*** Aberdeen v Heart Of Midlothian Official Match Thread ***

[soonbe110]

26 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

David Dickinson the referee.   Recently did the Inverness v Kilmarnock  SC match.   Yes, he was awful.   Don Robertson on VAR 😂.  

 

Shankland has a tight hamstring I read, Clarke quote.   So two weeks since the St Johnstone match.   I guess he will make the Aberdeen game.   Sounds same as Devlin when he had hamstring problem.   

 

We'll need a strong side.   Aberdeen aren't that great but will want to give some back after getting pumped 5-0.

 

 

If he was going to be fit for Saturday surely Clark would have selected him.?  I don’t expect him to play  until after intl break. 

[Pasquale for King]

16 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

If he was going to be fit for Saturday surely Clark would have selected him.?  I don’t expect him to play  until after intl break. 

Why hes not been in a squad for ages, Nisbet is ahead of him in the queue as he doesn't really stray much from the same guys. Being unfit gave him an excuse not to choose him. 

[Scott Leitch]

23 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

McKay has been horseshit for 90% of this season playing in his natural position. 

 

Who else is there? Forrest? Kuol? 

 

It's the weakest area of our team. 

 

I don't think he has played anything like that amount in his position. Saturday plodding about up front. Just play a 4231 and play him wide on one side, Gino on the other and Shankland up top. 

[HMFC01]

21 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

If he was going to be fit for Saturday surely Clark would have selected him.?  I don’t expect him to play  until after intl break. 

 

Robbie says he expects him to be available.  Clarke says tight hamstring.   I'll say he'll make the bench, won't start but will come on for five or ten minutes if we're chasing an equaliser.   I expect Gino will start again. 

[Cruyff]

19 minutes ago, Scott Leitch said:

 

I don't think he has played anything like that amount in his position. Saturday plodding about up front. Just play a 4231 and play him wide on one side, Gino on the other and Shankland up top. 

He's played most games this season on the left. I agree, he's more productive on the left than anywhere else but he only plays well against the likes of Dundee Utd or St Johnstone. If he's our best hope in wide areas then that just proves how poor we are in creative attacking areas. 

 

As for Gino, 100% better through the middle leading the line than at RW. 

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, HMFC01 said:

David Dickinson the referee.   Recently did the Inverness v Kilmarnock  SC match.   Yes, he was awful.   Don Robertson on VAR 😂.  

 

Shankland has a tight hamstring I read, Clarke quote.   So two weeks since the St Johnstone match.   I guess he will make the Aberdeen game.   Sounds same as Devlin when he had hamstring problem.   

 

We'll need a strong side.   Aberdeen aren't that great but will want to give some back after getting pumped 5-0.

 

 

Is the wee skinny baldy guy that looks like a 40yo virgin church goer who stays with his mum?

[Scott Leitch]

3 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

He's played most games this season on the left. I agree, he's more productive on the left than anywhere else but he only plays well against the likes of Dundee Utd or St Johnstone. If he's our best hope in wide areas then that just proves how poor we are in creative attacking areas. 

 

As for Gino, 100% better through the middle leading the line than at RW. 

Then what do we do with Shankland? 

[Cruyff]

Just now, Scott Leitch said:

Then what do we do with Shankland? 

Play him off Gino. 

 

Gino has scored as many as Shankland has from open play this season. 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

2 hours ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

Why do people insist on taking out 'the big 2'.

 

We play them. 

Is it not ****ing obvious 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Again its not necessarily formation. Biggest red herring, its about spacing and picking up a position according to the play.

 

It is fluid and not rigid. 

 

It will be a 3 a 4 or a 5, even in space of 10 minutes. Almost a game within a game these days 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

15 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Play him off Gino. 

 

Gino has scored as many as Shankland has from open play this season. 

