Victorian Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 Slow start and 0-0 at HT is entirely acceptable if we continue to be strong in the 2nd half. Going behind on a regular basis will eventually become troublesome. You could never expect to keep winning from behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stirlo Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 18 minutes ago, Victorian said: Jim Jeffries 1997/8 was the earlier version of the fast start team. Quite a few 1st half pastings. Both the 98 team and the Burley team were quite far ahead of the current team IMO in terms of quality. In both those teams there were goals throughout the team and the standard of the opposition was quite a bit above what it is now. The impressive thing about what Naisy is doing with the current team is he's making the best of a decent set of players and finding a way to win even when we're not playing particularly well - which is all you can really ask from a manager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 7 minutes ago, stirlo said: Both the 98 team and the Burley team were quite far ahead of the current team IMO in terms of quality. In both those teams there were goals throughout the team and the standard of the opposition was quite a bit above what it is now. The impressive thing about what Naisy is doing with the current team is he's making the best of a decent set of players and finding a way to win even when we're not playing particularly well - which is all you can really ask from a manager. I actually think there's not all that much between the 97/98 and current teams. Central midfield was stronger in 97/98 without a doubt. But as you say, one clear difference is the spread of scoring. Back then we had lots of goals from Flogel, Cameron, McCann. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Mikey Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 4 minutes ago, Victorian said: I actually think there's not all that much between the 97/98 and current teams. Central midfield was stronger in 97/98 without a doubt. But as you say, one clear difference is the spread of scoring. Back then we had lots of goals from Flogel, Cameron, McCann. We're not doing too bad as regards our goal-scoring from others in addition to Shankland. Vargas, for example, is on 4 for league matches, and 2 for 🏆 games. It's looking sound, methinks. As for our 'form'? ❤️❤️G❤️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAndy Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 I don't get this 'we are not playing well' thing. Maybe people mean we are not playing well for 90 minutes. We are playing very well for large parts of games showing patience when we need it, trying to mix things up to break teams down etc. Quite a few of our goals have come from very good build up play. I also think we are extremely good at changing styles during games when we need to and to great effect. All in all I think we are a very good footballing side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottieMac17 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 I think a slow start is ok against the 'smaller' teams in the league, because we can afford to give them a chance or two knowing they probably won't score. Plus we currently seem to have a very fit squad who can go for 90 mins against the smaller teams, meaning the opposition get tired and we can pick them off. At the weekend, once we scored Motherwell seemed to then collapse and we got plenty of chances. I would definitely prefer to start like a house on fire and get a couple of early goals against the OF. This would shake them and I reckon we would have a better chance of getting a result. If we sit back and try to keep it at 0-0 more often than not we will concede against the better teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August Landmesser Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 1 hour ago, Sooks said: Selfish , not prepared to put in the foreplay eh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Of The Cat Cafe Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 Simple answer is to play the second half first... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bull's-eye Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 2 hours ago, spacerjoe said: Yeah agree - there is a pattern to our phases of play. It probably suits the talent we have at our disposal better to wear teams down a bit. Burley's team is not even comparable. Only Shankland would get into that team and even then he'd have a battle with Bednar and Jankauskas for a starting spot. I think its all about the intensity of the entire league, not one team can keep up the levels of intensity required, so its managed. Quite brilliantly by Naismith currently imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boag1874 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 50 minutes ago, ScottieMac17 said: I think a slow start is ok against the 'smaller' teams in the league, because we can afford to give them a chance or two knowing they probably won't score. Plus we currently seem to have a very fit squad who can go for 90 mins against the smaller teams, meaning the opposition get tired and we can pick them off. At the weekend, once we scored Motherwell seemed to then collapse and we got plenty of chances. I would definitely prefer to start like a house on fire and get a couple of early goals against the OF. This would shake them and I reckon we would have a better chance of getting a result. If we sit back and try to keep it at 0-0 more often than not we will concede against the better teams. We saw against Celtic at Parkhead that a couple of early goals can really unsettle them for sure. However we need to balance this with being cautious of the threat they pose on the counter. Too often we've been there where we go "hey we've had a pretty good first 5-10 minutes here, we're causing them problems" then bang 4 passes later their star striker is in on goal and it's 1-0 inside 15 minutes. Wins v the Old Firm are built on a solid defensive foundation first & foremost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Mikey Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 43 minutes ago, King Of The Cat Cafe said: Simple answer is to play the second half first... Soooperb lateral thinking. I doff my cap to you. 