Falkirk v Edinburgh

[ebobsboy]

On 08/11/2022 at 17:30, Hamish's Passenger said:

Based on what I’ve seen and comments from you guys, I don’t think shackles are your problem. It’s having a plan B when the free flowing way ain’t working, which is maybe a tougher nut to crack in all honesty.

Having players to adapt into a plan b helps aswell.  There's still a lightweight shitebag or two that basically go missing when the going gets tough, McGlynn will need to try n defend them a good few times yet till the summer I fear.

 

[Bairnardo]

Having players to adapt into a plan b helps aswell.  There's still a lightweight shitebag or two that basically go missing when the going gets tough, McGlynn will need to try n defend them a good few times yet till the summer I fear.
 

Theoretically speaking, if you could empty McGuffie or Nesbitt (thinking those as two who would probably just about manage to get another full time club) in January, and replace them with a destroyer type, the rest of the lightweight shitebag element would benefit enormously.

Also, and I really can't remember if this has been discussed before... Didn't Liam Henderson play in midfield quite a bit for Arbroath? We have Sean Mackie and Brad McKay available now to fill in at CB. If we need that sort of thing, he's maybe worth a go.

[Oscar P]

3 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Theoretically speaking, if you could empty McGuffie or Nesbitt (thinking those as two who would probably just about manage to get another full time club) in January, and replace them with a destroyer type, the rest of the lightweight shitebag element would benefit enormously.

Also, and I really can't remember if this has been discussed before... Didn't Liam Henderson play in midfield quite a bit for Arbroath? We have Sean Mackie and Brad McKay available now to fill in at CB. If we need that sort of thing, he's maybe worth a go.

Fairly sure that Henderson played in front of the back four for our development team when he was here.

I remember thinking he looked a decent player there.

[Guest]

On 09/11/2022 at 06:51, Back Post Misses said:

Really don’t know where this “take the shackles off” narrative is coming from. We have scored 20% more goals than the team at the top of the league. It’s our failure at the other end of the pitch that looks much more the issue if you look at goals conceded. 
Most of the time we have been a great watch. Let’s not take last Saturday out of context. 

Well, the “shackles off” narrative comes from the shackles being on last Saturday. One shot on target is a clear enough indicator of that when coupled to 59% ineffective possession, (it was for the most part, sliding the ball back and forth across the defence, and not taking any risks). It was the very definition of a shackled performance.

There has been the same kind of (for me) overly cautious performances against Airdrie and Montrose. In those games, we have been every bit as “fearful” of the opposition as McPake was last Saturday.

The thought of Burrell not starting is crazy. He was a cut above any other forward on the pitch last Saturday (on both sides). An ultra cautious and timid approach made sure he never had the service to run Benedictus into the ground.

I remain convinced that until Nesbitt and McGuffie are gone, we won’t have a midfield capable of fighting for a league title. Lawal is the real enigma here. Is he really capable of being less effective than Nesbitt and McGuffie?

[Guest Back Post Misses]

30 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

Well, the “shackles off” narrative comes from the shackles being on last Saturday. One shot on target is a clear enough indicator of that when coupled to 59% ineffective possession, (it was for the most part, sliding the ball back and forth across the defence, and not taking any risks). It was the very definition of a shackled performance.

There has been the same kind of (for me) overly cautious performances against Airdrie and Montrose. In those games, we have been every bit as “fearful” of the opposition as McPake was last Saturday.

The thought of Burrell not starting is crazy. He was a cut above any other forward on the pitch last Saturday (on both sides). An ultra cautious and timid approach made sure he never had the service to run Benedictus into the ground.

I remain convinced that until Nesbitt and McGuffie are gone, we won’t have a midfield capable of fighting for a league title. Lawal is the real enigma here. Is he really capable of being less effective than Nesbitt and McGuffie?

