St Johnstone vs Hamilton 30/12

[Broon_100]

13 minutes ago, Radford said:

I've been guilty to harking on about past performances and vowed to stop doing it (from the point of view of believing they were positive) but a lot of you guys are now doing the same in a negative sense. 

Look at today in isolation. We created enough chances (and enough good ones - we'll see how many are scored about the 0.20xG that @RandomGuy. talks about) to easily win that match today. Yes we gave away some glaring opportunities but I don't see much criticism of the defensive aspect of the performance, so in terms of the attack, did the manager's tactics really hinder us?

His subs were maybe questionable again but I'm exasperated at the players, not Callum Davidson. 

We are creating chances in the right areas for the wrong people. Kane/May can't head a ball. Booth can't shoot with either foot. May needs to be in the 6 yard box but is trying to score from 20+ yards as he's playing wide or deep.

We are playing percentage football by pumping crosses into the box with one striker and the percentages aren't working for us.

 

 

 

[Radford]

1 minute ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

It's both though surely? If the finishers aren't firing, use what you have on the bench. MOH and Melamed should have been brought on at time when they might actually have made an impact on the game, this bringing on subs at the last gasp is hopeless and it's been CD's signature since he joined. O'Halloran will get stick for that near post miss but he was on, what, 3 minutes? 

May should have stayed on, Wotherspoon should have stayed on. 

Yes, the system created chances but it was against a team sitting in and inviting the chances.  

Definitely concede that subs (personnel and timings) were strange and that's a recurring theme. That's one criticism I wouldn't particularly defend him against. 

Just have to hope all these foreign clubs that wanted to sign Melamed in the summer are still interested. 

[Jamie_B]

But then if we change the system and go, say, 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 how likely is it that we create more than the 29 shooting opportunities we have? Or that those chances are going to be higher quality? They’re going to be falling to the same players - is their finishing going to suddenly be better in a different formation?

If you're the manager and your set up has your side utterly dominant in possession and creating enough chances to win any game what would you change? It’s not an easy solution.

[Shaggy Jenkins]

4 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

But then if we change the system and go, say, 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 how likely is it that we create more than the 29 shooting opportunities we have? Or that those chances are going to be higher quality? They’re going to be falling to the same players - is their finishing going to suddenly be better in a different formation?

If you're the manager and your set up has your side utterly dominant in possession and creating enough chances to win any game what would you change? It’s not an easy solution.

It's maybe creating better chances? A lot of these shots were outside 18 yards and we're blocked

[Radford]

11 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

But then if we change the system and go, say, 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 how likely is it that we create more than the 29 shooting opportunities we have? Or that those chances are going to be higher quality? They’re going to be falling to the same players - is their finishing going to suddenly be better in a different formation?

If you're the manager and your set up has your side utterly dominant in possession and creating enough chances to win any game what would you change? It’s not an easy solution.

This is it for me. We'll see what the figures are when @RandomGuy. does his analysis but there is no way we shouldn't have scored several goals in that game.

If anything, the fact they had a couple of glaring chances despite doing so little should be the bigger concern. 

Credit to Zander Clark for a big save. 

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

6 minutes ago, Shaggy Jenkins said:

It's maybe creating better chances? A lot of these shots were outside 18 yards and we're blocked

Could argue a 4-4-2  or 4-2-3-1 type shape if Davidson still wants to try and work wide overlap crossing opportunities it can be at least done with players much comfortable in wide areas (IE, not central defenders) & therefore potentially create better chances.

Were asking players IMO to do things they're not good enough to do. For example Kerr now and again has put good balls into box etc but that should not be our target gameplan. Mccart lost the ball from memory 4 times from promising positions around the box.

May drifting about out wide also seemed a plan today. An odd one at that. 

 

[Shaggy Jenkins]

2 minutes ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

Could argue a 4-4-2  or 4-2-3-1 type shape if Davidson still wants to try and work wide overlap crossing opportunities it can be at least done with players much comfortable in wide areas (IE, not central defenders) & therefore potentially create better chances.

Were asking players IMO to do things they're not good enough to do. For example Kerr now and again has put good balls into box etc but that should not be our target gameplan. Mccart lost the ball from memory 4 times from promising positions around the box.

May drifting about out wide also seemed a plan today. An odd one at that. 

 

Yeah should of said is maybe about changing it and creating less shots but better chances

[Kyle]

I'm not sure I understand the defending of Davidson at this stage to be honest. It's not like we're 3 or 4 home games in and the players are still finding their feet, we only have 8 home games left to play this season! The same players who apparently aren't good enough now were doing fine 9 months ago under a more flexible manager. Even if it's the case that they've all suddenly become rubbish, Davidson had 2 and a half months after the first ball was kicked to sign players and they've all turned out to be rubbish and unable to play his shape too. He's been given a budget to sign 6 players and he's made 4 'attacking' signings. Two pensioners who won't have been cheap and who haven't been very good, a player he apparently knew well who was trebauchet'd before the summer window even closed and a foreign striker who also won't have been cheap who the manager is unwilling to give a chance to. He also had flexibility to release 3 players in January - including a striker - but decided to extend all 3 contracts.

He persists with the same defensive shape in every game and hamstrings the likes of McCann with it in every game. He then makes like for like changes that make little positive difference or actively hurt us and he tops it off by telling the media that he thinks we've been brilliant been we've been rubbish. The players look low in confidence now as well - I thought the players were buying into it all earlier in the season with one notable exception but I'm not so sure now. A lot of arm waving and frustration on show today and a real lack of discipline in the previous few matches too.

Adapt or leave, frankly.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Kyle

[indicator]

1 hour ago, djchapsticks said:

There's no fucking way there were 29 St. Johnstone shots and none on target.