It doesn't matter who scores them eh, Shankland doing so much more as season has progressed 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, HMFC01 said:

 

Robbie says he expects him to be available.  Clarke says tight hamstring.   I'll say he'll make the bench, won't start but will come on for five or ten minutes if we're chasing an equaliser.   I expect Gino will start again. 

Either way it’s not great. 

[tntjambo]

If we loose v the sheep after the Vermin beating them 6-0 then poodle must go 

[Thunder and Lightning]

52 minutes ago, Lord Beni of Gorgie said:

Is it not ****ing obvious 

It's stupid. We play them, as do others. Pretending they are not involved or don't occasionally get beat serves no purpose. 

 

We shouldn't write off games against them. Certainly not home games. 

 

We might as well not bother if the club adopts that mentality. 

[Cruyff]

37 minutes ago, Lord Beni of Gorgie said:

It doesn't matter who scores them eh, Shankland doing so much more as season has progressed 

It doesn't but the point is, you'd want your two main goalscorers to play in the positions where they've produced the most. 

[hearts00]

Formation/shape is only part of the problem. 
 

We are slow, passive and predictable. We play with little intensity off the ball. 
 

We seriously need to up it in the coming games. 

[Horatio Caine]

1 hour ago, Pasquale for King said:

Is the wee skinny baldy guy that looks like a 40yo virgin church goer who stays with his mum?

You meaning JiH?  

[No Idle Talk]

24 minutes ago, hearts00 said:

Formation/shape is only part of the problem. 
 

We are slow, passive and predictable. We play with little intensity off the ball. 
 

We seriously need to up it in the coming games. 

 

I agree with that. Although a change in shape can help to bring about the other changes you are looking for.

 

There is a good wee discussion on the latest episode of This Is My Story podcast about our tactics and the areas in which we need to improve. I personally agree with a fair amount of the stuff Corbett says in that segment.

 

 

[Shooter McGavin]

A win would totally change the energy on here, would feel like 6 points

[Pasquale for King]

21 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said:

You meaning JiH?  

No Ive given up abusing other posters for LENT 😜.

[Pasquale for King]

48 minutes ago, hearts00 said:

Formation/shape is only part of the problem. 
 

We are slow, passive and predictable. We play with little intensity off the ball. 
 

We seriously need to up it in the coming games. 

Definitely, we did that against St Johnstone so lets hope we keep that going. 

[DesertDawg]

On 13/03/2023 at 10:48, Led Tasso said:

 

Fine, I went and had a look. Harder for me to fine La Liga lineups but Sevilla used a back 3 to thump Fenerbahce in the Europa knockouts.

 

The back 3 is less common than the back 4 but it's by no means gone. To me the back 4 produces the worst of English Championship-style drudgery football. The back 3 produces more creativity and a better game.

 

Good and important result for Hearts women yesterday.  Now really challenging for Hibs to catch Hearts. Even if Hibs were to beat us home and away, they either need a surprise result against one of the big three or they need Hearts to drop points to Partick. Hearts have beaten Partick in both leagues games and an away cup game. 

 

Get Eva in the dugout for Saturday for her opinions and ideas on Spanish team formations. 

[GBJambo]

1 hour ago, tntjambo said:

If we loose v the sheep after the Vermin beating them 6-0 then poodle must go 

🤦🏻 

You think we won’t even make top 6 though 

 

[davemclaren]

1 hour ago, tntjambo said:

If we loose v the sheep after the Vermin beating them 6-0 then poodle must go 

We beat them 5-0 and they had 11 players for the 90. What's your point caller?

[Jambo61]

4 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

What teams? Some play 3 or 5 at the back some of the time but I can’t think of anyone apart from 

Chelsea who have played the system and won anything recently. 

You play what suits your players, anything else is stupid! Fashion is for kits not feckin systems! We are shite at playing out from the back. why the feck does he persist in playing 4 stupid passes then lumping the ball forward aimlessly when we could be 40 yards further away by the goalie aimlessly lumping the same ball forward? I think Smith could be a Sandy Jardine, but it's not the fashion apparently!

