started on the bloody goalkeepers. 
 

I don’t think the players we have are good enough for complicated systems and frankly I don’t think it’s needed in the top flight of Scottish football. We have some good players if employed correctly. Make sure they’re on the pitch in a system and in a position that suits them and we’ll start getting results. 
 

Absolutely.

I have no issue at all with us trying different systems and styles of play, but we are persisting with this same system after half the season is done when it has only really been a success in about 6 league matches.  

I want to see the manager react to what he is seeing and adapt accordingly.  Stubbornly sticking to the same game plan regardless of how we are doing or who we are playing is a recipe for failure.  It will be appropriate for some opposition, e.g. It worked well against Celtic, but clearly isn't right for every game.

Davidson is not a daft man, hes a good coach and clearly knows football, but it's time he started outsmarting a few opposing managers instead of coming out second best in the tactical battles.

[The Marly]

I've cancelled and signed up plenty times. I'm currently on a £5.99 a month package. Try the promo code SALE.

Cheers

[RandomGuy.]

9 hours ago, Kyle said:

Or we could just play a system that actually suits the players that we have.

Yeah thats what I said. To me we're 5/6 short of being able to play that system well consistently.

I've been keeping an eye on Millwall, who have been playing it too, and seem to have the same issues of struggling to create chances. They switched to a 4-2-3-1 after a huge winless run and won then were unlucky to only draw yesterday. Fans reckon they look much more solid and structured.

We're too open in the middle of the park.

[tree house tam]

11 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

They seemed annoyed Rangers aren't showing it, as if the away side has shown any game on PPV this season.

I watched a perfectly good stream yesterday with St Johnstone home commentary, not through Saints tv.

11 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

 the 5/6 players i don't think are good enough to play the 5-2-3 were Gordon, McNamara, Tanser, Davidson, Conway, May.

To me we'd sign a new LCB and move McCart to the middle (middle CB is your "playmaker", who can bring the ball into midfield, thats not Gordon).

McCart is just as woeful at distribution as Gordon. You'll probably produce stats that say he isn't as bad but he is, just playing a different role atm.

Tanser should be off at the end of the season, Conway I'd get rid of but the rest have roles to play. I'd be looking to release Clark as well, the boys a carthorse, can't kick,  can't save and is shite scared of diving into his posts. Someone just pin the c**t down and shave that fucking thing off his chin the big ugly c**t that he is.

[Valentino Bolognese]

10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Yeah thats what I said. To me we're 5/6 short of being able to play that system well consistently.

I've been keeping an eye on Millwall, who have been playing it too, and seem to have the same issues of struggling to create chances. They switched to a 4-2-3-1 after a huge winless run and won then were unlucky to only draw yesterday. Fans reckon they look much more solid and structured.

We're too open in the middle of the park.

4-4-2 would actually suit the squad pretty well, although we're short of wingers (particularly left).  Something like

Rooney - Kerr  - Gordon  - Tanser

Kerr and Gordon as a central pair seems to bring out the best in both. Bit harsh on McCart but he'd get plenty game time I'm sure. Booth for Tanser depending on the opposition and cover at RB from McNamara. 

MOH - McCann - Muzz - Spoony

Would be solid, with decent options wide in Conway and Bryson/Craig central

Kane - May

Hendry off the bench and Melamed as utility (WTF was CD doing bringing him on at 90 minutes yesterday?).

IMO we could easily field a competent 4-4-2. Looks a lot like the side that Tommy was doing well with back end of last year TBH.

[tree house tam]

7 minutes ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

4-4-2 would actually suit the squad pretty well, although we're short of wingers (particularly left).  Something like

Rooney - Kerr  - Gordon  - Tanser

Kerr and Gordon as a central pair seems to bring out the best in both. Bit harsh on McCart but he'd get plenty game time I'm sure. Booth for Tanser depending on the opposition and cover at RB from McNamara. 

MOH - McCann - Muzz - Spoony

Would be solid, with decent options wide in Conway and Bryson/Craig central

Kane - May

Hendry off the bench and Melamed as utility (WTF was CD doing bringing him on at 90 minutes yesterday?).

IMO we could easily field a competent 4-4-2. Looks a lot like the side that Tommy was doing well with back end of last year TBH.

The players are there, sticking to one system that he tweaks now and again is the problem. The players are all adults, they know how to play several systems. Mix it up a bit, confuse the opposition,  play to your strengths? It's not fucking hard to play football. 

 

Unless you want it to be.

[RandomGuy.]

1 hour ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

4-4-2 would actually suit the squad pretty well.

