Partick Thistle v Morton (proverbial 6 pointer)

[suda]

And who else do you want to put at right back, considering that we don’t have one?

 

I’m not saying we should chuck every player in the back four, I’m saying we should put them in a 3-5-2.

Ok misunderstood your use of the word abandon what you're really suggesting is a tinkering to a back 3. Who would that 3 be because I not convinced Strapp is suited to that role yet he's bedded in well at left back but as part of a 3 his height could be an issue he also need an experienced wing back in front of him, Salkeld has plenty of energy but he seems short on experience at this level. It's probably worth a try but I can't see Hoppy taking that gamble.

[SpoonTon]

I’d go with Salkeld for now. It’s not an ideal solution as he’s clearly not a natural defender, but we’re getting torn apart every week on the right with no one who can play right back competently and the right back never getting any protection from midfield anyway, whether that’s due to playing a narrow four with no one ahead of the right back or with wingers doing nothing defensive quality.

 

With a back three with a more attacking player at right wing back we may still find ourselves being exposed on the right, but we’ll at least have more bodies in the middle to deal with it when it happens and Salkeld at least has the energy to perform the role. I don’t think it’s likely that we’ll be any worse with him there than with any one of Welsh, Jacobs or McAlister at right back, all of whom may have a contribution to make elsewhere but are hopeless at full-back. I would expect him to make mistakes with positional sense that could allow teams in behind him, as happened for a goal at Inverness in the Challenge Cup, but every week our opponents have the freedom of that wing and we’re well past the point of needing to resort to least bad options.

 

My feeling is that Salkeld would be a disaster at wing back. I don't think he has shown much to suggest that he has the positional discipline or defensive instinct needed for the role. I could be wrong, we've seen very little of him there, but I only see that making the problem in the right back area worse (especially if Welsh is a RCB). 

 

I also think there would be a problem, similar to an issue for a long time under JJ, with the ability of the back three with regard to playing the ball out from the back. There's not an awful lot of passing ability there, long or short. Whoever is up front, out wide, or in midfield areas is going to need decent service. McAlister helped with that issue in the back three towards the end of the season last year, and would maybe need to be one of the back 3 if we did that. Perhaps an unpopular suggestion, but I think our best back 5 would include McAlister at centre half and Jacobs at right back. And then we'd just be left with Lyon, Millar, Blues, and Colville for the centre of midfield. 

 

My preference at the moment would be for a Jim Duffy style 4-4-1-1. Tight lines, disciplined, keep the ball out of dangerous areas in the middle of the park or behind the full backs. At the moment Hopkin is playing 4-1-3-2 or 4-1-4-1 and we're managing to give away too much space in our own half and not doing very much in the opposition half either. I get the call for a 3-5-2, but I'm far from convinced. 

 

Obviously, as well, a massive part of this is players simply not doing there job in terms of marking, following runs, or pressing. That's a really worrying part of Hopkin's management at the moment (both in terms of the players he has signed and the instructions that he's trying to get cross to them). 

[vikingTON]

My feeling is that Salkeld would be a disaster at wing back. I don't think he has shown much to suggest that he has the positional discipline or defensive instinct needed for the role. I could be wrong, we've seen very little of him there, but I only see that making the problem in the right back area worse (especially if Welsh is a RCB). 

 

I also think there would be a problem, similar to an issue for a long time under JJ, with the ability of the back three with regard to playing the ball out from the back. There's not an awful lot of passing ability there, long or short. Whoever is up front, out wide, or in midfield areas is going to need decent service. McAlister helped with that issue in the back three towards the end of the season last year, and would maybe need to be one of the back 3 if we did that. Perhaps an unpopular suggestion, but I think our best back 5 would include McAlister at centre half and Jacobs at right back. And then we'd just be left with Lyon, Millar, Blues, and Colville for the centre of midfield. 

 

My preference at the moment would be for a Jim Duffy style 4-4-1-1. Tight lines, disciplined, keep the ball out of dangerous areas in the middle of the park or behind the full backs. 

