Robbie Neilson Tactics

[Ex member of the SaS]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

You are off with a number of points:

1. If players returning from injury aren't played before the final, how do they get any kind of match sharpness?

2.  We don't have a strong enough squad to rest many players against the old firm.

3.  For players to get stuck in we had an unfit Devlin, and Haring who also looked to be carrying a knock.  Trying to press in their half leaves us open to their pace on the wings.

4.  Are you seriously trying to tell me the Neilson haters would have accepted a hammering if we opened up and got gutted on the counters?  I'm not buying that.

 

You have it wrong too. Professional players can't keep match sharp after missing ONE game? What about those who miss four or five games, do they not get played because their not match sharp?

Player carrying a knock having had an extra week rest would be better surely?

As for not having a strong team he could have played the kids the week before as it was a nothing game.

Not suggesting opening up but the forwards and mids SHOULD be tackling before the half way line, ( when was the last time someone tackled and opposition player in their own half? ) leaving the defense to do their job of defending the box. Too often we have everyone back defending with (1 ) no out ball and (2 ) there is confusion as to who is doing what.

[Ex member of the SaS]

25 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

This has been covered many times.  The approach would have perhaps been hailed as genius if the Simms chance went in.

 

Given the comparison of resources I can't see how we could have changed much at all without getting a leathering.

Yes had he scored as we played to win first half. BUT having managed to stay at 0-0 Robbie went out to defend the second half and play for penalties. THIS is what I think he did wrong in the final along with as previously stated the week earlier.

[ArcticJambo]

There seems to be a reluctance to accept that maybe he could have done something different, to play fully fit players from the start for instance and/or perhaps a slightly different set-up.

 

I said to my mate at the time of the 89th minute corner that perhaps this was the genius move he had been playing for.   Problem was that that was about the only 'opportunity' we created second half. I for one was disappointed we didn't try to affect the game more, and I genuinely think that was down to mentality. Anyway, onto next season. 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by ArcticJambo

[Nookie Bear]

21 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Yes had he scored as we played to win first half. BUT having managed to stay at 0-0 Robbie went out to defend the second half and play for penalties. THIS is what I think he did wrong in the final along with as previously stated the week earlier.

Difference in the second half was that rangers came out and played for their lives. We just couldn’t cope with it. 

[frankblack]

42 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

You have it wrong too. Professional players can't keep match sharp after missing ONE game? What about those who miss four or five games, do they not get played because their not match sharp?

Player carrying a knock having had an extra week rest would be better surely?

As for not having a strong team he could have played the kids the week before as it was a nothing game.

Not suggesting opening up but the forwards and mids SHOULD be tackling before the half way line, ( when was the last time someone tackled and opposition player in their own half? ) leaving the defense to do their job of defending the box. Too often we have everyone back defending with (1 ) no out ball and (2 ) there is confusion as to who is doing what.

 

We had half the team who missed several weeks and wouldn't have played in a league game.

 

We didn't have the fit players to do what you suggest and you have no idea about how modern teams train to break the press.  In any case that tactic requires a fully fit starting XI with adequate subs to replace tired or injured players.  We didn't have either.

[frankblack]

31 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

There seems to be a reluctance to accept that maybe he could have done something different, to play fully fit players from the start for instance and/or perhaps a slightly different set-up.

 

I said to my mate at the time of the 89th minute corner that perhaps this was the genius move he had been playing for.   Problem was that that was about the only 'opportunity' we created second half. I for one was disappointed we didn't try to affect the game more, and I genuinely think that was down to mentality. Anyway, onto next season. 

 

 

What exactly could he have changed to turm the game?

 

They had a bench of internationals who may have been better than who they replaced.

 

This is going round in circles with the Neilson haters saying he should have changed something without explaining what options the rest of us have missed!

[ArcticJambo]

Just now, frankblack said:

 

What exactly could he have changed to turm the game?

 

They had a bench of internationals who may have been better than who they replaced.

 

This is going round in circles with the Neilson haters saying he should have changed something without explaining what options the rest of us have missed!

Your statement that we didn't have enough fully fit players to start is not exactly right is it.  He could have started Gino instead of Bpyce, he could have started McEneff/Sibbick/Woodburn instead of Devlin. The CBs did fine/great actually although supposedly they weren't fully fit. Heck, he could have probably have used the used the aforementioned players in the same formation he did opt for, or he could have tweaked it a bit.  He didn't we lost. You seem unable to to accept that he could have approached it differently, that's my issue with the thinking, he couldnae do nothing it's Glasgae Rangers!