Think the, brief, stint at 4-4-1 showed that. Looked compact, completely stunted St Mirren, and actually looked dangerous on the counter.

Still no idea why he changed it. Understand we're short on wingers, but he could've pushed a FB up and brought on Rooney/Booth and kept the 4-4-1 shape.

[Valentino Bolognese]

14 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Think the, brief, stint at 4-4-1 showed that. Looked compact, completely stunted St Mirren, and actually looked dangerous on the counter.

Still no idea why he changed it. Understand we're short on wingers, but he could've pushed a FB up and brought on Rooney/Booth and kept the 4-4-1 shape.

Yes. In that match thread I said it as naive but that's nonsense, he obviously knows a lot more about the game than I do. 

Made me think it might have been a forced change. Spoony looked leggy all day and I've not been convinced by Conway's fitness since he arrived. Take them off and we lose all width and only Bryson on the bench, so you go from being able to defend higher and wider to narrow and deep. On reflection maybe he didn't have much of a choice and with MOH fit it might have been different. 

The other problem it gave us was that it meant St Mirren could exploit our two weakest areas, balls from Tanser's corner to the far post where we don't have aerial cover. Basically get the ball over Gordon's head and you're likely to be able to get a head on the ball. 

[PauloPerth]

18 hours ago, PauloPerth said:

Formation seemed to be working fine so far in the second half. Bit surprised at the change in set up, hopefully doesn't lead to us camped around our own box for the remainder of the game..

 

18 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

St Mirren brining Obika on means they'll just keep two big lumps in the box now. Better to have 3 players to combat that than two, I guess.

 

23 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Still no idea why he changed it. Understand we're short on wingers, but he could've pushed a FB up and brought on Rooney/Booth and kept the 4-4-1 shape.

You said yesterday it was to counter St Mirren's increased aerial threat, which is understandable.

When i saw Rooney about to come on I was thinking/ hoping it would be for Danny, which might have been the better option. We were doing well still giving st Mirren occasional problems to think about at the back, but we completely surrendered that in the hope that we could sit in and hold out.

Hendry on for May also hurt us as we couldn't get up the pitch at all and everything came straight back at us.  Can't remember who said it afterwards in the match thread, but Kane would have been the better option as a defensive striker; close down, win free kicks, be disciplined etc.

[RandomGuy.]

5 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

You said yesterday it was to counter St Mirren's increased aerial threat, which is understandable.

I think that was Davidsons logic, I think. Obika/Erwin as a front two were clearly just going to camp in the box with the idea of pumping balls in towards them, so having Rooney/Gordon/McCart challenging them would be better than Gordon/McCart and the two full backs.

Just dont believe retreating into our shell and allowing them to play their gameplan of having two big lumps in the box was the right one at all. If you're weak aerially, and your opponents are strong aerially, surely you try and prevent crosses at their source? We done the opposite and encouraged it.

Talk after Livingston about allowing them to play the game how they wanted it, arguably the same happened yesterday?

Never sure how harsh you can be after going a man down tbh.

[Radford]

I'm going to assume Chris Kane wasn't fully fit. Anyone with anything about them would have been calling for a switch with May from an hour onwards. I couldn't believe it when I saw Hendry stripped. The subs generally were strange. 

As said on the match thread, you get away with games like yesterday if you pick up the points you should. Not even taking into account the infamous County game, that's now 10 points dropped to goals in the last 10 minutes since we last picked up one in that manner. You'd hope over the course of a season to be coming out level on that front but (taking Killie win into account) we are 7 points worse off. With how tight the league is, that's a lot of points. 

[Kyle]

Booth, Craig and Kane have all signed new contracts until the end of the season according to Davidson in the Herald. 

 

[Dick Van Dyke]

1 hour ago, Kyle said:

Booth, Craig and Kane have all signed new contracts until the end of the season according to Davidson in the Herald. 

 

[The Real Saints]

I see that Callum Davidson has described James Tavernier as being 'up there' with Andy Robertson and Trent Alexander-Arnold. 

[Valentino Bolognese]

6 hours ago, The Real Saints said:

I see that Callum Davidson has described James Tavernier as being 'up there' with Andy Robertson and Trent Alexander-Arnold. 

https://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?/topic/266476-stupid-things-players-and-managers-say/

 

[Radford]

7 hours ago, The Real Saints said:

I see that Callum Davidson has described James Tavernier as being 'up there' with Andy Robertson and Trent Alexander-Arnold. 

Trying to inspire Wotherspoon IMO. 

We couldn't afford to lose players from the squad in January, so safety first approach with the renewals.