[Watt-Zeefuik]

6 hours ago, DS98 said:

The successful team will recruit to play that system. I don’t mind a back 3 when we have the personnel but I think it needs parked until next season. Robbie made the switch around this time last year and results picked up. 

Last year it worked to an extent because we had a dominant centre half in Halkett and two ball players either side with Kingsley and Souttar. This season you would probably say our best back 3 is Rowles, Sibbick, Hill who are all pretty much a downgrade in that respect. 
 

We had two dynamic Centre mids who could run all day and cover lots of ground. This season the mainstay of the midfield had been Snoddy and he’s a terrific player but anything but dynamic. 
 

Simms was the perfect CF for this formation as he would batter defenders and run the channels creating space for McKay and Boyce. Gino has done really well this season but he’s not occupying any centre half in this league. 
 

4231 gets us back to basics for now and lets everyone play their natural game. We’ve better players than the other 9 teams so just let them play and no need to be clever about it. 

 

Smith and Cochrane/Kingsley can predominantly defend. 
 

Centre halfs won’t have the most touches in the team like they do now. 
 

Snoddy can play 15 yards higher and have a midfielder beside him. 
 

McKay can play left mid/wing.

 

There will be an actual number 10 to create instead of Shanklands daft half position. 
 

Shankland can play upfront. No 9. In between the posts. 

 

 

 

For me we had a horribly leaky defence earlier this season with all the injuries. With the exception of the Motherwell and OF games, we're not shipping bad goals anymore. On the flip side, we've tried a 4-2-3-1 a couple of times during games recently and looked awful. I don't get the infatuation with it other than that it's old and familiar to folks. We've spent two years building around the 3-4-3 and we're winning a lot of games with it.

 

We've recruited ball-playing CHs for this system and regardless of Hill's inability to pass and the lack of a true aerial commander at the back, the back three gets them on the pitch.

 

5 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

What teams? Some play 3 or 5 at the back some of the time but I can’t think of anyone apart from 

Chelsea who have played the system and won anything recently. 

 

I just answered this. Tottenham are in European places which, yes, I realize they always have title aspirations, but it's still the high water mark for them. Sevilla are making progress in the Europa knockouts which is good for them. And I believe I mentioned that little club from Bavaria? They're doing okay, eh? Just blanked that wee Argentinian striker that French club signed recently . . .

 

59 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

You play what suits your players, anything else is stupid! Fashion is for kits not feckin systems! We are shite at playing out from the back. why the feck does he persist in playing 4 stupid passes then lumping the ball forward aimlessly when we could be 40 yards further away by the goalie aimlessly lumping the same ball forward? I think Smith could be a Sandy Jardine, but it's not the fashion apparently!

 

We've spent three windows recruiting for a back 3. We're winning games with a back 3. We've outscored non-OF teams 21-4 over the 10 games in 2023 playing a back 3. I can't possibly imagine why he persists with it.

[Graham Thomson]

On 13/03/2023 at 19:34, Led Tasso said:

On 13/03/2023 at 18:13, Pasquale for King said:

So the vast majority play a 4? 

Not sure anyone ever argued this, but sure? Probably 60-70% of top tier teams are playing back 4 these days, which to my eye is down considerably from 10 years ago or so when probably 95% of top tier teams were doing it.

 

But some very large and fairly successful clubs are playing a back 3 these days, so saying that nobody is playing it anymore is incorrect, which was the point I was replying to.

To play 3 at the back your wing backs need to be the best players in the team it is a specialised position, we just play anyone and it doesn't work, square pegs in round holes, the players we have are much more suited to a back four. 

 

On 13/03/2023 at 23:17, sandylejambo said:

we need a manager who can motivate players and change shape when it's obvious things are not working, we dont have one of those. We have a man who is wed to 3 at the back, which is eye bleeding at best, besides he's not worried about his job and that breeds complacency at best. not one person around me on Saturday was saying Neilson should keep his job, because we were all fed-up with this lazy tippy tappy shit he calls football. to his credit, listening to him after the game, he never said we played well or were unlucky or it was the refs fault.

