Nathan Paterson

[Clown Job]

I think Everton are going down this season 

Let’s just hope if he does he will start playing regularly for them in the championship 

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

On 05/04/2022 at 16:57, Captain Saintsible said:

We really need to have Ralston or Ramsey in the team against Ukraine

O’Donnell is hopeless 

Ramsey for the u21s last week gave a performance 10 times worse than I've ever seen O'Donnell give.  Nowhere near ready yet.

Ralston is rubbish, he gets away with all his stupid tackles and poor defending under Ange's system but he's an awful defender

[Bing.McCrosby]

14 hours ago, Scotty Tunbridge said:

Stop lying you big phoney!

Stick to the dotting, your patter is terrible

[SuperSaints1877]

1 hour ago, Clown Job said:

I think Everton are going down this season 

Let’s just hope if he does he will start playing regularly for them in the championship 

That period in May between 11th and 19th they need to win all three games. 
Everton are a total fcuking basket case. Have been for years. With the amount spent in transfer fees and wages they should be nowhere near the bottom of the league. 

[2426255]

3 hours ago, Binos said:

Would welcome 1 up front with 1 off and if Tierney injured reverting to 2 centre halfs to load the midfield which is undoubtedly our strongest area 

Although not sure tactical flexibility will be way Clarke will go

I get why people want to start with a back four, but there is really no need.

I think the current system is very flexible with potential for tweaks, defenders stepping into midfield, forwards dropping into midfield that there's no real need to worry about our starting formation. Just as a quick example of how our present shape can become a back four if we need it to be in game and we have all our important players in there - so it really doesn't matter, it depends on what we are facing in game and the problems the opposition present or strategies we want to use.

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by 2426255

[Binos]

25 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I get why people want to start with a back four, but there is really no need.

I think the current system is very flexible with potential for tweaks, defenders stepping into midfield, forwards dropping into midfield that there's no real need to worry about our starting formation. Just as a quick example of how our present shape can become a back four if we need it to be in game and we have all our important players in there - so it really doesn't matter, it depends on what we are facing in game and the problems the opposition present or strategies we want to use.

 

 

 

 

Your graphic shows a single player stepping out when he's in possession of the ball,  which we know happens

What about when not in possession 

Croatia swamped us as we were light in that area 

A system we developed to fit Tierney/Robertson,  Adams/Dykes into side

We've moved away from latter and if former injured weve no need to play 3 centre halfs, as opposition midfield will again sit on us if we do and monopolise possession in our own backyard 

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Binos said:

Your graphic shows a single player stepping out when he's in possession of the ball,  which we know happens

What about when not in possession 

Croatia swamped us as we were light in that area 

A system we developed to fit Tierney/Robertson,  Adams/Dykes into side

We've moved away from latter and if former injured weve no need to play 3 centre halfs, as opposition midfield will again sit on us if we do and monopolise possession in our own backyard 

I think this is an excellent point, the 3 at the back system works due to Tierney. Without him there is nobody who can do anywhere near the job that he does. So the system fails.

[Binos]

4 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

I think this is an excellent point, the 3 at the back system works due to Tierney. Without him there is nobody who can do anywhere near the job that he does. So the system fails.

We played Cooper there with Tierney injury against Czechs and just battered ball up park for 90 mins

[Donathan]

21 minutes ago, Binos said:

We played Cooper there with Tierney injury against Czechs and just battered ball up park for 90 mins

We were the better team in that game. We lost because we failed to be clinical in front of goal and because of a moment of magic from Schick/madness from David Marshall. But if you look at expected goals, it’s clear that we didn’t play bad at all from box to box, just should have been better in front of goal.

 

In that game:

 

- Robertson has one tipped over the bar with the goal gaping. Should have hit a low, powerful shot and hoped to either score or get a tap in rebound for Lyndon Dykes.

 

- Their keeper makes a great one-handed parry while retreating with the ball goal bound. Had to be very strong to keep it away from Dykes.

 

- Dykes hits one straight at the keeper when it’s easier to score.

 

- Hendry hits the bar (second before their 2nd goal)

 

- Armstrong had one deflected just over 

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Donathan said:

We were the better team in that game. We lost because we failed to be clinical in front of goal and because of a moment of magic from Schick/madness from David Marshall. But if you look at expected goals, it’s clear that we didn’t play bad at all from box to box, just should have been better in front of goal.

 

In that game:

 

- Robertson has one tipped over the bar with the goal gaping. Should have hit a low, powerful shot and hoped to either score or get a tap in rebound for Lyndon Dykes.