I would argue the shackles were put on by McPake not McGlynn 

[Bairnardo]

Well, the “shackles off” narrative comes from the shackles being on last Saturday. One shot on target is a clear enough indicator of that when coupled to 59% ineffective possession, (it was for the most part, sliding the ball back and forth across the defence, and not taking any risks). It was the very definition of a shackled performance.
There has been the same kind of (for me) overly cautious performances against Airdrie and Montrose. In those games, we have been every bit as “fearful” of the opposition as McPake was last Saturday.
The thought of Burrell not starting is crazy. He was a cut above any other forward on the pitch last Saturday (on both sides). An ultra cautious and timid approach made sure he never had the service to run Benedictus into the ground.
I remain convinced that until Nesbitt and McGuffie are gone, we won’t have a midfield capable of fighting for a league title. Lawal is the real enigma here. Is he really capable of being less effective than Nesbitt and McGuffie?

You can argue that Nesbit has in general, been effective of late in terms of goal contributions, tho not in contributing goals himself.

I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone else of maybe looking to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. We weren't overrun in midfield or bullied there against the Pars which has been my complaint when it comes to yer Nesbitt and Mcguffie (see Airdrie away second half, or Clyde away late equaliser last season)

As the week has gone on its clearer to me that Saturday was McGlynns fault tbh.

He didn't move the team up the park in the first half at all. It was like the potential hiders in the team were being given a pass to just wander about stroking the ball side to side.

I said at HT someone was going to have to take a risk ans logically it should be us, but we just..... Didn't.

[Reggie Perrin]

1 hour ago, Back Post Misses said:

I would argue the shackles were put on by McPake not McGlynn 

I would argue that McPake was the one whose tactics worked.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

I would argue the shackles were put on by McPake not McGlynn 

Both managers did it. DA are poorer up front than us, so it made sense for them not to chase it.
They would have been very happy to keep a 4 point gap…..they were absolutely delighted to have won it, and a couple of their own Board members were genuinely baffled by our approach to the game as all the chat had been that Falkirk would come out of traps flying, and they would have to withstand 20 minutes of intense pressure. How wrong they were!
 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, _FFC1876 said:

Falkirk 0-1 FC Edinburgh (Mutch, 90+4’)

Good shout. Nah, here we are yet again, staring at a bleak November if we don’t win. We are dire at winning the big games with a big crowd. We tend to be good at winning games when losing puts us in real bother, so for me, we will win (provided we don’t adopt last week’s set up).

[Guest Back Post Misses]

5 hours ago, Reggie Perrin said:

I would argue that McPake was the one whose tactics worked.

Of course they worked but that doesn’t mean McGlynn sent players out with shackles on 

[Guest Back Post Misses]

4 hours ago, Duncan Freemason said:

Both managers did it. DA are poorer up front than us, so it made sense for them not to chase it.
They would have been very happy to keep a 4 point gap…..they were absolutely delighted to have won it, and a couple of their own Board members were genuinely baffled by our approach to the game as all the chat had been that Falkirk would come out of traps flying, and they would have to withstand 20 minutes of intense pressure. How wrong they were!
 

You have to give them credit for that too 

[Reggie Perrin]

1 hour ago, Back Post Misses said:

Of course they worked but that doesn’t mean McGlynn sent players out with shackles on 

Of course but took a very long time to address the issues.

[Guest Back Post Misses]

39 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Of course but took a very long time to address the issues.

And didn’t find the right solution. That doesn’t mean he sent them out with shackles on them. For me it is more about player mentality and ability to carry out instructions than formations. Time and again the likes of Morrison and Nesbitt have gone awol when the chips are down 

[Reggie Perrin]

57 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

And didn’t find the right solution. That doesn’t mean he sent them out with shackles on them. For me it is more about player mentality and ability to carry out instructions than formations. Time and again the likes of Morrison and Nesbitt have gone awol when the chips are down 

Don’t disagree.

I really hope some team is daft enough to offer money for Morrison or Nesbit or McGuffie.