Correct . 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

11 hours ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

It's stupid. We play them, as do others. Pretending they are not involved or don't occasionally get beat serves no purpose. 

 

We shouldn't write off games against them. Certainly not home games. 

 

We might as well not bother if the club adopts that mentality. 

We don't so get off the high horse wake up, smell the coffee and realise that no matter how hard you try superior resources more often than not provide superior results 

[Sinbad the Sailor]

11 hours ago, tntjambo said:

If we loose v the sheep after the Vermin beating them 6-0 then poodle must go 

Ehm did you forget about the sending off and the players throwing Goodwin under the bus? Poodle is pish patter by the way.

[Thunder and Lightning]

38 minutes ago, Lord Beni of Gorgie said:

We don't so get off the high horse wake up, smell the coffee and realise that no matter how hard you try superior resources more often than not provide superior results 

'more often than not' but certainly more if you don't try. 

 

If you live your life with such a mentality you deserve what you get. 

[Pasquale for King]

9 hours ago, Jambo61 said:

You play what suits your players, anything else is stupid! Fashion is for kits not feckin systems! We are shite at playing out from the back. why the feck does he persist in playing 4 stupid passes then lumping the ball forward aimlessly when we could be 40 yards further away by the goalie aimlessly lumping the same ball forward? I think Smith could be a Sandy Jardine, but it's not the fashion apparently!

He does seem reluctant to play Smith in the back 3, as he was with Haring, maybe because he hasn't yet signed a proper wingback for either side. 

[Pasquale for King]

8 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

For me we had a horribly leaky defence earlier this season with all the injuries. With the exception of the Motherwell and OF games, we're not shipping bad goals anymore. On the flip side, we've tried a 4-2-3-1 a couple of times during games recently and looked awful. I don't get the infatuation with it other than that it's old and familiar to folks. We've spent two years building around the 3-4-3 and we're winning a lot of games with it.

 

We've recruited ball-playing CHs for this system and regardless of Hill's inability to pass and the lack of a true aerial commander at the back, the back three gets them on the pitch.

 

 

I just answered this. Tottenham are in European places which, yes, I realize they always have title aspirations, but it's still the high water mark for them. Sevilla are making progress in the Europa knockouts which is good for them. And I believe I mentioned that little club from Bavaria? They're doing okay, eh? Just blanked that wee Argentinian striker that French club signed recently . . .

 

 

We've spent three windows recruiting for a back 3. We're winning games with a back 3. We've outscored non-OF teams 21-4 over the 10 games in 2023 playing a back 3. I can't possibly imagine why he persists with it.

Spurs are not a top successful team, Bayern have only recently went to 3 and played a 4 against PSG, Sevilla won the EL 3 times with a back 4. 
There are no teams currently playing with a back 3 and wingbacks that are having success. 
As for recruitment we still dont have any wingbacks, Spurs have spent millions trying and haven't got any decent ones. Because nobody brings young players through to play the position. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Pasquale for King

[Pasquale for King]

7 hours ago, Graham Thomson said:

To play 3 at the back your wing backs need to be the best players in the team it is a specialised position, we just play anyone and it doesn't work, square pegs in round holes, the players we have are much more suited to a back four. 

 

Correct . 

Absolutely, there are extremely few specialist’s going around. 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 hour ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

'more often than not' but certainly more if you don't try. 

 

If you live your life with such a mentality you deserve what you get. 

We dont though, so there is little point to your argument

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 hour ago, Sinbad the Sailor said:

Ehm did you forget about the sending off and the players throwing Goodwin under the bus? Poodle is pish patter by the way.

We only beat them 5-0 the week previous, surely a sackable offence

 

Where do we find these people 🤦‍♂️

[TheBigO]

7 hours ago, Graham Thomson said:

To play 3 at the back your wing backs need to be the best players in the team it is a specialised position, we just play anyone and it doesn't work, square pegs in round holes, the players we have are much more suited to a back four. 