 

- Their keeper makes a great one-handed parry while retreating with the ball goal bound. Had to be very strong to keep it away from Dykes.

 

- Dykes hits one straight at the keeper when it’s easier to score.

 

- Hendry hits the bar (second before their 2nd goal)

 

- Armstrong had one deflected just over 

Thats entirely subjective, and I would say incorrect. They had more shots on target than us over the course of the game. We would have been lucky to draw in my opinion.

And since then have not proven to be a great team. We were at home and it was a game we should have won.

Also they scored 2 goals that day, so not just a moment of brilliance.

Edited April 7, 2022 by BingMcCrosby

[Donathan]

9 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Thats entirely subjective, and I would say incorrect. They had more shots on target than us over the course of the game. We would have been lucky to draw in my opinion.

And since then have not proven to be a great team. We were at home and it was a game we should have won.

Also they scored 2 goals that day, so not just a moment of brilliance.

My point isn’t necessarily to get into too much of a debate over who “deserved” to win. I think that would be doing a bit of a disservice to a very decent Czech Republic team, but more so that I think our performance that day demonstrates to me that a back 3 shouldn’t be automatically out the window just because Kieran Tierney isn’t there, because in my view we’ve demonstrated a decent level of play in that formation without him in the past.

 

Aside from the fact that it’s the best way to shoehorn Robertson and Tierney both into the formation, the other key advantage of the back 3 for me is that we don’t really have much in the way of natural wingers in our team, and playing 3 at the back gives Patterson/Robertson (Or SOD/Robbo depending on Patterson’s injury) the freedom to push forward and create that natural width. 
 

I think there’s probably scope to play a skinny 4-3-1-2 formation, along the lines of:

 

Gordon

SOD-Hendry-Hanley-Robertson

McTominay-Gilmour-McGregor

McGinn

Adams-Dykes

 

In this case, McTominay would be asked to tuck in and form a back three when the full backs push forward, and we’d have the option to just revert to the usual formation if it wasn’t working with McTominay going into the back three. 

[Binos]

1 hour ago, Donathan said:

We were the better team in that game. We lost because we failed to be clinical in front of goal and because of a moment of magic from Schick/madness from David Marshall. But if you look at expected goals, it’s clear that we didn’t play bad at all from box to box, just should have been better in front of goal.

 

In that game:

 

- Robertson has one tipped over the bar with the goal gaping. Should have hit a low, powerful shot and hoped to either score or get a tap in rebound for Lyndon Dykes.

 

- Their keeper makes a great one-handed parry while retreating with the ball goal bound. Had to be very strong to keep it away from Dykes.

 

- Dykes hits one straight at the keeper when it’s easier to score.

 

- Hendry hits the bar (second before their 2nd goal)

 

- Armstrong had one deflected just over 

Fantasy afraid 

Marshall pulled off a string of saves to keep score down 

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Donathan said:

My point isn’t necessarily to get into too much of a debate over who “deserved” to win. I think that would be doing a bit of a disservice to a very decent Czech Republic team, but more so that I think our performance that day demonstrates to me that a back 3 shouldn’t be automatically out the window just because Kieran Tierney isn’t there, because in my view we’ve demonstrated a decent level of play in that formation without him in the past.

 

Aside from the fact that it’s the best way to shoehorn Robertson and Tierney both into the formation, the other key advantage of the back 3 for me is that we don’t really have much in the way of natural wingers in our team, and playing 3 at the back gives Patterson/Robertson (Or SOD/Robbo depending on Patterson’s injury) the freedom to push forward and create that natural width. 
 

I think there’s probably scope to play a skinny 4-3-1-2 formation, along the lines of:

 

Gordon

SOD-Hendry-Hanley-Robertson

McTominay-Gilmour-McGregor

McGinn

Adams-Dykes

 

In this case, McTominay would be asked to tuck in and form a back three when the full backs push forward, and we’d have the option to just revert to the usual formation if it wasn’t working with McTominay going into the back three. 

Fair enough, but its a stretch to call them a very decent team. Look at their qualifying record for this world Cup.

They were given that tag by some at the time as an excuse for our performance. They were a team we should have been beating at home, then and now.

Theres room for everyones opinions tho. I was against the back 3 at the start but have grown to accept it is a decent formation for us. I just thought binos point about Tierney was on the button. He would be a player most international teams would struggle to replace.

[John Lambies Doos]

Stick to the dotting, your patter is terrible

Yup, he red dots all my posts. I've never red dotted anyone in my P&B tenure. Pathetic individual with an obsession disorder.