 

Erm yes, let's try a 'Duffy style' - a contradiction in terms btw - 4-4-1-1 formation, despite the facts that we:

 

- don't have a competent right back in the squad

- also don't have a competent right midfielder in the squad, certainly not Lyon being completely wasted out of position nor that useless sand dancer King

- don't have a central midfield pair that wouldn't get easily overrun, before even considering the fact that so many sides in this division currently play three central midfielders as well

- don't have a centre back partnership that can deal with the massive exposure brought about by all of the failings in the system outlined above

 

The only spell in which a 4-4-1-1 actually worked for us was when we had Andy Murdoch and (far more crucially) Jamie Lindsay anchoring the centre of the park for us, and a defence inspired by Sir Gavin Gunning (deputised by Kilday or Sir Richard Lamie in the best times; yet even making King Snake look effective). None of those prerequisites are found within this squad of lower-end Championship jobbers. 

 

When a team is plummeting, the only sensible decision is to flood the centre of the park with extra players to stop the rot. And when a team doesn't have a right back the only sensible decision is to ditch any system that requires a specialist right back. And there is also no need for concern about 'playing the ball out from the back' so long as you have two centre forwards, three central midfielders as well as the full-backs looking to win the ball or win it back high up the park. A 3-5-2 ticks all of these boxes and has been the screamingly obvious, best formation for this group of players since the League Cup group stages.

[SpoonTon]

Erm yes, let's try a 'Duffy style' - a contradiction in terms btw - 4-4-1-1 formation, despite the facts that we:

 

- don't have a competent right back in the squad

- also don't have a competent right midfielder in the squad, certainly not Lyon being completely wasted out of position nor that useless sand dancer King

- don't have a central midfield pair that wouldn't get easily overrun, before even considering the fact that so many sides in this division currently play three central midfielders as well

- don't have a centre back partnership that can deal with the massive exposure brought about by all of the failings in the system outlined above

 

The only spell in which a 4-4-1-1 actually worked for us was when we had Andy Murdoch and (far more crucially) Jamie Lindsay anchoring the centre of the park for us, and a defence inspired by Sir Gavin Gunning (deputised by Kilday or Sir Richard Lamie in the best times; yet even making King Snake look effective). None of those prerequisites are found within this squad of lower-end Championship jobbers.

 

When a team is plummeting, the only sensible decision is to flood the centre of the park with extra players to stop the rot. And when a team doesn't have a right back the only sensible decision is to ditch any system that requires a specialist right back. And there is also no need for concern about 'playing the ball out from the back' so long as you have two centre forwards, three central midfielders as well as the full-backs looking to win the ball or win it back high up the park. A 3-5-2 ticks all of these boxes and has been the screamingly obvious, best formation for this group of players since the League Cup group stages.

To say that was the only time that 4 in the midfield worked for Duffy is just plain wrong. That's when it worked best, but there were times when he had players like McKee, Forbes, and Tidser in there. We got a result at Ibrox with Michael Miller in the midfield. We won 3-0 at Easter Rd with McKee and Forbes in the middle.

 

You don't get overrun because the 4 work together to close down space and keep the lines tight, and a forward or forwards drops back to press from the front. We watched Duffy keep things tight with a middle 4 for years, with several different combinations.

 

We also don't have a competent right wing back. I highly doubt that Salkeld is any sort of competent solution there.

 

We need to pay out from the back of the defence wins or has possession, which obviously includes a sensible option of paying long passes up to the front players. It's still playing the ball out. And, as we saw last season, if a midfield player has to drop back to play competent balls out from the back, you just end up with even less players forward and even less of a chance of winning possession up the pitch. That's pretty simple stuff.

[vikingTON]

To say that was the only time that 4 in the midfield worked for Duffy is just plain wrong. That's when it worked best, but there were times when he had players like McKee, Forbes, and Tidser in there. We got a result at Ibrox with Michael Miller in the midfield. We won 3-0 at Easter Rd with McKee and Forbes in the middle.

 

You don't get overrun because the 4 work together to close down space and keep the lines tight, and a forward or forwards drops back to press from the front. We watched Duffy keep things tight with a middle 4 for years, with several different combinations.

 

 

We also saw Duffy teams get ripped apart when the above 'working together' nonsense didn't actually work. If you think that the current midfield options that we have will protect the defence merely by running around in tandem with each other then you're deluded, not least of McAlister and Millar's ability to execute such a plan.

 

We also don't have a competent right wing back. I highly doubt that Salkeld is any sort of competent solution there.

 

 

There's no evidence to support that claim. There is however a giant stack of evidence that we don't have a competent right-back, seeing as it has been targeted and brutally exposed as the weakest link in the team - even worse than Ramsbottom - ever since the Motherwell game in July. McAlister was not a solution. Jacobs was not a solution. Welsh is not a solution. 