Couldn't really give a flying one tbqh, just thought I'd pipe in as I'm frankly sick of reading the same old tired one-way thinking. Ohh well. No worries, mate.

[Bull's-eye]

Hilarious stuff.

 

The main point being that nobody can grasp is that winning is the only thing that really matters, even then some on here would still be arguing about it.

If you lose there are those that will grizzle about whatever they feel was wrong, sadly to belly tickle themselves.

 

I've heard the diet leading up to the final for the players was far from ideal, certain foods they normally eat are unavailable or way too expensive.

 

That's an example of how easy it is to make shit up to suit an agenda.

 

We lost, get over it.

 

 

[Hearts1975]

18 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

Your statement that we didn't have enough fully fit players to start is not exactly right is it.  He could have started Gino instead of Bpyce, he could have started McEneff/Sibbick/Woodburn instead of Devlin. The CBs did fine/great actually although supposedly they weren't fully fit. Heck, he could have probably have used the used the aforementioned players in the same formation he did opt for, or he could have tweaked it a bit.  He didn't we lost. You seem unable to to accept that he could have approached it differently, that's my issue with the thinking, he couldnae do nothing it's Glasgae Rangers!

Couldn't really give a flying one tbqh, just thought I'd pipe in as I'm frankly sick of reading the same old tired one-way thinking. Ohh well. No worries, mate.

If he had started Gino, Mceneff, woodburn and Sibbick the reality is that we would have probably lost by more than we did, and this thread would have been full of posts about why he didn't start with the 11, that he actually started with 

We were beaten by a far better side with far better players and the biggest learning we can take is that we need more squad depth going into next year 

It's all very well in hindsight saying he could have done X, Y and Z, but we held on for as long as we could, with our strongest side on the park and the tactic was working until Boyce was forced off

I would be the first one to criticise RN if I thought it was his tactics that lost us the game, but it's blatantly obvious that we lost the game because we were beaten by the better side on the day and our key players were either not fully fit or carrying knocks 

How anyone cannot see that, I do not know. 

[Jim Panzee]

13 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

If he had started Gino, Mceneff, woodburn and Sibbick the reality is that we would have probably lost by more than we did, and this thread would have been full of posts about why he didn't start with the 11, that he actually started with 

We were beaten by a far better side with far better players and the biggest learning we can take is that we need more squad depth going into next year 

It's all very well in hindsight saying he could have done X, Y and Z, but we held on for as long as we could, with our strongest side on the park and the tactic was working until Boyce was forced off

I would be the first one to criticise RN if I thought it was his tactics that lost us the game, but it's blatantly obvious that we lost the game because we were beaten by the better side on the day and our key players were either not fully fit or carrying knocks 

How anyone cannot see that, I do not know. 

100% agree

[Ex member of the SaS]

52 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

What exactly could he have changed to turm the game?

 

They had a bench of internationals who may have been better than who they replaced.

 

This is going round in circles with the Neilson haters saying he should have changed something without explaining what options the rest of us have missed!

Not a hater but I have stated many times what he did wrong, starting with playing a first team in a nothing game the week before.

[Ex member of the SaS]

16 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

If he had started Gino, Mceneff, woodburn and Sibbick the reality is that we would have probably lost by more than we did, and this thread would have been full of posts about why he didn't start with the 11, that he actually started with 

We were beaten by a far better side with far better players and the biggest learning we can take is that we need more squad depth going into next year 

It's all very well in hindsight saying he could have done X, Y and Z, but we held on for as long as we could, with our strongest side on the park and the tactic was working until Boyce was forced off

I would be the first one to criticise RN if I thought it was his tactics that lost us the game, but it's blatantly obvious that we lost the game because we were beaten by the better side on the day and our key players were either not fully fit or carrying knocks 

How anyone cannot see that, I do not know. 

Garbage, That's like saying if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle. No one could predict what would happen had other players started, for all you know with those players we COULD have won 10 -0. 

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Garbage, That's like saying if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle. No one could predict what would happen had other players started, for all you know with those players we COULD have won 10 -0. 