 

Correct . 

I agree with this part.  I just simply think we have the players more suited to a 433 type setup.  From fullbacks to midfielders through to up top, it suits us better.  All you'd say about 343 is we have a few good CHs, but they should be fighting it out for 2 positions (and Toby and Kye should win!).

 

Its hard to disagree with the success rate of 343 is the thing.  It just feels a bit clunky.  Robbie may feel that with a fully fit squad its our best setup and we've not seen that for a long while.  Perhaps it'd be better when all fit.  Beni would certainly help it.  But as you say WB is the issue.  If we sign Paterson, him on right and Cochrane on left sounds good to me, mind you.

 

I'm not dead set against 343 it just needs done better.  CHs stepping out more, midfield a bit higher in receiving the ball and stop passing out to the WBs in their own half with nowhere to go.

[Debut 4]

59 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Spurs are not a top successful team, Bayern have only recently went to 3 and played a 4 against PSG, Sevilla won the EL 3 times with a back 4. 
There are no teams currently playing with a back 3 and wingbacks that are having success. 
As for recruitment we still dont have any wingbacks, Spurs have spent millions trying and haven't got any decent ones. Because nobody brings young players through to play the position. 

It  just says caution to me when we play it and Neilson sees two parts to the team instead of being more cohesive across the board.  He sees a back line as holding our half and hoping what’s ahead goes and does the damage.  
 

Cochrane has decent pace and strength, good technically, but imo, doesn’t get beyond our more advanced players enough to become part of the attack.  That’s one of the jobs a wing back is meant to do. Is it instruction or the player himself?

 

Smith scored a great goal v Aberdeen but he’s older now and you only get that freshness and sharpness he had that day once in a while.  Largely, he’s not got the athleticism now to play that role to what it’s meant to entail.  
 

He’ll bust a gut to get forward but the problem is the recovery part. It’s a very demanding position which needs top fitness and decent pace.  

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Debut 4

[GinRummy]

6 minutes ago, Debut 4 said:

It  just says caution to me when we play it and Neilson sees two parts to the team instead of being more cohesive across the board.  He sees a back line as holding our half and hoping what’s ahead goes and does the damage.  
 

Cochrane has decent pace and strength, good technically, but imo, doesn’t get beyond our more advanced players enough to become part of the attack.  That’s one of the jobs a wing back is meant to do. Is it instruction or the player himself?

 

Smith scored a great goal v Aberdeen but he’s older now and you only get that freshness and sharpness he had that day once in a while.  Largely, he’s not got the athleticism now to play that role to what it’s meant to entail.  
 

He’ll bust a gut to get forward but the problem is the recovery part. It’s a very demanding position which needs top fitness and decent pace.  

 

Good post

[Pasquale for King]

11 minutes ago, Debut 4 said:

It  just says caution to me when we play it and Neilson sees two parts to the team instead of being more cohesive across the board.  He sees a back line as holding our half and hoping what’s ahead goes and does the damage.  
 

Cochrane has decent pace and strength, good technically, but imo, doesn’t get beyond our more advanced players enough to become part of the attack.  That’s one of the jobs a wing back is meant to do. Is it instruction or the player himself?

 

Smith scored a great goal v Aberdeen but he’s older now and you only get that freshness and sharpness he had that day once in a while.  Largely, he’s not got the athleticism now to play that role to what it’s meant to entail.  
 

He’ll bust a gut to get forward but the problem is the recovery part. It’s a very demanding position which needs top fitness and decent pace.  

 

Definitely.
I don’t think either have the quality on the ball, Cochrane is a poor crosser of the ball and Smith is too, but cant pass well also. Why hasnt he sourced a replacement, he will probably get another year. 