👏 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex member of the SaS Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 I would suggest the faster start gets the fans more excited and backs the team more. Fans singing and being two or three up must give the players a boost too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upgotheheads Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 5 hours ago, This is My Story Podcast said: …..a fast start or a fast end 👀 Loads of people loved the Burley days, myself included. We blew teams away in the opening 20 to 30 minutes. Thankfully by the time the 70th/80th minutes came, we’d built up a hefty lead that we could cling onto. People often forget how much we gassed out during those exciting days. Now under Naisy, we are notoriously slower out the blocks. Most of our goals come from minute 50th onwards. We are now ending games looking more and more likely to score more goals. On Saturday, after the opening goal, we could’ve added to our tally easily. If the game had lasted 10 more minutes, I’d have been willing to wager we’d have scored a few more. That’s often been the case this season OR during this run of form to be more exact. Ross County at home, had that went on 10 more minutes we’d have won. If Dundee at home had went on longer we’d have scored more. So the question is this. What do you prefer? I was thinking of the comparisons at the weekend, certainly this is the best I have seen since that magical few weeks under Burley. I was trying to remember the sequence at the point when Burley was sacked/resigned, was it 11 wins out of 11 or something like that? If we weren't a couple of goals up after 20 minutes we would be a bit annoyed, and that Takis/ Rudi combination down the left was the best double act I have ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chillidigits Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 1 hour ago, ScottieMac17 said: I think a slow start is ok against the 'smaller' teams in the league, because we can afford to give them a chance or two knowing they probably won't score. Plus we currently seem to have a very fit squad who can go for 90 mins against the smaller teams, meaning the opposition get tired and we can pick them off. At the weekend, once we scored Motherwell seemed to then collapse and we got plenty of chances. I would definitely prefer to start like a house on fire and get a couple of early goals against the OF. This would shake them and I reckon we would have a better chance of getting a result. If we sit back and try to keep it at 0-0 more often than not we will concede against the better teams. We have to take confidence from what we did to Celtic. And we're even better now than we were then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 1 hour ago, King Of The Cat Cafe said: Simple answer is to play the second half first... But do you go fast or steady at the start of the second half? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 (edited) There's a big difference IMO between 0-0 at HT and being down 2-0 at HT the way were were to Dundee. The latter is a serious problem. The former's NBD. Particularly in a game like against Motherwell where they sat as deep and as tight as any team we've played against, it's not surprising we're not finding much purchase with the probing. Angeball is fun in theory and "run hard and blow them away, doesn't matter if you're tired at 60' if you're up three goals" is great to watch when it works but we don't have the talent gap with other teams to do that. Given the way we play and the league we're in, spending the first half keeping a clean sheet and sussing out what the other team is doing, so that we can adjust and beat it in the second half, works just fine for me. FWIW, in three of the last six games in which we dropped points, we jumped out to an early lead in the first half. Edited February 19 by Watt-Zeefuik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Burgundy Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 A slow start can mean the game is beyond you by the time you get your backside into gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy T Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 Is it a slow start or just picking away at the opponent, looking for where the gaps will appear, then switching our tactics and personnel to exploit the weaknesses as the opposition tires and starts losing concentration. Everytime Naismith speaks he talks about mentality and patience. Keep doing the right things in the right areas and we’ll win the game. Aside from his obvious ability to coach players he’s had to work hard with them to stop the panicking. I think one of the best examples of this mentality switch was Spartans, a potential banana skin, we’re managing the game then out of nowhere they score, no panic no launching balls into the box and we win. Be a completely different approach on Saturday, intriguing to see how he plays it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasquale for King Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 Definitely a fast end 😱😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasquale for King Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 23 minutes ago, Rudy T said: Is it a slow start or just picking away at the opponent, looking for where the gaps will appear, then switching our tactics and personnel to exploit the weaknesses as the opposition tires and starts losing concentration. Everytime Naismith speaks he talks about mentality and patience. Keep doing the right things in the right areas and we’ll win the game. Aside from his obvious ability to coach players he’s had to work hard with them to stop the panicking. I think one of the best examples of this mentality switch was Spartans, a potential banana skin, we’re managing the game then out of nowhere they score, no panic no launching balls into the box and we win. Be a completely different approach on Saturday, intriguing to see how he plays it. I agree but it usually takes a change in personnel and formation to achieve a win, which is admirable from both players and manager. When he starts getting the tactics right from the start we are going to be some team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder and Lightning Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 4 hours ago, GorgieFifeLife said: We can’t keep starting slowly as eventually someone will put us to bed in the first 30 mins and there will be no way back. How does that work? Anything a team can do to us can be replicated or bettered by us in the remaining 60 mins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.