 

Your straw clutching is admirable but the reality is that the players we used from the bench if anything were totally ineffective.  The reason for that is obvious - they had far better players from their starting XI through their bench.

 

Who would you have brought Sibbick or Woodburn on for, and given their erratic form this season, why do you think they would suddenly turn it on?

 

Please explain why you think a half-fit Hearts XI should have beaten a far better squad (other than the keeper) who can field two first teams of internationals and we couldn't add any quality to fill our bench?

[frankblack]

5 minutes ago, Barack said:

Ten nil, no less. Don't forget that part.

 

With his suggested tactics it could have been 10-0, just not the way he envisaged.

[Ex member of the SaS]

34 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Your straw clutching is admirable but the reality is that the players we used from the bench if anything were totally ineffective.  The reason for that is obvious - they had far better players from their starting XI through their bench.

 

Who would you have brought Sibbick or Woodburn on for, and given their erratic form this season, why do you think they would suddenly turn it on?

 

Please explain why you think a half-fit Hearts XI should have beaten a far better squad (other than the keeper) who can field two first teams of internationals and we couldn't add any quality to fill our bench?

It's you clutching at straws, I never suggested these players SHOULD have started, I replied to a non sensible post claiming we would have lost by a lot more had those players started. No one can tell how things would pan out had things been done differently, just that some rate players differently. That however doesn't mean the result would be as they predicted. Likewise I can't say how we would have played had he rested players the week before, but I am sure fitness levels would have been higher with less tired players. You continually rabbit on about half fit players totally ignoring the fact that they had a hard game TWO days before. 

I still maintain Robbie made a big mistake playing the first team in a nothing game and then trying to defend for the whole of the second half. It was his tactics that allowed them to control the pace of the game, and once they were allowed to spray passes around and chip balls into the box from close range, it gave them a big advantage. YES they have better players but as someone posted before, why bother playing them at all if that was how the game worked. I also think football players a get it easy, they train half a day and play once ( ok sometimes twice ) a week for 90 minutes. Take for example tennis, it's one on one for as much as three hours per game and two or more games in a week yet supposedly professional athletes get tired after 30 odd games in a season. For me our players were demoralised by the week before and that played a big part in their fitness and willingness to compete. Their under 18's beat us 3-0 so how can we possibly beat their first team.

[Ex member of the SaS]

42 minutes ago, Barack said:

Ten nil, no less. Don't forget that part.

Erse, that was taken out of context. It was an exaggeration making the point he couldn't claim to know how the game would have played out had certain players started, but you carry on as you appear to know how to play the game and maybe should be in management ( not! )

[frankblack]

20 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

It's you clutching at straws, I never suggested these players SHOULD have started, I replied to a non sensible post claiming we would have lost by a lot more had those players started. No one can tell how things would pan out had things been done differently, just that some rate players differently. That however doesn't mean the result would be as they predicted. Likewise I can't say how we would have played had he rested players the week before, but I am sure fitness levels would have been higher with less tired players. You continually rabbit on about half fit players totally ignoring the fact that they had a hard game TWO days before. 

I still maintain Robbie made a big mistake playing the first team in a nothing game and then trying to defend for the whole of the second half. It was his tactics that allowed them to control the pace of the game, and once they were allowed to spray passes around and chip balls into the box from close range, it gave them a big advantage. YES they have better players but as someone posted before, why bother playing them at all if that was how the game worked. I also think football players a get it easy, they train half a day and play once ( ok sometimes twice ) a week for 90 minutes. Take for example tennis, it's one on one for as much as three hours per game and two or more games in a week yet supposedly professional athletes get tired after 30 odd games in a season. For me our players were demoralised by the week before and that played a big part in their fitness and willingness to compete. Their under 18's beat us 3-0 so how can we possibly beat their first team.

 

Robbie's hands were tied when Boyce went off - he tried a few players from the bench but they did nothing.

 

Your argument about playing players in the league match is irrelevant.  The manager still needs to put a team out and your idea of fielding a reserve side would have resulted in a leathering, and knocked our morale for the final.

 

Do you realise that trying to press a team is physically demanding, and perhaps too much for a half-fit team?  As I've repeated numerous times a press can be bypassed by better players, and given the pace they had on the wings would have ripped us for arse paper?

 

Your countering about the European final is irrelevant when they can field two sides of internationals.  The bottom line is their team was fitter and better than us and there really was no better play on the day than what we tried.