We are predictable in this system, some teams like St Johnstone struggle to deal with us, especially at home. Livingston and St Mirren not so much, 6 games 1 win. 
 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Pasquale for King

[TheBigO]

22 minutes ago, Debut 4 said:

It  just says caution to me when we play it and Neilson sees two parts to the team instead of being more cohesive across the board.  He sees a back line as holding our half and hoping what’s ahead goes and does the damage.  
 

Cochrane has decent pace and strength, good technically, but imo, doesn’t get beyond our more advanced players enough to become part of the attack.  That’s one of the jobs a wing back is meant to do. Is it instruction or the player himself?

 

Smith scored a great goal v Aberdeen but he’s older now and you only get that freshness and sharpness he had that day once in a while.  Largely, he’s not got the athleticism now to play that role to what it’s meant to entail.  
 

He’ll bust a gut to get forward but the problem is the recovery part. It’s a very demanding position which needs top fitness and decent pace.  

 

Yes, agreed.

 

I think we do try to get our WBs high up the park, especially on the opposite side from the ball (does that make sense?).  My issue is when we play out from the back, not sure their positioning is quite right.

 

We often play across the CHs and the ball ends up at our WBs, they're tight the touchline and the oppostition easily pin them, meaning the best they can do often is play for a throw-in.  We lose the ball here very often.  It's playing ourselves in to a cul-de-sac.  I'd rather when our 3 CHs have the ball, the WBs either get very high or tuck inside to midfield.  We do it a little, but very very often it's as described.

 

I'm not one to moan about us playing it along the back, by the way.  Often teams sit in and we need to at least try to draw them out or wait and see if someone can find a pocket behind their midfeld to receive it.  I just think we could do it better with a wee tweak.  Said it before too, Snoddy doing the QB thing is great but not with the 3 CHs and often at least one WB staying square of him.  If he's playing this dropping in role, we need only 2 CHs to start with or our 3 CHs and WBs need to be braver when he has the ball and step in front of him, becoming "in possession" CMs

[Pasquale for King]

2 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

Yes, agreed.

 

I think we do try to get our WBs high up the park, especially on the opposite side from the ball (does that make sense?).  My issue is when we play out from the back, not sure their positioning is quite right.

 

We often play across the CHs and the ball ends up at our WBs, they're tight the touchline and the oppostition easily pin them, meaning the best they can do often is play for a throw-in.  We lose the ball here very often.  It's playing ourselves in to a cul-de-sac.  I'd rather when our 3 CHs have the ball, the WBs either get very high or tuck inside to midfield.  We do it a little, but very very often it's as described.

 

I'm not one to moan about us playing it along the back, by the way.  Often teams sit in and we need to at least try to draw them out or wait and see if someone can find a pocket behind their midfeld to receive it.  I just think we could do it better with a wee tweak.  Said it before too, Snoddy doing the QB thing is great but not with the 3 CHs and often at least one WB staying square of him.  If he's playing this dropping in role, we need only 2 CHs to start with or our 3 CHs and WBs need to be braver when he has the ball and step in front of him, becoming "in possession" CMs

All true, feel like we would be better off with a midfielder with possession than a superfluous CH, then an AM instead of a striker playing in between the lines. Playing players out of position or doing things they're not comfortable with or good at, when you have signed players to do these jobs isn't a great idea.

Having to use Snodgrass as a QB because the three CHs cant, and really shouldn’t be, the playmakers shows the system needs to change..

[FarmerTweedy]

On 13/03/2023 at 10:09, Bazzas right boot said:

Beat 2-1.

 

Aberdeen are decent at home and there isn't much between the sides.

For historicaly two very evenly matched teams, This fixture bizarrely favours the home team very heavily.

 

Certain folk on here to shit the bed before we win a couple of games again and make 3rd place secure.

 

The split of fixtures hasn't been great to us, away x2 v Aberdeen,  hibs and Livi before the split.

Being away twice to all your closest rivals and home only once really is a bit shit.