 

One definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome, which most definitely applies to your insistence on playing a system with a right back when we are just as well playing with a man down instead. 

 

We need to pay out from the back of the defence wins or has possession, which obviously includes a sensible option of paying long passes up to the front players. It's still playing the ball out. And, as we saw last season, if a midfield player has to drop back to play competent balls out from the back, you just end up with even less players forward and even less of a chance of winning possession up the pitch. That's pretty simple stuff.

 

 

Erm no, if you simply play the ball directly to the front players then there is no need for a midfielder (such as that laughable, 'Gary Harkins as a quarterback idea' thought up by your great tactical dreamboat Jim Duffy) to drop back to the defence to perform such a role. The defenders simply play the ball forward to the two attackers and the job of the midfielders are to press forward and win it from the halfway line forward. You play for territory as well as possession instead of pointless, ten yard passing between some donkey centre back and midfielders in your own half of the pitch.

 

These are the back to basic tactics that saw us pull out of a certain relegation slump over a decade ago and the only thing that has changed at this level of Scottish football since is the appalling decline in the standard of the opposition. When Dick 'dick' Campbell is being feted as a managerial genius, you know it's time for a complete reset of the bogus, two-bob Guardiola nonsense that has infected Scottish football and this football club's fanbase as well. 

[vikingTON]

NB: It's also worth noting that in our last two matches we have in fact lined up with a Mike Bassett style flat back four as usual, four ostensible midfielders playing in front of them and two forwards, one of which easily capable of sitting deeper than the other. The team was dung and proceeded to lose both games as is their custom. So this let's play 'a 4-4-1-1 instead' grand plan amounts to nothing more than a slight rearrangement of the current deckchair layout on the Titanic, while we stoically plunge down to the abyss regardless. 

[irnbru]

NB: It's also worth noting that in our last two matches we have in fact lined up with a Mike Bassett style flat back four as usual, four ostensible midfielders playing in front of them and two forwards, one of which easily capable of sitting deeper than the other. The team was dung and proceeded to lose both games as is their custom. So this let's play 'a 4-4-1-1 instead' grand plan amounts to nothing more than a slight rearrangement of the current deckchair layout on the Titanic, while we stoically plunge down to the abyss regardless.

Imagine being so bad at football but so good at judging.

[vikingTON]

Imagine being so bad at football but so good at judging.

 

There speaks the chump who still can't work out how 'Hoppy' and 'JJ's' glittering playing careers just haven't converted into Arrigo Sacchi-esque success in the dugout. 

[irnbru]

There speaks the chump who still can't work out how 'Hoppy' and 'JJ's' glittering playing careers just haven't converted into Arrigo Sacchi-esque success in the dugout.

There speaks a chump.

[SpoonTon]

NB: It's also worth noting that in our last two matches we have in fact lined up with a Mike Bassett style flat back four as usual, four ostensible midfielders playing in front of them and two forwards, one of which easily capable of sitting deeper than the other. The team was dung and proceeded to lose both games as is their custom. So this let's play 'a 4-4-1-1 instead' grand plan amounts to nothing more than a slight rearrangement of the current deckchair layout on the Titanic, while we stoically plunge down to the abyss regardless.

That's quite clearly not the case.

 

You could say exactly the same thing for the 3-5-2 (for example Salkeld at RWB and and Welsh at RCB instead of RM and RB). Put the chairs in a slightly different positions and everyone move round one place. Except, it's a rubbish analogy because in both the case of the 4-4-1-1 and 3-5-2 we're looking at different instructions in pretty much all of the positions (and some changes in personnel as well).

 

That analogy only really works if you're saying that all the players are rubbish so it doesn't matter where you put them (i.e. the ship is doing so it didn't matter where the chairs are).

[LargsTON]

Quite impressed that the above debate is still going. I've stopped caring long ago.

[DreamOakTree]

If I remember correctly, going back to 1996, we mostly played with a right/wing back, no right winger and no left back. It was set out as a back four with 3 centre backs. Derek Collins was listed as right back but covered the right wing. Rajamaki was our left winger, though i don't recall him tracking back that much. The back three just covered both sides as required. We obviously had players capable of adapting to any formation then, unbalanced as it may have looked on paper. If we reverse that formation could Strapp do a similar role at Left/Wing Back, with Salkend on right wing with cover behind him?