That's surely not possible.

It certainly is my friend and they spend many hours on the training pitch perfecting the art.

[RandomGuy.]

I've sort of supported Davidson and believed the move to Craig in as a DM v Aberdeen + front 2 showed he could see an issue and resolve it.

Selecting the exact same system against Hamilton, who everyone knows would sit deep and counter, seemed a bit daft to me. To me you play wingers+full backs, try and get in behind them down the flanks to drag CBs out of position, and then look for players in/around the box. Breaking their shape is necessary, while just peppering crosses in/hoping you cut them open seemed a bit "hit and hope". Chances seemed to come though, and he knows more about football than me so I'm probably wrong.

The change to 5-2-3 though, is probably the most worrying moment I've seen from him. 

A formation that has proven to be totally ineffective against teams sitting in, but also massively weak against a team who counter quickly, yet he decides its time to play it against a team he's sat watching sitting deep and countering for 70 minutes. Presumably he thought it would work because of the win down there earlier. To me that's not him reading the game and reacting, that's him seeing us not scoring then just picking a system we scored against Hamilton with before.

We obviously get the Kane/MOH sitters after that, but that shouldn't justify the switch at all, but I've a fear we'll go into the County game and start that way now.

All this with the caveat I missed chunks of the game, obviously.

Edited December 30, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[LIVIFOREVER]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

I've sort of supported Davidson and believed the move to Craig in as a DM v Aberdeen + front 2 showed he could see an issue and resolve it.

Selecting the exact same system against Hamilton, who everyone knows would sit deep and counter, seemed a bit daft to me. To me you play wingers+full backs, try and get in behind them down the flanks to drag CBs out of position, and then look for players in/around the box. Breaking their shape is necessary, while just peppering crosses in/hoping you cut them open seemed a bit "hit and hope". Chances seemed to come though, and he knows more about football than me so I'm probably wrong.

The change to 5-2-3 though, is probably the most worrying moment I've seen from him. 

A formation that has proven to be totally ineffective against teams sitting in, but also massively weak against a team who counter quickly, yet he decides its time to play it against a team he's sat watching sitting deep and countering for 70 minutes. Presumably he thought it would work because of the win down there earlier. To me that's not him reading the game and reacting, that's him seeing us not scoring then just picking a system we scored against Hamilton with before.

We obviously get the Kane/MOH sitters after that, but that shouldn't justify the switch at all, but I've a fear we'll go into the County game and start that way now.

That's how we beat them, albeit they were quality balls into their box from Josh Mullin.

[RandomGuy.]

4 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

That's how we beat them, albeit they were quality balls into their box from Josh Mullin.

We had Booth/McNamara crossing, who maybe manage 1 or 2 decent crosses a match.

Crossing to Chris Kane, who regularly can't hit the target with free headers, and May, who regularly misjudges crosses.

It's genuinely annoying me that we play two up front, and have the consistently hopeless Kane playing as a poacher, and have the striker who can score regularly in the box running about like a fanny linking play with wing backs. Totally illogical.

Edited December 30, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[accies1874]

County winning now because of course they are.

[stepek 4 tellys]

Moyo is quite possibly the worst striker I have ever seen play for us.

[Kyle]

 

 

Beyond parody.

[Shaggy Jenkins]

County giving Hibs a real game here

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

20 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

We had Booth/McNamara crossing, who maybe manage 1 or 2 decent crosses a match.

Crossing to Chris Kane, who regularly can't hit the target with free headers, and May, who regularly misjudges crosses.

It's genuinely annoying me that we play two up front, and have the consistently hopeless Kane playing as a poacher, and have the striker who can score regularly in the box running about like a fanny linking play with wing backs. Totally illogical.

McNamara's delivery was better today actually, especially in the first half but I've always thought consistently his delivery hasn't been very good. 

Tanser's mostly poor this season as well but in recent weeks till his injury I thought we'd seen a slight improvement. 

Aside from that. Crosses as our main goal threat always seemed a strange gameplan to me, like you've said. None of the players we had apart from Hendry for about a 5 month period of his career has any track record from scoring from them. Then he signed Melamed, he may be shite, he may not be shite but one thing he's not is a player who scores headers either. 

What I'm saying is though I agree

[RandomGuy.]

14 minutes ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

Aside from that. Crosses as our main goal threat always seemed a strange gameplan to me, like you've said.

I sort of feel like he wanted us to cause problems off the second ball, as expecting us to win the initial header is totally illogical. 

Problem is he's chosen a system where you have no real central threat.

5-3-2 slightly better, but you're still left having to cross from deep, and it's impossible to win many of them as the defenders can come onto them, whereas if you're crossing from the byline you can have midfielders running onto them, if that makes sense.

[Radford]

54 minutes ago, Kyle said:

He persists with the same defensive shape in every game and hamstrings the likes of McCann with it in every game.

Thought McCann was very good today and on Saturday, with the safety net of Craig behind him. 

Think they caught us cold with their shape and fashioned the early great chance then really just had one other opportunity when we fucked up our own corner and Thomas broke. 

Craig picked up a lot of what was loose and restricted them whilst McCann could really commit to winning the ball and was involved in our attacking play meaning there wasn't an over-reliance out wide. 

I think some of you guys are seeing the same game over and over because it is "St Johnstone nil" when actually the manager is making tweaks.

There has been times he's changed to a back four when chasing a game but I don't think it's ever really worked. Wouldn't have been against it today though and it's a fair question to ask about our approach. But I don't think it wouldn't have been a massive solve-all.

[accies1874]

County winning now because of course they are.

And now Killie are.