 

Really shows how daft it is, but we should have them all at home after which should make picking up points post split easier.

 

 

 

It's extremely unlikely we'd get all 3 of them at home after the split as we're also due to have celtic at home. Also, St Liedown are 6th now, and there's a significant chance of them staying there with Livi's recent form.

[TheBigO]

8 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

All true, feel like we would be better off with a midfielder with possession than a superfluous CH, then an AM instead of a striker playing in between the lines. Playing players out of position or doing things they're not comfortable with or good at, when you have signed players to do these jobs isn't a great idea.

Having to use Snodgrass as a QB because the three CHs cant, and really shouldn’t be, the playmakers shows the system needs to change..

I think Snods can be very effective there and I do think it is a little overstated.  I think a couple of games we didn't get going and what he does is demand the ball, so it kind of looked like he'd been instructed in there more than he had if that makes sense?  Maybe anyway.

 

The best I've seen us the last couple of seasons we had 3 at the back.  We played a couple of games last season (Motherwell I seem to remember) where we just pinned them back.  Beni and Cam played 25/30 yards out and just didn't let them out of their own territory.  Our RCB and LCB were stepping forward and mopping up poor clearances and our CH and other R/LCB were deep mopping up long clearances.  The WBs were high and the front 3 were jist jinking around, one touch stuff, causing issues.  That's what we're trying to find again.

 

As I say, 343 won't be my pref, but if we can play it like that, I'm 100% up for it.  We've replicated it in periods of games - often early I feel - but never seem to sustain it.  When a team manages to stem the tide, we seem to then revert to a more stolid clunky version of it.  See Celtic, they go at it 0-99 minutes, full belief in themselves.  We need our own version of that.  Oh you think you're getting in to this game, do you?  More than any formation (just a series of numbers written down at the end of the day) that's what we need imo

 

I think we can do it, by the way.

[Pasquale for King]

4 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

It's extremely unlikely we'd get all 3 of them at home after the split as we're also due to have celtic at home. Also, St Liedown are 6th now, and there's a significant chance of them staying there with Livi's recent form.

Would fit better if we go to Paisley and Govan, the other three at home giving us 19 home and away. 

[Thunder and Lightning]

1 hour ago, Lord Beni of Gorgie said:

We dont though, so there is little point to your argument

We have a number of fans content to write off games against the old firm. It's a loser mentally, that's the point.

 

I look forward to your pointless reply tho. 

[Pasquale for King]

2 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

I think Snods can be very effective there and I do think it is a little overstated.  I think a couple of games we didn't get going and what he does is demand the ball, so it kind of looked like he'd been instructed in there more than he had if that makes sense?  Maybe anyway.

 

The best I've seen us the last couple of seasons we had 3 at the back.  We played a couple of games last season (Motherwell I seem to remember) where we just pinned them back.  Beni and Cam played 25/30 yards out and just didn't let them out of their own territory.  Our RCB and LCB were stepping forward and mopping up poor clearances and our CH and other R/LCB were deep mopping up long clearances.  The WBs were high and the front 3 were jist jinking around, one touch stuff, causing issues.  That's what we're trying to find again.

 

As I say, 343 won't be my pref, but if we can play it like that, I'm 100% up for it.  We've replicated it in periods of games - often early I feel - but never seem to sustain it.  When a team manages to stem the tide, we seem to then revert to a more stolid clunky version of it.  See Celtic, they go at it 0-99 minutes, full belief in themselves.  We need our own version of that.  Oh you think you're getting in to this game, do you?  More than any formation (just a series of numbers written down at the end of the day) that's what we need imo

 

I think we can do it, by the way.

Yeah definitely,we seem more set up to sit back and try to draw teams out, to give them possession and chances. That works better at home for some reason. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

9 hours ago, Graham Thomson said:

To play 3 at the back your wing backs need to be the best players in the team it is a specialised position, we just play anyone and it doesn't work, square pegs in round holes, the players we have are much more suited to a back four.