[TopCat]

It really doesn't matter what formation we line up in. We dont have a right back or right wing back. We also have a load of other players in their natural positions who are too mediocre/old to make up for the gaps in the shape.

 

We're not going to get the goals conceded rate down to even one a game until Hopkin can coach the mistakes out of the defence or we do some good business in January.

[TRVMP]

But most other squads in the division have the same limitations. They also lack balance, they also have players too old or too young, they also have error-prone players in key positions (admittedly none as bad as Sam Ramsbottom, at least to my limited knowledge.)

 

Properly systematic football and a disciplined, well-drilled squad can make up for limitations, you see it time and again all over the world each and every season. Will it do so every week? No, not even close. Will it do so enough to make a 10-15 point difference a season, if you have a top manager in charge? Yes, absolutely.

[dunning1874]

But most other squads in the division have the same limitations. They also lack balance, they also have players too old or too young, they also have error-prone players in key positions (admittedly none as bad as Sam Ramsbottom, at least to my limited knowledge.)

 

Properly systematic football and a disciplined, well-drilled squad can make up for limitations, you see it time and again all over the world each and every season. Will it do so every week? No, not even close. Will it do so enough to make a 10-15 point difference a season, if you have a top manager in charge? Yes, absolutely.

This is correct, and the really alarming aspect of it is you can actually already identify 8-10 points thrown away by Hopkin’s failure to achieve that systematic well-drilled discipline, after just a third of the season.

 

That’s a total of preventable points lost on fine margins that can make the difference between 6th and 10th come the end of the season, never mind between 3rd and 8th, and we’ve hit it in early November.

[Charles_Joe]

But most other squads in the division have the same limitations. They also lack balance, they also have players too old or too young, they also have error-prone players in key positions (admittedly none as bad as Sam Ramsbottom, at least to my limited knowledge.)

 

Properly systematic football and a disciplined, well-drilled squad can make up for limitations, you see it time and again all over the world each and every season. Will it do so every week? No, not even close. Will it do so enough to make a 10-15 point difference a season, if you have a top manager in charge? Yes, absolutely.

Teams in this division only need to be one of; good with the ball, or disciplined without the ball to have a reasonable season. If you’re semi decent at both you’ll probably win the league. We’re rotten at both. You need good creative players for the first part (we don’t play ours), and a bit of discipline within whatever formation you’re set up in, we run about like headless chicken and that’s entirely the responsibility of the manager.

[TRVMP]

Teams in this division only need to be one of; good with the ball, or disciplined without the ball to have a reasonable season. If you’re semi decent at both you’ll probably win the league. We’re rotten at both. You need good creative players for the first part (we don’t play ours), and a bit of discipline within whatever formation you’re set up in, we run about like headless chicken and that’s entirely the responsibility of the manager.

 

From what little I've seen this season, I agree. Some of our movement has actually been quite good, just not enough of it, and the defensive frailties speak for themselves. Poor recruitment is the biggest culprit, but a lack of shape is also a bit damning.

[vikingTON]

That's quite clearly not the case.

 

You could say exactly the same thing for the 3-5-2 (for example Salkeld at RWB and and Welsh at RCB instead of RM and RB). Put the chairs in a slightly different positions and everyone move round one place. Except, it's a rubbish analogy because in both the case of the 4-4-1-1 and 3-5-2 we're looking at different instructions in pretty much all of the positions (and some changes in personnel as well).

 

You really couldn't 'say exactly the same thing for 3-5-2' unless you're an utter moron tbh. What with it involving an entirely different defensive shape, the use of two entirely different roles on the park and a different midfield shape as well. Whereas the difference between your beloved, Duffy-approved 'solution' and the team being lined up right now amounts to a slight change in position for three of the players put on the park for the Dundee game, yet no change to the fundamentally useless defensive shape that is getting relentlessly targeted and punished by opponents every single week.

 

This is entirely straightforward stuff. 

[DreamOakTree]

Good to see a debate meaning Ton Fans still actually care. IMO though all our arguments are pretty futile unless we get rid of Ramsbottom. To keep playing him is to invite automatic relegation.

[EanieMeany]

Nicky Cadden is in the Tele for the second day in a row talking about how the team has been playing well away from home.

 

Unbelievable.