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

2 hours ago, Binos said:

Fantasy afraid 

Marshall pulled off a string of saves to keep score down 

It's not really.  xG is a pretty useful method of demonstrating the quality/quantity of chances created, and we substantially outscored them on that metric.  It's worth noting that Schick's 2nd goal scored almost as low as it's possible to be on xG.  That also reflects the reality - it was a wonder goal, that no amount of playing well/badly or otherwise can legislate for.

No one is trying to rerun the game with statistics.  The point is, we created chances.  Whether we deserved to win or lose is not the point.

The question is, "could we have conceivably beaten a strong team with that line up?" The answer is an unequivocal "yes".

Edited April 7, 2022 by HuttonDressedAsLahm

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

It's not really.  xG is a pretty useful method of demonstrating the quality/quantity of chances created, and we substantially outscored them on that metric.  It's worth noting that Schick's 2nd goal scored almost as low as it's possible to be on xG.  That also reflects the reality - it was a wonder goal, that no amount of playing well/badly or otherwise can legislate for.

No one is trying to rerun the game with statistics.  The point is, we created chances.  Whether we deserved to win or lose is not the point.

The question is, "could we have conceivably beaten a strong team with that line up?" The answer is an unequivocal "yes".

I dont think I've seen anyone say we didn't create any chances in the game.

[Binos]

23 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

It's not really.  xG is a pretty useful method of demonstrating the quality/quantity of chances created, and we substantially outscored them on that metric.  It's worth noting that Schick's 2nd goal scored almost as low as it's possible to be on xG.  That also reflects the reality - it was a wonder goal, that no amount of playing well/badly or otherwise can legislate for.

No one is trying to rerun the game with statistics.  The point is, we created chances.  Whether we deserved to win or lose is not the point.

The question is, "could we have conceivably beaten a strong team with that line up?" The answer is an unequivocal "yes".

Stats overload

We did have a couple of chances and should have scored but failed 

Marshall did pull off some quality stops, which aren't really remembered due to his positioning gaff

They were worthy winners in our own ground in a game we passed our midfield by, mostly Marshall trying to pump long to Dykes.  Think Souness described as football from the past,  he is a w**k but in that game was correct 

[Virtual Insanity]

Enjoy the description of 'stats overload' in reference to xG when it is literally the best metric we have for who had the best chances in a game.

[2426255]

20 hours ago, Binos said:

Your graphic shows a single player stepping out when he's in possession of the ball,  which we know happens

What about when not in possession 

Croatia swamped us as we were light in that area 

A system we developed to fit Tierney/Robertson,  Adams/Dykes into side

We've moved away from latter and if former injured weve no need to play 3 centre halfs, as opposition midfield will again sit on us if we do and monopolise possession in our own backyard 

My point was that a back-3 can easily turn into a back-4 and vice versa, so there is no reason to get too hung up over our starting formation. Our system can adapt to the needs of the team. The flexibility of the players within our system to perform different roles is one of the key strengths of our team meaning we can drop a forward deeper or push a centre back into midfield etc.  

Also, remember one of the reasons we developed a system and players who can form a back-3 primarily is to provide additional support for our previously questionable central defenders (Euro 2020 Qualifying). We get the best of both worlds with this system - extra cover at the back if we need it and the option to push a player forward to create a numerical balance or superiority in midfield and forward areas should we choose to. 

Moving our default formation to a back-4 won't lessen the impact of losing Kieran Tierney to injury. It would sacrifice defence for attack. With the flexibility of the players we can adopt a 4-5-1, 3-5-2, 3-4-3, 4-3-3 shape at different points in the game depending on what is needed. It's maybe a bit more awkward to change to  a 4-4-2 system because don't really have traditional wingers at our disposal, but you could also argue we do have wingers with the likes of Armstrong, Christie, Patterson or Robertson and it's more a case of wingers not being fashionable currently. 

In any case Kieran Tierney being injured doesn't affect that and moving to a back four won't make any difference to the team because Kieran Tierney as a player is irreplaceable. @Binos

Edited April 8, 2022 by 2426255

[Bing.McCrosby]

On 07/04/2022 at 23:20, Virtual Insanity said:

Enjoy the description of 'stats overload' in reference to xG when it is literally the best metric we have for who had the best chances in a game.

Thats certainly true for getting a good idea of games you didn't watch. But for games I did watch id rather go with my opinion as to who was the better team or deserved to win.