 

Not to sound pedantic, but if you have a 3-4-3 that features the wingbacks, yes, this is true. The 3-4-3 we play does not. The main feature of it is having ball-playing CHs that step forward into midfield when given the chance.

 

Folk are mapping a 3-4-3 they've seen at the EPL level onto our team and scratching their heads why it doesn't fit. It doesn't fit because we're not playing that way. Our wingbacks are effectively just wide midfielders given the same basic attacking responsibilities as fullbacks.

 

I repeat, we have outscored non-OF opponents 21-4 in 2023, what about it isn't working? And why, when we went to a back 4 on Saturday, did we look so much worse, if we fit so much better in it?

 

2 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

Spurs are not a top successful team, Bayern have only recently went to 3 and played a 4 against PSG, Sevilla won the EL 3 times with a back 4. 
There are no teams currently playing with a back 3 and wingbacks that are having success. 
As for recruitment we still dont have any wingbacks, Spurs have spent millions trying and haven't got any decent ones. Because nobody brings young players through to play the position. 

 

Well that's moving the goalposts if there ever was. Spurs aren't  a top team, they're just performing above their normal level. Bayern are a top team, but we'll ignore that because that's their level. Sevilla have done this recently so it doesn't count. FFS.

 

The assertions were that no one is playing it, no one in La Liga is playing it, and no top teams are playing it. You can rationalize the incorrectness of those statements all you want, they're still false.

[Debut 4]

47 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

Yes, agreed.

 

I think we do try to get our WBs high up the park, especially on the opposite side from the ball (does that make sense?).  My issue is when we play out from the back, not sure their positioning is quite right.

 

We often play across the CHs and the ball ends up at our WBs, they're tight the touchline and the oppostition easily pin them, meaning the best they can do often is play for a throw-in.  We lose the ball here very often.  It's playing ourselves in to a cul-de-sac.  I'd rather when our 3 CHs have the ball, the WBs either get very high or tuck inside to midfield.  We do it a little, but very very often it's as described.

 

I'm not one to moan about us playing it along the back, by the way.  Often teams sit in and we need to at least try to draw them out or wait and see if someone can find a pocket behind their midfeld to receive it.  I just think we could do it better with a wee tweak.  Said it before too, Snoddy doing the QB thing is great but not with the 3 CHs and often at least one WB staying square of him.  If he's playing this dropping in role, we need only 2 CHs to start with or our 3 CHs and WBs need to be braver when he has the ball and step in front of him, becoming "in possession" CMs

Agree, good post.  

There’s obviously different aspects to the wing back set up and the surprise run on the opposite side and switch is beneficial, but from the building of play angle or transitioning the game quicker from back to front, it needs to improve. It’s possibly more on the personnel side of things?

 

I was hoping to see a run of Grant and Snodric together in the middle (instead of McKay floating) which may have given us more control and timing to build the play better and help the wing backs get up, but injury and illness has got in the road of that for now.  

Edited March 15, 2023 by Debut 4

[TheBigO]

1 minute ago, Debut 4 said:

Agree, good post.  

There’s obviously different aspects to the wing back set up and the surprise run on the opposite side and switch is beneficial, but from the building of play angle or transitioning the game quicker from back to front, it needs to improve. It’s possibly more on the personnel side of things?

 

I was hoping to see a run of Grant and Snodric together in the middle (instead of McKay floating) which may have given us more control and timing to build the play better and help the wing backs get up, but injury and illness has got in the road of that for now.  

Yes me too.  I like Grant.  He finds we pockets, is happy to run beyond and he always tries to be positive and inventive.  Him, Snods and Devlin is a good mix imo.  Perhaps missing a little muscle but all 3 also get stuck in

[EIEIO]

31 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Yeah definitely,we seem more set up to sit back and try to draw teams out, to give them possession and chances. That works better at home for some reason. 

Most teams tend to attack more at their home ground so do we need to set up to draw them out when we are the away team?.