[roman_bairn]

And didn’t find the right solution. That doesn’t mean he sent them out with shackles on them. For me it is more about player mentality and ability to carry out instructions than formations. Time and again the likes of Morrison and Nesbitt have gone awol when the chips are down 

I don’t get this. The shackles were off and it was plain to see our superiority in the first half at EEP.
Why then, would the same players be the ones to put the shackles on in a more favourable environment at TFS?
For me we played one up front, pretended to be a passing side and then ended up lumping the ball upfront to an unsupported Burrell. If that was our master plan why did we not put a second player upfront to support him?
It was obviously a flawed plan and that lies with McGlynn….

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

You have to give them credit for that too 

Absolutely. If we went to somewhere like Tynecastle in the Cup, we would adopt similar tactics.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, roman_bairn said:

It was obviously a flawed plan and that lies with McGlynn….

I think so too, and when you look at both manager’s situation before the game, it kind of explains why it was played out in the way it did.

DA off the back of a defeat to Montrose. Confidence taking its first dunt of the season. Caution is the watchword……don’t let that defeat lead to a defeat against us, or confidence could really become an issue. Sit in tight, play for a draw, if anything else happens, and they actually win, then happy days for them. Mission accomplished.

FFC home defeat by Kelty. Unexpected, but thanks to Montrose, not too damaging. Stop the rot…..avoid another home defeat. Caution is the watchword……another home defeat could be very damaging, so take no risks. If it’s a draw, then we avoid another home defeat, and we are keeping them under pressure. If anything comes our way, and we beat them, then huge boost, and the gap is down to a point, but the important thing is not to lose the game. Mission failure.

I really think that was all there was to it.

[Springfield]

Agree with the recent posts, and arguably both managers would have settled for the point. Bit like a game if chess but turned into a game of knots and crosses. With Kennedy, Morrison, Nisbett Yeats no show, it made it relatively easy for our opponents. Edinburgh are going to bring a similar game plan, so interesting to see what our tactics are. Does Williamson come in at RB? If fit it’s a yes from me as we at worse get width and opens up our play on both flanks, does Kennedy get another chance to start? Do we bring in Mackie and push McCann into a wing back?  Do we go two up front? Cavalier approach? Why bloody not !! 

[da_no_1]

7 hours ago, Duncan Freemason said:

DA off the back of a defeat to Montrose. Confidence taking its first dunt of the season. Caution is the watchword……don’t let that defeat lead to a defeat against us, or confidence could really become an issue. Sit in tight, play for a draw, if anything else happens, and they actually win, then happy days for them. Mission accomplished.

Excellent theory but we did beat Kelty the week after the Montrose game, the same day you beat Queens at Palmerston. Both teams bounced back from defeats to record decent wins.

The result last weekend was almost entirely down to McGlynns' notorious approach to big games - try & not lose.

Edited November 11, 2022 by da_no_1

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, da_no_1 said:

Excellent theory but we did beat Kelty the week after the Montrose game, the same day you beat Queens at Palmerston. Both teams bounced back from defeats to record decent wins.

The result last weekend was almost entirely down to McGlynns' notorious approach to big games - try & not lose.

 

19 minutes ago, da_no_1 said:

Excellent theory but we did beat Kelty the week after the Montrose game, the same day you beat Queens at Palmerston. Both teams bounced back from defeats to record decent wins.

The result last weekend was almost entirely down to McGlynns' notorious approach to big games - try & not lose.

Yes, I get the Kelty and QotS victories, but we had lost our last home game, you had lost your last away game. That home defeat to Kelty stuck in the craw given our pitiful effort against them just five or six weeks earlier.

Consecutive home defeats for us (or away defeats for you) and given who the opposition was, meant that “just don’t lose” was the mantra running through both manager’s heads. I genuinely don’t think McPake was any more scared of getting beat than McGlynn was.

If anything, maybe less so given that back to back home defeats tend to have a bigger impact than back to back away defeats.

So that brings us back to this game, and after losing another “win, and something good will happen” game, we are faced with a  “win, and we will stop something bad from happening” game.

We tend to be not too bad in games like this.