 

This is absolutely pointless trying to point out the obvious facts of the situation as you keep going round in circles.

 

[Hearts1975]

5 hours ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Garbage, That's like saying if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle. No one could predict what would happen had other players started, for all you know with those players we COULD have won 10 -0. 

Fair enough. I admire your optimism but these players that you mention would not have won us that game. 

[ArcticJambo]

You don't know that, that's his point. We could have played fully fit players from the start, that might well have put in match-winning performances but Neilson decided to go with less than 100% players. That was his perogative. We lost unfortunately. It's not a difficult concept to understand, imo.

[i wish jj was my dad]

9 hours ago, Hearts1975 said:

Fair enough. I admire your optimism but these players that you mention would not have won us that game. 

He put out the side that gave us what he believed gave us the best chance of winning. He gave the players returning from injury what he thought was the optimum amount of game time he could in the dead rubbers leading up to the final. We competed very well against a far superior side for 90 minutes but it's still 'boo, Robbie shit the bed'  

The idea that the same guys would have accepted being 3 or 4 down after an hour providing we went blood and snotters with a half fit team is laughable.

[frankblack]

10 hours ago, ArcticJambo said:

You don't know that, that's his point. We could have played fully fit players from the start, that might well have put in match-winning performances but Neilson decided to go with less than 100% players. That was his perogative. We lost unfortunately. It's not a difficult concept to understand, imo.

 

He went with the best of what he had.  Unfortunately our first team squad was weak beyond our best XI.

 

To suggest the likes of Sibbick or Taylor-Moore would have strengthened us is wishful thinking.

[ri Alban]

5 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

He went with the best of what he had.  Unfortunately our first team squad was weak beyond our best XI.

 

To suggest the likes of Sibbick or Taylor-Moore would have strengthened us is wishful thinking.

If Sibbick and Moore played we'd have been embarrassed before half time.

[ArcticJambo]

3 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

He went with the best of what he had.  Unfortunately our first team squad was weak beyond our best XI.

 

To suggest the likes of Sibbick or Taylor-Moore would have strengthened us is wishful thinking.

I really didn't want to get dragged into this, Frank  but I will say, my last word on it, that if they were 100% fit, had played for the first team previously, albeit as squad players then perhaps they were good enough. Problem was that unfortunately Neilson didn't trust in them but instead played half fit players that burnt out. Sometimes you need to have faith in your players to pull out a performance.  Neilson didn't, he went the safe route, and then wanted to ensure he didn't get horsed when it got away from him. One could view that approach as somewhat cowardly.

 

I think Neilson has done a great job this season but I was quite disappointed with that final game.

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, ArcticJambo said:

I really didn't want to get dragged into this, Frank  but I will say, my last word on it, that if they were 100% fit, had played for the first team previously, albeit as squad players then perhaps they were good enough. Problem was that unfortunately Neilson didn't trust in them but instead played half fit players that burnt out. Sometimes you need to have faith in your players to pull out a performance.  Neilson didn't, he went the safe route, and then wanted to ensure he didn't get horsed when it got away from him. One could view that approach as somewhat cowardly.

 

I think Neilson has done a great job this season but I was quite disappointed with that final game.

 

The problem with the bench was the players had played previously and failed to shine - Sibbick, Ginnelly, GMS etc.

 

Strengthening our overall squad is a must this season as it can at least give options if Plan A isn't working. 

[4marsbars]

9 hours ago, ArcticJambo said:

 

 

I think Neilson has done a great job this season but I was quite disappointed with that final game.

 

That game where Rangers scored nil in 90 minutes, the Europa finalists, who haven't been beaten by a Scottish team other than Celtic for six months. That game? 

 

I was disappointed that we didn't win the Cup, but I wasn't disappointed with the manager or the team. Quite the opposite.

[The Grim Reaper]

We were never winning that final under Robbie. 

 

Let’s see what savage serves up over the summer and hope Neilson grows a pair. 

[frankblack]

5 hours ago, The Grim Reaper said:

We were never winning that final under Robbie. 

 

Let’s see what savage serves up over the summer and hope Neilson grows a pair. 

 

 

What a seethe-filled pile of crap - away and dry your eyes.

 

You also have zero clue on how the club is run as demonstrated with your comments on Savage.